The Scots Independent Newspaper Online

IT'S TIME

The election on 3^rd May 2007 will certainly be the most important election in my lifetime to date; it is about who runs the Scottish Parliament for the next 4 years. It is about change, whether the people opt out of slavishly following the path they have been taken on, either through boredom or disgust, or whether they opt to progress to a bright new Scotland.

It will be a precursor to an Independence Referendum in 2010, at which time they can judge what kind of government the SNP has provided, and whether it is worthy of their trust. If the Unionist parties keep power, then nothing will change.

To simplify the argument: to Scotland’s west is Ireland, to its north is Iceland, and to its east is Norway. These three countries form an arc of the most well off countries in the world. How come Scotland, with vast reserves of energy and food, is supposed to be a basket case?

When Scotland, or rather the unelected Scottish Parliament, voted itself out of existence in 1707, it did so due to bribes and threats, and there were riots in the streets; the bribes and threats are still the preferred currency of the Unionists, but this time it is the people of Scotland who have the votes, and the power.

Vote SNP on 3^rd May – it’s time for Scotland.

VOICE FROM THE PAST

“AND NOW WHEN I CONSIDER THIS TREATY AS IT HATH BEEN EXPLAINED AND SPOKE TO US THIS THREE WEEKS PAST, I SEE THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION REMAINING FIRM, THE SAME TWO HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT, THE SAME TAXES, THE SAME CUSTOMS, THE SAME EXCISES, THE SAME TRADING COMPANIES, THE SAME MUNICIPAL LAWS AND COURTS OF JUDICATION: AND ALL OURS SUBJECTED TO REGULATIONS OR ANNIHILATIONS: ONLY WE HAVE THE HONOUR TO PAY THEIR OLD DEBTS AND TO HAVE SOME FEW PERSONS PRESENT FOR WITNESS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE DEED, WHEN THEY ARE PLEASED TO CONTRACT MORE. IT IS THE MURDER OF ONE’S NATIVE LAND.

GOOD GOD! WHAT IS THIS? AN ENTIRE SURRENDER.”

LORD BELHAVEN IN THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT

4^TH NOVEMBER 1706

Robert Burns had the right o’ it.

“The best laid schemes o’ mice and men, gang aft agley” When I did my last Flag, No 358, I said that this would be my last one before the Scottish Election. Donald Bain was due to do 359 on 20^th April and Ian Goldie 360 on 27^th April. Why do I tempt fate? Donald was in Italy due to a family bereavement, and Richard Thomson stepped into the breach, as I was putting together the May Scots Independent that week. Now Ian has returned from visiting family in Australia to find his Apple Mac has given up the ghost! At present all I want to do is make tracks for Penicuik where the SNP is trying to overturn a 538 Liberal majority, so that’s next on my list, but meantime…...

This will not be a normal Flag, if ever it is when I do it, but some observations of how the campaign is going.

“Perfectly clear” Manifesto Costings

Among the welter of economic statistics and general criticisms that Labour are putting out, or not, as the case may be, there is a constant carping from them that the SNP sums do not add up. My response to this is that no one knows if Labour’s sums add up, simply because they have not done any, and here’s me thinking that Mr McConnell was a Maths teacher!

abacus An academic study by the Centre for Public Policy for Regions run by Glasgow and Strathclyde University academics found that of all the parties, the Tories only had 17 uncosted policies in their manifesto; mind you, we do not know how many policies they actually have in their manifesto, as the Tories are not running very hard at this election. Their latest publicity coup was to have their leader David Cameron (Call me Dave) turn up at Gretna Green with Lord Trimble; one might wonder how many uncommitted voters would be impressed at a Northern Irish member of the House of Lords lending his support to the Scottish Tories…….????

However, I digress, as is my wont; the SNP has 35 uncosted policies, which might cause the Labour and Liberal apparatchiks to point accusatory (nice word that) fingers at the SNP. The SNP Manifesto ran to 75 pages, so a wheen of costed policies in there.

In any event, there can not be any chorus of disapproval from the Lib/Lab parties; despite having formed the Scottish Executive for the last 8 years, with all the economic information and relevant staff, Labour have 77 uncosted policies and the Liberals a whopping 89! Methinks they know their sums do not add up, so they haven’t done them!

A case in point is Labour’s defence of the existing unfair Council Tax; Mr McConnell has been raving on about how the SNP sums do not add up, but in his interview with Bernard Ponsonby on STV, and further with Gordon Brewer on Newsnight Scotland, he could not say what Labour figures were. Like his pal, Cathy Jamieson last week, he kept saying things were “perfectly clear”; they seem to think that by repeating this mantra viewers will think that they missed something – but all that is “perfectly clear” is that Labour do not have the remotest idea of what their mish mash would cost, but keep attacking the SNP by repetition of a meaningless phrase.

What was “perfectly clear”, although he refused to admit it, is that Labour and the Liberals have done a deal that if the SNP is the largest party, the other two will conspire to form the government and thus frustrate democracy; Gordon Brewer asked Mr McConnell time and again if he believed that the largest party should form the government, and he avoided answering this question, thus making it “perfectly clear” that the Unionists would unite against the SNP.

Dirty tactics

The First Minister in the departure lounge has launched a personal attack on his probable successor; Mr McConnell has said that Alex Salmond walked away from the Scottish Parliament in tough times. He also said that Alex Salmond was “not a fit person” to be First Minister; this was because Alex had said that the Labour campaign was concerned with putting Scotland down!

In an interview on Newsnight Scotland Mr McConnell kept saying that Alex Salmond had run away from Holyrood when the going got tough; he cited the case of the SQA (Scottish Qualifications Authority) a Tory policy which Labour had allowed to get into a mess. This seemed an odd point to make, as Sam Galbraith had been Minister for Education and Mr McConnell the Finance Minister at the time; after the debacle of the Highers Results, Henry McLeish appointed Mr McConnell to be the Minister for Education, and assured the Parliament that the situation would never arise again. When I looked at their accounts some 5 years ago I could find no evidence of a budget, probably reasonable as they were supposed to be self financing, so money coming in would balance money paid out. Very quietly, a sum of £11 million was transferred to pay for the mess; this was part of the £718 million underspend that Finance Minister McConnell had stashed away; for solving the SQA problem he was named as Politician of the Year! Spend your way out of trouble, boys, it’s someone else’s money anyway.

I also noticed that Newsnight Scotland referred to the investigation about the Observer “sting” on Beattie Media about preferred access to Ministers, and the subsequent hearing by the Holyrood Standards Committee, under the Covenership of Mike Rumbles of the Liberals; I still have all the printouts of that affair, which involved Mr McConnell, who was cleared by the Committee. I hereby admit that Alex Salmond was expelled from the House of Commons for protesting against the Budget, but he has never to my knowledge been up before the Westminster Standards Committee.

What is getting Mr McConnell so uptight is the fact that he sees himself losing his job, and that he is going to fight tooth and nail to keep it; also, as he has no positive plans to improve Scotland, and believe you me, it needs improvement, he has to denigrate the man who is after his job. There is the rough and tumble of politics, and there is personal invective, but they should be kept separate; Mr McConnell is harping on about the events and circumstance of 7 years ago. If you try to do that with Labour actions, they say it is time to “move on”.

There was a Pro Union advert in some papers last week, in which footballers and football managers, mainly connected to the Old Firm, came out in defence of the Union; this was claimed by Labour as support for them. It has now transpired that the ad was in breach of the election regulations; I am not sure what this means, or who gets a slap on the wrist, but perhaps the cost of the ad will have to be added to Labour’s election expenses, so maybe they should pay for it? This week there seems to be another Pro Union advert, trumpeted by the Herald, but not printed in that paper (they know the Herald will give them free publicity anyway); this again is supporting the Unionist parties. Interesting that Tesco is prominent in their support for the Union, but as a predominantly English company we would expect no less. However, I am puzzled as to how, if the footballing one was in breach of electoral regulations, what is different about the business one? The fact that it seems to have been organised by Gordon Brown rather points the finger at Labour, although all of the companies appear to be fighting shy of saying so.

Council Tax versus Local Income Tax

SNP Deputy Leader Nicola Sturgeon sent the following letter to Jack McConnell on 11 April 2007.

Nicola Sturgeon Jack McConnell
The Labour Party,
John Smith House,
145 West Regent Street,
Glasgow
G2 4RE

Dear Mr McConnell,

The Cost of Labour's Council Tax Proposals

As you know, the SNP plans to abolish the unfair Council Tax and replace it with a fair system, based on the ability to pay. The SNP published our full proposals last month, and the detail is on our website at www.snp.org/campaigns/localincometax

Following the omission of any specific detail on your policy in your manifesto which was published yesterday, and the inability of your Deputy Leader Cathy Jamieson to answer questions on the detail of the policy on Newsnight Scotland yesterday evening, I believe that it is now incumbent on you to explain to Scottish taxpayers what the specific impact of your proposals will be on Scottish households.

With this in mind, I have the following questions for you on your policy announcement:

1. How many households in Scotland will pay more under your policies?
2. At what home value will households begin to pay more under your plans?
3. How much more will these households pay?
4. How much additional revenue will be raised from these households?
5. How many households in Scotland will pay less under your policies?
6. At what home value will households begin to pay less under your plans?
7. How much less will these households pay?
8. Will these increased and reduced rates be standard throughout the country, or will those in houses of the same value in different local authority areas receive different treatment under these proposals?
9. Given that there are currently only 11,042 properties across Scotland in Band H, (and 29 percent of these are in the City of Edinburgh alone) compared to 530,504 properties in Band A, how will you achieve a revenue neutral policy?
10. When will the revaluation of the Council Tax take place?

According to the Nationwide House Price Index, the average house price in Scotland increased by 197.22% over the period 1991 (Q1) to 2007 (Q1).

You stated in the Scottish Parliament on 6th of November that:

"Labour's policy on council tax is very clear. It was clear in our submission to the Burt review and it has been clear on every occasion on which I have commented on it in the chamber."

while your submission to the Burt review stated that:

"there is a strong case for more regular revaluation by local authorities".

When will this revaluation take place?

I look forward to your reply,

Yours sincerely,

Nicola Sturgeon
Deputy Leader

Scottish National Party

On Tuesday 24 April Nicola reiterated her questions to Mr McConnell – no response is anticipated!

SNP Parliamentary candidate Christine Grahame has launched a petition to save Galashiels main post office from being incorporated within the WH Smith store in the town. Ms Grahame, who was today (Saturday) outside the post office gathering hundreds of signatures, claims the impact of the move would be "wholly detrimental to both customers and local business" and has vowed to fight tooth and nail to prevent the move from going ahead. The petition which can also be signed online at Ms Grahame's campaign website, www.538votes.com, will be sent to Crown Post Office managers. Ms Grahame said:

"This decision has been taken with no consultation with local people and it is clear that people in Galashiels have very real concerns that there will be a poorer service as a result of the proposed move.

"I am also deeply concerned that existing post office workers are to be made to apply for their jobs once the move goes ahead. This is a clear step towards privatising the post office service and I am determined to resist it.

"I am encouraging as many people as possible to support and sign the petition which is available on my website and local activists will also be outside the post office in the coming days to gather signatures from people in the town.

"So far hundreds of people have signed and supported the petition which shows the real strength of feeling against this move."

The Working Life of Linda Fabiani MSP