Opening gambits

The New Year diet has barely started but Jeff is already getting stuck into the Scottish budget stuff. Which is probably still more than some at the Scottish Government are doing.

Remember last year? The Scottish Government thinking the thing was locked down, the late negotiations with the Greens - and the resultant collapse of the process on the deciding vote of the Presiding Officer.

So, in the midst of a continuing economic recession and with a General Election anything from 3 to 6 months away, what price the same happening again? Opposition parties in Scotland bringing down the Scottish Government over their budget. Likely? Not in my book.

Jeff has already done the number crunching - and estimates that the Tories and the Greens will provide enough support for the SNP to get their budget through. I suspect he may be right. But maybe it isn't the final result that is interesting this time - its how we might get there.

I can't see Labour lending their support - not with their position on GARL. But they may enter into negotiations, which is more than they have in the past. The Tories, on the other hand, may play a slightly bolder hand than they have in the past - try to get more value for their vote on the basis that their position is likely to be strengthened in negotiations next year by being the UK Government. I'm with Jeff on the Lib Dems - ask Mystic Meg what she thinks they'll do, because there's really no predicting it (but I'll come back to that). Which leaves the Greens.

Now, I have some sympathy for the way they were shafted in last year's negotiations (not that I showed it at the time - a year is a long time in politics after all) but I reckon they will have learned much from it. They are, if nothing else, a year older and a year smarter. Which means 2 things: 1) if they don't get what they want, they don't vote for it (take note Mr Swinney) and 2) it is important not to bank on their vote without first offering something they want. However, with their sister party in England and Wales primed to win their first (ever) Westminster seat at the next election, any perception that Green parliamentarians are immature or reckless may harm those chances. This may play a part in how they approach negotiations.

The Green position, curious though it is, leaves the door open for the Lib Dems. If the Swinney/ Salmond combo can get the Greens on board, then they can ignore Tavish Scott (which is what they thought they'd done last year). If they can't, they'll have to persuade someone who really doesn't like them (and that, I think, is an understatement) that they can do something for them.

Ah, partisan politics. Let the games begin.

Read more...

The SNP & Independence

(Text of yesterday's guest post for SNP Tactical Voting).

We've had an SNP Scottish Government for a little over 2 and a quarter years now and - for better or worse - we've pretty much gotten used to it. There's no doomsday, no massive fighting between Holyrood and Westminster and no vote on independence (yet). And the party have performed well, if not spectacularly, as Scotland's first minority administration. This new form of government is a learning process for all the parties in Holyrood - budget debates now actually mean something, the government is fairly regularly defeated in minor votes but forges loose alliances on an issue-by-issue basis. In spite of the challenges of minority government, the defeats, the compromises, the failure to deliver on some key manifesto commitments (thus far) the SNP remains a popular party. Take a look at these opinion poll figures:

May 2007 Election

Constituency Vote - 32.9%

Regional Vote 31.0%

Jan 08 YouGov/Express - 38%/30%

Feb/ Mar 08 MRUK/ Times - 39%/40%

Apr 08 YouGov/ Sun 40%/33%

Aug 08 YouGov/ SNP 44%/-

Sept 08 YouGov/ Times 42%/35%

Oct 08 YouGov/ Times 39%/32%

Jan 09 YouGov/ Times 38%/34%

Mar 09 YouGov/ Times 35%/30%

Apr 09 YouGov/SNP 37%/37%

2009 figures here (pg22), Sept/ Oct 2008 here (pg21), Aug 2008 here (pg56), Jan-Apr 2008 here (pg46)

For a party under attack for failing to deliver some of its policy commitments, the SNP have maintained and - in every single on of these poll figures - increased their vote share. That to me indicates a government that remains popular with the electorate. Of course you can debate just how popular, how much opinion polls matter, the accuracy and methods of pollsters etc, but how else can we measure their support? In the only actual poll of public opinion - with a real live vote at the end of it - the SNP polled well ahead of Labour in the European Parliament Election in June 2009. Again, those of you who want to will claim that this isn't a reflection of their popularity - its a third order election, low turnout etc etc - but I guess you'll never be convinced. The point is this - the SNP, as a government, are relatively popular.

But - and this is a point those of you who disagree with the first half of this post will have no trouble agreeing with - their main policy aim is not. If you look at the straight up-down figures below, the height of popularity for independence was in March/ April 2008 - at 41%. Now that - the shrewd of among you will note - is a minority. There were a considerable number (19%) of "don't knows" in that poll, but even so, as the preference of only 41% at its height, independence remains the constitutional preference of the few.

I agree/ disagree that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state:

Aug 07 Agree 35% Disagree 50%

Nov/Dec 07 Agree 40% Disagree 44%

Mar/Apr 08 Agree 41% Disagree 40%

June/July 08 Agree 39% Disagree 41%

Oct 08 Agree 35% Disagree 43%

Jan/Feb 09 Agree 38% Disagree 40%

See John Curtice's chapter here for figures (particularly page 16).

Indeed, that analysis is borne out by the following Populus/Times Poll, which gave 4 options - independence/ more powers/ status quo/ less powers with the following result:

But - Populus/ Times Poll April 2009:

Independence - 21%

More Powers - 41%

Status Quo - 26%

Less Powers - 8%

(Same source, page 17)

That poll - as you can see - indicates that when several options are given, the constitutional preference of Scots tends to be for extended devolution over independence (albeit still a minority of those polled).

So, what does that mean for the SNP? Well, it's a problem. The SNP's strategy - devised at some point before the 2007 election - was to be in a position to govern Scotland effectively and efficiently, do what they could within the framework of the current constitutional settlement to implement policies which would improve Scotland - and demonstrate that improvements could also be made to other areas of policy were they granted extended powers. A simple strategy really - take the credit for what they could do, blame the UK Government for what they could not.

And it has worked - to a degree. The SNP have successfully delivered a number of key pledges which have proved popular with the electorate which has seen them maintain - or even increase - their poll numbers (as detailed above). However, the electorate remains unconvinced that the powers of independence are required for Scotland. This is the conundrum for the SNP - if they govern too well, they run the risk of people wondering why they need independence.

That, I think, is a whole other blog piece. Jeff - over to you.

Read more...

Conundrum for the SNP

Reading through Jeff's analysis of recent poll figures, a question which I've been considering in my studies at the moment suddenly became more pertinent.

Jeff has the SNP winning 25 of the 59 Scottish Westminster seats on 33% of the vote, which seems doubtful, but that's not the point of this post. Ipsos-Mori also has them winning 38% of the constituency vote in the 2011 Scottish Parliament election, a massive 13% lead over Labour in second. Again, it seems rather high, but perhaps that reinforces the point I'm going to make.

The SNP, after 2 and a half years as the Scottish Government, are still proving popular with the public (as the poll figures above indicate). Yet, and despite moving forward with the National Conversation with the publication of An Oil Fund for Scotland and Europe and Foreign Affairs indicating a more intensive discussion process as they build towards their intended referendum, support for independence remains static at around 28% of the population.

Now, from an SNP perspective, that figure may be "soft", indicating a lot of people (such as Jeff himself) who remain undecided about independence but may be convinced when they have heard a positive case for independence through the National Conversation process. Or, it may be a hard ceiling - the height of support for the SNP's constitutional preference - and indicate that, if a referendum occurs, the party will see a massive defeat.

I suspect the answer may be somewhere in between. Without reading too much into "loaded" polling questions and from anecdotal evidence, I'd suggest the constitutional question falls at about 60-40, with 60% against at the moment. Which I think is good news. 60% is 6 in 10. Change one mind and its a tie, change two and its a landslide (quote, Will Bailey). But I digress.

The point I wanted to make was this. What if support for the SNP maintains at its current levels - or even increases - and sees the party win near a majority of Scottish Westminster seats, improve their position in the Scottish Parliament to 50-55 MSPs in 2011 and maintain their position as the Scottish Government post-election but at the same time support for independence remains static at 28, what does the party do?

The party will have proved that they can govern competently and will have remained popular as a government (if indeed, their vote share/ representation increases). But their main policy objective would remain the preference of the minority (assuming no referendum in 2010 given current parliamentary hostility to the idea).

Could we judge the party as a successful government? Or, given their inability to legislate for their main policy objective, would that constitute failure? And yet, if they continue as a popular (populist??) government, people will continue to vote for them, and ignore their constitutional goals.

This is the conundrum facing the SNP: how do they translate the support for the party in government to support for their constitutional objective? How can they convince people that the government needs more powers when they are running it (in the public's eye at least - according to poll figures) effectively and efficiently? In short, why should the Scottish population support constitutional upheaval when they are content with the SNP as a Government?

I don't know if there is an answer, but I'd suggest that the extension of the National Conversation at the moment is seeking to inform further why constitutional change may be preferable. But whether the SNP see any shift in support for independence remains to be seen.

Read more...

Fisking Paul Hutcheon

Having studied nationalism in general and Scottish nationalism in particular for most of my adult life and given that nationalist parties in government form the central focus of my Ph.D thesis, I read with interest Paul Hutcheon's article on Scottish nationalism in yesterday's Sunday Herald. I decided to have a closer look at what The Herald's leading investigative journalist had to say. My comments in red.

Salmond’s cod nationalism only obscures the bigger picture

Paul Hucheon

Not exactly a promising title. And good to see The Herald not bothering with accuracy such as, you know, spelling their journalist's name correctly...

I DON'T know whether last week's Clan Gathering and "diaspora forum" made me want to reach for my revolver, or laugh at the obvious stupidity of it all, but it did give rise to thoughts about politics and Scotland's small place in the global economy.

In the wake of "David Kerr Gun Gate" is the gun metaphor a wise idea? Or simply aimed at shooting down the SNP's by-election candidate? (oh look, I can do it too...)

Cynicism first. Ten years on from the first Scottish parliament election, it seemed depressing that the electorate was being asked to re-engage with clan "chiefs" who had an alleged link to their families going back hundreds of years. Even worse was the idea that we should somehow shake the tin at the global Scottish community in a bid to fund God knows what.

Okay, I'll be fair. The Clan Gathering and tartan malarky is all very "kitch." But tourists - in particular, Americans - love tracing their Scottish roots. It's a very profitable opportunity.

But it did get me thinking about what has been the biggest political development since devolution. Most people say it is the smoking ban. Others believe it to be free personal care or the abolition of tuition fees. These are unlikely contenders as they were policies that were not linked to any larger script, and were introduced by different first ministers.

A more accurate answer may be the way our political culture has moved towards nationalism and embraced everything Scottish. From Holyrood debates on tartan registers and Scottish number plates, to funding our own international aid policy and clan gatherings, national identity has moved centre-stage.

I think that's a fair analysis. But bear in mind, the SNP were in opposition for 8 out of the first 10 years of devolution. That surely attests to effective opposition in promoting their agenda and forcing the government of the day to discuss (or, at the very least, recognise) their view.

This creeping nationalism is only noticeable these days when somebody goes too far, such as when a MSP complains about English cricket on television, or a row is manufactured over which flag should fly above Edinburgh Castle. Now that they're in power, the SNP can use the resources of government to go full-throttle on an idea they could never afford to promote with their own money.

Again fine. But let me ask this. Why, when Labour came to power in 1997 (or the Tories in 1979) were their policy goals not described as "creeping conservatism" or "creeping socialism"? Because they did the same thing - promote their idea of how governance should work by actually implementing what they could through their government status.

But nationalism, in whatever guise, is a distraction from the only debate that ultimately counts in politics: the distribution of power, money and opportunity. What is "Scotland", if not an invented community dreamt up by a bunch of white guys a few hundred years ago? A similar group of landowners invented other countries such as "Belgium", "Austria" and "Wales", but our national narrative is created to pretend that our bit of turf is somehow special.

Every national narrative does that. And it is - or it should be. It's home, Paul. Tell me you don't think of your house as special - or distinct - from other people's? It's the same principle really. Talk about "invented communities" all you want (by the way, I think the academic phrase you are looking for is "Imagined Communities") but I think most people would agree that they feel some kind of connection to some kind of community - whether that is family, village, town, region, nation, country, continent.

The con-trick of nationalism is to spin a fairytale that a country - Scotland, Timbuktu - has a specific set of characteristics that marks it out as innately different. Its "people" are then conditioned to feel pride in what is effectively an accident of geography, or get dewy-eyed about the random part of the globe they just happened to be conceived in.

And the "con-trick" of journalism is to stick a few words together in a newspaper and report an opinion as fact. See, I can twist things too. Fine, it's an accident of geography where I was born but I don't see what the problem is in wanting to see others from your own "community" do well and a sense of pride in their achievement.

Gordon Brown's promotion of British patriotism - a two-bit, dog-eared version of nationalism - made a laughable attempt at linking "Britishness" to respect for democracy. This in a country that still has legislators and a head of state based on heredity.

Agreed. Though I guess the problem for Brown in doing so is that "Britishness" has never been defined in the same sense that its component nations have - in a historic sense I mean. Their national stories are already constructed while Brown has to start at the beginning.

Salmond's insistence that Scots have always been big on compassion and "community" is equally absurd. A glance at Scotland's contribution to the British Empire, or the Sighthill residents' reaction to the arrival of asylum-seekers, should quickly challenge that perception.

Again, agreed. Reckon there are a few liberties being taken on that score.

Nationalism, including the civic Scottish version, is also a value-free zone. There is no logical Scottish position on wealth inequality, feminism or reforming public services. Most SNP policies are tactical compromises designed solely with the intention of promoting independence. Far from being a liberating force, nationalism is more akin to a ball and chain, or a set of blinkers that prevent people from seeing the world as it is.

Hold on. The SNP is a party. Scottish nationalism is a movement. Conflating the two doesn't help understand them. The SNP have evolved (2007 election) into a catch-all party - focusing not solely on a part of the electorate (the left, the centre, the right) but promoting policies which would appeal broadly across the political spectrum, just as Labour did in 1997. SNP policies are tactical compromises - absolutely - but the underlying principle of self-determination is not.

These gripes could be countered if Scottish nationalism was a movement based on social justice, but it is not. Around 50% of the SNP's election warchest in 2007 came from right-wing businessmen who supported the poisonous Keep The Clause campaign in 2000. The party's financial muscle also wants a continuation of the same economic philosophy that has dominated politics since the 1980s, the sole difference being that it should be wrapped in tartan bunting.

Again you conflate Scottish nationalism as a movement with the party machinery of the SNP. I accept that, as the main proponent of independence, the SNP drive nationalism in Scotland, but a movement and a party are two different things. On the point of funding, I suspect that those who supported the SNP - Brian Soutar in particular - did so for tactical reasons. They'd probably be more at home with the Conservatives but backed the horse likely to beat Labour in Scotland. But in politics, financial backing is important. I disagree strongly with Soutar's politics, but if he had not funded the SNP, would we be having this discussion?

As for the SNP's many broken promises since entering government, the one policy it did not ditch was the multi-million-pound tax cut for businesses, a policy that has not created any jobs and which did not have an evidence base, but was fully funded and pushed through as one of Salmond's key priorities.

Two things. 1) The SNP are a minority government but campaigned on the expectation that, at the very least, they'd be in coalition government. They can not be expected to deliver on every election promise on that basis. I suspect you know that, but that wouldn't sell papers. 2) Governments don't create jobs. Businesses do. Again, I assume you didn't get to where you are without knowing that. The business rates cut was designed to attract business to Scotland while giving assistance to businesses here in the hope that, yes, they'd be able to recruit more people. But then what happened? Oh yes, a recession - which the Scottish Government had no control over.

A plausible argument for an SNP government could have been that Salmond, a loner and political outsider, would use the levers of power to confront vested interests and take away decision-making from the cliques that dominate public life.

However, the opposite has happened. Rather than challenge the establishment, Salmond has tried to co-opt its leading members into his Nationalist tent. Sir Angus Grossart, Sir George Mathewson and Sir Tom Farmer are all Salmond confidantes, while at times it seems you need three letters after your name to impress our monarchist first minister.

I've heard similar reports from inside the circle.

A recent interview also confirms that Salmond is now supping from society's other poisoned well: organised religion. As well as cosying up to the Catholic Church and Muslim leaders, the first minister has taken it upon himself to declare that he, too, is a man of faith. Not that he takes it to ridiculous lengths, like going to church, but simply that Christianity has had a profound effect on his life.

This combination of nationalism and religion is a recipe for keeping people dumb, poor and unable to understand the rational world that exists outside of their wee bit of hill and glen.

Hang on. I'll accept that the First Minister's recent declaration of faith leave a little to be desired... but I think you are mistaking nationalism for socialism. You know, religion being the "opium of the people" and all that. I have more confidence in people as rational beings to judge for themselves whether religion or politics in important to them, and which road of faith (in religion or politics) to take.

According to this world view, it matters little that you work 50 hours a week for poverty pay, get treated like dirt by employers or are let down by public services, because at least you love your country and have Jesus in your life.

Drivel. Utter drivel.

For all his Europhilia, Salmond's influence on Scottish politics is pushing us more towards a US-style political culture, where discussions on wealth get less air-time than hand-wringing debates on identity politics and what it means to be an American. The last Holyrood election, like every presidential contest since 1960, was a political beauty contest. And Jack McConnell, let's face it, was no Jack Kennedy.

True - to an extent. But I think you forget Tony Blair. He was the one who originally made politics in this country a more presidential style. Salmond just used it effectively in 2007.

In a UK context, Salmond is perhaps the Tony Benn or Enoch Powell of Scottish politics: a maverick politician who, by force of personality, makes unreasonable ideas seem reasonable to large chunks of the population. Take him out of the equation, as was the case when he resigned the SNP leadership in 2000, and his party nosedives.

And there it is. Couldn't have an article on Scottish nationalism without bringing out the Nazis eh? Salmond as Enoch Powell? That's an unreasonable idea but nothing short of what you'd expect from the Scottish press. Associate the SNP with anti-immigration and right-wing politicians without actually examining their policies.

In the meantime, Salmond and his ministers are using the powers they have to pump nationalism into the water supply. It may not be poisonous, or even have damaging long-term effects, but the recipe will do little to cure the economic problems that persist in this and every other country.

I'm sorry - is that last sentence a cry that the Scottish Government should have more economic powers? Or simply a criticism of the SNP for not doing something that it can't actually do?

(Ends)

Oh well. I really do look forward to the day when the parties and the press can have a rational, grown-up discussion about the constitutional future of Scotland. Sadly, with articles like this and the reluctance of politicians - from both sides of the debate - to clearly articulate a positive case for their view, I'll probably be waiting a long time yet.

Read more...

Team GB

Should I try to be less controversial today?

I reckon I got a taste of what it is like to be a non-Nat in the blogosphere at the weekend and I have much more respect for those opposing voices now. Apparently nothing critical of the SNP Government will be allowed in an independent Scotland.

Anyway, I see Sepp Blatter has approved the "Team England" for the 2012 Olympics. That'll help the US commentators, who seem to confuse "England" and "Britain" anyway.

Although this is being touted as an "ideal solution" I really don't think it is. Mind you, a number of teams at various Olympic events have been made up specifically of athletes from a single component part of the UK - curling, rowing, cycling, sailing etc. So it is not without precedent. But this is slightly different. I wonder - are proponents and opponents of the idea happy with this fudged solution?

Read more...

Skewered...

Regular readers will know how much I dislike double standards. Like, seriously dislike double standards.

So I read this piece by Jeff a couple of days ago on the calls for Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny MacAskill to resign over "one escape[d]" prisoner. Jeff argued that while there were calls for MacAskill to go over this issue, one prisoner escaping did not merit resignation - or even a vote of confidence in the man in charge. I wonder if he has changed his mind now that there are further stories in today's press. I suspect not, given his comment here.

Some food for thought though. Kezia Dugdale has done a tremendous piece of digging and found an article written by the "under-fire" Cabinet Secretary in March 2006 - when still in opposition. Key phrase for me:

A big boy didn't do it and run away. Sadly, it always seems to be not their responsibility or it is someone else's fault. That is simply unacceptable. There needs to be Government and Ministerial responsibility shown as much as individual and social responsibility displayed.

Got to hand it to Ms Dugdale on this one. Question for Jeff though - if the man himself thinks that in this type of situation the person in charge should go, should he go?

Edit - I should point out that I think Kenny MacAskill is doing a find job as Justice Secretary. And I'm not convinced that one prisoner (or indeed two...) escaping is something to resign over - Cathy Jamieson would, apparently, agree. My point is that is something is good for the goose then surely it should be good for the gander too. Saying one thing in opposition and another is in Government is all well and good... but if its a principle, then perhaps that's a different ball game.

Read more...

Executive Orders

Doing a wee bit of research in the last week on the SNP's record in Government. Here's some numbers I found interesting.

• The 1999-2003 Scottish Parliamentary Session, under the Labour-Lib Dem coalition, saw 50 Executive bills (including budget bills) enacted into legislation.
  
  
• The 2003-2007 Scottish Parliamentary Session, also under the Labour-Lib Dem coalition, saw 53 Executive bills (including budget bills) enacted into legislation. This despite Jack McConnell's pledge to "do less, better."
  
  
• The (2007-2011) current session - in the two years under the SNP Government - has seen only 7 Executive bills (not including budget bills - for why, you'll have to ask the Scottish Parliament website) enacted into legislation. Though there will be several more before summer recess.
  
  
• Interestingly though, the SNP have delivered (in some shape or form) on 50 of their manifesto commitments - in the main through non-legislative means.
  
  

Welcome to minority government.

Read more...

What's in a name? (2)

When I wrote this piece last week, I noticed that Ed Miliband, the UK Energy Secretary, had referred to the Scottish Government as the "Scottish Executive" and it interested me slightly.

Now there is nothing technically wrong in Mr Miliband's comment - for legal purposes (as enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998) the Scottish Executive will always be the Scottish Executive. But I wondered if his comments were politically motivated - a pointed refusal to call the SNP-run administration the Scottish Government - or if he was so far out of touch with devolved politics that he still thought it called itself "Scottish Executive." Or had he simply mis-spoken.

Ruling out a mistake (which might itself be a mistake) leaves Miliband's news being out of date (unlikely I grant you) or a political motivated decision. Which led me to Hansard.

It appears that in Scottish questions on 18 March this year, Labour backbencher Michael Connarty as well as Secretary of State for Scotland Jim Murphy referred to the Scottish Executive rather than the Scottish Government.

Funny then, that in Welsh questions, they don't seem to be too troubled in using the word "government" for the Welsh Assembly Government.

Then again, he who must be obeyed has spoken...

Read more...

Marks for effort

Midwife numbers in England are falling according to the Royal College of Midwifes. A shortfall of 1,600 is expected by 2012, yet their spokesperson said:

"We know the [UK] government is making a big effort to recruit more midwives and are putting money into maternity services...Their policies are good and are going in the right direction."

So things are going badly, numbers are going down, but the government (who have a large majority and can pass uncontroversial legislation without much in the way of problems let us not forget) is making an effort, so everything is ok?

How the SNP must wish they could get the same kind of leeway and get marks for "effort."

I won't be holding my breath for that though.

Read more...

No nukes is good nukes

I see the BBC is at its biased best again with the following headlines:

Scots nuclear stance criticised

Governments fall out over nuclear

BBC reporting aside, there's a proper story behind this.

The SNP, who have been anti-nuclear since Alex Salmond was a boy, have continued that policy from opposition into government, with the result that - for the forseeable future while the SNP remain in government - there will be no new nuclear power stations built in Scotland.

Which is tremendous from an environmental point of view. The Scottish Government has focused on renewable energy, promoting wind and tidal energy in particular, harnessing the power of nature to power our nation.

But that is not the story that the media - nor the UK Government - is focusing on.

The BBC tells of "battlelines being drawn between the two governments" which is simply a distortion of the truth. Ed Milliband, UK Energy Secretary simply said:

"I disagree with the position the Scottish Executive has taken on this, I don't think it's good for Scotland."

"It's a huge number of jobs - it's 9,000 jobs per nuclear power station with huge benefits for the economy... but it does remain a decision for Scotland."

His quotes tell two things: One, that the UK Government is focused on economic issues (understandable given the mess they've made of it in recent months) at the expense of a long term environmental strategy. And two, he understands devolution. Something that can't be said for many of his colleagues at Westminster.

Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998 sets out the areas of policy which are reserved to Westminster. Included in that is energy policy (including Section D4 nuclear energy and nuclear installations). However, that only covers current power plants. To build a new power station requires planning and electricity laws, both of which are devolved - giving the Scottish Government an effective veto over any plans to build nuclear power stations in Scotland.

Thus, under an SNP Government, Scotland can look forward to a nuclear-free future.

Read more...

A minor shuffle...

So I got that a bit wrong eh?

Alex Neil becomes new Minister for Housing and Communities.
Mike Russell moves up a step to become Minister for Culture (and a wee bit more).
Roseanna Cunningham becomes Minister for Environment, replacing Mike Russell.
Keith Brown to take over as Minister for Schools and Skills.

Which means movement to the backbenches for Stewart Maxwell, Linda Fabiani and Maureen Watt.

I guess to all intents and purposes a minor reshuffle. Some strength coming in in Alex Neil and Roseanna Cunningham - combative politicians both, and neither exactly bosom buddies with the First Minister. Keith Brown probably got the nod as a move up from his Chairing the Standards Committee.

Guess we'll see the new committee make up shortly too.

Interesting stuff though.

Read more...

Ministerial Roundabout

Well well...

Rumours from a couple of sources that the First Minister is looking to have a wee shuffle of his Ministers. After nearly two years of government, a wee freshen up in the ministerial department makes sense - though various rumours have been peddled for months up until now, mostly unfounded.

So what do I think?

I'd probably expect that, after the mess of the sportscotland merger and Dougie McDonald's sacking/ the disappearance of his job, Minister for Communities and Sport Stewart Maxwell might head the list of those moving to the backbenches. I reckon Michael Matheson is a good tip to replace him there - he featured as the SNP's spokesman on Sport in the previous parliamentary term.

The chat is also that Fiona Hyslop may get the chop, though I don't know how reliable that rumour is. She's had a tough time as Education Secretary, trying to make good some of the party's more extravagant manifesto pledges (class sizes, scrapping the graduate endowment and student loans). Despite success in some of that, other parties have been quick to attack. I think she's incredibly competent and has done well with a tough assignment. If she is moved, expect Shona Robison (Minister for Public Health) or perhaps Mike Russell (Minister for Environment) to step up. And if either happens, I'd expect Fiona Hyslop to be offered either of their Ministerial roles.

As for other roles - Kez has made a shopping list of Ministers she's like chopped. I might go as far as agreeing with her (to a degree). I don't think Maureen Watt has been a particularly effective Minister, but she is one of the FM's "pals" and may survive. If not, I reckon, Angela Constance might get a step up (though I do believe her current portfolio is Justice and not Education). If not, perhaps Alastair Allan - who does seem to merit consideration as a rising star in the party.

I think Linda Fabiani will survive as Minister for Culture for the time being - with the huge Homecoming 2009 project well under way, a change at its head could hinder its progress. Plus I think she's good banter.

So that's my thoughts:
Michael Matheson replaces Stewart Maxwell as Minister for Communites/ Sport
Shona Robison replaces Fiona Hyslop as Cab Sec for Education
Mike Russell replaces Shona Robison as Minister for Public Health
Fiona Hyslop replaces Mike Russell as Minister for the Environment
Alastair Allan replaces Maureen Watt as Minister for Schools and Skills (less confident about this one!).
Angela Constance misses out this time round.

But I've been wrong before. Anyway, the rumours might be a load of tosh. Guess we'll just need to wait and see.

EDIT: The Steamie has similar news, though they expect Fiona Hyslop to return to the backbenches while - get this - Roseanna Cunningham comes in. Not known as a Salmond buddy... interesting speculation. Apparently an announcement at 11am.

Read more...

Second time round, the budget passes

And so, with much less fanfare than its defeat last week heralded, the Scottish budget has finally passed the hurdle that the Scottish Parliament debating chamber. And by a wide margin - though not the unanimity that Jeff expected.

The vote passed by 123-2, with everyone bar the Greens on board. And each of those who played along with the Government's new budget got a little of what they wanted in it.

The Lib Dems got a "strategy to boost the economy" and a submission to the Calman Commission, HUGE concessions on John Swinney's part. I jest, of course. It was probably all he could do not to bite Tavish's arm off when he offered that.

Labour got 8,000 new apprenticeships (half of what they had wanted) while Margo (who voted with it last week as well) retained the money she had demanded for Edinburgh.

The Tories got all that they'd agreed before last week's failure to pass it. They also look like a fairly responsible opposition - offering to make agreements before the thing falls apart. When the next election comes to pass (which will now be 2011) I suspect voters might remember this - and the reluctance of both Labour and the Lib Dems to offer support until they deemed it necessary (or prudent?) to do so.

Which leaves Patrick Harvie and his fellow Green, Robin Harper. The voted against the budget again, though this time their vote against it didn't bring the thing down. Ultimately though, despite only being 5 foot 5, Harvie appears to be the biggest loser of this whole episode. Instead of negotiating further when things didn't go their way last week (granted, in the first instance, I think the SNP could have opened the door to Harvie MUCH earlier) they dug their heels in and told the Government where to go.

On some levels, their stance is laudable. The budget is not to their taste, the Government gave them nothing that they wanted, why vote for it? And its a fair point. But I guess the thing is this: they could have had so much out of it. Despite there being only two, the parliamentary arithmatic means that those Green votes can mean the difference between sucess and failure (as we saw last week). To the SNP, they can mean the difference between giving away a little on law and order and business (to the Tories), on capital city funding (to Margo) and on environmental issues (to the Greens) and having to negotiate with Labour and the Lib Dems. And in this instance, I think the Greens may have overplayed their hand slightly... and they've gotten nothing from it.

Don't get me wrong. I think the whole process has ended up as a plague on all the parties' houses (with the exception perhaps of the Tories). I just wonder who will pay for it at the next election. And on that level - and despite this recent poll - I fear for the Greens.

Read more...

Budget: Analysis of the parties

Having taken time to sleep on the budget outcome - and not instantly chuck accusations of skullduggery around - I've come to the following conclusions about what happened and how it looks from the outside (at least to those that are watching closely).

So, in order of how they voted, how do the parties look this morning?

The SNP Government will survive this setback. Depending how this is portrayed in the media, they will be made to look like victims of the big, bad opposition parties (their line) or hapless, unprepared and, well, bungling (everyone else's line). The truth, I think, lies somewhere in between. Yes, the SNP have been kicked in the teeth by the failure of their budget bill to pass. But it was oh so avoidable... and I think in their heart of hearts they know that.

The spectre of an election in the middle of a recession looms large over the upcoming negotiations, and though Salmond knows he cannot call one, he also knows that if he resigns, they may be able to kill enough time before the deadline for a new FM passes. So, though it is being portrayed by some (mostly Lib Dems) as throwing the toys out the pram, an election - were the government to resign - seems the most logical outcome.

The Tories got from the budget they came for, and are now seen as a constructive opposition party - and not, as so many thought on the creation of a Scottish Parliament, a roadblock to progress. Derek Brownlee has worked sensibly with the Finance Secretary and extracted the concessions the party wanted so they could vote for the budget. If none of that changes - and I don't suspect it will - they will vote for a revised budget.

And then there's Margo. Well, she bled the Finance Secretary dry of money for Edinburgh (and still, truth be told, wanted more) for her solitary vote in support, which, ultimately, proved fruitless. She comes across as a shrewd, hard-nosed operator but - as I heard David Whitton complaining about on Radio Scotland last night - she only represents one city. The parliamentary arithmatic makes her vote relevant - but only if Labour maintain opposition to the bill. She should remember that (and so should the SNP).

And so, to those in opposition to the bill. The Greens have been lambasted left, right and centre for their role in this but, like the SNP, their press could still go either way. They could be portrayed as budget-wreckers, making unreasonable demands and hijacking the budget for their own ends (as has in fact been the case in serveral quarters) or they could be viewed as principled, standing by the fact that they didn't get what they wanted out of it and voting it down. I think there's a bit of both there. They know their position as potential kingmakers here and tried to get something into the budget that they wanted - partly because there was so much in it that they didn't like. But I think this shows the new direction the Green Party will take under new co-leader Patrick Harvie. I think previously, under Robin Harper, they would have swallowed it and abstained, allowing it to pass... now, Harvie's Greens must be taken at their word.

Labour in opposition too, but more passive opposition than I think they could have been... this leaves open an opportunity for Swinney to circumvent the Greens and Margo. I reckon some kind of deal on skills training might be enough to see them vote for it (I don't think we'll see them abstaining again in a hurry). Labour bloggers have been somewhat restrained in their analysis, with Ewan Aitken, like me, holding out for the day consensus politics takes hold at Holyrood. I fear that day might never come!

Which brings me nicely to everyone's favourite consensus politicians - the Lib Dems. Will's analysis of their position is probably about right. I don't see how any party who demands massive budget cuts then walks out when they are told to stop being daft can now turn round and say they are "open to negotiations" over the revised budget. I'd suggest that Mr Purvis doesn't wait by his phone.

With that in mind, it is a bit surprising that I agree with Stephen Glenn (but only a wee bit) when he says minority government is about consensus, about listening to others. That's what the SNP Government have to do now, to pass this revised budget. Otherwise... well, interesting times ahead.

Read more...

It falls...

So, the budget bill, with a tied 64-64 vote, has fallen.

I've spent the day at the hospital in Stirling (just visiting, thanks for asking) away from media sources, relying on text messages from sources at Holyrood passing on information regarding the vote.

Much has been written about the implications for the process, and indeed, for each of the parties involved. I'll add my own analysis tomorrow, when I've had a chance to look more closely at the day's business.

Interesting times...

Read more...

Tense times at Holyrood

Will the Scottish Government survive the budget vote today?

There's only one game in Edinburgh town today, and that's the Scottish budget. Appears to be on a bit of a knife-edge... just like last year.

Here's my take on it.

Obviously (barring any slips of fingers) the SNP MSPs will vote for the budget. That's 47 votes in the bank. And I think that the Tories, despite playing coy with it, have probably secured enough in the way of concessions (and probably much more than they would have done had the negotiations been with a Labour Finance Secretary - which they will no doubt realise). Their 16 votes will also probably go with the budget. That makes... 63.

Here's the problem. The Lib Dems are... probably certain to vote against it. Which makes it 63-16. And with the mess that Labour made for themselves by abstaining last year, they will probably end up voting against the proposals. Which makes it an ever so tight 63-62 with three votes (Greens and Margo) to go.

I'd suggest, despite not being an easy woman to please, John Swinney has sweetened the deal somewhat for Margo MacDonald, giving her all the money she wants for Edinburgh (and some for Glasgow too!). Her vote would make it 64-62 in favour.

And then there are the two Green votes. According to James, their votes are in no way locked down. And I don't think they will be. Partick Harvie has made it quite clear that there are a lot of things in the budget that the Greens don't like - certainly enough to vote against it.

And indeed, were they to vote against (making it a 64-64 tie) the Presiding Officer should vote with the status quo - that is against the budget (as Stephen notes).

But I remember the stage one process this time last year. The vote at that time was 64-62, with the Greens getting enough from the Government and abstaining.

What money the same vote again? I wouldn't be surprised if, with all the through-the-night negotiations going on, the Greens have been given something - not the £100m per year scheme that they wanted, but something - to let them abstain from voting.

I guess we're about to see how well (or otherwise) John Swinney and others have played their hand...

Read more...

Rebel Rebel

An interesting discussion with a Labour researcher (I know - I need to keep better company!) saw the question posed "Are there any principled MSPs in the SNP?" (or something like that). To which my response was "Of course - they all are. Their principles made them MSPs" (or something to that effect).

The point the Labour researcher made - while graciously accepting my point that the principle of independence made them party members in the first place - was that since the SNP Government was elected last May, we haven't seen a rebellion. We've seen a couple of votes lost on the basis of accidentally voting against the government, but generally the SNP whip has been pretty tight.

"Wouldn't it be nice," said Labour researcher argued, "to show that SNP MSPs actually stood for something, were willing to stand up for what they believed in - even if that meant being against the government?" (Well yes - of course that would be nice for Labour, wouldn't it!).

But that got me thinking. There are 2 strands to that - first, if the SNP Government put forward something that its members were not entirely comfortable with, that would be resolved before it became public I think. And even if not, the SNP whip would probably still manage to maintain order - unlike their Labour counterpart (Cathie Craigie budget debate anyone?).

But let's entertain the notion of an SNP rebel. In the shape of whom, I can't quite see, but let's anyway. If there were a single MSP rebelling on an important piece of legislation - say, something that the government brought to Parliament - and that legislation was then lost due to that MSP standing on principle there would be consequences. Most likely, some form of Campbell Martin-type suspension. Which would then, for a time reduce SNP MSP numbers to 46 - the same as Labour. With the Lib Dems & Tories both on 16, and the Greens on 2, you'd now have 2 "Independents" - Margo & A.N. Other.

Given that the SNP would then have to find support from either LD or Con (to take Government to 62) plus the Greens (to 64) you would then find the balance of power in the hands of Margo - independent MSP. Saying that, she'd probably abstain anyway, so no harm there.

But that's almost certainly why a) the SNP have been very careful about the legislation brought before Holyrood and b) why there have been no rebellions. Because if there were, it wouldn't just mean the a defeat for the Government - it might mean the collapse of the Government and a new election.

Not that the SNP would be scared of an election at this point...

Read more...

Take a drink

I see that Parliament yesterday voted against the Scottish Government's proposals to raise the age at which alcohol can be purchased from off-licences to 21.

The plans were slammed across the spectrum in Scottish society, with all of the opposition parties plus the Scottish Licenced Trade Association, National Union of Students and even the SNP's own youth wing, the Federation of Student Nationalists all presenting opposition.

I guess I'm a bit split on it. I recognise the need for something to be done about the drink culture which stains Scottish society. I'm not convinced these plans were the way to do so - but I do think that the Scottish Government's proposals have provided a way to open the debate, and to explore possible solutions. Also, as a tea-totaller, I can take the high ground on this a bit!

I knocked the Parliament a few weeks ago after the debacle over Wendy's suspension. But yesterday showed how Parliament is supposed to work - or at least, how minority government works. If your plans are popular and you can find support in the chamber, you can pass them. If you can't, they'll fall.

Democracy. A fine thing... when it works.

Read more...