Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Worst Motion of the Week – MP fights the blues

Feb 24

Posted by Jeff in Crime, Westminster | 3 Comments

There is no doubt what the worst motion in Scottish politics was this week, it was the headbutting motion that Eric Joyce (allegedly) made in Strangers Bar at Westminster (*boom boom*). It’s a rather spectacularly public fall from an already rather graceless position for the MP and, despite the unavoidable, scabby mirth behind headlines such as ‘Labour MP hit 5 Tories in brawl’, this could be the final nail in the Falkirk MP’s political coffin after a recent charge sheet that includes failing to provide a drink-drive breath test and expenses scandals.

We largely enjoy an appropriate approach of innocent until proven guilty in this country, and so we should, but that nonetheless won’t, nor shouldn’t, prevent speculation surrounding this situation. One could argue that it is for constituents to decide if their MP is fit for purpose, and with a 7,843 majority in 2010, despite the expenses controversy, who outside of Falkirk should say that Eric should step aside, whatever happens here? Nonetheless, if, and it is a big if, this legal process results in a criminal conviction, it is difficult to see how a by-election can be avoided. Denis Canavan is already calling for one to be held.

A by-election in Falkirk would, of course, be a two-horse race with the SNP, who won the equivalent Holyrood seat(s) in 2011, going up against Labour. It could prove to be a mini dress rehearsal for the independence referendum at large and could be an opportunity for Salmond to start building some momentum, not dissimilar to the ‘political earthquake’ in Glasgow East all those years ago. For that reason, one would expect that the Nats’ campaign warchest would be deeply delved into, and with Labour’s coffers being fuller than only that of Rangers FC, the contest could well be closer than it otherwise would be in a Westminster contest.

There is a risk of getting too far ahead of one’s self here of course, it is not after all in Labour’s interests for a by-election to be held at this stage of the political cycle with so little to gain from one, so efforts behind the scenes to prevent one would no doubt take place.

For now, it is sufficient to only regret that the old Scottish leftie metaphorical rhetoric of going down to London to knock lumps out of Tories has been regrettably taken literally in this instance and that politics in general is the main loser here, apart from Eric Joyce of course.

Labour MSP comes out in favour of independence?

Feb 24

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood | 10 Comments

I’m not sure if this counts as a worst motion of the week, a best motion of the week or neither but I couldn’t help but raise an eyebrow at the Labour MSP who supported the following motion:

Motion S4M-02056: Kenneth Gibson, Cunninghame North, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 20/02/2012
Fool Me Once
That the Parliament notes the recent comments by the Prime Minister regarding additional powers for the Scottish Parliament; understands that the carrot of extra “powers” will be available only if Scots do not vote positively for independence in a referendum; considers that no attempt whatsoever has been made to define such powers; believes that the same tactic was used in the 1970s by the Tories, who promised a better assembly bill if the one on offer was rejected; considers that the Tories, on gaining office in 1979, betrayed this promise and shelved any pretence at delivering devolution during 18 years in power; believes that Scots have learned from bitter experience not to trust the Tories on the constitution, and urges a Yes vote in the independence referendum.

Supported by: Adam Ingram, Gordon MacDonald, Mike MacKenzie, John Mason, Stuart McMillan, Dennis Robertson, Bill Walker, Bob Doris, David Torrance, George Adam, Angus MacDonald, Maureen Watt, Kevin Stewart, James Dornan, Colin Beattie, Chic Brodie, Joan McAlpine, Margaret Burgess, Annabelle Ewing, Gil Paterson, Bill Kidd, Jim Eadie,

    Kezia Dugdale

, Jamie Hepburn, Roderick Campbell, Dave Thompson

Given that the motion “urges a Yes vote in the independence referendum”, what are we to take from this?

Has Kezia cast off her unionist beliefs, been blinded by the anti-Tory sentiment at the start of the motion or is this another ‘wrong button’ from an MSP?

Either way, one can’t help but wonder what Johann Lamont will make of it…

It’s the Scottish Sun wot won it?

Feb 23

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution, Media | 26 Comments

Another guest today from Andrew Graeme Smith, a London-based Scot who works in the PR industry, and who previously wrote for us about the No campaign. He grew up in Edinburgh and studied at Dundee, and you can read his blog at www.blackberrybanter.wordpress.com

Since taking to Twitter, Rupert Murdoch has been good at causing a stir, but with 185,000 followers (at time of writing) and a whole host of opinions on issues such as the electoral viability of Rick Santorum (who he likes) and the welfare state (which he doesn’t) he is always going to be an interesting Tweeter. However, of his many rants, the ones that have attracted the most attention this week have been the ones he’s made about Scotland, in which he sang the praises of Alex Salmond, berated nuclear weapons and the British empire and seemed to endorse Scottish independence: all part of a good day’s work for the Dirty Digger.

While the support of Murdoch does not necessarily mean the support of his newspapers it does make it a lot more likely that the Scottish Sun and its new Sunday sister paper will soon fall into line. What will be the impact if they do? What does it mean for the tone of the referendum?

The consensus of most people I know is that it won’t make a blind bit of difference, and I’m sure that you’re all well versed on the numerous arguments for why the influence of newspapers is often overstated, however I’m not so convinced. While backing Scottish independence is not a new position for the Sun (who supported it in 1992) and nor is their support for the SNP (who they backed in 1992 and 2011), the difference this time is that this time their own backs and those of their industry are against the wall, and the referendum itself is still 2 and a half years away.

The first point to make is that, regardless of its depleted influence, the Sun still sells 314,000 copies a day in Scotland, which makes it by far the largest selling daily newspaper in the country. The second point is that when the Sun make a political statement they are usually less than subtle (for example their 2007 opposition to the SNP and their 2011 support). Should the paper get behind Murdoch’s new policy then it could be an effective mouthpiece for the nationalists to address an audience who have traditionally backed Labour in Scotland. The other positive for the SNP is that if they can maintain the support of the Sun then they can expect a far easier ride from one of the most vicious tabloids in the country, and meanwhile Salmond’s opponents will be subjected to more of the humiliation that has been poured onto Iain Gray and Gordon Brown in the past.

The reason why the change is significant is not only because of what it may spell for the campaigns, but also because of the reasoning behind it. While the usual suspects tend to see the Sun’s support for the SNP as a way of beating the Labour Party, there is undoubtedly far more to it. Ultimately, The Sun is a business and during a time of declining newspaper sales and their own inner turmoil it is thoroughly unlikely that the move would be purely to spite the Labour Party (which probably does play a small part when we consider Miliband’s reaction to the Sunday Sun’s launch and how it differed with that of Salmond).

It is also unlikely that should The Sun back independence then they will do it purely because Murdoch does, there has to be a business case for it too (otherwise the Scottish Sun would have backed Cameron in 2010). Rather more likely is because The Sun needs to run at a profit and will make the decision along commercial lines. The equation is very simple. If News International believes that The Sun will sell more copies by supporting independence then that is what they will do. This is nothing new: research from MORI in 2009 confirmed that The Sun has a tendency to follow its readers and if they didn’t then they probably wouldn’t be the biggest selling newspaper in the country. This is significant in itself because it implies that there is already a business case for tabloids to be thinking about backing the YES campaign.

In terms of the other papers, I would anticipate that the Daily Record will probably strengthen its unionist voice in order to differentiate itself from the newly nationalist Sun. I would expect the broadsheets to be fairly agnostic with a slight tendency towards a no vote from the more conservative among them (aside from The Times who have given Salmond their Politician of the Year award and will probably show a more strained support for a YES vote). I would expect the Daily Star to stay out of it and the Mail and Express to stick to doing what they do best (which is preaching to their respective choirs) while the soon to be reprinted Daily Sport will be lucky if they even mention that a referendum is happening…

Finally, Murdoch’s words themselves are important, “Let Scotland go and compete. Everyone would win.” It is hard to read this without thinking about Murdoch’s immediate business interests. I suspect that his idea of a competitive Scotland is one that is cutting corporation tax, business rates and taxes for the wealthy. Quite how the Digger squares this neoliberal circle with a Scotland that is increasingly moving in a traditionally social-democratic direction I don’t know. Regardless of his own political ideologies, Murdoch has caused quite a stir, and probably not for the last time.

Jam Tomorrow

Feb 21

Posted by Kirsty in Democracy, Westminster | 20 Comments

Image from Bella Caledonia

One should never really believe political promises, but ‘vote no for more powers later’ has to be one of the worst. Especially from the mouth of someone making that promise only because he feels he ought.

Last week, while speaking in Edinburgh, David Cameron offered Scotland more powers, but only if independence was rejected.

“I am open to looking at how the devolved settlement can be improved further”, he said. “And, yes, that means considering what further powers could be devolved.”

Offering voters what they might want through a different and delayed means of your own choosing strikes me as less political masterclass, and more desperate politician.  Nonetheless, Conservative-supporting facets of the media have applauded Cameron’s move.

Writing in The Guardian, Conservative Home editor Tim Montgomerie has followed
Cameron’s statement with a call for him to “seize the moment”.

“By offering to extend Scottish devolution he can be the Conservative leader who saves the union. By promising to balance Scottish devolution with a commitment to new arrangements for the government of England, he can radically improve his own party’s electoral prospects. And through these changes – with the introduction of city mayors and greater localism – he can be the PM who replaces one of Europe’s most centralised states with a political architecture fit for the 21st century.”

I’m a big fan of devolution. I think the best place for power to be is as close to the people as possible. For me devolution and the debate around independence isn’t just about territory or a binary discussion between what powers reside and why in Westminster and Holyrood, but how powers – democratic and economic – extend down to councils and to communities, and how those powers are used.

Montgomerie has identified the ill – the moribund institutions that can dominate sections of English local democracy. The cure he proposes will be interesting to watch – the 12 new city mayors to be elected, as well as police commissioners, will hopefully revitalise local democracy in England. And there is always a case for councils and communities across all nations of the UK to enjoy greater localism.

But Cameron’s jam tomorrow promise for Scotland is a hurried attempt to claw back ground gained by Salmond and the SNP, a ‘shush now, behave, and we’ll give you a treat’ attempt at cajoling voters using a strategy that ceases being effective once someone’s older than about six. Cameron and today’s Conservatives have scant interest in devolution – Montgomerie in the same piece notes it was Salmond, and not Cameron, that “[chose] to put Scotland’s relationship with the rest of the UK at the top of the political agenda”.

Cameron’s intervention in the independence debate is a self-interested salvo, an attempt to adhere to the role of UK Prime Minister and retain the power it brings, a role that he feels he must play, rather than a great passion or driving ambition on his part.

Cameron and the Conservatives seem likewise only interested in localism and English devolution when it stands to benefit their own grasp on power. You can’t argue for reducing the number of seats in Westminster in order to make everyone’s votes more equal, when you are also switching to individual voter registration despite warnings that up to six million voters are currently missing from the electoral roll. For others like Eric Pickles, localism and cohesion are being confused with ill-thought out assimilation. And slashing local public services, from lights to libraries, doesn’t inspire hope that Cameron is really interested in standing up for what’s happening on the doorsteps of England.

Any intervention by Cameron into the independence debate with pledges and promises will be regarded with bemusement by the majority of the Scottish electorate. We expect his thoughtlessness and hashed attempts at making do when it comes to the devolution debate. But he risks more by only being half-hearted and damaging about changes to English democracy, especially when his own party are arguing for him to be otherwise.

Worst Motions of the Week – Penguins for independence

Feb 17

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood | 4 Comments

This week’s Worst Motion of the Week was such a close call that I decided to lump two close contenders in together. Like a couple of naughty school children sitting down doing lines outside the Head’s office, they’ll never learn otherwise…

First up, is the inimitable Kenneth Gibson, a repeat offender sadly.

Motion S4M-02041: Kenneth Gibson, Cunninghame North, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 16/02/2012
Scots of the Antarctic
That the Parliament recognises what it considers the remarkable incompetence of Labour ministers in the previous UK administration who, it has emerged, accidentally devolved some responsibility, including the ability to launch scientific research expeditions, over Britain’s 660,000 square mile Antarctic territory to the Scottish Parliament; believes that, in pursuit of a respect agenda, it would be wrong as a point of principle for the UK Government to seek to reserve these powers once more; understands that more research is conducted in Scotland than any other country relative to wealth per head of population, that Scotland has the highest concentration of universities in Europe, with Scottish institutions undertaking world-leading research, over half of which is rated as internationally excellent, that Scotland is also home to five of the world’s top 200 universities, while it ranks third in the world for the number of research publications published per head of population; considers, therefore, that the UK Government should not only cease in its attempts to have this responsibility reserved, but actively encourage Scottish involvement in planning and conducting scientific research and expeditions in the region; further considers that, due to Scottish scientific and educational excellence, the UK Government would also be wise to devolve some control over space exploration to the Scottish Parliament, and believes that, if the UK Government seriously wants to have full control over the Antarctic territory, it may wish to consider the issue as part of an agreement to return 15,000 square kilometres of Scottish waters, as agreed in the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968, which it considers were transferred unilaterally from Scottish to UK jurisdiction under the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 just weeks before the Scottish Parliament came into being and which was subsequently endorsed by unionist MSPs acting, it considers, as always, in London’s interest.
Supported by: Adam Ingram, Gordon MacDonald, Bill Kidd, Mike MacKenzie, David Torrance, George Adam, Kevin Stewart, Dennis Robertson

I don’t fully follow how, in the one motion, Kenny can slag off Labour for “remarkable incompetence” in accidentally devolving the launching of scientific research expeditions to Holyrood while also claiming, “as a point of principle”, that those powers should remain with the Scottish Parliament. I can’t imagine that there are any Scottish-based expeditions out to Antarctica that are raring to go, irrespective of the long list of irrelevant accolades that Kenny has manage to shoehorn into this motion. Even if an expedition is due to get going, I can’t imagine that it’ll make a blind bit of difference as to whether the powers are held at Holyrood or Westminster.

Mentioning good things about Scottish universities does not a good motion make, and indeed is a clue as to what cracks are trying to be papered over.

Next on the list, and jockeying for WMOTW top spot this week, is Hugh Henry, a recent Scottish Politician of the Year so someone who should really know better.

Motion S4M-02004: Hugh Henry, Renfrewshire South, Scottish Labour,
Date Lodged: 10/02/2012
Linwood
That the Parliament regrets the comments reportedly made by SNP councillor David Berry describing Linwood as a “dead end”; considers that Linwood is a proud community, which has suffered from the effects of industrial decline; recognises and pays tribute to the many community organisations in the area, including the churches, community council, the Community Development Trust and the Elderly Forum, that are working hard to make Linwood a better place, and believes that an apology is due as a result of what it sees as this unwelcome slur.
Supported by: Neil Bibby, Neil Findlay

Any motion with the phrase “unwelcome slur” in it is bound to be a bit of no-good Punch and Judy that may be worthy of page 17 in a tabloid, but isn’t really welcome in the Scottish Pariament. I don’t know if Presiding Officer Tricia Marwick has an official equivalent of ‘take it outside lads’ but, if so, I hope that it is utilised.

Both motions are really aimed at journalists and rival councillors respectively, rather than the Scottish public, so here’s hoping that their next attempts are a better effort and don’t drive us up the Pole.

Indeed, you could say that, much like the Antarctic and Linwood itself, the only way is up.