Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Best Motions of the Week – two winners.

Nov 18

Posted by James in Holyrood | 6 Comments

Having been personally (in fact, physically) chastised by a senior member of the Scottish Government this week for negativity during #fmq, today I’m all sunshine and light. Below are two contributions to the weekly feast of motions we believe are worthy of commendation, and nothing worth wasting a Better Nation #wmotw booby prize upon.

First up is Kenny Gibson’s staunch defence of the democratic principle, using the bankers’ coups in Greece and Italy as the basis, but allied to a more local democratic deficit. The second is technically an amendment, but in practice Jim Hume is doing here what oppositions should do: holding the Government to account. Bravo gents!

S4M-01381 Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party)
That the Parliament notes with concern the accession to power of new so-called technocratic governments in Italy and Greece; believes that this is an affront to democracy, akin to the UK Government having unelected members of the House of Lords serving as ministers; considers that many fledgling democracies will look with alacrity at what has happened; believes that countries should be run by people who are democratically elected, and urges a return to what it considers democratic control in Greece and Italy as soon as possible.

Motion S4M-01346.1 – Jim Hume (Scottish Liberal Democrats)
As an amendment to motion S4M-01346 in the name of Alex Johnstone (Housing), leave out from “notes” to end and insert “recalls that the SNP manifesto commitment was “to build over 6,000 new socially-rented houses each year”; notes that, since the election, ministers have referred to a target of 6,000 affordable homes rather than to the manifesto pledge and believes that the Scottish Government must clarify whether this manifesto commitment has now been replaced with a different, weaker commitment, which relies on people on low incomes being able to secure a mortgage; further notes that the Scottish Government has announced a 25% cut in the budget available to registered social landlords for housing adaptations despite adaptations being shown to generate significant health and social care savings; considers that such a substantial cut to the housing adaptations budget contradicts the Scottish Government’s commitment to preventative spending, and believes that adaptations have a key part to play in the drive to prevent health and care problems and enable older and disabled people to live independently in their own homes.”

Illusions of Solidarity

Nov 17

Posted by Kirsty in Economy, Holyrood | 56 Comments

StrikeBy voting 83 to 36 with one abstention for parliamentary business to continue on November 30, it seems the SNP’s only whiff of solidarity in the last few days has been on the old membership card of its newest recruit.

Green MSPs Patrick Harvie and Alison Johnstone yesterday urged parliament to vote against Holyrood’s business motion for 30 November, the day multi-strike action against the Tories’ public sector pension grab has been scheduled. Labour escalated Harvie’s calls for members to “be out with the unions, supporting the Parliament’s hard-working staff”, with Paul Martin calling for MSPs to strike in solidarity. “Today the Scottish Labour party makes no apologies for standing shoulder to shoulder with workers across Scotland”.

But the Scottish Government said MSPs should attend Parliament on the day and debate a Scottish Government motion condemning the pension plans, and voted accordingly for business to continue.

The strikes on November 30 will be the biggest industrial action in the UK since 1926. With the GMB voting for walkouts over pension reform yesterday, and Unite members likely to declare today that they are joining the growing lists of unions taking action, over 3 million public sector workers across the UK should be out on St Andrews Day.

The strikes are protesting the triple whammy Westminster is levying on public sector pensions. The declaration by George Osborne in June 2010 that pension value will increase in line with the lower CPI measure of inflation, instead of RPI, wipes 15% off the value of public sector pension scheme benefits. When the mean average public sector pension is £7,000, with the majority of public sector pensioners receiving less than £5,000, this is a huge cut, made even worse when coupled with a forced increase in contributions and a rise in the normal pension age.

In the civil service, the pension scheme is unfunded – payments aren’t put in a fund, and invested and built up over time to cover future contributions, like other pension schemes. Payments which civil service staff make towards their pension from their salary instead goes straight to the Treasury, and is used to reduce current government expenditure. Pensions are then paid out of general taxation when civil servants are due them – hence screaming headlines about the burden these pensions levy on the ‘taxpayer’, as if civil servants haven’t also paid tax throughout their working lives.  In fact, given their pension contributions are used as immediate government income, it’s like they’ve paid an additional tax for the privilege of being a civil servant.

But a civil service pension is supposed to be the reward for accepting lower pay throughout your career in comparison to the private sector. Arguing that public sector pensions are not in line with private sector equivalents tells me pensions should be leveled up, not down. I agree private sector employees have been hit hard by the employer retreat from good pensions. But this doesn’t justify punishing public sector workers.

And I think Scotland’s MSPs should show a bit more solidarity with our public sector workers. Why not keep the parliamentary business opposing and condemning Osborne’s outrageous cash grab, but also keep parliament empty (except presumably for the Tories). Stand with the parliamentary staff on the picket but don’t cross it.  And stand up to show a bit of real solidarity with Scottish workers being punished for an economic crisis not of their making.

 

UPDATE: As the comments point out, the parliamentary vote was 83 to 36, not 83 to 60. Bad typo, corrected now. Kirsty

Totally off the rails

Nov 16

Posted by James in Holyrood, Transport | 71 Comments

Yesterday SNP Ministers published what must be the most bizarre proposals for rail services in Britain since the Tory privatisations went through.

If you just read the consultation’s blather-tastic introduction, it sounds great. We’re promised. “… an efficient railway, attuned to Scotland’s needs … coordinated, integrated … [with] passenger interests at its heart”, all harmonised with The Central Blather, i.e. “the Scottish Government’s Purpose of creating a more successful country, with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish, through increasing sustainable economic growth.”

The reality is utterly different – a shopping list of essentially anti-passenger changes.

  1. Breaking up the franchise still further. The breakup of British Rail into franchises, ROSCOs and Railtrack (now Network Rail) didn’t work. Train companies competing with each other has complicated journey planning, made pricing opaque, and made it even harder to identify who’s responsible when something goes wrong.
    “We are considering a range of options including separate franchises for sleeper services and other elements of the network such as inter-urban lines, for example the main Edinburgh – Glasgow line.” – 7, p4
    Even though, later on Ministers say “In our view the need for greater integration of activities is self-evident..” – 2.17, p16
  2.  Forcing travellers to and from England from points north of Edinburgh to change at Edinburgh. Because everyone loves changing trains unnecessarily, right? These are Scotland’s passenger miles, so they should be travelled on a train covered in a Saltire: is that really the logic?
    “We are therefore considering whether services north of Edinburgh should be provided by the Scottish franchisee, with Edinburgh becoming an interchange hub for cross-border services in the east of the country in much the same way that Glasgow acts as a cross- border hub for the west of the country.” – 16, p5
    “On some routes, longer-distance services could be replaced by a number of shorter-distance services terminating at an interchange station.” 5.16, p34
  3. Cutting sleeper services. These compete directly with domestic flights, and reducing them could hardly be more cack-handed if you want to cut short-haul flying. The threat is that more trains will stop at Edinburgh, and that one of the services could be removed. A passing reference to increasing financial support seems totally stranded in a sea of cuts.
    “We are considering … a number of options for the future provision of sleeper services, for instance: removing or increasing financial support; and reducing the provision, either through removing the Highland or Lowland service, or by running the Lowland services to and from Edinburgh only.” – 19, p6
  4. Allowing trains to arrive later so fewer of them are officially “late”. Surely it’s obvious that increasing journey times purely to allow the operator look more reliable is not what passengers want. Why not penalise operators for running late trains instead? This gives them no incentive to make the rail network more competitive. And (see below) as an additional downside to this, we’ll get fewer trains.
    “… timetable adjustments could be made to increase the time journeys take which would allow more flexibility and thereby improve train performance levels, increasing the proportion of punctual trains. However increasing journey time may result in a reduction in the number of train services that can be provided.” – 4.8, p27
  5. More standing. First run too few trains on peak services and they’re too small. Solution? Allow them to run trains on those services so one in twenty-one people regularly have to stand, and make people stand for longer. No other option for intercity travel makes you stand.
    “The carrying capacity could for example be set at 105% on certain types of service.“ 5.6, p31
    “We will therefore be considering whether we should increase the time that passengers may have to stand and welcome views.” 5.7, p31
  6. Charging more for this worse service. Hilariously, the SNP are describing this Ryanair version of Scotrail as an “enhanced service”, and are consulting on an end to the inflation +1% cap on fare rises.
    “These fares currently increase each January by RPI+1%..” – 6.21, p40 “… we have estimated that rail demand and revenue would continue to grow for fares increases of up to RPI+3%.” – 6.24, p40
    “We are therefore considering whether those passengers receiving an enhanced service as a consequence of investment in that service should make a contribution through increased fares, rather than having all costs falling to the taxpayer.” – 6.25, p41
  7. Specifically hitting commuters with even higher increases. You know, the people who can’t travel at other times. But who can often afford to drive if it becomes uneconomic to use the train.
    “We are considering increasing the differential [between peak and off-peak fares] in order to free capacity in the peak period to accommodate future growth.” – 6.27, p41
  8. Banning booze on trains. I don’t mind if people drink on trains – I mind if they’re disorderly and disruptive. Can we tackle the bad behaviour, not the drinking, please? Most of the problems are from people who are hammered before they even get on the train. Banning people drinking responsibly does nothing to improve that, and makes long distance travel less attractive to those of us who quite like a beer en route.
    “… consideration is being given to whether there should be a ban on the consumption of alcohol on all trains in Scotland…” – 10.18, p59

Labour Ministers would never have had the cojones to use their power over the Scotrail franchise to reclaim it for the travelling public, but pre-2007 SNP commitments had given rise to some optimism. Even as recently as 2008, despite having extended the franchise without consultation earlier that year, SNP conference and Ministers backed public ownership.

In short, on rail, SNP rhetoric and SNP actions in government have long been out of line. But what’s driving this (pun intended)? The only plausible explanation for even considering inflicting this disastrous set of proposals on the travelling public is that we have a government which is determined to devalue public transport and which remains obsessed with saving money on it to shovel into roadbuilding schemes.

If you love your railway, or if you think (shock! horror!) it could be improved rather than treated like this, you have until 20th February to reply to this consultation, which I will do more in hope than expectation.

Cameron dusts off the unionist battering ram

Nov 15

Posted by Jeff in Constitution | 30 Comments

The metaphorical cannons have been fired, the first few volley of arrows twanged and the blood-curdling roars, as much as an old Etonian can muster, have been sounded.

This isn’t the 1600s though, this cross-border assault was delivered by press release.

Day 1 (yesterday) saw George Osborne warn that Scotland was losing out on investment as a result of constitutional uncertainty. Day 2 (today) sees similar warnings that Scotland will lose jobs in the Defence industry. Big Brother is clearly watching us and we shall see how long the onslaught goes on for but I suspect the drip-drip-drip of stories such as these will continue for a good while yet. So much for a positive case defending the union.

Whether the timing of the Conservative scaremongering/prudent warning (delete as applicable) over independence is supposed to coincide with Ruth Davidson being installed as new Tory leader and before Labour have selected theirs doesn’t change the fact that there has been a palpable stepping up of rhetoric against SNP plans.

The rights and wrongs of these arguments could, and will, be argued until the sheep come home; a neat analogy as it happens as David Cameron is effectively trying to round Scots up and put them back in their unionist pens. I don’t really mind what the result of the coming referendum is, but I do want Scots to really sit down and have a conversation with themselves and consider where they want to take their nation. There’s nothing wrong with not voting Yes, there’s nothing even wrong with bottling it but I do not want people frightened into thoughtlessly voting No and missing this great opportunity.

Yes, Scotland will have less jobs in Defence if we are independent but we’ll also be about £2bn a year better off if we adopt Scandinavian levels of spending in this area, more than enough money to retrain and reemploy anyone directly affected with change left over to help fund a renewables revolution, the oil boom of tomorrow. Furthermore, while there is a clear irony, even hypocrisy, in the SNP calling for the UK’s Green Investment Bank to be located in Edinburgh while simultaneously trying to remove Scotland from that same UK, it is telling that Alex Salmond can name several large companies who have invested in Scotland recently while George Osborne can name none. Scotland is bearing up very well indeed despite these difficult times and there’s only one Government that can take credit for that, even if it is to the chagrin of the other.

The real villain of this war of words debacle, not that it’s their fault, is the media. Newspapers sell through sensationalising a story (which perhaps makes we the public the real villains for falling for it) but this is not serving Scotland and the debate around independence very well at all.

The best way for the main players in this debate to take their arguments to the people is directly, be it party broadcasts, stump speeches or good old-fashioned door to door. There is an opportunity here for individuals to make famous deliveries – the constitutional equivalent of Jimmy Reid’s rat race speech or Obama’s Berlin speech on Europe.

There is at the very least an opportunity to rip up the tired old format of two political foes knocking lumps out of each other in the column inches and, I think, we will see that happen before too long. The SNP simply want this too much to not try something new and dynamic.

Peering in Windows

Nov 14

Posted by Kirsty in Economy | 6 Comments

PrimarkRespect for Shopworkers’ Week ended on Friday, just prior to the time of year when even the most reluctant among us start to venture into the hallowed halls of personal consumer capitalism for glitter, baubles and iPad 2s.

During the week itself, Primark announced it has had almost 4,500 people apply for the 500-odd positions available in its new flagship Princes Street store in Edinburgh, part of the council’s ‘string of pearls’ vision for the city’s premier street.

Notwithstanding the closest you’ll get to pearls in Primark will be white gauzy plastic and cost about £2.50 (I know, because they’re one of my favourite pieces of costume jewellery), retail is crucial to the Scottish economy. It’s one of the few sectors still creating jobs, as the oversubscription for positions at Primark shows. The final report, back in March, of research into Assessing the Contribution of Retailing in Scotland, commissioned by Scottish Government, found retail turnover climbed 57% between 1998 and 2008. It now accounts for 5% of Scotland’s gross value added – a measure of GDP in real terms – 10% of its turnover and 10% of employment.

But retail also accounts for a notable proportion of Scotland’s low wage problem. 59% of shopworkers are part-time, 62% are female, half are under 30 and the average weekly salary is £258 – 56% of the Scottish average across all sectors. Together with the hospitality sector, retail across the whole of the UK accounts for almost half of all minimum wage jobs. And the situation isn’t likely to change. Over 2 in 5 of all retail employers have to increase their bottom pay level whenever the minimum wage increases, implying a significant number of retail employees are paid at the very legal minimum. In giving evidence to the Low Pay Commission this month, the Association of Convenience Stores warned further minimum wage increases will result in job losses and decreased hours for staff.

Pay isn’t the only issue. Respect for Shopworkers’ Week, organised by the trade union USDAW, focused on its Freedom from Fear campaign, to prevent violence, threats and abuse against shop workers. But it’s hard to believe the Scottish Government prioritises shop workers. Having dismissed Hugh Henry’s Workers (Aggravated Offences) Scotland private member’s Bill by disagreeing with its fundamental principle last December, the SNP prevented any further consideration of the Bill’s merits.  Henry sought to provide a stiffer sentence to anyone assaulting a worker in the course of their duties, including shop workers. The previous Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition weren’t much better, by holding in reserve the extension of powers preventing larger stores opening on Christmas Day to include New Year’s Day as well, as part of Karen Whitefield’s Christmas Day and New Year’s Day Trading (Scotland) Act.

A glimmer of hope is the Scottish Government’s desire to extend the living wage beyond the civil service. A living wage is not just deserved by public sector workers, and compelling the private sector to make the just minimum a realistic reflection of the cost of living for workers in retail is a critical step towards improving low pay across the board.

And there’s an action you can take yourself. Why not resolve this Christmas, and afterwards, to pay heed to what Henry tried to achieve. Be nice, and don’t take out your festive shopping induced fury on the £6.08-an hour worker serving you. Even if that wily Christmas shopper in front just snaffled the last string of Primark pearls.