I joined my local co-op today. Not an earth-shattering decision in any sense, and one taken already by numerous others. I am coming late to this particular show. But it was a decision influenced by some of the most impressive people I have met as part of the manifesto development process.
The SNP has a long history of support for the co-operative movement and MSPs like Rob Gibson have a track-record and knowledge that I've certainly found useful as we develop our policy thinking for Scotland's election in May.
Rob has often pointed to the Mondragon co-operatives in the Basque Country as a beacon and an example of what can be achieved. Starting in the 1950's with a small workshop producing paraffin heaters, Mondragon has now grown to become the biggest business group in the Basque Country, employing 85,000 people in over 250 companies. I've sometimes heard people asking what Scotland needs to do to produce the next Microsoft or Nokia, perhaps we should also be asking what we need to do to produce the next Mondragon?
And for the public sector, there are some fascinating developments - some might say experiments - down south. The decision of Lambeth to become a Co-operative Council is one, although there are some things about the proposed Lambeth model that I don't think would fit so well in a Scottish context.
Regular readers will know that community empowerment is a theme of many of these blog posts. I am not going to pre-empt what might or might not be in the SNP's manifesto. But I will say one thing. It has struck me, as we've explored ways of rebalancing Scotland's economy and further developing what might be loosely termed the social economy, that there is so much more we could achieve if the Scottish Parliament had greater responsibility in this area.
Co-operatives and the partnership approach adopted by companies such as the John Lewis Partnership provide a powerful model: they put people (whether workers or a wider community) at the centre of their activity. Profit, while important, is a by-product of a system that encourages greater participation and through that, greater productivity or customer loyalty. One of the criticisms of the pre-credit crunch economic model was that it encouraged the creation of towering super-conglomerates: companies that grew so big that when they collapsed they did so with an almighty crash. Companies that had shallow roots and too often drew wealth into the centre and away from the communities where they were based. Contrast this with Mondragon, which has not towered above the Basque economy, but has deepened it and strengthened it: not one giant, but many parts making a much bigger whole.
And there are steps we could take, in law, to support and encourage the co-operative model here in Scotland. There is currently a Co-operative & Community Benefit Societies & Credit Unions Bill going through the House of Lords. It is designed, according to the Co-operative Party to "end all legislative obstacles faced by the co-operative and credit union movements, and to level the playing field in relation to other organisations". It may go through on this, second, attempt. But this approach begs some questions. Why are we relying on a House of Lords Private Members Bill - not always the most direct or effective route - to try to bring the legislation on co-operatives and credit unions up to date? Why shouldn't this sort of measure be going through Scotland's Parliament?
We could, here in Scotland, take decisive steps forward, if we had the power to do so. Perhaps a UK government will at some stage in the future decide to legislate for the benefit of the co-operative movement in Scotland, or perhaps they won't. But as the Scotland Bill goes forward, we should see this legislation as an opportunity to give the Scottish Parliament a bigger role and a proper say. That would allow us to create the most fertile environment for a MacMondragon to grow.
Monday, 31 January 2011
Saturday, 29 January 2011
Even more curious Labour behaviour
After my previous post about Labour campaigning in Edinburgh, some new information has come my way about their campaign. This time what claims to be their telephone canvassing operation phoning in to Aberdeen.
The first thing is the caller was working to the old constituency names and boundaries. Perhaps not that surprising given the likelihood that the Labour operation works to Westminster boundaries. Changing the Scottish constituencies would not be a top priority for their IT team in London.
Then came a series of fairly normal questions, have you ever voted Labour, who do you think would make best First Minister, would you consider voting Labour etc.
And then it got strange. The caller, who remember, said he was calling on behalf of the Labour Party set out their policy platform, but with the proviso that 'it was not set in stone because the manifesto isn't written yet.'
And this is what he said: a 4 year Council Tax freeze; free education; and we'll press London for a fuel tax reduction. When pressed on the Council Tax freeze he said that this was not yet confirmed. And when asked were these not already Scottish Government policies, he said 'no, they are Labour policies that the SNP are using'.
So what does this mean? It could be dodgy information, but it does come from a source I trust. We could be about to see a massive shift in Labour policy - to support a 4 year Council Tax freeze? Maybe, but I'm not convinced.
Or perhaps this tells us something else about Labour's approach. Are they saying what they think people want to hear?
Earlier this week we saw Labour launch its campaign in the full glare of publicity with a document that mis-represented the SNP manifesto in 20 of the 100 examples. It did this by either excluding parts of quotes that changed the meaning, or in two cases, rewriting the actual quote from the manifesto.
If this is what is happening in such a public forum - you can hardly get more public than your campaign launch - it does make me wonder just what is going on in the very private and hidden space of a telephone call. Answers on a postcard please.
The first thing is the caller was working to the old constituency names and boundaries. Perhaps not that surprising given the likelihood that the Labour operation works to Westminster boundaries. Changing the Scottish constituencies would not be a top priority for their IT team in London.
Then came a series of fairly normal questions, have you ever voted Labour, who do you think would make best First Minister, would you consider voting Labour etc.
And then it got strange. The caller, who remember, said he was calling on behalf of the Labour Party set out their policy platform, but with the proviso that 'it was not set in stone because the manifesto isn't written yet.'
And this is what he said: a 4 year Council Tax freeze; free education; and we'll press London for a fuel tax reduction. When pressed on the Council Tax freeze he said that this was not yet confirmed. And when asked were these not already Scottish Government policies, he said 'no, they are Labour policies that the SNP are using'.
So what does this mean? It could be dodgy information, but it does come from a source I trust. We could be about to see a massive shift in Labour policy - to support a 4 year Council Tax freeze? Maybe, but I'm not convinced.
Or perhaps this tells us something else about Labour's approach. Are they saying what they think people want to hear?
Earlier this week we saw Labour launch its campaign in the full glare of publicity with a document that mis-represented the SNP manifesto in 20 of the 100 examples. It did this by either excluding parts of quotes that changed the meaning, or in two cases, rewriting the actual quote from the manifesto.
If this is what is happening in such a public forum - you can hardly get more public than your campaign launch - it does make me wonder just what is going on in the very private and hidden space of a telephone call. Answers on a postcard please.
Friday, 28 January 2011
Alex Salmond's 9th Desert Island Disc
When I spoke to Alex earlier in the week, I asked him what his 9th Desert Island Disc would have been, if he had been able to sneak another one on to the island.
Through Alex's campaign twitter account and facebook page, we've been asking people to take a guess. No one, I'm afraid to say, has come close, although there were some 'creative' suggestions.
So here is what he said:
Through Alex's campaign twitter account and facebook page, we've been asking people to take a guess. No one, I'm afraid to say, has come close, although there were some 'creative' suggestions.
So here is what he said:
Is 100 days too early?
Earlier this week, with 100 days to go, both the SNP and Labour 'launched' their respective campaigns for Scotland's election in May. This has prompted some criticism among the Holyrood criterati. Alan Cochrane in the Telegraph led the charge, suggesting that the party leaders were ready to 'bore us rigid' over the next 100 days, while Hamish Macdonnell in the Caledonian Mercury warned of electoral (or electorate) 'burnout'. So are they right?
The reality of modern political campaigning is that the run up to election day is a slow burn process. It is worth noting that in the US half Barack Obama's senior staffers have recently stepped down to work on a re-election campaign that is just under 2 years away. And while we don't want to move to the semi-permanent electoral cycle of the US Presidential race, I have no doubt all Scotland's political parties have been gearing up for the campaign since May of last year. I know in my own case that I stopped working for the Scottish Government last April to focus first on the UK election before turning my attention to policy preparation for Scotland's general election and an SNP second term.
For the SNP, the first landmark in this campaign was our Party Conference in October, where the campaign theme - and overall message - was launched and the first suite of materials for activists was distributed. And since then activity on the ground has been steadily increasing, with the party out knocking doors and delivering leaflets.
We've certainly upped the pace since the start of the year and the 100 days to go 'launch' set the framework for that party activity. It is not surprising that Labour, the only other party with any real organisation across Scotland, is choosing to do the same. This election is, after all a two horse race: it would require an electoral turnaround of almost unimaginable proportions for someone other than Alex Salmond or Iain Gray to become First Minister. Sorry Patrick, Annabel, George and Tavish.
Again, the reality of modern campaigning is that much of it happens below the surface. I very much doubt the newspapers will be chock full of campaign ins and outs until the end of the Parliamentary session in March and the start of the short campaign shortly thereafter. The political engagement will not be in newsprint, but instead face to face, or at least one on one. It will be targeted letters, doorstep canvassing or telephone calls. And probably more so than ever before it will be through engagement online.
The SNP's plan to set out a series of policy proposals - one a week - over the next few weeks has also been criticised. But it is hardly overload. In fact I think Scotland's voters deserve nothing less than to hear what the parties have to offer. The message we get on doorstep after doorstep is 'tell us what you are going to do'. If people are bored, it is of the playground politics: the carping, negativity and posturing that dominates too much of parliamentary debate and yes, too much of political analysis.
Standing on a policy platform, talking about a policy platform, is the right approach. And I sincerely hope the other parties consider doing the same. Scotland deserves a contest of ideas. And I hope that Labour rises to that challenge: if they sincerely think there are all these problems, then they should start giving us their solutions.
Tonight, this weekend and probably every night from now until the election, politicians and activists will be out in Scotland's communities. They will be making their case and asking for support. That is a good thing. The more politicians get out of the Holyrood bubble the better as far as I am concerned. Reading this week's articles on the 100 days, some might say it is the commentators who need to get out a little more. But would we really inflict that on the people of Scotland?
The reality of modern political campaigning is that the run up to election day is a slow burn process. It is worth noting that in the US half Barack Obama's senior staffers have recently stepped down to work on a re-election campaign that is just under 2 years away. And while we don't want to move to the semi-permanent electoral cycle of the US Presidential race, I have no doubt all Scotland's political parties have been gearing up for the campaign since May of last year. I know in my own case that I stopped working for the Scottish Government last April to focus first on the UK election before turning my attention to policy preparation for Scotland's general election and an SNP second term.
For the SNP, the first landmark in this campaign was our Party Conference in October, where the campaign theme - and overall message - was launched and the first suite of materials for activists was distributed. And since then activity on the ground has been steadily increasing, with the party out knocking doors and delivering leaflets.
We've certainly upped the pace since the start of the year and the 100 days to go 'launch' set the framework for that party activity. It is not surprising that Labour, the only other party with any real organisation across Scotland, is choosing to do the same. This election is, after all a two horse race: it would require an electoral turnaround of almost unimaginable proportions for someone other than Alex Salmond or Iain Gray to become First Minister. Sorry Patrick, Annabel, George and Tavish.
Again, the reality of modern campaigning is that much of it happens below the surface. I very much doubt the newspapers will be chock full of campaign ins and outs until the end of the Parliamentary session in March and the start of the short campaign shortly thereafter. The political engagement will not be in newsprint, but instead face to face, or at least one on one. It will be targeted letters, doorstep canvassing or telephone calls. And probably more so than ever before it will be through engagement online.
The SNP's plan to set out a series of policy proposals - one a week - over the next few weeks has also been criticised. But it is hardly overload. In fact I think Scotland's voters deserve nothing less than to hear what the parties have to offer. The message we get on doorstep after doorstep is 'tell us what you are going to do'. If people are bored, it is of the playground politics: the carping, negativity and posturing that dominates too much of parliamentary debate and yes, too much of political analysis.
Standing on a policy platform, talking about a policy platform, is the right approach. And I sincerely hope the other parties consider doing the same. Scotland deserves a contest of ideas. And I hope that Labour rises to that challenge: if they sincerely think there are all these problems, then they should start giving us their solutions.
Tonight, this weekend and probably every night from now until the election, politicians and activists will be out in Scotland's communities. They will be making their case and asking for support. That is a good thing. The more politicians get out of the Holyrood bubble the better as far as I am concerned. Reading this week's articles on the 100 days, some might say it is the commentators who need to get out a little more. But would we really inflict that on the people of Scotland?
Thursday, 27 January 2011
Some of the facts that featured in FMQs
FMQs today was not for the faint-hearted. I'm guessing that Tavish Scott wished he hadn't got out of bed this morning.
From my time on the FMQ team I know just how well the First Minister can deploy facts, and today was a masterclass.
Tavish Scott asked, once again, about senior salaries and bonuses. Last week he told the Chamber that the salary bill for those earning over £100,000 had risen by £50 million. A sign, he said, of SNP failure to get a grip on the pay bill. £50 million of savings could be made if only the government would get tough.
And then today we discovered the reality. The biggest part of the increase, £40 million, is due to the salaries of some 450 NHS consultants - the doctors doing some of the most important work in the health service - rising from just under £100k to just over. To save the Lib Dem's £40 million would, therefore, require the sacking of all 450 of these doctors (and as a result the chaotic cancellation of numerous operations, treatments, consultations in our hospitals). And to put the consultants' salaries back to what they were last year would save only £400,000.
And still, in his second question, Tavish Scott clung for dear life to the crumbling wreckage of his £50 million 'saving'. So I am guessing that Lib Dem policy is now to sack 450 hospital consultants. And so if you are considering voting Lib Dem (something I know very, very few of you will be doing) then do so in the knowledge of what it will mean for the NHS. And don't expect to see a hospital consultant in a Lib Dem Scotland anytime soon.
From my time on the FMQ team I know just how well the First Minister can deploy facts, and today was a masterclass.
Tavish Scott asked, once again, about senior salaries and bonuses. Last week he told the Chamber that the salary bill for those earning over £100,000 had risen by £50 million. A sign, he said, of SNP failure to get a grip on the pay bill. £50 million of savings could be made if only the government would get tough.
And then today we discovered the reality. The biggest part of the increase, £40 million, is due to the salaries of some 450 NHS consultants - the doctors doing some of the most important work in the health service - rising from just under £100k to just over. To save the Lib Dem's £40 million would, therefore, require the sacking of all 450 of these doctors (and as a result the chaotic cancellation of numerous operations, treatments, consultations in our hospitals). And to put the consultants' salaries back to what they were last year would save only £400,000.
And still, in his second question, Tavish Scott clung for dear life to the crumbling wreckage of his £50 million 'saving'. So I am guessing that Lib Dem policy is now to sack 450 hospital consultants. And so if you are considering voting Lib Dem (something I know very, very few of you will be doing) then do so in the knowledge of what it will mean for the NHS. And don't expect to see a hospital consultant in a Lib Dem Scotland anytime soon.
Tuesday, 25 January 2011
Alex Salmond talks about Robert Burns
I got the chance earlier today - Burns Day - to speak to Alex Salmond about Robert Burns. Alex talked about his favourite Burns poem, the Burns museum and the new Scottish Government Burns App (which he told me is now the fifth most downloaded free app on iTunes).
You can see what he had to say:
I also asked Alex what his 9th Desert Island Disc would have been (if he could have sneaked an extra one onto the island). That video will be up on Alex's new facebook page over the next few days. But before it does, let me know what song you think the First Minister might have chosen.
And in case you wondered, the vastly improved quality of the video is down to Kirk Torrance, the camera man for this video. Thank you Kirk!
You can see what he had to say:
I also asked Alex what his 9th Desert Island Disc would have been (if he could have sneaked an extra one onto the island). That video will be up on Alex's new facebook page over the next few days. But before it does, let me know what song you think the First Minister might have chosen.
And in case you wondered, the vastly improved quality of the video is down to Kirk Torrance, the camera man for this video. Thank you Kirk!
The SNP online
It's been great seeing Scotland's Cabinet ministers, one by one, joining twitter.
The first to take the plunge many months ago was Nicola Sturgeon, followed by Michael Russell (who has been a long-standing Facebook user). A fortnight ago John Swinney and Bruce Crawford joined the ever-growing SNP tweeting community. And last week it was Kenny MacAskill. And soon to join them Fiona Hyslop and Richard Lochhead.
For a while now we have become used to seeing Nicola and Michael sitting with their iPads responding to tweets, updating their status and generally communicating with their constituents and wider Scotland. Both have a different style as you will see from their pages (if you haven't already, you should certainly follow them). Perhaps it was this that inspired John and Bruce, Kenny, Fiona and Richard. I wonder if there is any other country in the world where the Cabinet has decided to make themselves so accessible and are becoming so engaged?
At the start of the year former SNP special adviser, Jennifer Dempsie, wrote an excellent article in Scotland on Sunday on the new media opportunities presented by online social networks. You can see her article here: http://voteSNP.com/bi. She suggested the SNP was already ahead and if the past weeks are anything to go by we have extended our lead.
And there is more to come. Later today the official re-elect Alex Salmond as First Minister campaign launches on twitter. The feed will be run by people involved in the SNP campaign, with each staff member identifying their tweets with their initials. So those from me will have SN.
And yes Alex himself will be tweeting. Not every day, but to mark some of his campaign (and other) high points.
You will also see some changes to the SNP website later today. The site will be the most integrated of any political party's with the various social media channels. And the SNP's new media stretegist, Kirk Torrance (KJT), has a range of new initiatives planned for the days and weeks ahead.
The key lesson the SNP is learning is that social networks aren't there to advertise on, they are there to participate in. And if we are authentic, offer a unique perspective and interesting content, and not just political content, we can become part of the social media community. And if that happens, and only if that happens, people might begin to hear some of the politics in what we say.
The first to take the plunge many months ago was Nicola Sturgeon, followed by Michael Russell (who has been a long-standing Facebook user). A fortnight ago John Swinney and Bruce Crawford joined the ever-growing SNP tweeting community. And last week it was Kenny MacAskill. And soon to join them Fiona Hyslop and Richard Lochhead.
For a while now we have become used to seeing Nicola and Michael sitting with their iPads responding to tweets, updating their status and generally communicating with their constituents and wider Scotland. Both have a different style as you will see from their pages (if you haven't already, you should certainly follow them). Perhaps it was this that inspired John and Bruce, Kenny, Fiona and Richard. I wonder if there is any other country in the world where the Cabinet has decided to make themselves so accessible and are becoming so engaged?
At the start of the year former SNP special adviser, Jennifer Dempsie, wrote an excellent article in Scotland on Sunday on the new media opportunities presented by online social networks. You can see her article here: http://voteSNP.com/bi. She suggested the SNP was already ahead and if the past weeks are anything to go by we have extended our lead.
And there is more to come. Later today the official re-elect Alex Salmond as First Minister campaign launches on twitter. The feed will be run by people involved in the SNP campaign, with each staff member identifying their tweets with their initials. So those from me will have SN.
And yes Alex himself will be tweeting. Not every day, but to mark some of his campaign (and other) high points.
You will also see some changes to the SNP website later today. The site will be the most integrated of any political party's with the various social media channels. And the SNP's new media stretegist, Kirk Torrance (KJT), has a range of new initiatives planned for the days and weeks ahead.
The key lesson the SNP is learning is that social networks aren't there to advertise on, they are there to participate in. And if we are authentic, offer a unique perspective and interesting content, and not just political content, we can become part of the social media community. And if that happens, and only if that happens, people might begin to hear some of the politics in what we say.
Monday, 24 January 2011
SNP say thank you to supporters
In what will be the biggest thank you in Scottish politics, SNP Leader Alex Salmond is emailing and writing to SNP supporters to say thank you for their support and to tell them that all the achievements of the past four years couldn't have been done without them.
This is the text of his letter:
In 2007, with your help, the SNP became Scotland's Government. It is because of your support that Scotland now has 1,000 more police officers in our communities. And these police officers have helped deliver the lowest crime rates in Scotland in 32 years.
Because of you there are 1,000 more nurses in our hospitals and these extra nurses have helped deliver shorter waiting times. And there are more cleaners in our wards, which means fewer hospital acquired infections. Your support in 2007 has helped make our life-saving NHS even more successful.
It has created new opportunities for young Scots with 20,000 modern apprenticeship places in the past year - the highest number on record. And already this year over 3,000 new jobs announced.
Thanks to your support, 330 schools will have been built or refurbished – 80 more than was planned by the previous administration.
Your vote in 2007 and support since is saving the average Scottish family over £300 as a result of the Council Tax freeze - vital help in tough times.
And over £20 million has been taken off Scotland's criminals and invested instead in sports opportunities for tens of thousands of young Scots. You have made a big difference to their lives and to our nation. A lot has been achieved because of you. 90% of our headline manifesto commitments have been delivered. Progress that we must not lose or see reversed. So thank you.
Of course, there is more to do. With your support again this May, we will keep the 1,000 extra police on our streets and take even more money from the criminals to give back to communities. We will freeze the Council Tax for another two years, protecting family budgets in the face of rising VAT and higher prices. We will protect NHS budgets, ensuring treatment continues to improve and we will demand fair fuel prices.
And with your support we can secure new job-creating powers for the Scottish parliament. Powers that will enable us to create even more new jobs in the years ahead.
Scotland's election takes place in 100 days. With your support we can build on the work of the past four years. Together, we can make Scotland better. In May, vote for a Scottish Government working for Scotland. Vote for an SNP Government.
This is the text of his letter:
In 2007, with your help, the SNP became Scotland's Government. It is because of your support that Scotland now has 1,000 more police officers in our communities. And these police officers have helped deliver the lowest crime rates in Scotland in 32 years.
Because of you there are 1,000 more nurses in our hospitals and these extra nurses have helped deliver shorter waiting times. And there are more cleaners in our wards, which means fewer hospital acquired infections. Your support in 2007 has helped make our life-saving NHS even more successful.
It has created new opportunities for young Scots with 20,000 modern apprenticeship places in the past year - the highest number on record. And already this year over 3,000 new jobs announced.
Thanks to your support, 330 schools will have been built or refurbished – 80 more than was planned by the previous administration.
Your vote in 2007 and support since is saving the average Scottish family over £300 as a result of the Council Tax freeze - vital help in tough times.
And over £20 million has been taken off Scotland's criminals and invested instead in sports opportunities for tens of thousands of young Scots. You have made a big difference to their lives and to our nation. A lot has been achieved because of you. 90% of our headline manifesto commitments have been delivered. Progress that we must not lose or see reversed. So thank you.
Of course, there is more to do. With your support again this May, we will keep the 1,000 extra police on our streets and take even more money from the criminals to give back to communities. We will freeze the Council Tax for another two years, protecting family budgets in the face of rising VAT and higher prices. We will protect NHS budgets, ensuring treatment continues to improve and we will demand fair fuel prices.
And with your support we can secure new job-creating powers for the Scottish parliament. Powers that will enable us to create even more new jobs in the years ahead.
Scotland's election takes place in 100 days. With your support we can build on the work of the past four years. Together, we can make Scotland better. In May, vote for a Scottish Government working for Scotland. Vote for an SNP Government.
Sunday, 23 January 2011
What's the point?
There is a great opinion piece by Martin Sime, the Chief Executive of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, in Scotland on Sunday today. He asks some pertinent questions about the Scotland Bill. I'll just pick out one, his final thought:
"If the Scotland Bill won't devolve the power to protect the people of Scotland from poverty and inequality, and to allow people the dignity to lead full, independent lives, then frankly, what's the point?"
To this we can add a whole host of questions. Here are just two for starters.
If it doesn't enable us to deal with the planned Tory cuts, but instead adds to the problem because of its inherent 'deflationary bias' (taking hundreds of millions out of Scotland's budget because of the way the tax proposal is designed) then surely changing it is a no-brainer?
If it doesn't give Scotland a single extra job-creating power but instead threatens jobs because of a tax proposal that requires year on year increases in Scottish income tax just to allow us to stand still, then why isn't every political party in Scotland demanding a different approach?
The most recent Scottish Social Attitudes Survey shows a clear majority - around 60% of Scots - in favour of our Parliament having more powers over wealth creation and job creation. People know that real economic recovery will require real economic powers. The Scottish Government is working hard to protect and create jobs as we have seen with the flurry of announcements - Amazon, Ineos, Gamesa - already this year. But does anyone doubt that much more could be achieved with new economic levers, new incentives - with new tools in the toolbox?
The people rubbing their hands with anticipation over the Scotland Bill are based in HM Treasury in London. After decades of trying to cut Scotland's budget by hook or by crook, they are going to be able to do it with the blessing and support of three of Scotland's political parties. You couldn't make it up!
And to think that Labour of all parties is letting the Tory government get away with this; or to be more accurate, is helping them do it.
I started off with a quote from a senior and respected figure in Scotland's third sector and will finish with one from the trades union movement. Speaking to the Daily Record last September, former STUC General Secretary, Campbell Christie, said: "We all remember the poll tax and how Scotland was selected for special punishment by the Tory government of Margaret Thatcher. Well, now the Tories are at it again. The coalition in London are cooking up a new tax just for Scotland - comparable to the hated poll tax in its unfairness."
So tell me again, why are we doing this?
"If the Scotland Bill won't devolve the power to protect the people of Scotland from poverty and inequality, and to allow people the dignity to lead full, independent lives, then frankly, what's the point?"
To this we can add a whole host of questions. Here are just two for starters.
If it doesn't enable us to deal with the planned Tory cuts, but instead adds to the problem because of its inherent 'deflationary bias' (taking hundreds of millions out of Scotland's budget because of the way the tax proposal is designed) then surely changing it is a no-brainer?
If it doesn't give Scotland a single extra job-creating power but instead threatens jobs because of a tax proposal that requires year on year increases in Scottish income tax just to allow us to stand still, then why isn't every political party in Scotland demanding a different approach?
The most recent Scottish Social Attitudes Survey shows a clear majority - around 60% of Scots - in favour of our Parliament having more powers over wealth creation and job creation. People know that real economic recovery will require real economic powers. The Scottish Government is working hard to protect and create jobs as we have seen with the flurry of announcements - Amazon, Ineos, Gamesa - already this year. But does anyone doubt that much more could be achieved with new economic levers, new incentives - with new tools in the toolbox?
The people rubbing their hands with anticipation over the Scotland Bill are based in HM Treasury in London. After decades of trying to cut Scotland's budget by hook or by crook, they are going to be able to do it with the blessing and support of three of Scotland's political parties. You couldn't make it up!
And to think that Labour of all parties is letting the Tory government get away with this; or to be more accurate, is helping them do it.
I started off with a quote from a senior and respected figure in Scotland's third sector and will finish with one from the trades union movement. Speaking to the Daily Record last September, former STUC General Secretary, Campbell Christie, said: "We all remember the poll tax and how Scotland was selected for special punishment by the Tory government of Margaret Thatcher. Well, now the Tories are at it again. The coalition in London are cooking up a new tax just for Scotland - comparable to the hated poll tax in its unfairness."
So tell me again, why are we doing this?
Saturday, 22 January 2011
The curious case of the missing nation
The most bizarre Scottish election leaflet is currently going through some doors in the city of Edinburgh. A Labour consultation leaflet, it stretches to 16 pages and doesn't once use the word Scotland or Scottish. It asks plenty of questions about Britain, but not one about how we can make Scotland more successful. Strange.
With almost 100 days to go until Scotland's election, is Labour trying to airbrush Scotland out of its campaign? Does the party not have the resources in Scotland to produce its own material? Or is it about to repeat the mistake of 2007 (when it chose to fight a referendum campaign instead of a Scottish election campaign) by trying to (re)fight a UK election?
An alternative answer came to me during one of our regular research debriefs yesterday. Over the past few weeks we have been speaking to people in the sorts of seats we will need to win to secure a more comfortable 'majority' in parliament: people who are tending towards a vote for Labour, but still open to the SNP. And amongst these people not a single person was able to name the leader of the Labour Party in the Scottish Parliament and their candidate to be First Minister (Iain Gray in case you were wondering).
In some cases this lack of knowledge at first provoked collective laughter - wasn't it funny no one could name the leader of the party they were considering supporting. And then came the realisation. It wasn't funny it showed there was something wrong. A few murmurs of recognition and a bit of chat would follow, but not one of these 'Labour leaners' saw Iain Gray as a potential First Minister.
So are Labour going British for this Scottish election campaign because they are also aware of this fairly fundamental problem? Are they hoping that because no one has noticed who their leader is, then no one will notice when he is missing from their material? That might work 18 months out, but not when people are going into a Scottish election to choose a Parliament that is responsible for so much that is important in our day to day lives and to decide the best government for Scotland and the best FM.
Labour's lead in the polls is like the house built on sand. The questions came, the scrutiny increased, the focus changed, and it fell with a great crash.
With almost 100 days to go until Scotland's election, is Labour trying to airbrush Scotland out of its campaign? Does the party not have the resources in Scotland to produce its own material? Or is it about to repeat the mistake of 2007 (when it chose to fight a referendum campaign instead of a Scottish election campaign) by trying to (re)fight a UK election?
An alternative answer came to me during one of our regular research debriefs yesterday. Over the past few weeks we have been speaking to people in the sorts of seats we will need to win to secure a more comfortable 'majority' in parliament: people who are tending towards a vote for Labour, but still open to the SNP. And amongst these people not a single person was able to name the leader of the Labour Party in the Scottish Parliament and their candidate to be First Minister (Iain Gray in case you were wondering).
In some cases this lack of knowledge at first provoked collective laughter - wasn't it funny no one could name the leader of the party they were considering supporting. And then came the realisation. It wasn't funny it showed there was something wrong. A few murmurs of recognition and a bit of chat would follow, but not one of these 'Labour leaners' saw Iain Gray as a potential First Minister.
So are Labour going British for this Scottish election campaign because they are also aware of this fairly fundamental problem? Are they hoping that because no one has noticed who their leader is, then no one will notice when he is missing from their material? That might work 18 months out, but not when people are going into a Scottish election to choose a Parliament that is responsible for so much that is important in our day to day lives and to decide the best government for Scotland and the best FM.
Labour's lead in the polls is like the house built on sand. The questions came, the scrutiny increased, the focus changed, and it fell with a great crash.
Thursday, 20 January 2011
European constitutionalism
It has been a busy start to the year with policy and preparation for the election and so I was pleased today to fit in some solid time working on my dissertation.
The overall thrust of the research is looking at the interaction between European law and international law and one key element of this is the creation by the European Court of Justice of a body of case law that has effectively constitutionalised the EU.
What I find amazing about these cases is that some fairly significant legal steps were taken by acts of judicial will. Doctrines that don't feature in the Treaties, and indeed were opposed in court by the Member States, were developed and over time have become central tenets of the European legal order.
Today I was reading a collection of essays co-edited by one of the Advocates General of the Court, Miguel Maduro (The past and future of EU law: the classics of EU law revisited on the 50th anniversary of the Rome Treaty), which explores some of the foundational cases: cases that few have heard of but which have had a huge impact on our countries and our lives.
In 1963, in Van Gend en Loos the Court establishes the presumption that EU law, broadly speaking, has direct effect, compared to other international treaties, which again broadly speaking, do not. So the European Treaties become about more than relations between States. They can also create enforceable rights and obligations for citizens. Europe today would be an almost unimaginably different place without this judgment. Van Gend en Loos is perhaps best known for one phrase - the Court describing EU law as a 'new legal order of international law', although it quickly dropped the 'international law' from that description. In the eyes (and actions) of the Court, EU law was autonomous from national legal orders.
And just a year later, in Costa v ENEL, the Court took the next big constitutional step, finding that EU law had primacy over national law. This is something that has been accepted by national courts across Europe but has never featured in the Treaties. There was an attempt in the ill-fated Constitutional Treaty to include a primacy clause, but this was watered down in the eventual Lisbon Treaty to become merely a declaration on the established case law.
What primacy means, at its crudest, is that EU law trumps national law: if a national measure is in breach of EU law or doesn't adequately reflect EU law, then it is the EU law position that must be followed in the national courts. Perhaps the most famous UK case on this question is Factortame, resulting in the disapplication of part of an Act of Parliament. There was of course some constitutional dancing around the issue of the Sovereignty of Parliament, but the bottom line remained: it was the EU law position that came out on top. In a Scottish context, the primacy of EU law over Acts of the Scottish Parliament was confirmed in Whaley v Lord Advocate in 2004.
What these two European cases tell me is that there was a huge confidence among the judges of the Court of Justice: they saw their legal responsibility as contributing towards the ever closer union of the peoples of Europe and the uniform and effective delivery of the common market among other things. Forests have been cut down to provide the many pages of many books discussing this particular aspect of European law, and so it is impossible to do justice to it in the course of a blog. However, what happened, and I suppose in some respects is still happening, is worthy of comment on two fronts.
First, so much of this occurred under the radar. It is only in recent years that politicians have woken up to the reality of this constitutionalisation of EU law: some have said their efforts are the political equivalent of trying to shut the stable door well after the horse has bolted.
And second, despite my surprise and sometimes shock at the process, I must say I think the Court took the right decisions and did set Europe on the right path. What we have today in the European Union, what we hold most dear - the open market, open borders, real rights on issues like equal pay - could not have happened without the actions of these judges working away quietly in their court in Luxembourg. Yes, there are issues in the EU today: questions of accountability and next steps. But on a day to day level much of the European project works and works well for us here in Scotland. And, to throw in some politics, it can and will work better when we are a Member State.
The overall thrust of the research is looking at the interaction between European law and international law and one key element of this is the creation by the European Court of Justice of a body of case law that has effectively constitutionalised the EU.
What I find amazing about these cases is that some fairly significant legal steps were taken by acts of judicial will. Doctrines that don't feature in the Treaties, and indeed were opposed in court by the Member States, were developed and over time have become central tenets of the European legal order.
Today I was reading a collection of essays co-edited by one of the Advocates General of the Court, Miguel Maduro (The past and future of EU law: the classics of EU law revisited on the 50th anniversary of the Rome Treaty), which explores some of the foundational cases: cases that few have heard of but which have had a huge impact on our countries and our lives.
In 1963, in Van Gend en Loos the Court establishes the presumption that EU law, broadly speaking, has direct effect, compared to other international treaties, which again broadly speaking, do not. So the European Treaties become about more than relations between States. They can also create enforceable rights and obligations for citizens. Europe today would be an almost unimaginably different place without this judgment. Van Gend en Loos is perhaps best known for one phrase - the Court describing EU law as a 'new legal order of international law', although it quickly dropped the 'international law' from that description. In the eyes (and actions) of the Court, EU law was autonomous from national legal orders.
And just a year later, in Costa v ENEL, the Court took the next big constitutional step, finding that EU law had primacy over national law. This is something that has been accepted by national courts across Europe but has never featured in the Treaties. There was an attempt in the ill-fated Constitutional Treaty to include a primacy clause, but this was watered down in the eventual Lisbon Treaty to become merely a declaration on the established case law.
What primacy means, at its crudest, is that EU law trumps national law: if a national measure is in breach of EU law or doesn't adequately reflect EU law, then it is the EU law position that must be followed in the national courts. Perhaps the most famous UK case on this question is Factortame, resulting in the disapplication of part of an Act of Parliament. There was of course some constitutional dancing around the issue of the Sovereignty of Parliament, but the bottom line remained: it was the EU law position that came out on top. In a Scottish context, the primacy of EU law over Acts of the Scottish Parliament was confirmed in Whaley v Lord Advocate in 2004.
What these two European cases tell me is that there was a huge confidence among the judges of the Court of Justice: they saw their legal responsibility as contributing towards the ever closer union of the peoples of Europe and the uniform and effective delivery of the common market among other things. Forests have been cut down to provide the many pages of many books discussing this particular aspect of European law, and so it is impossible to do justice to it in the course of a blog. However, what happened, and I suppose in some respects is still happening, is worthy of comment on two fronts.
First, so much of this occurred under the radar. It is only in recent years that politicians have woken up to the reality of this constitutionalisation of EU law: some have said their efforts are the political equivalent of trying to shut the stable door well after the horse has bolted.
And second, despite my surprise and sometimes shock at the process, I must say I think the Court took the right decisions and did set Europe on the right path. What we have today in the European Union, what we hold most dear - the open market, open borders, real rights on issues like equal pay - could not have happened without the actions of these judges working away quietly in their court in Luxembourg. Yes, there are issues in the EU today: questions of accountability and next steps. But on a day to day level much of the European project works and works well for us here in Scotland. And, to throw in some politics, it can and will work better when we are a Member State.
Wednesday, 19 January 2011
Poverty Truth
I've been reflecting on what was probably the best meeting so far in the manifesto process, with the Poverty Truth Commission last Friday.
Before I go on any more, I want you first to hear one of the Commissioners talking about the difference involving communities does make:
Before I go on any more, I want you first to hear one of the Commissioners talking about the difference involving communities does make:
It isn't often that the problem with the way we govern and are governed is laid bare in such stark terms. It takes a lot of effort at a government or council level to break out of policy silos, to see initiatives and ideas in the broadest terms. So, is this action on health also helping the economy or contributing on climate change? Is this measure designed to tackle anti-social behaviour having a wider impact, positive or negative? Will this idea actually work?
Government is split into interests, which naturally views problems from one perspective. There is also a pressure to act, or at least be seen to act. The challenge in government is bringing these perspectives and pressures together in a coherent way. It is not just finding a solution, but the right solution. This can be done with difficulty at the top, but with greater ease at a community level.
Bottom up solutions are joined up solutions because the people making the decisions see more of the picture: they will have a better sense of what works because they are actually living it.
On Friday I heard more practical and effective ideas - evidenced with real life examples - than I had in any other meeting in this process. I don't know if any would grab a headline, but they are each making a difference.
They have given us a lot to think about in terms of the detail, and left a powerfully clear message about the bigger picture. Successful policy is policy that is built by and with our communities. Scotland has a complex mosaic of need and that must be responded to with a mosaic of solutions, some very local. Government in the centre doesn't know best. People like me, 'policy wonks', certainly don't. Communities do. The Be Part of Better consultation has helped, but meetings like this one are crucial too.
And if I didn't know it already, the meeting brought home just how remote too much of politics is (or has become). We do live in a bubble and it is a bubble that needs burst.
I have written a few times now that community empowerment will be a big theme for a second term SNP government. Friday's meeting has confirmed in my mind that this is the right approach. But it has to be real, it has to go beyond the words on the pages of a policy document and become a way of delivery that has people and their community at its heart. And that is a challenge I believe we are up for.
Tuesday, 18 January 2011
SNP to set out new housing plans
SNP housing minister, Alex Neil MSP, tells me that his new housing plans will be published next month. Alex gave me a few minutes of his time to talk about housing policy.
You can still contribute to our wider policy consultation. Visit the Be Part of Better website and tell us what your priorities are for the next 4 years.
Monday, 17 January 2011
It's sad to say but Westminster scrutiny of the Scotland Bill will put the Scottish Parliament to shame
I am pretty much ashamed of the way the Scottish Parliament is dealing with the Scotland Bill. This is a hugely significant piece of legislation for Scotland's future and yet the Scotland Bill Committee, or at least the dominant elements in the Committee, seems determined to avoid any detailed scrutiny of the legislation itself.
We've seen the headlines about the treatment of Professors Hughes-Hallett and Scott last week, but what the reports don't mention is that the lead Tory and Labour members of the Committee failed to ask any questions about the evidence the Professors had submitted on the Scotland Bill itself. Much as I may dislike it, this Bill is not about fiscal autonomy: it is about something that falls far short. It is, therefore, almost beyond belief that they did not ask a single question about the supposed subject of the Committee.
This behaviour has already resulted in another respected academic deciding not to appear before the Committee.
Very few Bills go through the Scottish Parliament without amendment (I can only think of the few emergency Bills in this category, all 'regular' Bills are amended). And, while I recognise the different procedure needed here because it is a Westminster Bill, I can't believe our Parliament will stand on the sidelines in this way. It will be a failure of democracy if the Scottish Parliament does not suggest improvements.
The contrast with the passage of the Scotland Bill in 1998 is stark. Then, the Lib Dems, who had been part of the Constitutional Convention - the body that effectively created the proposals that were being legislated on (much in the same way as the Calman Commission) - still sought amendments. They argued and voted for devolution of the Crown Estate Commission and for Scotland to have a bigger say and role in the EU, among others.
The House of Lords, even the House of Lords, saw robust debate and scrutiny - and change to the Bill. Is it going to be the case that the unelected House of Lords is seen to do a better job than Scottish Parliament?
And in 1998 the Labour government was open to improvements. I remember one particular campaign, led by Roseanna Cunningham to give the Scottish Parliament additional responsibilities over equalities issues in Scotland. She tabled a series of amendments before the government accepted her argument with an amendment in the later stages of the Bill by Maria Fyfe. Certainly the Labour Party robustly rejected many of our other arguments, but their minds were not closed on all aspects of the Bill.
The late Donald Dewar and his 'minister for devolution', Henry McLeish, clearly had enough confidence in their proposals to accept some change. And that contrast with today speaks volumes for the new Scotland Bill. Wendy Alexander (who, of course was Donald Dewar's special adviser at the time) and David McLetchie can't even allow two academics to give evidence on the Scotland Bill's tax plans! Their actions simply expose this Bill's weakness.
The Scottish Parliament has a responsibility here. This legislation, indeed no complex legislation, is perfect on first draft. Lets look at it and ask what difference will it make to our ability to create jobs in Scotland? How will it help us deal with, or minimise, the decade of planned Tory cuts? What will it do to make Scotland more competitive and our economy and society more successful? If the answer to these questions is nothing or not a lot, then surely we must make the Bill better. Or are Labour and Tory united in saying that this is a job only for the Commons and Lords? Is that how they really view Scotland's Parliament?
We've seen the headlines about the treatment of Professors Hughes-Hallett and Scott last week, but what the reports don't mention is that the lead Tory and Labour members of the Committee failed to ask any questions about the evidence the Professors had submitted on the Scotland Bill itself. Much as I may dislike it, this Bill is not about fiscal autonomy: it is about something that falls far short. It is, therefore, almost beyond belief that they did not ask a single question about the supposed subject of the Committee.
This behaviour has already resulted in another respected academic deciding not to appear before the Committee.
Very few Bills go through the Scottish Parliament without amendment (I can only think of the few emergency Bills in this category, all 'regular' Bills are amended). And, while I recognise the different procedure needed here because it is a Westminster Bill, I can't believe our Parliament will stand on the sidelines in this way. It will be a failure of democracy if the Scottish Parliament does not suggest improvements.
The contrast with the passage of the Scotland Bill in 1998 is stark. Then, the Lib Dems, who had been part of the Constitutional Convention - the body that effectively created the proposals that were being legislated on (much in the same way as the Calman Commission) - still sought amendments. They argued and voted for devolution of the Crown Estate Commission and for Scotland to have a bigger say and role in the EU, among others.
The House of Lords, even the House of Lords, saw robust debate and scrutiny - and change to the Bill. Is it going to be the case that the unelected House of Lords is seen to do a better job than Scottish Parliament?
And in 1998 the Labour government was open to improvements. I remember one particular campaign, led by Roseanna Cunningham to give the Scottish Parliament additional responsibilities over equalities issues in Scotland. She tabled a series of amendments before the government accepted her argument with an amendment in the later stages of the Bill by Maria Fyfe. Certainly the Labour Party robustly rejected many of our other arguments, but their minds were not closed on all aspects of the Bill.
The late Donald Dewar and his 'minister for devolution', Henry McLeish, clearly had enough confidence in their proposals to accept some change. And that contrast with today speaks volumes for the new Scotland Bill. Wendy Alexander (who, of course was Donald Dewar's special adviser at the time) and David McLetchie can't even allow two academics to give evidence on the Scotland Bill's tax plans! Their actions simply expose this Bill's weakness.
The Scottish Parliament has a responsibility here. This legislation, indeed no complex legislation, is perfect on first draft. Lets look at it and ask what difference will it make to our ability to create jobs in Scotland? How will it help us deal with, or minimise, the decade of planned Tory cuts? What will it do to make Scotland more competitive and our economy and society more successful? If the answer to these questions is nothing or not a lot, then surely we must make the Bill better. Or are Labour and Tory united in saying that this is a job only for the Commons and Lords? Is that how they really view Scotland's Parliament?
Sunday, 16 January 2011
Scotland's iPhone election?
That's week one as a blogger under my belt. It has been an interesting experience. It has also added to my love affair with the iPhone.
As a special adviser I had a blackberry and when moving to work with the SNP, I chose an iPhone. The difference was immediate. Blackberry is all about work: email after email. With my blackberry there was not too much that raised a smile. But iPhone brings together work and pleasure - and now, as I have discovered, work, pleasure and political campaigning, publishing, broadcasting and much, much more.
My own experience of this past week, and knowing the way others in the SNP are using their iPhones or smartphones, has led me to wonder whether Scotland's election this year could be our first iPhone election?
My iPhone allows me to tweet political messages. It has allowed me to record and publish video interviews with key figures in the Cabinet and government, with more behind the scenes footage to come. It allows me to keep a picture record of key meetings and some of the personal highlights of the campaign so far, many of which I hope to share. And each of these tasks takes just a few minutes. I know many politicians will be doing the same or similar as they build up their local networks and engage the online community in their campaign.
For a politician like Nicola Sturgeon, with her thousands of followers on twitter - many of them constituents - the final campaign tweets could add a few hundred votes to her majority on polling day. And with her local media also following her tweets, she has created a channel of communication that embraces both online and offline media.
And perhaps the most important initiative, the SNP's iPhone app. This leading edge piece of technology provides SNP campaigners with real-time access to the most sophisticated contact management system in Scottish politics. It will open up new campaigning opportunities and create an army of activists that is more flexible, more responsive and better connected than ever before to the central campaign team. Sitting in SNP HQ we will be able to see what is effectively live information from doorsteps across Scotland.
There were many reasons the SNP won in 2007. Better technology and better use of technology was part of it. And this time, I have no doubt the iPhone advantage rests firmly with the SNP.
As a special adviser I had a blackberry and when moving to work with the SNP, I chose an iPhone. The difference was immediate. Blackberry is all about work: email after email. With my blackberry there was not too much that raised a smile. But iPhone brings together work and pleasure - and now, as I have discovered, work, pleasure and political campaigning, publishing, broadcasting and much, much more.
My own experience of this past week, and knowing the way others in the SNP are using their iPhones or smartphones, has led me to wonder whether Scotland's election this year could be our first iPhone election?
My iPhone allows me to tweet political messages. It has allowed me to record and publish video interviews with key figures in the Cabinet and government, with more behind the scenes footage to come. It allows me to keep a picture record of key meetings and some of the personal highlights of the campaign so far, many of which I hope to share. And each of these tasks takes just a few minutes. I know many politicians will be doing the same or similar as they build up their local networks and engage the online community in their campaign.
For a politician like Nicola Sturgeon, with her thousands of followers on twitter - many of them constituents - the final campaign tweets could add a few hundred votes to her majority on polling day. And with her local media also following her tweets, she has created a channel of communication that embraces both online and offline media.
And perhaps the most important initiative, the SNP's iPhone app. This leading edge piece of technology provides SNP campaigners with real-time access to the most sophisticated contact management system in Scottish politics. It will open up new campaigning opportunities and create an army of activists that is more flexible, more responsive and better connected than ever before to the central campaign team. Sitting in SNP HQ we will be able to see what is effectively live information from doorsteps across Scotland.
There were many reasons the SNP won in 2007. Better technology and better use of technology was part of it. And this time, I have no doubt the iPhone advantage rests firmly with the SNP.
Saturday, 15 January 2011
Getting stuck on the wrong side of the argument
I've watched with some amazement this week as the Labour Party and Lib Dems have let their blinkered view of Holyrood politics cloud their judgement.
The knee-jerk 'oppose-everything-the-SNP-wants-to-do' mindset might not matter for some issues, but on three door-step concerns they have got themselves on the wrong side of the argument and seem incapable of seeing sense. Good news of course for SNP candidates on the doors and streets of Scotland this weekend.
First, of course, was alcohol pricing. The Be Part of Better survey is clear that this is an important priority for people and that they see a link between price and consumption and consumption and crime. When you have opposition MSPs standing in the parliamentary bar admitting their 'no' vote is to stop the SNP having a cigarette ban moment, something has gone badly wrong. Attacking minimum pricing may go down well in some Holyrood bubble circles, but in the real world it is seen as the wrong approach, and just as damaging for Labour, done for the wrong reasons.
Second is the Council Tax freeze. Every SNP candidate I speak to tells me this is a top issue on the doors. I was reading Deborah Mattinson's Talking to a Brick Wall and it gives a fascinating insight into people's underlying beliefs about the Labour Party. It tracks the angst in the upper echelons of the Labour Party over their reputation as a high tax party. Tax increases go to the heart of people's fears about Labour and in Scotland voters remember the doubling of Council Tax in the decade before the SNP's Council Tax freeze. Labour's policy on Council Tax brings these fears right back to the surface. Their approach is costing them votes. People think they literally can't afford a Labour government.
And this week it has been the new levy on a small number of large retailers. It seems Labour and Lib Dems are going to choose to bolster supermarket profits by millions and in doing so take £30 million out of the pockets of Scottish voters with an even bigger Council Tax increase or cut £30 million off local services. On a rough calculation we are talking about 1000 fewer nurses or 6 new schools each year that won't be built. Or if services are to be maintained it would add £30 million to their planned Council Tax increase. The voices speaking loudest on this in Holyrood are certainly the lobbyists and it delights me, on a purely political level, that Labour and others seem more tuned in to those voices than to the voices of businesses on High Streets and Main Streets across Scotland. And putting aside the politics, as a Scot, I hope they see sense.
The knee-jerk 'oppose-everything-the-SNP-wants-to-do' mindset might not matter for some issues, but on three door-step concerns they have got themselves on the wrong side of the argument and seem incapable of seeing sense. Good news of course for SNP candidates on the doors and streets of Scotland this weekend.
First, of course, was alcohol pricing. The Be Part of Better survey is clear that this is an important priority for people and that they see a link between price and consumption and consumption and crime. When you have opposition MSPs standing in the parliamentary bar admitting their 'no' vote is to stop the SNP having a cigarette ban moment, something has gone badly wrong. Attacking minimum pricing may go down well in some Holyrood bubble circles, but in the real world it is seen as the wrong approach, and just as damaging for Labour, done for the wrong reasons.
Second is the Council Tax freeze. Every SNP candidate I speak to tells me this is a top issue on the doors. I was reading Deborah Mattinson's Talking to a Brick Wall and it gives a fascinating insight into people's underlying beliefs about the Labour Party. It tracks the angst in the upper echelons of the Labour Party over their reputation as a high tax party. Tax increases go to the heart of people's fears about Labour and in Scotland voters remember the doubling of Council Tax in the decade before the SNP's Council Tax freeze. Labour's policy on Council Tax brings these fears right back to the surface. Their approach is costing them votes. People think they literally can't afford a Labour government.
And this week it has been the new levy on a small number of large retailers. It seems Labour and Lib Dems are going to choose to bolster supermarket profits by millions and in doing so take £30 million out of the pockets of Scottish voters with an even bigger Council Tax increase or cut £30 million off local services. On a rough calculation we are talking about 1000 fewer nurses or 6 new schools each year that won't be built. Or if services are to be maintained it would add £30 million to their planned Council Tax increase. The voices speaking loudest on this in Holyrood are certainly the lobbyists and it delights me, on a purely political level, that Labour and others seem more tuned in to those voices than to the voices of businesses on High Streets and Main Streets across Scotland. And putting aside the politics, as a Scot, I hope they see sense.
Fiona Hyslop on the new pandas
I caught up with Fiona Hyslop MSP, Scotland's culture minister, during the week. I'll be coming back to Fiona a lot to talk about Scotland's digital, creative and cultural opportunity. This is an area of great potential for our nation: opportunity built on deep and strong cultural roots.
The creative sector is about more than 'just' the arts, it is about health and wellbeing, economic growth and jobs, confidence, Scotland's place in the world and more.
And similarly the arrival of the pandas is about more than two new animals for Edinburgh zoo. It speaks to Scotland's relationship with China, it recognises Edinburgh zoo's status at the forefront of conservation and of course it is great for tourism, economy and Scottish jobs. Here's what Fiona had to say:
The creative sector is about more than 'just' the arts, it is about health and wellbeing, economic growth and jobs, confidence, Scotland's place in the world and more.
And similarly the arrival of the pandas is about more than two new animals for Edinburgh zoo. It speaks to Scotland's relationship with China, it recognises Edinburgh zoo's status at the forefront of conservation and of course it is great for tourism, economy and Scottish jobs. Here's what Fiona had to say:
Friday, 14 January 2011
The power of sport
I was at the gym this morning and during the work out I got thinking about the difference sport has made to my life and the life lessons it has taught me. I was doing a crossfit workout that included a max weight 'power snatch'. The key to this lift is co-ordination - if muscles can work together at the same time (or at the right time) you can lift more. So it becomes a matter of technique as much as strength. So, for olympic lifting the lesson is the best results come when the different parts (of the body) work together.
For crossfit itself, the skill taught is forcing myself to finish. The typical crossfit workout is short and intense. The workout is done in rounds and quite often by the time I am half way through I have the almost overwhelming urge to stop. But because it is timed and a bit competitive there is a determination to see it to the end. For gymnastics it is all about removing fear. When I am about to throw myself through the air, fear could literally be crippling. And for breakdance, if I go into a move in a half-hearted way, I know I have no chance of doing it.
During the Festival last year I went along to a breakin' convention and was hugely impressed by the sort of role models that the dancers/performers offered to the many young men and women in the audience. They showed passion and determination, and spoke of the rewards of commitment, and a lifestyle that wasn't based around getting drunk.
I had very little interest in sport when I was younger, which is something I do, to some extent, regret and a big part of that is the realisation that there were crucial life lessons I could have learnt a little earlier. That is why I believe we should all take part in more sport - whether we are young or old. It is not just a question of health, but also of attitude and life skills. And for that reason it is great to see the commitment to school sport in the new Curriculum for Excellence.
And in case you were wondering, I managed a new personal best with my power snatch - 99lbs!
For crossfit itself, the skill taught is forcing myself to finish. The typical crossfit workout is short and intense. The workout is done in rounds and quite often by the time I am half way through I have the almost overwhelming urge to stop. But because it is timed and a bit competitive there is a determination to see it to the end. For gymnastics it is all about removing fear. When I am about to throw myself through the air, fear could literally be crippling. And for breakdance, if I go into a move in a half-hearted way, I know I have no chance of doing it.
During the Festival last year I went along to a breakin' convention and was hugely impressed by the sort of role models that the dancers/performers offered to the many young men and women in the audience. They showed passion and determination, and spoke of the rewards of commitment, and a lifestyle that wasn't based around getting drunk.
I had very little interest in sport when I was younger, which is something I do, to some extent, regret and a big part of that is the realisation that there were crucial life lessons I could have learnt a little earlier. That is why I believe we should all take part in more sport - whether we are young or old. It is not just a question of health, but also of attitude and life skills. And for that reason it is great to see the commitment to school sport in the new Curriculum for Excellence.
And in case you were wondering, I managed a new personal best with my power snatch - 99lbs!
The next steps
There is an interesting article by Gerry Hassan in the Scotsman this morning: http://voteSNP.com/ghs.
He argues, that "there is a powerful potential agenda for the SNP. Scotland's experience of establishing a parliament has been one of self-government: focusing on politics, political change and politicians. What it has not been about is self-determination, an agenda of shifting power and developing non-institutional ways of change."
As I wrote in an earlier blog this week, empowerment - Nicola Sturgeon's 'culture of independence' - will be an essential part of a second term SNP agenda. In my view, if we are to take responsibility as a nation, then we need also to take responsibility as individuals and communities. Independence will come first in the people and then from the people to the nation, and not the other way around. That is why the SNP's referendum strategy is potentially so exciting for our society: it is the ultimate act of empowerment.
In Catalonia the independence movement has a very different balance to the movement here in Scotland. It has been less successful politically, but has a wider social, academic and community network. Both sides of the equation are needed, in my view, for independence to be achieved.
But more than this, independence also has to become about the 'why' more than the 'how'. I have a clear vision of the sort of country Scotland can be with independence. I think that is also the case for the vast majority of independence supporters. It is independence for a purpose not for the sake of it. And the more Scots who can visualise and personalise the benefits of independence, the greater support will be.
This is a path the SNP is on: empowerment and vision. Progress for our nation coming as much from the people as the politicians. The first steps have been taken over these past four years. And the next steps have great potential.
He argues, that "there is a powerful potential agenda for the SNP. Scotland's experience of establishing a parliament has been one of self-government: focusing on politics, political change and politicians. What it has not been about is self-determination, an agenda of shifting power and developing non-institutional ways of change."
As I wrote in an earlier blog this week, empowerment - Nicola Sturgeon's 'culture of independence' - will be an essential part of a second term SNP agenda. In my view, if we are to take responsibility as a nation, then we need also to take responsibility as individuals and communities. Independence will come first in the people and then from the people to the nation, and not the other way around. That is why the SNP's referendum strategy is potentially so exciting for our society: it is the ultimate act of empowerment.
In Catalonia the independence movement has a very different balance to the movement here in Scotland. It has been less successful politically, but has a wider social, academic and community network. Both sides of the equation are needed, in my view, for independence to be achieved.
But more than this, independence also has to become about the 'why' more than the 'how'. I have a clear vision of the sort of country Scotland can be with independence. I think that is also the case for the vast majority of independence supporters. It is independence for a purpose not for the sake of it. And the more Scots who can visualise and personalise the benefits of independence, the greater support will be.
This is a path the SNP is on: empowerment and vision. Progress for our nation coming as much from the people as the politicians. The first steps have been taken over these past four years. And the next steps have great potential.
Thursday, 13 January 2011
Jim Mather on the recession, energy and Scotland's future
I took the opportunity when in Parliament yesterday to speak to Jim Mather MSP. I had the great pleasure of working with Jim in my time as a special adviser and he was a hugely energetic minister. He has a passion for Scotland and for our nation's future and has worked tirelessly to bring people together to improve Scotland's economic position. He will be missed as an MSP and a minister but I know will continue to do great work for Scotland in the years ahead
I haven't quite got the whole volume thing worked out yet, so best to listen with headphones if you are able to (or in a very quiet room). Here is what he had to say:
When Scotland is reaping the benefits of our renewable energy wealth in years to come, a lot of that will be down to the work of Jim Mather over these past four years.
I haven't quite got the whole volume thing worked out yet, so best to listen with headphones if you are able to (or in a very quiet room). Here is what he had to say:
When Scotland is reaping the benefits of our renewable energy wealth in years to come, a lot of that will be down to the work of Jim Mather over these past four years.
Wednesday, 12 January 2011
John Swinney on Twitter
I caught up with John Swinney, Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, earlier today. John started his twitter account yesterday, so I decided to ask him about it:
Follow John at http://www.twitter.com/JohnSwinney
Follow John at http://www.twitter.com/JohnSwinney
Jobs the issue of most concern
By a very narrow margin more people have responded to the Be Part of Better survey on jobs than any other policy area. Health comes a close second.
I think this a fair reflection of people's priorities in the current economic climate.
The policy proposal that got the most votes (30.5%) was securing a share of Scotland's energy wealth: to deliver benefits for local communities and create jobs by boosting local economies. In recent weeks the SNP has stepped up efforts to devolve the Crown Estate Commission. I remember working in the House of Commons when the previous Scotland Bill was going through and watching a certain Jim (Lord) Wallace (current Advocate General in the UK government) passionately propose the devolution of the Crown Estate. If it was good enough for the Scotland Bill Mark I, why isn't it in the Scotland Bill currently going through the Scottish Parliament? Perhaps that is one for our Lib Dem friends in Parliament to consider? [As a side note, I might come back to other Lib Dem amendments in a later blog! There were some classics. Even some good - tongue-in-cheek - Tory amendments to 'strengthen' the Bill]
The SNP plan for devolution of the Commission would see a new source of income that currently by-passes Scotland - money we could certainly use to invest in new jobs and support communities across Scotland.
The second favourite (about 200 votes behind on 28%) was action to help small businesses create jobs. The Be Part of Better website sets out some initial ideas and there are more to come. The Federation of Small Business (FSB) makes a very compelling case: if you look only at Scotland's micro-businesses, enabling even a fraction of them to take on just one employee would create tens of thousands of jobs. We are looking seriously at proposals to remove some of the barriers to job creation and make it much easier for small businesses to take on apprentices. Job creation, by businesses big and small, will be at the very top of our action list on day 1 of a new SNP government.
You can still tell us what you think the priorities should be for a second term SNP government. Visit the Be Part of Better website by following this link.
I think this a fair reflection of people's priorities in the current economic climate.
The policy proposal that got the most votes (30.5%) was securing a share of Scotland's energy wealth: to deliver benefits for local communities and create jobs by boosting local economies. In recent weeks the SNP has stepped up efforts to devolve the Crown Estate Commission. I remember working in the House of Commons when the previous Scotland Bill was going through and watching a certain Jim (Lord) Wallace (current Advocate General in the UK government) passionately propose the devolution of the Crown Estate. If it was good enough for the Scotland Bill Mark I, why isn't it in the Scotland Bill currently going through the Scottish Parliament? Perhaps that is one for our Lib Dem friends in Parliament to consider? [As a side note, I might come back to other Lib Dem amendments in a later blog! There were some classics. Even some good - tongue-in-cheek - Tory amendments to 'strengthen' the Bill]
The SNP plan for devolution of the Commission would see a new source of income that currently by-passes Scotland - money we could certainly use to invest in new jobs and support communities across Scotland.
The second favourite (about 200 votes behind on 28%) was action to help small businesses create jobs. The Be Part of Better website sets out some initial ideas and there are more to come. The Federation of Small Business (FSB) makes a very compelling case: if you look only at Scotland's micro-businesses, enabling even a fraction of them to take on just one employee would create tens of thousands of jobs. We are looking seriously at proposals to remove some of the barriers to job creation and make it much easier for small businesses to take on apprentices. Job creation, by businesses big and small, will be at the very top of our action list on day 1 of a new SNP government.
You can still tell us what you think the priorities should be for a second term SNP government. Visit the Be Part of Better website by following this link.
Tuesday, 11 January 2011
The scandal of discards
One of the most shockingly memorable experiences of my time working for the Scottish Government was my first time at a Fisheries Council meeting. Fishing policy, like the proverbial sausage factory, isn't something you want to see being made.
First, these meetings last through the night, often multiple nights, leaving decision makers tired and those without a direct interest desperate to get home. Second, the Commission's concern appears primarily to be getting the necessary majority and it spends its time doing deals. So the final package can be based not on what is best or what is right, but what is expedient. It is about the number of votes they can secure rather than the number of jobs (or fish) they can protect. The Commission has huge power, often sitting with non-fishing nations' votes in its pocket, and is able to pick off the fishing States one by one. And finally the situation for Scotland is even worse. To get our issues on the table we have to go through the UK first. Compared with before, Scotland has a bigger role and say in the UK decision making process thanks to the excellent fisheries officials and Richard Lochhead's determination. But it is still nowhere near what we should have if we were a Member State in our own right.
Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall is right to raise the issue of discards and Richard Lochhead is also right to point out Scotland's leadership by example on this issue. In case you don't get a chance to see it, this is what Richard said earlier today:
"The practice of discarding fish back into the sea, dead, is largely enforced on our fishermen by the EU's broken Common Fisheries Policy. This is a massive waste of a precious food and economic resource and flies in the face of Scotland's attempts to manage fish stocks sustainably. On the European stage, Scotland is speaking out the loudest against the discarding of marketable fish. In spite of restrictions imposed by EU policies, Scotland has pioneered 'catch quotas', whereby fishermen land all the fish they catch without wasteful discards, winning plaudits across Europe. We have been able to expand our catch quota trials this year - however it is a travesty that Scotland is being prevented from including all interested vessels in a scheme that is all about reducing discards."
What are your crime and justice priorities?
I've been looking at the latest responses to the crime and justice section of the Be Part of Better consultation. By a good margin, the most popular priority is keeping a visible police presence in our communities. Keeping the 1000 extra police employed since 2007. Over a third of the respondents made this choice.
The second is dealing with the cheap booze culture that fuels much of the violent crime and anti-social behaviour that can blight some neighbourhoods and town centres. A fraction under 30% made this their priority for action.
These two - keeping the extra police on our streets and action on alcohol - are by far the most popular. Why? Because I think people see the real impact of the 1000 extra police. Crime is at a 32 year low, fear of crime is falling, knife crime is down. Every crime is a tragedy, but fewer crimes and fewer victims is a real achievement after decades when crimes rates seemed to rise and rise, year on year. As we thought, more police does mean fewer crimes. Simples, as some might say.
And I think people also know just how much cheap booze drives the anti-social behaviour - the criminal behaviour - of some. They see the logic of action on alcohol, because they know it will make an impact and it will make their community safer. Dealing with the flood of cheap booze will, in my view, have as big an impact on crime rates as the extra police. And it is a real shame, a disgrace, that so many opposition MSPs voted to block action.
The consultation is still open, although not for much longer. These are the results so far and I'd be surprised if the position changes. But I'd like to hear whether you agree? What are your two top priorities for action by the next SNP government to make Scotland safer over the next four years?
And you can play your part and help us prioritise policies for a second term by clicking here
The second is dealing with the cheap booze culture that fuels much of the violent crime and anti-social behaviour that can blight some neighbourhoods and town centres. A fraction under 30% made this their priority for action.
These two - keeping the extra police on our streets and action on alcohol - are by far the most popular. Why? Because I think people see the real impact of the 1000 extra police. Crime is at a 32 year low, fear of crime is falling, knife crime is down. Every crime is a tragedy, but fewer crimes and fewer victims is a real achievement after decades when crimes rates seemed to rise and rise, year on year. As we thought, more police does mean fewer crimes. Simples, as some might say.
And I think people also know just how much cheap booze drives the anti-social behaviour - the criminal behaviour - of some. They see the logic of action on alcohol, because they know it will make an impact and it will make their community safer. Dealing with the flood of cheap booze will, in my view, have as big an impact on crime rates as the extra police. And it is a real shame, a disgrace, that so many opposition MSPs voted to block action.
The consultation is still open, although not for much longer. These are the results so far and I'd be surprised if the position changes. But I'd like to hear whether you agree? What are your two top priorities for action by the next SNP government to make Scotland safer over the next four years?
And you can play your part and help us prioritise policies for a second term by clicking here
Monday, 10 January 2011
An important theme for the next four years
We are coming towards the end of the manifesto development process and there are some big themes emerging.
For me, the most important one is empowerment: for people and communities. Nicola Sturgeon has previously spoken of creating a culture of independence in Scotland and I have no doubt that a second term SNP government will take big strides forward on this agenda.
We have already spoken about our plans to make it easier for communities to take over underused or unused public assets. Assets they can then use to create a new focal point in their neighbourhood - a local hub for childcare, sport, health or other community groups. Endowing communities with assets goes beyond the transfer of land or buildings - important as these are. It should also mean equipping communities to develop their own assets, for example in renewables. And ensuring there is a community benefit from renewable developments offshore. We've had some useful input on issues such as endowment funds and reform of compulsory purchase: all ideas that are being considered now by the Cabinet and ministerial team.
This is going to be an exciting area for policy in Scotland over the next few years and I am proud that the SNP is engaged in the debate and ready to provide the leadership we need on this issue. If after another four years we have even stronger and more vibrant communities, it will be a job well done.
For me, the most important one is empowerment: for people and communities. Nicola Sturgeon has previously spoken of creating a culture of independence in Scotland and I have no doubt that a second term SNP government will take big strides forward on this agenda.
We have already spoken about our plans to make it easier for communities to take over underused or unused public assets. Assets they can then use to create a new focal point in their neighbourhood - a local hub for childcare, sport, health or other community groups. Endowing communities with assets goes beyond the transfer of land or buildings - important as these are. It should also mean equipping communities to develop their own assets, for example in renewables. And ensuring there is a community benefit from renewable developments offshore. We've had some useful input on issues such as endowment funds and reform of compulsory purchase: all ideas that are being considered now by the Cabinet and ministerial team.
This is going to be an exciting area for policy in Scotland over the next few years and I am proud that the SNP is engaged in the debate and ready to provide the leadership we need on this issue. If after another four years we have even stronger and more vibrant communities, it will be a job well done.
Sunday, 9 January 2011
Crossfit on the move
It isn't always easy finding a hotel gym that works for Crossfit workouts. Although it is quite basic the gym at the Park Inn in Aberdeen fits the bill, with two rowing machines, a pull up bar and plenty of space. I managed a primal fitness WOD of warm up, handstands and then 5 rounds of run 1 lap (on the running machine), burpee broad jumps and v-ups (my alternative given the equipment limitations).
I'm also (as much as possible) trying to stick to a paleo diet and once again the Park Inn was great in providing thoughtful and tasty lunches and dinner. A big thumbs up.
I'm also (as much as possible) trying to stick to a paleo diet and once again the Park Inn was great in providing thoughtful and tasty lunches and dinner. A big thumbs up.
Making the most of what we've got
I've heard some people argue that Scottish Government policies, like free prescriptions, are somehow the wrong thing to do when budgets are tight. But a conversation on Friday has confirmed for me that we have made the right choice. That we are making the most of the money we have got.
This man was telling me about the experience of his wife. She thought free prescriptions were great because for the first time she felt she could look after herself without having to worry about the cost. She wouldn't face any financial barrier or disincentive. As he put it, she could buy the medicine she needed to make herself feel better.
This is only one story, but we often focus too much on the macro-budget - how we balance the books nationally. However what is just as important is making sure these big picture budget decisions also help people balance their own budgets. And if people are choosing not to get the medicine they need because of the cost then there is absolutely no doubt that free prescriptions is the right approach. The Scottish Government is freezing the salaries of the highest paid civil servants and cutting the overall cost of the senior civil service. Decisions like this will allow them to abolish prescription charges. For me these are the right priorities - they are fair and will help make Scotland healthier.
This man was telling me about the experience of his wife. She thought free prescriptions were great because for the first time she felt she could look after herself without having to worry about the cost. She wouldn't face any financial barrier or disincentive. As he put it, she could buy the medicine she needed to make herself feel better.
This is only one story, but we often focus too much on the macro-budget - how we balance the books nationally. However what is just as important is making sure these big picture budget decisions also help people balance their own budgets. And if people are choosing not to get the medicine they need because of the cost then there is absolutely no doubt that free prescriptions is the right approach. The Scottish Government is freezing the salaries of the highest paid civil servants and cutting the overall cost of the senior civil service. Decisions like this will allow them to abolish prescription charges. For me these are the right priorities - they are fair and will help make Scotland healthier.
Saturday, 8 January 2011
A first time for everything
My first blog post should be something special, but if I spend too long waiting for that flash of brilliant inspiration, nothing will get written. So here goes . . .
This blog is going to look at some of the things that interest me in life. Politics and the Scottish election of 2011; health and fitness; dance and the Festivals and some thoughts on internal enlargement of the EU, the focal point of my current study at Edinburgh University.
And it will be about independence for Scotland, something I believe in passionately. Too often independence is talked about in terms of the 'how' or the 'what' rather than the 'why'. And the why is the most important. No one cares about Scotland as much as the people who live here, and that is why we should be taking the decisions about our future success. We are a community and a society - a country that will only reach its full potential when we do take responsibility for building a more prosperous and fairer future. There is a lot we can achieve as a nation and much more we can achieve as an independent nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)