Baker's Dozin'

The whole furore over the al-Megrahi release which has been opened up by David Cameron's visit to the States and the US Senate's desire to have Scottish ministers give evidence to their committee is a sad state of affairs.  Plenty has already been written about why this is ridiculous - when will the US start to realise that it does not have jurisdiction over any more than its own shores?  I'm still a bit annoyed (and that's putting it lightly) that Messrs Salmond & MacAskill didn't just tell them to f*** o**.  But perhaps my political antenna isn't quite as in tune as theirs.

Anyway, I digress.  I just wanted to point out the utter nonsense on the issue spouted by Shadow Justice Secretary Richard Baker.  He told the BBC (who have called him "Labour's justice spokesman" which I think is a downgrade in title):

"It speaks volumes about the lack of confidence he has now in his own decision that he is running a mile from any scrutiny of it".  Apparently in his view it is "perfectly legitimate" for American politicians to ask Kenny MacAskill to go to Washington because they can pretty well do what they like.  

Okay, I may have paraphrased that last bit, but his point is daft anyway.  Of course it is legitimate to for them to ask, but it is also legitimate for the Justice Secretary to decline (just as, incidentally, Baker's own colleague and former UK Home Secretary Jack Straw did).  Wouldn't the Scottish Government be justified in inviting the US Senators (some of whom enjoy lucrative sponsorship from oil companies) to come and share their findings with a committee of the Scottish Parliament (who DO have jurisdiction in the matter?  Of course - but they won't, because they recognise that the Senators do not have a constituency over here, and no place in our democratic system.

I think, thankfully, and hopefully, that the best outcome from this sorry media frenzy is that Richard Baker is unlikely to take his present role in opposition into government in the event he is re-elected in May and his party form the government - neither of which event is, thankfully, a certainty at this point.  

Of course what he said is political point-scoring, an opposition MSP trying to paint the government as incompetent.  But I wonder if Iain Gray realises yet that if he wants to run the Scottish Government next year he'll have to do better on the personnel than the amateurs he has running the show at the moment.  But then, it isn't like he has much of a choice.

Read more...

The TV Debate debate

Legal action, Mr Salmond?

I'm not sure what I think of this development. I mean, I can see both sides of it.

On the one hand, Sky want to tap into the idea of "Presidential politics", the sense that the leader of the party IS the party and answers for them. They want to make it a personal thing - a one-on-one (okay, a ménage à trois) with the men (it's always bloody men eh?) vying to be Prime Minister. They want to allow a clear debate between the leaders of the parties, giving their viewers a clear idea of the differences between them and an opportunity to judge the best candidate for the job of PM. It's a kind of political X-Factor - complete with public vote and everything (though the vote won't be for some time after the show ends).

However, Sky's bright idea doesn't cater for devolved politics. It doesn't take into account that Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish audiences interested in health or education issues may be misled by statements from the candidates on show, who can do nothing about those policy areas. It doesn't allow for regional variations, for parties of government in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to have a voice in the debate. And it reinforces the dominant Westminster political culture by excluding smaller parties - and not just those from the "Celtic fringe".

The question of fairness is the one which is being pursued by the SNP. They argue, legitimately, that while the UK election is basically a two-horse between the Tories and Labour (which makes Nick Clegg's invitation all the more questionable), the fight in Scotland is likely to be a straight Labour-SNP battle (though the Lib Dems do currently have more MPs than the SNP in Scotland, their share of the vote in opinion polls is going in the opposite direction). In Wales, the situation is further muddied by the fact that, although Plaid Cymru are in coalition government with Labour, the Tories (!) actually won the European election there, making it a genuine three-way battle. Northern Irish politics, with its division between nationalist and unionist communities, brings with it an extra element which also requires consideration. And those are just the parties that have representation at the moment - what about UKIP, the Greens and (dare I say it) the BNP?

The principle that Sky have (loosely) been adhering to, is the idea that they should invite the realistic candidates to be Prime Minister. That means limiting their invitations to the leaders of the three main parties on a UK level. However, were this principle to be taken to its logical conclusion, David Cameron would have a solitary invitation. So they've widened it to include the also rans - incumbent PM Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg, whose Lib Dems have 62 seats and would need to make over 250 gains at the next election to make him PM. Just a thought, but Sky could invite me, Jeff and Caron to the debate - we'd have as much of a chance of being PM after the election as Nick Clegg does. And possibly just slightly less of a chance than Gordon Brown.

So really, Sky's own guidelines are based on loose ideas anyway. I guess it is a case of whether they want to accommodate the SNP (who, I think, are the only ones making any real noise about it) or not. But the legal guidelines regarding political coverage at elections are clear (as Jeff points out - in the case of Iraq!). The televised media has to provide equal and balanced coverage. So what can they do?

Well, I guess there are a couple of options. They can go with Salmond's suggestion and have "regional" debates, with Brown, Cameron, Clegg and Salmond in Scotland, Brown, Cameron, Clegg and Wyn Jones in Wales and... well, I guess they'd figure out something for Northern Ireland. Or, they could ignore Salmond and his legal fight, and have their original debate with Brown, Cameron and Clegg. But where would that leave Alex Salmond?

Kind of reminds me of (yet another) West Wing moment, appropriate really given the US-style TV debate. Freedonia, an episode in season 6, sees candidate Matt Santos struggling to get into a local debate - the invitations have gone only to the two lead candidates. Other events take over, but his original idea is to host his own debate and invite the other candidates to come which (eventually) comes to fruition. I wonder if Salmond invited Brown, Cameron and Clegg to a debate, if they would go? Or would Jim Murphy, David Mundell and Alastair Carmichael be sent instead? Or Iain Gray, Annabel Goldie and Tavish Scott?

Mind you, isn't that supposed to be what A National Conversation was supposed to be - an invitation to debate? Problem with that was, not one of the opposition parties showed up.

Read more...

+++ Scottish Tennis Champion +++

Pictured above is six-time Wimbledon Champion Roger Federer sporting his true national colours at a young age.

Said the First Minister:

"Forget about the grumpy guy that made the semi-finals, you know, what's-his-name. Roger is a true Scottish Champion, a credit to his country and a man who is proud to support his nation at any sport - even the ones that we're crap at."

"When I were a lad, I had dreams of standing on the moon like Neil Armstrong. I even had a spacesuit with a Scottish flag on the sleeve. If I'd worked harder at it, there's no question I could have been the first Scotsman on the moon."

*Disclaimer - there is of course no truth to the statement above (apart from the picture being of Roger Federer of course). Though you can just imagine...

Read more...

"SNP soars ahead of Labour"

so says The Herald today. And, erm, Jeff.

Base figures are:

Westminster (Scotland) Voting intention:
LAB - 32% SNP - 30% CON - 21% LD - 13%

Scottish Parliament (Constituency) Voting intention:
SNP - 37% LAB - 30% CON - 15% LD - 13%

Scottish Parliament (Regional) Voting intention:
SNP - 37% LAB - 28% CON - 15%
LD - 13% OTHER - 7%

A lot is being made of the fact that the poll was conducted for YouGov on behalf of the SNP. I find that a funny complaint. Although the March YouGov poll that I featured here wasn't for the SNP, the methodology would presumably be fairly similar. In that poll - for the same company as I stressed - Labour held a 10-point lead over the SNP on Westminster voting intention. That has been cut to 2 points in one month.

I'd suggest that Labour have, perhaps, not exactly had a great month. What with "smeargate" and a budget which there is a very public debate over, and 8-point swing might reflect that bad press.

Most frightening stat for Labour to come out of the poll though is this one:

Who would make the best First Minister?
Alex Salmond - 36%
Iain Gray - 7%

Ouch.

Read more...

Alex & Sandi's latest project

Spotted the above sign on my recent holiday in Spain. Looks like the FM and his... rather more tuneful friend have taken the brand name and opened some shops in Spain.

Then again, if you look at what the shop sells...

Read more...

Too statesmanlike for some?

There's been a big hoo-haa (original spelling by the way) over the above photo of Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Some claim that this meeting is a "great moment for Scotland" others have made light of it or generally criticised it as "style over substance".

Maybe with my moderate hat on I can make sense of it.

It would appear that some in opposition camps (who I seem to remember being awfully fond of Mrs Clinton when she was running for an important office) are a wee bit miffed that it is Salmond and not them who is meeting the US Secretary of State. Others, I guess, are more concerned with how the meeting looks (Scotland, you know, not being a state or anything) than if anything substantive came out of it.

The fact that a popular administration like President Obama's (so far, so good) looks like they are taking an interest in "wee Scotland" is surely good on a stylistic level. And whether or not anything substantive came out of it, the fact that a Scottish FM is meeting at this level indicates a kind of ambition for Scotland that opposition parties seem only too keen to rubbish. On the other hand, it is patently easy to see the meeting as a Nat stunt, with Salmond keen to show Scotland on the world stage and mixing with the big actors - which, inevitably, is how unionists will see the photograph.

So, a mixed reaction I guess. Getting your photo taken with the US Secretary of State isn't going to change the world. Indeed, its probably not going to change anyone's opinion of you either. But it does emphasise ambition. And that is something that we in Scotland don't tend to go for that often.

Read more...