大象传媒

A few firsts on offer in Aviemore today.

Wendy Alexander's first Scottish party conference since taking over the Labour leadership at Holyrood. Gordon Brown's first as Prime Minister.

Plus, of course, the small matter of this being the first conference since Labour lost power in the Scottish Parliament.

Yet another innovation. Gordon Brown spoke entirely without notes - rather, dare one say it, Cameron-style.

He paced like a lion, or some alternative feline, at the front of the Aviemore stage, as he offered his ideas to the delegates.

The theme was familiar: a defence of the Union, an attack on the SNP. But you could detect too the fruits of Labour's search for new language in this field.

The PM prepared very thoroughly for this ad lib address. He knew well that rather more than a standard stump speech was required.

He consulted his advisers carefully. What to say on the Union? Don't say Scotland can't afford independence. Sounds too patronising, annoys the voters.

Don't bash the Nats too much. Doesn't go down well, especially when they won more votes than Labour in May. If you're not careful, can sound like you're saying the voters were daft.

So search for a new narrative about the Union. Stress Scottish roots, both personal and party - but stress a multi-faceted relevance for Britain too.

Thus Gordon Brown argued that it was a moral and economic imperative to deploy all the skills of Scotland's and Britain's people. He claimed that the SNP budget would undermine education and skills training.

Then he attempted to stress key British icons. Not the Queen, not fair play, not old maids cycling to evensong - offered by sundry PMs in the past. Rather he talked of the NHS and universal education.

Finally, he argued that the current generation faced the prospect of eradicating global poverty and disease, if the political will existed.

Such a will, he argued, would be diluted by creating new State boundaries within the United Kingdom.

In truth, there are logical weak points in the emerging Brown approach.

For example, he argues that climate change cannot be countered on an England-only or Scotland-only basis. Quite true - but, taken at face value, an argument for world government, sans frontieres.

State boundaries there must be. The argument is where those boundaries should be placed, respecting identity, efficiency and political acceptability.

But, be in no doubt, we are seeing an effort to create a new Unionism.

The Commission to review devolution, the prospect of a new funding system, the prospective review of Barnett.

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

鈥淣ow more than ever seems it rich to die, To cease upon the midnight with no pain.鈥�

Thus wrote Keats in his Ode to a Nightingale. The words came to me, unbidden, as I contemplated the Holyrood debate on assisted suicide and, in particular, the contribution from Margo Macdonald.

Margo suffers from Parkinson鈥檚 Disease. She told the chamber that .

She wanted, further, no legal sanctions upon anyone who might assist her in that final act.

In response, Nicola Sturgeon, the health secretary, said ministers had no plans to change the law which forbids assisting suicide. She noted that suicide itself was not illegal.

Margo鈥檚 contribution to Scottish politics has been immense and her views command respect.

'Half lives'

On this occasion, I am inclined to differ from her, particularly on the issue of assistance. It is only too easy, sadly, to see circumstances in which liberty to assist in hastening death could be perverted.

Further, I cannot find myself in agreement with the Rev Maxwell Craig who has said we should not prioritise the expenditure of cash on preserving what he calls the 鈥渉alf lives鈥� of the very elderly.

Personally - and nothing is more strictly personal than this - I prefer that our medical service should be fundamentally devoted to the preservation of life, not neglect or active termination.

More Keats: "Thou wast not born for death, immortal Bird! No hungry generations tread thee down."

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

Launching , First Minister Alex Salmond called for blunt speaking from his audience of the great, the middling and the mostly good.

His address prompted a notably blunt response - but not from the immediate audience. Annabel Goldie, she who must be obeyed in the Scottish Tories, said Mr Salmond鈥檚 referendum plan was 鈥渢ripe".

What could this be? What had so upset the abseiling Annabel? Mr Salmond had advocated a multi-option referendum, settled by the Single Transferable Vote, or STV.

It would work like this. You鈥檇 get a ballot paper with three options: the status quo; devolution with enhanced powers; independence.

Mr Salmond envisages that option two, devolution plus, would emerge from .

You鈥檇 place a number one against your first preference, two against your second and . . . you鈥檙e ahead of me now, aren鈥檛 you?

'Travelling hopefully'

As in council elections, if any option wins majority support, then it鈥檚 settled. Failing that, the least popular would drop out, with second preferences reallocated to find a winner.

Miss Goldie is unimpressed. You don鈥檛, she says, decide 鈥渢he destiny of a country on the basis of the second best or least worst option".

In response, Mr Salmond says STV is used the world over, that the people of Scotland proved themselves capable of handling it in the council elections - and that independence would only win through if it gained sufficient support.

The first minister also points out that his prime objective has been to secure a straightforward referendum on independence.

Given the opposition to that, he is 鈥渢ravelling hopefully鈥� towards alternatives, driven by the emerging views of his rivals.

My guess is that Mr Salmond is more than content to trade arguments and even insults over referendum options. It means the topic is discussed.

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

A substantial figure for a substantial task. Professor Sir Kenneth Calman - who is to chair the - is, by any standards, a player.

Presently Chancellor of the University of Glasgow, he is a former cancer specialist who has been, at various times, the Chief Medical Officer both in Scotland and England.

Perhaps just the cross-border experience that will be required.

And he is to head a commission. A commission which will review. A commission which will review whether there should be further powers transferred to Holyrood or returned to Westminster.

Plus the small matter of finance.

We were chided, we in the wicked media who had suggested that there was a problem with the title of the body.

'Piffle and tosh'

We had pointed out mischievously that the Scotland Office, who called the media to hear the announcement, had talked of the Scottish Parliament Review.

Piffle, we were told. And, what鈥檚 more, tosh. Didn鈥檛 matter what it was called. Mattered what it did.

Well, no. It mattered because the leaked Downing Street memo indicated that Gordon Brown didn鈥檛 fancy the term commission and, more to the point, wanted the UK Government to 鈥渢ake the lead in setting a review up鈥�.

This was, in short, about power, about control. Calling the inquiry a 鈥渞eview鈥� - after Wendy Alexander had insisted it was a commission - was shorthand for "We鈥檙e in charge here.鈥�

At today鈥檚 news conference, we were issued with a statement from the PM to the effect that his cabinet had 鈥渄iscussed and approved the establishment of a Commission to review the Scotland Act.鈥�

So, now we鈥檝e - mostly - sorted out the name, what next? Sir Kenneth will be surrounded by fellow commissioners, reflecting the three constituent parties - Labour, Tory, LibDem - plus wider opinion.

Previous work

They will convene, take evidence, discuss - and hope to produce an interim report by November.

Must confess that strikes me as ambitious. Unless, of course, the scope of the review is to be relatively limited.

I would have thought that studying the finances of devolution would, in itself, have taken longer. Perhaps, however, the commission will be able to draw upon previous work.

Plus, as Nicol Stephen pointed out, they should be able to obtain advice and information from the Treasury.

Let me close with a little confession. I have, perhaps, not accorded this initiative due weight in the past.

Perhaps I have been inclined to accentuate the dynamics of internal tension which mitigated against its progress.

English grumbling

However, this is serious. Tensions still exist: within parties, not least Labour; between parties, not least between Labour who back a 鈥渢wo-way street鈥� review and the LibDems who say that Holyrood shouldn鈥檛 surrender any power.

Questions still arise. What will this review cost? What will be the allocation of cost between the UK Government and the Scottish Parliament?

But this is serious: partly an initiative 10 years after devolution, largely a response to the SNP victory in May.

Plus, see this in context. This is part of a Downing Street initiative to respond to inchoate English grumbling about the state of the Union, post devolution.

This commission - and concomitant initiatives - will repay further inspection.

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

In politics, there is a distinction to be drawn between opposing a rival on an individual issue and ascribing malign motivation to a person鈥檚 entire standpoint.

Alex Salmond drew that distinction, quietly and neatly, in parliament as he faced questions over the Robert Foye case.

Pressed by Annabel Goldie, he reminded her - again quietly and without rancour - how many convicts had absconded from open prison in the last year of Conservative governance in Scotland.

The figure was higher than at present.

The First Minister then chided his Tory opponents. He argued that they appeared to be suggesting that the underlying motivation of ministers was malign.

鈥淣o party in this chamber鈥�, he added, 鈥渉as anything other than the safety of the public uppermost in our minds.鈥�

Had Ms Goldie not run out of time, she might have retorted that she was questioning the practical implications of ministerial policy for public safety. Not their core motives.

However, Mr Salmond had contrived to issue a valuable lesson, well delivered. Politics is best served by tolerant, evidence-based argument.

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

Fair bit of chat at Holyrood this afternoon as to whether a formal statement from the Justice Secretary is required following the case of Robert Foye.

You鈥檒l remember, I鈥檓 sure, that he is the man who absconded from Castle Huntly open prison and raped a schoolgirl.

A review, conducted by the Scottish Prison Service itself, has concluded that . However, there were no indicators that predicted rape.

The review has been dismissed as deeply unsatisfactory by some - and, at Holyrood, the Tories want Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, to set out his position.

My understanding is that the minister isn鈥檛 particularly averse to making a statement if that might help - but that there is a feeling further parliamentary scrutiny can usefully be pursued via oral questions to himself or to the first minister.

Dreadful case

On this topic, did you catch Mike Duffy, Scotland鈥檚 Director of Prisons, on Newsnight last night or Good Morning Scotland earlier today?

He delivered a coherent explanation: that assessment of prisoners comprises a calculation of the risk of reoffending together with other factors; that one must prepare long-term prisoners for release by using, among other things, open prisons; that the service would learn lessons from this dreadful case.

To me, however, his answers sounded just a little too mechanistic. Difficult, I know, for a man immersed in the service, but perhaps he needed to step back and consider this case from the perspective of the public - who are understandably shocked and demanding answers.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There is indeed to be a statement on the Foye case. As previously billed here, ministers weren't hostile to the notion.

It was left to Bruce Crawford as minister for parliament to negotiate behind the scenes.

Pressed by the Tories, he announced a short time ago that the parliamentary business for next week will be changed to allow time for a statement by the justice secretary.

Good call. Parliament doesn't just make the law. It ventilates popular concern about the application of the law and the penal system.

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

Here鈥檚 a question for you. Why did Labour lose the Holyrood elections last May?

No, come on, seriously. Was it a rejection of Jack McConnell? An insurrection against Tony Blair? A victory for Nationalism? A victory for Alex Salmond?

Is there perhaps another element, underpinning each of these options? Party organisation. Setting policy and leadership to one side for a moment, Labour was systematically driven down by a far superior SNP campaign, headed by the estimable Angus Robertson MP.

There are one or two voices in Scottish Labour still bemoaning the narrow scope of the defeat. Would it have been different if different candidates had been selected - or willing to stand - in certain key seats?

An alternative view, however, is: you lost, get over it. On balance, while casting an eye back, the leadership is inclined to the second view.

We now learn Scottish Labour is determined to match key elements of that SNP approach. For example, Labour has built and will maintain an online database of potential supporters.

Potential sympathy

During the Holyrood campaign, I witnessed this aspect of the SNP machine in operation. It was, frankly, awesome.

Instead of confronting folk with blunt doorstep questions purely about voting intention, canvassers were trained to pursue identifiers: that is, issues such as crime or education which might intrigue the voters and disclose potential sympathy for the SNP cause or particular SNP policies.

These doorstep surveys then generated targeted mailshots, dwelling upon the issues raised. In essence, the SNP was permanently talking about the concerns of the voters - not of the party.

Labour leaders claim their replica system has helped the party to win recent local authority by-elections.

Further, at the Scottish Labour conference the weekend after next, there will be a series of reforms to organisation designed to improve the party machine.

At this stage, these fall notably short of the complete transformation promised by Wendy Alexander at her accession to the leadership.

She explains that by saying that the party鈥檚 new general secretary in Scotland, Colin Smyth, is actively examining change.

Other items in the wind. Ms Alexander plans to publish a 鈥渧ision thing鈥� document this weekend, setting out her view of Labour鈥檚 core purpose in Scotland. Expect talk of aspiration, ambition and social justice.

Campaign funding

Her front bench team are publishing new policies. These include, today, efforts to increase the number of modern apprenticeships: their wages would be paid or part-paid in small firms while large companies would be advised to take on apprentices in order to win public sector contracts.

These initiatives she can undertake. There are other small matters, of course, where her room for manoeuvre is somewhat more limited.

One thinks of the protracted controversy over her campaign funding. One thinks of the doubts over her performance in the chamber.

One thinks especially perhaps of the weekend poll by MRUK which suggested that Alex Salmond was a massive 75 points ahead of her in popularity.

(Mr Salmond had a substantial plus score, weighing those who like him in the balance against those who dislike him. Ms Alexander鈥檚 net rating was notably negative.)

What can she do about these? Strive and wait, I suppose. Strive and wait.

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

I鈥檝e met John Smeaton just the once. That was when he was invited to attend the Labour conference in Bournemouth last autumn. He was in the hall for the Prime Minister鈥檚 speech and was singled out as a hero by Mr Brown for his efforts during the alleged terror attack on Glasgow Airport.

I grabbed a quick TV interview with Mr Smeaton after the PM鈥檚 address.

My impression was of a gallus Glaswegian who seemed, understandably, over-awed but enthralled by the attention. Once again, the 鈥渉ero鈥� identified by the PM took pains when he talked to me to stress that others had more than played their part.

Now some of those others are suggesting that Mr Smeaton鈥檚 own contribution may have been much more limited than previously believed. One, Alex McIlveen, who was injured in the episode, said that John Smeaton only gained attention because of his defiant comments afterwards. Not his actions which, according to Mr McIlveen, were minimal.

John Smeaton has responded by insisting he never sought to exaggerate his contribution and added: 鈥淚t is a strange world when some people try and blow out your candle to make their own grow brighter.鈥�

I freely confess I am in absolutely no position to judge the truth here. Did Mr Smeaton exaggerate 鈥� or was he simply caught up in a wave of publicity, not of his making, as folk tuned into to his simple message of defiance?

Should he have done still more to stress the roles of others 鈥� or is it perhaps the case that the media weren鈥檛 listening at the time, that, collectively, in troubled times, we wanted a clear, single hero 鈥� one Superman, one Batman, not a posse?

Is that true too of politicians 鈥� and the Palace who presented Mr Smeaton with the Queen鈥檚 Gallantry Medal?
Not sure. I鈥檓 genuinely not sure.

PS: Congratulations to Rangers on taking the CIS Cup to Ibrox. No question about it. On the day, the better team lost. We United supporters will get over it... but, right now, to lose on penalties, having been denied a stonewall spot kick during the game seems unspeakably cruel.

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

So much time has passed, so much. It is difficult in truth for me to revive, fully, the emotional bile, grief, disquiet and raw anger which enveloped this case.

I do not imagine, however, that such a task is remotely difficult for Shirley McKie and her father Iain.

In opposition, the SNP had promised a judicial inquiry into the McKie case.

As more time passed, the mutterings at Holyrood grew more frequent. Was an inquiry necessary? What would be gained? Hadn鈥檛 Parliament already investigated the case?

Today those mutterings were silenced by the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. He has asked , a senior Northern Ireland judge, to conduct a full inquiry.

You remember the basics, I鈥檓 sure. A decade ago, Shirley McKie, a police officer, was accused of leaving her fingerprint at a murder scene 鈥� and then lying about it.

She lost her job. She faced a perjury charge but was acquitted.

Finally, after biting controversy, after claim and counter-claim, she received 拢750,000 in compensation in an out of court settlement with the Scottish Executive, paid without admission of liability.

There had been, it was said, 鈥渁n honest mistake made in good faith.鈥�

I covered this remarkable story, sporadically. It was pursued more extensively by my Parliamentary colleague Kit Fraser and by the teams at Newsnight Scotland, Frontline and Panorama.

Even as I compile this blog, however, the memories begin to force their way forward.

The media scrums at the old Parliament on the Mound as Shirley and Iain, accompanied then by Mike Russell, now a Minister, set out their case.

I remember too Jim Wallace, the then Justice Minister, stating that fingerprinting was, in some respects, an art form rather than an exact science.

I remember the controversy that caused, spreading out from a single case into the entire forensic system.

Then the Parliamentary inquiry at Holyrood as competing versions fought to be heard.

The McKie assertion - that an entirely innocent police officer had been hounded and smeared, ending her career and endangering her mental health.

The fingerprint officers, furious at what they saw as a sustained slur upon their skill and integrity.

Now a further inquiry, aimed, says the Minister, at 鈥渇inding us all an ending鈥�. Not a retrial, then, more an exercise in truth and, if such a thing is possible, reconciliation.

But before that potential ending, we await the beginning.

The judge won鈥檛 start until August when he has completed his current duties as a Lord Justice of Appeal.

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

Just back from having a shufti at the Calcutta Cup, won so magnificently at Murrayfield last weekend.

It was briefly on display at Holyrood as MSPs mustered to congratulate Frank Hadden and the team.

Many congrats from me too. Frank鈥檚 footballing allegiance may lie in the direction of a certain Dundonian side who play in dark blue - but he鈥檚 a good man and a talented coach who, after setbacks, managed to draw the best from the side in a performance that showed the consistency and confidence which had been lacking previously.

Prize for the best rugby gag of the day goes to Annabel Goldie who informed the chamber that Scotland鈥檚 grand slam victories have been during periods of Tory rule at Westminster.

鈥淣ot long to wait now, lads,鈥� she added cheerily.

. They reckon Wendy Alexander put up her best showing since taking over as Labour leader.

New momentum

Both she and Annabel Goldie pursued the FM over Local Income Tax. Details, they demanded, details.

Alex Salmond duly produced details. Just not, entirely, the details he was asked to produce.

As ever, the FM sounded confident, perhaps taking his lead from the new Murrayfield momentum. He sounded relatively unconcerned when pressed on the specifics of LIT.

Why? Other than his natural ebullience, why? Is it perhaps because Mr Salmond can detect the prospect of a twin-track victory?

If he can steer local income tax past the hostile elements at Holyrood, then that鈥檚 a manifesto commitment delivered.

'Estimable doing'

If, as seems much more likely, he is thwarted, then he can blame the wickedness of the opposition.

Frankly, the greater political gain probably lies with the second scenario. That led The Scotsman to speculate today that the Scottish Government鈥檚 heart wasn鈥檛 truly in it when it came to advancing local income tax. (Nice piece, Hamish.)

The paper cited an interview on 大象传媒 Newsnight Scotland in which, they suggested, John Swinney got a doing from the estimable Gordon Brewer.

Think there鈥檚 a touch of truth in that analysis. Certainly helps explain why the detail hasn鈥檛 perhaps been quite as fully and freely available as one might expect.

However, we must be careful not to take this too far. John Swinney and Alex Salmond want to be able to show that they have, at the very least, given local income tax its very best shot.

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

Wasn't that a whopping increase on whisky in the Chancellor's budget? The levy is to rise by 55p a bottle.

I suppose one might argue that whisky and spirits generally could scarcely escape when the tax take overall is being increased.

However, the argument advanced in the past by the whisky industry - and accepted in the past by the Treasury - is that whisky suffers more from duty by proportion than other drinks.

The effort, therefore, has been to smooth out that difference by freezing the rate on whisky over successive years. It would appear that circumstances this year are so pressing that that effort has to be abandoned.

On the same theme, wasn't it a remarkable coincidence that Wendy Alexander chose this very topic of the duty on alcohol to pursue with the first minister at questions in Holyrood last week?

Without supporting or opposing an increase in duty, she nevertheless challenged Alex Salmond over his attitude to the cost of drink and its impact on society. How very prescient?

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

What do you make of that plan for school pupils to swear an oath of allegiance? Myself, I鈥檓 not sure it鈥檚 going anywhere fast 鈥� except, perhaps, to an overflowing Whitehall in tray.

The scheme has been proposed by the former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith. He says Britain has become a more divided country and it鈥檚 time to foster 鈥渘ational pride鈥� with a touch of ceremonial in schools.

You鈥檙e ahead of me, aren鈥檛 you? Which nation? The United Kingdom? Great Britain? Scotland?

Plus what would the ceremony comprise? Is it to be a US-style pledge to the flag? (Yes, again, which flag?) Is to be an oath of loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen?

On that last point, Lord G says it ain鈥檛 necessarily so. It could be, he says, a pledge of commitment to the country (OK, I know, I get the concept) or 鈥渁 statement of what the rights and responsibilities of citizens are.鈥�

Not too sure what that might mean 鈥� other than a few warm, encouraging words. What鈥檚 the point of the exercise if it isn鈥檛 a true oath of allegiance?

According to a back-up study on this issue, senior politicians have been accused of lacking enthusiasm for the concept as applied at present to citizenship ceremonies for new entrants to the UK. Cynics, all of them.

PS: What about schools in Belfast? Would they join in? Best of luck to whoever has to draft their oath.

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

It will be a meeting of minds, certainly, but also a convocation of uncertainty.

This evening the Finance Secretary John Swinney is due to have a wee chat with his LibDem opposite number, Tavish Scott.

On the agenda? Whether or, more strictly, how to replace the council tax with a local income tax.

The political snags? Legion, as recounted previously here. In sum, they are these.
鈥� SNP Ministers favour a fixed 3p tax on income for all councils; the LibDems want local variation.
鈥� Even if they do a deal, that doesn鈥檛 add up to a majority in the Holyrood chamber: Labour and Tories will oppose; Greens favour taxing property
鈥� Even if they surmount that, the Bill would have a rough ride in committee
鈥� Even if the Bill gets through, UK Ministers say they would withhold council tax benefit if council tax is scrapped.

But, hey, welcome to minority government. Welcome to Scottish politics. This is perhaps particularly challenging but ministers have, so far, won more battles than they have lost, including the Budget.

However, there is another small matter to be considered. Should they win this battle? Is this the right policy for Scotland? Firstly, the upside.
鈥� Local income tax is based, by definition, on ability to pay 鈥� with exceptions (see below)
鈥� Ministers say most people would pay less 鈥� but that鈥檚 partly because they plan to peg the rate of LIT at 3p in the pound, by providing an extra 拢450m from the Scottish Government budget (also, see below)
鈥� Those on low fixed incomes (such as pensioners) who pay their whack in council tax would gain
鈥� Those with savings income would gain. That wouldn鈥檛 be taxed
鈥� Those with income from stocks and shares would gain. Ditto. (See below)
鈥� LIT isn鈥檛 the council tax 鈥� just as council tax wasn鈥檛 the poll tax

Next the downside:
鈥� That 鈥渓ocal tax cut鈥� of 拢450m comes out of money for other services in Scotland
鈥� Fixed rate LIT means there is no local accountability by councils for what they raise
鈥� Higher income tax is, arguably, a disincentive for employment
鈥� Lifting a tax on property might inflate the housing market
鈥� LIT might be a problem for employers 鈥� especially if there鈥檚 a variable rate
鈥� Those exceptions: no LIT on the seriously wealthy, those whose money comes from savings and stocks
鈥� If council tax benefit is scrapped, that鈥檚 another 拢400m to find in Scotland

Finally, is it fair to remove council tax benefit? Yes and no. Again, by definition, LIT is designed to be fairer to those on low incomes.

It is designed to alleviate the very distress which council tax benefit addresses. Why should the benefit still be paid if the problem has gone? No pain, no gain, as the DWP might say.

Then again, council tax benefit is paid en bloc to local authorities, not to individual recipients.

It could, arguably, be viewed as an integral part of council finance, not a benefit.

It has in the past, on the margins, been varied according to the Barnett Formula, not simply individual need. That means, say ministers, it鈥檚 formulaic, not demand led.

So, why not use the Barnett Formula permanently to provide Scotland with continuing cash, post the abolition of council tax?

An intriguing debate. Join in, please. With the customary appeal 鈥� which will no doubt be ignored 鈥� for evidence-based contributions rather than partisan bickering.

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

Spent the morning at 大象传媒 Scotland鈥檚 latest Soundtown, Baldragon Academy in the great and noble city of Dundee.

Many, many congratulations to the young folk and their teachers who are making such a success of the endeavour 鈥� and plainly enjoying themselves thoroughly in the process.

It鈥檚 always a delight to return to Dundee, the finest place in the known universe. But I found Baldragon a particular source of memories. I dimly recall that, in its previous incarnation as Kirkton High School, I once played chess there with a visiting team from another Dundee school.

More to the point, a fair chunk of my family once lived in and around Baldragon: farm, that is, not academy. The associated village of Bridgefoot or 鈥淏riggie鈥�, then distinctly rural, now seems to be effectively part of the city.

During today鈥檚 visit, I was interviewed for one of the programmes the students are putting together, with S2 youngsters in charge of vision and sound as well as the format and the interviews. Exceptionally well researched and executed.

I was also questioned in depth by the Higher Modern Studies Class.

Among the many, many things they wanted to know about were: the balance of powers between Parliament and Ministers at Holyrood; the scrutiny role of MSPs; likely clash points between Scotland and Westminster; the Barnett formula; public funding more generally; the West Lothian question; the prospects for independence; the influence of social conditions on health; free prescriptions, right or wrong.

For an hour, we batted these topics and others back and forward, with intelligent supplementary questions from the students to keep me on my toes.

No vitriol, no cynicism, no bias, no bogus accusations, no futile claim and counter-claim, no ludicrous rhetoric. Refreshing. Quite literally, refreshing.

The final question, by the way, was: 鈥淎s a fellow Arab, how much do you think United will win by in the CIS cup final next Saturday?鈥� As in elected politics, a margin of one is enough.

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

The wry smile on Alex Salmond鈥檚 face told the story. That and the fact that he dodged the issue entirely.

He had been, temporarily, tackled. And the chamber knew it.

The issue? Student debt and the SNP鈥檚 pledge thereon. Do you remember the bold statements: 鈥淚t鈥檚 time to dump student debt.鈥�?

Do you remember the 鈥渄ebt monster鈥�, a hideous cartoon beast besetting students? Only the SNP could slay it, apparently.

Nicol Stephen certainly remembers all this and he cited this evidence with vigour in challenging the FM.

The issue he raised was not the abandonment of the policy. The Lib Dem leader was challenging, instead, the apparent attempt to rewrite history.

Education Secretary Fiona Hyslop, he said, had gone so far as to deny there was ever any pledge to 鈥渨rite off鈥� student debt.

Servicing debts

It was one thing, he suggested, to deny breaking promises. It was going rather too far to deny making them in the first place.

At the time, in the chamber, this was a palpable hit. The general view afterwards - even including some Nationalists - was that Mr Stephen had won this particular exchange.

What鈥檚 the substance behind this? To be entirely fair, it was made plain during last year鈥檚 election that the SNP did not intend to write off the debt in one go.

Rather they would 鈥渟tand in the shoes鈥� of the debtors, taking over the cost of servicing the debts of Scottish domiciled students.

But they did say they would write off the debt. For example, Ms Hyslop said exactly that in a speech at Strathclyde University in November 2006.

In the balance

SNP ministers quite rightly and properly point to their alternative action: scrapping the graduate endowment (with Lib Dem support), moving steadily from loans to grants.

Alex Salmond pointed, accurately, to the absence of a Holyrood majority for the debt policy. He pointed, further, to the relative scarcity of funds from HM Treasury.

All matters to be weighed in the balance by politicians, students and, of course the wicked media.

But spare us, please, the verbal sophistry.

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

There鈥檚 a scene in Airplane, that cinematic classic, in which the doctor played by Leslie Nielsen repeatedly pops his head into the cockpit to encourage the struggling stand-in pilot and the air stewardess who are attempting to land the jet.

"I just want to wish you both good luck, we're all counting on you", he says, again and again. Each repetition, of course, simply adds to the tension.

Way back in 1999, I thought of that scene when told that Paddy Ashdown, the Liberal Democrat federal leader, was calling constantly to encourage his Scottish colleagues in their coalition talks with Labour.

The calls, I remember, became rather irksome to some of the LibDems who were conducting the negotiations.

Now it appears that his successor but one, Sir Menzies Campbell, also played an offstage role in possible coalition talks last year around the time of the Holyrood elections. However, Ming did things rather differently.

He didn鈥檛 badger his MSPs. Indeed, he didn鈥檛 tell them at all that he was engaging in private discussions with Gordon Brown re possible methods of preventing the SNP from taking power at Holyrood.

As The Times reports this morning, Sir Ming will disclose in his forthcoming autobiography that he was approached, twice, by GB. He met him, twice, and canvassed options while stressing that coalition decisions fell to the Scottish LibDems to determine.

Sir Ming then discussed matters with MSPs Nicol Stephen and Tavish Scott, without referring to the Brown talks.

He notes: 鈥淣either Nicol nor Tavish knew I was speaking privately to him but I am fairly certain they must have worked it out.鈥�

Now I know it must be exasperating for UK political leaders, observing events which affect their party鈥檚 prospects deeply - and, in this case, potentially affecting the Union to which they adhere.

But isn鈥檛 it time that those MPs who voted for the Third Reading of the Scotland Act truly grasped the implications of devolution for their own party?

Yes, they can cajole. Yes, they can influence. Yes, they can advise.

But strategic decisions are not, primarily or finally, their call to make. Sir Ming acknowledges that - but doesn鈥檛 act accordingly.

He still doesn鈥檛 involve his Scottish colleagues fully. He still acts as if it can be, to some degree, fixed by Westminster politicians.

PS: Do you think Gordon Brown consulted Jack McConnell, the then Scottish Labour leader, before contacting Ming Campbell? No, neither do I.

PPS: Sir Ming鈥檚 text talks of Nicol Stephen, the Scottish party leader, alongside 鈥淭avish Scott, the Scottish LibDem deputy leader鈥�. Tiny point but, last time I checked, the deputy leader of the Scottish LibDems was Michael Moore MP.

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

Herewith a wee thought anent the stushie about Local Income Tax or, more precisely, the future of benefits should Scotland opt for LIT.

UK ministers say there could be no question of continuing to pay 拢400m worth of council tax benefit from the Treasury to recipients in Scotland 鈥� if council tax has been scrapped.

Is there a way round that?

Logically, I can see the force of the UK Government鈥檚 argument. Council tax benefit compensates for those who are unable to pay the levy because they are on low income.

The benefit is paid en bloc to local authorities 鈥� but it is based upon the number of low income households.

The very purpose of local income tax is to transform that situation, to levy council taxation upon ability to pay. Low income households would pay less, by definition.

Why, then, should benefit continue to be paid 鈥� when the problem it addresses no longer exists? Because, say Scottish Ministers, it is 鈥淪cotland鈥檚 money鈥�.

Scottish local authority finance survives on a combination of council tax, business rates, Scottish Government grant and UK Government benefits.

Why should one prop be removed entirely because the nature of another element, individual local taxation, has been reformed? Because, says logic, you have to have a firm basis for finance.

Even if some form of benefit or benefit equivalent is to be maintained, you have to have a firm basis for calculating it. Not just this year 鈥� but 10 years hence when council tax in Scotland would be a distant memory.

For all the rhetoric, I believe that Scottish Ministers understand that only too well.

Hence, I would not be surprised to see them suggesting that the annual subvention to Scotland to compensate for low income households in local finance should be calculated via the Barnett Formula.

It would work like this. Scotland would get the Barnett consequential of council tax benefit handed out in England. As in the past, that would be used to mitigate the cost of local services.

Not sure that would be looked on with any more favour by the Treasury. But it would at least have fewer logical inconsistencies.

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

Good showing by Nicol Stephen, I thought.

One or two moderately good gags. Substantive content, well delivered.

The here in Aviemore liked what they heard.

High notes? Condemning inflated energy company profits as "obscene". Think what he's offering there is a new model version of old style liberalism.

Gladstone backed the rights of the individual. Today's LibDems say they're also backing the rights of the consumer.

On council finance, an offer to Alex Salmond to discuss Local Income Tax. Scottish Ministers will publish a consultation document on this matter the week after next.

Snag is the LibDems and the SNP have different views on what local income tax might entail. LibDems would allow councils to vary the rate of LIT levied, within limits. The SNP want a 3p rate, set nationally but levied by all councils.

Snag (number two) is that SNP plus LibDem doesn't quite equal majority in Holyrood. Labour, Tories and Greens oppose LIT.

Snag (number three). SNP Ministers have gained a considerable coup by freezing council tax rates. Do they really - no, really - want to throw that away by embarking on a new form of council finance which will have losers as well as winners?

On the constitution, Mr Stephen restressed his opposition to returning any powers from Holyrood to Westminster. He'll take his party into the Commission/review - but opposes Gordon Brown's view that the re-evaluation of powers involves a two-way street.

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

The sense of ambition, if not presumption, lies in the title.

Alistair Carmichael was introduced to the LibDem conference in Aviemore today as 鈥渢he Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland.鈥�

Last time I checked, Commons nomenclature awarded that title to David Mundell, Conservative MP for a large swathe of southern Scotland. As a representative of HM Official Opposition, Mr Mundell rings the bell.

Snag is he toils alone, at least as far as Scotland is concerned. L鈥櫭﹖at, c鈥檈st moi, he is obliged to say when asked to line up the Scots Tory strength in the Commons.

So, the LibDems with a dozen Commons tribunes from Scotland 鈥� second behind Labour 鈥� say they鈥檙e more entitled to the title than the bold Mundell.

Doesn鈥檛 stop DM occupying the front bench at question time or during debates, but it adds to the fun of the place.

Hence the billing for in his speech today.

He opened incidentally by recalling his political beginnings quarter of a century ago.

Apparently, he was at Glasgow University with Wendy Alexander. In those days, he said, she was 鈥渁 socialist dynamo鈥� wont to quoting at length from Karl Marx and John Maclean.

But no matter. The substance of his argument was that the Holyrood result last May had opened great opportunities for the Liberal Democrats.

Hold on. Give me that again slowly. Didn鈥檛 the LibDems lose ground, come in fourth and end up ejected from power? You鈥檇 need to be the Scotland rugby coach to see that as an advance. (Apologies, Frank)

But wait. There is a more subtle argument here 鈥� and it has lurked in the background throughout this conference. (See earlier blogs)

It is that Scotland has been liberated from the presumption that politics will always be dominated by Labour.

Mr Carmichael put it thus: 鈥淔or the first time in my adult life, the Labour Party has lost its stranglehold.鈥�

That applied, he said, not just at Holyrood but throughout Scottish local government.

And, he forecast, it would eventually turn out that way in the Commons too.

Hence, he argued, the LibDems could take Westminster seats from Labour. Scarcely a word about the Tories, note.

Like Nick Clegg yesterday, this was a speech positing the premise that Scotland/Britain was embarking on post-Labour politics.

, naturally dissents 鈥� and that somewhat strongly.

Thought, however, it was worth sharing LibDem tactical thinking with you.

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