Today I announce the mothballing of one blog (this one) and the beginning of another (Better Nation).

First, the obligatory but still utterly unnecessary preamble, (mostly just included because I wrote this months ago and then bottled the imminent retirement, can't put those words to waste now):

The Green Party has returned its first MP to the House of Commons which is a tremendous effort given the First Past the Post system it has been fighting against for all of these years. With the 1% of the vote it received it should have returned 6 MPs, the same haul as the SNP, and that's before taking into account all the tactical voting that's been going on, obscuring the Greens' true popularity.

However, despite this good news, we are stuck with the return of a Tory Government, replete with a Cabinet which worryingly somehow contains Climate Change sceptics even in this post-Copenhagen, post-Kyoto, post-Al-Gore and soon to be post-Maldives era. This has effectively scuppered any realistic chance of stabilising global emissions by 2015. Saving the world was a daunting task before the challenge of reversing the increase in carbon emissions in 5 short years, failing is surely a foregone conclusion now unless something remarkable happens.

I noted the weary resignation of the Green candidate in my own constituency during the last election campaign, destined for fourth place but making all the right arguments at the hustings and receiving the strongest and warmest applause. I couldn't help but wonder at the time if Al Gore being robbed of the US Presidency by George Bush was the moment the planet missed its greatest opportunity to alter its tragic direction. That said, despite Ms Lucas' presence on those ironically green benches, GE2010 will have to go down as yet another moment where the greatest threat to life as we know it barely got a word in edgeways.

So what can the Green party do? Circumvent Westminster and seek to educate and mobilise the public to take direct action? It's worth a go I suppose.

For me, after much deliberating, most of it publicly stated on this blog, I've decided that I can't avoid the inconvenient truth of not being able to realistically maintain an SNP blog (as this would always be perceived) when I'm not a member of the party, don't particularly believe in independence, feel my political sympathies being pulled, yanked even, in a different direction and am unlikely to return to Scotland in the near to medium future.

From Kenny MacAskill, circa Aug 2009:

"In Scotland, we are a people who pride ourselves on our humanity.
"It is viewed as a defining characteristic of Scotland and the Scottish people.
"The perpetration of an atrocity and outrage cannot and should not be a basis for losing sight of who we are, the values we seek to uphold, and the faith and beliefs by which we seek to live.


From William Hague in a Conservative press release today:

"We must harness Britain's generosity and compassion to help the rest of the world"


Kenny was vilified by many, including Tories, for the former and his supposed claim that Scotland has a monopoly on compassion.

I look forward to William receiving the same derision.

Too many leadership contests of late have involved picking the least worst candidate so it is to Labour's credit that they have a decision before them which will end with 'the most best' individual winning through.

I would say, with all due respect to the man, that it is only Ed Balls who has made a less than substantive contribution to the contest, with the other four candidates helping to widen the debate and ensure the next chapter in the party's future is as cathartic as possible. Perhaps it should have been the other MP in the Balls household putting their name forward.

Anyway, the debate seems to be moving towards where Labour needs to be in relation to other parties rather than where it wants to plant its feet. For a party that is supposedly searching for its soul, this is a strange way to go about achieving that objective.

Peter Mandelson warns against 'lurching to the left' and David Miliband talks of 'pivoting forwards', presumably both against Ed Miliband's recklessly liberal anti-war, anti-nuclear stance, (despite these being historically Labour ideals of course). To be fair to Mandelson, New Labour must have emanated from Old Labour for a reason so to go back from New to Old deserves strong consideration of the risks involved.

David Miliband is the current frontrunner but he represents a timid choice with his current strategy seemingly being to clamp down on rival challengers rather than clearly communicate his own vision. Indeed, the main reason I can see for voting for the older Miliband is that he is rightwing enough to win Middle England but left enough of Cameron to hold onto the base. It seems to be the classic New Labour error of power for power's sake all over again. The Greens certainly want David to win to ensure they can make the resultant mouthwateringly massive gap to the left their own. Cameron wants David to lose as the Prime Minister doesn't want another 'heir to Blair' on his patch.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very impressed with both Milibands, they seem bright, articulate, personable, fair and, most crucially, genuine. Either name would get my vote ahead of Clegg or Cameron as things currently stand.

However, Ed Miliband has that extra level of enthusiasm, that extra edge of radicalism, those extra green credentials and that extra bag of policies against his name. This adds up to momentum and a lightning rod for a liberal, progressive, lefty coalition that between the SNP, the Greens and the disenchanted Lib Dems, can ensure that the coalition will, somewhat belatedly, be held to account adequately.

From this week's main story in Newsweek:

"the list tells us some important things about the world. For starters, smaller is often better. While there's no denying the vitality of emerging-market giants like China or Brazil or Turkey, they are often bested by tiny nations like Slovenia or Estonia, according to the data, simply because it takes less effort for these countries to improve their overall wellbeing.

In a Sunday Express interview, First Minister Alex Salmond has vowed that "the people can take the decision to force the issue (of an independence referendum)" as the SNP continues its bid to join the ranks of successful small countries across Europe.

The Newsweek overall rankings had Finland, Switzerland, Sweden, Luxembourg, Norway, Netherlands and Norway in the top ten and the supposedly stronger together and weaker apart United States, Germany, United Kingdom and France in the 11-20 spots. Superpowers, clearly, ain't what they used to be.

With the news of more oil than expected in the North Sea, Cairn Energy leading the exploration charge in the Arctic, Joseph Stiglitz surmising that UK wasted prior oil reserves and the banking crisis now settling down thanks to strong growth figures, now may be the right time for the Nationalists to up the stakes in the game of referendum brinksmanship.

Certainly Tavish Scott continues to sound distinctly flaky on this issue, no more so than in today's Scotland on Sunday article when he says the "the country has moved on" from considering independence and the "modern" Scottish Lib Dems don't give "two hoots" about a referendum. Tavish is entitled to state the latter opinion categorically as he leads the party, regardless of how incorrect the assertion may be. The former opinion, surely, can only be stated categorically after a referendum so it will be interesting to see whether, and how much, Tavish's views change as the election campaign progresses.
Either way, this is a welcome shot in the arm for Holyrood '11. It's heartening to see Alex Salmond intent on leaving it all out on the field for something he strongly believes in, and it's nice to see that Newsweek, indirectly at least, has the First Minister's back.

It's taken a while but I'm finally beginning to feel a bit of disillusionment with Scottish Politics. Reading up on the state of play with 'police numbers' is a prime example of where the parties are going round in circles and not ending up any further forward.

Let's start with this tweet from the Scottish Liberal Democrats official feed:

scotlibdems: Strathclyde's recruitment freeze undermines SNP police promise says Robert Brown MSP http://bit.ly/b7BFfM

Fair enough, there was a manifesto comitment by the SNP to increase police officers by 1,000 so if this isn't met then scrutiny is required. However, it was fair to assume back in 2007 that the Scottish Executive would enjoy an ever increasing budget so said scrutiny shouldn't go much beyond acknowledging that there is less money in today's pot and future pots.

Furthermore, the debate, not just surrounding police numbers but effectively all devolved issues, should focus on 'the marginal pound'. That is, if we spend money on more police, if that is the best use of a certain part of the budget, then what will we not pay for, what is less worthy of that money? We simply can't debate the best use of budgets without looking at both sides of the trial balance, you can't call for a debit without admitting where the credit will fall, simple as that.

Needless to say, the Lib Dem press release makes no mention of what the party would like to see cut from the existing budget to fund extra police. The one-way debate serves to attack the SNP without contributing ideas of a preferred approach to the status quo.

So then we look at the UK as a whole and note that police numbers are dropping in England and Wales through recruitment freezes, similar to what is happening in Scotland. Furthermore, police numbers were reported to be dropping back in January 2010 so Labour's catcalls that the extra police policy is being "torpedoed by SNP cuts" is surely a low blow and more than a little two-faced.

The SNP, to its credit, has already achieved its manifesto commitment of 1,000 police officers early in order to tick that box and will no doubt strive to keep the numbers as high as possible before May. However, it seems unlikely that it will adopt the reckless approach of funding extra police just to insulate itself from political attack before the next elections.

It is another example of Governments, both Scottish and UK, doing the best they can with the resources available but when Lib Dems denounce falling police numbers when they are effectively presiding over the same state of affairs at Westminster and Labour continues its mock-outrage at cuts that it helped create through the credit crunch, then one can only shake one's head in dismay.

On current evidence it is going to be a truly abysmal election campaign in advance of May 2011 and I just hope that most Scots ignore the headline-grabbing rhetoric and simply vote for the party that treats them least like an idiot.

Many will say 'that's Politics' in an effort to excuse the above approaches but I maintain that other countries do not dumb down this low in order to capture the public's attention and, indeed, imagination.

We have good people representing good parties filled with good intentions, it's just a shame we somehow lack the all-important good debate that should come with it.

There's a scene that I've had in my head that, no matter how crass or crude I make it, I just can't shift. It goes something like this:

A group of 8 super-posh friends are sitting around the impressively filled dining table. Landowners, property investors, fund accountants, stock market speculators, it doesn't really matter. This is the hoi polloi and the food miles in front of them could get to the moon and back.

A question pierces the general chatter, to noone in particular - "So, have you had a good budget or a bad budget?". The pause is brief before the rib-tickling, back-slapping, caviar, slightly horsey laughter begins.

"Good one Jeremy but stop being a pillock and pass me some more ham."

Inverted snobbery on my part? The classic Scottish trait of looking down on success? Perhaps, but I hope and think not.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) has described George Osborne's budget as "clearly regressive" despite assurances from both of the coalition's party leaders that they would be a progressive force.

It is perhaps unfair to single out the Lib Dems for special blame but, as the Guardian picks up on today, Nick Clegg stated that June's budget would mean that "the richest are paying the most... as a proportion of their income". I'm sure there is a lot of good in this budget but a Robin Hood redistribution it clearly isn't and the coalition's defence is particularly telling.

1 - The loudest rebuttal to today's headlines is that it's yesterday's news and a rehashed narrative. Yes, without a hint of irony or indeed shame, Lib Dems and Tories are complaining (with alarming harmony) that this has been reported before so is, presumably, invalid.

2 - There has also been a focus on the fact that under Labour the gap between rich and poor grew over the past 13 years. I would rather have hoped that this would instil an urgency to reverse that direction of travel rather than sustain it.

Indeed, on that urgency, I do hope that Labour looks seriously at the recently suggested policy of a one-off tax on wealth. £4000bn of Britain's £9000bn total wealth is owned by only 10% of Brits. A one-off tax of 20% would repay the national debt and bring down the deficit.

Sounds like a policy worthy of deep consideration to me. Just a shame that the party that until recently would have been most likely to adopt it is facing the other way and enjoying dining at the top table too much.

More ham Nick?

We left the polling story of the Holyrood race with Labour an unfathomable 16 points ahead and Iain Gray seemingly with one foot in Bute House.

However, there have been two polls in the past week that sees the SNP drawing almost level with their main challengers:

YouGov
Labour - 36%
SNP - 35%
Conservative - 14%
Lib Dems - 12%
Greens - ?

Ipsos Mori

Labour - 37%
SNP - 34%
Conservative - 11%
Lib Dems - 13%
Greens - ?
I don't know if any of the papers picked the above results up in their Sunday spreads but it's clear the ping-pong polling game has begun in earnest.

The Evening Standard has a shockingly poor Editorial on the Megrahi release which deserves to be repeated, and dismantled, in full:

The Government's call to Libya not to celebrate the first anniversary of the release of convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi, illustrates the feebleness of ministers' position.

In truth, they have no power over how Libya treats al-Megrahi, jailed in 2001 for his role in the 1988 bombing.

Well, which is it, is it being feeble or is it powerless? Either the UK Goverment has power to act and is acting feebly in doing so or it is powerless and consequently denied the opportunity to interject, feebly or otherwise. (The answer is, of course, the latter)

The Prime Minister has made clear that he believes al-Megrahi's release last year on compassionate grounds, because of terminal cancer, was a mistake. That is not cutting much ice with US senators now investigating the release.

The Prime Minister has stated that the release was a mistake but that would suggest an oversight, an error or a misjudgement. There has been none of these things and while Cameron is within his rights to disagree with MacAskill's decision, which was taken in good faith and for the right reasons, he does not have the right to unequivocally label a meticulously undertaken decision something that that it patently is not.

The decision by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to release al-Megrahi was extraordinary.

It was not extraordinary, far from it. It was a straightforward decision, in line with Scots Law that many a Justice Secretary has taken before and many will take again in the future.

There is scarcely a British precedent for early release on any grounds of a prisoner convicted of such serious crimes: 270 people were killed.

Has there ever been any UK prisoner that has been accused of killing so many people? What comparison can one reasonably make here?

But what the affair really illustrates is the oddness of Britain's devolution settlement, and the inability of a Scottish Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, to see how ludicrous it looks to the rest of the world.

Devolution is odd? Interesting. Two in three Scots are in favour of it you know. Do go on.

Any decision on al-Megrahi was clearly a matter of national security, both because he was an international terrorist and because his case was of major interest to our most important ally (most of those who died were American).

How on earth, if Libya and the UK are now friendly nations, can the release of a solitary dying man be "clearly a matter of national security". And to suggest that American interests should have played a part in the Justice Secretary's decision-making process displays a grotesque misunderstanding of how due process should unfold.

For ministers to argue that it was nothing to do with them, because they had handed over power to a few toytown Scottish politicians, was incomprehensible to the Obama administration.

Toytown politicians? Such a sneering condescension from this Tory rag of a paper barely merits a response.

As for "handed over power" to Holyrood, the Evening Standard clearly doesn't even understand that, had this decision been required pre-devolution, then it still would've been taken under Scots Law and north of the border. Schoolboy error.

That Mr Brown could not see how frankly silly his excuses looked is testimony to his and the Labour Party's long and disproportionate obsession with Scottish issues.

There is little that the Government can now do about the affair, beyond Mr Cameron's sympathetic noises in Washington last month. Ministers should, however, consider whether devolved powers as they now stand risk embarrassing and weakening the UK again in future.

There we go, Scotland is embarrassing the rest of the UK for having the nerve to make its own decisions for itself. Threatening to remove devolved powers that don't even apply in this instance just sums it up for me - the jaw-dropping misunderstanding and contempt that Scotland is held with by many of those south of the border.

I've held this back from the blog for a while now but I've had a few so fuck it. In the short space of time that I've been down here in London, to everyone that's mentioned Jockland or deep frying everything or 'Oh, how weird, I can understand you' or 'you Scotch should know your place' (as the Evening Standard is effectively saying here), do me a favour and shove it up your arse.

Right. Up. Your. Arse.

Note - For those who think the Megrahi debacle may harm the SNP's chances at the Holyrood election, hold onto your hats for this weekend as a very good poll for the Nats is in the offing...

The Evening Standard has a shockingly poor Editorial on the Megrahi release which deserves to be repeated, and fisked, in full:

The Government's call to Libya not to celebrate the first anniversary of the release of convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi, illustrates the feebleness of ministers' position.

In truth, they have no power over how Libya treats al-Megrahi, jailed in 2001 for his role in the 1988 bombing.

Well, which is it, is it being feeble or is it powerless? Either the UK Goverment has power to act and is acting feebly in doing so or it is powerless and consequently denied the opportunity to interject, feebly or otherwise. (The answer is, of course, the latter)

The Prime Minister has made clear that he believes al-Megrahi's release last year on compassionate grounds, because of terminal cancer, was a mistake. That is not cutting much ice with US senators now investigating the release.

The Prime Minister has stated that the release was a mistake but that would suggest an oversight, an error or a misjudgement. There has been none of these things and while Cameron is within his rights to disagree with MacAskill's decision, which was taken in good faith and for the right reasons, he does not have the right to unequivocally label a meticulously undertaken decision something that that it patently is not.

The decision by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to release al-Megrahi was extraordinary.

It was not extraordinary, far from it. It was a straightforward decision, in line with Scots Law that many a Justice Secretary has taken before and many will take again in the future.

There is scarcely a British precedent for early release on any grounds of a prisoner convicted of such serious crimes: 270 people were killed.

Has there ever been any UK prisoner that has been accused of killing so many people? What comparison can one reasonably make here?

But what the affair really illustrates is the oddness of Britain's devolution settlement, and the inability of a Scottish Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, to see how ludicrous it looks to the rest of the world.

Devolution is odd? Interesting. Two in three Scots are in favour of it you know. Do go on.

Any decision on al-Megrahi was clearly a matter of national security, both because he was an international terrorist and because his case was of major interest to our most important ally (most of those who died were American).

How on earth, if Libya and the UK are now friendly nations, can the release of a solitary dying man be "clearly a matter of national security". And to suggest that American interests should have played a part in the Justice Secretary's decision-making process displays a grotesque misunderstanding of how due process should unfold.

For ministers to argue that it was nothing to do with them, because they had handed over power to a few toytown Scottish politicians, was incomprehensible to the Obama administration.

Toytown politicians? Such a sneering condescension from this Tory rag of a paper barely merits a response.

As for "handed over power" to Holyrood, the Evening Standard clearly doesn't even understand that, had this decision been required pre-devolution, then it still would've been taken under Scots Law and north of the border. Schoolboy error.

That Mr Brown could not see how frankly silly his excuses looked is testimony to his and the Labour Party's long and disproportionate obsession with Scottish issues.

There is little that the Government can now do about the affair, beyond Mr Cameron's sympathetic noises in Washington last month. Ministers should, however, consider whether devolved powers as they now stand risk embarrassing and weakening the UK again in future.

There we go, Scotland is embarrassing the rest of the UK for having the nerve to make its own decisions for itself. Threatening to remove devolved powers that don't even apply in this instance just sums it up for me - the jaw-dropping misunderstanding and contempt that Scotland is held with by many of those south of the border.

I've held this back from the blog for a while now but I've had a few so fuck it. In the short space of time that I've been down here in London, to everyone that's mentioned Jockland or deep frying everything or 'Oh, how weird, I can understand you' or 'you Scotch should know your place' (as the Evening Standard is effectively saying here), do me a favour and shove it up your arse.

Right. Up. Your. Arse.

Note - For those who think the Megrahi debacle may harm the SNP's chances at the Holyrood election, hold onto your hats for this weekend as a very good poll for the Nats is in the offing...

Regular readers may know that I have a vested interest in Sweden due to personal factors closer to home and, while I sadly did not get to adopt the country this year for Eurovision or the World Cup (due to their qualifying for neither), I most certainly can adopt them for their election which is coming up next month so I am quickly trying to grow my enthusiasm for and my understanding of it.
 
What is most interesting about the politics of Sweden is that their mainstream right-wing party is probably, by some distance, to the left of our most left-wing mainstream party (I'll leave you to decide for yourself which particular UK/Scottish party that may be!)
 
Sweden, like all other countries, has highs and lows in its politics. The highs include the remarkable integrity shown by a Deputy Prime Minister, Mona Sahlin, who resigned in 1995 after she bought a toblerone bar with her work credit card, an incident that makes our MPs expenses debacle even more ridiculous. (The full detail isn't quite that flippant, basically she had used her work card to buy 50,000kr of private expenses but had always paid the money back). It didn't ruin her career though. Mona is the current leader of the challenging Swedish Social Democratic Party and is intent on being the next Prime Minister from next month.  
 
My 'low' example from Sweden also includes Mona Sahlin as her party has promised to outspend the ruling Modernitska Party by (I think) £20bn, irrespective of what is promised during the election campaign. A 'benevolent and reckless bestowing upon my people' tactic straight out of the Gordon Brown election book if you ask me.
 
The last election (2006) had the following breakdown:
 
Social Democrats (very left) - 35%
Moderate Party (quite right) - 26%
Centre Party (Centre, rural, greenish) - 8%
Liberal People's Party (centre-right) - 7.5%
Christian Democrats (centre-right) - 6.6%
Left Party (Left) - 5.9%
Green Party (Green) - 5.2%
Sweden Democrats (far right) - 2.9%
 
Result = 'Alliance for Sweden' (Moderates, Centre, Liberal People's, Christian Democrats) 'won' with about 49% of the vote and formed the first Government that didn't involve the Social Democrats for about 70 years.
 
Current polling has the parties on:
 
Social Democrats - 30.2%
Moderate Party - 29.3%
Centre Party - 4.2%
Liberal People's Party - 6.9%
Christian Democrats - 5.5%
Left Party - 5.8%
Green Party - 9.0%
Sweden Democrats - 6.5%
 
So the ruling Alliance has only 45.9% of the vote and may need to deal with the 'far right' Sweden Democrats in order to win power, although one would hope that the Green Party would be a more amenable government partner. (Note that the Greens typically form coalitions with the 'red' Social Democrats).
 
The Swedish Democrats may not quite be the BNP, but they see immigration, Islamization and globalisation as threats to Swedish culture. They believe every child should have "one father and one mother". Read into that what you will I suppose. Of course the upshot may be that the lefty Social Democrats pick up significant votes from the rightish Moderates to keep out the far-right Swedish Democrats.
 
So, with me so far? Me neither. Not long to go though till we find out which direction the famously left-wing Sweden will turn next….
 
 
The election will be held on Sunday 19th September 2010.
 
Jag kan inte vänta, men jag måste.

In the spirit of full disclosure and following on from this morning's post, I thought I'd flag up a poll from Ipsos/Mori commissioned by STV on Megrahi's release:
 
On the question of whether Kenny MacAskill should have allowed Megrahi return home to die, the results were:
 
Disagreed - 54% (46% prior year)
Agreed - 35% (42% prior year)
 
 
So, support for the decision is thinning and I suppose that is to be expected given how unlikely it is for someone to go from being against the decision to being in favour of it just because the man has lived longer than expected.
 
I still don't think this issue should, or will, dominate Scotland's domestic political agenda for the months and years to come.

It's remarkable to be even still talking about the post-prison life of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, not because he has outlived his 3 month prognosis, but because there should in theory be so little to talk about.

However, much like the 100 days of the coalition, the arbitrary choice of one year to look back and reflect on Kenny MacAskill's 'right decision for the right reasons' is upon us. The Scotsman leads the way with some Grade A tripe. With an article bizarrely title "Freeing Megrahi 'will cost SNP the election"', the piece goes on a rather pedestrian meander around the story so far, with no mention of any impact on the SNP's electoral chances (so where the apparent quote in the headline comes from is anyone's guess)

I remain baffled as to why this remains big news when there is so little to talk about. Even the underlying message from the media at large that everyone was against this decision is unwarranted. I seem to remember that Scotland was split about 50/50 over whether it was the right decision and, as many readers here will ruefully admit, it's not often the SNP gets close to winning 50% in a poll.

I don't see how anyone has lost out from a man simply living longer than was expected. Last time I checked that was supposed to be a good thing rather than bad. Of course, some relatives of those who died will be angry at this state of affairs, but there's a reason such people are not judge and jury for the cases that impacted upon them.

One year on, and if the strongest reason against the Justice Secretary's decision is that one doesn't like seeing the Saltire waved by Libyans cheering home a convicted terrorist, then my opinion on the matter will remain unchanged.

As for costing the SNP the election, I suspect spending, health, education, crime and, heck, maybe even independence will be higher up the priority list.

The flat tax debate is one that rears its ugly head every now and again but I don't tend to hear about the considerably more persuasive and fairer 'flat pension' idea.
 
We currently have a collective pension obligation in the UK that is a ticking timebomb and, to add to the looming carnage, it is the public sector pension fund that the Government tends to borrow against to fund current spending. Further to this, an ageing population and the WW2 baby boomers nearing retirement age mean there is little doubt that the rather dry question of how we fund our post-work lives is a critical one.
 
Most pensions involve the employee paying in x% and the employer paying in y%, both x and y being in the region of 10. What you put in either attracts interests or, if you are very lucky, goes towards your final salary scheme, either of which you realise upon retirement with a lump sum and/or annual payments.
 
That is all well and good and should probably continue in the same form, particularly the employee contribution as what a person does with his/her salary is their business. However, a potential change could be that the employer contribution goes into one enormous public sector pot and, upon retirement, a flat annual salary (with an appropriate inflationary increase) is paid out across the board regardless of whether the drawee was the Head of the Civil Service or sweeped the streets. It is joyously inflexible, the inflexibility being the guarantee that fairness is realised in the system.
 
Note, of course, that those enjoying salaries in the range that the Head of the Civil Service enjoys will no doubt have separate pensions that can ensure a more luxurious lifestyle. However, crucially, no employer contribution will have funded such separate pensions. Note also that the above can just as easily apply to private companies.
 
As a country we believe in the universality of education, we believe in the universality of health provision so shouldn't we also believe in the universality of adequate pensions? 'The rat race is for rats' said Jimmy Reid, who sadly passed away last week. I would add to that famous phrase that peanut pensions are for monkeys.
 
What if the employer contribution element of Fred Goodwin's pension was to be spread more evenly? Or the top mandarins in the public sector? Or politicians for that matter? Who would shed a tear? Any employee, public or private, would still be welcome to inflate their pensions with their own salary, and that would still attract tax relief, but in terms of reducing the very top pensions and increasing the very lowest, even just a little bit, this 'flat pensions' idea seems to be the radical realignment our pensions problem requires.
 
They say you get out what you put in and while this is true in terms of effort and, more often than not, love, when the have-nots have nowt to put in, it's little wonder that the haves continue to skim the financial cream from society's efforts and the gap between rich and poor grows ever wider. After all, which box would this proposal not tick? Social mobility, progressive, a future fair for all, fair is worth fighting for, we're all in this together?
 
It's bulletproof but, sadly, it's never going to happen. Greed will remain good in the UK for decades to come and too many people prefer their pensions to be fat rather than flat.
 
I remain optimistic that something can be achieved however. It would take a collective mental leap from the UK but it is a leap in the correct direction. For too long (and I blame Thatcher) it has been every person for themselves, getting yourself ahead, getting yourself on and measuring success and contentment in £ signs. Trample your way to the top.
 
A flat tax would cement that regressive thinking. A flat pension would reverse it.
 

There have been a couple of great articles recently discussing an emerging North-South divide. The Caledonian Mercury discusses a divergent Scotland and England and considers the worrying impact of Scotland "getting the cuts without the reforms". (That synopsis doesn't do the excellent article justice, best to just read it.) Left Foot Forward talks about academic conclusions that "Britain is tearing itself apart" with anywhere more than 2 hours from London suffering from being poorer in terms of incomes, house prices, life expectancy and educational attainment.
 
It is a debate that I am sure will grow, perhaps even dominate, during the tenure of the Liberal-Conservative coalition amidst growing speculation that the cuts will come at too high, and too imbalanced, a price. I don't buy into the easy notion that 'toffs' from Eton don't know how to govern for the benefit for the entirety of the UK but at the same time I am less than convinced by the Prime Minister's promised respect agenda for Scotland which, presumably, also applies to Labour-dominated areas in the North of England.
 
In many ways, this Doomsday scenario which is slowly but surely becoming a reality will remain applicable if Labour wins the Holyrood election in 2011. The focus of the divergence will simply subtly switch from constitutional separation to Government's position in society. That is, the Conservatives wanting Government to step way back from our day to day lives and Labour/SNP wanting the Government to have a greater role.
 
A perhaps unexplored area in which those north of the border may widen this North-South, left-right divide is through simple perceptions of who their main Government is. With Tony Blair reasonably popular over the entirety of his tenure in office and Gordon Brown unmistakably Scottish (and consequently unmistakably Scotland's leader), it was easy over the past 13 years to feel governed by Westminster and have that direct link to the decisions that were taken in our name. Now, however, that link to our Prime Minister and UK Cabinet is diluted. There is as little Scottish presence in the Cabinet as there is popularity for it and dwindling reasons to be engaged with the overall process when the majority of discussions (foundation hospitals, free schools etc) do not apply to Scots. There is a risk, some would say an opportunity, that Scotland simply slips away from Westminster, engages deeper into Holyrood and everyday contact with politicians is conducted through MSPs with a clear mindset that the First Minister is the primary leader of the land.
 
The qualitative political impact this would have on the 'United Kingdom' could be enormous.
 
One other specific area where any North-South divide could foggy inter-UK relations is the choking, coughing elephant in the room - the urgent need to combat Climate Change. It is telling that the UK Government uses the phrase "addressing Climate Change", as if we just need to pat it on the back and calmly turn it the other way with minimal effort.
 
The regrettable ambivalence amongst the coalition's ranks stands in clear contrast to an SNP Government which has grasped the nettle in many key areas, though there is still substantial room for improvement. Either way, it is clear that Holyrood is more serious about playing its part in keeping emissions down and building up a new renewables infrastructure than Westminster is. There is, at least, a substantial ideological difference in whether our nations need a new wave of nuclear power stations. Looking ahead, it is difficult to ascertain how seriously Scottish Labour takes the problem without the party having been in power for four years and the issue only really taking off in that timeframe but it's probably fair to assume that an Iain Gray-led administration would be more proactive on environmental matters than the Cameron-led administration currently is, particularly with the ranks of Climate Change sceptics that have the PM's back.
 
A tipping point for pent-up friction on this issue may well come whenever the next Kyoto/Copenhagen Summit is held, as will surely be necessary in the next year or two. Ed Miliband put in an admirable effort to drive change and he seems to get the problem, though returned home from Denmark pretty much empty-handed. Chris Huhne would be hamstrung by his Tory coalition partners and David Cameron would perhaps even pull rank and lead the UK delegation on such a summit. However, I simply cannot envisage the Prime Minister accepting the tough decisions that will be required to reverse emissions before 2015. The gathering storm over the need for action, merely latent within the UK at the current time, could be unleashed at such a juncture.
 
The message on the environment from the experts will of course grow starker and starker as our prospects as a planet grow darker and darker. This can only drive the wedge between Holyrood and Westminster deeper, already worlds apart over the size of the state, the workings of the NHS and the universality of state education, amongst numerous other policy areas.
 
So, can a left-wing devolved Government keep pushing for its preferred policies while a right-wing coalition reduces its funding and focuses investment in the South? It seems a tough ask. To that end, particularly keeping differing opinions on the environment in mind, it will be interesting to see where the proposed £2bn Green Investment Bank is located, something that could prove to be a totemic decision by the UK Government. I agree with Rob Gibson MSP that Scotland is the ideal place to house such an entity given the massive commitment of resource in wave, tidal and wind energy from the public and private sector, north of the border. However, whenever the decision is made, if the coalition's idea of a non-London base is somewhere in Cornwall or Kent then it will perhaps be further evidence that this new North-South, left-right divide really isn't going to work out. Certainly the business case for wherever the Green Investment Bank ends up deserves close scrutiny.
 
So what is the answer? At the very least it is surely full fiscal autonomy for a nation that sees the world in a different way to its Governmental superiors. A policy that has all the hallmarks of Cameron's Big Society, of Clegg's Fairness and of Conservatives free markets, allowing Scotland to spend the money it raises (with a recharge to Westminster for 'shared services') is the only way to bring the UK back together again and allow left and right to happily coexist on these same shared islands.
 
Otherwise, the top-heavy structure to our country, whichever of the SNP or Labour factions heads up Holyrood, will topple over and prove unsustainable.
 
There's a real problem here and it needs a real solution. So far the coalition appears to be falling way short and, if it's not careful, it will fall through this north-south, left-right divide that it has helped to create.
 
 
One final thought - a clear difference in how the North wants to live and be governed with how the South wants to live and be governed could prove a difficult juggling act for Scottish Labour if it were to win next year's Scottish Parliament elections, through either a Minority Government or in coalition with Greens/Lib Dems. Labour's visceral loathing of countenancing any sort of mature debate on the merits of independence would sit awkwardly against an obvious imbalance in Scotland's constitutional arrangement, with or without the relatively weak Calman proposals having been implemented. How would First Minister Iain Gray play it? Would Labour become more radical and side with the SNP on certain issues against the Conservatives or would they try to hold onto the Union at whatever cost and have to defend coalition decisions from time to time. It is a tremendously tricky strategic decision the party potentially faces, though of course the SNP may have the decency to deny them that difficulty by winning through in the elections next year.

There have been a couple of great articles recently discussing an emerging North-South divide. The Caledonian Mercury discusses a divergent Scotland and England and considers the worrying impact of Scotland "getting the cuts without the reforms". (That synopsis doesn't do the excellent article justice, best to just read it.) Left Foot Forward talks about academic conclusions that "Britain is tearing itself apart" with anywhere more than 2 hours from London suffering from being poorer in terms of incomes, house prices, life expectancy and educational attainment.
 
It is a debate that I am sure will grow, perhaps even dominate, during the tenure of the Liberal-Conservative coalition amidst growing speculation that the cuts will come at too high, and too imbalanced, a price. I don't buy into the easy notion that 'toffs' from Eton don't know how to govern for the benefit for the entirety of the UK but at the same time I am less than convinced by the Prime Minister's promised respect agenda for Scotland which, presumably, also applies to Labour-dominated areas in the North of England.
 
In many ways, this Doomsday scenario which is slowly but surely becoming a reality will remain applicable if Labour wins the Holyrood election in 2011. The focus of the divergence will simply subtly switch from constitutional separation to Government's position in society. That is, the Conservatives wanting Government to step way back from our day to day lives and Labour/SNP wanting the Government to have a greater role.
 
A perhaps unexplored area in which those north of the border may widen this North-South, left-right divide is through simple perceptions of who their main Government is. With Tony Blair reasonably popular over the entirety of his tenure in office and Gordon Brown unmistakably Scottish (and consequently unmistakably Scotland's leader), it was easy over the past 13 years to feel governed by Westminster and have that direct link to the decisions that were taken in our name. Now, however, that link to our Prime Minister and UK Cabinet is diluted. There is as little Scottish presence in the Cabinet as there is popularity for it and dwindling reasons to be engaged with the overall process when the majority of discussions (foundation hospitals, free schools etc) do not apply to Scots. There is a risk, some would say an opportunity, that Scotland simply slips away from Westminster, engages deeper into Holyrood and everyday contact with politicians is conducted through MSPs with a clear mindset that the First Minister is the primary leader of the land.
 
The qualitative political impact this would have on the 'United Kingdom' could be enormous.
 
One other specific area where any North-South divide could foggy inter-UK relations is the choking, coughing elephant in the room - the urgent need to combat Climate Change. It is telling that the UK Government uses the phrase "addressing Climate Change", as if we just need to pat it on the back and calmly turn it the other way with minimal effort.
 
The regrettable ambivalence amongst the coalition's ranks stands in clear contrast to an SNP Government which has grasped the nettle in many key areas, though there is still substantial room for improvement. Either way, it is clear that Holyrood is more serious about playing its part in keeping emissions down and building up a new renewables infrastructure than Westminster is. There is, at least, a substantial ideological difference in whether our nations need a new wave of nuclear power stations. Looking ahead, it is difficult to ascertain how seriously Scottish Labour takes the problem without the party having been in power for four years and the issue only really taking off in that timeframe but it's probably fair to assume that an Iain Gray-led administration would be more proactive on environmental matters than the Cameron-led administration currently is, particularly with the ranks of Climate Change sceptics that have the PM's back.
 
A tipping point for pent-up friction on this issue may well come whenever the next Kyoto/Copenhagen Summit is held, as will surely be necessary in the next year or two. Ed Miliband put in an admirable effort to drive change and he seems to get the problem, though returned home from Denmark pretty much empty-handed. Chris Huhne would be hamstrung by his Tory coalition partners and David Cameron would perhaps even pull rank and lead the UK delegation on such a summit. However, I simply cannot envisage the Prime Minister accepting the tough decisions that will be required to reverse emissions before 2015. The gathering storm over the need for action, merely latent within the UK at the current time, could be unleashed at such a juncture.
 
The message on the environment from the experts will of course grow starker and starker as our prospects as a planet grow darker and darker. This can only drive the wedge between Holyrood and Westminster deeper, already worlds apart over the size of the state, the workings of the NHS and the universality of state education, amongst numerous other policy areas.
 
So, can a left-wing devolved Government keep pushing for its preferred policies while a right-wing coalition reduces its funding and focuses investment in the South? It seems a tough ask. To that end, particularly keeping differing opinions on the environment in mind, it will be interesting to see where the proposed £2bn Green Investment Bank is located, something that could prove to be a totemic decision by the UK Government. I agree with Rob Gibson MSP that Scotland is the ideal place to house such an entity given the massive commitment of resource in wave, tidal and wind energy from the public and private sector, north of the border. However, whenever the decision is made, if the coalition's idea of a non-London base is somewhere in Cornwall or Kent then it will perhaps be further evidence that this new North-South, left-right divide really isn't going to work out. Certainly the business case for wherever the Green Investment Bank ends up deserves close scrutiny.
 
So what is the answer? At the very least it is surely full fiscal autonomy for a nation that sees the world in a different way to its Governmental superiors. A policy that has all the hallmarks of Cameron's Big Society, of Clegg's Fairness and of Conservatives free markets, allowing Scotland to spend the money it raises (with a recharge to Westminster for 'shared services') is the only way to bring the UK back together again and allow left and right to happily coexist on these same shared islands.
 
Otherwise, the top-heavy structure to our country, whichever of the SNP or Labour factions heads up Holyrood, will topple over and prove unsustainable.
 
There's a real problem here and it needs a real solution. So far the coalition appears to be falling way short and, if it's not careful, it will fall through this north-south, left-right divide that it has helped to create.
 
 
One final thought - a clear difference in how the North wants to live and be governed with how the South wants to live and be governed could prove a difficult juggling act for Scottish Labour if it were to win next year's Scottish Parliament elections, through either a Minority Government or in coalition with Greens/Lib Dems. Labour's visceral loathing of countenancing any sort of mature debate on the merits of independence would sit awkwardly against an obvious imbalance in Scotland's constitutional arrangement, with or without the relatively weak Calman proposals having been implemented. How would First Minister Iain Gray play it? Would Labour become more radical and side with the SNP on certain issues against the Conservatives or would they try to hold onto the Union at whatever cost and have to defend coalition decisions from time to time. It is a tremendously tricky strategic decision the party potentially faces, though of course the SNP may have the decency to deny them that difficulty by winning through in the elections next year.

There have been a couple of great articles recently discussing an emerging North-South divide. The Caledonian Mercury discusses a divergent Scotland and England and considers the worrying impact of Scotland "getting the cuts without the reforms". (That synopsis doesn't do the excellent article justice, best to just read it.) Left Foot Forward talks about academic conclusions that "Britain is tearing itself apart" with anywhere more than 2 hours from London suffering from being poorer in terms of incomes, house prices, life expectancy and educational attainment.
 
It is a debate that I am sure will grow, perhaps even dominate, during the tenure of the Liberal-Conservative coalition amidst growing speculation that the cuts will come at too high, and too imbalanced, a price. I don't buy into the easy notion that 'toffs' from Eton don't know how to govern for the benefit for the entirety of the UK but at the same time I am less than convinced by the Prime Minister's promised respect agenda for Scotland which, presumably, also applies to Labour-dominated areas in the North of England.
 
In many ways, this Doomsday scenario which is slowly but surely becoming a reality will remain applicable if Labour wins the Holyrood election in 2011. The focus of the divergence will simply subtly switch from constitutional separation to Government's position in society. That is, the Conservatives wanting Government to step way back from our day to day lives and Labour/SNP wanting the Government to have a greater role.
 
A perhaps unexplored area in which those north of the border may widen this North-South, left-right divide is through simple perceptions of who their main Government is. With Tony Blair reasonably popular over the entirety of his tenure in office and Gordon Brown unmistakably Scottish (and consequently unmistakably Scotland's leader), it was easy over the past 13 years to feel governed by Westminster and have that direct link to the decisions that were taken in our name. Now, however, that link to our Prime Minister and UK Cabinet is diluted. There is as little Scottish presence in the Cabinet as there is popularity for it and dwindling reasons to be engaged with the overall process when the majority of discussions (foundation hospitals, free schools etc) do not apply to Scots. There is a risk, some would say an opportunity, that Scotland simply slips away from Westminster, engages deeper into Holyrood and everyday contact with politicians is conducted through MSPs with a clear mindset that the First Minister is the primary leader of the land.
 
The qualitative political impact this would have on the 'United Kingdom' could be enormous.
 
One other specific area where any North-South divide could foggy inter-UK relations is the choking, coughing elephant in the room - the urgent need to combat Climate Change. It is telling that the UK Government uses the phrase "addressing Climate Change", as if we just need to pat it on the back and calmly turn it the other way with minimal effort.
 
The regrettable ambivalence amongst the coalition's ranks stands in clear contrast to an SNP Government which has grasped the nettle in many key areas, though there is still substantial room for improvement. Either way, it is clear that Holyrood is more serious about playing its part in keeping emissions down and building up a new renewables infrastructure than Westminster is. There is, at least, a substantial ideological difference in whether our nations need a new wave of nuclear power stations. Looking ahead, it is difficult to ascertain how seriously Scottish Labour takes the problem without the party having been in power for four years and the issue only really taking off in that timeframe but it's probably fair to assume that an Iain Gray-led administration would be more proactive on environmental matters than the Cameron-led administration currently is, particularly with the ranks of Climate Change sceptics that have the PM's back.
 
A tipping point for pent-up friction on this issue may well come whenever the next Kyoto/Copenhagen Summit is held, as will surely be necessary in the next year or two. Ed Miliband put in an admirable effort to drive change and he seems to get the problem, though returned home from Denmark pretty much empty-handed. Chris Huhne would be hamstrung by his Tory coalition partners and David Cameron would perhaps even pull rank and lead the UK delegation on such a summit. However, I simply cannot envisage the Prime Minister accepting the tough decisions that will be required to reverse emissions before 2015. The gathering storm over the need for action, merely latent within the UK at the current time, could be unleashed at such a juncture.
 
The message on the environment from the experts will of course grow starker and starker as our prospects as a planet grow darker and darker. This can only drive the wedge between Holyrood and Westminster deeper, already worlds apart over the size of the state, the workings of the NHS and the universality of state education, amongst numerous other policy areas.
 
So, can a left-wing devolved Government keep pushing for its preferred policies while a right-wing coalition reduces its funding and focuses investment in the South? It seems a tough ask. To that end, particularly keeping differing opinions on the environment in mind, it will be interesting to see where the proposed £2bn Green Investment Bank is located, something that could prove to be a totemic decision by the UK Government. I agree with Rob Gibson MSP that Scotland is the ideal place to house such an entity given the massive commitment of resource in wave, tidal and wind energy from the public and private sector, north of the border. However, whenever the decision is made, if the coalition's idea of a non-London base is somewhere in Cornwall or Kent then it will perhaps be further evidence that this new North-South, left-right divide really isn't going to work out. Certainly the business case for wherever the Green Investment Bank ends up deserves close scrutiny.
 
So what is the answer? At the very least it is surely full fiscal autonomy for a nation that sees the world in a different way to its Governmental superiors. A policy that has all the hallmarks of Cameron's Big Society, of Clegg's Fairness and of Conservatives free markets, allowing Scotland to spend the money it raises (with a recharge to Westminster for 'shared services') is the only way to bring the UK back together again and allow left and right to happily coexist on these same shared islands.
 
Otherwise, the top-heavy structure to our country, whichever of the SNP or Labour factions heads up Holyrood, will topple over and prove unsustainable.
 
There's a real problem here and it needs a real solution. So far the coalition appears to be falling way short and, if it's not careful, it will fall through this north-south, left-right divide that it has helped to create.
 
 
One final thought - a clear difference in how the North wants to live and be governed with how the South wants to live and be governed could prove a difficult juggling act for Scottish Labour if it were to win next year's Scottish Parliament elections, through either a Minority Government or in coalition with Greens/Lib Dems. Labour's visceral loathing of countenancing any sort of mature debate on the merits of independence would sit awkwardly against an obvious imbalance in Scotland's constitutional arrangement, with or without the relatively weak Calman proposals having been implemented. How would First Minister Iain Gray play it? Would Labour become more radical and side with the SNP on certain issues against the Conservatives or would they try to hold onto the Union at whatever cost and have to defend coalition decisions from time to time. It is a tremendously tricky strategic decision the party potentially faces, though of course the SNP may have the decency to deny them that difficulty by winning through in the elections next year.

The game of brinksmanship over whether Council tax should be increased has escalated today with the news that Iain Gray has taken over the reins from Glasgow Council leader Gordon Matheson in calling for more money to be charged to residents to safeguard local services.
 
Jim Fitzpatrick defended a continued freeze on Newsnight Scotland last night and the SNP have bolstered their defence by attacking Iain Gray's calls as a "smash and grab raid on the public's pockets". That exaggerated rhetoric betrays the desperation of the SNP's stance and lack of options that the party has left itself with. The blame game is riddled all over the latest press release, brandishing council cuts as Labour's, yet they are SNP cuts at a national level and Tory/Lib Dem cuts at a UK level. This merry-go-round of mud slinging and 'which cuts are whose' cannot be political debate at its best, surely.
 
We only have to look at the recent BAA resolution for evidence that a compromise is required and the SNP will have to back down in some way. BAA workers, much like local councils, are receiving less in real terms. It is an unsustainable direction of travel. You can't perennially freeze income and allow costs to increase through VAT rises and inflation, inflation which is already higher than expected. Middle ground (necessary before a vote on next year's budget) will either involve allowing Council Tax to increase or providing more money to councils to plug the gaps.
 
As the Government is steadfastly against the former, the SNP can only get out of this hole with the latter. It's going to cost them and it may well be money that John Swinney shouldn't, but politically can't-not, spend.
 
Iain Gray is correct though, local councils should be making local decisions surrounding what Council Tax should be now that the three-year concordat is over. It's time to share the pain. Buying your way into a more palatable election campaigning position is not what good Government should be about.

Although I don't tend to read his Liberal Conspiracy blog too much, I have a lot of time for the little I know of Sunny Hundal. While Guido Fawkes is unmistakably narrowing political debate, Iain Dale is healthily and helpfully sustaining it, I get the impression goes to great pains to widen the narrative as much as possible, from a left wing viewpoint at least.

So I read with his interest his reasons for joining the Labour party and, with equal intrigue, his reasons for not joining any other party.

Joining Labour was the obvious choice. Joining the Libdems was not an option; the Tories stand for everything I'm against and the Libdems are unfortunately enabling the Tories to carry out a ruinous agenda. The Greens are too ideologically pure for me.

Ideologically pure? I found this a remarkable phrase to use not to mention decision not to join a party, particularly as I've just joined the Greens. To fully understand Sunny's meaning I got to thinking what an ideologically impure party would involve, a situation which is presumably preferable. U-turns, broken promises, no-one ever really believing what your party says and factions riven throughout the team. I found it odd that a blogger who discusses ideology so freely and openly would then use it as a negative.

A debate can be characterised as pragmatism vs dogma but equally it can be held up as doing the right thing vs selling out your ideals. However, that is typically on specific policies, when it coming to joining a party it is surely the 'dogma', the ideals, the doing the right thing and the ideology holds sway?

My unavoidable suspicion is that Sunny, like many other lefties out there, is in favour of the vast majority of Green Party policies but feels the party's current size doesn't match his lofty ambitions. Which is fine of course, it is in many ways akin to a football supporter selecting only one of Manchester Utd, Chelsea or Arsenal to support because they wish to wear their scarves while watching the Champions League.

However, it is surely ideological impurity itself to dismiss a party due to how principled it is rather than on what it's actual policies are.

In joining the Labour Party, Sunny Hundal has made his first compromise. Let's hope it's his last.

The funny thing about the Labour party members gnashing their teeth at the thought of Alan Milburn assisting the coalition (in an unpaid role on social mobility I hasten to add) is that many of those same activists will have smiled approvingly and nodded sagely at Jed Bartlett hiring a Republican and Matt Santos offering the Foreign brief to his rightwing rival in the sublime but sadly fictitious The West Wing.

The uber-consensual approach to Government is a well used strategy to unbalance the distinctly partisan Opposition. The SNP certainly used it to great effect earlier in this term when they accepted the will of the Parliament and (grudgingly) took on the Edinburgh Trams project, not to mention voting in favour of a budget amendment by Labour only for Labour, so surprised by the lack of opposition, to vote against their own proposal.

So David Cameron has marked an easy win here. After all, if Milburn's no good, what do Labour care what he does. And if Milburn is good, (1) why didn't they keep him onside longer and (2) he'll surely do a fine job here 'for the greater good'.

Needless to say, the bigger question involving Milburn's social mobility brief is getting drowned out. How can we achieve a more progressive society when there are public sector cuts, a squeezed private sector, anaemic lending from banks and compassion fatigue is the order of the day?

Tough one. Over to you Alan, but please don't let the pantomime boos and hisses put you off...

The Scottish political news today seems to be dominated by calls to "thaw" the freeze on Council Tax in order to relieve the significant financial pressure on local councils.
 
The political ramifications of all of this are, of course, considerable and it is not surprising that it is Labour-held Glasgow Council that is leading the calls to end the freeze. Breaking the concordat has been a top priority for Labour even since the ink was drying on the agreement. Delivering a Council Tax freeze that is appreciated by the entire country and would be campaigning gold for the SNP in the run up to May 2011 was always too much to take for Labour. They tried to break it via school meals funding, they tried to break it through questioning the lack of ring-fencing and now they're regrouping to try to break it through there just not being enough cash in the pot.
 
There are, of course, good reasons for increasing Council Tax, so much so that I think it is now necessary to do so, but the practical logic may well get lost amidst the political positioning from all sides.
 
Even though a deal's a deal and the 32 councils that signed up to this concordat have a duty to make it work, the recession was an unexpected body blow so flexibility is crucial to ensure some councils don't simply collapse. That flexibility includes innovative cost-cutting ideas to deliver existing budgets but it should also extend to squeezing a little bit of extra income from the local area to ease the pressure, where all sides agree.
 
I don't have the data but a simple calculation comparing the expected increase in Council Tax had there been no freeze with the extra £70m councils received from the Scottish Government as part of the concordat should show what increase may be required in the coming year. That is, (and to put it very crudely), council tax rises in the past few years may have raised £250m (say) and councils have only received £210m from the concordat so an extra £40m will be required next year, over and above any annual increase that may be necessary.
 
Ideally it should be left to individual areas to decide. Some areas may wish to pay a little bit more to be confident their bins will be collected, recycling continues and all other local services are as efficient as possible. Alternatively, some areas may prefer cash to be in their own pockets and will put up with any problems that a cash-poor council may come up against. It is, of course, difficult and indeed nigh on impossible to gauge what each local area wants to happen next.
 
Further to that, John Swinney may crunch the numbers and decide that councils have enough money to make it through the bottleneck, which of course would result in the SNP making it through to May 2011 with the concordat still intact.
 
The upshot of all of this is, much like the last contest, is that this coming Holyrood election battle will be fought on local taxation which in itself means we're all four years older and no further forward.
 
Given that, I'm not so sure how persuasive a call for a Local Income Tax will sound the second time around when it wasn't pushed particularly hard when the SNP had its opportunity in the past four years. The good news is, Labour don't seem to have advanced their position any further either.
 
Maybe we should give the Greens' Land Value Tax idea a run for its money?

Here is a question - assuming Andrew Lansley's white paper on 'Liberating the NHS' becomes law, what financial muscle will the Scottish Parliament have that a foundation hospital in England doesn't?

Here is a question - assuming Andrew Lansley's white paper on 'Liberating the NHS' becomes law, what financial muscle will the Scottish Parliament have that a foundation hospital in England & Wales doesn't?

In 2007, the last 'real' election that I voted in (sorry Europe), I gave my two votes to the SNP. It was by no means always a certainty but, come polling day, there were plenty of reasons why I wouldn't be thinking twice about where my X was going:

• a First Minister that looked and sounded tired of his job
  
• moving away from Privaced Financed Initiative schemes to a more balanced (and on Balance Sheet) approach


• implementing free school meals for p1 to p3 kids at schools


• ensuring no new nuclear power stations were opened in Scotland


• freshening up the youthful devolution 'adventure' by ensuring that a new party brought some new ideas to Government


• increased investment in renewable energy

Now I live in England and the SNP won't be on any ballot slips that I hold in my hand in the near to medium future. I also see joining political parties as a community decision that feeds up the chain from street to area to city to county to country rather than a gesture that can cross borders. Put another way, being a member of the SNP would now be as pointless as being a member of the US Democratic party or Swedish Modernitska party or the German Social Democrats, however much I may admire their successes and potential.

So now I am looking around at the options in my new home of Camden, looking for which party to join here. I reckon it is important for democracy that all political parties are vibrant bodies with many members so I can back that belief by joining up with the party active in the local area that most closely fits my beliefs.

The Conservatives are out as I am pretty much diametrically-opposed to most of their policies. The Labour party is not an option until they've decided whether they are dropping 'New Labour' (not to mention the dropping of another generation of Trident as a policy). And the Liberal Democrats are not an option as, honestly, I just don't trust them to hold a consistent position on any given issue other than civil liberties, irrespective of the necessary and understandable compromises that come with coalition Government.

Not that the Green Party was fourth choice in a process of elimination. Taking my reasons for voting SNP in 2007 and noting that the UK is opening up new nuclear power stations, thinks PFI is good value for money and isn't doing enough to ensure kids have a nutritious and food-informed start to life, there was only one party that was getting a look-in for my £5/month once I decided that getting involved with another party was on my to-do list.

Would I have joined the Scottish Green Party if I had stayed in Edinburgh, knowing now what I didn't know about them back in May 2007? The answer to that is somewhere between 'possibly' and 'probably'. Tactical voting is less attractive as you grow older I suppose so chances of winning a constituency take a back seat to the principles at stake. I was happily prepared to help vote the Green Westminster candidate into 4th place here in London if I had been allowed to vote on May 6th and I could have done the same on May 5th 2011.

So with tactical voting out as an option and a member of a different party, 'SNP Tactical Voting' must come to an end, at least in some way. I've always insisted that if you run a party blog then you have a duty to that party to treat it with the utmost respect. This blog, rightly or wrongly, would of course always be seen as an SNP blog so that link must be broken for the requisite respect to be honoured. I'll remain interested in Scottish politics of course, even if I am not part of that street->Government sliding scale.

So changes are on their way for this site, not that I yet know what form they will take. I look forward to being a Green party member though, in whatever capacity I 'blog' going forward. It looks like a fun party to be a part of and, over and above the big issues of the day that leaders must grapple with and solve, being a part of any political party should always be good fun.

Ok, first up I'm not sure if that title works on any of the levels that I'm aiming for but I'm sticking with it.

Anyway, the Liberal Democrats hold their Conference next month. It will be a fascinating affair for both those on the inside and those on the outside. Can the party correct the identity crisis that it seems to be experiencing? How will the left-right internal discussion play out?

In one way, it serves up a delicious opportunity for another Westminster party. Not Labour, but the Green party.

So many long-term members of the Lib Dems are of the classic muesli-munching, sandal-wearing, peace and love desiring bent. And proud of that they should be too.

However, genuine questions can be asked as to which party is the rightful spiritual home of such a demographic.

I reckon that several Green party activists standing outside the Liberal Democrat Conference with 'Join us' and 'You know you want to' placards, including contact details, could reap a remarkable return.

And, if hiving off the organic left-wing of the Lib Dems is successful, what is remaining would be a curious beast involving free marketeers and civil liberty campaigners who could fit right into the Tory party seamlessly.

With Labour always having to lean right to win elections, is it too early to start preparing oneself for the Green party as the chief, consistent party of the left in England and Wales?

It's turning into a bit of a Holyrood 'SeatWatch' on here today but I couldn't let the various intriguing strands of the East Lothian selection contest go by uncommented upon.
 
For a start, I have to admit to being surprised to hear not only that Alan Smyth had challenged for the PPC role in this constituency but that he was defeated. Granted, Alan was up against ex-leader of the local council and eventual winner of the selection contest, David Berry, but I would have hoped (without any particular constituency in mind) that any move from European Parliament to the Scottish one would be a smooth one for the party heavyweight.
 
And why should I be surprised that a move has been made? The leap from MEP to domestic politics is a fairly well-trodden one with Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne having made the crossing. One could argue that Alan Smyth's considerable talents should not be showered on Brussels for too much longer. I seem to be tossing the accolade like candy today but, well, future party leader? Indeed, I am even wondering if it is worth having a relatively weaker (or younger) tranche of candidates competing for the EU spots and making sure Ian Hudghton and Alan Smyth are in Holyrood where the greatest contribution from the party's strongest performers can be made. Let's be honest, as things stand the SNP can only really expect to win 2 MEPs anyway regardless of who is on the ballot slip, such is our nation's under-representation at the European Parliament.   
 
Also in the frame for East Lothian is Derek Brownlee, possibly the Scottish Conservatives' most effective performer over the past few parliamentary terms, perhaps even vying with Patrick Harvie for the Scottish Parliament's most effective MSP (for my money at least). I would expect that Derek will be by no means an 'also ran' in this seat as so many of his colleagues will be in other seats across the country.
 
For Labour, of course, there is leader of the group Iain Gray standing to defend his seat and 2,448 majority. While Iain will be the favourite, one can't help but wonder whether his pantomime performances in FMQs will be a hindrance rather than a help to his election chances. His fortunes will rely heavily on his appearances on leader debates in the run up to May and, well, a few car crash performances can't be ruled out, though equally of course he may also blow the opposition out of the park. Once again, I warn of a media-fuelled 'Gray-mania' to exacerbate any Salmond-slide.
 
This is all not to mention the Lib Dems who are yet to select a candidate and have put in considerable effort into this area recently so will fancy their chances of a surprise win, or at least being the kingmakers (it is, after all, an all-male field thus far). This case may be overstated though as Lib Dem attention, not to mention resources, may well turn to Edinburgh North & Leith and Edinburgh Central.
 
So MEPs, party leaders, Tories with a chance of winning for a change and ex-council leaders all in the melting pot in East Lothian. This is not even considering the furore that the local Labour party experienced over the past year or two. 
 
If only a fifth party could field a candidate in their old Westminster stomping ground to give the 'blogosphere' the inside skinny on how it pans out. Any takers? 

A picture is emerging of how the new Holyrood seat of Renfrewshire North and West will be competed and it looks set to be a very strong field indeed.

Annabel Goldie remains in the frame, having contested the old West Renfrewshire seat in each prior contest since 1999.

Labour has selected "rising star" Stuart Clark who will take over the reins from the retiring Trish Godman. Young, competent, a teaching background. I'm sure it wouldn't be long before Stuart was tipped as a future leader, were he to win through here in May.

For the SNP, local council leader and rising star himself Derek Mackay will stand. Indeed, it is Derek's name on the ballot list that, for me, cements this as a key constituency. I saw several Conference speeches that he gave at the two such events I made it to when living in Scotland and each time I thought he was sheer class, a mark of quality amongst an already talented field. Speeches included urging the delegates to back off on prioritising free school meals for primary children but his case was highly persuasive.

I daresay each of the candidates will see it as an excruciating battle, one that none of them has any intention of losing.

I don't know what impact the boundary changes will have but in 2007 the result was:

Godman MSP (Lab) - 35.9%
Goldie MSP (Con) - 28.5%
Wilson MSP (SNP) - 28.0%

Of course, for all that 2011 will be a tight battle, we may well come away with a result of 3MSPs from this constituency anyway, 1 via FPTP and 2 via the regional list.

Either way, Renfrewshire North and West will be one to watch.

At every election each party promises "radical" change. Sometimes even (bizarrely) the party that is in power.
 
Looking back over the past generation however, can one really point to much "radical" change that has taken place? The NHS has continued in much the same manner, working more efficiently than perhaps its reputation suggests. Education has been largely unchanged, save for a dramatic increase in the number of students attending university which is welcome and perhaps radical-lite. Our foreign policy has been radical, radicalising even, but sadly not for the better. Has the economy changed radically? Policing? Local government? Not really I would argue.
 
I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing that we have not had so much radical change over the past few decades, maybe it is best for a country to just tick along with not too many shocks and surprises. It doesn't make for a great election slogan is the problem.
 
One area where the UK is ticking along, slumbering along even, is in terms of air travel. The buying of an Easyjet or Ryanair flight to fly a mere several hundred miles has become commonplace in a remarkably short space of time. Is this something that needs radical change?
 
I am attending a discussion tonight focussing on whether we should end domestic flights in this supposed "era of climate emergency". The speakers are John Stewart of AirportWatch, Dan Glass of Plane Stupid, Anne-Marie Griffin of Fight the Flights and Phil Thornhill of Campaign against Climate Change. I'm reasonably confident that the panel wish to see radical change on this area but I aim to attend with as open a mind as possible.
 
That said (and I have had so many short-haul flights that I have a ruddy cheek to even say it, two flights this weekend even), it would be a tremendous effort if the UK could find a solution whereby taking the train is the automatic option for any travel within the UK. Comfortable, fast trains with internet connection, newspapers and great food that can outspeed and outprice the Easyjets or the Ryanairs. We're not even that far off achieving it with the London-Edinburgh service taking 4.5 hours which is comparable to flying time once you take into account the getting to/from airports and security checks etc. £10 or £20 deals are regular enough that it should really be the first choice.
 
In terms of next steps, a key consideration is what approach should be taken to reduce the number of flights. One option is for a public consensus to have been reached whereby the train will be opted for ahead of domestic flights in order to force change through customer buying power. The other option is for the Government to reduce the supply of short-haul flights, forcing travellers onto the trains. A move boosted by the decision to ditch the third runway at Heathrow.
 
Neither is ideal but the latter is preferable in my view, particularly if train prices can be kept low either through subsidy or increased taxes on short-haul flights. It is certainly the only process that will curb my shameful but irrepressible appetite for Speedy Boarding my way around the country.
 
Truly radical action can be taken and it wouldn't be popular but, to sell the policy, one need only think of those Icelandic ash cloud weeks. How calm it was to have no planes flying overhead for once. That curiously pleasing phenomenon could be the long-term status quo if we take domestic transport in the direction that it needs to go - out of the clouds and onto the tracks.
 
I'll probably write up a review of tonight's meeting for the blog tomorrow (unless I don't make it there and watch the tempting Sweden vs Scotland instead of course!)

It must be very tiring being a Liberal Democrat right now, I mean seriously deflatingly exhausting. How do they remember what their position is on any given policy area? How can they possibly keep up?

I have a theory as to why they have embarked on this remarkable yellow trail involving twists, surprises and many a u-turn. The Lib Dems are adopting Labour policies to insulate itself from political attack.

Take nuclear power, this week's jaw-dropper of hypocrisy led by Chris Huhne. The Labour party isn't going to attack them for it as Labour is largely pro-nuclear. So who is left? The Greens? Sadly not many people take notice of their eminently sensible ideas so the Lib Dems get away with brazen, shameless deceitfulness.

What about raising VAT? Vehemently opposed by the Lib Dems during the election campaign but now miraculously it's ok as part of the coalition agreement. Of course Labour was going to raise VAT too if they had won power, Darling admitted as much, so the Lib Dems get away with it again thanks to Labour already carrying the can.

On AV, dismissed by Clegg as a "miserable compromise", Labour campaigned hard on holding a referendum on the issue so the Lib Dems will have felt bullet-proof (if a little short-changed) when they came out of coalition talks with a promise of a referendum. Labour of course has now switched sides and are pulling out of their promise for an AV referendum to leave the Lib Dems isolated. Smart politics but a lousy way to treat the electorate, on all sides.

And what about the cuts? The biggest change to public spending since WW2? Nick Clegg warned that cutting the Tory way would take us down a path already travelled by Greece and Ireland. The Lib Dems are now gambling that Labour, having caused the recession and the massive deficit and promising cuts themselves, won't get away with opposing these cuts too easily. So once again the Lib Dems manage to vacate their principles while using Labour as a protective shield.

And Trident? What about Trident! Clegg-mania was built upon the refreshing sight of a top politician stepping away from the status quo and, unlike Brown and Cameron, bravely suggesting that perhaps we don't need a new wave of nuclear weapons after all. However, when the SNP, Plaid Cymru and Greens proposed including Trident in the Strategic Defence Review, the Lib Dems voted against and Nick Clegg in particular was found wanting. Again, it is only the regrettable position of the Labour party, to spend tens of billions on bombs that will never be fired, that allows the Lib Dems to get away with it.

We live in desperate times. So many wrong decisions are being taken while the Labour bloc of MPs are distracted by their leadership election and hamstrung by policies from the doomed New Labour era, delaying their renewal. Only a handful of MPs are providing appropriate opposition but they struggle to make the headlines and get their arguments across into the public domain.

I personally have a policy that it is always best to tell the truth as it's the easiest way to remember your position on anything. It is something I think the Liberal Democrats need to take on board as it surely won't be long, in this five-year parliamentary term, before one of their number is asked what their position is on a certain policy is and they genuinely won't be able to remember whether they are in favour or against.

Through naked self-interest, the Lib Dem leadership has borrowed Labour's clothes in order to play dress-up with the Tories. As a result and as a leftie, I don't think I've ever felt so under-represented before in my adult life.

The result of the Labour leadership and a review of the Labour party's policies simply can't come quickly enough to end the current charade.

Gold-plated hypocrisy from Environment Minister Chris Huhne:
 
On his own website, 9th May 2006, under the heading Energy efficiency not nuclear is the answer to energy needs:
 
"No private sector investor has built a nuclear power station anywhere in the world without lashings of government subsidy since Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The World Bank refuses to lend on nuclear projects because of the long history of overruns.
"Our message is clear, No to nuclear, as it is not a short cut, but a dead end. Yes to energy saving, yes to renewables, and yes to a sustainable energy future."
 
 
This morning:
 
"We are on course to make sure that the first new nuclear power station opens on time in 2018," Mr Huhne told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.
"There are a number of sites that have been identified around the country and those are generally on sites where we have previously had, for example, nuclear power stations and where the local people are very keen that there should be new nuclear build.
"What we have to do - we have eight years now before I hope that the first one will come making a contribution to the grid - and we have to get through all of the prior arrangements, like, for example, the national planning statements, like making sure that investors have got their applications formally in and approved, and then of course building can commence."
 
 
Excellent, thanks for that Chris. We look forward to your building that nice big "dead end" for us with these new nuclear power stations then.
 
Principle, it seems, is expendable in coalition politics.