Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Malware: an apology

Mar 26

Posted by Aidan in Holyrood | 3 Comments

Valued readers, 

Unfortunately Better Nation got hit by this malware campaign over the weekend: http://blog.sucuri.net/2012/02/malware-campaign-from-rr-nu.html I’ve now removed it using this Little Bit Of Shell(tm) (run it as cleanup.sh affected-directory). We’d like to apologise for this, thank the Loyal Readers who alerted us to this and assisted with debugging it and recommend that anybody who has a login here change their password. Having looked at the injected code it seems focused on redirecting peoples browsers rather than scraping passwords but it’s better to be safe than sorry.

– Aidan

Is the SNP’s fiercest opposition coming from Northern Ireland?

Mar 24

Posted by Jeff in Constitution, International | 56 Comments

David Trimble has waded into Scotland’s constitutional discussion this weekend with an impassioned plea for Scots to reject the SNP’s “separatism” and “driving Scotland out” by remaining a part of the UK. It is possibly the boldest, most daring language we have had from the unionist side of the debate since the starting gun was unofficially fired on the campaign at the start of the year.

In seemingly barely disguised language, the winner of the Peace Prize for his work in the Northern Ireland peace process said:

“I have to say to the Scottish nationalists, by moving through a programme of separatism, by saying we want to drive Scotland out, you are doing violence to the identity of every Scot because there is a British component in the identity of every Scotsman.”

‘Doing violence’ is an interesting, and I would certainly argue misplaced, way of putting the pro-independence, civic nationalism that is at the forefront of Scottish politics. For too many, the referendum is being positioned as a question of whether you are Scottish or whether you are British, as if the two are mutually exclusive and as if either position will change after 2014. Are Swedes not both Swedish and Scandinavian? Indeed, David Cameron himself insisted that “Scotland is better off in Britain”. It is such an amateurish mistake to stupidly suggest that Scotland WON’T be inside Britain even after independence. Noone is suggesting that our nation’s geography is up for grabs here.

I am no expert on Northern Irish politics but I do wonder what the motivation for David Trimble’s strong remarks above are. There is no question that Scotland going its own way could reopen old Irish wounds, or even make it “an explosive issue once again”, so much so that I wonder if the deepest opposition to Scottish independence is actually across the Irish Sea.

After all, Crispin Black has it that Scotland is “a country (sic) revelling in the sort of menacing and rancid anti-English sentiment more suited to the H Blocks than a modern European democracy”. Em, really?

Lord Empey is similarly off-kilter, saying the following to peers during a debate over the Scotland Bill: “We (Northern Ireland) would end up like West Pakistan. We are all hewn from the same rock. Just imagine the situation we would be placed in.”

This is not simply the Union diminishing for those in Northern Ireland that happen to oppose it; it is arguably an intrinsic part of their identity that is, in their eyes, slipping away. As numerous Saltire-splattered murals in NI show, there is no doubt that a shared patriotism between Northern Ireland and Scotland within unionist quarters exists. That is not in question here. What is in question is why that shared celebration of two nations, and often one shared history, cannot continue to be celebrated if Scotland is independent?

One could argue that for certain communities in NI, Scotland is ‘the’ link to the Union, and if we left then they would really struggle to connect with the rest of the UK, bar the overt and at times worrying love for the monarchy and the armed forces. Is there the same love for Yorkshire and East Sussex? Not that I have seen.

As the quotes above suggest, to me at least, the mere consideration of Scotland leaving the UK results in a lashing out against it, and an assumption that it’s some sneaky, underhand figure doing this. Lord Empey, in the aforementioned debate, compares Alex Salmond to the leaders of Cuba and North Korea and suggests that, without Westminster approval, any referendum would simply be “the most expensive opinion poll in history”.

Of course, it is easy for me to gloss over peoples’ experiences during the Troubles, I wasn’t there for any of it and was only a child for most of it. It is not lightly though that I ask whether those experiences breed an irrational fear that an independent Scotland would begin the breakup of the rest of the UK (Welsh independence, Irish unity) and make the pain and suffering over the last 40 years for nothing.

For me, the SNP’s peaceful and peaceable slow march towards independence does not deserve to have comparisons drawn with the Irish approach to separation from the UK. That may or may not be what David Trimble was alluding to this weekend when he talked of the SNP’s “violence”, but a politician of David’s experience and standing should know to choose his words more carefully.

Northern Ireland’s hopefully historic problems are not Scotland’s problems and there is no need to commute our nation’s ambitions for fear of indirectly unsettling our neighbours.

Devolution Beached

Mar 23

Posted by Kirsty in Democracy, Environment, Holyrood, Westminster | 1 Comment

On Monday, the Scottish Affairs Committee published its report into the Crown Estate in Scotland, recommending the devolution of Crown Estates Commission’s responsibilities for and ancient rights over Scotland’s coastline, firstly to Holyrood with the intention of further devolution to local communities.

Gaining control over Scotland’s foreshore and seabed is certainly not a trifle: this move gives Scotland powers over a vital economic sector. Currently, the Crown Estates Commission holds gems like mineral and salmon fishing rights, while renewable energy projects like wind farms and offshore gas storage facilities on Scottish Crown Estate is projected to generate an annual sum of £49m by the end of the decade. Meanwhile, it acts like an absentee landlord or tax collector, doing little to re-invest to any significant extent in the sectors and communities from which it derives income.

Interesting then, that Ian Davidson, Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee, dismissed the Scottish Government’s demand for the devolution of powers over the Scottish Crown Estate back in November as “entirely vacuous”, telling Linda Rosborough, the acting director of Scottish Government agency Marine Scotland, that “Asking for power over the Crown Estate without having any idea of what you do with it is a position that seems entirely vacuous.”

According to The Scotsman, Rosborough advised that the Scottish Government would only bring forward detailed proposals for its Crown Estate plans and hold a consultation if Westminster agreed to devolve the powers. Pretty standard, and Davidson should know that. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the new powers devolved to Scotland in this week’s Scotland Bill, like tax and borrowing powers, air weapons, drink driving and speed limits needed extensive consultation in Scotland prior to the agreement being made.

Land reform is one of the best things to come out of Scottish devolution, especially local measures like community right-to-buy. I think it will hopefully be improved under this Scottish Government, with Roseanna Cunningham announcing an intention to review and improve the legislation within the year. It’s abysmal that the Crown Estate has failed Scotland since devolution: failing to account for Scottish rights and assets. It is entirely right that these powers are devolved to Scottish communities, but it should not have taken Westminster more than a decade to give Scotland’s coastline back to Scotland.

Davidson might have had to conclude that the Crown Estate Commission should no longer be the body responsible in this case, but for proponents of devolution as Labour MPs should be, the transfer of these powers should be both obvious and necessary. It’s disappointing that Westminster appears to be begrudging handing Scotland powers, just because they fear it might in some way help the independence campaign. If you really want to oppose independence, diminishing devolution which Scottish communities need and from which the economy benefits is certainly not the way to win.

Can Salmond granny Osborne?

Mar 22

Posted by Jeff in Constitution, Economy | 19 Comments

The SNP has enjoyed strong support over the past few years from two specific groups – the young and the male. Poll after poll has shown that the SNP, or quite possibly Alex Salmond in particular, has a woman problem and, possibly due to the ambition of independence, an elderly problem, problems that require to be dealt with if a Yes result is to be achieved in 2014.

We have seen a Mothers’ Day assault from the Nationalists with (*cough*) Joan McAlpine spearheading the attack. While it is sad that the provision of 600 hours nursery care is boxed into ‘female issue’ rather than ‘parent issue’, particularly when the SNP boasts of being a progressive beacon, the policy is nonetheless attractive and will go a long way to improving the party’s appeal to all Scots, including females. Similarly, a National Minimum Wage guarantee is something of a female-friendly policy by dint of such a high proportion of part-time work being taken by women. There are doubtlessly more female-friendly, recently concocted policies that an SNP activist could rhyme off on a whim.

So that’s the laydeez taken care of, what about the oldies? Well, this was always going to be a tougher challenge for Alex Salmond. How do you tempt a tranche of Scots away from the union and into a modern, fast-paced, export-driven independent Scotland when they are largely decided on the United Kingdom and/or stuck/set in their ways?

Well, perhaps George Osborne has given Salmond a helping hand there.

First things first, ‘granny tax’ is a horrendous phrase. It wilfully talks down those silver-permed, hair-netted, shed-dwelling dearies, but it is nonetheless effective, as today’s front pages testify, castigating the Chancellor for his tax cut on the elderly to pay for millionaires’ tax cuts as they do. Britain woke up today to learn, rightly or wrongly, that Osborne has shafted old people with his budget.

The First Minister’s tactics for winning independence often involve a well-rehearsed double whammy of making his party as ‘big tent’ as possible while fiercely attacking Westminster over anything and everything when they leave themselves vulnerable. He can employ both aspects over the next few months by rolling out a ‘granny friendly’ (I do apologise for how un-PC this post is) set of policies that will help to paint Osborne (and by extension the UK) as a place where the elderly are taxed to give the super-rich pay cuts while Scotland is a place where, I don’t know, free care for the elderly is guaranteed, bus passes are safeguarded and A.N.Other policy (I personally believe there is a role for the retired in schools, hospitals and colleges to provide expertise and experience on a voluntary or low paid basis; a sort of army of Non Exec Directors for the public sector and the young. It would work better if pensions were significantly more comfortable than they currently are of course).

Whatever policy Salmond may choose to entice the aggrieved victims of Osborne’s tax grab with, the First Minister may find that his independence deficit has ironically been filled in by the Chancellor trying to plug the UK deficit while keeping his right wing chums happy.

Red Box Day

Mar 21

Posted by Aidan in Holyrood | 18 Comments

Of course, every day (and most evenings, and weekends) is red box day for Cabinet ministers, but few are as storied as the Budget Box.

The downward revision in European growth is bad news for the UK since it’s our main export market, and the Chancellor got his retaliation in early by starting with that and trying to spin a small upward revision of the OBR growth estimates for this year up from 0.7% to 0.8%. Unemployment to peak this year sounds pretty optimistic. There’s also been a letter from the Chancellor to the governer of the Bank of England reaffirming a CPI target of 2% but also that he wants to see an “activist monetary policy” (ie. more Quantitative Easing) which rather gives the lie to that. The predicted peak in debt is lower, but that’s likely to be due to taking on the Royal Mail pension assets.

Because of the overriding need to reduce the deficit there’s little room to move so this budget, like the Autumn statement, is “fiscally neutral” – that is it moves pots of money around so but spending levels remain as planned. In theory.

The next spending review will focus heavily on reducing the welfare bill. Now, call me cynical but that sounds like a hint that entitlement to benefits will be restricted along with the amount of money reduced in search of the £10bn in cuts that are on the cards. Obviously it would be better to get people off of unemployment benefit and back into work but that doesn’t seem to be in the plan. The pension age will be automatically reviewed in line with changes to longevity which is a smart political move to move responsibility for the upwards revisions which are coming away from the government and into a quango.

There were a number of specific infrastructure investment projects which had been trailed in the Autumn statement last year, including a softening up for Yet Another Airport in the South East – Boris Island? Investment allowances in content creation and oil fields are a good move to stimulate those industries (whatever you think of them), how much these are replacing the allowances that were scrapped not that long ago we’ll have to see the detail. I’m less convinced that what the UK technology sector needs is faster home broadband, it’s arguable that wider access to the internet for households not currently connected would be better. It’s also likely that software development as an industry is already too heavily concentrated around San Francisco and Boston for us to really compete with it and we’d be better focussing on the next thing rather than trying to hang onto the heady days of March 2000. Tax cut on patent’s seems nonsensical, they’re not particularly expensive, if something’s worth patenting the effect of tax on it will be minimal compared to the returns and discouraging duff patents is surely a good thing? Easier access to funding for startups has to be a good thing, we’re remarkably awful at it in this country.

There’s a couple of changes to the tax system, VAT on take away food and a freeze in pensioners personal allowances which means an increase in tax in real terms (but not cash terms).

If you want to see where your tax is spent you can go to http://wheredoesmymoneygo.org/ and of course many people already get an annual statement of what they’re paying in their P60s.

Corporation tax, which is already at a very low rate by global standards, are balanced by a change in the levy so banks don’t benefit and the levy meets the estimates in revenue – which implies that it wasn’t on target before that.

If you smoke get to the news agent, pack of smokes are up 37p from 6pm, alcohol and fuel duty are left unchanged (ETA: unchanged in this instance means “they’re going up as planned” not “the duty remains the same”).

The general anti-avoidance rule is a great move, that’s a big win the Lib Dems will be claiming as theirs. Stamp duty on houses over £2m was heavily trailed but the increase to 15% is huge and, as Ben Goldacre pointed out earlier today, will work to suppress prices at the top end.

The assessment of the 50p tax rate revealed avoidance by shuffling income into the previous tax year which was fairly predictable but could only happen once. Despite this and the announcement of a general anti-avoidance rule  the top rate is being cut to 45p which seems… odd.. to me. The tapering of child benefit withdrawl on people earning over £50k makes some sense from the cliff edge perspective but doesn’t’ address anomalies such as single income couples.

The increase in personal allowance to £9,205 will take many people out of tax, but the lowest earning 10% weren’t paying it anyway gain nothing from it. People like me, on the other hand, get £220 a year so thanks for that George.