Who’ll play with Tony?

Last week’s Spanish election treated us to a breath of stale air from right-wing commentators on both sides of the Atlantic. Sour with the defeat of the ruling conservative Partido Popular to José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero’s leftist PSOE, it was argued that Spanish voters had given in to terrorism in the aftermath of the Madrid bombings.

Appeasement was alive and well in Europe, leaving only the US and Britain to stand firm against the al-Qaeda threat. The fact that Spain under both PSOE and PP governments had fought the terrorists of ETA since democracy returned in 1978 wasn’t allowed to get into the way of a good Europhobic smear. The Spanish were reverting to type, joining the ‘cheese-eating surrender monkeys’ (© D. Rumsfeld) of France and Germany.

It’s a strange credo which equates the strength of a people’s stand against terrorism with re-electing a government caught trying cynically to manipulate public opinion. However, leaving aside the unsavoury whinge set out above, the view of all this from Downing Street must be extremely alarming if you are Tony Blair.

When faced with domestic troubles, Blair has always been able to impress on the World stage. When first elected, he was the young, virile leader with a crushing domestic mandate, ready to take Britain to a leadership role in Europe, just as continental strongmen like Germany’s Helmut Kohl reached the end of their terms of office.

That lustre has come off with a vengeance in the past year, mainly due to his stance on Iraq. Having alienated President Chirac and Chancellor Schroder, Jose Maria Aznar was Blair’s closest ally in Europe. With Aznar replaced by an anti-war leader and Polish President Kwasniewski admitting his country was misled over WMD in Iraq, Blair looks increasingly isolated in Europe, even amongst the new entrants to the EU.

Things could get worse as November approaches. With Senator John Kerry looking set to give George W Bush a run for his money in the US Presidential elections, it is conceivable that Blair could be the last man left standing in the much-vaunted coalition of the willing.

Blair may have managed a smooth transition in relations from his ‘great friend’ Bill Clinton to his other ‘great friend’ George W Bush. Surely having to try and make a future President Kerry his ‘great friend’ as well would be one contortion too far, even for Mr Blair?

Budget Blues

Changed days… the Government announces that 40,000 people are about to lose their jobs and is cheered to the rafters by its backbenchers. Meanwhile, the opposition leader, a man not much liked outside his party, counters by threatening to spend more on health & education, paying for it through spending cutbacks on defence and law & order.

It could almost be a flashback to the 1980’s battles between Thatcher and Kinnock instead of last week’s budget. Welcome to the latest development in post-ideological British politics, and marvel, if you will, at the extent of the tactical mire which the Conservative and Unionist party has landed itself in as it tries to win the next election.

The outline of Michael Howard’s battle plan for the next election had become clear in recent months. Another Labour government would mean tax rises for wage earners, home owners and motorists, along with higher council taxes and more government waste. In contrast, the argument was set to run, only the Tories could be trusted to hold down taxes and run an efficient government. 

So far, so predictable. Alas for Mr Howard, his strategy was based more on fighting Labour where he thought they ought to be, rather than where they actually planned to be themselves. This made it all the easier for Gordon Brown to shoot their fox as he delivered what will almost certainly be his last budget before the next election.

The Tories had already committed themselves to matching Labour spending commitments on health and education, while reducing the rate at which spending increased elsewhere. This wheeze put the Tories in the strange position of promising to spend most in the areas where the public trust them least, while threatening to cut back areas where voters have tended to trust them most, such as defence and law & order.

In addition to fighting an election on unfamiliar ground, Gordon Brown’s budget has well and truly spiked their guns. Income tax & stamp duty? As you were. Road tax? Frozen, with no petrol tax increase for 6 months. Council tax? A £100 payment to over 70’s to ease the burden. Government waste? 40,000 civil servants to go, with 20,000 dispersed to the ‘regions’. Thanks to Flash Gordon, Labour has an answer to just about every charge the Tories are likely to throw at them.

Even if the situation worsens in Iraq, the Tories can only lose out. Under Ian Duncan Smith and with the fatuous Michael Ancrum speaking (still!) on Foreign Affairs, the Tories managed the incredible feat of being even more gung-ho on Iraq than the Labour front bench. Thanks to the tactical ineptitude of Howard, his chosen Lieutenants and his predecessors, the next election has been as good as gift-wrapped for Labour.

Yet in spite of this, we are assured that Tory membership is on the rise and encouraged to believe that Michael Howard has ‘energised’ the party. Maybe so, but I can’t help feeling that based on all the evidence, if Michael Howard is the answer for the Tories, then it must have been a bloody stupid question in the first place!

Positive Discrimination and Other Oxymorons

Next month, the SNP will gather in Aberdeen for a special conference which should see the party adopt a new constitution and rules. I’ll be there to represent Edinburgh Central Constituency, even though spending hours debating the composition of the various internal bodies of the party isn’t exactly my (or most people’s) idea of a fun day out!

The conference has been called because, by common consent, the current constitution is in desperate need of an overhaul to reflect the changes brought by the Scots Parliament. The new constitution and rules will determine how we select candidates, make policy and hold our leaders to account. Because of this, attendance is a necessary evil, not least because the party will have to live with whatever it decides for a long time to come.

One part of the draft constitution which I hope delegates will take particular notice of is the section which deals with candidate selection. While if passed it will introduce one member one vote for selecting parliamentary candidates, which I support, a sneaky little clause has been inserted which the unwary may pass over entirely.

Clause 20.2 states that “The Parliamentary Candidate Vetting and Selection Rules will specify processes for ensuring a balanced list of candidates, particularly in regard to gender”. While no-one could argue with attempts to ensure we have a list of potential candidates which draws from all sections of Scottish life, the implication is that a mechanism will be introduced to ensure that the SNP has gender balance amongst its parliamentarians.

My problems, and those of my branch are not with the aim of a more representative group of candidates. Our problems are with the idea that equality can somehow be enforced from the top down, that any criteria other than ability should be considered when picking a candidate, and with the implicit suggestion that the current SNP selection process somehow discriminates against women.

The SNP, like all Scottish political parties, has a problem finding people prepared to be candidates, which mirrors a decline in public interest in politics. Since candidates are drawn from a party’s membership and the SNP membership is predominantly male, it should hardly be a surprise that most SNP MSPs are men in consequence.

The high proportion of female SNP MSPs relative to the party membership suggests that SNP women have either a disproportionate share of the party’s talent, or that the party has no problem selecting women when they put themselves forward. If you accept this, the problem then becomes one of attracting more women into active politics, rather than tackling any mythical failure to select female candidates for winnable seats or list positions.

The proponents of this change must come clean and say exactly why they think it will add value to the candidate selection process. Equality of opportunity, for a variety of reasons, doesn’t always lead to equality of outcome and nor should it, so it’s not good enough to point to the fact that the SNP has more male than female MSPs and to try and use this as justification for change.

If there are people who have experienced sexual, racial or age discrimination in seeking to be an SNP candidate and they have the best interests of the party at heart, they have a duty to share it with their colleagues. If they don’t, how else can the party be expected to tackle a problem which others may not perceive and have root out the causes of any discrimination?

I also don’t see why we should restrict women to 50% membership of any SNP parliamentary group. Just because any ‘twinning’ or ‘zipping’ system will discriminate equally against men and women doesn’t mean it is any less harmful. Quite frankly, if the 3 best candidates in a region are all women, I don’t want a less talented man possibly depriving one of these women of a seat in parliament. 

Far fetched? Well, imagine you were an SNP member in Glasgow at the time of the last Scottish election where we had only 2 MSPs elected, both women. Ask yourself whether it should have been Nicola Sturgeon or Sandra White (who topped the SNP list) who should have been bumped to ensure gender balance?

At its heart, enforced gender balance is a top down, prescriptive and cosmetic exercise, more concerned with PC box-ticking and back-slapping than it has to do with vote winning. If we are serious about winning Independence, the party needs to make sure that it has its most effective advocates elected to public office to argue Scotland’s case, irrespective of their gender, colour, age or lifestyle. It may be a hard, unpalatable fact for some, but artificial mechanisms designed to promote the image of a false ‘equality’ will take us no further down the road to sovereignty and should play no part in our approach.

POLICY POSTCARDS

We continue our publication of the SNP Policy Postcards; we will publish a new one every week, each one dealing with a different aspect of SNP policy. The full list can be seen on the SNP website under "Vision" and "Policy".

Better off British? Business

According to the Scottish Executive’s own figures Scotland has the highest business rates in the whole of Europe meaning that our business sector is less able to compete, grow and create sustainable wealth and jobs for Scotland.

And that’s not the only disadvantage Scottish businesses are forced to labour under—the level of fuel tax means that it is cheaper to transport goods from Warsaw to London than from Aberdeen to London! That’s an incentive for jobs and business to go east to the new EU countries rather than staying here—and Scotland can’t afford to let that happen.

Scotland's businesses pay the highest business property taxes in Europe at 5.59% of total tax revenue. (Source: Scottish Executive Comparative Study of Business Tax Revenue).

The average price of diesel in Scotland is 77.3p per litre (81.4p in rural Scotland). In Austria it is 52p, in Finland 54.9p and in Ireland 56.4p. (Source: AA).

The SNP wants to give Scottish businesses a competitive advantage in Europe—not keep them labouring at a disadvantage. But in order to do that we need to have the same tax powers as every other small EU nation, so we can give our businesses the support they deserve.

SyNoPsis

SWINNEY – EURO ELECTIONS CAN BE IRAQ REFERENDUM

The SNP will make the European Election in June a referendum on Tony Blair's lies over the Iraq war, Leader Mr John Swinney MSP said as he challenged the people of Scotland to give voice to Scotland's values.

Commenting, Mr Swinney said: "The European Election is Scotland's chance to give voice to Scotland's values and speak out against a government that dragged us into a war based on lies.

"It's a vote to send a message to an arrogant government in London that dragged us into a war that we did not want and that has made our world so much more unsafe.

"It is a chance to tell Tony Blair what we think of all the spin and deceit behind his case for war. It is our chance to make our voice heard.

"On June 10th let's send a message to Tony Blair: No more lies."

Joining Mr Swinney as he launched the Euro strategy, sitting SNP MEP Mr Ian Hudghton said:

"The SNP is fighting for Scotland's national interests in Europe every single day but there has never been a clearer need for Scotland to have a stronger voice than now.

"Our fishing communities are being destroyed yet our Ministers are snubbed by officials. The sight of Allan Wilson being kept waiting until after midnight by Franz Fischler tells you exactly where we currently rank.

"In the midst of a fishing crisis, Scottish ministers are hanging around like lowly courtiers hoping for an audience. That simply isn't good enough.

"Scotland needs to find its voice. We need to take our place at the top table and the first step towards that can be taken on June 10th."

ROBERTSON SLAMS ‘DAFT AND DAMAGING’ WHISKY MOVE

Following a vote called in the House of Commons by the Scottish National Party/Plaid Cymru Group on the issue of fraud-prone tax stamps on whisky bottles, SNP MP for Moray Mr Angus Robertson attacked Scottish Labour MPs for voting for this damaging measure.

Mr Robertson is Vice-Chairman of the All-Party Scotch Whisky Industry Group, and represents more than half of all of Scotland's malt whisky distilleries. He said:

"There is a clear industry consensus against these daft and damaging tax stamps, which will add to whisky production costs and threaten jobs, and are themselves prone to fraud. The industry, the unions, the Scotch Whisky Association - they are all against tax stamps, and they have proposed sensible alternatives to combat fraud.

"The National Audit Office criticised the Customs & Excise fraud figures that were used to justify tax stamps.

"It is a disgrace that any Scottish MP should have voted for such an anti-Scottish measure - particularly those Labour MPs who were hypocritical enough to speak up against them, and then trooped through the Government lobbies tonight."

Speaking in the Budget debate in the House of Commons the Westminster leader of the Scottish National Party Mr Alex Salmond MP said:

"The whisky industry has given the Chancellor 6,000 million pounds of revenues since 1997. Yet he plans to impose tax stamps on whisky bottles that will add to production costs, and put at risk vital Scottish jobs.

"The SNP intend to put this damaging measure to the vote - and woe betide any Scottish Labour MP who has paid lip-service to the needs of the industry, and troops through the Government lobbies tonight.

"Such betrayal of the whisky industry will not be forgiven or forgotten in their constituencies come the next election."

LOCHHEAD – “SCOTLAND NEEDS A SEAT AT TOP TABLE”.

Shadow Fisheries Minister Mr Richard Lochhead MSP has called for a Ministerial Statement from Allan Wilson following his meeting with Franz Fischler about the disastrous EU fishing deal.

Commenting Mr Lochhead said:

"I hope that Allan Wilson has managed to secure better terms for fishing communities, and if that is the case, he should be applauded for his efforts.

"However, the fact that he was kept waiting until the early hours of the morning for an appointment with Franz Fischler proves that Scotland has very little influence in Europe.

"This is why Scotland needs a seat at the top table, so that instead of the European Commissioner being able to show contempt for the Scots fleet he will be forced to pay attention to what we have to say."

SALMOND – GOVERNMENT FISHERIES RESEARCH ‘HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE’

Banff and Buchan MP, Alex Salmond, has laid out some of the criticisms that have been laid against the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit report on fisheries which is due to be published.

Alex Salmond said:

"The Prime Minister's strategy unit has conducted its research in a highly questionable manner. They included an environmental group which is welcome but did not include a group of fishermen. If the fishermen were included perhaps the Unit would not have made so many blunders such as the miscalculation of the white fish fleet in Scotland. It was reported that the Unit are under the impression that there are 535 whitefish boats in Scotland whereas in fact there are only 180.

"There were also grave miscalculations about the economic impact of fisheries. At the weekend it was reported that fisheries was only responsible for 20% of employment in Fraserburgh for example, whereas according to the Scottish Executive's own figures the figure is well over 50%".