Authoritarian Scotland

Have all of you read Kenneth Roy’s article ‘We are sleepwalking into an authoritarian Scotland' in this week’s Scottish Review?  If not here’s the link.  It’s essential reading.

I’m not going to dwell on the content because most of you know my feelings about ‘Evidence2Success’.

What angers me most about this latest development is the duplicity of my own council Perth and Kinross, Angus council and others who are participating willingly in this appalling intrusion into family life.  Do these people truly believe that changing the name of one of their pet projects will make it more acceptable to  the parents of the children involved and also the wider society?

I have contacted my MSP to express my disgust at this programme being continued.  

Unfortunately the Scottish Government have complete control of education and therefore voting No in the referendum will not alter the situation. All of us need to protest loudly and tell our political representatives that this policy is not acceptable in this country.

Tweet

The Snooper’s Charter Is Passed By The Scottish Parliament

The Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill was passed last night with 103 MSPs voting for it and with 15 abstentions. Eleven MSPs did not vote.

The Tories did their best to make amendments to the proposal to assign all children a named person to monitor their wellbeing, but their amendments were defeated at the amendment stage.

It also transpired that the Scottish Government is unable to provide MSPs with an estimate of the capital costs of expanding access to free childcare.

My opposition to parts of this Bill is well recorded and I do hope the Tories will take the legal action they threatened earlier yesterday.

As John Ross, one of the former Free Church of Scotland moderators, said:

''I am deeply disappointed that the legislation has not been amended by MSPs.

My chief objection is that the bill considers children in isolation rather than as part of a family unit.

A child’s values, wellbeing and development are primarily the responsibility of his or her parents, not state-appointed guardians, and it’s disappointing that the Scottish Government has not made clear what jurisdiction a named person has or how parents can engage in the process.

It is very risky rolling out a nationwide scheme based on a few pilot projects, when what is needed is not retrospection but foresight. The government needs to anticipate future abuses, such as when militant secularists accuse religious parents of intellectual indoctrination because they teach their children their faith.

The Isle of Man ran a similar scheme that had to be abandoned because it undermined the trust essential to the provision of social and health care. Astronomical increases in referrals put the social work system into meltdown. Staff turnover increased due to needless stress and families feared going to hospitals or doctors’ surgeries because they thought health professionals were snooping. As a result, those who really were in need suffered.

Instead of stubbornly pressing ahead with a scheme that may foster distrust and suspicion, the government would do better to encourage supportive vigilance, community cohesion and caring neighbourliness. Unless ignored by an overweening state, the Church is able to help with that kind of thing.’

Introducing this legislation will lose the Yes campaign a serious amount of votes because I haven’t spoken to one person who approves of the ’Named Person’ aspect of the Bill.

More worrying is the manner in which the Bill has been forced through the Scottish Parliament without providing proper financial details of how the Bill will be supported.  It would seem, that in their desperate efforts to make Scotland a socialist country, they will push out those we need most - adults who are well educated and earn more than the national average.  These are the people who will need to be taxed more to pay for this grandiose, unnecessary piece of legislation.

Tweet

Are Our MSPs Work-shy?

According to today's Express, Scotland's MSPs are work-shy- a generalisation possibly quite unfair to the majority.

Tricia Marwick, the parliament's Presiding Officer, wants to expand the hours parliamentarians are present in Holyrood.  Currently they are only required to be there one and a half days a week.  Debates are held on Wednesday afternoons and Thursdays, with committee members also required at Holyrood every second Tuesday. Sessions are always completed by 5pm and there are no late night debates.

Mrs Marwick proposes a change to debates on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday afternoons with committees held in the mornings.

Neil Findlay, a Lothians Labour MSP, wants the status quo to be retained because his work hours are already excessive.  He's been forced to pay for a hotel room in Edinburgh four times in the past seven months after attending late-night functions. He sounds a bit of a whinger and could do with being seconded to an army colonel - who receives roughly the same salary - for a week or two.

In large organisations there are always individuals who are more skilled at 'being busy doing nothing' than their colleagues. Going back some years, I can recall a senior of mine who contributed nothing to the business, but he was beyond reproach because, as I later discovered, he was related to the managing director.  Give the man his due his attendance was perfect, his appearance referred to as 'dapper' and he had a genuinely happy persona. He perfected the art of wandering round the building always carrying bundles of documents and conversing with anyone he happened to meet. His job title was 'project manager' but no projects were ever produced.

Therefore, being 'at the office' will not ensure MSPs are any more productive than they are now, although I'm sure that few spend three and a half days in their constituencies meeting their electorate.

Where improvement could be made, even though it's superficial, is in the number of MSPs who attend debates in the Chamber. For the majority of debates there are often less than 10 politicians present and as these events are broadcast, the emptiness conveys an apathy to the viewer. Perhaps a ruling insisting 50% of MSPs attend each debate may inject some vitality into these proceedings.

The proposals will be discussed by the Standards Committee on Tuesday while on Thursday, Mark Griffin's question (number 12), 'to ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to consult on introducing a ban on smoking in cars carrying children' will be answered. Two broadcasts I'll be closely observing.

Note: I wonder if Alex Salmond's relative will send him a copy of her latest book for in time for Christmas.

Tweet

Good and Bad Governments

On Wednesday there was heated debate in the Scottish Parliament when Labour and the Greens united in an attempt to stop the parliament functioning on 30 November. Labour and the Greens wanted a gesture of 'solidarity' with the reported two million workers who are gearing up up for the biggest day of industrial unrest since the 1979 Winter of Discontent, in protest at the UK Government's plans to change pension provisions.

However, their proposal was defeated as the Government motion, scheduling a debate on public pensions for 30 November, was carried by 83 votes to 36 with one abstention.

Bruce Crawford, the parliamentary business manager, insisted MSPs should come to work as usual and debate the issues causing the strikes. I concur with his statement:

''We recognise that this is an extremely challenging time for the public sector workers. We have sympathy with the substance of the concerns of the public sector workers and join with them in urging the UK Government to think again.''

He said debating public sector pensions on November 30 was ''the perfect opportunity to shine the light on the failings'' of the pensions policy.

''Let me conclude by saying that the purpose of this parliament is to provide the forum and the focus for debate on issues that matter to the people of Scotland."

The Presiding Officer said the parliament would function as normal, although Labour MSPs have said they will not attend Holyrood on the day of the strike. Good government, although it would be even better if Labour MSPs lost a day's pay for refusing to do their duty and present themselves in parliament to make their case.

Maybe a few Labour MSPs are planning a trip to the European Parliament which has a subsidy scheme to pay the travel expenses of visitors to the parliament. Seriously, this parliament has given payments of €55,236, in cash, to four cases which were audited.  According to the auditors, 78% of the total payments made to groups of visitors in 2010 were made in cash. Individuals received a meal subsidy of €35 and a 'small' travel subsidy - an example being €90 for a trip from London to Brussels.

The description bad is too generous for the EP.

Should you wish a wee trip to Brussels, at other taxpayer's expense, contact your MEP.

Tweet

The Claim of Right

Honours Of Scotland

My intention was to write about the Claim of Right for Scotland which Alex Salmond mentioned in his conference speech at the weekend.  The First Minister intends to take the Claim of Right to Scotland's parliament next month and give Labour and LibDem MSPs the opportunity to rededicate their parties to its finest sentiments about the sovereignty of the Scottish people.

However, on Twitter, I found the following by a tweeter of slightly differing political views to myself and thought it far too eloquent to be confined only to that media.  Keri, the composer, has given her permission for me to reproduce it here and I offer her my sincere thanks.

For those not acquaint with Scottish political matter, the Claim of Right for Scotland document has never had any legal force and remains a statement of popular opinion.

Keri @ocicat_bengals

#sp4 #snp11 #Scotland Claim of Right 2011 

One part of Alex Salmond’s speech at Inverness which has so far not received much attention from the unionist media, possibly because they simply didn’t understand its significance, was the bit about the Claim of Right.

The principle that, in Scotland, sovereignty rested with “the community of the realm” was stated in the Declaration of Arbroath of 1320, and subsequently enacted into the law of the land by the Scottish Parliament of 1326.

This principle was again asserted in 1689, when a Scottish Constitutional Convention convened, deposed King James the Seventh, and offered the throne jointly to his daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange. This convention, which subsequently became the Scottish Parliament, based its right to depose James on the principle of sovereignty resting with the community of the realm as stated in the Declaration of Arbroath.

In 1988 a new Scottish Constitutional Convention was convened, in which, as well as local authorities, and churches, and trades unions, and representatives of smaller parties such as the Greens, MPs belonging to the Labour Party and the LibDems played a prominent part. This new Scottish Constitutional Convention stated a Claim of Right to a Scottish Parliament, based on the sovereignty of the people of Scotland. An actual Claim of Right was drawn up, stating the sovereignty of the people of Scotland, which was signed by every Labour MP except Tam Dalyell, if I remember correctly. Some of them may have had misgivings about signing, and some may have signed reluctantly. So did many of the folk who signed the USA’s Declaration of Independence. The point is, they signed.

Alex Salmond now says he intends to put an updated version of the 1988 Claim of Right, asserting the sovereignty of the people of Scotland, before the Scottish Parliament within weeks rather than months, and invite all MSPs to sign it. The point of this will be to assert that it is up to the Scottish Parliament, not Westminster, to organise any referendums on the future of Scotland.

This is an offer the Labour and LibDem MSPs can’t refuse, without saying either that they or their colleagues were being dishonest in 1988, or that they have changed their minds and no longer consider the people of Scotland to be sovereign. 

Tweet

Should Clergy Have Choice?

The MSP John Mason has certainly created discussion - which he claims was his objective - with his motion against the proposal that gay marriage should be enshrined in Scottish law.

Divisions within the SNP have called Mr Mason's objection 'a nasty little anti-gay marriage motion' - and that comment was from my own MP Pete Wishart.  How I do wish Mr Wishart would stop sinking into the Westminster bubble and view public opinion realistically.  It was only the other week he was promoting 'Britishness' on a Scottish group blog and I decided he was now a lost cause to recognising Scottish society.  Too much time spent in the Westminster bar Pete.

Mr Mason is concerned that the proposed legislation does not allow anyone who conducts a marriage ceremony to opt out should they not approve of same sex partnerships. The gay lobby have gone as far as calling for the definition of marriage - currently defined as the joining of one man and one woman - to be deleted from dictionaries and redefined as the joining of two people, regardless of gender.

I understand Mr Mason's concerns. Nobody should be forced into performing any service if they disagree with any part of the applicant's reasons for wishing to have a religious ceremony.  Over the years I've known ministers in the Church of Scotland refuse to marry men and women because they did not attend their churches or were not fully paid up members of the CoS. Those people found another minister to fulfill their wish for a church service.  Also ministers have refused baptisms for similar reasons, although I've yet to know one refuse to lead a funeral service.

What right has anyone, unless they are members of a particular church, to demand a minister or any other religious person, carry out a service?  None. If they're not a paid up member then they can't complain.

Lawyers provide legal services but they're not obliged by law to accept a 'customer'.  They have choice.

Without the safeguards Mr Mason's motion proposes, people of religion who are legally able to undertake such ceremonies may well be sued or even worse, hounded from their vocations.  At present we have choice in this country, but if a proposal which insists that all members of the clergy of any religious denomination or none must perform same sex marriages, that denies choice.

The criticism about Mr Mason's motion is not about same sex marriages because, if his comments on Newsnight Scotland last week are to be believed, he is ambivalent about them. Personally I see no harm whatsoever in marriages between same sex couples or a male and female and I'm very much pro-marriage where children are concerned - preferably before the children arrive, but I do see a deeper agenda here from the gay lobby who may be happy to humiliate anyone who refused to carry out their request for a marriage service, then, of course, to claim compensation in accordance with the HRA. Such actions are few and far between but they do occur and cause consternation in communities.

I've yet to hear of a CoS minister who has refused to conduct a same sex marriage ceremony so who is pushing for this legislation?  We have serious social and economic problems in Scotland which need the urgent attention of our parliament and affect the whole of our society, yet same sex marriage is taking priority.

Our politicians should stop spending valuable time on this matter and begin to address the serious issues such as job creation, improving educational standards and ensuring the vulnerable in our society are cared for - not to mention doing something to alleviate the increasingly unaffordable utility costs.

Leave those who are legally registered to perform marriage ceremonies to make their own choices.  After all, we live in a democracy, don't we?

Tweet

More Indoctrination

This morning I had an irate friend call me.  I'll paraphrase the conversation as best as I can.

"You know about things going on in politics and stupid people.  Who are these people who say we can only drink a mouthful of wine?"

I replied I didn't have a clue but, because I'm slightly more au fait with computers than she was, I promised to do my best to find out.

Then I  investigated and discovered It really has little to do with health whatsoever.  Those of us over 65 are perfectly aware now much we can drink - after all we learned the skill back in the 60s and 70's when drink became available to those of us who worked for a living. "Good" alcohol wasn't cheap in those days but one negative was the hangovers. Us oldies don't like hangovers. We know our limit.

Back then few of my pals dabbled in drugs, we stuck to alcohol. Today's young will learn the same lessons eventually but it will take many years.   Scotland's drug  addiction needs to be addressed before sectarianism.

This afternoon I had an surprise visit from another friend.  She  was outraged because some 'medics' think 'oldies', after a lifetime of work and paying legal taxes to benefit the whole of the the UK, should curtain our drinking habits.

Why are politicians so focused upon keeping us 'baby boomers' alive? was her point. Is is to do with the taxes we pay on our pensions? I pointed her in the direction of this website, and I noticed her nod in agreement.

I'm off to have an other sherry.

Tweet

"Ism" Me?

It's my pleasure to publish a guest post from Petem130, a regular reader and commenter.

“Ism” me?

There’s been a fair bit of discussion and consideration given to “referism”. Many, who think and consider democracy, or what seems to stand for democracy these days, recognise a need for change. It’s obvious that the dialogue between the elected and the electorate isn’t working. The electorate feels disenfranchised and the elected seem to exist in a bubble, which is self-supporting, feeding and congratulatory. This is no way to run a railway.

Referism has been suggested as a potential way forward and why not? EUreferendum defines it as a “political philosophy, which states that, in the relationship between the British people and their governments, the people should be in control”. Dr. Richard North, through the EUreferendum blog, goes on to define further aspects of the term, which are based around the people taking part in yearly referendums to accept the budget on which all government activities are based.

On the face of it this seems like a reasonable and simple way forward. A simple mechanism, control the purse strings, control how much, where and when funds are spent. Politicians will, of course, take a different view. MPs have been voted for by the electorate to represent them, They are likely to cite “voter apathy”, a “lack of understanding by the voters” and any other number of views which in effect talk down the ability of the electorate to take on such responsibilities. The electorate can and does form opinions and can drive change although the present system is being manipulated to reduce the likelihood of that happening.

Referism could, perhaps, be extended to directly involve the electorate more often and on a larger number of issues. Technology exists today to ensure that greater communication can take place between Parliament and the electorate. It might be unwieldy to require all the electorate to participate all of the time however, and there’s also the specter of 1984 examples, which are less than beneficial. Perhaps a model based on the current system in place for identifying jurors, may provide a working model. This could be expanded and developed to be electronic and be used to identify a number of people from each constituency for each vote, which would be required. These people would then be “referred” to by the government and the local MP/MSP/MEP and their views and electronic vote taken into account during the decision making process. Each issue would require different people chosen at random from each constituency being involved.

Of course changes would be required to achieve this. MPs would ask what their role would be? How about listening and actioning the views of their constituents? Their role would be perhaps be diminished, although it could be argued that their role has moved away from the intended model to the detriment of their constituents. Parliamentary debate and voting would have to take place within reasonable working hours and most importantly the “whip” would have to be removed completely.

Control would necessarily move further towards the electorate with the political parties, civil service and lobbyists having to find new ways of doing things. The media would also have to alter and adapt the way they deliver news.

Revolutionary? Utopian? Naive? Probably, but in Scotland at least, surely we can consider, debate and implement an alternative which may prove to be more inclusive, direct and sustainable for all.

petem130

Tweet

Patrick Harvie - A Worthy Complaint?

Many civilised parliaments have, during the working day, a short time devoted to prayer or some form of meditation.

The Scottish Parliament has a short period at the beginning of each day which is referred to as the Time for Reflection session and guest speakers, from all religions or none, are invited to address the members.

Yesterday Professor Cecil Samuelson, president of Brigham Young University in Utah was one such guest. It's my understand his speech was well within the guidelines which state 'all contributions in the chamber must be consistent with the principle of equal opportunities for all and should not include remarks or comments which are discriminatory'.

But MSP Patrick Harvie, the leader of the Green Party, accused the parliament of inviting the Mormon leader of a 'homophobic' university to address Holyrood.  Mr Harvie is openly gay.  His objection was that Mr Samuelson should never have been invited.  He continued:

"Parliament is an institution for the whole of Scotland and this platform must never again be given to someone with this kind of attitude to Scotland's gays and lesbians."

The Presiding Officer, Tricia Marwick replied saying that all speakers were advised of Parliament's policies and their speeches had to fit in with those.  She added: "I would remind you that Time for Reflection contributors are guests of this parliament and should be shown courtesy by all members. Any member who heard the speech would take no issue with it."

A number of Brigham Young students are working as interns for MSPs.

Patrick Harvie himself contributes a great deal to the Scottish Parliament but on this occasion I think he's not done himself, or Scotland's lesbian and gay community, any favours.  His objection sounded trite.  At times I think the gay community should reign in their protests because they are not irrelevant to a situation.  This was one of those occasions.

Tweet

Political Internships in Scotland

In my day what is called an intern now was called a trainee, but we insist upon importing Amerianisms so intern is today's buzz word.

Edinburgh university have been found out charging interns £5,000 for the pleasure of ensuring a 15 week placement with MSPs in the Scottish Parliament.  The left-wing is in uproar because they feel the interns should be paid the national minimum wage.  Oh dear, they have no idea of the value of good work placements do they.  When I was young I chose to do 'training', during my four week holidays, with the best the UK hotel industry had to offer. The experience was invaluable and I thought nothing of payment; indeed it was an honour to be working among such knowledge.

But Edinburgh university are being a little naughty because they're charging their students £5,560 for the Holyrood internship and without the knowledge, it seems, of the MSPs who take these young people under their wings.

Surely, if these interns are current registered students any workplacement should be included in their annual tuition fee.  Not so say Edinburgh university, the fee covers 'tuition, teaching, supervision, administration of the programme itself, as well as the central services which are vital to any educational experience'.

So it's only interns who benefit from the above and not all students.

As I know from experience having trainees shadow your every move can be very irritating/time-consuming/ enjoyable/invasive but if the trainee benefits from the experience (which they usually did) it was very worthwhile.

As the Herald suggests, the Scottish Parliament should reconsider this scheme now they're aware Edinburgh university is profiting so nicely from it.  I'd be much happier if a scheme could be funded by Scottish taxpayers; one in which interns could be chosen by talent and not by cheque book.  Certainly the current arrangement should be stopped as the only beneficiaries are Edinburgh university and the few who can afford the adventure.

Tweet

He'll Not Take The High Road Or the Low Road But His Own Road

After a stunning SNP victory two weeks ago, yesterday Alex Salmond was re-elected as First Minister, by 68 votes to zero, with 57 abstentions.

Since the 6th of May he must have found some amusement in the response of the shocked unionists.  The MSM found themselves unable to comprehend why a system, which was purposely designed by Labour to ensure the nationalists would never have a majority in the Scottish Parliament, proved 'not fit for purpose' and rather than address the system's failing, they decided to home in on the SNP's flagship policy of independence.

The very word independence brings out the worst in unionists and they have difficulty uttering the word, so separatism is the unionist description or the newly created independence-lite which Union supporters have yet to define.  Building a case to provide evidence for an argument is sensible and it's a good idea to have a strong structure.  Such frameworks aren't formed overnight and Alex Salmond will move at his own pace.

His patience with the media has been remarkable particularly when this style of article  has been appearing in the press, accompanied by the usual ill-informed comments and vitriolic remarks. Let me say I don't have a problem whatsoever with unionists putting forward sensible argument, but if Mr Letts is an example of the unionist argument, Scots who do think we could manage our own affairs will be boosted by the weakness of it.

Today's Scotsman has the headline 'Alistair Darling tells SP to hold independence vote now'.  A sad attempt to provoke Alex Salmond.

For those who prefer a less emotive argument The Economist puts forward its views plus Mandeleine Bunting looks at Scotland from a different angle. Readers who live outside Scotland may find Alan Trench's piece 'Understanding Scottish Nationalist thinking' enlightening.

It's certainly not going to be any easy task persuading Scotland to vote for independence because few people like change and in addition there are many issues which need thorough public debate such as the military and EU, but if the First Minister remembers his promise to let the people have their say and listen, then his challenge will be much less arduous.  

Good luck to him.  His road may be winding and long but who's to say it's any better than the high road or the low road?  Only the Scottish people.

Tweet

Congratulations

On Wednesday Tricia Marwick was appointed the first female Presiding Officer in the Scottish Parliament.

Tricia is the SNP SNP MSP for Mid Fife and Glenrothes and she defeated Hugh Henry (Labour) and Christine Grahame (SNP).

I remember meeting Tricia in 1999 when she was first selected as an SNP candidate for the 'new' Scottish Parliament.  She was completely down to earth then and I doubt if she has changed.

On Wednesday's Newsnight Scotland a Labour ex-deputy presiding officer criticised the election of an SNP MSP to the position and other unionists MSPs don't like the idea that the SNP government, which now has a majority, 'is not willing to see the important office of presiding officer held by one of the opposition parties'. source

In line with parliamentary rulings, Tricia has resigned from the SNP for the duration of her presidency and will be supported by two deputies, John Scott (Tory) and Elaine Smith (Labour).

Good luck Tricia, it won't be an easy job.  Ignore the criticism of others who say you'll not be capable of standing up to Alex Salmond.  Anyone who can stand up to the giant distiller Diago is well equipped to handle any MSP.

Tweet

What Now For The Scottish Liberal Democrats?

Tavish Scott, the leader of the Scottish LibDems has resigned, with immediate effect, after conceding the election results were "disastrous" and that the party needs a "new direction with a new leader".

The LibDems lost 25 deposits in Thursday's election and the Scottish Parliament will now have just five LibDem MSPs, with no constituency seats on the mainland.  In the previous parliament they had 16 MSPs.

What now for the LibDems?  Only a few weeks ago it was rumoured that the LibDems were in secret talks with Labour leader Iain Gray about forming a coalition should Labour not receive a majority.  Then suddenly a Scottish LibDem grandee, John Farquhar Munro, intervened to anoint Alex Salmond as "best for the job" of governing Scotland.

There was no way back from such a slight and the LibDem campaign never recovered no matter how much effort activists put into efforts to persuade voters that the Scottish Libdems are quite different from their masters in London.  Therein lies one of their problems: they are tied to a national party and more and more Scots want their politicians to have Scotland's interests first, second and third and not be playing second fiddle to other parts of the UK.

The SNP capitalised on this on Thursday and rightly so.

Tavish Scott's biggest mistake was not to support an independence referendum.  He represents Some Shetlanders over the years have called for a breakaway from the UK;  even suggesting they had more in common with Norway and ought to be affiliated with the Scandinavian country.  Now the topic of home rule has again raised its head.

Why Tavish didn't support the right of the Scots to decide their own future is anyone's guess but I suspect he was influenced/ordered by London.  It's possible he may resign altogether from politics during the forthcoming 5 year term.  Watching him on Sky yesterday I felt an aura of defeat from his demeanor and not only political defeat.  A return to full-time farming may be of benefit to his health and family but it's rumoured he could be a popular choice for the job of presiding officer, although the same rumour mill suggest that Alex Salmond wants the job to go to an SNP MSP.

The only other constituency MSP, Liam McArthur who kept his Orkney seat with 37.5% of the vote, may have no alternative other than accept the poisoned chalice of LibDem leader, although the Shetland Times suggests the only new MSP, Willie Rennie could become leader, but will the LibDems survive as a party now they are on the periphery in Scotland?

Repeatedly I've said the Tories, in order to be a serious party in Scotland, need to cut the London apron strings and rename themselves.  The LibDems need to take similar action.  With Scotland now having three left of centre parties - the SNP, Labour and LibDems - the chance is there for the LibDems to reposition themselves to the centre.
It's certain though that Alex Salmond won't ignore the Shetlanders. An independent Scotland would have too much to lose.

The question that needs to be asked is does Scotland need three left-of-centre political parties?

Tweet

Westminster Vote Down Overnight Counts for Scotland

On Monday Westminster MPs voted, by 298 to 206, against overnight Scottish election counts.  Labour had put forward an amendment to the Scotland Bill to protect traditional overnight counts, which always start as soon as possible after polling stations close, at Holyrood elections. The amendment would not have applied to this year's Scottish elections.

This paves the way in the future for returning officers to refuse to start the count until the following day.  Election officers have been highly vocal on this subject and their excuse concerning this year's count is that staff would be too tired on 5 May to count the AV Referendum votes after the Parliament ballot papers.  That doesn't hold water, because returning officers know full well all they have to do is employ two teams of staff; one for the Holyrood elections and one for the referendum.  There would be no extra costs and certainly there would be no lack of applicants.

Last month it was reported the UK government were willing to put an amendment to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill to ensure that counting takes place as soon as voting closes on 5 May.  I've scanned the Bill and find nothing of relevance.

Scotland ought to be able to make its own legislation covering the timing of our election counts, not Westminster and the Scotland Office should be facilitating the correction of this inconsistency.  It would appear our tradition of overnight counting will continue this May, but to ensure it is so in future years, our politicians need to address the matter now.  We're adult enough to make our own decisions with regard to our own elections, aren't we?

All is not lost though as far as our masters are concerned.  They're sure we'll be delighted with the ballot papers' tasteful colours; lilac for the constituency vote and peach for the regional list vote, while the AV paper will be light grey. For non-Scots readers our constituency vote is cast on the FPTP system while the regional list is the AV system, so Scots (possibly) have a slightly better understanding of AV than most.

The first results are expected much later this year at around 5am because papers for all three elections have to be verified before the counting can begin and the calculations for the regional lists can't start until all the constituency winners in a particular region are known.

Not much fun to be had for political pundits unless they enjoy watching highly paid television presenters mumble and stumble their way through the night making nonsensical small talk with hopefuls.  For me it will be bed at the usual time.

source

Tweet

Care and the Tesco Tax

In the past few weeks I've had quite a bit to do with care homes or, to be more precise, one such establishment.  Not so long ago it would have been called a Nursing Home - a haven for those who required professional nursing care - but now all such places are called care homes.  Not so long ago we also had Homes for the Elderly and we knew they provided for those older people who could no longer fend for themselves.  Now they too are called care homes.

We were all aware Homes for the Elderly weren't Nursing Homes but nowadays, with all homes classed as care homes, it's up to the service user (must stick to the jargon) to telephone or visit each home to enquire about services.  Not an easy task for someone in immediate need of care for a relative.

Dame Jo Williams, the chairwoman of the Care Quality Commission (in England), has warned that conditions in Nursing Homes across England could deteriorate as owners 'cut corners' to save money.  Nothing new there because care homes are now private businesses and profits have to be made. Initially I thought Dame Jo Williams' comment was concern for the service users within nursing homes, but with further reading the article is more about the reduction in the CQC's budget rather than an interest in those her organisation was set up to protect.

My expectation was that the newly appointed Dame would have some positive ideas about how we (and I mean the UK) are going to cope with the increase in the number of older people who, because we are living longer, may require care home accommodation.  The question does need addressed but, as there are no clear answers which don't involve extra finance, politicians and the English CQC see no urgency.  That doesn't bode well for my generation in England.

In Scotland we have a slightly different problem because our government policy is to provide free nursing care for people of any age and free personal and nursing care for anyone over 65 who has been assessed by the local authority as needing it.  The care can be in a care home or the service user's own home.  It's a very worthy policy and highly regarded by older generations because it gives us the security of knowing that we will be cared for come what may and it works reasonably effectively given the amount of people - and thus bureaucracy - involved.

However, such policies are expensive, very expensive, because caring and nursing involves many professionals who have to be paid.  Even those of younger generations are beginning to see the benefits of our Free Care for the Elderly because many have now experienced the help it gives to an elderly relative.

Yesterday the Scottish Parliament's Local Government and Communities Committee voted down the SNP's proposal to increase rates for big stores (nicknamed the Tesco Tax). John Swinney's assessment was the tax would raise £30 million, but the committee's move means it is now likely to be defeated when the proposal comes before the full parliament next week.

The supermarkets are cock-a-hoop at this decision of course.  It had been estimated that Tesco would pay an extra £9m a year, Asda £8.8m, Morrisons £4.4m, Sainsbury's £3.5m and B & Q an extra £2m.  M & S would pay £1.3m more while the tax would also apply to big names such as Ikea, John Lewis, Primark and Debenhams.

John Swinney told the committee that the retail tax would affect about 0.1% of businesses and was needed to relieve pressure on family and household budgets during tough economic times.

The committee split down party lines as seems to be the norm these days in Parliament. Not one of the political opposers suggested where the now lost £30m could be found to permit us to fund our priorities such as Care for the Elderly.  I have to agree with John Swinney when he said:

"It's an appropriate financial measure to take, which gives the government the opportunity to raise a modest amount of revenue from a highly profitable sector that is contributing to the public purse of Scotland and enables us, then, to afford some of our other priorities." source


The Scottish Parliament's committee system used to be respected for its non-partisan approach.  Recently this appears to have been lost and the system will struggle to regain any credibility unless MSPs put aside their electioneering tactics and view the bigger picture.

You may be wondering what yesterday's Tesco Tax decision has to do with Scotland policy of caring for the elderly.  It may well have none but, then again, the short-sightedness of unionist politicians not to support this minimal tax rise with big business may well affect it.  Someone has to be the loser don't they?

Tweet

Brewer Thanks MSPs

The giant brewer SAB Miller, paid for a report from the Centre for Economics and Business Research which rejected the case for the SNP's move to have minimum pricing on alcohol introduced to Scotland.  It was this report which was used by the Labour party as the main objection to the SNP's proposal.

The brewer has sent crates of its Peroni Lager to Labour shadow health secretary Jackie Baillie, Labour's justice spokesman Richard Baker and Tories Mary Scanlon and Murdo Fraser, who shared the health brief.

The Labour MSPs moved quickly to give the booze away by donating it to Whitefoord House, a home for ex-servicemen across the street from the Scottish Parliament.

"At Christmas it is particularly important that we remember our veterans and serving men and women wherever they are," said Jackie Ballie.

North-East Scotland MSP Richard Baker said, "Much as I enjoy the occasional tipple these guys deserve it much more than me. I hope that they have a happy Christmas and a good New Year."

The Tories have yet to get rid of their 'reward' cases although Murdo Fraser said he'd been in touch with a soldiers' charity and asked if they would accept it.

They should never have accepted the beer in the first place.  It should have been returned and the brewer asked to contribute to a charity of the MSPs' choice.  If these MSPs really feel so charitable towards our veterans why didn't they quietly make a financial contribution towards one of the associations?  There are plenty around these days.

There's nothing honourable about donating ill-gotten gains to charity in an effort to clear consciences.

source

Tweet

Fairness

This week saw the launch of the long-awaited Scotland Bill which Michael Moore, Scottish Secretary, described as 'reflecting the settled will of the Scottish people'.

I'm not so sure it's settled in the least although it's certainly progress.  Who would have thought that, after less than 4 years in power, the SNP would manage to provoke unionist parties into proposing such an extension of Scottish constitutional powers since devolution - even although Alex Salmond calls it 'Calman Minus'?  There is no doubt these changes were a result of the SNP performing well in government; in fact so well that the unionist parties, in a desperate attempt to curtail any progress to the SNP's Independence Bill, suggested Westminster could look at ways to increase powers to the Scottish Parliament.  The result was the Calman Commission and the unionist parties pledged their support for its findings.  A watered-down version of the findings are included in the new draft Scotland Bill.

Many who want full fiscal powers for Scotland have criticised the proposals as 'too little' and 'tinkering at the edges', however I too think Alex Salmond must be pinching himself. 

Newsnet Scotland is promoting a suggestion that those who support Scottish independence to write 'independence' on the coalition's AV referendum ballot slip on 5th May.  I wouldn't put it past the powers that be in Westminster to now combine all ballots onto one paper but I will take part as long there is no indirect damage to my Scottish general election vote.

Another suggestion, which could be very effective alongside this campaign, is made by that tenacious writer of letters to Scottish newspapers, Alex Orr.  In today's Scotsman he makes a very good case for a Scottish referendum on the Scotland Bill.

... Given the fact that the 3p adjustment necessitated a referendum question, it is only right and proper that the Scotland Bill proposals should be put to the Scottish electorate in a referendum.

Few would or could argue with that, especially after the noise opposition MSPs made last week about the SNP government allowing the current 3p tax policy to lie in the long grass.  Surely they would think it only fair the people have their say?

Tweet

Scotland's Tax Raising/Lowering Powers

The Unionists are having a ball here in Scotland accusing the SNP government of  'lapsing' the tax raising powers which were included in the 1999 devolution referendum.

I've been accused of staying silent on the matter, although I received an apology because the title of my post didn't refer to it. It's not the first time I've been pilloried by Scottish bloggers who don't take the trouble to read through my posts but prefer to read the title and, perhaps, the first paragraph but I do appreciate this one had the courtesy to apologise.

This is unionist electioneering at its best,  accusing the nationalist government for 'betraying' the Scottish people.  What utter nonsense and they know it.

Had the Scottish people have been informed that the cost of having 3p varying tax raising powers would have stretched into millions then I'm sure they would have decided against it.  For the referendum most thought that a Yes Yes vote would ensure that we secured our own Parliament.  That's what was most important and the second question regarding tax raising powers was more or less irrelevant.  To ensnare any Scottish government into a £12 million down payment for this political absurd idea in 1999, followed by £50,000 per year until 2007 when the contract terminated is an atrocity on behalf of those who designed the Scotland Act.

The tax raising powers haven't lapsed.  The legislation is enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998 Part V and therefore still available until Parliament vote for it to be deleted.  Therefore the SNP government have not 'given away' any powers, they have decided not to pay the UK treasury for something which we all know will never be used.

Should the SNP government have informed Parliament of their decision?  It would appear they wrote to the UK government in the summer asking the reasons why the HMRC were requesting £7 million to keep the legislation alive and they've had no response.

John Swinney is to face the Finance Committee tomorrow.  My thought is that he won't be signing a cheque made out to HMRC for £7 million just to keep a system alive, when the UK government intend to introduce new legislation within a matter of weeks, but I have no doubt he will show the Unionists and the Greens are purely electioneering and he won't be apologising for not informing Parliament either as the issue is still ongoing with the Westminster parliament.  That's politics.

Tweet

FMQs 9 September 2010

Week one of the last session before the elections next year saw Iain Gray, the leader of the Labour party in the Scottish Parliament, show off his new skills. He's had classes in 'How Not To Listen To Answers But Stick To The Script At All Times'.

The rumour that Westminster is considering cancelling one, or even two, of the aircraft carriers presently being built on the Clyde should have everyone in Scotland sitting up and taking notice. This is very serious issue for us, where up to 10,000 jobs in Scotland could be lost, and for the Westminster coalition to float such a suggestion, when one carrier is well on the way to completion, would severely damage our economy and may well wipe out Scotland's ship building industry.

Mr Gray, in his first question suggested the whole Parliament should come together to protect the jobs involved with the building of this military hardware. The First Minister agreed and explained he had already compiled a dossier which would be sent to the MoD in support of Scotland's case. He asked that all parties join with the government and he would supply leaders with a copy of his dossier. But Mr Gray never gives up as we know, so he stuck rigidly to his script and asked the same question again - twice. Twice the FM said yes, but as you'll see in the video, the FM became slightly frustrated with the Labour leader's inability to understand the word 'yes'.

Poor Ms Goldie, she's in such a difficult position now when she talks about referenda, as her own party doesn't seem to object to them as long as they're not in Scotland. Seems like Aunty Annabel will budge so the Tories will have to carry her out.

Tavish Scott may have had a point with his question if only he'd left out so much detail of his case study and mentioned the many quangos in a more general sense. Unfortunately he lost the momentum and allowed the FM to brush aside his comments.

Supplementary questions included the border agency's decision to man Scotland's west coastline and the subject of alcohol pricing.

Tweet

Respect or Irreverence?

David Cameron has excellent PR skills. To show he 'cares' about Scotland he rushed up here hot foot during his first week in office, met with the First Minister and had a wee tour of our expensive Parliament. He insisted he would treat 'Scotland with respect'. I noted he didn't say 'with the respect it deserves' but it's now becoming clear that's what the new coalition government meant.

Very quickly Mr Cameron and his deputy decided the date of the next Westminster election. Why that had such priority seemed strange but it was said it was part of the 'deal' with the libdems. So the next general election will be held on the same day as the Scottish Parliament planned for the Holyrood election in 2015. With 4 year terms of office in the Scottish Parliament the date had been mooted for some time. So Scotland, in 2015, now has to vote for both Holyrood and Westminster on the same day. A good idea? Certainly, if that does come about, the voting will be interesting - in both elections.

As part of the 'respect we deserve' agenda, this past week Nick Clegg has decided Westminster will hold a referendum on AV, on the day of our Holyrood elections next year. Alex Salmond protested but it would appear his bawling has been ignored.

There's a Scottish Office in London which I have always presumed was an expensive government department primarily in situ to liaise with the UK and Scottish governments. If it can't sort out two simple problems of clashing dates, how do we expect it to do anything in the best interests of Scotland?

Silly me. It's just another branch of UK plc treating us with the respect we deserve.

Tweet