Â鶹ԼĹÄ

It wasn’t, to be frank, the most powerful oratory I’ve heard.

Indeed, I was moved on our to call it insipid - with the caveat that I had perhaps simply heard too many conference speeches.

But still as federal UK party leader was substantive.

He had a big immediate message and, for me, an intriguing subplot of things to come.

The big message? That the LibDems want maximum devolution to emerge from the proposed Commission/review backed by his own party, the Tories and, of course, the UK governing Labour Party.

As with , it’s no to Gordon Brown’s two way street.

Instead, the LibDems want one way traffic: more powers to Holyrood, then on down the road to local communities.

The intriguing subplot? Mr Clegg’s speech and Mr Stephen’s interview were full of vitriol about their rivals - but particularly rich in suggestions that Labour’s time was by, that we are entering a post-Labour era.

That could mean the Lib Dems are about to govern the world. Or it could mean that they are positioning themselves for a Westminster Parliament where the Tories are in power - or, even more intriguingly, close to majority power.

That means, in the Commission/review, they aren’t just bargaining with Labour.

They are seeking constitutional solutions which survive a change of government at Westminster.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Breaking new ground in Aviemore where Scottish LibDems are conferring.

New federal leader in Nick Clegg who’ll speak this afternoon.

New challenge for the party in that they’re now in opposition at Holyrood. (This is their first annual conference since that development.)

New stuff from Â鶹ԼĹÄ Scotland. We’re streaming umpteen hours of the conference live online.

And I conducted a this morning with Nicol Stephen, the Scottish party leader.

Intriguing stuff, generally. Loved the question from the guy who wanted to know why the LibDems were utterly and totally rubbish.

But enjoyed the exchanges, based on your submitted questions, about the proposed party on Holyrood powers.

Mr Stephen says it will be a Commission – not the review favoured by G. Brown.

Mr Stephen also says he will not sign up to a report which involves transferring some power back to Westminster.

To be frank, he took a bit of time to get to that position – explaining that his caution was prompted by the fact that “powers” are regularly returned through Sewel (or legislative consent) motions.

But, with caveats lodged, it was ultimately firm - “yes” to pursuing the cross-party Commission but “no” to returning any powers. No to the PM’s two-way street.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Demands by Labour and the Tories for an independent review of student support and university funding were narrowly defeated.

So those two parties, mostly, then proceeded to oppose the abolition of the endowment charge on the grounds that Scottish Government ministers had failed to establish a stable basis for university funding, overall.

But a majority preferred the option of scrapping the charge. The SNP, the LibDems, the Greens, Margo Macdonald and Labour MSP Elaine Smith voted for abolition.

Alex Salmond drew a history lesson. He said the pre-Union Scots Parliament had been the first in the world to sanction free education. The new Parliament, he said, had restored it.

Tough choices ahead, though, for ministers and for the working party on finance established with university principals.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The graduate endowment is in a vote this evening. Good news all round? Cheered by all? Mostly - but not entirely.

There remains a longer-term question.

Firstly, though, the main item. The Graduate Endowment, currently £2,289, falls liable to be paid in the April after you’ve been tapped on the head by your university’s chancellor to signal your degree of success.

(At St Andrews, the world’s finest educational establishment, graduands were lightly dusted on the nut by a species of cap said to contain a fragment of John Knox’s breeks. Happy days.)

Anyway, this endowment charge is to be no more. It will be scrapped for future graduates - and, importantly, for those who graduated last year. They won’t have to pay.

Those supporting abolition - the governing SNP and the opposition Liberal Democrats - say it restores fully free education.

Severe doubts

They say further that it didn’t work efficiently, that it merely added to student debt.

Those who harbour severe doubts - Labour and the Tories - say that ministers are ducking the wider issue of university funding.

Together, they want an independent review of student support and university finance.

Ministers reply that they’ve established a working party with the relevant interests. They say that’s more likely to produce an early plan for action.

Any views? Ideally substantive rather than merely partisan.

Steely stuff

PS: As you know, I tend to let comment run free on this blog, without reply.

However, I cannot let the slight on my braces (or galluses, as I prefer to call them) pass without rebuttal.

For decades, I have deployed said garment to hold up my breeks. I will not have them traduced.

(For the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing is irony. The steely stuff will follow later.)

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I will say this for Chris Harvie MSP. It takes a certain chutzpah to comment on the fashion sense of Scotland’s teenagers when you yourself have been witnessed wearing plus fours.

Mr or rather, you will not be surprised to learn, Professor Harvie castigated youngsters for wearing casual sportswear which he

Depending on your age and choice of garb, you may be with the Prof on that one. I’m not - but let’s give him some grump room.

But how about this? Mr Harvie MSP also Yes, that Lockerbie. The one where Pan Am flight 103 exploded.

The one where 259 passengers and crew plus 11 local residents died.

Apparently, the eminent professor expected to find a memorial in the town “of a rather sombre kind” to attract visitors. Think Passchendaele. Think Ypres. Think WW1.

'Over the top'

Instead, he found derelict shops and kids hanging around.

All this was rather too much for Mr Harvie’s opponents - and even his colleagues. Describing Mr Harvie as a “colourful figure”, Mike Russell MSP - and Scottish Government minister - said the language chosen was over the top.

Back, reluctantly, to those plus fours. I personally espied Mr Harvie blatantly and unapologetically wearing said garment at Holyrood.

Smiling broadly, he strode towards the Garden Lobby restaurant for all the world like a refugee from the World of Wooster.

Down the decades, Chris Harvie has written perceptively and thoughtfully about Scotland, albeit latterly from his academic redoubt in Tubingen, Germany.

I offer no comment on his fashion sense, plus fours and all. I am inclined, however, to agree with Mike Russell.

Like many other small towns, Lockerbie may have its problems. But it deserves support, not carping. Especially from elected politicians.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I spent the whole of this morning in an Edinburgh hotel. The Radisson, to be precise.

That new/old structure on the Canongate, just up from Holyrood.

Why, you ask? I was attending a parliamentary committee. Why there, you ask again? Why not in Holyrood?

Because it was not a Holyrood gig but an offshoot of the mother of parliaments.

. (Or at least five committee members - three of them Welsh - plus associated clerks.)

It was an intriguing occasion. Dignified not solemn, polite but incisive, detailed but ultimately, and inevitably, inconclusive. At least at this stage.

Very affable

Scottish Government Ministers Sturgeon and Crawford gave evidence.

Separately but self-evidently in tandem, they suggested that the Scotland Office within the UK Government was past its sell-by date.

You couldn’t call it an attack. Far too genteel. Bruce Crawford made plain that he gets on personally very well with David Cairns, the Scotland Office minister.

. All very affable.

But he’d rather, on balance, be chatting with the Cabinet Office or the Leader of the House at Westminster.

Nicola Sturgeon, similarly, sounded the note of “more in sorrow than anger".

The era of the Scotland Office was past. Given that it was only established post devolution, the term “era” perhaps overstates things somewhat. But no matter. We definitely got the concept.

Why now? Because there is about to be a searching examination of devolved powers and relations with Westminster. Not just by the justice committee. And not just in an Edinburgh hotel.

Enhanced status

But by the Wendy Commission (aka the Brown review/working party.) By Labour, the Tories and the LibDems. Added, of course, to the national conversation opened by the SNP ministers.

Why this initiative against the Scotland Office? Because the SNP Scottish Government would prefer to deal directly with the Labour UK Government.

Because that enhances the status of the Scottish administration, removing the need to go through an emissary.

In response, the Scotland Office argues that it facilitates cross-border relations, direct and indirect. It says that Whitehall departments use the Scotland Office for advice in dealing with Holyrood.

In practice, of course, there are already bilateral relations between departments in Edinburgh and departments in London.

Also giving evidence this morning, the Scottish permanent secretary Sir John Elvidge said he welcomed such contacts with his Whitehall counterparts.

While staying, of course, strictly neutral on the shape of UK/Scottish governance, Sir John said he did not think of the Scotland Office “as the key interlocutor in making contact work.”

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

A question. In fact, several questions. Do you support the arts? Do you believe they need and merit public support?

That means public money.

Do you believe they should receive a larger or smaller proportion of public funding? Your honest answer, please.

Does your answer change if you are reminded that public spending levels are about to be squeezed by comparison with the largesse of recent years?

Would your answer change if you could be persuaded that the arts can contribute significantly to Scotland’s wider economy? That they can enhance growth?

These questions arise for me because I am chairing a summit on Scotland’s cultural strategy in Edinburgh.

The background is the plan to .

Legislation will shortly go through Holyrood with the new body due to take charge next year. It will effectively subsume the present roles of the Arts Council and Scottish Screen - but is charged with much more.

'Flabby tolerance'

For me, the snag is that structural reorganisation can frequently give the appearance of fervent activity while little changes in practice.

To be frank, the stated aims of Creative Scotland look rather like the sort of thing any arts organisation should aready be doing.

At the conference, Culture Minister Linda Fabiani spoke well about the aims: fostering excellence; building partnerships; ensuring autonomy for Creative Scotland on artistic matters, allowing the arts, as she put it, “to soar”.

But John Knell of Intelligence Agency reminded us of what can happen to those who soar rather too close to the sun, without adequate planning and preparation.

He spoke frankly of the need for Scotland’s cultural sector to challenge its own presumptions, to face the issue of competition for resources, to prepare responses to the sceptics, to disown “a flabby tolerance of mediocrity”.

By all means, let Scotland soar. But let’s be clear where we’re going - and how.

And let’s try to take the people with us.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Quoth a Minister: “We’re just not gonnae dae it.”

Said SNP minister was commenting, privately, on the prospect of whether Scottish Water might be mutualised.

You remember mutual status It was enjoyed by several building societies before they started pretending to be banks.

It was the co-operative image projected by insurance companies of old.

For those who advocate public ownership of water, mutualisation presents a snag. Mutuals can and often do demutualise. Just ask the customers of Standard Life.

In May last year John Swinney, the finance secretary, responded to the Howat Report which examined Scottish Executive/Government spending.

Policy position

The report made many recommendations. .

He said: “Scottish Water will retain its current status. This is our clear policy position.”

Has that crisp, clear water now become just a little muddied? At Tory prompting, MSPs debated water.

Bear with me, this matters.

Tories say: review SW, look at options including mutualisation, act this parliament. LibDems say: mutualise but don’t privatise. Labour says: keep SW public but “keep under review” its status, including the option of mutualisation.

How does the Labour position differ from the Tories? One is active mood, one is passive. “Review” is active. “Keep under review” is passive.

Non-starter

By definition, pretty well everything is kept under review by governments at all times.

The overnight briefings became firm statements from ministers and backbenchers in the debate that mutualisation is a non-starter.

So how to dispel the cloud? What’s going on? Firstly, I think ministers were primarily motivated to defeat the Tory motion which calls for an active review.

Hence the attraction of the (relatively imprecise) Labour amendment.

Secondly, I believe there are SNP ministers who are potentially attracted by the savings to the public purse which would follow mutualisation (and its attendant power for SW to borrow in the market.)

Thirdly, there are SNP backbenchers who adhere to the following syllogism. Mutualisation = privatisation = a victory for evil.

I think, in sum, that this little episode reflects the competing strains and stresses of minority government.

Is John Swinney signalling that he is ready, soon, to mutualise Scottish Water? No.

Is he retaining the “clear policy position” of last May that change is to be ruled out utterly? No. Scotland will return, collectively, to this issue, possibly in the next parliament.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The seminal literary works on politics are, of course, Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass.

“When I use a word”, said Humpty Dumpty, “it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”

Could be a role model for elected members. Or how about the Queen, with her offer of “jam tomorrow and jam yesterday but never jam today.” Ministers take note.

But my personal favourite - also from the Queen - is the declaration of intent to “believe six impossible things before breakfast".

Politicians, voters and the onlooking media in Northern Ireland have had to accustom themselves to a similar phenomenon.

They’ve seen the restoration of devolved power. They’ve seen Dr Ian Paisley enter office as first minister. In a coalition with Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein.

'Chuckle Brothers'

They’ve seen them prosper personally to the extent that they have been dubbed “the Chuckle Brothers.”

, a trip to reciprocate Mr Salmond’s visit to Belfast last summer.

Think of it. Ian Paisley, the arch unionist of old, declaring common cause with the leader of the Scottish party which wants to end the Union.

(Mr Paisley reminded me that, as privy counsellors, they had both sworn an oath of allegiance to the sovereign.)

Martin McGuinness joining them in Edinburgh Castle. A British Army base. In the Queen Anne room, constructed in 1708 just after the Union between Scotland and England.

Symbols all round. And yet, gloriously, the talk is mundane. It is of co-operation to enhance transport links. A revived ferry between Campbeltown and Ballycastle.

It is of mutual development of renewable energy.

'Robust' defence

It is also of political challenges in Northern Ireland - but within the DUP rather than between parties. Dr Paisley’s son, Ian Jnr, has quit as a minister because of persistent questions over links with developers.

He says the claims are utterly unfounded - but is stepping down to ease the pressure. Until his successor is appointed, he remains in office and was in Edinburgh.

Asked about the resignation and the impact upon himself, Dr Paisley Snr was robust. He told Gareth Gordon, my Â鶹ԼĹÄ NI colleague, that he “would not be skinned by you or the likes of you.”

Some things, it seems, never change.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

There is a new face in the Garden Lobby at Holyrood. One Simon Pia.

Who he? Wendy Alexander’s new spin doctor, that’s who.

Simon, an amiable and estimable chap, should be well equipped for the trials of his new task.

He has, after all, known pain as an avid supporter of Hibernian Football Club, having chronicled their exploits in book form.

As a former newspaper diarist, he was also less than complimentary about Ms Alexander, calling her “Gruppenfuhrer” in reference to her supposedly brusque manner.

Could have been worse, I suppose. He could have used a lower SS rank, such as Rottenfuhrer. (No, I didn’t invent that: look it up.)

Plainly internationalist in his insults, the bold Pia also shifted eastwards to call her “Stalinist”.

'Courageous decision'

All in the past, we are assured - although it made for an entertaining moment or two this morning when Ms Alexander and Mr Pia reviewed the newspapers which recalled these comments. In detail. With a cartoon.

Says something for Ms Alexander’s resilience and sangfroid, I suppose, that she can hire a chap who has previously described her in such terms.

Encountering the new doctor of spin, whom I know from his past guises, I congratulated him on his “courageous decision”. (Source: Yes Minister.)

Pressed by self and others, he immediately assured us, with only the hint of a self-conscious smile, that Labour’s lunchtime group meeting had been comradely and supportive. (Or some such phrase: I had rather tuned out by then.)

It is to be hoped, certainly by Ms Alexander, that Labour’s new sunshine from Leith will last a little longer in the political firmament than his immediate predecessors.

PS: In the interests of political balance, herewith the sporting allegiances of Mr Pia’s rivals.

• Kevin Pringle, who spins for the First Minister, supports St Johnstone.
• Ramsay Jones of the Tories is a rugby fan, adhering to Heriot’s.
• Neil Mackinnon of the LibDems favours Ross County but, if pressed, prefers shinty.
• James Mackenzie of the Greens is a Jambo. (Tr: Heart of Midlothian)
• Margo MacDonald, an independent self-spinner, is a Hibbie.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

You have to feel just a tad sorry for David Cairns.

There he is just a week ago confidently lampooning the concept of further tax powers for Holyrood.

It was, he opined, an issue of interest only to the “McChattering classes.”

Leave aside, for a moment, the slightly (if not literally) patronising tone of that patronymic “Mc”.
Consider instead what has changed.

Mr Cairns finds today that his boss, Gordon Brown, has signed up to the Clan McChattering.

The PM says it is right to - and logical to consider whether and how Holyrood might take more responsbility for raising its own revenue.

Oops! For Mr Cairns, a 1984-style moment. Time to change tack. We are no longer at war with Eastasia. They are our chums. To the contrary, we are in dispute with Eurasia. May they be cast down and banished.

To be fair, the gutsy Mr Cairns must have thought he was on pretty secure ground.

Until today, Mr Brown had given no indication that he was disquieted with Holyrood’s financial settlement. Quite the contrary.

Further, the PM is intuitively cautious - and especially about finance. Something to do with a decade as Chancellor, I guess.

So this is a big change. Perhaps up there with the late Donald Dewar’s original decision to take Labour into the cross-party Constitutional Convention. Mr Dewar called that “living dangerously”.

For the avoidance of doubt, he was, like Gordon Brown, customarily inclined towards caution.

So what is being contemplated? Firstly, a review of Holyrood’s powers. Gordon Brown suggests that some extra powers, such as over transport, might accrue to the Scottish Parliament.

But some others, such as residual security issues, might revert entirely to Westminster in the light of a decade’s experience.

The PM calls this a “two way street” – while stressing that he has no definitive package in mind, preferring to allow the review to proceed.

In passing, I might note that this “review” sounds decidedly more Downing Street driven than the “commission” originally envisaged by Wendy Alexander - and endorsed by the Tories and the Liberal Democrats.

The PM says no. He says it will be collaborative, involving a range of opinion, involving both Westminster and Holyrood.

Well, fine - but who do you think will take the final decisions? The Tories and LibDems? Independent experts?
Labour’s new (opposition) leader at Holyrood? The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? Yes, I thought that might be your view.

Secondly, money. Gordon Brown envisages deploying some form of assigned revenues. Older, sagacious readers will recognise the lengthy pedigree here.

Assigned revenues featured in the 1990 report from the Convention, Towards Scotland’s Parliament. They were dropped in the 1995 version in favour of “an assigned budget” (the block grant to you and me.)

What are assigned revenues? At the moment, all taxation accrues to the Treasury who disburse cash to Holyrood and elsewhere.

Instead of that, the product of certain taxes in Scotland would be diverted directly to Holyrood. That might, for example, involve Scottish income tax and VAT going straight to Holyrood.

Such a system was envisaged by Sir David Steel’s 2006 commission for the Liberal Democrats - although he declined to specify which taxes would form the devolved basket.

The upside? MSPs would have a direct incentive to grow the economy in that extra revenue would thereby accrue to Holyrood. At the moment, extra tax raised if the economy is buoyant goes to the Treasury.

The snags? You might choose to assign VAT or corporation tax. But European Union rules almost certainly preclude a devolved Scotland from varying the rate of those taxes. Which rather defeats the purpose of allowing fiscal discretion.

What about income tax then? Well, remember that Holyrood already has the power to vary the standard rate. It has never used this power because it would cause too much political pain for too little fiscal gain. Could that power, then, be extended to upper rates of income tax?

What about North Sea oil revenues? Wendy Alexander made no reference to this in her 30 November speech when she first set out these plans.

Expect SNP Ministers, entirely understandably, to lay great stress on this aspect.

Further, such a scheme of assigned revenues would involve a needs assessment across the UK.

That’s because it would be necessary to calculate how much top-up cash was needed from London to Edinburgh (or the other way round.)

It is very far from guaranteed that a needs assessment would work in Scotland’s interests. Especially if such an assessment were driven by the Treasury whose ministers (and hence officials) might be lending an ear to those in the English regions who assert that Scotland is over-subsidised.

It would, at the very least, be an intriguing argument – if not a political fight.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Is that it, then? Is it over? Is Wendy Alexander completely in the clear over the donations to her leadership campaign?

Strictly, no - because we have yet to hear from the fiscal on the issue of her .

Politically, though, I suspect the caravan will now move on. . There’s other talk of a “whitewash”, of “getting away with it.”

Broadly, the Electoral Commission looked at two matters. Did she accept and retain an impermissible donation? Yes - but she took significant steps to check (although not “all reasonable steps”.)

Was there a cover-up? The commission says there isn’t sufficient evidence to refer to the fiscal on this.

That verdict includes “Wendy Alexander’s campaign team”. That includes Charlie Gordon MSP, who solicited the donation from Jersey-based Paul Green.

Must confess that sounded a bit like “not proven” to me - but Ms Alexander insists it is the standard legal formula used by the commission in exculpation.

Charlie Gordon will now have to forfeit a further donation from Mr Green, paid to his local party. The commission will then rule. I suspect their verdict on that may be similar to that issued today.

Has it damaged Labour? Yes. Quite simply, yes. Asked if she’d considered resigning, Ms Alexander replied: “Not in a meaningful way, no.”

In a meaningful way, she now has to show she’s up to the task of taking on Alex Salmond.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Phew, that was close, eh? Alex Salmond had threatened to quit if his budget fell.

.

The one against? Labour’s Cathie Craigie, who insists she opposes the financial package in principle and couldn’t join her colleagues.

The abstainers? Labour and the Liberal Democrats - who voted against the package at the first stage and claim the Tories have been bought off with minor changes in order to secure their support.

Does that quite square? If the changes are cosmetic, shouldn’t they still be voting against the budget at Stage Three?

Further, Labour sought to amend the motion endorsing the budget. Their motion called for ministers to look for ways to improve skills training and report back to parliament.

'Confused?'

Grinning broadly, Finance Secretary John Swinney felt this was less than onerous - and encouraged his colleagues to vote FOR this amendment.

The amendment duly carried - only for Labour to abstain on a motion which now included their own proviso on training.

Confused? Labour couldn’t quite bring themselves to press their "Yes" buttons for an SNP budget, even with their own amendment on board in the endorsement motion.

But they knew that it would be a gift to the SNP if they sustained outright opposition.

Picture the scene on the hustings. SNP candidate spouts a list of goodies from the budget: frozen council tax and the like. (Neatly sidestepping the downside.)

SNP candidate then points at Labour candidate and yells: "We wanted to freeze your tax. He/she voted 'No'."

Ministers 'guffawed'

Not smart politics.

And the LibDem stance. They’ve been heading towards abstention from the off, condemning the budget as “opaque”, especially with regard to the details re efficiency savings.

Didn’t stop ministers from guffawing at their stance.

The Tories said "yes". Margo said "yes". The Greens abstained (I’d thought they might end up voting "Yes".) And I’d thought Labour might vote "No".

Still reckon United will win the CIS cup, though.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

So there I was at Holyrood about to leave for the .

(What’s that? You want to know the score? Aberdeen 1, Dundee United 4. Magnificent, simply magnificent.)

Anyway, my progress was interrupted by breaking news. Alex Salmond t.

I changed tack to broadcast to an astonished nation.

Let’s be clear. The First Minister can’t, himself, call a Scottish general election. He can’t simply pop down to the palace (Buckingham or the Edinburgh version across the road from the Scottish Parliament.)

Serious vote

Instead, MSPs are bound by the Scotland Act 1998. Clause 3 (1) if you’re looking for the reference.

That provides that Holyrood elections are held every four years - unless at least two thirds of MSPs support a motion for early dissolution; OR the first minister resigns and nobody is elected as a replacement within the statutory 28 days.

So what’s going on? Firstly, SNP ministers are reminding everyone of the seriousness of tonight’s vote (if they needed reminding.)

The Budget Bill isn’t just any other piece of legislation. It represents the core of Scottish administration, permitting £30bn of annual expenditure upon services such as schools, hospitals and police.

So, ministers are saying - perhaps especially to smaller influences such as the Greens and Margo Macdonald (Independent MSP) - that there are limits to the concessions they can be expected to make.

Secondly, this is a blunt challenge to the principal opposition party, Labour. It is “come and have a go if you think you’re hard enough.”

Ministers are suggesting that out of relative weakness can come strength. The weakness being the SNP’s minority status, the strength being their expectation that they would gain more seats from Labour in a rerun election.

'Discomfiting tactics'

Thirdly, the first minister cannot resist the temptation of showmanship. There is - and always has been - a fair touch of rogueishness about A. Salmond.

He likes the thought that he is discomfiting his opponents, making them rethink.

To cut to the chase. Will Alex Salmond resign? No, because the budget will get through. I believe the Tories will vote for the overall financial package, provided they get something on speedier cuts in business rates to add to existing concessions.

I believe the (two) Greens and Margo will also end up on Salmond’s side. I believe Labour will vote against.

I believe the Liberal Democrats will abstain, arguing that the budget is insufficiently detailed on issues like the efficiency savings demanded from the public sector.

I also believe Dundee United will go on to win the CIS cup at Hampden.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Iain Duncan Smith may not have been markedly successful as Conservative leader.

But I believe he is sincere in his search for solutions to entrenched problems in the most deprived areas of Britain.

Today, the Centre for Social Justice, established by IDS, sets out its vision of contemporary Glasgow.

It depicts a city with a thriving core – surrounded by layers of angry decay.

Family breakdown, unemployment, drug abuse, systemic youth violence.

I well recall an earlier visit by IDS to Easterhouse when he was trying to establish his credentials as an advocate of social justice.

Surrounded by the customary posse of eager hangers-on, IDS strode through the streets of the Glasgow estate.

Leaning out from a first-floor balcony, two worthies observed him closely, pausing only to share a comradely sip as the posse swept forward. IDS waved in greeting then moved on too.

Pause. Then one worthy queried of his pal: “Izzat no’ that Tory …. ?” Long pause.

Then a brief nod of assent.

Informed of the exchange, IDS grinned and replied: “And they said folk here wouldn’t know who I was!”

I thought then and I think now that this Edinburgh-born Tory is genuinely concerned about the conditions he found in parts of Glasgow.

Concern, of course, is not enough.

Today’s report offers a series of suggestions – such as abstinence-based rehab for drugs problems.
The city council has pointed to alternative strategies it has advanced.

Other politicians have pitched in.

However, it might also be argued that change only truly arrives, only truly lasts when it is driven from within the community, when positive local action is magnified by external support.

To be fair, that is now widely acknowledged by the city council and others.

To be fair (twice), it is valid to highlight once more the extent of the deprivation experienced in parts of Scotland.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Bit more re the Wendy saga.

The Holyrood standards commissioner, Dr Jim Dyer, has now .

Was that a yawn I heard you stifle? If so, for shame. These help form the rules within which the commissioner operates in pursuing a complaint against an MSP.

It works like this. Complaint is passed to commissioner. Commissioner investigates, independently of parliament and its standards committee.

Say, during that investigation, commissioner comes across conduct which “would, if proved, constitute a criminal offence.”

Green light

At that point, Dr Dyer must suspend his investigation - and MUST send a report to the fiscal, notifying the committee of his actions.

Commissioner’s investigation only resumes when the fiscal has finished work: either by concluding criminal proceedings, deciding that no such proceedings are warranted or by giving the Commissioner the green light.

Further, the commissioner and the standards committee are separate beasts. They do not work for each other.

Which matters how? Wendy Alexander received advice from the clerk to the committee that she did not require to declare her campaign donations as an individual MSP.

She was right to approach the clerk - and the advice duly gave her a reason not to publish.

However, that tells us nothing about the position of the commissioner - nor the line that he may adopt if and when a complaint is tabled.

Ongoing complaint

We may surmise that he agreed with the line taken by the committee clerk. But the clerk does not speak for him, nor he for the clerk.

Which leaves us where? That Dr Dyer’s referral of Wendy Alexander’s case was automatic, under rules drawn up by Holyrood. That there is an ongoing complaint against her.

That he concluded there was conduct which would, if proved, constitute a criminal offence.

Ms Alexander’s defence to that? She was advised otherwise by the clerk. (See yesterday’s blog entry: apologies for its length.)

Quite separately, we have the in accepting the donation from a Jersey-based businessman.

Ms Alexander’s defence to that? That she did not intentionally break the law. On which we await the verdict of the Electoral Commission.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Do we need a modern day Sir Walter Scott?

In literary terms, I’m more than content with the original, regarding his best novels (Mortality, Midlothian, Antiquary etc) as among the finest works in European writing.

But the revived stramash over the reminded me once more of the role played by the sage of Abbotsford in Scotland’s public life.

Sir Walter it was who launched a stout defence of Scottish bank notes when they previously came under threat in 1826.

After banking failures in England, it was proposed to remedy matters by barring private banks from issuing small value notes.

Scott penned and published the Letters of Malachi Malagrowther, arguing that the banking system in Scotland was in fine fettle, that it was heavily reliant upon paper currency transactions - and that it would be unjust to penalise Scottish banks for failings elsewhere.

Sir Walter won - and his image still features on Bank of Scotland notes in tribute both to his literary genius and his efforts on behalf of the Scottish financial sector.

Not sure whether Alistair Darling is a fan of Sir Walter. But, when it comes to bank notes, I suspect he will instinctively follow Malachi Malagrowther’s advice and leave well alone.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

There is a notably acerbic scene in “A Man for all Seasons” by Robert Bolt.

Sir Thomas More confronts his accuser, Richard Rich, whom he suspects, rightly, of giving evidence against him in return for material advantage. The bold Rich wanted to be richer still as Welsh Attorney General.

More says sadly: “Why, Richard, it profits a man nothing to lose his soul for the whole world . . . but for Wales?”

The question for Wendy Alexander may be “for Jersey?” Or, more comparably, “for Leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament?”

The disclosure that re the donations to her campaign takes us back to the founding puzzle at the core of this long - exceptionally long - saga.

What on earth did Wendy Alexander think she was doing seeking corporate donations for a relatively minor campaign where she was uncontested?

This wasn’t an episode of the West Wing. She wasn’t seeking to occupy the Oval Office. She wasn’t even seeking to be first minister.

She was seeking to be the leader of the largest opposition party in the Scottish Parliament. Nobody stood against her.

So why did she need to raise thousands of pounds? Why did she need to trouble the Phoenix Car Company (who had previously helped her with the publication of a constituency calendar)?

Why did she need to tap business folk like Nicholas Kuenssberg or David J Pitt Watson? Why take ÂŁ995 from former MP John Lyons or the former Solicitor General Neil Davidson?

Above all, why take

Her explanation? That, under Labour rules, the “contest” went ahead even with a single candidate, that she had to fund visits around Scotland and a website.

Carried away

But couldn’t they have done it on the cheap, especially when there was no real contest? Couldn’t she have stayed with friends or Labour supporters on her campaign tour round Scotland?

Couldn’t the local parties have laid on tea and buns? Couldn’t she have skipped the website?

My guess? Team Alexander - Wendy plus her close advisers - got carried away.

They saw themselves as the vanguard that would transform their party. They saw themselves stirring the stubborn, thrawn beast that is Scottish Labour.

They were to be the bright new dawn.

Remember the early bold talk about changing the very nature of the Labour Party, sorting out HQ, altering the ground rules. (That project, by the way, is now somewhat on hold and won’t, as promised, be presented to the spring party conference.)

How could the vanguard, how could the bright new dawn scrimp and save? Big, serious, transformational politicians had big, serious, corporate budgets. They must have one too.

So why keep the donations deliberately below £1,000, the point at which they must be declared to the Electoral Commission? Same reason. It’s what big, smart people do.

Legal advice

So why did Charlie Gordon revive his contact with Paul Green to attract ÂŁ950 for the cause? My guess? Charlie wanted to show his new boss he was a player.

The Standards Commissioner, Jim Dyer, originally thought she didn’t have to declare these donations on the parliamentary register because they were received by her campaign and NOT personally in her capacity as an MSP.

She was advised to that effect, in writing, by Parliamentary officials.

Dr Dyer has now changed his mind, on legal advice. Hence, he is obliged, atuomatically, to report same to the standards committee - and to the fiscal.

So what new have we learned? Firstly, that Dr Dyer is investigating, presumably in response to a complaint.

By the rules, he doesn’t confirm whether or not an investigation is taking place. Strictly speaking, the complainer and the target should also keep quiet - but no matter.

Secondly, that Wendy Alexander broke the rules in not disclosing the fact of these donations to parliament.

Her defence on that point is pretty sound: she was advised that declaration was not required. One might say she should have declared anyway, to avoid any doubt.

Alexander's future

But she has a defence, in writing.

Which brings us back, once more, to the original issue which the Electoral Commission is studying . . . and studying . . . and studying . . . and, for the avoidance of doubt, studying once more.

Was the law broken when Team Alexander accepted the donation from Jersey? Yes.

Such a donation is impermissible. As the sands shift around her, Wendy Alexander is adamant on at least one point. She did not knowingly break the law.

Notwithstanding, will the commission, when they rule, choose to report that issue to the fiscal, quite separately from Dr Dyer’s automatic referral on another point?

That is the question which will help determine Wendy Alexander’s political future. And it is, in essence, the same question as at the outset of this long, long affair.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Can Scotland afford free personal care for the elderly? Put another way, should Scotland find the funds – from a fixed budget – for free personal care for the elderly?

Before you answer, reflect. Today’s says that implementation has been patchy, that old people are confused about what’s on offer and that the cost for local authorities is now outstripping the cash provided by the Scottish Government.

Before you answer, reflect again. Many people in Scotland already received free care in the past. That’s because they were assessed as needy.

The policy is reckoned to have cost £1.8b over four years – but, of that, some £1.2bn would have been spent anyway, without the policy switch.

Reflect further. By definition, the money spent on universal free care goes to the middle classes and those with disposable income.

That’s because they were the ones who didn’t receive support under the previous system.

That’s why some Labour Scottish Cabinet Ministers were opposed to the policy when it was introduced in 2001.

Reflect too that the policy was not introduced without cost. Roughly £30m a year was withdrawn from Scotland’s old folk in attendance allowance.

It was removed by Whitehall – because they were now in receipt of free care. In other words, their assessed need was being met elsewhere.

Jack McConnell became First Minister shortly after the introduction of FPC. He considered picking a fight with Westminster/Whitehall over attendance allowance – but decided, on balance, that he would hold his fire for other battles to come.

But then reflect on the alternative scenario. Elderly people dislike means testing.

Universal welfare provision is already familiar through, for example, child benefit. Free care fits that pattern.

Further, it could be argued that elderly people will not seek the care they need – if they suspect that cost will be incurred. (Although that case is rather countered by Audit Scotland’s finding that the elderly remain confused because of the postcode lottery of implementation.)

Today’s report is thorough, clear and dispassionate. It notes, drily, that the likely cost of this policy wasn’t properly assessed – and that it remains difficult to pin down the bill.

It presents Scotland with a choice. Dump this policy – or fix it. Fix it with more money and with action to end the anomalies.

The present Scottish Government is promising to fix it. They defend the policy in terms of ideology and popular appeal.

The success of that will, of course, be judged in the future.

For now, however, I would simply commend Audit Scotland for adding clarity to policy making.

As with, for example, the retention of local hospitals, Scotland may well decide in favour of a relatively costly option.

Scotland may be right to decide in favour of a relatively costly option. But we should do so openly and in possession of the full facts.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?