The Lib Dems... What are they good for?

Absolutely nothing.

I saw Brian Taylor's webcast interview with Nicol Stephen today. While it was a useful wee insight into the workings of the Scottish Liberal Democrat leader's mind, what a lot of mince he spoke - so just his usual then.

Brian Taylor put to him questions from BBC viewers/ website users, including questions on working with the SNP & the Trump development. In answering, Nicol Stephen pretty much ruled out working with the SNP until they drop their policy of holding an independence referendum. He denied personally disliking Alex Salmond (though I can't see that feeling being mutual!) but would not retract - at Brian Taylor's urging - his declaration that the Trump affair "smelled of sleaze."

He defended the party's unwillingness to allow a referendum on independence, and categorically denied that their support for a referendum on continued membership of the EU was inconsistent with that belief because they are in favour of the EU.

Hang on a minute though. They want a referendum (on continuing membership of the EU - which they believe is a good thing - but do not want a referendum on continued membership of another union, that of the UK, which they also believe is a good thing.

So Nicol supports asking this question of the British public:
Do you want to remain part of the EU? Yes or No

But does not want to ask this question of the Scottish public:
Do you want to remain part of the UK? Yes or No

What is liberal or democratic about that?

I say again, absolutely nothing.

Read more...

Scrapping the Graduate Endowment

Voting in the Parliament today to scrap the Graduate Endowment (the tuition fees which the Lib Dems claimed to have done away with before introducing this as a back-end payment of fees) was meant to be almost as tight as the budget.

And it was. The bill - with only Jeremy Purvis' amendment - passed with 67 votes (SNP/LD/Green/Margo + A.N. Other - either by accident or design) to 61 (Lab/Con). The other is bound to be an interesting name (what odds Cathy Craigie again?! [- EDIT in fact Elaine Smith, which still doesn't answer if it was accidental or not!]) but my main question is this: who's in a right-wing alliance now?

It was an interesting debate too. In the end though, it appeared that even Labour - who along with the Lib Dems in that shady coalition introduced the fees - and the Tories saw the logic of the Government's argument, and offered up amendments which sought not to detract from the bill but to dampen the spirit that it was put forward in. Their amendments - which called for independent inquiry of the funding of universities - were added to find a way in which these parties, one of whom doesn't seem to know the meaning of the term "consensus", could back the Government without losing too much face, given their opposition to the bill at previous stages.

It is with some dismay then, that I write this. For on the issue of student welfare members of the Labour party - notably Richard Baker MSP, former leader of the NUS in Scotland - look to have student issues at their core. Yet, for party political reasons, they couldn't find it within themselves to vote for the removal of the fees which they themselves introduced and which contribute heavily to the mountain of debt students find themselves in.

To hear Rhona Brankin's interventions today - aimed at mocking the Scottish Government's promise to end student debt - served only to draw attention to the fact that students in Scotland have found themselves in worse debt because of the Labour-led coalition's introduction of the graduate endowment. The SNP pledged to end student debt, and scrapping the graduate endowment is the first stage of that. Just as they promised to replace the council tax, freezing it was the first step in that.

But when opposition politicians constantly want to portray themselves as the solution to Scotland's problems, and that those problems are the making of the new Scottish Government, there's something far wrong with their mentality. Labour and the Lib Dems had 8 YEARS to fix the problems that they are now identifying in opposition. Instead they exacerbated the problem of student debt by lumping a further sum on our students. The Scottish Government has acted to alleviate that burden. And if vulnerable groups really are the fiefdom of the Labour party, then they'd do well to remember that in votes such as this.

So Labour managed to find a way to vote against it. As did the Tories. At least students now know which parties are standing up for their interests in Parliament - and it isn't them.

Rant over - this has been much more partisan than my usual blog - but its been an issue I'm all too familiar with. It's a no brainer for support either - and yet again I'm baffled by the position of the Labour party.

Read more...

Fantasy Politics

Having already blogged on the Speaker's problems, noting Raul Castro's taking over the Cuban Presidency and Ralph Nader's entry into the American Presidential election (which will no doubt aid John McCain's cause), I thought I'd blog on something... almost completely different to any of the above.

Giving my Canadian friend an overview of the Scottish Parliament's system, I had a thought about the system of government we have here. Arend Lijphart's Patterns of Democracy identifies a number of elements of government which constitute democracy, including a proportional electoral system and an open party system - two elements which are present in Scotland. One that we do not possess, however, is a bi-cameral (two-chamber) Parliament, which Lijphart reckons provides a further check on the democratic system.

The reason, I believe, that the Scottish Parliament has only a single chamber is that the committee system is designed to provide scrutiny of the legislative process, thereby reducing the need for a second chamber. And it works well - as far as I can see.

But the UK Parliament has both a committee system and a second (albeit unelected) chamber - and I know that the committees at Westminster serve a different purpose, but I want to indulge in spot of fantasy politics that may serve to change the face of the Scottish Parliament and the roles of MSPs.

One thought occurred to me. If we were to create a second chamber in Scotland - within the current electoral framework - it may make for an interesting political dynamic, even more so than it is now.

What if the 73 MSPs were elected from constituencies - as they are currently - but the 56 MSPs elected from the regions formed a second chamber, a regional one? That way that chamber would be split both along party AND regional lines, giving, say, a Highland Labour and a Glasgow Labour MSP reason to differ upon an issue which affects one's region in a positive way and another's in a negative way.

If we work on the logic that the largest party should form the Government (from across the 2 chambers) it would make governing more difficult - or ensure that more consensus is required in order to pass legislation. Based on the 2007 election, what we'd have is a first chamber with:

Lab - 37, SNP - 21, Lib Dem - 11, Con - 4

And a regional chamber make up of:

SNP - 26, Con - 13, Lab - 9, Lib Dem - 5, Green - 2, Independent - 1

It would also solve the problem of treating constituency & regional members the same - as they'd have different roles. Legislation would need to have local, regional and national dimensions just to pass through both chambers, with majorities required in BOTH to pass bills (as it would be easy, for example, for Labour to pass bills through the constituency chamber - where they have a majority of one - but not the regional chamber, where they have only 9).

Anyway, I just though that was an interesting, alternative look at electoral politics in Scotland - mainly as I'm bored of looking at maps in the wake of the Boundary Commission's map re-drawing!

I can't believe I've reached 50 posts already... in under two months. Too much free time? Or too much to say? Maybe a bit of both.

Read more...

Whitewash #2

And so this week, with little fanfare, no use of a parliamentary committee room and as little media coverage as they could manage, the Electoral Commission came to their second conclusion on Labour party donations in two weeks. Their verdict? No further action shall be taken against Charlie Gordon, Labour MSP for Cathcart – the man now infamously solicited the £950 donation from Jersey-based businessman Paul Green.

It has come as no surprise to me – or indeed anyone with any connection to politics in Scotland that this would be the case. Not because I don’t think there was merit in investigating the case, but because it was the Electoral Commission that was doing the investigating – and their conclusion on the Wendy case made a different conclusion in this case unlikely. I better explain that comment, lest I be accused of libelling the good name of the Electoral Commission.

I understand that the Electoral Commission is an independent organisation, and having them investigate the crime which was committed (potentially) prior to handing it over the fiscal was sensible given their (relative) expertise in the subject matter. I have to say, for the public looking on, having politicians effectively protected by a body which then decides if they should be investigated does appear a bit like one rule for the rulers and one rule for the ruled.

Putting that aside, did anyone believe that after the Electoral Commission’s verdict on Wendy (which, strangely, was investigated before Charlie Gordon’s case, despite the fact that it was his breach of the law which implicated Wendy) their findings would be any different on the Glasgow Cathcart MSP? I mean, once they’d declared Wendy had taken “significant steps” to mitigate her responsibility for breaking the law, how could they then recommend that Charlie Gordon face prosecution?

And that for me has been one of the many flaws in the process. Both ADMITTED they had broken the law. Yet they have the luxury of being investigated by an independent panel who then decide if they should face criminal prosecution, yet decide that it is not in the public interest to prosecute this breach of the law. I’m sorry, but the ‘common’ man who faces prosecution for an offence he inadvertently or unintentionally committed why is this different? Too much protection for elected representatives and not enough for the ‘McChattering’ Classes.

Maybe this is the sleaze that Nicol Stephen thought he could smell…

Read more...