The Flag in the Wind
A weekly online newspaper bringing you information on the political scene in Scotland: part of the monthly Scots Independent.

Home | About Us | Subscriptions | Archives | SNP | Ad Rates | Features | Adverts | Events | Links

Mr Scott Darling is not the only one who is confused by the system; judging by the miscellany of results, a lot of people in Scotland were also confused! I will try to explain the voting system. For the Scottish Parliament elections, every person had 2 votes, and to add to the general gaiety, the Executive coalition also decided to hold the local authority elections on the same day, which meant that everybody had 3 votes. The first voting paper was for the individual constituency, and was under the same system used for Westminster Parliament elections, and for the local authority elections. Under this system, the candidate who gets the most votes is elected; so if New Labour had 2005 votes, the SNP 2004 votes, the Liberals 2003 votes and the Tories 2002 votes (Yes I know it’s fanciful) then the Labour candidate would be elected, even though only 25% of the people voted for him/her, and 75% voted against him/her. This is first past the post; Labour and Tories love this system This paper was coloured blue, and the candidates’ names and political parties are shown. There are 73 constituency seats.

To balance out this anomaly in the Scottish Parliament, the additional member system was introduced. The various Parliamentary constituencies were grouped together under the old European Parliamentary constituencies, and there was a peach ballot paper which showed the names of the political parties, or in the case of individuals, the name of the individual; there were 56 seats allocated under this rule, 8 regions electing 7 members each. The total votes cast for each party in the area were totted up, and the 7 seats were allocated on the basis of these votes, taking into account the first past the post seats...

Where the problem arose, particularly for the SNP, was that many people felt that they had to change their vote on the second vote, so they voted for the SNP candidate on the first ballot, and perhaps for the Greens or the SSP on the second ballot; this meant that people voted for and against the party of their choice! Some parties, and most individuals, did not contest constituency seats, and thus picked up only list votes, the Greens in particular had a clever campaign going around brandishing the 2. So now we have 7 Greens and 6 SSP members, all elected by the list system, and the SNP lost 8 seats by this method.

There is a general licking of wounds going on, mainly in the SNP, as the candidate pecking order meant that some list MSPs were virtually deselected by the activists before the campaign actually started. We know that SNP leader, John Swinney is determined to overhaul the regional placing lists, to remove power from cabals, and replace it with one member one vote. The SNP took 3 first past the post seats from New Labour, and lost one by 99 votes to the Tories, but the gains at that stage were overshadowed by the list losses. The SNP will now concentrate on winning first past the post seats, and it may be that the best form of electing additional members is not by a party list, but by which ones get the highest percentages in the first past the post seats. This would have two advantages; it would strengthen the position of the individual member, who could claim a greater degree of electoral legitimacy, and it would put all the effort into winning a parliamentary seat, which would increase the chances of winning first past the post seats.

As to why the headline read "1 2 3 - SNP" when there are only 2 votes, the local authority elections were held on the same day, and the ballot paper for that, the third vote, and a first past the post one, was white; next year we have the European Parliament elections, and there are no constituencies as such, but the total votes cast for each party in Scotland are added up, and the 8 seats are allocated on the basis of the votes cast. I have no doubt that by this time Mr Scott Darling is sorry he asked!

WHY? WHY? WHY? - PFI?

Over in Glasgow, Amey has run into trouble with its PFI projects, a large lump of Glasgow’s schools, and has had to flog off the contracts to a Spanish builder, not so much a case of Ole, but probably manana, if it ever comes; another bright money spinner for the financiers, but not necessarily the contractors. If Amey could not make money with these contracts, how will the Spanish company, and will they attract as many warnings from the authorities as Amey? Watch this space!

And just last week, in East Kilbride, the PFI nemesis struck again; the Strathclyde Polis new recruitment and training centre, built by Balfour Beatty as a PFI project, and opened last year by Prince Charles with only the flourish the Duke of Rothesay (his Scottish title) could give, is in trouble. Apparently there is no disabled access, flooding caused the roof to fall in, and the aforesaid polis are refusing to pay the £2 million a year rent. The centre was financed by Babcock & Brown, an American private equity house, built by Balfour Beatty, and the two are blaming each other for the fiasco, while Strathclyde Polis are no doubt calling them a bunch of Bs....... It is the first time a public sector authority has withheld rent on a PFI project.

Coincidentally, Babtie Group is claiming that its share in the BEAR road maintenance has lost it £1.5 million; this was the firm that took the road maintenance contracts from local authorities by undercutting them, and do I not remember a Labour councillor bawling that he was ashamed to be a member of the Labour Party, and being removed from the Parliament? Can’t remember where he was from but Fife Council took the contract away from BEAR last year due to their repeated failures.

Another one was the state of the water we drink; it has long been a popular fiction, and I subscribe to it myself, that we in Scotland had good water. In fact, when we travel around the country we compare it with other lands, marvel at its beauty and diversity, and say to ourselves "Where could you get scenery to beat this? And you can drink the water." Not, apparently, true, if the media is to be believed. It would seem our water is of very poor quality, and much, much more expensive than elsewhere in the UK, and that not only that, 66% of our water pipes need replaced, a job that will take 15 years and cost £2 billion.

I think I am at present in "Hey, wait a minute...." mode; here we are in the most fortunate position of being "partners" in this United Kingdom, and lucky that we are looked after so well. And we find that over the years our London masters have stymied investment into the water industry, which we cannot live without, tinkered with internal markets in the National Health Service, run down railways to make it easier for their fatcat pals to make a killing, in the actual as well as the metaphorical sense, withheld money for education, and in general punted the theory "Private good, public bad" to dizzying heights. And over these mainly Tory years, untold billions of pounds poured into the Exchequer from Scotland’s oil, to be flushed away. I have to wonder why it is that on the Continent, their health services are better, their water is better than ours (media contention) and their railways are much better than ours; probably because none of these countries had the wonderful benefit of oil, and none of them were ruled by London.

So far I have only selected the issues that have been high profile this week!

MONEY MONEY MONEY

What the report does show is the following cash received by each party:

Well, on that basis, the SNP is very much the poor relation, but a wee bit of closer reading shows that Labour’s money includes £2.5 million from Lord Sainsbury, and he didn’t hand that dough over to Jack McConnell, who after all had his Red Rose Dinners helping him out, at least until Strathclyde Police have finished with their inquiries. So the Labour figure is for the UK, but what about the Tory one, or the Liberal, or even the People’s Alliance? There is no dubiety about the SNP figure, as we are specifically barred from receiving donations from foreign, eg English, sources. We do not know at this stage if the Liberal donations were from Scotland, or was this a UK figure, and similarly the donations to the Peoples Alliance.

If that was the case, the 10% would give the Liberals 28,000, and the Peoples Alliance nearly 13,000; Labour’s £5.4 million came £2.5 million from Lord Sainsbury and the bulk of the rest from the Trade Unions. Time here for a drive on the Labour political levy, which takes money from all trade unionists and it is difficult, but not impossible, to opt out of this. This is taking money under false pretences, but what’s new?

THE DONE DEAL

At the time of writing, it would appear that the Labour/Liberal cabal have stitched together a deal to form the Scottish Executive; as far as is known, Labour have agreed to have proportional representation for local government by 2007, and the Liberals have agreed to gaol parents of misbehaving teenagers, both unshakeable issues of principle for the respective sides.

The talks this time lasted nearly a fortnight, and it is to be hoped that the Liberals have been a bit shrewder than they were last time, when proportional representation for local government was a pre-condition of the last coalition, but somehow never materialised. Perhaps the broader scope of the Scottish Parliament may force Labour to adhere to the principle, but at the end of the day there are 68 votes out of 128 against the policy; we expect that if it comes to the crunch the Labour Party would be backed 100% by the Tories.

Already we have seen the righteous indignation of the passengers on the local government gravy train, which unlike may other trains, keeps on running, fulminating "for the good of the voters", as the train just might get shunted into a siding. The other night, one of my friends was speculating on what Liberals principles actually were, and remarking that in Victorian times, the Liberals were all in favour of putting small boys up chimneys, and were indignant when this was forbidden. A similar view, excluding the chimneys, was taken by Ruaridh Nicoll witing in the Observer; "The Lib Dems traditionally offer a vote to those who want to care, but prefer to avoid feeling responsible for their actions." He was not all that complimentary to the SNP either, but that’s not for me to comment on, publicly anyway! 

How much more customer caring it would be if I could phone the local branch direct.

Interesting headline from the Herald on Thursday 1st May 2003: "Scotland faces timebomb over fall in fertility."

On that very same day the voters of Scotland lost their cojones, and stayed with the establishment parties.

It seems that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have now abandoned this project, so Mrs Liddell is redrafting her CV yet again.

As a young man, Robin Harper, of the smiling Green Party, lived in South Clerk Street, Edinburgh; reliable information from that address tells us that he never took his turn of washing the common stair, to the annoyance of the other residents.

Either early indications that he felt household detergents were a bad thing, or maybe he was an idol whose foot never touched the stair.

The SNP is seeking cross-party support in a campaign for the retention of Scotland's historical fishing rights. SNP Euro-MP Ian Hudghton MEP has written to the leaders of all parties represented in the Scottish Parliament seeking their support for the retention of the principle of relative stability - the principle whereby fishing quotas are allocated to countries on the basis of their historical shares. The principle is due to be reviewed by the Commission in coming months and is likely to come under attack from countries such as Spain wanting to gain full access to Scottish fishing opportunities.

Mr Hudghton commented:

"The long-term retention of Scotland's fishing rights is essential for our fishing industry - an industry which is already facing a great deal of uncertainty. Fishermen who are suffering under the current whitefish restrictions must be assured that they will benefit from any future recovery in stocks. They must not take the blows just now only for skippers from Spain to reap the benefits in the future.

"I have written to the leaders of all Scotland's parliamentary parties seeking their support for the retention of the principle of relative stability. The principle is due to be reviewed before the end of the year and is likely to come under renewed attack from countries eager for access to Scottish fishing grounds.

"If we can show that politicians from every political persuasion in Scotland - one of Europe's most important fishing nations - are committed to the retention of Scotland's historical rights, the Commission will sit up and take notice. A show of political unity will give our coastal communities some hope in these worrying times."

Contact: Ian Hudghton, 07885 254 385

Notes for editors

· Relative stability is the principle whereby fishing quotas are distributed to EU Member States on the basis of the same proportions each year. Accordingly, because countries such as Spain have never had historical fishing rights in the North Sea, under relative stability they cannot gain such rights.

· Relative stability, along with all other rules concerning access to resources and waters, is to be reviewed by the Commission by the end of this year under Article 19 of the main CFP regulation. Changes to existing rules must be made by the end of 2004.

· Mr Hudghton has written to Scottish Parliamentary leaders Jack McConnell, Jim Wallace, David McLetchie, Robin Harper, Tommy Sheridan and John Swinburne seeking cross-party backing for the retention of relative stability. Copies of the letter are available from Mr Hudghton's office.

PS Mr Hudghton does mean John Swinburne, from the SSCUP.

SYNOPSIS

SNP Leader John Swinney today offered Scotland's other parties a "new compact" that would see the SNP give a fair hearing to sensible proposals in exchange for dropping spin and gimmicks from the Scottish Parliament. In his first major speech since the Scottish Election Mr Swinney said that the electorate had sent a warning to all parties and that they must now set the Parliament on a new course. Offering to support and champion the best ideas from the minority parties and to give "fair wind" to executive proposals Mr Swinney said "Parliament must address the public's concerns and demonstrate how it can make a difference. I intend the SNP to play our part in making that difference and ensuring the people have a Parliament that can be held in the highest regard." The SNP leader continued by proposing that the Consultative Steering Group, the body that laid the framework for the Scottish Parliament, should be reconvened. Suggesting that George Reid, the Parliament's new Presiding Officer could chair the committee with a remit to identify common ground amongst Scotland's political parties for strengthening the powers of the Scottish Parliament.

Tony Blair is risking his own legacy because he is "increasingly obsessed with his place in history", Clare Short has said after quitting the cabinet. The international development secretary, who earlier resigned accusing Mr Blair of breaking promises over Iraq's future, launched a broadside against the "presidential" style of government. SNP MP Angus Robertson praised the former minister for pursuing the interests of the international community with "vigour and great determination". The Moray MP added: "Claire Short's resignation further underlines the deep divisions at the heart of the Labour Party and the Government. The Government's failure to keep its promises relating to the reconstruction of Iraq is not only damaging to the unity of the Labour Party, but is ultimately a failure towards the people of Iraq, and one that they can ill-afford to bear in these troubled times."

Concern over contamination from the Dounreay nuclear site has led to calls for a full inquiry. Two radioactive particles were discovered on Sandside Beach at the weekend, bringing the total to 16 within the past ten weeks - and 40 since 1984. The owner of the beach today said that the current monitoring programme offers no public protection. Meanwhile SNP shadow environment minister Bruce Crawford said a full inquiry must be ordered so that the public get to 'know the full facts'. The MSP said: "The government must order a full comprehensive and detailed survey into the complete extent of this radioactive pollution. Simply continuing with monitoring is not good enough. The public deserve to know the full facts about whether it is safe to continue using this beach."

STUC warns against imposed fire row settlement
Fri 9 May 03

The STUC today warned First Minister Jack McConnell not to follow Westminster's lead and impose a pay deal on Scottish firefighters, saying it would be "disastrous". Firefighters south of the border face the threat of an imposed pay settlement and a strike ban after MPs backed the moves proposed by Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott. The Scottish trade union movement thought ministers had ruled out the option north of the border but the Executive confirmed it could take similar steps. SNP shadow local government minister Tricia Marwick said the Executive should rule out the Sewel motion route as a way of resolving the dispute and opt for a negotiated settlement. She said: "The Fire Service is wholly devolved to Scotland. I have been urging a Scottish settlement because the UK negotiations have effectively been abandoned by the Labour government at Westminster."

WINDOWS SCREENSAVER

Download our Windows Screensaver here!

SCOT WIT
Enjoy a Scottish Joke every week and listen to it as well