Monday 31 December 2007

Not a bad year all in all

It's been a good year all in all and we're heading into 2008 with the SNP in the lead in the polls. So far in the lead, actually, that if the election were held today, the SNP would win the following Westminster constituencies: Aberdeen North; Aberdeen South (and wouldn't that please Nicol Stephen); Argyll & Bute; Ayrshire North & Arran; Dumfrieshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale; Dundee West; Edinburgh East; North & Leith (but we knew that anyway); Edinburgh South; Edinburgh South West (how will he pay that Northern Rock mortgage then?); Glasgow North; Kilmarnock & Louden; Linlithgow and East Falkirk; Ochil and South Perthshire;Paisley & Renfrewshire North; and Stirling - as well as the six we already hold. That would be a not bad election and, of course, there are local situations in other seats which would make them winnable too - Gordon springs to mind.

Anytime Brown wants to call it then...Prospicio respicio - let's have a wee look back at how the election was won. There's the obvious contribution of Salmond, no point in me talking about that when other people will keep doing it (just as well - he's so introspective and self-deprecating he's never likely to be blowing his own trumpet).

Nationalists will remember the contribution made by Angus Robertson MP - and how knackered he was at the end of the campaign, and many of us will also remember our good friend and night-time companion Activate, but there are several heroes who deserve to have their part in the victory recognised.

The most important of those is, of course, me, but I don't like to boast, so I'll move swiftly on to the others who are deserving of praise and credit for their part in the SNP victory which is responsible for transforming Scotland.

Towering head and shoulders above all of us is John Swinney - the work he did in changing the party and turning it into a modern campaigning unit during his time as leader was the underpinning of the victory.

Jim Mather the human dynamo - zig-zagging back and forwards across the country spreading the word about how the potential of the Scottish people can be released to create the economic conditions that will transform Scotland with the right Government action.

Linda Fabiani whose international links have helped to change the focus of the SNP so we show more of our international side and also for her excellent proposal to create a Scottish Olympic team.

Kenny MacAskill who challenged nationalists to examine just exactly what Scottish nationalism is in the modern world.

Peter Murrell, (the party Chief Executive) and his staff at headquarters who kept the swan's feet paddling under the surface.

Campaigners the length and breadth of the country who have been there through the bad times as well as the good times and kept the party going - far too many names to mention both current and past activists.

But there's one guy who deserves a special mention and he's the one who spent hours in the bowels of the national archives looking for the truth about Scotland's oil and uncovered the evidence that we have been lied to about Scotland's wealth for 30 years. Without the uncovering of the McCrone report and the subsequent realisation on the part of the Scottish people that the SNP had been right all along our task in May would have been far, far harder than it was. Step forward and take a bow Mr Davie Hutchison.
May 2008 bring all of you great joy, much success and a nice wee warm feeling - especially the SNP Scottish Government.

To be fair to be fair

In the spirit of the season, I shall not refer to the latent criminality that lurks within the Labour party. I shall refrain from reminding people that the Labour party is rotten to the core. I shall not mention those who have admitted that they break the law. I shall not intimate that I believe that most active members of the Labour party believe that the law does not apply to Labour.

Instead, I shall concentrate on the closest Scottish Labour has come to a policy statement in at least a year - Wendy Alexander's speech at Edinburgh University on St Andrew's Day. I'm going to pick the bits I want to talk about and I'm a nationalist - if you want anything else, do it yourself. I've heard a lot about the intellectual genius of Wendy Alexander, but all the evidence points in the other direction.

And so to the speech of this fellow of the British-American Project for the Successor Generation:
Almost 30 years ago my first ever political campaign was stuffing envelopes during the 1979 Referendum.

Not for the 'yes' campaign though - according to sources in her former home town.
I firmly believe it is time for a review of the Scottish Constitutional Settlement.

I knew she'd want to join the National Conversation eventually ...
I have never been one of those who believes that, uniquely among the nations of the world, Scotland is incapable of standing on its own two feet.

About time she admitted this - she used to tell us it would cost us five grand each.
I believe that all component parts of the UK would be the losers should we split up an enduring and successful union.
She never actually gives a justification for her statement that the UK is successful, nor does she lay out any rationale behind her belief in the union. The only coherent arguments I have ever heard for the continuation of the union have actually been made by nationalists acting as 'deil's advocate' - and usually in the wee sma hours. Why can no unionist politician give us a decent case for holding on to London rule?
England is a much bigger country than Scotland and its history as by far our largest trading partner cannot simply be wished away, even if that was desirable.

Whether or not you think that this is desirable, it might be true (there are no figures for trade between the two countries and I keep on speaking to businesses whose main customers are in Europe, but it might be true). Of course, so long as England is allowed to remain in the EU after independence, she will have the same rights to trade with Scotland as any other EU member state, and my English cousins will still be able to come north to visit. Call me an optimist, but I think that the Scottish Government would make provision to allow England to keep trading with us even if the rest of Europe threw them out, we're nice that way.
Dissolve the Union and England would still have a dominant say in the economic wellbeing of Scotland but without the Scots enjoying anything like the same degree of reciprocity which we currently enjoy through participation in our common democracy.
Funny how it's nationalists who understand global interdependence and supranational organisations like the EU, isn't it? For the sake of not being cruel to the small one, let's ignore the fact that the other EU member states have more impact on our economy than England, and let's ask the questions - surely it's a bad thing for Scotland to have one country being a dominant force in our economic wellbeing? Would that remain the same under Independence? I'm even tempted to ask whether this first term of an SNP Government will see Scotland improve and no longer be held back by the English economy. This is, of course, Wendy Alexander displaying that normal trait of Labour members of seeing only what they're told is in front of them, never looking to see what the possibilities are - with the honourable exception of Pat Watters, obviously.

After more than three hundred years of Union, hundreds of thousands of Scots live in England and indeed hundreds of thousands of English people live here.

Hundreds of thousands? No real numbers to offer us? Of those people born in England and now living in Scotland, though, I'm sure Wendy Alexander will be delighted to know that a fair number of them are members of the SNP - including our seven MSPs who were born in England. Prize to anyone who can name them all.
Independence has never, and is unlikely ever, to gain majority support in Scotland and no Party committed to achieving a separate Scottish state is likely to secure majority support.

See that sneering at the right of the people to decide between the options which are put before them? That's why Labour's in so much trouble just now - refusing to address the issues at hand, determined instead to shout down the opinions of others and to insist that no-one else is allowed to agree with them. Labour must learn humility if it is ever to contribute anything to Scottish politics.
It is not possible to entirely reconcile the partisan interest of the Labour Party with the cause of home rule for Scotland.

Partisan interest of the Labour Party? Surely the concern is with the people of Scotland? Ach well, we can but hope. But is this Labour's leader in Scotland telling us that the reason Labour opposes independence is because it runs counter to the career interests of Labour politicians?

There is unfinished business from the 1999 Scotland Act and it is Labour’s job – in partnership with other parties - to fix it. As Donald Dewar once said “it would be absurd to pretend that ours is the last word on the constitutional settlement”

See that towering vanity that would have someone think that they had to say that they didn't have the last word on the constitution? That's the contempt for democracy we keep seeing running through the Labour Party. It's good to see, though, that Wendibles has accepted, finally, that Labour has to engage with the National Conversation at last.
For me and many in the Labour Party devolution was initially about ‘unfinished business’.

Okay, I give up - how can something be initially about unfinished business? Surely unfinished business suggests something that has already started.
there are many issues I believe are best dealt with on an all-island basis, such as tackling global warming

I think that the clue might be in the word global ...
Looking forward most Scots are looking to secure both the devolution settlement and their common UK citizenship. I would like to see a Commission endorsed by the Scottish Parliament, and parties and Parliamentarians at Westminster so that it can draw in the best ideas that the UK and Scotland have to offer.

I've heard people talking about independence and I've heard people talking about remaining part of the UK, but I've never heard anyone asking how they secure their place in the current devolution settlement. Maybe it's a Paisley thing? On the second point - how does the endorsement of political parties in Edinburgh and London ensure that this fabled Commission draws in the best ideas from around Scotland? Another thing - let me pose the West Lothian question in another way - why should someone living in Basingstoke have a say in how Scotland governs herself?
stay focussed on our key goal – what constitutional changes devolution might need to make Scotland a better place in which to live and work in

That's easy - independence. The more perspicacious amongst you will appreciate the irony of the ease of that statement.
There are areas from welfare to work to road transport where there is merit in considering greater powers for the Scottish Parliament.

I look forward to Wendy Alexander's support for these powers to be repatriated.
the financing of the Parliament almost wholly through grant funding does not provide the proper incentives to make the right decisions. Hence strengthening the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament by moving to a mixture of assigned and devolved taxes and grant is something the Commission should consider.

Here's a very interesting point - a woman who was a Minister on and off for the first eight years of devolution, who was the Special Advisor on the Scotland Act, and who keeps telling us she knows the way forward doesn't know how the Scottish Parliament is funded. (It's a top-slice from the consolidated fund). If I was going to be fair, I'd let on that I knew she meant Scottish Government when she said Scottish Parliament - but where's the fun in being fair to her?
It is these principles of resource, revenue and risk sharing – that underpin the partnership that is the UK. Those 3 Rs – of resource, revenue and risk sharing – also secure for Scots our social citizenship i.e. our access to the welfare state, our right to benefits and pensions as well as access to free schooling and healthcare through the NHS.
The benefit of the doubt just went out the window. If it's membership of the UK that secures us access to these benefits of society (ignoring the omission of economic drivers there), how do other nations deliver them for their people? Or is she arguing that an independent Scotland would get rid of each of them?
The case for the UK remains the common interests of its constituent parts. It is better to work together and share risk and resources than to seek to manage a volatile environment separately.

So the reason Scotland can't make her own decisions is that the world is a wee bit scary? Intellectually vacant is about the most polite phrasing I can think of. Perhaps the agility of a medium-sized country like Scotland would actually be a benefit in a volatile environment?
the issue of Corporation tax variation within a state also raises issues of compliance with EU rules (the Azores judgement) as well as potentially distorted transfer pricing.

Alyn Smith MEP has already declared himself "a tad ungallant" in pointing out that she has no idea what she's talking about here, no need for me to add more.
England is not just any other country for most Scots.
My mother was born in England, most of my cousins live in England. I still don't see the point she's making.
Risk, revenues and resources are shared across the UK to deliver common services and benefits - access to the main elements of the welfare state - social security and pensions, access to healthcare free at the point of need and free schooling

She's off again. I wonder if this was meant to be some kind of scare tactic? There is absolutely no intellectual underpinning to this stuff - it's quite shockingly bad.

we should support and welcome greater local and regional decentralisation in England, allowing voices in different parts of England to be heard on their issues just as we have sought that for ourselves. Looking to the future the so called English question is properly for UK colleagues to consider.

See, maybe it's just the way nationalists think, but I'm of the opinion that it's up the people of England to decide how their country is governed, I don't think I have the right to impose my opinions on them.

That's about the extent of the content of her speech. She really has to go now.

Saturday 29 December 2007

I'm back!

Oh what a wonderful festering season is being had under the SNP Government. Didn't I always tell you that it would be better when we took over? Just wait till independence day - what a party that's gonna be - trust me ...

Funnily enough, I spent the first Christmas of SNP Government in the Republic of Geordieland - someone has to keep an eye on them - and, while having a wee walk one evening, passed the house of one David Abrahams. Can I say, Mr Abrahams, that the extension is truly horrendous and completely out of character with the neighbourhood. I don't know - Labour donors - nae taste.

I was most interested in Kezia Dugdale's call for a clean-up of politics

if politics achieves anything in 2008, it must be to clear up this almighty mess, clean up it's image and give people something to trust again.
Is that a former spinner for Wendy Alexander calling on the miniature one to resign? I can wholeheartedly support that call, it would be infra dignitatum for Parliament to have another Labour member get sent to jail while still an MSP. Yes, Kezia, I agree - Wendy Alexander should resign her seat now to help get the mess cleaned up.

While I'm on the subject, I chuckled at Mark McDonald's scurrilous accusation that the opposition coalition parties have organised themselves so that they aren't putting out news releases on the same day during the break.

We can't blame 'em for trying at least, but it seems a little coincidental that the former coalition partners have taken it turn about to put out their press releases.Almost as if there was some behind the scenes cooperation...
Going by their recent performances, though, I suspect that they might just not have anything much to say, they're pretty incompetent - as Chris Stephens points out,

They must be really bitter at their gubbing in the elections in May, and with Nicol Stephen holding a marginal constituency his attacks look like the desperate actions of a desperate man.
I'd wager a pound or two, though, that they won't be as bitter as Kerron Cross who was, as you will remember, supposed to become Wendy Alexander's new spinner but the job offer was withdrawn, and so we have the fascinating scenario of a trade union taking on Labour's Scottish leader in an employment dispute. I admit I wondered how the leader of the Labour group of 6 (out of 48) on Three Rivers Council (London) would manage the commute to work in Scotland. Turns out he'd bought a flat in Motherwell:

We went to see Motherwell play at the weekend. We now have a flat locally and I'm all for supporting my local team, wherever that is.
I bet that hurts. Mind you, Mr Cross is used to being sandpapered by Labour 'dignitaries' - Labour leader hopeful John McDonnell MP once even threatened him with all kinds of bad things for letting people know what the answering machine message in McDonnell's Parliamentary office said.

Here's a wee thought for you - it's now more than a month since Wendy Alexander went into purdah. Her self-imposed gag is her attempt to hide from the consequences of her actions during her leadership non-election. What a politician, eh? Better for all of Scotland if the miniature one resigns now and gets on with it.

Happy winterval and an abstemious new year to you!

Sunday 23 December 2007

And so farewell then ...

It's a long and sad farewell we are saying to Wendy Alexander's career.

With chaos and bad judgement having been the hallmark of her leadership so far, allied to the odd broken law and a touch of contempt for the due process of law, it seems that the thinking was that she'd be home and safe if she could just get to the Christmas recess without being forced to resign. Ah, would that things were so easy.
Those January blues will be ultramarine for Labour. The Electoral Commission investigation into her dodgy donations will be reaching the point where prosecutions begin; the Standards Commissioner investigation into the evasion of the rules governing the Register of Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament will be getting into gear; there may be further complaints made about her massaging public money into the Labour party through Computers for Labour or about using Parliamentary staff in the form of Allan Wilson for party purposes.In the meantime, she has been avoiding talking to journalists to make sure that she doesn't prejudice her trial. What kind of a political leader takes a vow of silence? It's no way to run an opposition. On top of the dangers and damage from nefarious activities, Labour's performance as an opposition has been terrible.

Alexander's first questions in the chamber, if I may take you back, were based on false information, and since then she's failed to land a blow. Her politics lacks intellectual grounding - in spite of the great reputation she managed to build - and is built on a foundation of fantasy and invention; the 'great speech' she made at Edinburgh University was lacking in substance (of which more later); the actions of the Labour party in Parliament have amounted to little more than drift and spite; and the true lead in opposition terms has actually come from the Conservatives - constructive and effective - in spite of the Labour group being almost three times as large.

We've seen Labour blindly oppose Scottish Government initiatives simply because they come from the SNP. They seek victories not to change the direction of Scotland but just to seek to defeat the SNP - pyrrhic victories at best.

Labour lost its soul decades ago; it wasn't Blair who sold it, it was the descent from being a party with a purpose to being a collection of self-interested individuals. While seeing another Labour politician go to jail would not be as shocking as it would once have been, perhaps the sight of Labour's Scottish leader being led away in handcuffs might just be an insult too far. The great irony might be that this farrago could be the catalyst which persuades those few remaining decent people in the Labour party that they have to take their party back, that Wendy Alexander could be the saviour of the Labour party simply by being so damnedly poor at the job.

And so farewell then, Wendy Alexander's career.

Before I go, there's some concern over some money that was given to the SNP a few years ago that never turned up in the Electoral Commission register, the branch say that they sent the registration, the Commission say that they never received it. Whatever happened, and how much blame there is to apportion, one thing is clear - since it was a bequest it's fairly obvious that the donor was not seeking any influence, isn't it?

One more thing - this little ditty was begun by someone else and added to by me, any help to finish it would be much appreciated -

On the first day of Christmas wee Wendy sent to me a cheque for £950
On the second day of Christmas wee Wendy sent to me two resigning spinners
On the third day of Christmas wee Wendy sent to me no intentional wrongdoing

Answers to the usual address ...

Saturday 22 December 2007

In the lead again

The Grauniad has a most interesting piece today - the SNP is leading on Westminster voting intention in Scotland - ahead of Labour by 3 percentage points in an averaging of all UK-wide polls taken since Gordie went all wobbly and chickened out of calling an election.

That's good news, isn't it?

Only in Scotland and Wales has the Tory revival faltered: the party is up just three points since the summer. But Labour is also in trouble in Scotland, trailing the SNP by three points, 39% to 36%.
Must be Christmas! Is there a sanity clause?

Friday 21 December 2007

Sherlock, Sherlock, who called for Sherlock?

You will remember that the Labour party types sought to give us nats a wee hard time over some supposedly broken election promises.

I wish to offer you the following snippet from Labour MSP Mary Mulligan's speech on the Graduate Endowment yesterday, and I shall make no comment ...

The SNP is trying to use the abolition of the graduate endowment to fulfil its manifesto commitment

Thursday 20 December 2007

Don't turn around ...

He's back! Risen from the dead like an abstemious riser type thing is the Allan Wilson - former MSP, wit and raconteur, as already described by a hero clad entirely in tartan (honestly, absolutely everything is tartan) and a young chap of the Tory persuasion (enough of those thoughts)! Surely Kerron Cross wasn't dumped for Allan Wilson?

I'm delighted to see Allan Wilson back in harness, eh, and, eh, I'll, eh, be loving, eh, watching what he, eh, gets up to. Mainly because of what was written in the Herald (fine organ):

Yesterday, he began a three-month contract as a consultant in the Labour group's support unit with the remit of developing the party's policies in the run-up to their Scottish conference in March.
In particular, Mr Wilson will liaise with grassroots party members on plans for a constitutional commission to look at extra powers for the parliament.

What? Surely not! I'm shocked! Working on party policy, liaising with the grassroots of the party ...

Surely that's party work rather than Parliamentary work? Surely Wendy (to whom he now belongs) wouldn't be using Parliamentary resources for party political purposes? Not with her reputation, surely?

Here's Allan with a big cake:

The Green Party - daft as

My very good friends in the Green Party (none of whom is actually green, by the way, except on the day after their Christmas party) are opposing the abolition of tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges today.

Fair enough, except for the argument they're using. It goes like this - removing the tolls will increase congestion.


In a house in Fife - "I say darling, how do you fancy a day out shopping in Edinburgh?"
"Marvellous idea, darling, shall we take the car?"
"Well, let's see - that will be a few pounds in fuel, the parking charges in Edinburgh are extortionate - probably another tenner, we'll be spending an absolute fortune in the shops, we'll probably have a coffee in one of those eye-wateringly expensive coffee shops - say a fiver for two coffees and a couple of miniscule cakes. That's all very well, but adding on a pound for the bridge tolls is taking it a bit far - let's get the train."

Fast forward to post-removal and the house next door - "Fancy a day shopping in Edinburgh?"
"Oh no, I strongly dislike going to Edinburgh."
"But there's no bridge tolls anymore."
"Oh well, in that case, let's take the car."

Aye, right. The current bridge tolls are not a disincentive to travelling across the bridge and their removal will not increase congestion. In fact, there is a case to argue that the overbraking caused by vehicles slowing down at the toll plaza to pay creates a traffic queue which makes pollution at the bridge site worse than it would otherwise be.

See Greens? Grand folks, but you wouldn't eat all of them.

Monday 17 December 2007

Please help me I'm falling ...

I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with John Major - the last Conservative Government, having been in power too long and with too many front benchers who overpowered their opponents for too long, became complacent, arrogant, greedy and corrupt - as individuals.

There were people in that party who broke the law - some of them went to jail, as politicians who break the law should - and there were others who appeared to think that the rules - the rules of the institution they were members of, the rules of politics, and the rules of common decency - didn't apply to them. That government found itself in the gutter and it collapsed into nothingness in 1997, there's an argument that it would have been better all round had it collapsed in 1992. At the end, Major found himself nostril deep in the crap, but those few who dragged Major's Government into the gutter (only a few) acted on their own.

The vicious dishonesty of the Labour party since 1997 has far outreached anything that went on under Major. There has been an organisation to the gutter in this instance, taking money into the Labour party, into the corporation of Labour, in a way unheard of before - an organisation of base corruption from the petty and the cheap to the extremes.

The list is enormous, but a few aides memoire; Ecclestone, Hinduja, Mandelson's loans, Lanarkshire Red Rose Dinners, Swan Hunter, Blunkett's amour, cash for access, cash for honours, David Abrahams, Wendy Alexander. It's organised cash-gathering, it's the political equivalent of racket-running, it's absolutely dishonest, and it has to end. From local government to UK government, the Labour party is rotten and rotting - and that's a crying shame for a party that came from a proud tradition.

The Sunday Times carried another tale this week about a Labour practice of diverting public funds into Labour campaigning. Incredibly, if you speak to a Labour party member they can see nothing wrong with this low-level, ignorant and casual corruption - the corruption is endemic as well as systemic. From sneaking a few hundred quid in under the radar to channelling millions the attitude equates to an attitude of "the law does not apply to Labour".

There's immorality and illegality walking hand-in-hand there, and blind eyes are swivelling in their sockets. Labour's Scottish leadership has admitted illegal practices - Wendy Alexander has admitted breaking the law - why can they not just resign now, get out of the way, let their party rebuild itself, and let Scottish politics get back to politics?

There is currently, of course, a chorus of "you lot are at it" with allegations being made that Alex Salmond did not play strictly by the rules over the Trump proposed £1 billion investment in the North East. This has, of course, proven to be flannel, as even Scottish Tory Boy has said - not only has there been no wrongdoing proven, the accusers cannot even decide what wrongdoing they want to look for - as shown by Nicol Stephen in the interview with Glenn Campbell.

Nicol Stephen's latest attempt to try to make this a story by demanding that Parliament sets up a commission to examine the issue (how many commissions does Nicol Stephen want?) is, as has been said elsewhere, making him look ridiculous, but I say it's worse than that.

I say that anyone who wants a motion in Parliament to instruct the Corporate body to set up a commission to investigate something within the power of the Scottish Government and calls on the Government to hand over papers and suchlike does not understand the scope of government, considering that Salmond has already said that he met the Trump supporters and opponents in the course of his duties as an MSP rather than as First Minister. Considering that Nicol Stephen was part of the coalition government for the first eight years of devolution it's a bit worrying that he doesn't know where government ends and MSP duties begin.

It's more worrying, though, that a trained lawyer who was in government for eight years and is a senior MSP can submit a motion of that nature - it suggests an ignorance of the Scotland Act, either through not reading it or not understanding it.

Can we get back to politics now?

Trams are off-track

I say well done the Elm Row clock - I passed it tonight en route to dinner (I was en route, the clock wasn't moving - which is exactly what's well done), and it was still where it was last week and the week before.

Three week delay to the trams project they're saying - aye, and then some!

Have they found out yet how to get the things to turn into St Andrew's Square? Have they found the value engineering savings yet? Have they actually read the Auditor General's report yet?

Wonder what breakage clauses Labour wrote into the contract - can Edinburgh get out now without being ripped off by Labour's vanity scheme or are we now compelled to pay the full cost of Labour's failure?

Sunday 16 December 2007

Wasn't me!

Shameless theft from Chicmac on the Tartan Army Message Board:

New scandal

Useless opposition - that's the biggest scandal in Scotland today. Between them they can't even manage a decent strike in any sphere on Salmond or any other member of the SNP. Pure dead boggin - as it used to be described in my childhood.

Iain Macwhirter came to the conclusion that, if there was any wrongdoing by Salmond, it was the use of the Ministerial car (he was leaving a Ministerial engagement, so that's not a wrongdoing).

Scotland on Sunday has dug out a 'planning expert' to warn that Swinney calling in the application will bring about the Apocalypse. Dr Veronica Burbridge is her name - I've no idea what her doctorate is in, but her appearance as a planning expert appears to stem from her having worked for the Royal Town Planning Institute for a couple of years after having worked for Scottish Natural Heritage. I can't quite work out whether she is naive or politically partial. I know, I know, you want to know what the Royal Town Planning Institute is - I was desperate to investigate it myself but I have to admit I got bored. They have 20,000 members (across the UK) in 9 classifications, only one of which requires a professional qualification and you can look at their policy development for yourself.

There was even a tale that some terrible opposition spinner had tried to suggest that John Swinney had played a free round of golf when he was at a Globalscots event paid for by Scottish Enterprise which was held at one of Trump's premises in the US. If it had been a mountain-biking centre, maybe see a round getting played, but golf and John Swinney? Dinna be daft.

Then there's the Lib Dems intending to ask Parliament to spend money on a Commission to exonerate the SNP in addition to the Commission they want Parliament to set up to examine the case for independence. Parliament is on a limited budget - how much of its money do they want to spend on their commissions and will they be willing to give up their salaries and allowances to fund them?

Useless, the lot of them! For a large fee I'm prepared to show them how to be an opposition, though - all such tenders will be subject to a donation to the cause of independence, right enough.

I have been made aware of one or two people asking why Nicol Stephen jumped up and down and stamped his feet like an infant over Alex Salmond but didn't utter a peep when Wendy Alexander admitted breaking the law. Good question - if I get half a chance I'll start having a look at his allowances and expenses - just for a laugh.

Cheer up, we could be back to politics soon. Wendy Alexander, the woman who admitted breaking the law but is hanging on to clear her name will be gone soon (does she intend to resign as soon as she's 'cleared her name'?), Nicol Stephen will be back counting milk tokens, and we could, perhaps, have some real debate in Parliament.

Do you think the Labour MSPs and the Lib Dem peers who are in favour of independence should declare their hand?

Ach, come on, it would be fun at least.

Friday 14 December 2007

The Valkyrie are riding - apparently ...

My attention has been drawn to the wonderful and mythical lands of Westminster wherein a certain Member of that Parliament saw a rough chance for a bit of publicity yesterday.

During a section of proceedings known as 'Business of the House' (where MPs ask what debates are coming up and that kind of thing), Mark Lazarowicz, for it was he, thought he'd get in a dig at the SNP Scottish Government thusly:

Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh, North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op): May we have a debate on local democracy and devolution? I ask that because of the growing scandal in Scotland, where the Scottish National party Government have been interfering in an unprecedented way in the local planning process in support of a development proposed by the Trump Organisation. Should not the First Minister be reminded that the point of devolution was to bring power closer to the people, not to have power devolved to Edinburgh, only to have it taken away from local government and centralised in Edinburgh?
13 Dec 2007 :
Column 469
Ms Harman: I will take up my hon. Friend’s point with the Secretary of State for Scotland. The whole point of having a Scottish Parliament was to devolve power from Westminster to people in Scotland, not to suck up power from local authorities in Scotland and place it in Edinburgh instead.
I shall, in my fair-minded way, leave aside that the powers that were used to call in the application were introduced by Labour in the 2006 Planning Act to take care of exactly this kind of situation - readallaboutit on page 3 of this Parliament briefing

I shall also ignore the fact that these two politicians have missed the point of devolution - that decisions about Scotland should be made in Scotland (Scottish solutions to Scottish problems as someone once said), and leave it to the leader column of the Press and Journal to put it succinctly:

The only consolation was that any credibility Edinburgh MP Mark Lazarowicz hoped to gain by seeking the high moral ground was instantly nullified by the support of Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman, that doyenne of political propriety. Politicians should learn when to keep their mouths shut and, where this issue is concerned, that time is now.
Meanwhile, I'd like to thank all you wonderful people who flooded me with comments about last night's posting. You know, you all got so het up that every one of you forgot to leave your name - I was terribly sorry at not being able to reply to you all personally and to repay your kind invective. I also regret not being able to publish any of the comments you made - such filthy mouths!

Let's answer the points, though. As some of you pointed out, Alex Salmond appears to welcome the development but isn't allowed to get involved (I am, of course, paraphrasing here) and, as others have pointed out - he's no daft.

Walk through it slowly, now - Alex Salmond wants the development to go ahead, he's quite bright, and he's not allowed to get involved. Therefore, logic would tend to lead you to suspect that he would avoid doing anything which might harm the development's chances of going ahead. A little bit of thought would lead you to know that Salmond stayed within the boundaries and didn't do anything inappropriate.

I am not Alex Salmond's biggest fan, but I can tell you that he knows how the game works and, in spite of what is said about him by some other people, he plays a safe and canny hand in politics.

Don't forget to write now!

Thursday 13 December 2007


Oh the fun, the games, the witty repartee, the Glasgow banter (or Aiberdeenshire).
Everybody's favourite milk monitor was in finger-wagging mood today, claiming that the Salmond chappie had broken the rules. Apparently there's an American with a really bad heid rug who wants to build some stuff in Salmond's constituency and has had a meeting with the First Minister.
Whoop-de-doo I hear you say. Ach, it's quite important, hear me out on this. The Ministerial Code (not like Morse Code, more like a Dae This And Dinna Dae That Code) forbids, bans and prohibits Minsters interfering in planning decisions in their constituencies. So the question is whether the auld FM chap interfered.

The case for the prosecution rests on three things:
1. Alex Salmond turned up at the meeting with Trump's people in a Ministerial car
2. He met Trump but didn't meet with everyone else within a couple of days
3. There were some Trump people in the office of the Chief Planner when he made a phone call.

Looks like an open and shut case, except:
1. Well, if he was coming from Ministerial business that would be spot on. You'll note that the car didn't wait to take him home.
2. He'd already met the other people.
3. So what? What's wrong with those people being in the office when the call was made?

Is this the best we can expect from the opposition? They really should try to toughen up.

Wendy's Mole

I've found the mole at the heart of the Wendy Alexander scandal - Wendy's husband is in favour of independence - well done that man!

Up you could not make it

Yesterday the Education Committee of the Scottish Parliament rejected the Graduate Endowment Abolition Bill on the casting vote of the Labour convener Karen "don't look at me" Whitefield.

For the sake of clarity, let me explain that the purpose of this Bill is to remove the tuition fee known as the Graduate Endowment levied on Scottish students by the Lib/Lab coalition in 2000. It has been brought forward by the SNP Scottish Government to fulfill a manifesto pledge.

Labour wants Scottish students to keep on paying this tax on learning, the SNP believes that access to education should be based on the ability to learn, not on the ability to pay. So what reasons did Laborious members give for wanting to leave the current and the future generations of Scots students lumber with this learning tax?
Richard Baker is the Labour education spokesperson - you may remember his letter to the Herald where he said:
No-one disagrees that the abolition of tuition fees is not the only matter of concern in Scottish higher education - many of us would like to see a wide range of developments in the ways which both universities and students are funded. ... We are asking the politicians to re-establish an important principle; thereafter we can start the examination of additional means of addressing student debt and poverty.
You can see why we expected him to back the abolition of the Graduate Endowment, can't you? After being on the Committee as a substitute and voting against the Bill, though, Master Baker said:

Universities have told us they don't have the funds to increase student numbers, which begs the question, how can this bill widen access when there won't be more places for students to take up?
If this bill goes ahead, competition for places is likely to be even fiercer for students from poorer backgrounds, most of whom don't pay the endowment.

What happened to his desire to see free education re-established and then start looking at what else needs done? Nothing to do with seeking to score empty victories over the SNP Government surely?
Think he's bad? What about Karen Whitefield:
The committee remains unconvinced that the removal of graduate endowment goes far enough in removing barriers to access higher education.
So because she can't get from here to there in one giant leap she refuses to take the first step. Truly the mark of incredible genius. Here she is with a huge cake -

Jeremy Purvis of the Lib Dems voted for the Bill but wants to make it a wider student and higher education funding bill. The whole point is to get this bit done and then look at what else needs done.

Conservative Liz Smith who voted against the Bill said:

Abolishing the graduate endowment would do nothing to improve either the teaching capacity or the research facilities in higher education.

And that's not what it's intended to do either!

Remember all those students demonstrating and asking for the abolition of the Graduate Endowment?What do you think they think of Labour betraying them again?

Wednesday 12 December 2007

Ordure, ordure

In the imperial palace of Westminster today, the Brown Stuff was strutted at Prime Minister's Questions. Ra polis were referred to by two questioners, firstly by a Conservative fellow and then by our very own Angus Robertson - as you can read in the exchanges:

Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): A police officer in Linlithgow is now paid more than a police officer in Lichfield for doing exactly the same job. Is that fair? Is that right?

The Prime Minister: What is happening in Scotland is this: to pay the police more, the planned increase of 500 policemen has been suspended. I know what my constituents and the hon. Gentleman’s constituents would prefer—that there were police on the streets. We have more police in this country on the streets, helping us, than at any time in our history. I more than anybody would like to be able to say to the police that we could pay their wages and their salary rise in full, but I have to say to them that no policeman and no person across the country would thank us if their pay rise was wiped out by inflation—and no party should know that better than the Opposition, given that there was 10 per cent. inflation in the 1990s. That is why the awards are being staged. Over the last 10 years, police pay has risen by 39 per cent., and by 9 per cent. in real terms. We have managed to combine that with having rises in police numbers and the biggest police force in history. That is the policy of the Government.

Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP):
The police in Scotland are receiving a full pay rise, including back pay, from the—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman speak.
Angus Robertson: I will enjoy saying this again. The police in Scotland are receiving a full pay rise, including back pay, from the Scottish National Party Government. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to congratulate First Minister Salmond on that fair decision?

The Prime Minister: No. The SNP said in its manifesto: “we will set out plans in our first Budget for Scotland for 1000 more police”. It did not honour its promises; there were only 500, not 1,000. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of his party.
Leaving aside the obvious questions about whether we should be pleased that we need the biggest police force ever, can I paraphrase Neil Kinnock about what happens when principle is thrown out of the window?
You end in the grotesque chaos of a Labour Prime Minister - a Labour Prime Minister - hiring a Home Secretary to scuttle round a country handing out refusal notices to its own workers.
One can but hope that Gordon Brown develops a sense of shame in the very near future.

Tuesday 11 December 2007

A couple of questions

I know, I know, but what the hell -

Why, when that expert on electoral law, Edinburgh University public law lecturer Navraj Ghaleigh, was Labour's candidate in 2005 in Edinburgh West (suggesting that he is at least sympathetic to Labour) did Wendy Alexander not ask his advice before committing her crimes?

Why did David Cameron come to Edinburgh to speak to an environment charity and make a speech that was all about the coming of Scottish independence? I take it he was made aware of the rules under which charities operate and he hasn't landed this charity in trouble with OSCR?

Why, since it's meant to be in a UK context, is the Labour scheme to take us towards Independence not reaching out for participation from Wales and Northern Ireland?

OK, so it was a prial of questions rather than a couple (four if you count the Cameron question as two), but I'm allowed a bit of leeway...

Monday 10 December 2007

A look around the islands

Look you now, here's a few wee bits and pieces that just need tidied away.

Firstly, Gordon Brown's speech to the Newspaper Society gave a signal that he wasn't about to allow devolved governments the power that they need to be competitive. The Belfast Telegraph reported him ruling out allowing Stormont any control over Corporation Tax - and that's before the Varney Review.

That kind of cuts right across Wendy Alexander's Magic Commission since Brown appears to be ruling out the transfer of fiscal powers to the devolved nations. That, coming on top of one of her councillors in Edinburgh criticising her scheme for its elitism, can't be helping her to ease the hurt any.

Now that more and more people are looking closely at donations, there are questions being asked about all kinds of things like why a business organisation like the Scottish Industry Forum, supposedly free of all party political affiliation when it commissions political opinion polls gave Wendy Alexander £10,000 in November 2002 and another £2,000 four months later. Some are also asking why this organisation which is or was quite obviously politically active was never registered as a 'third party' with the Electoral Commission. It hasn't been heard of for a couple of years - has it gone, will it be brought back to life whenever Labour needs an 'independent business organisation', or was it just a front in the first place?

There's also a problem which will continue to grow for Labour in Scotland, and it's not easy to pin it down, but I'll give it a go. Scotland has a minority SNP Government, and the voters see that Government as doing a decent job, so they are prepared to give that Government and the SNP the benefit of the doubt.

That means that they will give us a bit more leeway than they would a party that was in majority Government, and it also means that they'll defend us because we are standing up for Scotland. The most obvious examples have been canvassing after the two defeats the Scottish Government has suffered - on trams and on a devolution commission. On each of those occasions, we received a better welcome than we were expecting in Edinburgh North and Leith.

Switchers to us are in fairly healthy numbers in any case, but after these two parliamentary votes they were in even finer fettle. I don't for a minute believe that great numbers of people sit glued to the reporting of Holyrood (I'll be delighted if I'm wrong), so I take it that the news comes out through the usual media channels. If we're getting people who used to vote Lib Dem telling us that they're supporting us immediately after the party they supported has been part of a coalition that defeated us in a vote, what does that tell us? I suspect that it's simply that the 'ganging-up' required to defeat us leaves a bad taste in Scots' mouths - beating up on a minority Government and registering victories which leave the electors feeling like Pyrrhus isn't helpful to any of the opposition parties. I suspect the Conservatives picked up on this after the trams vote and that's partly why they've been so reluctant to engage in the tomfoolery of Wendy Alexander and Nicol Stephen.

Making that mistake today was David Cameron, jumping in where he can't see and doesn't understand. On his tour of this northern wilderness we call home he told us that "We must confront and defeat the ugly stain of separatism that is seeping through the Union Flag." He wants to be Churchill, that one. He went on to say "Better an imperfect Union than a broken one. Better an imperfect Union than a perfect divorce." Better to sit in a car with no engine than to get out and get where you need to be?

As people across Scotland look at what can be achieved by a minority Government which is short of the power it needs but truly believes in its nation, they're not seeing any ugly stain, they're getting a glimpse of how their country could be if it retook its independence. The other parties are now all playing the SNP's game now, to some degree or another, but they don't understand the rules - it's not hyperbole that brings converts, nor does it become a politician talking about the future of our nation to seek to impose their will on us.

Perhaps they should look to a unionist whose credentials as a unionist are most certainly not in question, a young fella by the name of Ian Paisley who is reported to have said today that "The First Minister of Scotland has views on the future constitutional position of Scotland and of course they are well known. Those are entirely matters for him and his party to take forward with the people of Scotland. Scotland has a right to decide for itself and if that is the way it wants to decide, it is not our business."

Speak up Rhodri Morgan, let's hear you!

So with that wee sojourn around the other parts of these islands, let's take a fresh pair of eyes to Scotland and the inhibitions facing the opposition here.

Adding to all the problems that have beset Wendy Alexander over the last wee while was the withdrawal from party funding of one of Labour's biggest Scottish donors, Willie Haughey, and the police investigating a senior member of her constituency party after he was sacked by Glasgow Council. It never rains but it flings in doon in massive sheets.

With those problems at their heels, it's not surprising that Labour MSPs are looking shell-shocked and Labour MPs are approaching open revolt. With absolutely no intentional wrong-doing on their part they look like heading into some torrid times ahead.

Sunday 9 December 2007

Another Spin Doctor Gone

A third spin doctor has quit Wendy Alexander's team.

She only became leader in mid September, so to have lost three spinners is quite some going. This one's special though - he didn't even get started and now has a trade union fighting his case. Full story in the Sunday Mail.

Having read his blog, though, Wendy might have got off lightly...

Saturday 8 December 2007

Labour's contempt is shameful

There's another load of stories on Labour's donor sleaze in the Sunday papers this week. The thing that gets me, though, isn't the new revelations - there seems to be a new slice of scandal every day - it's the attitude of the Labour politicians that's really distasteful.

The 'shoplifter returns' defence of "We've paid it back, so that's okay" allied to the idiot's defence of "I never knew it was wrong to break the law - I never meant it" and the bizarre self-hagiography "Yes, I broke the law but no-one will question my integrity, I'm beyond reproach."

There's one today where they've been caught using Parliamentary facilities to do their fund-raising. Their justification was that it was a minor breach of the rules. Can I be the first to say: no it's not a minor breach, you've broken the trust of the people who elected you. Those rules about not using public assets for party political activity are very important, and Labour's casual disregard for those rules is a symptom of a greater malaise.

Labour's casual attitude to petty corruption and the sneering contempt Labour members have for the law is shameful.

Perhaps that's why they have so many problems with communications staff.

Steven Lawther walked during the election when London started interfering.

Brian Lironi resigned within a couple of weeks of Wendy Alexander taking over.

Matthew Marr's stunning attempts to get Labour onto the front pages led to his demise.

Gavin Yates was revealed to have little respect for his new employer, describing her as abrasive (but at least he'll have the support of his mother-in-law Helen Eadie when Wendy comes for him)

Currently there is an Iain Bundred seconded from London to try to keep a lid on the nonsense. I wonder whether he's the same Iain Bundred who once said: "I'm no Bush fan - I hate the fucker in fact, but for us to take the YL banner along without a proper debate at a national committee meeting would, for me, be the wrong protest, at the wrong time, in the wrong way."?

I hear that there is more pain coming for Labour in the spin-doctor stakes, my heart goes out to them ...

Friday 7 December 2007

remember remember

The 5th of November might carry some degree of resonance for those interested in political plots and underhand machinations. Many recall fondly their celebrations of the deeds of Mr Fawkes. Students of modern politics will remember this year for another political plot. Oh yes...

This year they shall mostly be wearing cloaks

The Brains Trust of the Soviet Union had nothing on the Brains Trust of the British Union, I tell you! Wendy Alexander, Annabel Goldie, Nicola Stephen, David Mundell, Alas Carmichael and Des Browne all gathered at Des Browne's Edinburgh pad (also known as the Scotland Office frontier outpost in Melville Crescent) for tea and crumpet and the creation of a cunning plan.
What they plotted was dastardly - oh yes it was - dishing the Nats as those damned revolutionaries stormed the bastions of the Great British Way of Life. So successful a government were those flamin Nats running that there was a danger that people would start to like them. Can't have that old chap - fetch me my blunderbuss!
The outcome of all the plotting and planning was the motion passed in Parliament yesterday to force the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body to set up a Commission to examine the way forward for Scotland - of course, the money has to come from somewhere (another barking mad spending plan from the combined opposition in Parliament), so something will have to close. The creche, perhaps, or the education service? We'll see.

Just before we leave this topic, can I just tell you all that Cathy Wilson came up with a fantastic idea last night. She pointed out that she had all the right qualifications to sit on that Commission, so she was going to apply. A wee discussion later, and we thought "every nationalist should apply" - after all, we know more about constitutional settlements than anyone else. So I'd like to encourage you all - send in your applications now, get your name in the frame, sing hallelujah and join the Commission. Write to:

The Scottish Parliament Corporate Body
The Scottish Parliament
EH99 1SP

All of your applications will be welcome, I'm absolutely certain.

Anyway, back to the Bonfire of the Inanities on November 5th. They'd had this meeting in Government premises in Melville Crescent and plotted and planned and planned and plotted until all the crumpets were finished and the teapot was empty and then they sprung their cunning plan.

Now a friend of mine (can't tell you his name - all hush-hush don't you know) thought to himself "by gum, that's a rum use of Government property", so he dashed off a quick email to Sir Gus O'Donnell, Chief Head Honcho-type Boss of the Civil Service in Londonshire. Here's a reproduction of that email:

Dear Sir Gus,

I note from the BBC website that a meeting took place yesterday, 5th November, in the Scotland Office premises in Edinburgh, which was attended by the Secretary of State for Scotland, his Conservative and Liberal Democrat shadows and the Leaders of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties in the Scottish Parliament.
Apparently the purpose of the meeting was to agree on a common stance in opposition to the minority Scottish National Party devolved government of Scotland.

This meeting seems to have been entirely about partisan political interests, not about matters of Government either at UK or Scottish level.

I shall be grateful if you will advise whether, in your view, such a meeting should properly have taken place in government premises, possibly with civil service input. Should the political parties involved have contributed to the cost of making provision for such a meeting? I look forward to hearing from you in reply at an early date.

Yours faithfully,

All very good, you say. Here's the reply he got:


Sir Gus O'Donnell has asked me to thank you for your email of 7 November 2007 and to respond on his behalf.

The Secretary of State for Scotland, The Rt Hon Des Browne MP convened discussions, as you say, with political leaders from Holyrood and Westminster in Melville Crescent in Edinburgh on 5 November. Melville Crescent is the Edinburgh office of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Devolution settlement in Scotland. This is a specific responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland and is Government business. The Cabinet Secretary is satisfied that the meeting was within the rules.

Many thanks

There you have it - the Chappie in charge of the Civil Service believes it to be Government business, so inside the rules. My friend, a thoughtful type fellow with a cheery demeanour and a penchant for discussing the finer details of everything which comes into his view, took it upon himself to enquire further. He sent an epistle to the Scotland Office, and here it is reproduced:

Subject: Review of Scottish Devolution
I shall be grateful if you will, under the Freedom of Information legislation, supply me with copies of all correspondence, meeting notes and minutes relating to a possible review of Scottish devolution since May, 2005. This information should include, but not be confined to, all such correspondence, meeting notes, memos and full minutes relating to the meeting held today (5th November) in the Edinburgh base of the Scotland Office attended by the Secretary of State for Scotland; David Mundell, MP; Alastair Carmichael, MP; Annabel Goldie, MSP; Nicol Stephen, MSP; and Wendy Alexander, MSP.

I look forward to hearing from you in reply within 20 days. An e-mail reply would be preferable. Kindly acknowledge receipt of this message.

Yours faithfully,

Cracking cheese, Grommit! An FOI request and he's not even Davie Hutchison!

Here's the reply:


Thank you for your e-mail of 5 November to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

The UK Government has not instituted any review of Scottish Devolution since May 2005 and accordingly no papers are held on that topic.

As regards the meeting held on 5 November, the discussions were held amongst political parties and a news release was issued following the discussions. No papers on these discussions are held by the Scotland Office.

I hope this reply is helpful.

Yours sincerely

Oho! Oho, aha and uhuh! A party political meeting held in Government premises and at our expense! Shameful, I say. Disgraceful, you say.

What's to be done, that's the question. What would your next step be? Isn't that what the comments function is for?

Generous fellow.

According to the register on the Electoral Commission website, William Haughey OBE has been very generous with the Labour Party, donating more than £1 million since December 2003.

Cash (13 donations) totalling: £ 1,061,776.00

He's a very generous fellow.

Thursday 6 December 2007

Richard Baker loves the SNP

Labour MSP Richard Baker agrees with SNP policy on education.
How do I know? He sent this letter:
Yes, quickly end tuition fees
THERE appears to be some confusion on whether or not student representatives are in favour of tuition fees. We would like to attempt to clarify this matter.
No-one disagrees that the abolition of tuition fees is not the only matter of concern in Scottish higher education - many of us would like to see a wide range of developments in the ways which both universities and students are funded. We may
disagree about what those reforms should be.
However, in answer to the simple question, "Are you in favour of the early abolition of tuition fees?" we can speak with one, resounding voice. The answer is "Yes".
We hope this has put things in terms clear enough for all We are asking the politicians to re-establish an important principle; thereafter we can start the examination of additional means of addressing student debt and poverty.
Richard Baker
Right enough, it was sent to the Herald in May 1999 when he was President of the NUS, but I'm sure he wouldn't be changing his mind, now, would he?

We can all fully expect Rickie to vote for the abolition of the Graduate Endowment when the Bill comes before Parliament - and I'm sure he'll keep voting for SNP policies that will help to address student poverty.

Meanwhile, I hear Wendy Alexander's been on a shopping trip:

Wednesday 5 December 2007

Oh Charlie, you bad lad!

My very good friend in the Labour party tells me lovely stories. No, I'm not telling you who she is.

Here's the latest, she tells me that Charlie Gordon was recently an extremely effective laxative in Labour party HQ recently.

"How so?" says I.

Well, I'm told, that wee threat to make a statement caused a fit of the vapours straight out of a Harold Lloyd film. We all thought that Charlie was being forced to stand down, he was being booted out of the door to save the career of the Wendy.

The alternate version of the tale from the depths of John Smith House has a different colour. That version has Mr Gordon's announcement that he intended to make a statement coming as a complete surprise - they didn't know it was coming, so they suffered sudden evacuation problems.

The phones went a wee bit busy, and the emails were wheeching all over the place. No-one could find out what the Honourable Member for Cathcart was up to. The Bat-phone was lifted and London was called.

Strangely, Charlie Gordon found his phone when The Clash started playing. The man who ran Glasgow knows how to play down among the big boys - and he's not prepared to settle for less.

Anyway, the upshot is, I'm told, that Charlie boy has been asked to make sure that his statement isn't a resignation because Labour can't be sure of holding any seat in Scotland now. The wee man has the Broon in a very uncomfortable position and isn't letting go easily.

Perhaps a wee sinecure just won't be enough? The question I'm asking now is what does Charlie have that they are so frightened of? No-one would expect Labour to hold Cathcart, and that would only adjust in the SNP's favour a tiny wee bit. Labour's credibility is already shot, Wendy's dignity doesn't exist anymore, Gordon Brown really can't be all that worried about all this when he has the world exploding around his ears.

What's Charlie got? Why is the Labour party worried? Answers in the usual manner...

My only worry is that she was smiling and she might be winding me up.

Adam Ingram calls Salmond a Luddite.

Today in the Scottish Parliament, the SNP Government announced plans to abolish prescription charges - fulfilling another manifesto pledge.

Meanwhile, Adam Ingram, Labour MP and former Defence Minister in the London Labour Government called Alex Salmond a Luddite for not wanting nuclear power stations in Scotland.

One of the biggest debates of the second half of the 20th century and of the first years of the 21st century, a debate which has been engaged in by many arguing each side of the case, some talking about the possible benefits of the nuclear industry - inexpensive power, very few breakdowns, and so on - while others argue the other side - the need to safeguard future generations against the poison of nuclear waste, the dangers of nuclear power being uncontrollable, and so on - and each side disputing the claims of the other.

The superbrain of Adam Ingram MP (Labour and not to be confused with Adam Ingram MSP who is on the side of all that is good and righteous) - that great philosopher of Scottish Labour - that towering intellect - that fine debater, skills honed in his own kitchen - reduces it to calling Salmond a Luddite.
Perhaps this is why a recent opinion poll showed that Scots thought that the Scottish Government was far better than the London one:

Thinking about the performance of the Scottish Government and the UK Government which one do you think is doing a better job?
Scottish Government: 54%
UK Government: 11%
Neither: 27%
DK: 8%

The breakdown for Labour voters was:
Scottish Government: 34%
UK Government: 30%
YouGov Survey Results for the Scottish National Party Sample Size: 1111; Fieldwork: 28th - 30th November 2007

How many must go to make way for Wendy?

How many people do you think will be expected to lay down their political careers to save Wendy Alexander?

She's already thrown Charlie Gordon to the wolves to save her own career - just how many wolves and how far she had to throw him will be revealed later when Charlie's redundancy package has bee worked out - interesting take on this in the North to Leith blog where Anseo, who shall forever more be known as "old Mr Cynical boots", is asking whether Charlie's off to be High commissioner to Jersey

So, anyway, Charlie's taken the bullet for Wendy-poo (well done that good and faithful servant), next up as it becomes clear that the stink has not cleared is an air-freshener known as David Whitton. Remember him? Spin-doctor, not very good, shouts at journalists - even when they're trying to help him. There's a rumour he said to one of the scribes about a week ago "Are you calling me a liar?" Wonder if he wants to ask that now?

Get back to the subject Cashley. Super Wendy of the amazing photies has spun out a little about how she never knew (the 'big boy did it and ran away' defence), and now, out from the shadows has appeared a 'legal expert' with impeccible credentials who is suggesting that, since the cheque was made out to the Wendy Alexander campaign rather than to the Grate One herself, David Whitton as treasurer is the one who'll go to jail.

I say send them all to jail, it was obviously a conspiracy to hide dodgy donations.
Who is this legal expert who tells the BBC that Wendy is as pure as the driven snow and David Whitton is Fagin?

He is Edinburgh University public law lecturer Navraj Ghaleigh. Hang on, Navraj Ghaleigh? Not the same Navraj Ghaleigh who was Labour's candidate in Edinburgh West in 2005? It wouldn't be, would it? Well, I think it might be, so does Tartan Hero.

So a Labour loyalist is wheeled out to say "Snow Wendy is innocent, it's that nasty old spinner who's to blame" - so long David Whittering, you served her well - got to pick a pocket or two ...
Will it end there? When the long arm of the law reaches out to collar Her Wendiness will Tom McCabe be flung in our faces (please don't) as another sacrifice worth making to preserve her tender dignity?

Is this the plea in mitigation being made now, before the court cases start, to try to limit the damage? "Wendy never knew what those nasty men were up to, she shouldn't be punished for their indiscretions" unfortunately for the Alexander, the sins of the spinner are to be laid upon the dodgy leader, she is at the very centre of the spin and mistrust over illegal monies.

As a wee aside to my musings - why is it that John Maxton and Irene Adams are so angry that their support for Wendy Alexander has been made public? Why is it such a dodgy and shameful secret that they want it kept secret? I can understand why the campaign team want their shady dealings kept secret, but why are these two so ashamed?

Students - doncha love em?

I have just returned from attendance at a demonstration organised by Josh MacAlister (Labour party member, president of Edinburgh University Students Association).
I was delighted to see so many students there supporting the SNP Government in its determination to rid Scotland's students of the Graduate Endowment Tuition Fee. I was also delighted to meet Kezia Dugdale (Labour spinner) who told me that everything in the SNP briefing being handed out was "factually accurate, but ..." Her point was that there aren't all that many part-time students claiming a student loan.

Does that mean that we shouldn't give them a grant? The transformation from loans to grants is to begin with part-time students. Scotland is changing for the better, lets keep going.

Here's the briefing which Kezia said was factually accurate (cheers for your support, by the way):

What the SNP Scottish Government is doing in Higher Education

The SNP believes that access to education should be based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay.

Scrapping the Graduate Endowment Tuition Fee

The SNP Government intends to scrap the Graduate Endowment Tuition Fee introduced by Labour and the Liberal Democrats. The Bill to do this is before Parliament now. To get this Bill passed and remove this unfair burden from Scottish students will need the support of other parties. MSPs from those other parties should be encouraged to support the SNP Government in this.

Grants not Loans

John Swinney’s budget statement made it clear that the SNP Government is continuing to move towards grants instead of loans for Scotland’s students, starting with part-time students.

Investing in our students

The SNP Government is investing £509.1 million in the Student Awards Agency for Scotland this year.

Investing in our Universities and Colleges

The SNP Government will be investing £1.673 billion in the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council this year - £40 million more than was invested last year.

Investing in the Future for Universities and Colleges

By 2010/11, investment in our universities and colleges through the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council will be £1.812 billion per year – higher than it has ever been before, thanks to the SNP Government – £5.24 billion over the CSR period, and £100 million capital investment in the first year

All of this in spite of the tightest spending settlement Scotland has ever had under devolution and in spite of the opposition parties wasting £500 million on one tramline in Edinburgh earlier this year.

Briefing by SNP research staff. Figures from Scottish Government budget -
See the woman standing to the right with the yellow umbrella? She thinks I'm cynical. Me - cynical - I ask you!

Tuesday 4 December 2007

Full confidence

Wendy Alexander has the full confidence of the Labour group at Holyrood

Whoops, is that like when the board has full confidence in the manager of the football team?

I have never sought to mislead. I am not dishonest in any way and I have always believed that politicians should have the highest standards of integrity.
My campaign did not set out to intentionally mislead or break the rules.
Mistakes have been made.
Right then - that's an easy sort, why didn't she say so before? Simply lay out in public what went on: who contributed to the non-campaign, how much and when; how she went about checking their eligibility to donate; when she realised that she had illegal money; and whether or not her campaign, and therefore she herself, broke the law.

Maybe if she just clears this up by being honest we can get back to politics in Scotland instead of this nonsense.

Come back from Neverland!