First SNP Budget passed

I have to confess that when I heard on BBC that Alex Salmond had said that he would resign if the SNP Budget was not passed, a shiver ran up my spine, and it was not a pleasurable sensation.  In retrospect, it became obvious that it was a logical, and shrewd move;  if the Parliament did not pass the budget, then this was tantamount to a vote of no confidence in the Scottish Government, and the First Minister and his Cabinet would resign and seek an election.

At the end of the day, the budget was passed by 64 votes to one, styled as “narrowly” by one Unionist hack;  Cabinet Secretary John Swinney did a magnificent job of illustrating how consensus could be achieved, no mean feat in a minority government, and a unique event in Scottish political history.  John did the bargaining, a standard routine in nearly every European country where minority governments and coalitions are commonplace, but new to Scotland, while Alex did the “pour encourager les autres” routine, and the whole exercise worked in spectacular fashion.

Labour and the Liberals were placed in the uncomfortable position of taking the risk of bringing down the government, throwing out the Council Tax freeze, forcing a Council Tax increase of 22%, no extra policemen, to name just a few of the consequences, and having to face an irate electorate to justify their actions; not surprisingly, they were not prepared to take that risk.  The Council Tax issue is probably the most potent one;  it would seem that the most common complaints MPs and MSPs had to face were about Council Tax, and these are the people most certain to vote.

Both of these parties abstained, Labour rather bizarrely after having an amendment accepted by John Swinney,  as part of the attempt at consensus, then failing to support the budget which incorporated their amendment, an action which received, and merited, derision.  The abstention would be because if they voted against the budget, and they failed to win, they would still have been accused of voting against the Council Tax freeze, and thus further alienate not only the electorate but most of their own local councillors.

Wednesday 6^th February 2008 was not a good day for Labour or the Liberals, and SNP MSP Christine Grahame was reported to have called for a vote of no confidence in the opposition.

  

Ineptitude, Ineptitude, Ineptitude

“Oh what tangled webs we weave, When first we practise to deceive.”

Whichever way we look at it, and however charitably(?) we may be inclined to view the travails of Wendy Alexander, there can be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the funding mechanism for her leadership campaign was set up to conceal the origin of the donations.  She knew enough to know that donations under £1000 did not have to be declared to the Electoral Commission, and that is what her campaign team set out to obtain.

Bearing in mind that they had taken the steps to conceal the donations from the Electoral Commission, how come they then plead ignorance about registering the donations with the Scottish Parliament?  There the limit is £530 – as stressed by Mike Rumbles, former Convener of the Standards Committee, and £950 is more than £530, even under Labour’s financial wizardry.  Much is being made of the fact that the Standards clerks had said the money did not need to be registered, but she only asked them after the dodgy donation from Paul Green had surfaced, another exercise in deception;  also at the time of her asking the money had been in her hands for more than two months, and should have been declared within 30 days.

I looked up the Registration of Interests document, and it states : “If a Member is uncertain about any aspect of the operation of the Act or the Code, the Standards clerks may be asked for advice.  However, each Member must ensure that the provisions of the Act are complied with and may additionally wish to seek independent legal and other professional advice prior to registration.”  Wendy and her cohorts are making out that they voluntarily made the declarations, but in fact only did so after she was caught.  The situation reminds me of one at work many years ago, where an employee was sacked for theft; the Union representative made a plea for mercy because it was a first offence.  The truth was that it was the first time the man had been caught!

What has also raised the ire of other non Labour MSPs is that Ms Alexander accused  SNP and Liberal MSPs of not declaring donations; if she had done her homework she would have found that none of them had asked for or received donations for their campaigns.  In fact, Alex Neil MSP had even more reason to feel aggrieved; not only had he not asked for or received donations, he had not even been standing!  The MSPs concerned had all used their own money, a prospect which is inconceivable in  Labour circles.

A standard tactic has been to try and deflect attention on to the other parties; consider the case of the Aviemore planning application, where complaints were made that SNP Ministers had interfered because the developer had donated money to the SNP, before the election.  This had been adequately dealt with by Mike Russell, as it concerned the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, which comes under his remit;  a feature of the close relationships in Scottish politics has again emerged when we hear that the Deputy Chairman of SEPA, Nicholas Kuenssberg, was another of Wendy’s £995 donors.

If this affair demonstrates one thing, it is that Ms Alexander has no leadership qualities – it has been one big quagmire from beginning to end.

 

Collateral damage

While trawling through Alba, the Scottish Politics website, www.alba.org.uk  I came across this gem, which I had not been aware of :

'The Alexander debacle would not have happened if there had been a free flow of information among the party leadership. In 2005, Scottish general secretary Lesley Quinn ruled that a donation from Jersey tax exile Paul Green for Charles Gordon's 2005 Cathcart by-election campaign was illegal. Had Alexander's team taken Quinn into their confidence and shown her their list of donors, she would have warned them to steer clear of Green.'

Tom Brown in Scotland on Sunday, 9th December 2007.
 

I knew that Charles Gordon had received an illegal donation for a previous election, but not that it was for the by election occasioned when his predecessor, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, was sent to the pokey for trying to burn down Prestonfield House; Glasgow Cathcart would seem to be singularly unlucky with their MSPs.  What I do not know is whether the money was returned, was the donation included in his election expenses, or what happened after that.  It could not have been treated very seriously, otherwise he would not have gone back to Mr Green and asked him for cash for Wendy, would he?  He may find the Electoral Commission and Strathclyde Police less understanding.

Andy Kerr, the front runner widely tipped to take over the baton as Wendy Alexander falls on it, has also fallen foul of the Donations rule;  he received hospitality from  MacDonalds (the burger people – not the Aviemore lot) and forgot to declare it, but will probably get a slap on the wrist, as he did not appear to be trying to deceive.  Rather, as our own Andrew Kerr put, he was just a silly burger.

 

EURO 2012 BECKONS – OR DOES IT?

            Word is on the street that Poland and the Ukraine are struggling with their arrangements to be ready to host Euro 2012; a meeting of Eufa held in Zagreb, Croatia, heard that preparations are well behind schedule, and that if there is not substantial progress during the next few months, then the tournament finals will be taken away from them.

          Gordon Smith, Scottish Football Association chief executive, was at the meeting, and he says that if the two countries pull out, we would put Scotland forward.  When Henry McLeish was First Minister, Scotland put in a bid for Euro 2008, but after he went, there was no appetite for that in Jack MacConnell’s crowd, as it meant a heightened profile for Scotland, with the attendant political risks, and we got embroiled in an abortive bid with Ireland .  This was just going through the motions, and we did not even make the short leet.

       First Minister Alex Salmond has said that we would put in a bid for Euro 2016, but as Uefa are considering upping the competition to 20 teams, or even 24, this might be beyond our capacities; however, 2012 is with reach, and the Scottish Government would not mess about.

     Poland is asking its emigrants to return home, as there is a shortage of skilled tradesmen,  a fair number of whom are working in Scotland; it will be a supreme irony if we employ them to upgrade our facilities for Euro 2012, and might make up for a CalMac ferry or two being built in Poland.

  

Libya bound

Well, after all the denial and counter denial, we now know that Tony Blair did a deal with Libya just before he was dragged kicking and screaming from No 10 Downing Street.

And although it has been denied, and first of all as a general rule about “any prisoner of Libyan nationality”, bit suspicious as there is only one in a Scottish jail, then definitely not Abdelbaset al Megrahi , and then lo and behold it turns out that he is being bought and sold for Libyan black gold.  A major oil deal between BP and Libya depends on sending the bomber home.

Methinks the idea is to get him off the premises before his appeal against his conviction is heard, as the British Government does not wish this to go ahead; already there is talk of certain documents being withheld from the defence, despite instructions from the Scottish Courts.  There is a strong body of opinion that does not believe he is guilty, and wish the true culprits to be brought to justice, but the Security Services have their fingerprints all over this, and talking of fingerprints, the Shirley McKie case is also somewhere in there. 

The suspicion is that once Megrahi is sent back to Libya, he will quietly slip out of prison and live under another name, happily ever after; there is another school of thought that thinks he will slip out of prison and never be heard of again.  Take your pick – as Trotsky would’nt have said.

 

BACK TO GOVAN & SCOTSTOUN

  Last week I mentioned the case of the two massive aircraft carriers to be built at  Govan and Scotstoun, and of the possibility of delays with them, a prospect pooh-poohed by the part time Secretary of Defence, Des Browne.

The case for the two carriers is not really all that clear; it was supposed to be three, as one would always be in for a refit, and they were authorised in 1997 and should have been in service by 2015.  Think about that, the planning and building would last eighteen years!  I am sure it took less time to build the Great Wall of China.   The actual construction plans baffle me, but then I am not a sailor, or an engineer.  The prime contractor is known as the Future Carrier Alliance; this is BAE Systems and Thales UK, with Kellogg, Brown and Root UK, as the preferred physical integrator for the project .  Vickers Thorneycroft and Babcock have also joined the Alliance.  60% of the carriers will be built at four British shipyards, BAE Systems Govan (hull block 4) and Barrow (block 30), VT Portsmouth (block 2) and Babcock Rosyth bow block 1).  These are the facts, but what do they mean?  I cannot tell if one hull is being built in Govan, and one in Barrow, but the final integration is to be done at Babcock Rosyth.

Anyway, when the hull is complete, it will have to be taken to Rosyth, which is only about 30 miles, as the crow flies, but to get there it will have to be towed up the west coast of Scotland, through the Pentland Firth, and down the east coast of Scotland; or, if perhaps there is a different scenario, the hull may be towed to Barrow in Furness to have some bits added, then down to Portsmouth to have other bits added, then through the English Channel and up the east coast of England to the Firth of Forth.  What is planned is not clear, but it all seems to be a recipe for confusion and delay.  These carriers are massive, three times the size of the current ones;  I remember seeing the QEII anchored off the Fife coast at Inverkeithing, as she could not pass under the Forth Bridge, and an American aircraft carrier was also in the same situation.  At present, there is the Forth Railway Bridge and the Forth Road Bridge, by the time they are built there will be a third Road Bridge.  Oh, and the British planes destined for these carriers are too heavy, so there is a rethink, and the planned new American/French ones will not be ready until long after the carriers, so we might be looking at aircraft carriers without aircraft.

However, what do we need with two massive aircraft carriers anyway?  I remember writing about them before, and that an Admiral of the Fleet wanted Britain to be able to respond to wars anywhere in the world.  It has not yet dawned on them that Britain is now a second rate power, if she is even that.  As to responding to events we are not exactly shining in the places where we are involved, Iraq and Afghanistan, where our troops have second rate equipment, and are dwindling, because nobody want to fight in these wars. And it is not just the Army which is struggling for manpower, half of the Royal Navy’s ships are in mothballs, as they do not have the sailors 

The watchword of the British Empire was that “Trade follows the Flag”, and the European nations, Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland and Italy, all had their colonies, and pillaged the Third World.  Britain had the biggest Empire, and does not have it any more, but acts as if it does.  But oh, the dreams of glory.

 

Aithriseachd

An d’ rinn Alex Salmond mearachd nuair a dh’fhosgail e cèist raon goilf Donald Trump an dèidh do Chomhairle Obar Dheathain ga thilgeil a-mach? A bheil na Nàiseantaich araidh air an fhacal sleaze? Agus an atharraicheadh e aithris na  sgeulachd co-dhiù? A rèir Newsnight agus Politics Now, am measg eile, ‘s e briseadh-dùil mòr a th’ anns an SNP. Bha Tavish Scott a’ sealltainn cho doirbh ‘s a bha e dha a chreidsinn gun dèanadh Alex a leithid sin; bha Cathy Jamieson a’ bruidhinn air giùlan ceart Ministear na Stàite, agus bha a h-uile duine ag aontachadh gum b’ fheudar don sgeulachd air fad tighinn a-mach. Chan eil cuimhne agam air an uair mu dheireadh a chunnaic mi spòrs mar sin, mura cùnnt mi cluicheadairean ball-coise a’ leigeil orra gun deach an goirteachadh. Bha muinntir nam meadhan cho trang ag ràdh gun robh na rothan air tighinn far bus nan nàiseantach nach do dh’innis iad dhuinn dè thachair - ach carson a leigeadh tu leis an fhìrinn stad a chur air sgeulachd mhath?

Air an làimh eile chan eil e ach ceart gun gabhadh daoine brath air cothrom a thigeadh an rathad, gu h-àraidh a chionn ‘s nach e naidheachd a th’ ann an staid nan Làborach a-nis. San dol seachad, bha e èibhinn a’ smaointinn orrasan ag iarraidh rudan a thighinn a-mach! Chan e an £950 bho chuideigin às an dùthaich - aig a’ cheann thall gheibh am pàrtaidh seachad air sin. ‘S ann gun d’ rinn iad follaiseach don mhòr-shluagh gu bheil tàir aca air na riaghailtean a thug iadsan a-staigh. Tha e coltach nach bi iad a’ smaointinn gum bu chòir dhaibhsan an leantail gu dlùth. Ged a bha e laghail a chumail fon ìre far am b’ fheudar dhaibh innse cò thug seachad airgead, tha coltas seòlta air. Bhitheadh sin dona gu leòr nam b’ e a’ chiad uair a thàinig giùlan rud beag seòlta gu bàrr, ach nan sgrìobhadh cuideigin sìos eisimpleirean eile bho na  bliadhnachan far an robh cùmhachd aca chailleamaid coille-uisge eile. Fanaidh Wendy Alexander mar cheannard an ceartuair a chionn ‘s nach tèid aig na Làboraich cuidhteas fhaighinn dhi, ach chan eil teagamh ann gu bheil i air a leòn. Thuirt Henry McLeish o chionn goirid mu Wendy nach do chuir i dòrn air Alex fhathast. Is cinnteach gum feum i agus bidh cothroman ann, ach saoil an e fear a tha san raon-goilf?

Reporting

Did Alex Salmond make a mistake when he opened the question of Donald Trump’s golf course after Aberdeen Council threw it out? Do the Nationalists deserve the word sleaze? And would it alter the report of the story anyway? According to Newsnight and Politics Now, among others, the SNP are a big disappointment. Tavish Scott was demonstrating how difficult it was for him to believe that Alex would do something like that; Cathy Jamieson was talking about the correct behaviour of a Minister of State, and everyone was agreeing that the whole story had to come out. I can’t remember the last time I saw fun like that, if I don’t count football players pretending to have been injured. The media are so busy saying that the wheels have come off the nationalist bus that they didn’t tell us what happened - but why would you let the truth interfere with a good story?

On the other hand it’s only right that people take advantage of a chance that comes their way, especially when the state of the Labour Party isn’t news now. By the way, it was funny thinking of them wanting things to come out! It isn’t the £950 from someone not resident in the country – at the end of the day the party will get past that.

It’s that they made it plain to the general public that they treat with contempt the rules that they themselves brought in. They don’t appear to think that they should follow them too closely. Although it was legal to keep below the level where they would have to say who gave them donations, it looks sleekit. That would be bad enough if it had been the first time that sharp practice had surfaced, but if someone were to write down examples from their years in power we would lose another rain forest. Wendy Alexander will remain as leader meantime because the Labour Party can’t get rid of her, but there is no doubt that she is wounded. Henry McLeish said recently about Wendy that she hadn’t landed a punch on Alex yet. She’ll undoubtedly have to and there will be chances, but I wonder if the golf course is one of them?

Although this was written in December it is still timeous.

 

The waes o Wendy

   Tho Sam Goldwyn telt us that we soudnae mak predictiouns, parteeclarly aboot the future, it seems the nou that Wendy Alexander wul leeve ti fecht anither day as leader o Lawbour at Halyrude. Commentators hae fund it haurd ti unnerstaun hou sic a wyce wumman as she is hauden ti be wad brek the law. Efter aa, her excaises didnae seem ti be maisterpieces o sleekitness. They war, first, “A didnae ken” – are we ti believe that an M.S.P., that haes it as hir daily darg ti mak the laws, wad raelly think that ye’ll can brek them as lang as ye dinnae ken whit they are? – an saicont, “It wes ainly a wee law” – a wee law that coud lead ye ti a year in jile, or an unleemitit fine, gin the juidge didnae like the luik o ye.

   Bit A wad explain the seetiation in anither wey. The Lawbour Pairty, we maun awn, stertit oot wi heich moral vaillies, as the defenders o puir fowk. Its memmers wad naiturally believe that Lawbour stude fir trowth, juistice, an purity; sae it wad follae that onything a Lawbour politeecian did maun be true, juist, an pure. The heich moral vaillies hae dwinit awaa lang syne, bit the vizzy o the warld that gaed wi them is aye ti the fore. Ye wul muin that Henry McLeish, efter his tulzie wi the Pairlamentary ruils, nivver thocht he haed duin onything wrang; nae mair did Alexander.

   There is an auld speak: “Shaw me the man (or wumman!) an A’ll shaw ye the law.” Nou this parteeclar wumman haes a pickle o gey pouerfae friens, that wad hae an ee on the case. Gin Alexander soud faa, ower the heid o a payment o £950, whit coud stap the faa o Harriet Harman, that tuik £5000 frae juist as doutsome a source? An gin Harman went doun, the dugs wad sune be yowlan at the heels o the man that pit her in place, Prime Meenister Gordon Broun. Ceenics micht jalouse that i this case the search fir juistice bi the pouers that be wadnae be as eident as it micht be. In years ti cum, students o the law may fin i their textbuiks a new precedent: “Alexander’s defence”. Whitivver the wirds the buiks yaise ti descrive it, the meanin wad be: “There’s ae law fir Lawbour, an anither fir the lave”.

Kenneth Fraser