Scottish Political News

Senior Tory Resigns from Annabel Goldie's "Cabinet"

Ted Brocklebank, the popular Tory MSP and Fisheries Spokesman, has resigned from Annabel Goldie's "Shadow Cabinet" after David Cameron vetoed the previously agreed policy to withdraw from the Common Fisheries Policy.

Ted is by no means a radical Europhobe so this step won't have been take lightly.  It is fair to say to Ted that it is now pretty difficult to face up to fishermen with a backtrack in what was a very popular policy for most of them ( i think Scotland counts for something like 80% of the UK's fleet?)

It is a shame that the Scottish Tories don't have more influence over Cameron in London.  Much as I think Cameron is doing all the right things down south he doesn't have a feel for Scotland and I don't think he is that in touch with the country's rural or fishing communities.

This is a political step by Cameron to continue the perception that he is indeed a very different man and no longer leading a party afraid of Europe.  However, the CPF is a step too far and the Tories should be doing all they can to come out of it.

Is Private Finance Now a No Go Area for Tory Transport Policies?

Over the last few weeks the Tories have started to release some of their policy plans for the forthcoming election. Nothing really very new or groundbreaking that will set them apart so far, but to be fair that kind of stuff needs to be left to nearer the time just in case Messrs McConnell or Salmond try to nick the ones that go down well!

Today's announcement by Murdo Fraser was a strange one for the Tories. In isolation you would think their policy to scrap tolls on the Forth Road Bridge was a sensible one. It is the only bridge left in Scotland with a toll and it does seem iniquitous that only Fife commuters (or people trying to get to Fife) should have to pay some sort of toll. So, good move for trying to gain votes.

However, does this mean the Tories are now completely opposed to tolls? If so, just how are they going to pay for the major infrastructure developments that will be required in the future. No private financer is going to look at getting involved in building a new bridge without a toll revenue.

Sadly I think this policy is ill thought out and is simply a piece of cheap promotion that will be seen as such by the voters.

The Tories haven't had much luck with their transport announcements recently. During David Cameron's recent visit Murdo again announced that the Tories would be seek to put in place a Maglev type train between Edinburgh and Glasgow. Most transport experts I have spoken to think that it is far too short a distance to make a maglev sustainable. Certainly a higher speed train, but not a maglev speed one. For Murdo to announce that it could have an 8 minute journey time shows just how ill thought out the announcement was. Good intentions, just not do-able.

Scottish Parliament Election Predictor

A great new tool has been launched that allows you to input opinion polls or your own fantasy opinion poll and see how it would affect the composition of the Scottish Parliament.  It shows you the number of MSPs by party and also produces a map showing how the constituencies would look.

The website ScotlandVotes can be found here

Good Day, Bad Day

Only 100 days to go until the election and McConnell has a bit of a good day and a bit of bad day.

The revelations that McConnell was questioned by the police about the cash for gongs inquiry made it a bad day for McConnell. To be fair to him it does seem to be a bit ridiculous that he was questioned about Coli Boyd's elevation to the Lords. Anyone with an ounce of political knowledge could have told the police that it wasn't really that unusual, in fact it was the norm for the Lord Advocate to be elevated to the Upper House after stepping down. Apparently this was McConnell's only nomination so really I don't understand why he was questioned.

However, this close to an election mud is very sticky. Today's headlines will have struck a chord with many Labour waverers and simply reinforce the strong perception that Labour throughout the UK is just a tad dodgy and, dare I say it, sleazy and hungry for power at all costs. I have no doubt that the SNP will make hay while the sun shines.

The good day bit for McConnell comes over a rather sad event. Dennis Canavan's announcement that he is to step down from Falkirk West should make the seat a no-brainer for Labour come May and an easy gain in the bag. Canavan won the seat in 1999 as an Independent after Labour refused to select him despite serving the seat diligently for them over many years at Westminster.

Every gain for Labour will be vital on 3rd May if they have any hope of staying in power. The seat is solid Labour. In 2003 Canavan gained 56% of the vote and Labour 17% (73% in total) and in 1999 Canavan gained 55% and Labour 19 % (74% in total). When Canavan stood as a Labour candidate in 1997 he gained 59% of the vote. All the combined votes for Canavan and Labour won't go to the new Labour candidate, but it would be surprising if the bulk of them didn't. The new Labour MSP won't have anywhere near as big a majority as Canavan, but it will be enough to see a Labour gain.

Grant Thoms over at Tartanhero thinks that this could make Falkirk West a target for the SNP. I just can't see how. There is no way a majority of Canavan's votes will go to Michael Matheson MSP (the SNP candidate). If that did happen then we would be seeing an SNP landslide and I don't see any polls pointing towards that.

Looking at the last few elections the SNP only scored 17% to 18%, hardly a great base to launch a winning campaign from. Even in pre-Independent Canavan days when it was just the SNP versus Labour, the SNP only got 23% of the vote. Grant highlights the 2000 by-election when the SNP did come close with 40% compared to 44% for Labour, however as the later results proved that was simply a by-election.

However, as always events could change the story. One crucial event will be who Labour choose to select as their candidate. Will they play it safe with a local well known candidate or will they risk parachuting a McConnell favourite in?

Barbed words from Brian Monteith in today's Sunday Herald, but essentially truthful ones:

He came, he saw, he went home. Scotland remains unconquered. The David Cameron circus came to Scotland and beneath the big tent of Our Dynamic Earth Scots Tories sat poignantly with other dinosaurs whose time has past. Being politically correct, no animals were involved, apart from the Tory MSPs who are to be like rabbits caught in the headlights of an electoral juggernaut that looks set to squash one or two of their number in May.

Cameron sold the pass for the coming Tory manifesto when he congratulated Goldie and her colleagues for taking the "brave" decision not to offer tax cuts but instead pledging to spend an extra £100 million on drug addicts - as if the policies are mutually exclusive. Rejecting tax cuts in Scotland is not brave, Dave, it is what passes for the norm and confirms the emasculation of Tory MSPs.

It looks as if this election will be a write-off - just when Labour is at the nadir of its popularity, discontent with its London and Edinburgh variants combining to give other parties the opportunity to make real gains. It looks rather as if the SNP - despite its scattergun opportunism and lack of anything resembling a coherent policy platform - will do exactly that; but the chances of the Tories making progress are all but zero, and indeed as Monteith suggests they are likely to go backwards.

Bravery would be proposing that the state do less and do it better. Bravery would be putting forward a vision of a Scotland where tax-and-spend left-wing politicians have to actually go to their electorate and announce tax rises before they get to spend the money. Bravery would be pointing out that Scotland's parlous state is not unconnected to the fact that it is the only country in Europe not to have a mainstream right-of-centre party influencing political debate, let alone with any prospect of power. Bravery would be responding to the question, "Would you consider a 'red-blue' coalition - propping up a minority Labour administration at Holyrood?" with the answer "Don't be ridiculous - I'd rather eat my own fucking arms" and then kneeing the interviewer in the balls.

But Goldie? Don't make me laugh. The bravest thing Annabel Goldie's ever done is eat a pie from the Holyrood canteen.

Who's afraid of the big bad Broon?

There's a belief at the heart of Scottish Labour's thinking that once Gordon Brown becomes leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minister, that somehow Labour's fortunes in Scotland will turn. If only it was Gordon at the helm and not that nasty despised Tony.

You only have to read Tom Harris's blog to get that sense of latent smugness about their future prospects. But just how popular is Brown?

The polling results I've read say that he's seen by the electorate as boring, dour, "uber-Scottish" (despite his rose tinted specs for Paul Gascoigne goal-scoring), safe but not inspiring. Hardly going to set the heather on fire then.

Most of all, his 'uber-Scottishness' is seen as a plus if it's about financial probity etc. But, importantly, his attempts at wrapping himself in the Union Jack and worse, portraying himself as a pseudo-Englishman is being seen through if not regarded with outright cynicism. So, what's the point of demeaning your political brand values by trying to be something you clearly aren't and which your voting consumers know you're not.

Also, for the time being, forget that every opportunity for Brown to be seen supporting England is manna from heaven for the SNP, how many votes is Brown picking up with this charade? It's maybe too early yet to know what's losing Labour votes the most: Tony the Bliar or Broon, the ersatz Englishmen whose steady hand at the economic helm is starting to look a bit shaky (increased interest rates, higher mortgage payments, higher inflation, higher interest rates..).

One thing is clear. The more Brown appeals to middle England for votes, the less any opponent in Scotland fears his leadership.

Cameron forced to defend Goldie

David Cameron brought 13 members of his Shadow Cabinet to Scotland today to try and inject some life into the Scottish Conservatives. As you would expect Cameron went out of his way to defend Goldie. However, with only a few months until polling day the Tories are still doing abysmally at the polls and candidates are openly voicing concerns about the leadership.

It was an impressive visit by the shadown cabinet with Cameron in Aberdeenshire, Liam Fox at the Glasgw Science Centre, Chris Grayling at the Tay Bridge, William Hague in Berwickshire, Philip Hammond at a Council Advice Shop, Andrew Lansley at the Roslin Institute, Letwin doing environmental stuff, Liddington at the Glasgow Gaelic school, Maude in Dumfries, Andrew Mitchell at the Grangemouth International Rescue Corps, George Osborne at Standard Life, Carline Spelman in Forfar and Willets donating one of his brains at Napier University. Phew. No doubt some good local press coverage for the key seats.

Peter Lyburn, a candidate for Dunfermline West chose today to speak out about Goldie and the need for younger leadership. He said: "I'm not being overly controversial in stating that what the party needs is a rejuvenation in leadership - somebody with a slightly more youthful attitude towards politics. It would be wrong for me to throw my hat into the ring before I'm even elected, but I think we've got a large selection of people that are possible candidates."

Looking at Peter's website sadly he looks like a typical Tory toff and about 12 and 3/4 years old. He also seems to fancy himself a bit. Just tried to copy one of the pics from his website on to here and it seems they were done for him by a modelling agency in Edinburgh, Edinburgh Faces. Love it.

Much as Annabel needs to go, not quite sure Peter looks like the guy to do it. Mind you, maybe we could replace all the Tory MSPs with models. Much better looking and probably a bit brighter too. I suspect Peter might have ruined his chances today. (we'll soon see with the ranking results due out next weekend)

Here's hoping that before David hopped off to London that he whispered into Annabel's ear, "Nice to see you again matron. Let's be clear, come May 4th be gone."

We will never find out what was discussed at the historic shadow cabinet meeting being held in Scotland, but I guess the answer is not much seeing as it couldn't have lasted much more than 15 minutes.

Will North Lanarkshire Fine Itself?

It was widley reported in the media today that Cllr Jim McCabe, leader of North Lanarkshire Council flagrantly defied the smoking ban by lighting up in his council offices and puffing away on three fags.  Bizarrely he did this in front of a journalist who was interviewing him.  Not only that, but before he lit up he was reminded by the journalist that it was against the law.

Firstly, Cllr McCabe needs an award for absolute stupidity.  Is he off his head?

Secondly, he needs to resign as leader and councillor immediately.  I don't yet know if he has decided to step down in May and take the generous severance payment on offer; if he has he should forfeit this and leave immediately.

His party introduced the smoking ban and his officials are required to enforce the ban locally.  How on earth can they now stand up to offenders when the simple reply is "well, your boss does it so why can't I?"

Individuals who flout the legislation face a fixed penalty of £50.   However the council has already said he won't be fined.  Outrageous.  The manager or person in control of any no-smoking premises can be fined a fixed penalty of £200 for either allowing others to smoke there, or failing to display warning notices.   Will the council fine itself?  If so, then great, we the council tax payers will have to fork out for Mr McCabe to have a fly puff.  Mr McCabe should make sure this doesn't happen and pay the £200 himself.

Businesses, especially pubs, have had to go to great lengths and expense to enforce this ban.  It is utterly incomprehensible that the first high profile offender should be the leader of a council that is expected to enforce the ban.

Blogging Up for the Elections

The idea behind this blog has changed somewhat since I first decided to have a go. Initially this was going to be my own personal space to have a rant or comment on what is happening, and that would normally have been from a right of centre or libertarian point of view. However, after experiencing it, getting more involved in the blogging world and some helpful comments from others I decided to widen the blog postings to more than just me and also to open it up to postings from other political view points.

So, now the blog is growing and I it intends to provide a useful forum in the run up to the May elections and well beyond.

As well as myself, Scottish Political News now has a few authors including Cassilis and Mr Eugenides who also take up a position on the right. More recently we have been joined by Eternal Hope who is an SNP activist and insider (a great first post today which you can read below this). We're keen to be joined by a Labour and Lib Dem blogger, but Labour ones especially seem to be a bit thin on the ground. If you want to join in, and especially if you are of Lib Dem and Labour persuasion (ideally an activist or insider!) then please get in touch by emailing here.

The aim of the blog is to increase debate, discussion and maybe interest in Scottish politics on the internet. There has recently been a huge flurry of blog postings about the lack of a Scottish Guido or Iain Dale and it is strange that the blog world doesn't seem to have quite taken off as much yet up here. This blog doesn't intend to be a tartan-Guido, but I would like it to play some part in increasing the use and medium of the internet and blogging in Scottish politics.

There will always be plenty of informed comment and insider information from our collection of correspondents, but please don't shy away from sharing any frivolous gossip with us either! You don't even have to tell us who you are! Blogs have broken some of the big political stories in Westminster in recent times, will that become the case in Scotland too?

Referendum or not?

The debate on an Independence referendum has been brought into sharp focus by a re-hashed article from Hamish MacDonell in which it doubted the ‘automaticity of an Independent Scotland’s entry to the EU’ and attempted to continue the Scotsman’s lead on all matters constitutional of late.

Their series of book reviews and articles in the lead up to tomorrow’s 300^th anniversary of the Act of Union has been impressive, unlike other media outlets such as the BBC which is giving prominence to the one and only recently published book attacking the traditional perception that the old Scottish Parliament was bought off with English gold.

In all this debate, Lorna Dick in the Scotsman mis-represented the detail of how and when an Independence Referendum Bill would be presented to the Scottish Parliament. However, in clarifying this point on the letters page of the Scotsman, Mr Salmond then introduced a new dimension – a White Paper outlining how a SNP-led Executive would implement a referendum on Scottish Independence within the full term of the Parliament. Salmond’s own words:

“our commitment is to publish our proposal for a referendum, in the form of a white paper, in the first 100 days, and to hold the referendum within the four-year term of government.”

So what is the difference between placing a Bill before Parliament and publishing a White Paper? Alex Salmond explains the subtlety as:

“What is encompassed in the white paper is the proposal for the referendum and the question, so people can see what we are proposing. We are not soft-pedalling, we are putting forward a white paper in the first 100 days which spells out the question and the route forward for Scotland."

Salmond reiterated that the referendum is non-negotiable in any coalition deal for the SNP.

Now, Mr Salmond is not known for slight changes in policy presentation without there being something else behind it. Is this an attempt at being perceived as watering down the Referendum commitment? It’s a fine line to walk in attracting Lib Dem support for a coalition deal whilst appeasing more fundamentalist SNP activists who fear dilution of an Independence commitment.

Interestingly, the Lib Dems have snapped in two the proverbial olive branch. The Lib Dems have dismissed the emphasis as ‘panic’ and an acceptance that there is no demand for Independence. That’s a bit of a tall order to swallow considering poll after poll is showing fairly consistent support for Independence and even greater support for a Referendum. So no immediate cosying up with Alex there then.

And what is the fundamentalist wing of the SNP saying? Not very much at the moment. Early comments on web forums are showing signs of frustration if not barely disguised anger. Mr Salmond had a very bad habit of launching policy initiatives on the hoof under his first term as leader. The last thing the re-united Scottish National Party wants now is the return to that style of leadership. But can a leopard change its spots?