Dancing Round a May (the 6th?) Poll

Election season has started and the pollsters are busy already, sensing a tight election.

Two polls have been published in the last two days which are particularly interesting:

POLL 1: There is no doubt that Sunday's opinion poll published by the Scotland on Sunday makes bad reading for the SNP. They seem to have lost around 4% since the beginning of the year and are now 17% points behind Labour on Westminster voting intentions.  But lets put this in context: Labour are polling 1% less than they did in the 2005 election, the LibDems 8% less and the SNP and Tories are up by 3% and 4%. Not a disaster for Salmond but a big setback considering the SNP's record highs in the polls in recent years - it certainly stymies his chances of 20 SNP MPs.

The real success story is the Tories who are now pushing for second place (only 1% point behind the SNP), remarkable considering their years in the Scottish political wilderness. However, there is a simple explanation for both their boost and the SNP's fall-back that SoS avoided. Namely, the success of both Labour and the Tories in marginalising the SNP in the election. Both parties have made a point of avoiding the SNP at all costs, a clever strategy that seems to be working. This coupled with a bad few weeks for Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon means a slump in the polls.

POLL 2: The Scotsman publishes the first poll on independence since the SG announced it's Referendum Bill. Although no figures were published online, the article claims it shows "an overall drop in support for independence" whereas Nicola Sturgeon argues "The poll actually shows a similar level of support for this independence question as the last YouGov poll in November". The actual figures are a drop of 2% in support (to 27%) AND a 2% drop in votes against, with an increase in "don't knows". This may reveal that the SNP National Conversation is getting people to question their beliefs on the subject but the numbers are to small to draw any conclusions.

The key finding of the poll however is that 31% of those surveyed said that a Tory victory would make them more likely to vote for independence. That this is true is no surprise, the surprise is the size of this figure. It will bring comfort to Salmond and his strategy of holding off till after the election.

The hope is that more polls on independence will be conducted soon to gauge the affect (if any) of the SG latest proposals.

The Sunday Edition

Did anyone hear a starting pistol? This week feels like the start of a long race (or possibly races).

ALEX Salmond launched the Scottish Government's (draft) Independence Referendum Bill, starting a race that so far he's the only one running in. Two years after the SNP government was elected, Alex Salmond believes now is the time to get his hallmark policy through. This in spite of the fact that Labour, the LibDems and the Tories are all opposed to the referendum and will vote it down at the first opportunity. Hilarious observation of the week goes to Rab McNeil at the Caledonian Mercury:

"The Government is pushing for a referendum it would lose, and the opposition is running scared of a plebiscite it would win. You do the maths. I’m totally fogged. Maybe the opposition fears airing any arguments about independence at all. But, given the current state of the Scottish press (almost entirely unionist), the debate would consist of one party being given a megaphone while the other was gagged. What have they to lose? I don’t get it."

Well said. In any event, the opposition won't get a chance to vote on the bill till after the general election. Which is all part of Salmond's strategy. Whatever the result, it's likely the ball game will all change come the general election.

CHANGE was what David Cameron was all about today when the Conservatives launched their election themes. One of which is "change politics", this following on from his policy of changing the Conservative Party. According to The Times, he still has some work to do on the first part of this change, too few minority candidates are likely to win at the election. Undoubtedly, much progress has been made, the parliamentary party will better represent the people of the UK. Worryingly, especially for the party in Scotland, is that the top political hero of the candidates surveyed was Margaret Thatcher, not the most popular politician in Scotland.

BUT the parties will be hoping the electorate keep their eyes on the future and not the past. Not least the Chancellor who led us into one of Britain's worst recession, Gordon Brown. He announced his parties election themes last Saturday: under the slogan "Future fair for all". His speech was impressive but had the feel of one which was intended to scare voters into voting for Labour as the "safe" party, rather than inspiring the electorate.

Looks like the next few months are going to be interesting...

The Salmond in the Room

Buried in depths of the Daily Telegraph website, much further down than Flash Gordon's Romeo and Juliet moment ("Sarah and I, we're a modern love story"), was the news that Alex Salmond is close to making a deal with Sky News over his inclusion in their TV election debate. If this does happen it will be highly likely that the BBC will be forced to follow suit.

Very little coverage is given to the debate behind the debate: why exclude all parties except the big three? Should the BBC, as an impartial broadcaster, include minority parties (in the SNP's case the party that has won both the European elections in Scotland and Scottish Parliament election)? I think they should, to some extent, include the minority parties. I suspect there may have been some deal with Plaid Cymru where they have withdrew their requests for inclusion in return for support of Alex Salmond's inclusion. Indeed, Alex Salmond's best strategy in the debates would be to look beyond the Scottish electorate to positioning himself as the underdog, the representative of the little man. This would certainly tie in with the SNP's current strategy ("We're on your side.").

Strategy aside, no-one seems to be talking about this development? The inclusion of Alex Salmond in the debates could have far reaching consequences not just for the election in Scotland but for minority parties in the whole of the UK. There'll still be a debate in Scotland which would include Secretary of State for anti-SNP Propaganda Jim Murphy, without Salmond there he would look irrelevant. In terms of the whole of the UK, even the rumour of Salmond's inclusion could rerail the whole debate: other minorities (UKIP, the Greens and even BNP) would be calling for their inclusion and the main parties won't contenance any of this. Labour and the Tories, long suspicious of TV debates would welcome any excuse to pull out - as long as they could blame the other for being the first to do so. Further, Labour and the Tories have already pledged to ignore the SNP in this election - they definitely wouldn't want to debate on TV with Alex Salmond.

Anyway, that's my rambling, incoherant thoughts on this issue. I just wish others were talking about it to, we've now had no news or further rumour on the issue since the Daily Telegraph article, so maybe this is all a bit academic.

Don't Mention the Referendum!

The other big issue dominating Holyrood today has been the Scottish Government's decision to delay the independence Referendum Bill till at least the summer. A "draft" Bill will instead be published in the next week or so which will open up a public consultation on it. Having already been delayed, it was expected that the Referendum Bill would have been brought before parliament by now. It has been suggested that the decision to announce it today was due to the debacle over "Fraudgate" (see previous post). Whether this is true or not is irrelevant, it was going to come sooner or later.

The most important consideration in this change of timing seems to be the general election, expected in May this year. Since the opposition parties, and importantly the LibDems, have shown no movement on this issue, this is a sensible decision. Talking about independence in the lead up to the election would have been problematic. For a start it's the one thing that unites the other parties in Scotland against the SNP so they could all "gang up" against them. That's if they even acknowedge the SNP in the election - both Labour and the Tories have made it clear that they intend to ignore them, saying the election is a straight fight between themselves.

Also, the SNPs best argument for independence, which will resonate well with the Scottish electorate, is that independence will 'protect' them from a Tory government. But during the general election they can't say this, it'll sound like they expect a Tory victory and may even want one. After the election, however, which will probably be a victory for the Tories, the SNP can use this argument to their hearts content.

This leads to another good reason to wait: a Tory victory will mean lots of Scottish Labour politicians looking to gather power for themselves. If they think they will win power at Holyrood they'll be wanting more powers to prevent Tory interference. So maybe the opposition will move towards the SNPs position, prodded along by public opinion gathered through the public consultation announced today.

Today's announcement, however, must be seen as a setback for the SNP, they would have hoped to have had some sort of movement or openness on a multi-option referendum by now. No such movement has happened.

Too Kind to Bad People

Another week, another "scandal" dominating Scottish politics. First Minister's questions today dominated by, what the Scotsman has already named "Fraudgate", Nicola Sturgeon's intervention in the criminal case of a constituent. The "scandal" involves the Deputy First Minister writing a letter to court on behalf of a constituent Abdul Rauf who has been convicted of benefit fraud (for the second time) and awaits sentencing. The letter, thanks to Stephen's Linlithgow Journal for getting a copy, says that Mr Rauf has been paying the money back and hopes to pay the rest soon. Further, she cites his "poor health", young family and involvement in the community as considerations to be taken into account when sentencing.

Without a doubt Nicola Sturgeon has made an error of political judgement: as I have said before the opposition are constantly on the lookout for any holes in the governments armour, this move leaves a big gaping one in Nicola Sturgeons.

But does this make her unfit to be Deputy First Minister or Health Secretary as Iain Gray suggests? No. She did not represent Mr Rauf for her own benefit, nor did she do it because she believed those convicted of benefit fraud should be allowed "off the hook". She did it because her own moral compass told her that society would not benefit from locking up Mr Rauf, that he could repent and be forgiven. She only offered this opinion to the court, she did not abuse her executive power by doing anything in her capacity as Deputy First Minister.

There is a similarity here that so far has not been drawn by commentators or fellow bloggers, between this situation and the Megrahi case. Kenny MacAskill made that decision alone based on his own moral convictions which he hoped the people of Scotland shared. He made a error of political judgement but he appealed to our higher ideals and values. He reached out to Scotland to share in his view but, for the most part, the Scottish people responded with confusion and anger. So to has Nicola Sturgeon been met by the disapproval and confusion of her peers in Parliament.

At the time of the Megrahi release my view was that I would rather Scotland be viewed by the world as a country that was "too kind to bad people" than "too cruel to good people". This remains my conviction. If I had been in Kenny MacAskill's or Nicola Sturgeon's position I would have probably made different decisions but that would have been based on politics. If they have been guilty of anything it is of thinking as a person and not as a politician.

Our MSPs should look on their example, esspecially on a day that they have spent looking for scandal and forgetting the needs of their own constituents. The people of Scotland expect Parliament to discuss issues of importance to them, not issues of importance to politicians.

Something is rotten in the state of politics

There was a time when politicians fought over policy. You were on the right wing or the left, you believed in the free market, or nationalisation; in government intervention, or the family. The ideal of the best argument winning maybe didn't exist but the argument was always about who was right and who was wrong.

But something changed, it began to be about personality: who the public liked most. In Britain this happened in the age of Blair, of Cool Britania and the Third Way. Much of the 1997 campaign centred around the positive image Blair projected but it only came back to haunt him. His positive smile of 1997 turned into the smirk of 2007. His downfall came, not in the wake of the Iraq War, but following the cash-for-peerages scandal. Now it is the norm that politicians careers most often end in the scandal. Rather than try to challenge someone on their policies, politicians spend their time scrutinising every detail looking for something improper, hoping that they've found the archilles heel - the scandal that will bring down their rival.

This is often most noticable than at the Scottish Parliament where the opposition are intent on finding something on Alex Salmond that'll stick. The new one borders on the ridiculous. Here are the facts as I see it:

• Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon offered as a prize at an SNP auction lunch in the Parliament with them.
  
• The auction happened outside Parliament and as far as I can tell was not held in secret.
  
• The lunches never took place.
  

This is apparantly a massive scandal, more important to MSPs than the recession or any other issue they should be concentrating on. More important than any other issue to some of Scotland's newspapers who splashed it all over their front pages.

If I were cynical I would say this issue has only miraculously appeared because the Legg report on MPs expenses was published, with some of the worst offenders being Labour MPs. But am I that cynical?

People will rightly be asking, why are our politicians focusing on finding the next scandal, chasing headlines over spurious issues instead of helping improve the country?

Morality and politics never mix.

Just a quick thought on the political gerry-mandering over Margo MacDonald MSP's end of life bill. It appears that the opposition parties have all got together to create an ad-hoc committee to consider her bill, rather than, as expected, it being considered by the Health Committee. I understand this has been done ostensibly to stop the SNP chairing any possible ad-hoc committee which could look into the Independence Referendum Bill (please, no points of order, I'm not a Parliamentary rule anorak!). The argument goes a sensitive issue or national concern, and possibly international concern, has been used as a political football.

Whilst this is true, I think Margo herself hits the nail on the head. The health committee membership is already in place and contains two doctors, each on different sides of the fence on the issue. Any new committee would have to have it's members selected by the parties and parliament. It could end up more complicated and political than chosing a US Supreme Court justice, especially as many MSPs have already made their views on the issue known (or they can be inferred from previous statements). How then can this committee of politicians be truely objective? If an ad-hoc committee has to be set up would it not be better that it was a committee of experts, possibly reporting back to the Health Committee and Parliament? Does not a issue of such importance to many Scot's, in difficult situations, deserve this attention? I don't think it has been treated as such, it is being treated as a whim of a backbench MSP. That it has gained such attention already is testament to the popularity and hard work of Margo MacDonald.

Having not considered this issue in depth myself I am unsure what my views are but I do begin with an open mind. If this is how our national Parliament wants to go forward with this issue then I can only hope that it gives it the attention it deserves. It is not only 129 MSPs that need to make up there mind, it's 5 million Scots.