Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

No up-front tuition fee principles with Labour, only back-end u-turns

May 13

Posted by Jeff in Education | 33 Comments

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) is a multilateral treaty adopted by the UN and has been in force from 3 January 1976. Amongst its stated commitments are a right to free education which, more specifically, relates to the following (from Wikipedia):

“Article 13 of the Covenant recognises the right of everyone to free education (free for the primary level and “the progressive introduction of free education” for the secondary and higher levels). This is to be directed towards “the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity”,[14] and enable all persons to participate effectively in society. Education is seen both as a human right and as “an indispensable means of realizing other human rights”, and so this is one of the longest and most important articles of the Covenant.”

The United Kingdom was signed up to this in the Harold MacMillan era, or as many in Labour would probably say ‘the good old days’.

Despite having a good 35 years to make good on this commitment, including 13 years of unbroken Labour rule, we have ‘ganged agley’ on many an occasion, not least the recent move by the coalition Government to open the door to fees of up to £9,000 a year for students. Even the righter wing parties in social democratic Sweden know to not charge tuition fees, front end or back. It’s a shame that the Lib Dems see things differently.

Well, despite the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and via The Telegraph, today marks the day that Labour swung back to being a pro-fees party in Scotland. The SNP has gleefully called it Johann Lamont’s Nick Clegg moment. And well they should.

At the last Scottish Parliament elections, only a year ago, Scottish Labour’s position of “No price tag for Scottish students” was as follows (taken from the party’s very own website):

“a Labour government will not introduce any up-front fees or graduate contribution for access to higher education in the lifetime of the next Parliament. There will be no price tag on education. Bringing in a graduate contribution would not resolve the present financial difficulties of the universities which are the responsibility of the current SNP government. Experts figures show that the gap is significantly less than some had predicted and can and will be met.”

The initial conclusion to draw from this decision is that it is opposition for opposition’s sake and tuition fees can be added to minimum pricing, council tax and votes at 16 where Labour contort their positions, despite their better senses, in order to ensure that their party is not on the same page as Salmond’s mob, come what may.

The argument that Scottish universities can’t offer more places to bright Scottish kids while fees are covered by the Scottish Government seems to be irrelevant here. If a fixed number of Scottish students have their fees paid for and a fixed number of English students have to pay their fees, then the problem of funding for one tranche of students in Scotland cannot and will not impact on the other. There is no incentive, despite what Johann Lamont claims, to have more English students than Scottish because the same money is paid into the university either way, just from a different source.

The main risk that I can see is that this equilibrium is broken through too many English students claiming to be Scottish via a distant Scottish, Welsh or Irish grandparent, as has already been reported. This really would be a nonsense and certainly not in the spirit of the democratic will of the constituent parts of the UK.

England had an election and clearly voted for parties that, with their combined majority, are in favour of tuition fees. Scotland had an election and voted overwhelmingly for parties that want to keep tuition free, or at least said they wanted to at the time before this flip-flopping began. We might as well scrap the Scottish Parliament if we are not going to tolerate and respect devolved differences within the UK. Financing university education shouldn’t be sullied by the same bastardisation of common sense rules as happens when picking a Scotland XV at rugby. Not that it’s easy to prove you are Scottish, English, Welsh or Northern Irish when we only have British passports and British driver’s licenses to identify us. There’s a simple solution to that of course…

So, much like the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Labour signed the United Kingdom up to move the country towards free university education but is pulling us in a different direction with its reactionary policies.

What will it take for Labour to move away from opposition for opposition’s sake and realise that we already have a graduate tax in operation to fund free tuition and ensure our universities remain world class. It’s called income tax.

Diageo – What a bunch of bar stewards

May 12

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood | 23 Comments

I don’t know if any readers have had similarly embarrassing moments but on several occasions a friend from abroad has asked for ‘something Scottish’ to go with their dinner in a restaurant when visiting. The startled response of ‘we don’t have any Scottish beers’ is always met with surprised dismay.

There is light at the end of the tunnel of course thanks to a surge in popularity for Scots products, with even my local pub/restaurant down here in London stocking the glorious Innes & Gun.

The reason Scottish drinks have been held back for too long may be glimpsed by reading this compelling story of Diageo threatening to pull sponsorship of a drinks award if the independent awards for Bar of the Year wasn’t changed:

Diageo screws Brewdog:
However we (Brewdog) were not announced as winners of the award. This disappointment was further compounded when one of the judges (seated at our table) told us in disbelief ‘this simply cannot be, the independent judging panel voted for BrewDog as clear winners of the award’. Events took a further twist when the people who got given the award refused to accept it as it clearly had ‘BrewDog’ engraved on the trophy as winners.

It’s not the first time Diageo has screwed over Scotland of course, ruthlessly pulling Johnnie Walker out of Kilmarnock leaving hundreds unemployed and reorganising the group to not only avoid tax but receive a £76m credit.

Boycott is a strong word, but consumer power is important. So, maybe next time it’s worth switching that Diageo Guinness for a Trashy Blonde, if where you are stocks it, of course.

MOTW – Back to Earth but for the Weans in Space

May 11

Posted by Kirsty in Holyrood | 1 Comment

After all the excitement of local elections, it’s pleasant to see our esteemed MSPs at Holyrood returning from campaigning on their local doorsteps to raise local issues in the corridors of power.

We here at Better Nation do appreciate the importance of keeping it local, but we do so tire of our elected members in Scotland remaining parochial, nowhere more so than in the motions placed at Holyrood. Motions should be a little flag, hoisted by the MSP, to wave attention to something worthy to the rest of Scotland that’s happening in their local patch.

Motions should be more than sticking one’s political tongue out, which is why we accord WMOTW One (for there are two WMOTW this week) to Jackie Baillie, for this unnecessary crowing:

Motion S4M-02783: Jackie Baillie, Dumbarton, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 08/05/2012

Victory in West Dunbartonshire 

That the Parliament congratulates all of the candidates who stood for election in West Dunbartonshire on 3 May 2012; commends everyone who voted, and recognises what it considers to be the stunning victory for Labour in gaining control of West Dunbartonshire Council.

Supported by: James Kelly, Neil Findlay, Neil Bibby, Anne McTaggart, Margaret McCulloch, Drew Smith, Richard Simpson, Hanzala Malik, Patricia Ferguson, Mary Fee, Margaret McDougall

There’s no mitigation for trying to be nice by saying “all of the candidates” either.

Nor should motions welcome something which we already have 147 other editions of, according to Amazon.co.uk. Thus, the second WMOTW is awarded to *gasp* Jackie Baillie again.

Motion S4M-02841: Jackie Baillie, Dumbarton, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 10/05/2012

Loch Lomond Tourist Guide Launched 

That the Parliament welcomes the launch of a new mini guide and map of Loch Lomond attractions to the world’s travel trade at the VisitScotland Expo by Love Loch Lomond; notes that the new information leaflet features the top 50 things to see and do in the Loch Lomond and Clyde Sea lochs area; further notes that the map was specially commissioned to help visitors get the most out of their visit to one of Scotland’s most popular destinations in Scotland’s first National Park, and encourages everyone to come and visit Loch Lomond and the surrounding area.

Tsk tsk.

So it’s a poor showing for West Dumbartonshire in this week’s WMOTW. But fear not, for its geographical rival East Dunbartonshire is here to show how it’s done.

BMOTW celebrates vision. Ambition. Keeping it local, but making it innovative. And this week the award goes to Gil Paterson, for celebrating Scotland’s newest venture to the final frontiers:

Motion S4M-02809: Gil Paterson, Clydebank and Milngavie, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 08/05/2012

To Europe and Beyond 

That the Parliament congratulates Bearsden Academy on winning the European Cansat Competition in Norway against teams from 13 other European nations; notes that the competition was promoted by the European Space Agency with the aim of building a satellite within the confines of a soft drink can, conducting a launch of a rocket up to an altitude of 1km, conducting their missions and landing safely; understands that the pupils were chosen as winners based on their performance throughout the project as well as the final flight operations and results, and considers that this is not only a fantastic achievement for the pupils but also brings great recognition for their school and, indeed, Scotland.

Supported by: David Torrance, Richard Lyle, Margaret Burgess, Mike MacKenzie, Colin Beattie, Angus MacDonald, Humza Yousaf, Bob Doris, Joan McAlpine, Fiona McLeod, Annabelle Ewing, Rob Gibson, Dennis Robertson, Mary Fee, Kenneth Gibson, Jamie Hepburn, Neil Bibby, Adam Ingram

Live long and prosper, gentle readers.

Photo credit – Nel C

Media ownership – an alternative model

May 11

Posted by Guest Blog in Economy, Media | 7 Comments

A guest post today from Dave Boyle, a writer, researcher and co-operative consultant, and author of “Good News: A co-operative solution to the media crisis“.

He has written and lectured on sport, culture, economics and co-operation, and was previously Chief Executive of Supporters Direct, the organisation that helps fans who want to take control of their clubs.

He blogs at daveboyle.net and tweets as @theboyler.

In 2009, the West Highland Free Press was sold. The new owners – one of the big 4 groups who dominate local media – made lots of promises upon acquisition, but they soon fell by the wayside in the face of their need to make a profit of 30% to service their group debts. Journalists were sacked, and then the offices were closed, with production moving to Oban (it was close enough, the senior managers felt). Sales and advertising slumped, as people saw coverage shrink, and what remained was churnalistic cutting and pasting of press releases. The community goodwill which sustained it disappeared, and the cost of delivering it to the further flung parts of the paper’s patch couldn’t be sustained. After 40 years, the paper closed in 2012, with the owners blaming a shift in reading and advertising habits as a result of the internet.

* * *

Of course, that’s not actually what happened. In 2009, the paper was bought by its employees, who all own an equal stake. The paper hasn’t been late once, and whilst it is suffering the difficulties that all businesses struggle with in recessions, its 2% margin does what it needs to do – pays the staff a decent wage to do what they do, and pays back the debts the employees took out to buy it. They’ll have paid those off in a few years and the paper will be able to think about capital investment, new staff and other happy things.

The Free Press, I was told by someone working for the BBC in the area, is at the base of the pyramid of news, keeping them honest and connected, making sure the media ecosystem is vibrant, and so having a positive impact on political performance, honesty and the rest.

When I started thinking about whether the co-operative movement had an answer to the problems of the local media, I was shocked by what I found. I’d been led to believe that dead tree media was failing in the face of the web, but in fact it looked more like a common or garden failing of the era of cheap credit. Local groups who owned papers sold them to larger groups, who started to treat them as lines on a spreadsheet, not parts of their communities. I’m absolutely convinced that better ownership models will give newspapers, and more importantly journalism, the resilience they need.

But co-operative models have other spin-offs too. They’d be accountable to their readers or their reporters (or both), depending on which type of co-op route they picked. The underpinning story of Leveson is that a news culture developed which was set at the top, with reporters powerless to stop it, aside from quitting. Readers had no means to affect change, other than registering their unhappiness by stopping reading. Which is actually what half of newspaper readers have done, but no-one ever thinks it might be because the news we have isn’t up to it; the media couldn’t be the cause of the media’s failings, could it? Better blame something epochal and impersonal like the web.

The beauty of co-operatives is that by being accountable to a wider public, they embody the public interest – the thing we want most from our media, when thinking about sustaining a civil society – far better than any privately owned concern ever could.

The final benefit is that co-ops can be understood as organisational software, which for over 150 years have been proven to unlock people’s goodwill, and their ability to take responsibility for the things that matter to them in their communities.

This speaks directly to the biggest challenge the media face, the genuine threat from the internet, which is destroying the advertising base that has subsidised news production, and so making the industry, like many others, newly precarious. Media outlets are discovering a social mission few had noted in the last 30 years of their activities, and are calling for state support and subsidy.

But the subsidy for cover price could be made good by people paying its true costs – or something more like it. That’s where co-ops come in. Paying more to make someone else richer isn’t a very sellable appeal; it works best as a by-product for owners of capital, not their sales pitch.

But people would be more interested in paying to own and run and support a paper they controlled, held to account and knew was in the heart of their communities. One which like the Free Press, wouldn’t need to make a profit per se, just enough money to cover its costs and build some reserves.

It’s an issue where the Scottish Parliament can go far beyond the timidity of Westminster. It could make local media companies into assets communities can register an interest in to buy, and provide loans to enable them to so, and give people tax incentives to use their own capital to benefit the community. It could legislate to ensure that whenever a newspaper office closed, people had the right to buy the title that used to be produced there, like the Community Reinvestment Act did in the US.

With imagination and commitment, you could do something quite extraordinary. And the beauty is that politicians should be on board. After all, who else is going to print pictures of them kissing babies?

Should the handmaiden of independence not be a woman?

May 10

Posted by Jeff in Constitution, Parties | 63 Comments

The Greek and French elections have served to remind us that change remains the norm across Europe during these tough economic times. The majority of change across Scotland at last week’s council elections typically went from SNP to Labour, despite the winning tallies being in the Nats’ favour: Labour calling the shots at Edinburgh Council, Labour making council formation difficult in Aberdeenshire and Labour preventing change at Glasgow Council.

And, with the SNP losing a quarter of their voters from last year’s Scottish Parliament elections, Scots are certainly at least changeable.

With two and a bit long years until the referendum on independence, and mid-term European elections to be held between now and then, there are good reasons why the SNP should pre-empt change before the electorate rejects out of hand the constitutional change that a male and potentially stale SNP leadership is offering:

Salmond’s tenure
– It was David Torrance’s Sunday Mail article that provided the eye-popping statistic. I knew that Salmond had served the SNP considerably longer than the five years that he has been First Minister but 18 years as the leader of a party is a remarkable length of time. Putting it into perspective, that is as many years as John Smith, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown led the Labour party put together. Many years at the top does not, in itself, mean that it is time to go, but it does significantly increase the chances that people have stopped listening to what you have to say. We’re not at that stage yet of course with a majority Government still fresh in the memory, but did Salmond win that election or did Subway-sheltering Iain Gray lose it? And can the SNP really take a chance that a party leader of twenty years can still sound fresh and inspiring with so much at stake?

Reaching out to West coast Scotland
– Linked to the above point, and the council election results bear this out, there are parts of Scotland that the SNP still can’t reach as convincingly as they would like to. Swathes of Glasgow and the West of Scotland voting No to independence in their droves leaves a relatively small part of Scotland that would need a good 70%+ Yes result, or higher, to see the SNP over the line. With an adopted home of Banff & Buchan for so long in his career, Salmond could not be perceived to be much further from the old Strathclyde region that Labour has done well to wrap its arms around. Nicola Sturgeon studied at Glasgow University, worked in Drumchapel Law Centre and is the MSP for Govan. The DFM could win more of Labour’s heartlands into considering independence while still keeping the existing Yes camp intact.

Father of the Nation
– Freeing Alex Salmond from the binds of being First Minister would allow the SNP’s greatest asset to take on a more avuncular, roving role. This would effectively elevate each senior SNP Minister up one position while still keeping the presence and gravity of Salmond himself. This softening of Salmond has been attempted with varying degrees of success before but, while the man has pulled the SNP up into the 30%-45% electoral mark, his marmite tendencies may well be the single reason why the pro-union voteshare will always be 50%+ if left unattended. Many Scots intend to vote No because they don’t take to or trust FM Salmond. There’s an easy way to rectify that, while still keeping Alex in the game.

Gender balance
– The gender of a political leader shouldn’t be an issue but if the SNP wants to paint itself as far removed from the London coalition, having a female leader would be an easy way to do that. Theresa May is the only high-profile female member of the UK Government and if recent form continues apace, she may have joined Liam Fox on the backbenches by the time 2014 comes around. Rich Oxbridge English men directing Scotland’s future and controlling Scotland’s wellbeing provides political leverage for the SNP and the unsatisfactory gender balance across both Parliaments could make Nicola’s position as party leader particularly, persuasively, propitiously progressive.

More open leadership
– Alex Salmond does well to hide his temper, he is a bit like Sir Alex Ferguson that way. His style of leadership has gradually permeated down and throughout the SNP such that even MSPs can be knee-knocking lambs refusing to step out of line for fear of incurring the FM’s considerable wrath. Nicola Sturgeon’s style of leadership is known to be more open, more consensual and considerably less intense. Creating a new country is much more enticing with such a person at the helm, creating a participative environment rather than an obedient one.

All of the above isn’t to say that Salmond is, nor should be, under any pressure to be leaving Bute House today, tomorrow, this year or next, but it won’t be long before he has to pull rabbits from hats in order to keep his leadership fresh and vigorous. Obstinate poll ratings on independence may lead to difficult decisions, including stepping aside to allow internal renewal.

While the SNP has successfully avoided the ‘game of drones’ leadership changes that Labour and the Lib Dems have endured of late, there is as much risk in a successful leader staying on too long as leaving too early. There may come a point where the SNP will need to speak up against an increasingly underdressed Emperor Salmond and bring forward change.

And no-one embodies change amongst the party’s leadership contenders more than Nicola Sturgeon.