Measures of Success

Something else to ponder?

Oddly enough I was out and about in the Village a lot of the weekend. In amongst the boozed-up rugby watching there was actually a degree of serious political debate until we found out that Brown had wussed out.

I say serious, but I soon understood why politics and religion are subjects allegedly best kept out of the pub, when a friend who up to this point I had always assumed to be an intelligent person, declared that Neil Kinnock was, and I quote, "the best Prime Minister this country never had". So much for in vino veritas.

Inevitably predictions were called for on the likely outcome of a snap election. While I wished it were different, the best outcome I could back with any reasonable level of hope of it coming to pass was a very substantially reduced, but probably just about workable, Labour overall majority.

It's, all academic now, but it was interesting to consider what a 'workable majority' for Gordon Brown would have been. Conventionally figures of around 15-20 get bandied about, but I feel his target, even regardless of image problems, would have been much higher. For one simple reason; Scotland.

I've got absolutely no issue with Gordon Brown being Scottish whatsoever. The imbalances in public spending do not concern be greatly, reflecting as they do in the most part, real issues of need. The West Lothian Question is a more significant issue, being as it is at heart, one of fairness.

With the Conservatives securing a plurality of the vote in England in 2005, the prospects of this turning into a plurality, at least, of seats in England must have been a very real risk. Add in the fact that for all the best of SNP efforts that Brown would still have retained a significant portion of his 39 Scottish seats, Labour voting being at least as tribal north of the border as it is south of it, life could have got very difficult for Brown.

Blair managed, more or less, to avoid genuinely needing Scottish votes to secure the passage of English, or English and Welsh only measures. The few times this may have statistically have seemed to be the case it was possible to show that it would have been possible to whip it though without these votes being necessary.

To be seen to be passing such legislation on nearly every occasion with the votes of Scottish MPs whose constituents were unaffected by it would create an outcry, and on each occasion it happened the same clunking fist of political reality would land fair and square in the middle of Brown's ugly face.

With the effect of boundary changes, and a general improvement in Tory fortunes, it's actually very difficult to see how a Brown government would be able to function with much less of a majority than their current 68 were the Conservatives to make any further progress in England whatsoever.

It might seem strange to post on something that is now somewhat of a counter-factual effort, but I think it underlines how badly Brown has played his hand recently. There have just been a few short weeks when the polls suggested a similar or enhanced Labour majority, and without this level of support, a Labour government could end up in a self-destructive nightmare of it's own making.

If the Conservatives manage to avoid another bout of infighting then I've got a feeling that it's still going to be a tough decision for Brown even if he does put it off until 2009.

I've got a feeling the events of the last week or two will weigh very heavily on Brown long after the media have finally moved on.

A Debate Without Substance

Is Scotland being offered an honest choice?

So then, Alex Salmond has revealed his white paper addressing the future constitutional settlement for Scotland.

To be fair he does offer a 'national conversation' on series of options, before any referendum should be called:

• The Status Quo


• Further devolution of powers to Holyrood


• Full independence

I'm not sure how the first of these options squares with the position attributed to him by the BBC that "no change is no longer an option", but compared with the flagrant dishonesty of the Westminster government over the upcoming. European Treaty it's pretty small beer. What I can't quite see yet is what the nature of his 'National Consultation' with the Scottish people is likely to be. I must say, first and foremost, that I cannot, and do not accuse Mr Salmond of any intent to deceive or mislead in his approach. His is a principled position about which he and his party are perfectly open, and I'm glad to see that many of his political opponents and most of the media have also acknowledged this fact and have delivered their response to the white paper in a considered and reasonable manner. It's interesting to compare this to the hysteria that is whipped up by certain national broadcasters when ever someone has the temerity to suggest a devolution of powers from Brussels back to nation states, but that's a posting for another time.

I still can't help thinking though that the kind of 'National Conversation' that Mr Salmond seems to anticipate falls some way short of addressing the issues that worried me in my previous posting. Certainly the grand debate should take place, but as things stand it would take place in an arena of ignorance and empty rhetoric.

The type of exercise I was speculating on yesterday was not the same as what Mr Salmond proposes, it is a precursor, and in my opinion a necessary precursor to it. The analysis of the economic consequences of independence and to a large extent those of the political consequences on the world stage should not, insofar as is possible should not be become a political football in the course of the debate, they could be, and should be, largely a matter of accepted fact.

The type of exercise I envisaged was something more along the side of a Royal Commission, vested with every power possible to make as many politically incontrovertible analyses of the facts of the case for and against independence. I would expect it to be manned by economists, lawyers and experts in the field of international relations, not politicians. Government departments, both British and Scottish, should be called upon to contribute, but at the level of the real experts, not their political masters. The only way the big political beasts should involve themselves is in making it possible for the commission to do its job, for example making it clear that EU officials should make themselves available to discus the potential shape of a post-independence relationship between Scotland and the EU, including the financial consequences.

My own feeling, for what it is worth, is that Scotland can clearly stand alone as an independent state; my instincts are that economically it would be somewhat poorer, but possibly only to an extent that many Scots would see as an acceptable price of independence, while the consequences for Scotland's influence in the world, especially within the EU would be more serious, but possibly acceptable again to some as a price worth paying. That's just my gut feeling on the matter, and when I hear politicians speak on the matter I always get the feeling that they are working off a base of knowledge that is hardly any sounder. That is why I am so convinced the expert analysis is needed first so that any public and political debate can be around a body of solid fact.

As an aside, I think some of the lines being pushed in some parts of the mainstream media, and the world of blogging, that the rest of the UK should be consulted in a referendum, is misguided. While it is possible to wrap up such an idea in a mantle of high sounding principle, it is feel it is simply wrong. I might be half Scottish, work there from time to time, and love the place, I really don't feel I have any great right to demand a say in how the government of that part of the country should develop. Certainly there would be an impact on the rest of the United Kingdom, but due to the weight of relative sizes it is almost certain that it would be insignificant in comparison to the effect on Scotland itself, and so to demand a vote of equal weight is not really justified.

Exactly the same arguments could be made for offering the rest of Europe a vote on whether the UK should adopt any EU treaty. I seem to remember that when that referendum was still on the table, even the suggestion that UK resident Non UK EU citizens be allowed to take part in the vote had many of the same mouthpieces spitting blood in indignation. The possible accusations of hypocrisy raised in the article by Guido quoted in the previous vote must be avoided at all cost.

Bad Habits

Salmond: Early promise evaporating?

It's becoming a recurring theme since I've been writing this blog, that every time that I try to be open-minded about those with different political persuasions to my own and I give deserved credit where it is merited, that the unwitting recipient recipient of the praise immediately blots his or her copybook.

It's going to be hard to beat
Liam Byrne, who sadly followed up on his admirably swift action over the case of Tul Bahadur Pun VC with his ridiculous pronouncement about ID Cards becoming "A Great British Institution, but Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond seems to be having a damn good go.

I'm reasonably, but not obsessively pro-union, but some time ago I felt moved to pass favourable comment on the style with which the SNP and its supporters campaigned in the recent elections to the Scottish Parliament, much as I might be uncomfortable with some of its policies. After a week or two of Mr Salmond forming his government I was once again pleased to see the it was exercising its first real power in what seemed to be a reasonable, pragmatic manner.

Unfortunately in the last couple of weeks the train really does seem to have come off the rails, or perhaps it might be more accurate to say the train has gone very much back on to the rails that some like I may have always expected it to run down. There have been a sequence of stories suggesting that the nationalist hard core of the SNP's programme is starting to take centre stage.

They began with a number of fairly low key announcements about separations in the functions of elements of the British and Scottish Civil Services. Later on came a more headline grabbing, but perhaps less serious in many ways, demand for a much greater degree of autonomy in broadcasting, specifically the replacement of British (i.e. English as seen through SNP eyes) news coverage with specifically Scottish versions. Now, of course, we await the SNP proposal for a ballot on Independence, due out tomorrow.

The first element of this assault appears designed simply to be a move designed to promote a senses of 'separateness', unaccompanied as it was by any suggestions as how such separations of civil service functions would in any way offer better services or greater efficiency in their delivery to the Scottish people.

The proposal for a separate news service also seems somewhat suspect. I live in a region of the country that has a significantly larger population than the whole of Scotland, and originate from a different one, which though slightly smaller had just as strong a regional identity as Scotland. In neither case has the already significant amount of regional news programming ever really captured my imagination, compared to national coverage. In both cases the few really newsworthy stories always have to be supplemented with swathes of dull parochial dross even to fill half and hour. Scotland may have a little more to offer its viewers, especially with a whole distinct political system to cover, but I've got a feeling it wouldn't entirely escape the limitations of existing regional coverage.

The call for a referendum, is a trickier issue in my mind. Guido, who has also proved my rule in the reverse direction, by making a succession of interesting posts ever since I submitted my Top 20 blogs without him, has turned his mind to the same issue I have on the Scottish referendum question:

Is Guido the only one who thinks it hypocritical of the Tories to be against a referendum on Scottish constitutional affairs and for a referendum on UK independence from the European constitution?

Why is self determination good for the UK but not Scotland?

Source: Guido Fawkes

Well yes, it's a fair point, and one that has been an issue for me when I think about such a referendum. In the end though I really do believe that there is something in my discomfort with a Scottish independence referendum at this time that goes beyond the simple fact that in the case of Scotland I am content with the status quo, and in the other I am unhappy with what the status quo looks set to become.

It is, I think, simply this. In the case of the European ConstitutionTreaty, we have a fair idea of what the consequences of its adoption are likely to be, and were a referendum to take place we would have a precise document to vote for. I do not think that at this time the same applies in the case of Scottish Independence. It is clear that no politician on either side of the debate is fully certain of the consequences, especially the economic ones, to Scotland.

There are often a vague claims from SNP supporters that Scotland would either become like Ireland with its boom of the last decade and more, or like the Scandinavian countries. You can ignore the duplicity in claiming both to be germane to the case at hand and seriously worry if either of these models stand up to close scrutiny. In the former example will the EU be in a position to offer the type of funding to Scotland that it could, and still does to Ireland? I'm sure Brussels would be delighted to see a country opt for 'Independence in Europe' - but in the newly enlarged Europe with so many poorer countries in Eastern Europe, will such largess ever be possible again? In the latter case, are similar latitudes, populations and natural resources a guarantee of having similarly successful societies?

There are many issues beyond the simply economic, such as the voice Scotland might have in the EU as an independent nation, versus that as part of the United Kingdom whose voice would be little weaker without Scotland and may adopt very different positions without the necessity to consider consequences to Scotland. The economic issues alone though are enough, in my mind, to warrant further consideration before pressing for a referendum.

If the SNP were to propose a commission to consider these issues and report to the Scottish people after a year or so, possibly with a view to a subsequent referendum then I suspect, on the grounds of self-determination that Guido alludes to, it would have my support. The step into the unknown that the SNP are likely to propose to the Scottish people is something that I feel all opposition parties have the right to activly opposed, especially considering the limited mandate of the SNP administration.

Back in the Fold

Murrayfield rejoins the
international rugby community

I might be only half Scottish and live in London, but the SNP is really beginning to grow on me. It's not even just the fact that Alex Salmond seems vaguely human by politician standards and some of their supporters post great campaign songs on YouTube. It's early days, but they really do seem to be setting the Scottish nation free and seem in no great rush to turn the country in to the hard left hell hole'paradise' that some of their erstwhile policies suggested they might. They even seem to be more concerned with getting on with governing Scotland than making cheap shots at their southern neighbours.

Their latest act is to announce that it might once again be allowed to have a beer during rugby games at Murrayfield. Kenny MacAskill, the SNP justice secretary announced:

"There is a world of difference between people drinking a bottle of cheap cider in a park to get drunk and enjoying a pint of beer at half-time of a rugby match.

"We've listened to representations from fans, Scottish Rugby and the police.

"The fans can't understand why they can have a drink at Twickenham and at Millennium Stadium and at some rugby games and not others.

"They want to be able to enjoy a civilised drink during international matches at Murrayfield."

Quite right Mr MacAskill. Flint and Hewitt please note this is not 'Blue Skys Thinking' this is what normal people call 'Common Sense', that part of higher brain function whose absence is a prerequisite for high office in the NuLab ranks. Sadly I can only imagine the low hum of excitement that would go round the Department of Health if someone got it into their minds that there was half a chance of getting away with banning alcohol in the whole of TW1 on match days.

It's true that Murrayfield will still need permission from Edinburgh Council, but after the recent elections this should hopefully not be too much of an issue. ScotNuLab lost half its seats, losing overall control, the Nats went from 1 to 12 seats, and the Lib Dems gained 3 to 17. The Lib Dems are now the largest party, but they've done an almost complete Pontius Pilate act on the actions of the last Holyrood government, of which they were part, so this should be no obstacle. It shouldn't be forgotten though that the 'Liberal' Democrats were part of Jack 'Best Wee Numpty in the World' McConnell's government, which could have done what the Nats have now done, but instead saw fit to some introduce Nanny State legislation that would make Westminister NuLab's busybodies blushfeel green with envy.

The ban was introduced after an old firm clash in the 1980 Scottish Cup final which saw an on pitch battle between Rangers fans, their Celtic opponents and the police. It was not originally intended to cover Murrayfield, but was extended to cover all major venues after representations from the police, demonstrating once again their regrettable tendency to seek ridiculous new powers off the back of sensible attempts to tackle a real problem.

I'm not going to have a pop at kevball this time around. To be honest from the little I know on the subject most of the clubs seem to have improved immeasurably in recent years and this seems to have been accompanied a gradual slackening off of alcohol restrictions. The only time I've been to a football match I enjoyed my beer both at the Emirates Stadium and in the first pub we came to outside the dispersal zone after the match, despite what was apparently substandard Arsenal performance. Even the remaining restrictions on having alcohol within sight of the pitch seemed slightly absurd, with various shutters and blinds having to be closed at half time to allow us to consume our free beer while staying within the letter of the law.

The key thing is that while there were a few ill considered knee-jerk reactions to the problems in the English game, over time pragmatism has prevailed. Local solutions have to local problems has taken the place of sweeping catch-all national diktat. The clubs and authorities played their own part in proving they deserved such pragmatism by taking responsibility for the problems, and taking their own initiatives to deal with them. In areas like this, national legislation should constrain itself to setting basic minimum standards, while giving legal basis for further more draconian action where it is warranted on a local level, with a clear presumption that such action should only be taken where circumstance demonstrably prove it to be necessary.

Having said all that there is still a bit of pride in me every time I see the "No Alcohol Beyond This Point During Football Matches" signs at Vicarage Road when I go to watch Saracens. Also, having praised the Nats, it should be noted that there may be a little self-interest in play. According to BBC,

'Mr MacAskill was arrested on suspicion of being drunk and disorderly before the England versus Scotland Euro 2000 play-off at Wembley stadium.

'He had intended on going to the game but spent the night in police cells. He was not charged or cautioned and later claimed his arrest was due to a misunderstanding.'
BBC News

I'll put it down to enlightened self-interest, not that it really matters anyway. Even if it wasn't a misunderstanding, it is history, and anyway, it's outcomes that count, and this can only be a good outcome for Edinburgh. I suppose that in this case, in the words of Blur "I'm a professional cynic but my heart's not in it". I've been to the Calcutta Cup game at Murrayfield, had a great time, and the alcohol ban, while not an especially big deal, was just plain silly. There were thousands drinking into the early hours afterwards, without any incidents I could see that wouldn't happen in any city centre on any Saturday night.

Despite now living in one of the 'World Cities' I find the 'Burgh something special. For me it was a place where as a young boy, heading up to visit grandparents, you'd emerge from the strange semi-subterranean world of Waverley station to be confronted with everything to a child’s eye that a city should be. It was often near Christmas so the imposing and garishly illuminated shop façades of Princess Street to the right tended to catch the eye first of all, as they were designed to, followed by the soaring buildings that seemed to cling improbably some kind of mountain to the left, and, best of all, a real castle dominating the skyline at its summit. Work now takes me up there from time to time and even as an adult there’s something I love about the place. Some of it is a nostalgia I suppose, but there are also great people, great bars, pubs and eating spots, all mingled together with the great historical sites and the places where the modern business of the city takes place.

Lets hope that, come the next internationals, we'll hear Auld Reekie say nae mair pish to this particular bit of Nanny State nonsense.

Update 10th June: Oh dear the SNP seem to making worrying noises on retaining DNA samples from the innocent...I'm going to have to come back to that one.

SNP Goodbye to Tony...

I might be an Anglo-Scot but I have no time at all for the policies of the SNP. That said they have some pretty effective advocates. It's hard to dislike the likes of Salmond, who come over with a passion and sincerity that seems a damn sight more genuine than most of their mainstream Westminster counterparts. Beyond these figureheads I'd probably disagree most political views held by the creator of this YouTube offering, other than a shared loathing of NuLab and Blair. It might be from a left wing, nationalist and republican perspective but it's a wittier and more talented slagging of both than I could ever manage.

It made me laugh anyway (and there's only one direct derogatory reference to 'tory')...

"...out-lefted by the Sunday Post."

"...a generation's waste of space."

Classic.