大象传媒

Wendy Alexander is said by her supporters to be 鈥渢oughing it out鈥�.

Answers to questions posed by the media as follows.

Why write a personal letter to Paul Green in Jersey?

Answer: still thought it was a corporate donation - but you don鈥檛 write to a company, you write to a human being.

He lives in Jersey. That鈥檚 why she wrote there.

(One I asked) Who was the 鈥渞egulated donee鈥� under law?

That鈥檚 the person who is liable for monitoring of donations.

Answer: Wendy Alexander.

You might wonder why that matters.

Here鈥檚 why. The regulated donee is liable to check the admissibility of all donations above 拢200.

Wendy Alexander, therefore, was liable, in law, for checking the validity of Paul Green鈥檚 donation.

Her team say they did check - but, as with the answer above, believed at that time that the donation WAS valid, within the law, because it was corporate.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

And yet more. Paul Green is not happy.

He鈥檚 the Jersey-based businessman whose donation to Team Alexander has caused the current row.

He says he gave 拢950 (that sum again) to Glasgow South Labour Party without any fuss.

More, he received a personal thank you letter from Wendy Alexander for his donation to her campaign.

He cannot understand, he says, why Labour are maintaining this was a corporate donation when he received a letter, addressed to him personally, at his Jersey address.

Charlie Gordon MSP says the Glasgow South donation was also a mistake. He says it will also be returned.

Mr Gordon says he acted in good faith on both occasions.

To be precise, his statement says he acted 鈥渋n goof faith鈥�. But let鈥檚 not quibble over a letter. Or rather...

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Wendy Alexander has now personally, for the illegal donation accepted by her party.

She has returned the unlawful cheque to the Electoral Commission.

But, at the moment, that鈥檚 as far as it goes.

Once more today, she declined to take questions from the media, arguing that it was now up to the Electoral Commission to decide how to progress the matter.

So does it end there? No. Simply no.

The commission may decide to alert the police on the grounds that an illegal act has been committed. If they don鈥檛, others might lodge a complaint.

Further, Labour might yet be obliged to set out full details of the donations which comprised the 拢17,000 raised for the campaign.

Further still, if any more problems emerge from those other donations, then the challenge to Ms Alexander鈥檚 leadership moves from grave to critical.

PS: I don鈥檛 commonly respond to individual issues raised in responses to this blog, preferring to let the debate flow. However, if you鈥檒l excuse me, I鈥檒l respond to one.

DCW suggests I said the donations were 鈥渇ine鈥�. That is simply untrue. I said no such thing.

On the lunchtime bulletin, I said that Labour had failed at that stage to provide sufficient answers. On later bulletins, as the story developed, I said - repeatedly and bluntly - that the party had broken the law.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

First, the basics.

by accepting a donation from a Labour supporter based in the Channel Islands. Offshore donations are not permitted.

The cash was accepted because Charlie Gordon MSP, one of Team Alexander, had been told the money was paid by a UK registered company. That is allowed.

Mr Gordon had solicited the donation because he knew the donor, Paul Green. Mr Green has property interests in Glasgow. Mr Gordon was formerly the leader of Glasgow City Council.

Mr Gordon has apologised and resigned from his front bench post.

Ms Alexander - who wasn鈥檛 at the news briefing which disclosed the details - is said to be 鈥渧ery upset鈥�.

That tells the story. But it doesn鈥檛 convey the atmosphere here at Holyrood. A frenzied atmosphere - partly generated by the media but mostly driven by Ms Alexander鈥檚 inability to close the issue down.

Firstly, the guddle and confusion. The story surfaced, albeit in a slightly different form, on Sunday.

On Reporting Scotland last night, we disclosed that there was renewed doubt.

The story was massively covered by the newspapers this morning. Wendy Alexander knew she was likely to be teased over the issue in exchanges with Alex Salmond today (she was).

And yet, remarkably, remarkably, it was not until 1300 today - after question time - that Ms Alexander learned, precisely, what was wrong with the donation.

Why the delay? Why was this not tied down earlier?

Secondly, the environment. This story does not exist in a vacuum. It broke as Labour at Westminster is facing a crisis over party funding. A crisis, pure and simple.

Prior to that, the donation itself followed the huge controversy over the 鈥渃ash for honours鈥� investigation. Did that not demand extra close scrutiny of donations to Team Alexander?

Is Charlie Gordon, alone, culpable? Should there not have been closer checks made? By Tom McCabe, the campaign manager? By Wendy Alexander herself?

Mr McCabe says the money will be returned. He says, without offering this as an excuse, that electoral law is now exceptionally complex.

He points out that the sum involved is relatively small. He stresses that the remainder of the 拢17,000 campaign fund was legitimately donated.

But he admits, in terms, that the law was broken. Politically, how does that play? Badly?

You bet.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

It is, I suppose, a familiar political tactic.

It was deployed by Labour, with some justification, during the controversy over the Gould Report into the Scottish elections.

Today that same tactic was deployed by the Prime Minister - with rather more questionable justification - as he faced a sustained challenge in the Commons over the improper donations to his party.

The tactic? Spread the blame.

Suggest that a problem is shared across the political divide and requires a consensual, cross-party solution.

David Cameron, backed up by a succession of Tory MPs, sought to pin the blame for the funding controversy directly upon Gordon Brown.

Ascending to a scheduled but understandable crescendo, Mr Cameron inquired whether the PM was 鈥渃ut out for the job鈥�.

In response, Mr Brown repeatedly sought to argue that there should be a shared interest in cleaning up party donations.

All parties, he stated, should pursue this objective.

It was a good try - and even warmed up the Labour benches when Mr Brown recalled the early actions of his premiership in tackling terrorism, flooding and foot-and-mouth.

Oh, happy days, you could see him thinking.

But was it good enough? Not for Vince Cable, the stand-in LibDem leader, who depicted Mr Brown鈥檚 reputation as shifting 鈥渇rom Stalin to Mr Bean鈥�.

How they laughed - with, of course, the exception of the notably glum Labour benches.

A few minutes earlier, as forecast here yesterday, opposition MPs had contrived to raise the donations issue during questions to the Scottish Secretary Des Browne.

Angus Robertson, who led the SNP campaign for the Holyrood elections, sought an assurance over whether any of the David Abrahams cash had found its way into Labour鈥檚 Scottish election effort.

Des Browne is a cautious politician - and an advocate. He gave a cautious reply. He could give such an assurance 鈥渋n my state of knowledge鈥�.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The first minister - clutching his third award on the trot for Top Politician - is, it would seem, less than impressed with the assurances offered re party donations from a previous award winner.

Hat-trick Alex thinks that Gordon Brown still has a deal of explaining to do with regard to the 拢600,000 given to Labour via intermediaries by businessman David Abrahams.

Mr Brown faced the media today for his regular grilling (hideous, if inadvertent, timing, eh?).

He said the money had been improperly donated and would be returned.

He had not known, he said, about the donations to the party - which have already prompted the resignation of Labour鈥檚 general secretary. He had himself turned down the offer of cash from this source.

Mr Salmond is not impressed. Heading back to Edinburgh to chair his cabinet, the first minister said the explanation offered by the Labour Party was 鈥渟tretching credibility鈥�.

The FM鈥檚 Westminster colleague Angus MacNeil - also an award winner - said Labour had 鈥渉ung Harriet Harman out to dry鈥� over the disclosure that she had accepted a donation from an associate of Mr Abrahams.

Is this issue closed down? Not by a long, long way. At the very least, expect it to be raised by David Cameron at questions to the Prime Minister tomorrow.

Scots opposition MPs are also trying to find ways of ventilating their views in questions to the Scottish Secretary - immediately prior to PMQs.

PS: Update on the cost of the new Scottish airport 鈥渟logan鈥�. It鈥檚 拢125,000 for work and materials - and comes out of existing budgets.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Prepare to be astonished. Stand by to gasp and gulp. Sit down, breathe deeply, this is big.

You鈥檒l remember that Alex Salmond took an ill will against the slogan welcoming passengers to Scottish airports.

In case you鈥檇 forgotten, the slogan proclaimed that Scotland was 鈥渢he best small country in the world.鈥�

Mr Salmond thought it combined the worst of Scottish attitudes, bombast blended with the Caledonian cringe.

And his alternative? For a spell, nothing specific emerged. The first Minister resembled King Lear in his latter phase. 鈥淚 will do such things 鈥� what they are yet I know not, but they shall be the terrors of the earth.鈥�

. We learned, we were enlightened, we watched in awe.

The new slogan will be: 鈥淲elcome to Scotland.鈥�

I know, I know. Be still my beating heart. Such excitement, such glamour.

The Scottish Government calls it a 鈥渧ibrant鈥� new campaign. 鈥淲elcome to Scotland.鈥�

Now one or two sceptics out there might think this new phrase a little lacking in energy 鈥� or even, perhaps, originality. Take their names, I say.

Apparently, this isn鈥檛 a slogan. We are not comparing like with like. It is a 鈥済eneric theme鈥�, within which we are to discern the particular merits of each locality.

At Glasgow Airport, images will project the Commonwealth Games; in Edinburgh, literature; in Aberdeen, oil; in Dundee, the City of Discovery; in Inverness, the Highlands; in Prestwick, Burns country.

Me, I think they鈥檝e missed a trick. I think the slogans 鈥� sorry, generic themes 鈥� should have been localised.

In Aberdeen, 鈥渇it like?鈥� In Dundee, 鈥渂ra鈥�, is it?鈥� In Edinburgh, 鈥測ou鈥檒l have had your tea.鈥� And the like. We could have run competitions in schools.

PS: Oh, and the cost? Still checking 鈥� but the ballpark figure is thought to be 拢100,000, to cover the art work and other materials.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

So what do you reckon? Do you think Gordon Brown will accede to Alex Salmond鈥檚 request and scrap the Scotland Office?

I shouldn鈥檛 imagine it鈥檚 exactly a top priority for the PM. He has one or two marginally more pressing matters to consider.

In truth, the issue has only resurfaced because of complaints from former army officers about the dual role occupied by Des Browne.

But Alex Salmond knows an opportunity when he spots one. And so yesterday his team issued a demand for the abolition of the Scotland Office.

It was squeezed in alongside praise for Scotland鈥檚 dual triumph in the World Cups (we won the golfing version and got a decent draw in the football species).

To be mildly more serious, Mr Salmond enhanced his demand with a suggestion for changing the relationship between the Scottish and UK governments.

He wants a revival of the Joint Ministerial Committee system, designed to tackle disputes between Edinburgh and London. Plus he wants a direct relationship with 10 Downing Street, GHQ for the First Lord of the Treasury.

Don鈥檛 see this change happening any time soon. Yes, the Scotland Office has appeared all but redundant, post devolution. Yes, it was on the verge of oblivion at various points during the Blair years.

But, under the part-time Mr Browne and the ever assiduous David Cairns, it鈥檚 gained a new role. You may question the validity of that role. You may think it of doubtful value to the smooth running of the state.

However, a role there is. The Scotland Office has taken upon itself the responsibility for keeping a watchful eye upon the new Scottish Government 鈥� and its chief protagonist, one A. Salmond.

It does other things too. It helped to facilitate the agreement with Bruce Crawford which allowed the Minister for Parliamentary Business to announce 鈥� on the very day of the Queen鈥檚 Speech 鈥� that Holyrood would be asked to consent to the UK legislating in certain agreed areas of the law which impinged upon devolved powers.

But there are strict limits to that concept of consistent liaison. For example, Edinburgh and London used to share their advance planning diary, the schedule setting out likely news events. That stopped on day one after Alex Salmond鈥檚 election and won鈥檛 be revived.

So, mostly, the Scotland Office 鈥� or, rather, its Ministers and special advisers 鈥� check up on the Scottish devolved government, from the standpoint of the UK Government. Bit like an embassy, in fact.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I am tempted to add to the recently high literary count on this blog and turn to Owen, Sassoon or, in the last resort, Kipling. But I think I will resist.

Not that I have anything against the war poets - and certainly not against Kipling who was a fine, if formulaic, scribe as well as rector of St Andrews University, the world鈥檚 number one seat of learning.

But perhaps the comments by former army chiefs of staff re deserve direct, rather than oblique, analysis.

I am inclined to leave it to others to comment upon the adequacy or otherwise of the equipment supplied to troops.

Ministers say the criticisms are misplaced. Frankly, I am in no position to know - and would merely add that our serving soldiers deserve the best protection that is available plus the best support back home.

However, perhaps I might chip in a word or two re the other principal comment by the former service chiefs.

Admiral Lord Boyce, who retired as chief of the defence staff in 2003, said it was an 鈥渋nsult鈥� that the prime minister had chosen to make Des Browne serve as Scottish secretary in addition to his main role as defence secretary.

Further, Lord Boyce said this was the message he was getting from the troops.

Hesitant though I am to question the gallant peer, I find it a little difficult to conceive that Britain鈥檚 troops - whether in Basra or barracks - are fretting about Des Browne鈥檚 workload or about the implications of Cabinet deployment.

More to the point, the post of Scottish secretary is virtually a sinecure. The powers the post used to command are devolved to Holyrood - and the assiduous David Cairns gets through the daily grind, ably assisted by special advisers and officials.

Mr Browne himself says any Scottish duties he undertakes tend to eat into his constituency and - minimal - family time.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

From primary to higher education 鈥� and the heart-warming sight of Sir Muir Russell returning to his old St Andrews House stomping ground, mortar board in hand.

Sir Muir was formerly Scotland鈥檚 mandarin par excellence, the very epitome of intellectual, subtle, droll, civil service.

Today the erstwhile Permanent Secretary was back in the seat of government, this time on behalf of Scotland鈥檚 universities.

Now principal of his old alma mater, Glasgow, he also convenes Universities Scotland.

Who better to penetrate the complexities of governmental finance than one who previously helped construct the labyrinth? Like Ariadne, he knows where they keep the string.

After talks with the Education Secretary Fiona Hyslop, Sir Muir pronounced himself marginally more content.

She had offered, it would appear, to place universities close to the head of the queue if further resources become available (presumably from underspending, Barnett consequentials or 鈥渆vents鈥�.)

Further, she agreed with Sir Muir that there would be a joint task force to scrutinise the higher education settlement, particularly regarding the exceptionally tight first year of the new spending round.

Not, notice, the full-scale external review urged by Andrew Cubie (and the Tories.) But a study driven jointly by government and the universities. Concordat, anyone?

One hesitates to disturb the spirit of harmony 鈥� but here鈥檚 a tiny snag. How does today鈥檚 offer to the universities re extra cash square with last night鈥檚 vote in the Holyrood chamber?

Avid readers will recall that the SNP voted with the Tories on the proposition that 鈥渋f additional resources become available鈥�, priority will be given to accelerating a cut in small business rates. This was duly carried.
Everybody has won and all must have prizes, it would seem.

Gazing through the other end of the looking glass, however, it would appear that there may well be tough choices ahead. Sir Muir 鈥� and Ministers 鈥� may require to resort to subtlety once more.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

What do you make of that report about the maths skills of trainee primary teachers?

The one that suggested 65 per cent of first year student teachers fell short in an online test, designed to assess their skills.

To help those who failed the test, I reckon that means nearly two thirds of those setting out to teach the next generation at primary level couldn鈥檛, themselves, surmount a test in basic maths.

At least, I presume it was basic. Perhaps someone can enlighten me but I don鈥檛 imagine the test involved advanced calculus or trigonometry.

It was, I would guess, an exercise in sums. Tricky sums, perhaps. But sums. The sort of thing that used to be taught separately from maths in secondary school.

When I were a lad 鈥� falling, intuitively, into a cod Yorkshire accent as I write 鈥� there was an O Grade exam in Arithmetic. Quite distinctly, mathematics could be studied for six years at secondary school.

Jack McConnell is a former maths teacher (I presume he also taught sums). Is it possible he had a point when he suggested reviving the arithmetic test in secondary schools?

Should he have taken the chance to act while in office? Should members of the present Parliament agitate for such a change?

Should we stop pretending we teach mathematics in primary school 鈥� and teach sums instead?

Answers, please, on one side of the paper only. Show your working.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Is there tonight at Holyrood just the scintilla of a sign of an emerging deal between the SNP and the Tories which could ensure support for the Scottish Government鈥檚 budget?

Both sides insist it鈥檚 far too early to say. But consider this. Tonight in Holyrood the SNP and the Tories voted together on the issue of cuts in small business rates.

You鈥檒l recall that the Scottish Government proposes phased introduction of such cuts. In today鈥檚 debate, the Tories urged that, if any extra cash becomes available from further Barnett consequentials, then that money should be used to speed up the cuts in the burden on business.

The SNP voted for that proposition, with Labour and the Liberal Democrats abstaining.

Could be a one off, a stand alone vote. But accelerated cuts in business rates formed a key demand for the Tories following publication of the budget.

They鈥檙e also looking, among other things, for money to enhance drugs rehab.

So might the Tories have ticked a box tonight with this support from the SNP? Stress again both parties say it鈥檚 too early to say. Me? I reckon yes.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Erudition on display again at Holyrood today. Iain Gray, opening for Labour in the economy debate, was in poetic mood.

He concluded his remarks thus: 鈥淲hat manner of economic beast is hidden here slouching towards separation.鈥�

No sweeties on offer today - but I feel sure you spotted this is a pastiche of W.B Yeats鈥� poem, The Second Coming.

William Butler, not always the cheeriest of chaps, wound up that particular work by wondering 鈥渨hat rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born.鈥�

Why that poem? It could be that, in parodying The Second Coming, Mr Gray was merely reflecting his own experience (he lost his seat in 2003 and is on his second run as an MSP).

But I suspect deeper motives. I think he was in apocalyptic mood. Indeed, he implied as much.

Mr Gray was suggesting that SNP mnisters were in league with darker forces.

No, not that dark force. But something comparably grim in Labour eyes. Yes, he accused them of supporting the economics of the American Right.

Alex Salmond, apparently, is a closet Reaganite. John Swinney, we were assured, is an adherent of 鈥渧oodoo economics鈥� (author: George without-the-W Bush, Sr).

Mr Swinney, I should say, was guffawing fairly frequently, if mildly, during these comments. I think I saw him mutter the word 鈥減iffle鈥� - though, on reflection, it may have been another word entirely.

Still, it was stirring stuff. Yeats and the Gipper. Fear and loathing. The concept of dread.

Must confess, though, that in a lengthy and generally entertaining career of covering politics, I am drawn more commonly to a different quotation from that particular ditty by WB.

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The Mars Bar has been claimed 鈥� and by a spin doctor!

You鈥檒l recall that I deployed a quote from Shakespeare in an earlier blog - and was rash enough to offer confectionery to the individual who identified the play involved.

Tony McElroy of the Labour Party correctly spotted that the phrase 鈥渕ewling and puking鈥� comes from the Seven Ages soliloquy in 鈥淎s You Like It鈥�.

Yes, the one that begins 鈥渁ll the world鈥檚 a stage.鈥�

Nice to know that there is at least one individual in the Labour team who is accustomed to polite language.

I shall, of course, deliver said Mars Bar within the lifetime of the present parliament, as economic circumstances permit.

However, you must understand that the financial constraints placed upon this blog by the Treasury mean that tough choices must be made.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Not, all in all, the best of weeks for the Right Honourable Member for Edinburgh South West (incidentally, en passant, somebody should tell the Downing Street website that Alistair Darling鈥檚 constituency has changed. Noticed the other day they still reckon his seat is Edinburgh Central).

Firstly, Mr Darling had to confront highly sceptical MPs over the vast sums of public money diverted to Northern Rock.

This afternoon, he was back in the Commons giving details of data lost by Her Majesty鈥檚 Revenue and Customs.

And that data involved? Nothing too serious. Just details of 25 million individuals from 7.5 million families.

Just details of every recipient of Child Benefit. Just their names. Their addresses. Their family facts. Oh, and details of their bank accounts.

Mr Darling looked suitably severe as he said this was 鈥渁n extremely serious failure.鈥� I suppose restrained language was justified. But this was more than serious. This is a simply gargantuan guddle.

The bare narrative is beyond belief. Asked by the National Audit Office for comparable data in March, a junior official at HMRC duly complied.

Another approach from the NAO was made in October. gain, utterly ignoring all rules - and simple common sense - aother couple of discs were sent into the wild blue yonder via a courier company.

These were lost - and have yet to be found. Did this trouble our gallant officials? Not a bit of it. They sent off another batch of info - this time by registered post! Comfortingly, it got through.

There is apparently 鈥渘o reason to believe that this data has found its way into the wrong hands鈥�. Banks have put safety measures into force. Mr Darling says the data, of itself, is not enough to access bank accounts.

Here鈥檚 hoping he鈥檚 right. Here鈥檚 hoping those assurances are enough. Here鈥檚 hoping there won鈥檛 be unjustified public panic (public concern is entirely justified. Public anger you may take as read).

From the opposition benches, shadow chancellor George Osborne queried the purpose of MPs earnestly passing privacy laws when the basic rules could be so blatantly ignored at the heart of government. Quite.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

For pity鈥檚 sake, calm down. At Holyrood today, the wicked media (self included) have been assailed by a torrent of claim and counter-claim with regard to class sizes.

It started with an assertion from SNP Ministers that the previous lot (Lab/LibDem) weren鈥檛 much use when it came to delivering on education promises.
(Actually, it probably started when the very first political spin-doctor emerged, mewling and puking in the nurse鈥檚 arms. Not an insult, by the way, but a quote from Shakespeare. Mars Bar to the first one who can name the play.)
Anyway, back to classes. Today鈥檚 row then escalated when Labour and the LibDems hurled insults back in turn. (Real insults: not literary quotes.)

Instead of dealing with the new figures, the statements from Labour and the LibDems dealt almost exclusively with accusations (probably justified, at least in part) that SNP Ministers were seeking to divert attention from their own little local difficulties over pupil numbers.

The substance? The Lab/Lib Executive said it would cut class sizes in Maths and English in the first two years of secondary to 20 or fewer.
How have they done? Progress 鈥� but not by any means complete success. The vast bulk of secondaries have got these classes below 20 on average. But only 64 schools managed the feat entirely, for all classes.
The pledge was recalibrated (ie changed) midterm so that success on average was to be regarded as triumph.

To the SNP, one might say that this was not entirely a brilliant strategy. The previous Exec鈥檚 figures aren鈥檛 bad enough to justify restoking scrutiny of the present Government鈥檚 plans to trim class sizes in P1 and P2.
(Hint: instead of waiting for midterm, they鈥檙e announcing in advance they intend to be 鈥渇lexible.鈥� Take your cue from glasshouses and stones.)

To Labour and the LibDems, one might say: desist, cease, dilute the rhetoric. Ca鈥� canny. There isn鈥檛 a Holyrood election for four years. Doesn鈥檛 look like there will be a UK General Election for two years. Calm down.

Read the rest of this entry

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

By decree, political discourse suspended 鈥� briefly 鈥� for football.

COME ON, SCOTLAND!

PS: As part of your warm-up for the big game, why not tune in to Children in Need tonight? This year鈥檚 大象传媒 Scotland news sketch is the daftest yet. Promise.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

At question time in Holyrood today, the First Minister employed every device to dismiss allegations of broken promises.

Particularly in response to Wendy Alexander but also replying to Nicol Stephen, his voice rose, he turned to satire, he heaped contumely upon his rivals.

(By contrast, in response to Annabel Goldie, Mr Salmond appeared to be opening negotiations for Tory support by offering talks over the issue of drugs rehabilitation.)

But back to the dismissive tone. I think it succeeds for now 鈥� but it may not entirely succeed in the longer term.

In particular, I suspect it may not succeed with regard to the promise on student debt.

The SNP manifesto was quite specific. 鈥淚t鈥檚 time to dump student debt鈥�, it trumpeted.

The pledge was, over time, to take over the debt owed by Scottish domiciled and resident graduates.

Now there are arguments about other pledges.

Has the police numbers promise been broken 鈥� or merely elided, to be delivered in another way? Has the promise on class sizes been breached 鈥� or merely extended to a longer time scale?

But there is little debate about the pledge to dump student debt. It has now, itself, been dumped.

John Swinney says he faced that issue frankly in delivering his spending statement.

That he did. He also explained that the promise was undeliverable in the light of a tighter than expected budget settlement from the Treasury.

It鈥檚 a cogent, coherent case.
Not one, however, that I would personally care to deliver to a Scots student who voted for my party on the basis of a specific promise that has now been shelved.
Longer term, too, there may be repercussions.

Consider the next election, for Holyrood or Westminster. (I know, I know, we鈥檝e just got this one out of the way.)

When the SNP make promises, it will be reasonable to ask them for the caveats, for the circumstances in which these promises will be incapable of redemption.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

It was historic. It was mundane. It was wide-reaching. It was narrowly focused. It was the SNP鈥檚 first budget in power.

You can read the details elsewhere on this site 鈥� but let鈥檚 consider the key issue of whether John Swinney can get this budget through Holyrood.

Remember, remember that this budget in November is the start of the process, not the end. It has to be endorsed by MSPs.

To do that, John Swinney needs to reach out to other parties. He has already, of course, reached out to local authorities.

Let鈥檚 talk about that deal with councils first. It is remarkable in its scope.

Councils get more money (although not much more) 鈥� but, crucially to them, they get flexibility as to how to spend it.

That gives them status 鈥� and the ability to respond to local circumstances.

And the freeze? Cosla will recommend it 鈥� but it鈥檚 up to individual councils to decide. Some will, some may not.

In any case, the deal only lasts for one year 鈥� with an option (and government money available) to extend for a further two years.

But how about reaching out to other parties? Action on the environment might impress the two Greens. (It hasn鈥檛 yet, entirely 鈥� but it might.)

Action to cut business rates is in line with the SNP strategy of growing the economy 鈥� but is also aimed at wooing the Tories. My guess? The Tories will say yes 鈥� IF they get the business rates cuts accelerated and action on other areas like tackling drugs.

Don鈥檛 see Labour endorsing the deal under any circumstances 鈥� although I suppose they might, ultimately, abstain if the prospect is that the entire Budget falls. But that鈥檚 looking too far ahead.

And the Liberal Democrats were notably sharp on the budget in the chamber. They too will look to alter the present shape of the package in committee.

Overall? A good day for John Swinney. He got the excuses in first re police and class sizes, he owned up frankly on graduate debt 鈥� and he grandstanded well when required.

But more, much more to come.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

John Swinney arrived at Holyrood a short time ago to deliver his spending statement this afternoon. He was, understandably, giving no information.

A student of political history, he undoubtedly remembers the Chancellor who had to resign because he gave a line from his budget to a journalist on the way into the Commons.

(For the purists, it was Hugh Dalton in 1947. The journalist was John Carvel.)

But here鈥檚 a little snippet 鈥� not from Swinney, J. Seems there is a deal on the cards over a council tax freeze. But it鈥檚 with Cosla leaders 鈥� not with individual councils.

Those of you who were listening to 大象传媒 Radio Scotland this morning at 0633 (whaddyamean, you were asleep) will know the outline.

If a council signs up to the Cosla-recommended freeze, it gets access to the extra pot of gold on offer from Ministers. If it doesn鈥檛, it won鈥檛.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Another couple of wee thoughts re council tax and today鈥檚 Scottish budget.

John Swinney is meeting council leaders, again, this morning with the objective of securing a freeze.

Why? Why so keen?

As billed earlier on this site, a council tax freeze would be popular 鈥� and might help voters forget elided promises on bobbies and class sizes.

The Scottish Government鈥檚 economic strategy suggested another reason - that pegging council tax would contribute to a sense of equity.

Ministers say that a collective sense of fairness is one of the factors driving economic growth.

Against that, though, a council tax freeze scarcely enhances local government accountability, supposedly an SNP aim.

How are councils made more locally accountable when their financial planning is driven by a nationally-negotiated settlement?

That also applies, incidentally, to the proposal for a Local Income Tax 鈥� at a nationally determined level of 3p in the pound?

There may or may not be reasons for backing LIT but, as it stands, local accountability would not appear to be one of them.

But is there an extra, possibly unintended, consequence? The good and sensible people of England are already beginning to grumble about the Scottish financial settlement (or what they are, occasionally erroneously, told about the Scottish financial settlement.)

Might they grumble still more if Scots benefit from a council tax freeze?

Might they begin to question the Union settlement? And the downside for the Scottish National Party would be? Precisely.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

It is, Team Clinton told us, 鈥渢he economy, stupid.鈥� John Swinney would never echo those precise words.
He鈥檚 too ineffably polite to call anyone stupid. And, in any case, it isn鈥檛 good politics to be so blunt when your majority is non-existent.
However, it would appear that Mr Swinney agrees with the underlying sentiment.

Today SNP Ministers published their economic strategy.
There they sat in Glasgow University: Alex Salmond (economist), John Swinney (financial accountant) and Jim Mather (millionaire businessman.) A triumvirate of fiscal reassurance.

Everything is to be subjugated to the need to improve Scotland鈥檚 growth rate. Improve health? Certainly, best way to get people back to work. Improve skills? Yes, but make sure they鈥檙e marketable.
There are two targets: match UK growth by 2011 and match small European economies like Denmark and Ireland by 2017.

There was a flurry of excitement when Mr Salmond forecast that Scotland would have the powers of a full economy by that latter date. So is that: 鈥渋ndependence 鈥� keen by 2017鈥�?
Not quite. It is possible to interpret his comments as meaning that Scotland might achieve extra fiscal powers, short of independence. In any case, do we expect the FM to play down the prospect of independence?

Today was mostly about what can be done within devolution. Opposition critics, perfectly understandably, want to talk about what won鈥檛 be done. There won鈥檛 be 1000 shiny new police officers. There won鈥檛 be class sizes of 18 in the early years of school any time soon.

Mr Salmond and Mr Swinney say they鈥檒l do the very best with the relatively tight settlement from the Treasury. They invite the public to judge them on that 鈥� and, explicitly, on that target of matching UK growth by the next Holyrood election.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Pat Watters CBE has been a Labour councillor since 1982.

He has a quarter century of service behind him, first with Strathclyde Region and latterly with South Lanarkshire.

He is now serving an unprecedented third term as President of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Diligent and dedicated, he knows his stuff.

So when he issues a rebuke to his own party, it鈥檚 wise to pay heed. And a particularly stern rebuke it was too.

Labour had leaked figures which, they said, indicated that the deal on offer to Cosla from the Scottish Government was a poor one.

Almost all the extra money, said Labour, would be swallowed up in funding a council tax freeze.

In response, Cllr Watters described the leaked documents as an early 鈥� and partial 鈥� working draft. Labour, he said, was 鈥渜uite mistaken鈥�.

He had been having 鈥渕ature and sensible discussions鈥� with Scottish Ministers and wouldn鈥檛 be 鈥渂ounced鈥� into altering that approach.

Just ponder that for a second. Pat Watters is chiding his own party, the party he has represented for 25 years. He is praising the approach adopted by SNP Ministers.

Why, exactly? For one thing, arithmetic. As well as an SNP government at Holyrood, Scotland now has more SNP councillors than Labour ones. Cosla is the umbrella organisation for local government 鈥� and its President must offer shelter to all its elected members.

Secondly, Cllr Watters plainly suspects that he is coming under political pressure from his own party to resist an accommodation with the Scottish Government on partisan grounds. Equally plainly, he doesn鈥檛 like it.

Thirdly, he detects an opportunity to restore the status of local government. More money, more flexibility over how to spend it.

Of course, John Swinney, the Finance Secretary, is asking for a lot in return.

He is asking for a freeze on council taxation. A popular, 鈥渇orget about police and class sizes鈥� freeze.

A vote-winning freeze. Winning votes for the SNP, that is. Not necessarily for Cllrs Watters鈥� party unless they get credit locally in areas where they retain control.

It鈥檚 a big ask, a tough call. Which is why Pat Watters CBE, a customarily cautious individual, is treading particularly carefully.

Which is also why he resents noises off, even from his own party. Perhaps especially from his own party.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Fancy a council tax freeze? Not a low increase. Not containment within the rate of inflation. A freeze - nothing added to the present rate next year.

Here鈥檚 another question. If you got a council tax freeze, would you be more inclined to overlook other promises in the SNP manifesto that, perhaps, may not be delivered instantly, in full?

That鈥檚 one scenario providing innocent merriment to the coffee-sipping denizens of the Garden Lobby at Holyrood, politicians and members of the wicked media alike.

Here鈥檚 the thinking. John Swinney is meeting leading councillors today.

He wants them to agree to a council tax freeze in return for giving them a higher percentage of the Scottish block. Get more, tax less.

At the very least, the council leaders in Cosla are treating the notion seriously 鈥� with the occasional mutter that a freeze might not cost as much as has been suggested in some quarters.

So, you could have a situation where Cosla recommends a freeze to members 鈥� although, of course, it is up to individual councils to set their budgets.

Why would they undertake such a course? For more dosh, greater freedom to allocate it 鈥� and new status as the quangocracy shrinks. Plus bear in mind that there are now more SNP councillors than Labour ones.

What would they have to do? Make strides towards implementing SNP policies on police numbers, class sizes and the rest.

Research since the election has suggested that council tax had particular salience in the minds of the voters. (Hint - they don鈥檛 like it.)

So, if they got a freeze, would they overlook the prospect that many of the promised 1,000 new police officers are reconditioned and that class sizes in primaries one to three won鈥檛 be cut to 18 all that soon?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Question: will the minority SNP administration get their Budget through? Answer: yes.
Question: will it be purely the SNP鈥檚 Budget that gets through? Answer: no; mostly, but not entirely.

The word here at Holyrood is that politicians from all sides are searching for a deal on finance. Doesn鈥檛 mean it will be easy 鈥� but does mean it has momentum behind it.
To backtrack a little, John Swinney will set out his proposals next week for allocating the cash devoted by the Treasury to Scotland. You鈥檒l recall the lengthy debate about whether the deal is fair or stingy.
But Mr Swinney鈥檚 statement is a new beginning for the process 鈥� not the end. At Opposition prompting, there will be plenary debates in the chamber. As usual, there will be close scrutiny by Holyrood committees.

The finance committee takes the lead 鈥� and will sum up progress in January - but I understand subject committees have also recruited budgetary experts to advise them on the detailed implications for health, education, justice and the rest.
This will be serious, testing stuff 鈥� not a shouting match. Only Ministers can propose amendments to the Budget bill. But the committees will undoubtedly offer suggestions.
To repeat, John Swinney does not have a majority in Parliament. To get his bill through, he has to contrive a coalition. To contrive that, he will have to give ground at certain points to opposition politicians.
Labour, the Tories, the LibDems, the Greens all have a shopping list. But, of course, as by far the largest opposition party, Labour鈥檚 perspective is key.

Right now, I assess their strategy as being constructive 鈥� rather than confrontational for its own sake. In essence, they and the other opposition parties want to be able to claim that they have shaped the Budget Bill to their ends. They want to be able to claim it, in part, as their own.
Before all that, though, John Swinney needs friends in local government. Councils are responsible for much service delivery, notably education. He鈥檚 meeting Cosla tomorrow.
I understand he鈥檚 offering them a greater percentage slice of the Scottish spending block 鈥� plus an enhancement of their somewhat diminished status. Key to that is shrinking the quango state.
In return, Cosla may be able to recommend to member authorities that the council tax should be frozen.
But it鈥檚 still looking very tight for key SNP policies such as extra police officers and smaller class sizes in the lower primary years.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Bit more re the Queen鈥檚 Speech or, rather, its impact in Scotland. Scottish ministers have now signalled their readiness to 鈥淪ewel鈥� elements of the programme.

That means they鈥檒l ask MSPs to agree that Westminster can legislate, by agreement, in certain limited devolved areas
(Sewel, of course, refers to the redoubtable Lord Sewel who first advanced this consensual concept while a minister in the erstwhile Scottish Office).

Anyway, Bruce Crawford, the minister for parliamentary business, has indicated he backs a Sewel approach to: reforms to the regulation of health care professions; a new framework for targets in reducing carbon emissions; and transferring cash from dormant bank accounts to the public benefit.

He may also support a Sewel for elements of the Education and Skills Bill. Not the measure itself (see earlier blog) - but the concomitant issue of gathering data on how teenagers are progressing with their education/training. That鈥檚 being discussed.

Which tells us two things.

One, that SNP ministers remain prepared to co-operate - where necessary - with Westminster.

And, vice versa, that detailed information re the Westminster plans has been shared behind the scenes with officials in Scotland in order to enable Scottish ministers to offer such a prompt verdict.

Personally, I regard the second element as more significant. It is in the declared interest of SNP ministers to act consensually.

But there have been problems with the sharing of information between civil servants in Whitehall and Edinburgh because they are now serving different and competing political masters.

Today鈥檚 development, minor in itself, would appear to indicate that these problems can be surmounted. That, of course, is helped by the fact that the Queen鈥檚 Speech was explicitly outlined in advance in draft form by the UK Government.

The key requirement for co-operation in tense circumstances. No surprises.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Here鈥檚 a question. How best to help those youngsters who fail to gain much from their education up to the current compulsory age of 16?

How best to help them - both in their interests and in the wider community interest? That wider interest being both the plus side of fostering a productive contribution to the economy - and the absence of a negative, that they require benefits and may drift into disorder.

An enormously challenging question. And one which is about to be tested with two competing models, north and south of the border.

Gordon Brown is particularly dedicated to this question. He believes, passionately, that Britain must 鈥渟kill up鈥� to meet the challenge of the new economy.

His argument is that unskilled labour will be required less and less. What will be needed is a skilled, trained workforce.

Hence the review into skills, commissioned by the Treasury and conducted by Sandy Leitch, the Scot who formerly headed Zurich Financial Services.

Hence today鈥檚 bill in the Queen鈥檚 Speech which will, by 2015, require all 16 to 18-year-olds to stay in some form of education or training. There will be concomitant duties on employers and parents to ensure compliance.

A similar measure was advanced by Jack McConnell for Scotland - and argued with comparable passion. Indeed, Mr McConnell says his biggest regret is that he will not now be able to introduce such a provision.

That is, of course, because Mr McC lost. Alex Salmond is now the first minister. And he does not agree with the compulsory element of the Queen鈥檚 Speech measure - which only applies to England and Wales.

Towards the end of September, Mr Salmond鈥檚 Scottish Government set out their own skills strategy. The aim is to encourage and support - but not to oblige.

Today鈥檚 measure for England and Wales has - wrongly - been described as raising the school leaving age. That is incorrect because it will be possible to meet the new obligation in other ways, for example by undertaking certificated training while in employment.

However, Mr Salmond and his ministers dissent from the principle. Under devolution their scheme will, of course, apply in Scotland.

We will be able to compare and contrast.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

They know what they鈥檙e against: independence for Scotland. But is there any sign yet that they know what they鈥檙e for?

I鈥檓 talking about Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats whose Scottish leaders met (again) today to offer an alternative to the National Conversation offered by SNP ministers.

I must confess I鈥檓 still slightly sceptical about this initiative by the Unionist parties. Not because there is any proscription on them seeking common cause. There isn鈥檛.

But because I question what that common cause might prove to be other than sustaining the existing structure - which they could do without holding a meeting at Scotland Office HQ in Edinburgh.

To be fair, there was progress today. The participants agreed to set up a review process which would examine the devolution settlement, presumably with a view to strengthening devolved powers, although that is not explicit at this stage.

The details of that review process have yet to emerge but we are assured it will be both 鈥渃ross-party and cross-border鈥�.

But what might the further agenda comprise? Full tax powers for Scotland? Lib Dems say yes, Tories offer a pretty reluctant maybe, Labour Ministers say no.

Devolve other powers? Could be - and certainly, if there is to be a substantive rather than ad hoc revision of the Scotland Act, then it would take place at Westminster, where Labour has a comfortable majority.

But does Labour really want to draw attention to its lack of power at Holyrood, to the Scottish credentials of its prime minister and chancellor, to the alleged anomalies which persist in devolution such as the West Lothian question?

Does Labour really want a debate on the nature of devolved power when the PM is out to stress the British dimension?

Perhaps I am missing something - and I remain decidedly open to persuasion in the light of events. Perhaps it is indeed sufficient that the three parties know they鈥檙e against independence - and will commit joinly to preventing such a development.

And today鈥檚 meeting was a move ahead in that it involved MPs (Browne, Mundell and Carmichael) whereas the earlier talks had been confined to MSPs (Alexander, Goldie and Stephen).

But, drawing upon historic comparisons, right now this looks to me more like Taking Stock (Copyright, J. Major) than the Constitutional Convention.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

More on money.

I know, I know, but this really matters.

It may have taken the Scottish Government nearly a week to show the working behind the first minister鈥檚 assertion that, with oil included, Scotland would be the third wealthiest nation in the EU.

It has taken the eager Scotland Office but a few hours to respond. And, guess what, they dispute the first minister鈥檚 interpretation.

In my last little posting, I drew attention to the caveat lodged by Dr Andrew Goudie of the Scottish Government.

He noted that his accounting exercise did 鈥渘ot make any further assumptions and does not model any wider effects which might be concomitant with the transfer of a share of North Sea output to Scotland".

Ever helpful, the political team at the Scotland Office are offering their own translation.

They reckon that phrase refers to 鈥渙ur old friend the fiscal deficit鈥�: the assertion that Scotland requires more in cash from Whitehall than we raise in revenue.

By this version, Dr Goudie produced what was requested: a calculation of Scotland鈥檚 GDP per capita, with oil included.

He was not asked for an assessment of Scotland鈥檚 overall budgetary position under independence. Hence, he did not produce one.

Again by this (Labour) version, Scotland鈥檚 fiscal deficit would trump even oil.

The argument is that if Scotland gets the oil, then that would be under independence and London would remove the fiscal transfer implicit in the Barnett formula.

The Goudie calculations, it is argued, only take account of part one, the good bit.

Against that, supporters of independence dispute the deficit.

And, I suppose, some might also argue that most countries sustain a deficit by borrowing, that they can do so sensibly when their economy is strong.

Advocates of independence would, presumably, argue that Scotland鈥檚 growth rate would outpace any such borrowing.

Supporters of the present set-up say that Scotland would risk abandoning a stable, supportive fiscal set-up for the wasting and inadequate asset of oil.

If someone from the Scottish Government would care to comment, I鈥檓 open for business.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

You鈥檒l remember that Alex Salmond told his party conference at the weekend that Scotland, with oil included, would be the third wealthiest nation in Europe.

You鈥檒l remember further that he based this assertion on what he said were official Scottish Government figures. Along with others, I sought sight of these figures. Rather persistently, in my case.

They have been published today. They assert that, sans oil, Scotland is joint 10th in the European wealth league, measured via GDP per capita. (That鈥檚 alongside Germany and Finland.) Bottom three, for comparison, are Latvia, Bulgaria and Romania.

In that table, the UK as a whole, including North Sea output, is placed seventh, behind Luxembourg, Ireland, the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark and Belgium.

Assume that 75% or 90% of the oil is in Scottish hands, and the position changes. On either oil scenario, Scotland is ranked third, behind super-wealthy Luxembourg and the Celtic Tiger of Ireland.

For guidance, the figures used are from 2005. As in the GERS exercise, which seeks to measure the financial position of Scotland vis a vis the UK, there are caveats attached.

In publishing GERS, Andrew Goudie, the Chief Economic Adviser to the Scottish Government, previously stressed that it told us nothing about the position which might actually emerge under independence.

On this occasion, he says that he is setting out a 鈥減ossible variation in accounting practice鈥�: that is, transferring oil revenues to the Scottish account.

He adds: 鈥淚t does not make any further assumptions and does not model any wider effects which might be concomitant with the transfer of a share of North Sea output to Scotland.鈥�

These wider effects might increase or decrease Scotland鈥檚 wealth.

That aside, expect the first minister, quite understandably, to make much more use of this data (alongside today鈥檚 intriguing analysis of spending relativities in The Herald).

Expect the opposition parties, now that they at last have sight of the calculations, to scrutinise them carefully.

So, a promise, eventually, delivered. Well done. Now about those 1,000 extra police officers鈥�

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Oh, dearie, dearie me. It seemed a wonderful wheeze to hold the draw for the CIS cup semi-final in Holyrood. Parliament for the people, open access, all that sort of stuff.
Doesn鈥檛 look so smart tonight with the confirmation that the draw was mucked up. The numbered balls came out alright, drawn by the first minister Alex Salmond.
But the Presiding Officer Alex Fergusson inadvertently linked those numbered balls to the wrong names.
The draw had been Hearts v Dundee United; and Rangers v Aberdeen.
All day here at Holyrood, the gossip circuits have been buzzing. And we in the wicked media have been posing questions.
Tonight it鈥檚 been confirmed. There was a blunder. So the draw is rescheduled as per the version produced by the Voice of the Balls, Alex Salmond. It鈥檚 United v the Dons and Rangers v the Jambos.

And there鈥檚 more;

You鈥檝e heard of the pub with no beer, but have you heard of the political pub with no licence?

The members bar at the Scottish parliament had to stop serving drink for two hours today when it was discovered that the licence had run out. Officials failed to spot that the licence should have been renewed last night. A tense couple of hours ensured while Holyrood bargained with the licence authorities. During that period they were unable to serve beer, whisky, wine or indeed any of the trendier tipples that MSPs might fancy.

In fact they weren鈥檛 able to serve anything.

Tonight order has been restored and the boozer is back open. A temporary deal has been struck to allow the pub to stay in business until a formal licence can be sorted out at the end of November. Trebles all round.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Joe Quinn of the Press Association is the most gentle and, indeed, genteel of individuals.

He is dedicated, diligent and dogged, pursuing a fact like a hound after a fox (or the modern equivalent in these post-ban days.)

So, when Joe speaks of 鈥渇iery exchanges鈥�, as he did in his account of First Minister鈥檚 Questions today, it is sensible to pay heed.

The topic was primary class sizes.

Joe, you said a mouthful. There was indeed an incendiary element on display 鈥� or, perhaps, a long, slow burn.

Opposition leaders, of course, believe we are witnessing the incineration, one by one, of the SNP鈥檚 manifesto pledges.

It has become a ritual at FMQs. Formulaic, almost. Opposition leader forecasts betrayal, FM issues denial 鈥� and insists that things will be, at the very least, better than under the previous administration.

In truth, we鈥檙e slighly in limbo here. (Or, rather, we would be, had this centuries old concept not been abolished by the Pope. My source on this is Frank McAveety MSP. Many thanks to him.)

We鈥檙e in hiatus until we get the Budget statement from John Swinney on November the 14.

However, there are indications. It would appear that the promised 拢2,000 grant for first time home buyers may not be an early target for implementation.

It would appear that the promise of 1,000 new police officers may not be exactly as billed.

It will, we are told, now be redeemed by recruitment, retention and redeployment.

There are comparable queries over the pledge to stand in the shoes of Scottish domiciled students who have incurred debt.

And, from today鈥檚 exchanges, it would appear that there are implementation issues in the way of the promise to cut class sizes in Primaries One to Three to a maximum of 18.

These issues include - cost, teacher numbers required and the reluctance of some local authorities to commit funds to this objective.

Ministers say they are in discussion with councils 鈥� but remain committed to their aim.
Fire can be attractive, almost hypnotic.

Post November 14, we will need clarity.
Herewith, a cut out and keep guide to worthwhile questions.

Q1) Are SNP Ministers doing what they promised?

Q2) If not, have they changed tack for sensible reasons 鈥� and/or because their original promises were dumb?

Q3) If they have changed tack, are their new policies nonetheless likely to make Scotland a better place?

Opposition leaders will be, rightly, most interested in Question One.

Ministers, I suspect, will seek to focus our attention upon Question Three, without conceding that they have changed tack.

Joe Quinn will be asking these questions. I won鈥檛 be far behind.

PS: Update. You鈥檒l remember Alex Salmond鈥檚 weekend assertion that Scotland was potentially the third wealthiest nation in Europe. You鈥檒l remember that he based this on Scottish Government advice. I鈥檝e been pursuing this 鈥� and am now advised said data from the SG will be published today or tomorrow.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?