Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Preferentially speaking

Apr 17

Posted by Aidan in Holyrood | 42 Comments

It’s only the second time round for STV council elections, and the first time they’ve been decoupled from the Scottish Parliament elections so people are still figuring out how this works. On The Doors(tm) there’s still a degree of uncertainty amongst the electorate about how this works so the parties (and the Electoral Commission) are providing guidance. Fair enough, however some of the parties are asking people to only vote for their candidates and to not continue ranking candidates further down.

It’s fairly obvious why you would want first, second and third preferences for your parties candidates and why different candidates are asking for first preferences in different bits of the ward. It’s no good getting a ton of transfers if you’re knocked out early on due to a lack of first preferences, though the practicalities of that and some of the second order effects it has have strengthened my view that we should switch to Condorcet instead.

I genuinely don’t understand the “please don’t vote for any other candidates after those of party X” though. It’s not like there will be fewer councillors elected if someone doesn’t make quota. Since a voters preferences are only redistributed to other parties once the candidates are elected or eliminated it doesn’t detract from them.  Unless there’s a general fear that SNP voters might continue down their preferences and then start ranking Labour candidates and vice versa – the visceral, spiteful antipathy that some members of those two parties have for each other is rarely shared by voters afterall – I can’t see the point. Is that it? Is it a hope that it marginally improves the chances of a more palatable Green or Lib Dem or Tory candidate filling those seats?

Seems daft to me. Personally, I’ll be using all my preferences until I’m forced to work out who I like least out of UKIP, the Scottish Unionist Party and the Scottish Christian Party.

We should be treating the issue of rape with more caution

Apr 16

Posted by Jeff in Crime, Media | 62 Comments

The curious nature of political journalism is such that, when you’re down, you can be the subject of a feeding frenzy that feels like it’ll never quit. I do wonder if this is the case around the world or just specific to Scotland but, rightly or wrongly, Bill Walker MSP is on the receiving end of that feeding frenzy right now.

I daresay the story that he is building an extension to his house (are politicians not allowed to perform home maintenance these days?) with recently public funds, i.e. his salary, barely flickered on his subconscious given that numerous newspapers printed the story that he is the subject of a police investigation into alleged rape. And there it is, for ever more, he will not just be Bill Walker MSP, but The Alleged Rapist Bill Walker.

It is concerning how quickly and easily a reputation can be transformed by an unforgiving, relentless media these days. I of course haven’t the faintest idea about the truth behind any of the accusations but if our principles aren’t built around innocent until proven guilty then our society is in big trouble. If we are to assume a person is innocent, don’t we have a responsibility to protect and respect that presumed innocence and keep such investigations private until a guilty verdict is delivered, irrespective of how juicy a story it may be? At the very least for cases of this nature, surely.

Another one for post-Leveson days perhaps but it reminds me of Manchester United footballer Tom Cleverley who was splashed across the front page of The Sun for begging a woman for sex, the paper not considering that some chancer might have just been using the footballer’s identity to get lucky (which was indeed the case). The Sun had to make a humiliating, grovelling but brief apology.

Now, walking into a bar and pretending to be Bill Walker is not the best pick-up technique in the world, particularly in light of recent news stories, but trampling over lives to sell newspapers is a grubby, grubby business and should be done with caution. In fact, it just shouldn’t be done at all.

I could leave it there and some may agree while others may disagree, but this in itself is to cloud an already grim picture and I’d say I’m (admittedly knowingly) more culpable of a greater ill here.

I am sure I am not alone in my first thoughts from the Sunday press being ‘poor man, maybe he didn’t do it’. An alternative thought could have been ‘poor woman, maybe he did do it and he’ll get away with it’. As I say, I have no idea of the truth behind the issue and would rather not even be considering any of this, my preference being that the journalists went with a different story altogether.

It appears to still be the case that only 6.5% of rape claims end in a conviction (in England & Wales), and given that there are countless occasions of indecent assault and rape that don’t even get reported, I suppose one’s sympathies should really not be lying primarily with the odd person who guiltlessly gets caught up in some headlines for a day.

I do wonder if by wanting the names of accused men to be airbrushed out of newspapers I am perhaps guilty by association of the terrible and ongoing crime of helping to sweep the whole issue of rape under the carpet.

With a laddish, sex-obsessed, hard-drinking, fame-hungry, scantily-clad lifestyle constantly being peddled from the newsstands and, I believe, a major contributing factor to England and Wales (and Scotland?) having “one of the worst crime rates among developed nations for rapes”, maybe I wasn’t too far in the wrong laying the blame at journalists’ and tabloids’ doors after all, just for a distantly related, deeper problem.

MOTW: Titanic Sinks. Houston Man Lost at Sea.

Apr 13

Posted by Kirsty in Holyrood | 13 Comments

Between Leo and Kate in 3D, Julian Fellowes’ Downton-by-the-Sea and the frankly bizarre cruise holiday, it’s been hard to avoid the 100th anniversary of the ill-fated maiden voyage of the Titanic this week.

Despite recess, it has of course made an appearance in motions laid at Holyrood. And while the combination of John Mason, religion and parochialism doesn’t normally score points in Better Nation’s esteemed consideration of such things, this week it’s a little different.

Of course, it has all the trappings of a WMOTW – shameless local promotion with scant politics, cobbled onto an opportune global news story. But for some reason I’ve found Mason’s commemoration of John Harper, a Scottish pastor en route to Chicago who lost his life while saving others, a poignant little piece of social history, deserving of note. My black unionist heart must be melting.

I’m sure with the end of recess, normal crap parliamentary chat will resume.

Motion S4M-02610: John Mason, Glasgow Shettleston, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 12/04/2012

Remembering RMS Titanic, 100 Years On

That the Parliament notes that 15 April 2012 marks the 100th anniversary of the sinking of RMS Titanic, considered to be one of the deadliest peacetime maritime disasters in history, which is believed to have resulted in the deaths of 1,514 people; understands that John Harper, a Baptist pastor from Houston, Renfrewshire, who was en route to preach in Chicago, died trying to help others on the ship; considers that memories of Mr Harper live on at what is now the Harper Memorial Baptist Church, but was originally the Paisley Road Baptist Church, where he became the pastor in 1897; notes that the church will host a Titanic Weekend event to mark the anniversary, and remembers with sadness all of those who lost family and friends in this tragic moment in history.

Supported by: Bill Kidd, Margaret Burgess, Sandra White, Adam Ingram, Dave Thompson, Stuart McMillan, Mike MacKenzie, Richard Lyle, Humza Yousaf, Dennis Robertson, Roderick Campbell

It’s the Economist, stupid

Apr 13

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood | 123 Comments

To see ourselves as others see us.

If that’s often the aim then The Economist has done Scotland a big favour this week with a shocking front page that I personally find insulting.

In jibes that are more common from Clarkson’s slack jaw, our nation ‘Skintland’ includes ‘Grumpians’, ‘Edinborrow’ and the Isle of ‘Barren’. How we laughed.

The odd thing about this front page is that the article in the magazine itself is reasonably balanced, speculating with facts and figures about oil reserves and considering the scale of economies in this difficult economic climate, and concluding that Scotland could very well make it on its own quite comfortably.

However, Scotland will now be ridiculed in newsagents and office desks across the UK. As I said on Twitter last night, this is the main reason why I will be voting Yes to independence.

This is one silly picture of course but it’s symbolic of a much wider issue. I moved to London a couple of years ago and have been genuinely surprised by the lazy stereotypes down here, the rejection of Scottish currency, the ‘jokes’ that we are unintelligible, the assurance that we are scroungers and the sheer ignorance regarding Holyrood and FMs past and present. If we’re not a valued member of this team then we will happily leave and front covers such as this from the Economist will only hasten that departure.

What really struck me about the fierce Twitter debate last night was how quickly the SNP politicians and members lined up to castigate the Economist while Tory, Labour and Lib Dem members, and journalists, were keen to brush it off as just a joke and nothing to get in a palaver about. Well I disagree, you’ve got to make a stand against the perpetuation of scurrilous myths.

The thing is, there’s no reason why this should be an SNP vs unionist issue, no reason at all. The Economist’s decision should be just as offensive to either side. However, there is an almost Pavlovian reaction from the SNP’s opponents to unthinkingly take an opposing view to them, whatever the issue. Remember George Foulkes complaining that the SNP was making things better and doing it “on purpose”, that the Saltire livery on Scotrail trains was too Nationalist even though it was Labour’s idea? They have to learn that being on the SNP’s side and Scotland’s side at the same time is ok once in a while.

I appreciate that Scots are no angels and anti-Englishness can be vitriolic at times. That’s not really my problem if I’m not the cause of it but I do take great exception to being Scottish and having to put up with front pages from journalists that should, and I’m sure do, know better.

I largely enjoy London, I’m looking forward to the Olympics and even The Royal Family is growing on me but, by jolly, there are days when Autumn 2014 can’t come quickly enough.

Osborne’s major donor doo-doo

Apr 12

Posted by Kirsty in Society, Westminster | 6 Comments

Disclaimer: When I’m not co-editing Better Nation I’m a professional charity fundraiser, and my work includes major donor giving. I write here, as ever, in a personal capacity.

David Cameron has promised to consider charities’ calls to dismiss plans in the Budget to cap tax relief on charitable donations.

At the moment, whenever basic rate taxpayers donate to charity, whatever they would have paid in tax goes to the charity as well – all thanks to the little Gift Aid box you usually tick on a donation form. For higher rate taxpayers, some of the tax due goes to charity (the amount of tax due under basic rate) and the rest (on the higher rate) can be reclaimed by the individual. The Treasury wants to cap the amount which can be reclaimed to £50,000 per annum.

Of the £11 billion given to UK charities last year, almost half came from only 7% of donors. Attempting to end tax loopholes should be commended, but it is foolish to penalise the people who help ensure this country has the arts, education, museums and, I dunno, the Big Society it merits.

The Conservatives themselves are trying to boost private giving to the arts. Osborne’s Budget in 2011 added a new tax break for charitable giving, allowing anyone leaving 10% of their estate to charity to reduce their inheritance tax bill from 40% to 36%. In this situation, charities rightly feel wronged by Osborne’s decision.

It is the major arts and education institutions that largely benefit from major donor giving. In Scotland, the principals of five universities and the directors of National Museums Scotland and the National Galleries of Scotland have called on the UK government to scrap its tax relief cap. It is unlikely the revitalisation last year of the National Museum of Scotland or of the Scottish National Portrait Gallery could have been completed without measures like this to encourage major donor giving.

Other charities are of course affected too, and the SCVO is supporting the ‘Give it back, George’ campaign, while major Scottish philanthropists like Sir Tom Hunter and Sir Ian Wood have warned the move will have a ‘disastrous’ effect on charitable giving.

I have worked in encouraging major charitable donations. Part of my previous job was trying to figure out why wealthy people would be motivated to support the capital project I worked on, and I wrote and rewrote many guides to demonstrate this tax relief opportunity which Osborne wants to end.

I don’t think any of these guides were ever used in meetings with potential donors.

Russ Alan Prince and Karen Maru File wrote a book in 2001 called The Seven Faces of Philanthropy. Like most fundraising, it’s good common sense. People have different reasons and motivations for giving, and they can be summarised in seven different types:

1. The Communitarian: Doing Good Makes Sense
2. The Devout: Doing Good is God’s Will
3. The Investor: Doing Good is Good Business
4. The Socialite: Doing Good is Fun
5. The Altruist: Doing Good Feels Right
6. The Repayer: Doing Good in Return
7. The Dynast: Doing Good is a Family Tradition

I have met donors across all seven faces, and number three, the one who thinks about the tax advantages of philanthropy the most, shows up the second least often. (Number seven, The Dynast, is the least frequent, but I think that’s more to do with a difference between British and American philanthropy.)

Should philanthropy happen without financial inducements? Ideally. Of course. Will it happen as often? I doubt it. Several beneficiaries of major philanthropy, like UNESCO and the National Theatre, have already reported that large pledged donations are threatened by this move. Charities are squeezed right now: rising inflation, falling income, increasing demand for services. To make a change like this – even if most major donors don’t consider it before giving –  without prior consultation with charities literally wipes millions from predicted incomes going forward, affecting future plans and service provision.

I would like the Treasury to do more, a lot more, to end tax avoidance. Some people are probably funnelling funds to made-up charities to benefit from this relief. But for most major donors, who are giving a lot of money for their name to be etched in stone forever on a wall somewhere, for everyone to see, including HMRC, isn’t really what I consider the behaviour of a tax dodger.