Pounds and pence
Hey, things have got a bit dull: shall we have an election?
Enough, Brian, enough. Back to the politics of governing rather than seeking to govern.
Tomorrow, in the Commons, the Chancellor Alistair Darling will set out the details of his comprehensive review of public spending for the next three years.
Heβll also assess the state of the economy in his pre-Budget report.
Yes, itβs Big Bang budgetary day β with two statements pulled together into one. Just in case You Know Who wanted to call an early You Know What.
To govern is to choose β and, as a consequence of todayβs statement(s), a choice will confront Scotlandβs Finance Secretary John Swinney.
Hereβs the SP. Mr Swinney will proclaim todayβs settlement for Scotland as a βlousy dealβ. Take that as read.
He then has to choose whether to sustain a political battle with his UK counterparts in the Treasury β or to offer to work to ensure that the spending package benefits Scotland to the maximum.
Mr Swinneyβs response, of course, will blend both grousing and determination. His choice is the balance - which avenue does he emphasise?
Does he use the deal to begin to hint that some SNP manifesto commitments might be beyond reach? Or does he stress his resolve to meet those pledges within the spending deal on the table?
This is going to be a Grade A political battle. But, hey, why wait? Battle has already been joined β and, indeed, has raged since this blog first explained the competing claims by Labour and the SNP.
Thereβs a fight over the sums. The UK figure for spending growth is 1.9 per cent over three years.
For Scotland, Labour says the figure is 1.6 per cent - bang in line with the Barnett formula which is designed to narrow Scotlandβs big, historic spending lead over England.
No, say Nationalists. The Treasury has fiddled the figures by using a baseline which strips some Β£300m out of Scottish spending this year.
That makes the year on year increase look bigger. The real growth figure is between one and 1.5 per cent.
Facts? Weβre talking about growth, not cuts. Real terms growth, ahead of inflation. But that growth is much less than in recent years. The tightest settlement since devolution.
SNP Ministers say itβs hyper-tight for Scotland. Unpredictably tight. Further, theyβre not inclined to talk up the deal which gives them control of some Β£900m from past underspending.
UK Government sources say itβs a special bargain, negotiated by Mr Swinney in talks with the Treasury.
Team Swinney say itβs Scotlandβs money β and he was simply ensuring it stayed in Scotland.
Labour says thereβs plenty money to pay for schools, hospitals, tackling crime and the rest.
But, perhaps, not enough to fund the exaggerated, uncosted promises in the SNP manifesto.
You choose
I'm 
Comments
"But, perhaps, not enough to fund the exaggerated, uncosted promises in the SNP manifesto."
Leave your bias at the door of Pacific Quay please Brian.
Brian - your brushes with Gordon Brown have obviously blurred your normal impartial take on Scottish politics. Labour predicts continued high spending in Scotland before the election in May, afterwards they are taking BIG cuts. Why pussy-foot round the issue, Labour are punishing a normally loyal electorate hoping the blow will bring them back to heel ... I suspect it may have the reverse effect! Anyone who takes the opposite view must explain why the man with the totally undeserved reputation for "prudence" has so damaged the economy that such drastic cuts are required.
This is not what i would expect from a reporter of your standing ,it is however what i would expect from the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ. You choose Brian, quality reporting or another New Labour stooge.
"exaggerated, uncosted promises."
Ouch!
Why is it that you feel you can use such words about the SNP but, I wager, never about Labour or Tory spending plans.
Wee Eck and the gang have obviously got a bit above themselves winning the election.
Good old ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ impartiality clearly doesn't apply to wee provincial upstarts.
I have to agree with Steve Manson - Brian's last comment is rather overtly loaded. Spoils an otherwise engaging blog.
Don't be silly Steven, Brian is even handed as usual.
SNP have enough real enemies in the press it should be easy to spot the difference by now.
"But, perhaps, not enough to fund the exaggerated, uncosted promises in the SNP manifesto."
Not bias, just statement of fact.
A balanced and fair comment from Brian as ever - telling it as it is!
Didn't the SNP commit to 1.5% "efficiency savings" (or "cuts" depending on your political perspective) in their manifesto?
If this settlement is in fact a real terms increase in money, then surely their whinges are the height of hypocrisy. In April they told us they could do with less, 6 months later they are telling us that the EXTRA they are being given is not enough.
Isn't it also interesting that the slightest negative comment against the cuddly Nats brings a rash of "bias" accusations.....if I want paranoia I'll go join a Celtic message board!
Brian is spot on. If he's so biased why has he chosen not to comment on the SNP back sliding on police recruitment.
The SNP have a clear strategy on this. If they can't fund their manifesto promises then they simply set the political landscape up to blame the Westminster central government for the lack of funding - no doubt claiming that this furthers their case for independence. The solution is rather simple: just raise income tax up to the maximum of the 3p margin. If the electorate in Scotland vote in these charlatans then they should be prepared to pay for that choice.
"Leave your bias at the door of Pacific Quay"
if you'd read the manifesto, you'd understand that Brians comments are accurate.
The SNP war cry - "it's no fair" is wearing a little thin.
"But, perhaps, not enough to fund the exaggerated, uncosted promises in the SNP manifesto."
I have to agree with Douglas and Matt that Brian's comments are accurate. As someone who works in local government we were all made well aware last year (2006) that this spending round was going to be extremely tight and that big cuts were on the way.
For those who are accusing bias, I think the correct way to read the comment is;
Labour says "thereβs plenty money to pay for schools, hospitals, tackling crime and the rest. But, perhaps, not enough to fund the exaggerated, uncosted promises in the SNP manifesto. "
A case of poor typesetting rather than institutional bias?
Will someone, anyone, save us from posture politics and start doing things that matter?
In both Downing Street and Charlotte Square the honeymoon is over and we need to start seeing better government, not more government. Just as in business people who are always talking about more money need to look more closely at what it is they're trying to do. The curse of the Quango is looming larger, the desire to over manage us is out of control and the talent of many of those trying to do it is questionable. Mr Darling's no safe pair of hands....
Methinks that it is Brian's peculiar method of punctuation that is at fault.
I think this is what he meant.
Labour says, "thereβs plenty money to pay for schools, hospitals, tackling crime and the rest, but, perhaps, not enough to fund the exaggerated, uncosted promises in the SNP manifesto".
It's fair to say that all the parties manifestoes were full of exaggerated, uncosted promises. As a minority government, the SNP can't blame its coalition partners for "over-ruling" its plans, unlike the last mob!
Come on guys - leave off oor Brian.
It's a blog and therefore it's OK to have an opinion or two even if we donβt agree with him.
Perhaps weβll have to use some tax raising powers to ensure the gap between the border continues to increase!
brian,
nice to read your unbiased thought's, just a bit like the labour ones, no coincidence there then, now lets get down to brass tacks,(and necks),devolution under LABOUR, brought BIG REWARDS ie rises of 7percent first time, 4percent the second,now under SNP.1percent,and we are expected to thank our high and mighty westm.gov.buckle down and say
nothing.AYE RIGHT,of cource all things being equal the SNP will get
the blame,picking fights, looking for excuses, ect,ect,its already started,NO CHANCE OF GIGGERY- POKERY
THEN, OR IS THAT TOO CYNICAL,OR JUST MAKING SURE THE SCOTTISH GOV.
CANT PAY FOR OUR COMMITMENTS.?....
"But, perhaps, not enough to fund the exaggerated, uncosted promises in the SNP manifesto.
You choose"
Brian it sounds like you have already chosen to believe the Labour party's hype on this. Anyway didn't your partner in crime, Glen Campbell already tear up the only copy of the SNP's manifesto the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Scotland had.
Pretty poor fare all round.
" exaggerated , uncosted promises" is clearly partisan language.
Shame he cannot hide is personal political views
This article makes me angry, not because of Brian's obvious bias at the end but because the fact Scotland is supposed to be grateful for the scraps from westminister. The 3 unionist parties want us to continue to go cap in hand to london and if anyone in Scotland dares to question this they are whingening. Come on Scotland wake up - its already our money!
I think the labour government in London forget that the people who live north of the border are tax payers and entitled to a decent budget. Yes the SNP made many high priced promises in their manifesto but I believe that on the 1.9% budget increase that they expected this would be possible. As it is I feel that Labour are punishing Scottish voters for daring to abandon the two top parties and vote SNP. This should be remembered next time we go to vote, perhaps it's high time that the UK turns its back on labour and conservative (they seem to be the same party these days anyway) and elect a new party to take a shot at running our country into the ground.
The real underlying question is the size and worth of the Scottish economy. But of course, Unionism doesn't work that way; all our revenue goes straight to Westminster and we get some of it back, and are told to be grateful. Until we clearly link our real income (as opposed to the contrived nonsense in GERS report) to spending, we will always have arguments of this nature. The simplest way to achieve this is, of course, is through independence.
And Dave, there is no need for you introduce your obvious anti-Celtic bias. Shame!
Brian, I for one will admit that I rely on yourself and your peers to separate out the wheat from the chaff; much effort is employed by politicians to mask their subterfuge in how they choose to present details to we mere mortals, a little less effort it must be said than they apply to masking their own finances, perks and expenses.
I have never rated Alastair Darling but I must admit that I should put my prejudices on hold and give him a chance, even though when I hear his name I always picture Captain Darling form Blackadder Goes Forth; I shall look closely for the telltale impression of a hand on the shoulder of Alasdairβs jacket when he delivers βhisβ findings and thoughts on the economy.
Brian himself admits the statement was biast, he just claims that he was representing the Labour party perspective. So Matt (#11) that would not be the "accurate" take; that would be the take hastily written on the back of a Granita napkin. Other supposed Labour "truths" include the existance of WMD in Iraq, and the non-existance of them (as an issue on the Clyde). In case any further clarification is required: "accuracy" is not defined at party hq.
There was more than the impresion of the hand on the shoulder, there was a full consutation in Mr Brown's surgery during the reply from George Osborne.
To answer Deasun #17, I am a Scot born and bread (actually from Fife if that counts as Scotland). I just don't trust the SNP and I thought that I'd put my tuppence worth into the otherwise SNP love-in comments that this blog normally attracts. Lets see how popular the SNP are in towards the end of their term.
If the SNP think this deal makes it impossible for them to deliver their lavish promises, they have the option of resigning and letting someone else govern instead. Or they can use the powers of the Scottish Parliament to raise income tax.
As for the alleed bias: these two parts of the article have identical structures, reporting what a political party claims about its opponents, with the first sentence giving the info about who is actually making the claim :
"No, say Nationalists. The Treasury has fiddled the figures by using a baseline which strips some Β£300m out of Scottish spending this year"
"Labour says thereβs plenty money to pay for schools, hospitals, tackling crime and the rest. But, perhaps, not enough to fund the exaggerated, uncosted promises in the SNP manifesto. "
So where's the anti-SNP bias ?
The Iraq war was an exaggerated, uncosted, hidden part of the Labour manifesto, and we're still paying for it yet.
#28 Archie - your assertion is wrong, the SNP comment is all in one paragraph. Whereaas the Labour viewpoint is expressed over two distinct paras - very much leaving it open to interpretation. It is not
"Labour says there's plenty money to pay for schools, hospitals, tackling crime and the rest. But, perhaps, not enough to fund the exaggerated, uncosted promises in the SNP manifesto." as you claim, rather it is,
"Labour says there's plenty money to pay for schools, hospitals, tackling crime and the rest.
But, perhaps, not enough to fund the exaggerated, uncosted promises in the SNP manifesto."
Whether that was deliberate or otherwise is not the issue, it reads very differently - as if it were meant as a personal aside.
Even as an American, I could feel the irony in Brian's much-maligned final few words. A simple pair of 'single-quotes' might have saved a wee bit of anger, but who would have thought it necessary, here in the home of irony?
Slainte!
ed
The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.
-- Hegel
I know guys can't learn from yesterday ... Hegel must be taking the long view.
-- John Brunner, "Stand on Zanzibar"