Latest entry
- Brian Taylor
- 7 Jan 09, 12:18 PM
Bear witness, at Holyrood, to a tentative little political quadrille.
Nothing much at stake - just £33bn of public spending for the coming year.
For the Liberal Democrats, Mike Rumbles is having a chat with John Swinney, the Finance Secretary.
The advance billing from Mr Rumbles sets out his own party's demand for a tax cut to stimulate the economy.
Do not expect Mr Swinney to be over-sympathetic.
Beneath such understandable grandstanding, however, there are also detailed negotiations under way.
These are relatively early days - and so the various parties, including the Scottish Government, are reluctant to show their hand.
At this stage, however, it looks as though the political strategy picture may be somewhat different from last year when Mr Swinney struck a deal with the Tories - while Labour and the LibDems voiced sharp criticism but then abstained in the final vote, attracting howls of derision from the government benches.
I understand that Mr Swinney is quietly sounding out all the opposition parties, Labour included.
Again no details - but my guess is Labour might want to advance their case for training cash and for more action teams to help communities struggling with job losses.
Wouldn't mean they support the SNP's budget strategy - but might mean they seek an opportunity to lever productive change.
We'll learn a bit more tomorrow when Mr Swinney tables the Budget Bill.
The debate on that is a week hence. Ministers hope to get the Budget through by the end of January.
Will they succeed? Frankly, yes. This is a mid year - not a full-scale review period, meaning that the scope for innocent political merriment is limited.
Further, MSPs know that a Bill of some sort must, in reality, be passed.
Governments cannot govern at all without a licence to spend.
Further still, the political climate has changed with the calamities afflicting the economy.
No party wants to be seen behaving irresponsibly with public spending, particularly when one of the declared objectives is to revive that economy.
Further yet more, Mr Swinney and Bruce Crawford proved last year that they are adept politicians. I expect they keep a copy of "The Prince" by their respective bedsides.
In publishing the Bill, Mr Swinney will also give further details re the £260m of capital expenditure which he is accelerating, following agreement with the Treasury.
My guess is he'll seek to answer queries raised by the Finance Committee as to guarantees that this spending will help boost the construction industry in particular - and hence provide much-needed jobs.
PS: And if you want to know more about the parties' various stances on the Budget, be sure to watch Newsnight Scotland this very evening.
Recent entries
- Brian Taylor
- 6 Jan 09, 12:18 PM
Agriculture, we learn today, is primarily about the provision of food. Well, that's a comfort.
For this searing analysis, we are indebted to the Scottish Government and, in particular, to Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead who has been addressing a conference in Oxford.
Ach, stop it, Brian. Enough of this urban cynicism. Mr Lochhead is striving to promote an industry which is worth some £7.5bn to the Scottish economy.
I freely confess that my knowledge of rural matters is not great, despite my being the grandson of an Angus farm grieve.
From him and his kin, I learned sundry songs and rural lore. Even today, I can sing all the words of "Nicky Tams", that magnificent ballad of Angus country life.
As a coy loon on the Press and Journal in Aberdeen, I occasionally subbed the fish prices. Ling, coley, gutted haddock, round haddock and the rest.
Calamity to get them wrong.
Serious gig
At a still younger age, I was wont to pick berries in Blairgowrie and at small-holdings near Dundee. However, that's about as far as it goes.
But back to Mr Lochhead. The Oxford conference is a serious gig with speakers from the EU and the UK Cabinet alongside the Scottish governmental contribution.
Mr Lochhead's core argument is that the interests of Scotland diverge in this sector from policies which he attributes to his UK counterparts.
No surprise there, given that he is a Nationalist. He seeks further powers for the Scottish Parliament in this sector.
However, his detailed analysis is intriguing - and perhaps worthy of further debate.
The minister asserts that UK ministers are backing a relatively speedy end to farming subsidies as part of reforms to the European Common Agricultural Policy.
This, says Mr Lochhead, is "not Scotland's vision". Public support for farming, he said, was "wholly justified" in the light of challenges which he said were "unique" in Scotland.
An argument, one imagines, which will find favour in, for example, France where agriculture is traditionally accorded key importance. Perhaps Mr Lochhead should revive the Auld Alliance.
- Brian Taylor
- 5 Jan 09, 12:42 PM
A guid New Year, this message widely and randomly dispersed. And a substantive political controversy to get us all going - how to fund the new Forth Bridge?
And what has to give if the money comes from existing budgets?
As ever, the search is for the plain and simple truth. Equally as ever, the truth is rarely plain and never simple.
The Scottish Government consciously narrowed its options by abolishing tolls on existing estuarial crossings - and ruling out such charges for the future.
It further narrowed its spectrum of financial choices by taking against PPP/PFI.
There was bold talk that the new Scottish Futures Trust would generate innovative ways of funding such projects.
The SFT may well be working furiously behind the scenes but there is little sign yet of the brave new funding world that was promised.
Against that, Scottish Ministers point out that they took the decision to fund a new Crossing where others vacillated.
They reviewed it and produced a cut-price version. They have given a firm commitment to keep traffic flowing over the Forth.
Further, they say they produced a scheme to restructure capital investment. In essence, Scotland would get much more now in return for relative restraint down the line, spread over a twenty year period.
I was sceptical as to whether that would find favour with the Treasury - and said so on the day the plan was published in December.
Now we have confirmation - up with this the Treasury will not put. They say it amounts to advancing capital now on the basis of a promise to constrain distant budgets which have yet to be set for governments which have yet to be formed.
Indeed, the Chancellor went so far as to declare "we don't do that sort of thing."
A more wicked commentator might say that, until recently, the Treasury didn't do things like nationalise banks. But you won't find any of that glib insolence here.
More, Treasury Ministers say John Swinney's plan is different from the capital restructuring they have themselves undertaken which is measurable and limited to three years.
Scottish Ministers have now embarked on efforts to find a solution, in discussion with the Treasury. It was agreed today that there will be an early meeting.
Everyone acknowledges that a replacement crossing is required in order to relieve pressure on the existing bridge. Ferries don't quite cut it in the modern Scottish economy.
So options? The Treasury tentatively suggests PPP. But the tentative nature of that suggestion is intriguing, featuring as it does an acknowledgement that PPP "would not solve the budgeting problem if the scheme was classified as public spending."
Which, say SNP Ministers, it is - or will be under new European accounting rules.
Which, say the same Ministers, undermines any lingering support for PPP.
How about emulating Crossrail, the London transport project? But that partly involves borrowing against future revenue streams.
There ain't no such stream with a non-tolled bridge.
Other Treasury suggestions? Divert revenue to capital - or underspend on the capital budget for a few years, building up a bridge warchest.
Scottish Ministers don't fancy either option - arguing that they run counter to the objective of stimulating the economy with productive public expenditure.
Talks will examine these and other options.
But, in the absence of a grand new wheeze, we might end up with the following - the bridge goes ahead, funded from capital budgets, and other projects - transport, schools, hospitals - face possible delays.
- Brian Taylor
- 18 Dec 08, 02:41 PM
Startling developments at Holyrood. Labour's Iain Gray seemed to this concerned onlooker to be suggesting there was no Santa Claus.
First Minister Alex Salmond took an entirely different tack. He appeared to think he WAS S. Claus.
Mr Salmond revealed the Christmas gift wishes of his rivals, as published in the Big Issue, then proceeded to indicate that he, personally, was in a position to meet these requests.
Mr Gray apparently had expressed a desire for new-style Ray-Ban sunglasses, as worn by Barack Obama. (OK, OK, let's get the gags about blinkered vision out of the way now.)
Done, said Santa Salmond. Lack of time no doubt prevented the FM from disclosing that his own despatch to the North Pole features a desire for a year's supply of Lucozade.
No, I don't know why either.
Most of the chat afterwards in the Garden Lobby focused on the relative rigidity, even sterility, that is now afflicting this weekly question session.
Long-winded
Labour MSPs and others blame the FM. They say he has given up any pretence of attempting to address, let alone answer, the questions.
Nationalists say the FM is entitled to answer attacks in his own way. They say it is scarcely his fault if his opponents cannot lay a glove on him.
By contrast, they say the questions from the opposition leaders are turning into long-winded statements.
One Government insider even questioned the choice of questions. The topics were: Labour, Scottish Futures Trust; Tory, policing fraud; LibDem, the quango state.
Their call, of course, but my puzzled interlocutor wondered why nothing on sentencing policy or student funding. Maybe next year.
As to timing, I think the patience of backbenchers is wearing decidedly thin.
By the time the three front benches pose their sundry questions, 20 valuable minutes have elapsed. Backbenchers have very little chance to get in.
New goalie
Perhaps the answer lies in the chair enforcing tighter questions - then inviting the first minister to respond in due measure with taut, focused replies.
On the day, Iain Gray pursued his chosen topic with vigour, asserting that the SFT is effectively dead and should be afforded a swift burial.
At one point, he delivered a notably withering glare to some shrill heckling.
Annabel Goldie was magisterial, declaring one reply from the FM to be "absolute drivel". (You have to say it in the Bella accent to get the full effect.)
Tavish Scott was witty and pointed, inviting ministers to set the pace in public spending restraint - by taking a voluntary pay cut of 10%.
Mr Salmond demurred, noting that he had appointed fewer ministers and that they saved money by cutting travel.
And that was that: the final FMQs on the final parliamentary day of 2008.
Hope Santa (the real one) is good to you all. Me, I'll settle for a new goalie to replace our current star who, it seems, is being lured west.
- Brian Taylor
- 17 Dec 08, 01:23 PM
The topic today? Let's talk Iraq.
Let's talk the issue which previously dominated politics in Scotland, throughout these islands and elsewhere. Let's talk the confirmed end of UK military involvement.
Gordon Brown has announced that the UK's mission there will end by 31 May - with the troops coming home within two months from that date.
All of which makes Mr Brown the prime minister who will end the Iraqi episode - while prompting a succession of further questions, not least opposition demands that the delayed inquiry into the causes of the conflict should now begin.
At the very least, these opposition leaders and others will presumably point out that the mission which will now end on that prescribed date differs somewhat from the original search for weapons of mass destruction.
'Noble cause'
Take a glance elsewhere on the BBC website. There is a grimly efficient interactive graphic which charts by place of birth the British troop fatalities in Iraq.
For Scotland, the figure is 19 dead; that is listed as 11% of the total.
Of course, Scotland is not alone. The south-west of England has contributed 12% of the war dead, the south-east 11%.
A closing note. I recall the former Defence Secretary Des Browne referring in speeches to the conflict with the Taliban in Afghanistan as the "noble cause" of this era.
I do not recall him attaching that label to Iraq.
- Brian Taylor
- 16 Dec 08, 02:59 PM
How to pay for Scotland's schools and hospitals? Not to run them - but to build them in the first place.
The issue, rather topical at the moment, arises again from a report by Holyrood's finance committee.
To varying degree, there is something for everyone in the report - although majority opinion, reflecting parliamentary numbers, tends towards criticism of the Scottish Government's approach.
Ministers, however, can live relatively comfortably with a report which, rather than excoriating a single approach, picks faults with each of the capital spending options on offer.
Most attention has focused on criticism of the Scottish Futures Trust - although, in practice, all that is said is that the SFT remains "unproven".
The committee advises that no project should be delayed while Scotland waits . . . and waits for the SFT to swing into what passes for action.
Myself, I was more intrigued by two other findings. One re statistics (sorry, but I'm like that; I was hideously keen on sums as a youth.)
Exceptional constraints
The other re borrowing powers.
On stats, the committee gripes, entirely understandably, that it is extremely difficult to compare the lifelong cost of various funding methods, owing to the lack of consistency in data.
That is a point regularly made by Audit Scotland.
On borrowing, the committee notes the quite exceptional constraints upon the Scottish Government, even by comparison with local authorities.
That is something being examined within the ambit of the Calman Commission.
More immediately, it is a source of frustration to the Scottish Government, both ministers and senior civil servants.
- Brian Taylor
- 15 Dec 08, 11:24 AM
Are there any circumstances in which democracy is a bad idea?
I freely confess that question is posed in a deliberately provocative form to stir you out of your Festive shopping torpor.
Try again. Is it possible, credibly, to argue against the introduction of direct elections to an organisation which spends public money and provides a public service?
Sundry Scottish politicians are about to try. Holyrood's Health Committee has published its report on plans to introduce an element of direct elections to health boards.
The response? A discernibly grudging maybe. For why? How can elected Parliamentary politicians quibble at the extension of democracy to the NHS?
The formal answer is that, while there is a need to improve health board accountability, the evidence gathered does not presently point to direct elections as the solution.
The informal answer from some? That direct elections could provide a further blockage in a service already beset by bureaucracy as Nimbies with zero expertise but a finely honed sense of grievance pursue their own agendas.
(For the avoidance of doubt, that last sentence is also deliberately provocative - summarising the trenchantly held views of others.)
But how to argue against democracy? With delicious irony, the Liberal Democrats - who carry their elective principles in their title - have a shot.
They say broad accountability might better be enhanced by involving local authorities more closely in health boards.
At the very least, say they, let us have full and thorough evaluation of pilots before full implementation.
Such is the conclusion of the committee who urge Ministers to make clear that they will proceed cautiously, if at all.
More generally, we need to determine the purpose of health boards first.
Are they expert bodies challenged by central government to provide health care to a common template but building upon local circumstances?
If they are, then local direct democracy may not be merited. Think of it this way. Would you want decisions about your surgical treatment taken by clinicians - or by single transferable vote?
Then translate that answer into the generality of health provision.
Alternatively, are health boards channels for the practical expression of public opinion into hospitals and NHS services.
In which case, direct elections are entirely valid.
In short, should health boards lead or follow.
As ever, there are arguments to be advanced on both sides.
It strikes me, however, that we are somewhat blurring the core debate by focusing purely or primarily on the method of choosing health board members.
First, Scotland needs to decide what function health boards serve.
I'd welcome your views. Based, I would plead, upon your experience and observation - not your party allegiances.
- Brian Taylor
- 12 Dec 08, 02:07 PM
Is that it then? No more a bank, just a whimper.
Three hundred years of Scottish financial history brought to a stammering close in a Birmingham convention centre.
That is indeed one way of looking at developments. More prosaically, one might say that the Bank of Scotland vanished as a distinct entity when it chose to merge with the erstwhile building society from Halifax.
More bluntly still, one might say that the centuries-old solidity that was the Bank has not been seen these many years amid the new era adventurism that has now so dismally failed.
Instead of striding the waves, the buccaneers of finance are lying, limp and plaintive, on the rocks.
To the point, Scotland has lost a headquarters organisation, albeit one whose sense of Scottish control had already been diluted. That is to be regretted; the full impact yet to be witnessed.
However, perhaps we might take a lead from the first minister who, while arguing for a level playing field with regard to HBOS, has repeatedly stressed the honourable intent and history of Lloyds TSB.
Perhaps we might take comfort from the announcement that the Bank of Scotland brand is to be retained; a shell, perhaps, but still an outward sign.
Perhaps it might now be feasible to mount a renewed case for the retention of some headquarters-style functions in Edinburgh.
Perhaps. Perhaps this was all inevitable. Perhaps there was, literally, no alternative. Perhaps the merged bank will, ultimately, thrive.
One can but hope.
- Brian Taylor
- 11 Dec 08, 01:51 PM
Grudgingly, I would concede that the presiding officer is probably right. In banning the use of nicknames in the Holyrood chamber.
Still, it might have livened up a notably dull session of questions to the first minister.
As part of the customary badinage, the FM had labelled a Labour MSP "Seven Minute McNulty".
I think it was a cheeky gag about the duration of a speech by Des McN, the member for Clydebank and Milngavie. Or maybe not. By then, I was losing the will to live.
Frowning frostily, as only he can, the PO said he discouraged nicknames in the chamber.
So Eck, Grayman, Bella and Scotty had to struggle along in a fog of formality.
As I say, the PO is undoubtedly right - but oh how one longed for something, anything to disturb the torpor.
Minimal illumination
The exchanges between Iain Gray MSP B.Sc BPB* and the Rt Hon Alex Salmond MP MSP M.A. were, I suppose, worthy.
They concerned the serious topic of employment opportunities for newly qualified teachers. However, the battle swiftly descended into a statistical squabble with minimal illumination.
For the Tories, Annabel Goldie pursued the issue of the money spent advertising the new seller home reports - which the Tories dislike intensely.
To this numbed observer, she made little headway. She sought to engender a scandal, noting that the expenditure on home reports outpaced that on alcohol or drugs.
Here, she claimed, were ministerial priorities writ large. No, said the FM. More was needed right now on promoting the scheme - because it was new and nobody had heard of it.
It said nothing about long-term priorities. And that, mostly, was that.
Tavish Scott was perhaps on sounder territory challenging the transport capital investment programme.
Long day
Was it right, he said, that only the new Forth crossing had absolute priority - while the other 28 items in the plan were equal (that is, equally important or unimportant)?
The answer, incidentally, is yes. But the first minister offered a rather more substantive reply, saying nothing in particular but saying it awfully well.
And so the long day wore on.
*Blue Peter Badge
- Brian Taylor
- 10 Dec 08, 03:48 PM
When listening to a ministerial statement, pay attention to what is said. And still more attention to what is not said.
At Holyrood, Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson explained that he had approached the Treasury about rescheduling capital investment in order to fund the replacement Forth crossing.
But he did not say whether the Treasury had responded, positively or otherwise. Further inquiries elicit the fact that they have yet to reply.
In essence, the plan is to accelerate capital investment up to 2016 to enable the crossing to be funded - with a consequent cut in capital spending thereafter.
It is that restructuring which requires Treasury sanction.
Ministers envisage a conventional design and build contract for the new crossing - which will cost much less because it won't require a public transport lane. (Public transport will continue over the existing bridge.)
No tolls
So no PFI. No tolls. No shadow tolls. (Three cheers from the government benches.)
But no innovative funding scheme either. No bond issue. No role, it would appear, for the Scottish Futures Trust in this particular project.
To be fair, Mr Stevenson said the trust would play a role in enhancing value for money across capital expenditure generally.
To be fair, further, this is a substantive and substantial document which attempts to address Scotland's transport needs while, simultaneously, cutting carbon emissions.
However, it is detail in implementation which will matter. Ministers will be judged by that.
- Brian Taylor
- 9 Dec 08, 11:33 AM
Day Two of the hearing in the HBOS competition appeal. And how's it going?
The Merger Action Group, who're contesting the deal with Lloyds TSB, reckon they're getting at the very least a serious, substantive hearing from the bench at the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
HBOS says it is confident the appeal will be dismissed, describing the legal move as "an unhelpful and unnecessary distraction."
On Friday, we are due to learn whether HBOS shareholders back the merger with Lloyds TSB.
That means timing is crucial. If the appeal is granted, it means that the Tribunal is saying Lord Mandelson was wrong to set aside competition concerns raised by the Office of Fair Trading with regard to the potential merger.
In that case, I would anticipate that the UK Government would appeal. That would be heard by the Court of Session in Edinburgh - because the tribunal case is being conducted according to Scots Law, despite sitting in London.
The government - and the boards of the two banks - would be keen to expedite that issue before the Friday vote.
Court proceedings
On the other side, it's claimed that Friday's HBOS vote could become "meaningless", depending on the outcome of the court case.
Their logic is this. A swift, uncontested merger needed the UK Government to ignore competition concerns.
That was a fundamental part of the deal from the outset.
If, following court proceedings, competition concerns are now reactivated, then the initial logic behind merger fades or vanishes.
PS: May I draw the attention of the court (aka this blog) to the case of MacCormick and Another v The Lord Advocate (1953 SC 396)?
No, I haven't finally flipped in excitement at United's elevated league position. Hear me out.
You'll remember the stushie at the weekend when it was suggested that the UK Government might pursue costs against the Merger Action Group, should MAG lose the tribunal case.
Facing costs
Some interpreted this as a threat or unwarranted pressure. HMG said it was nothing of the sort. It was a sensible offer to save money.
And the 1953 case? That was when John MacCormick contested the right of the Queen to bill herself as Elizabeth II in Scotland.
Ian Hamilton QC, who was involved in the case, has now contacted the Merger Action Group, arguing that there should be no question of facing costs should their case fail.
He says that, after the MacCormick case failed, costs were moved for - but were refused.
Mr Hamilton (whose fascinating book on the Stone of Destiny I have recently finished re-reading) says that "the court is reluctant to award costs" in Scotland where people act in the public interest, even if unsuccessfully.
- Brian Taylor
- 8 Dec 08, 01:16 PM
I have the greatest possible respect and admiration for Margo MacDonald. I like her. Conversation with her always pays a dividend, either in terms of gossipy chat or, more commonly, serious political analysis.
By now, I feel sure you can hear the caveat coming. Here it is. Personally, I think she is wrong with regard to her bill to enable assisted suicide.
Margo argues this is about autonomy; allowing an individual, not a clinician, to decide when to instigate such a process.
However, is that not to overlook the fact that it would potentially place a new responsibility on our clinicians - and one that runs counter to their core life-preserving principle?
In other words, enhanced autonomy for the individual might mean an unwarranted constraint on the medical profession.
For myself, I would prefer to think that our clinicians were striving endlessly to keep us in this world - not, occasionally, to despatch us from it.
Would it not open the door to unscrupulous relatives to place pressure on the elderly? Would it not, of itself, exert emotional pressure on the elderly to consider whether they are a "nuisance"?
I feel certain Margo will have answers to offer to these. I think I can guarantee that she will collar me at the very earliest opportunity in the Garden Lobby to put me right. I look forward to it.
In addition, I look forward to all your views on this site. Margo, too, if she feels like it.
- Brian Taylor
- 5 Dec 08, 02:25 PM
It's a feather in the breeze, open to influence from the subsequent political climate.
But as of today Local Income Tax just looks a little less likely in Scotland.
Did you clock Thursday night's vote at Holyrood?
Broadly, Parliament instructed Ministers to present a range of options for council revenue raising rather than simply the Local Income Tax favoured by the SNP.
I freely confess I am at a loss to understand precisely how that can be done within the terms of the motion.
That is because it talked of a Bill featuring such a range of proposals. In all honesty, you cannot have single transferable legislation.
You cannot prescribe the law by pick and mix.
However, I suppose the actual import is to confirm, once more, that there is not a Parliamentary majority for either the Council Tax or the alternative Local Income Tax.
The Greens are key to this - even though they are but two in the present Parliament. The SNP and LibDems favour sundry forms of LIT, although negotiation could bring them closer.
Labour and the Tories favour Council Tax, with varying reforms. In the middle, the Greens want Land Value Taxation.
By chance, I happened to be attending the Green Energy awards in Edinburgh last night and took the opportunity to chat to sundry folk of a Green Party persuasion who were in attendance.
To a person, they said they disliked Local Income Tax - and, if anything, had been confirmed in their view by the scrutiny which the current controversy has occasioned.
Doesn't tell us their party's final position, of course. Formally, they are seeking a compromise which might incorporate elements of their own policy.
Bit of a pointer, though, isn't it? Behind the scenes, of course, there is alternative political manoeuvring under way.
Privately, the SNP would rather like it if LIT were thwarted - if and only if they could then blame either Labour in the Scottish Parliament or Labour at Westminster for withholding council tax benefit should Scotland change tax systems.
Labour tacticians think that LIT won them votes in Glenrothes - and they believe they can make it more unpopular still by targeting aspirational families.
At that point, they believe, they would be seen as rescuing Scotland by blocking it at Holyrood.
Isn't politics wonderful?
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~46~RS~)