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.

The President from Illinois

I've been reading "Team of Rivals" by Doris Kearns Goodwin for what seems like an eternity now. It's a fascinating book but I just never seem to get time to just sit down and read it. The book, as any good US political book must do, has expertly linked itself to President Obama (it's apparantly one of his favourites). But this isn't just a tenuous link: the similarities between Obama and Lincoln are startling. Both came from humble backgrounds, both lawyers from Illinois and both were outsiders for the presidency knowm for their bipartisanship. But this is all old-hat, we all know the similarities - what is more interesting is how they reacted to the age in which they led their country.

Lincoln was known for sticking to his principles: when he made a decision he stuck to it and followed through. When things got tough, when is country looked on the brink of collapse, he stuck to his principles and worked tirelessly to carry out what was necessary. On watching Obama's first State of the Union address it is clear that Obama is a man cut from the same cloth. Rather than turning right following Republican victories in Virginia and Massachusetts, he has stuck to what he pledged and challenged his party to finish the work that they began.

One shining example of this is his pledge to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", the policy that effectively excludes gays from serving in the US armed forces. He promised to do this during the election but many had begun to doubt his conviction, having done little to do this. However, on Tuesday the Defense Secretary will present to Congress some of the first steps that will be taken to get rid of this discredited policy. For a nation known for its patriotism to exclude over 13,000 men and women from the armed forces in which they are proud to serve, is inexcusable.

The funny things is, i've not long read the chapter in my book about the Emancipation Proclamation and Lincoln giving black men the right to fight alongside their countrymen. The same arguments that are used against allowing gays to serve were used to prevent black soldiers serving. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. Obama must follow through on this pledge regardless of the obstacles and prejudice that may step in his way.

Getting by on High Caffeine Energy Drinks

I'm tired. I mean really fatigued, mentally and physically. I work for a large retail company and we are now coming to the end of this years January sale and I'm tired and I think the public are tired to. Today the UK economy begins to wake up from recession but is it really morning in Britain or is the country still half-asleep and running on high caffeine energy drinks like I am?

From what I have seen in the bleary eyes of customers and staff over the past month, in my shop and others I would say this is true. It has now been a year since the height of the "credit crunch" when household names like Woolworths and MFI collapsed, when consumer confidence was at it's lowest and the outlook bleak. Businesses responded by constant sales, heavy discounting and slashing running costs. Far from raising consumer confidence, it appears that it has just worn customers down, entrenching their cost-cutting, save now spend later attitudes. We may yet see more retailers go to the wall if customers continue to stay at home, themselves worried about job security. Growth of 0.1% does not mean we are moving out of this mess: it only means we are standing still. This is clearly an improvement but we are a long way off recovery.

This position has been achieved partly by the government's injection of "energy drinks" into the economy - cutting VAT, increasing/accelerating spending in some areas, plowing money into failing banks. But is this enough to sustain long term recovery? According to the Scottish Government, Scotland is fairing slightly better than the rest of the UK. But on both sides of the border so much more can be done. The Scottish Government possibly shouldn't have scrapped the Glasgow Airport Rail Link and it could have been wrong to oppose the Edinburgh tram project. For it's part, the UK Government's denial of acccerated funding for capital projects in Scotland hasn't helped. Furthermore, both governments may have missed the opportunity to improve the environment while encouraging growth. The Scottish Green Party's call for increased funding for a home insulation scheme during last years budget negotiations is just one: the benefits of such a scheme are immense. It increases sales for retailers and manufacturers, it saves consumers money on heating bills giving them more disposable income and helps us meet challenging climate change targets. I for one hope the Greens continue to call for this during this years budget negotiations. This is only one opportunity of many in this exciting and growing sector of the economy. The government may be to focused thus far on saving the economy as it is at the expense of growing new industry.

Whether the UK Government can do this remains to be seen. It's tired to. After 13 years in government it just can't sustain the momentum for action it once had. It's ran out of the big ideas that catapulted it had in 1997, it no longer has the fresh faces at the helm full of energy and optimism. David Cameron and the Tories seem to have this energy but whether they have the right ideas to lead the country out of recession remains to be seen. On May 6th (as "Bumbling" Bob Ainsworth reliably informs us) the country will make up its mind. The most exciting thing about the election is that whatever the result is we know its going to be a hugely different Parliament with about a quarter of current MPs not standing for reelection for whatever reason.

Lets hope this gives the country the real boost it needs. The fresh faces, ideas and optimism (and possibly "the Wings?") it needs to wake itself out of this long and tiring recession.