Back again, with the same old, same old….

Murdo Fraser has tossed a hissing cat in among the flapping pigeons of his party this week. His campaign for the post of leader of the Tory group in Holyrood began with his stated intention of effectively disbanding the party north of the border and establishing a new grouping with its focus aimed more on Scotland, but oddly enough remaining also on maintaining the union. These aims appear to me to be somewhat contradictory, believing as I do that the interests of Scotland do not lie within that union. Murdo seems to think otherwise, and it falls upon those of us interested in such matters to consider his ideas more fully. He is, after all, a list MSP which means that his party reaped a sufficiency of votes in his region to put his bum on a Holyrood seat. This is the democratic process as it is configured in Scotland at present. Putting it another way, his basic political philosophy attracts support from a significant number of people, and therefore must be taken into account when any consideration of the future of Scotland is being discussed.

Murdo’s idea seems to be that the current arrangements and policies of the Tory party, with its heart, soul and base all firmly rooted in London, is not Scottish enough to garner the support he feels it naturally deserves. His proposal, then, is to establish a New Scottish Conservative Party. If that were the end of it, then I would be quite happy to welcome such a party to the Scottish political scene. Where it all starts to go wrong is the further stated plan to field joint candidates with the Old Conservative Party for Westminster elections and to accept the party whip there. In essence, no change. The plan for Holyrood seems to be to develop new right-of-centre thinking and policy for Scotland. This, I feel, is an important line of thought. Scotland’s natural Tories need proper representation with properly focussed policies which take their philosophies into account and which expends its efforts on promoting those in Holyrood and in Scotland as a whole. Murdo’s twin lines of thought strike me and many others as incompatible. In a nutshell, he wants independence for Tory politics in Scotland, but apparently not for Scotland’s politics as a whole, and heaven forbid the very thought of independence for Scotland. To my mind this all adds up to cosmetic tinkering with no real change

His proposals have given rise to a bout of in-fighting among Scottish Tories with what may be, tongue in cheek, labelled as Rifkindite and Forsytheite wings lining up to support or deride his plan. The other potential candidates in the leadership campaign will be obliged to come out against his idea on their own grounds. At this moment it appears that his plan will be opposed in its entirety by whoever puts themselves forward. Nobody seems to want to back the possible break-up of the united unionist front within the Tories.

What would be interesting would be for a candidate to come forward and propose similar plans but with certain modifications.
No joint candidates for Westminster; that would split the right-wing vote, so maybe a better idea would be to field no candidates for Westminster at all. This, of course, would imply at the very least an acceptance of the inevitability of Scotland’s independence from the U.K. at some point in the presumably not very distant future.
Given the unlikelihood of that scenario being played out, then non acceptance of the Westminster Tory whip would carry similar overtones. Tories voting for Scotland’s interests before U.K. interests. Another non-starter I’d suggest.

There is another possibility. Murdo and his supporters, allowing that he has any, should simply resign their membership of the Old Tories. Set up their new party, pragmatically accepting that Scotland is on its way to leaving the U.K. and focus their attentions solely on Scotland. Ignore Westminster. In an independent Scotland, Westminster will have no more importance than the White House, or the Elysée Palace. Holyrood would become their sole point of attention. This would gather support I am sure. There is already such a group in existence; The Scottish Democratic Alliance puts itself forward as a right of centre grouping with independence as its starting point. Perhaps Murdo should be talking with them. Perhaps they should be seeking to recruit Murdo.

Legends deconstructed.

In tales and legends handed down through the millennia, the persona of Nimrod is variously designated as the great grandson of Noah or the builder of the Tower of Babel or possibly the ancient Persian prophet Zoroaster. Several other possibilities are listed in the Wikipedia account of the legendary figure whose present day namesakes are currently lined up for destruction in an act likened by one defence analyst to, “flushing £4.1 billion down the toilet.”

This contemporary act of government initiated vandalism is being carried out to save £2 billion in operating costs over a period of 10 years, and will itself cost the not insubstantial sum of £200 million to carry out. That would thus represent an end saving of £1.8 billion over the ten years. Or would it?

The consequences of reaching for this saving will incur other costs, not all of them reckonable in advance, and not all of them financial. The reasons given for the destruction of the virtually completed planes (for these are the present day Nimrods under consideration) have been presented in almost entirely financial terms. Other opinions have been proffered, but they smack somewhat of late additions and seem to me to be trotted out as back up for a decision which many believe to be rooted in ideology rather than any defence based reasoning.

One such reasoning is the claim that the systems which were to be used in the planes is already all but obsolete. Peter Felstead, of Jane’s Defence Weekly, has stated that the electronics systems are already out of date, adding that, “You wouldn’t put them in last year’s Playstation.” Keith Hayward, head of research at the Royal Aeronautical Society states, “That is the paradox of military development – you will always be outpaced by civil technology.” These two remarks, taken together would suggest to me that any future development of military electronics should be contracted out to Sony, or Nintendo or, if the, “look and feel” is important, perhaps Apple would be interested in a bit of diversification. I have to say at this point, that Mr. Hayward’s claim runs contrary to what I was told when I worked in the electronics industry in the 80s. At that time I was informed by one employer (a defence contractor) that non- military applications tagged along on the coattails of military development. I was later told by one of my supervisors in a non- defence related company that the work we were doing was heavily based on military application of the previous decade, albeit with some refinement and a little lateral thought. Perhaps times have changed.

It is widely accepted that defence spending had to be reduced and that some of the technology on which much of our defence is based would have to be sacrificed. The next question I have is, why are we scrapping a search and recon technology while retaining and probably replacing a system which, if used, would, literally, lead to the end of civilisation as we know it? Put it another way, if we scrap Trident, we could have Nimrods aplenty.

Earlier in this article I mentioned that not all the costs of scrapping the Nimrod fleet would be financial. These costs have already begun to be paid in Moray. There are service personnel whose futures are placed in doubt, some of those people are facing the ending of their careers. Imminent redundancy creates and extracts a cost in terms of stress and related ill health among families. The resulting fall off in economic activity in the surrounding towns of Forres and Elgin will also have knock-on effects as businesses close and more jobs are lost, leading to other businesses suffering and closing, costing yet more jobs and starting a downward spiral of gloom and despair.

In the first instance these things will not feature in any government budget calculations. They are human costs. The financial cost will come later on and it is unlikely that the eventual price will be ascribed to its real cause. The financial costs will come in the form of increased benefits bills and further, essentially avoidable, costs will eventually be borne by the NHS as doctors prescribe medications and therapies to assist those whose lives are fractured and shattered.

In Scotland we are now used to the idea of devolution, but starting this week, in an industrial complex in Cheshire, the U.K. government is responsible for an act of de-evolution. Today, a high tech multi billion pound aeroplane: tomorrow an empty baked bean can tossed into the recycling bin.

Through a crystal ball… bleakly.

The latest batch of figures relating to Scots’ voting intentions for the forthcoming Holyrood election makes uncomfortable reading for those of us in Scotland who do not buy into the Labour party’s hopes of success in May. There are numerous analyses of the figures available, with commentators delving into such matters as the reasons behind the apparent gender split in our voting intentions. It would appear that the Labour party may be carried into power by the votes of women in the west of the central belt. For deeper and more cogent analysis of the poll results see HERE, or HERE.

For my part, I will try to consider the repercussions of these figures, working on the assumption that they just might be carried forward into real votes come polling day. Let me state at the outset, however, that it is my dearest wish to be proceeding on a premise that ultimately proves to be wildly wrong.

Let us gaze into the crystal ball then… The Scottish Parliament has reconvened with a Labour led administration. What then for the other major parties in Holyrood? Well, first of all we would be waving bye-bye to Annabel Goldie. Her days are surely numbered irrespective of who wins the election, for we can be virtually certain that it wont be her party who do so. Alex Salmond may well be following her out of leadership status, which, to my mind, would be a disaster second only to losing the election. At this moment Mr. Salmond stands so far above all the others in Holyrood, and most if not all in Westminster, as a worthy leader of not only his party, but his country. Whoever replaces him will have an uphill struggle to match his ability in either arena. Turning to the LibDems, I would think that Tavish Scott’s only hope of retaining his branch manager status would be a coalition agreement with Labour. In the event of a hung parliament, I would expect such an outcome; the LibDems once more covering themselves with inglorious opportunism in their eternal search for a sniff of power wherever it is offered.

While disapproving most heartily of the LibDems and their craven ways of doing politics on a U.K. basis, I can only offer the hope that, if projected back into a coalition with Labour at Holyrood, they make a better fist of it this time than they did in the previous Labour led administrations there. I fear that my hope would come to virtually nothing as the bombast and bluster of the Labour mafia would once again overwhelm their, once up a time, moderating influence. Such influence is not to be looked for with any realism though. Nick Clegg blew that hope out of the water as far as Scotland is concerned when he entered his unholy partnership with the Tories at Westminster.

This, then, leaves us with the Labour regional office to consider. The thought of Iain Gray holding any position of real power fills me with dread, despair and a sudden urge to start buying lottery tickets with a view to financing emigration. To put it mildly, I see him as a liability.

Ploughing on through my nightmare though, i should try to ask and answer a question or two. What would an in-power Labour administration do in Holyrood? Well, there is a list which I think would quite likely include such things as; Rising prescription charges, rising council tax bills, a reinstatement of GARL, a reintroduction of tolls on the Forth, Tay, Erskine and Skye bridges, the sale of Scottish Water to the highest bidder, cancellation of numerous renewable energy projects, removal of free care for our elderly, siting of new nuclear power stations in Scotland, cancellation of the proposed new crossing of the Forth, a reduction in the number of police on our streets, student tuition fees introduced for Scottish resident students…
The list could go on and on, but in writing it out I am succeeding only in depressing myself and topping up my own despair. The incomplete list I have given should, I hope, be more than enough to persuade any reader currently considering voting for the red-rosetted mafia to turn their thoughts inward and then come out the other side and switch their voting intention and then their voting action to give Labour an almighty bodyswerve and put their crosses in the appropriate squares on the ballot to re-elect an SNP administration.

Critics of the SNP Government at Holyrood have levelled the accusation of their, “picking fights with Westminster.” Well, that’s what we elected them for, to look out for, fight for and try to safeguard the interests of Scotland without regard for the interests of others. If Labour win in May, any fights they pick will not be with Westminster, they will be with the Scottish people. Their interests are not ours. I found it rather telling when I saw a short interview with Ed Balls on his moving up to the Westminster Shadow front bench. He spoke first of all about his predecessor, Alan Johnson, saying he was a, “fine servant of social democracy, the party and the public.” Am I alone in seeing the possible anomaly there? Is it even an anomaly? Perhaps not; we should, by now, be well used to the concept of a Labour politician labouring on behalf of the party before even considering labouring on behalf of the people. If we elect Iain Gray and his cohorts to power in May, that is what we can expect. They will work for the party first. Let us not forget where that party is based, and where its allegiances truly lie. London and London again.

In advance of May, we would do well to remember which one of all the major parties here has its focus, its base and its allegiances firmly rooted in Scotland. Just in case any of my readers are in doubt about this, I’ll tell you that those qualities (focus, base, allegiances) are not to be found in the Tory party, the LibDem party or the Labour party. Only the SNP can boast all of them. Think on that as you head to the polling station.

On the booze again.

Minimum pricing of alcohol is back in the news, and back on the parliamentary agenda. Sadly for us in the northern part of the U.K. it isn’t on our own devolved parliament’s agenda, it is only on the Westminster agenda and will only apply, if or when it is passed, to England and Wales.

The ConDem coalition currently in office in the big-pretendy-parliament in London has taken up the issue and is proposing to bring forward legislation in the current session to set a minimum unit price across the board. The fine detail of their plan is yet to be revealed as it seems this is still a work in progress, but the intent is clear. From a cursory reading of the plans as they stand, they will certainly need some further thinking, as the present offering would leave the minimum price of a can of ordinary strength beer at a mere 38p. A booze-hound’s paradise in the making. Where can such a bargain basement price be found? I suggest that it can’t, unless the can in question is very, very small.

Leaving the ConDem plans’ unfinished detail to one side for the moment, the thing that springs to the front of my mind is the blatant exposure of the hypocritical stance adopted by the opposition parties at Holyrood who combined to vote down a much stronger proposal from the SNP administration only a few months ago. Dave C says it’s a good thing, but poor old Annabel G. rejected it as being bad for business. Nick C is backing it because Dave C says it’s a good idea. Tavish S hasn’t been told what to say yet, so we’ve heard nothing from him. Ed M hasn’t been very vocal on the matter thus far, but we can be sure he will have a few oily words to say which will without a doubt leave Iain G. flapping around without a policy. To be honest, that’s not a new thing; puir Iain hasn’t had many (if any) of those to offer us in a fair while.

The thing that would make me laugh out loud if only it wasn’t so serious a matter is the clear splits within the three parties. Tories, Labour and LibDems all flailing around with the south hand having not a clue what the north hand thinks. Questions rise in my head; Do the English branches of these parties not know that their Scottish branches have already voted this policy down in Holyrood? Do they care? Do the Scottish parties now find their collective faces reddening? Do they care? Do Scottish voters now, finally, see that their Scottish based representatives have not and never really have had the faintest intention of doing the right thing for Scotland and the Scots? Do they care? Will the Labour party’s Shadow Health Secretary at Westminster come out with the grand idea that caffeine is the “real” problem? Will Those Labour double-salaried MSP/MPs vote against the proposal in Westminster as they did in Edinburgh? Will anyone care?

As you will have noticed (I hope you noticed) the “do they care?” question was asked a few times there. It is the really big one. Do our elected public servants care that their hypocrisy is being exposed? Do they care that they are seemingly in such blatant disagreement on opposite sides of the border? To be honest, I despair of the answers which i expect will turn out to be applicable to each and every asking of the question. I fear that the answer will be, “no much,” to all of them.

Recent events on the political scene in Scotland are filling my head and heart with despair. This latest fandango of nonsense isn’t quite the straw breaking the back of this particular camel, but the load is slowly and steadily approaching that critical point. The piling up of these insults and slights is such that, if I were a wealthy person, I would, by now, be seriously involved in a property hunt in some country far removed from this sad island. I truly despair at the multiple faces of the majority of our political representatives in both parliaments. I truly despair at our devalued and degraded democracy. I truly despair just thinking about the possibility of anything other than a substantial SNP victory at the forthcoming Holyrood election.

My despair brings me back to my oft-asked question; Do they care?
It is my sincere hope that Iain G, Annabel G and Tavish S do indeed care, and have the required decency to publicly admit that they and their party compadres got it wrong and take some action to remedy their self seeking actions. On this issue, if on no others, their party leaders down south are leaving them with, to quote Martha Reeves & the Vandellas, “nowhere to run to baby, nowhere to hide.”

Snow joke (so it isnae!)

The first snowfalls of winter are still on the ground and the mass hysteria from the media is resounding loudly. In keeping with modern practice, the main thrust of the reportage we are seeing on TV and in the print media is all about who to blame. On this occasion they have opted to foist it all on the shoulders of Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson.

Let’s have a wee think about what actually happened. The snow fell. That is not the fault of anyone in government. The snow wasn’t cleared off the roads. The responsibility for that can be distributed. Mother Nature shoulders much of the blame mainly for the overwhelmingly large amount of the white cold stuff She deposited on us. A range of private contractors and councils across (mainly) central Scotland can take a good lump of the blame for their inability to clear or keep the roads clear. The Met Office can take a lump too as their forecasts as furnished to government and councils were conflicting and inaccurate. The Holyrood government minister can take a bit of it as well as the responses from government were a bit slow and ultimately inadequate.

Thus far, so good. Now comes the bit where I risk making myself unpopular. A very large part of the responsibility for the chaos we have seen on our roads can be squarely laid at the feet of the people who ventured out on Monday with blithe disregard for the conditions they were already aware of and in blissful ignorance of the conditions they were about to face as the mis-forecast snow was dumped across the country. This may seem like a contradiction, and to an extent, it is. However, it is December, snow had already fallen in huge quantities and there was little sign of a thaw in progress. Any rational person taking their car onto the roads with the prospect of even a light fall of snow needs to take responsibility for their own situation. While accepting that many people had good reason to be out and about on Monday, it is hard to accept that problems on the roads were going to come as a surprise. The plethora of jack-knifed HGV lorries clearly could not be predicted, but the delays in reaching them to assist in getting them moving again was compounded by the accumulation of all the factors already mentioned; Mother Nature, contractors, councils and unprepared drivers.

The only innocent in this part of the scenario is Stewart Stevenson. His failure, if indeed it was such, was limited to the possible lack of co-ordination at a strategic level. The slowness of response and the apparent lack of information provided to those in trouble can be partly laid at his door, but the media didn’t exactly cover themselves in glory either. BBC Radio Scotland provided what they called, “weather updates.” What that means is that a reporter informed people stuck in the snow that it was still snowing. Wonderful stuff!

So… in the end, the roads will be cleared, traffic will move again and the snow will melt away. There may be further snowfalls and there may be further chaos and mayhem on our roads to come this winter, after all it is only December. Today in the chamber at Holyrood Alex Salmond talking in terms of climate change and how it can and should be dealt with, spoke of how our nation’s infrastructure will need to upgraded in order to deal with such conditions in years to come. His remarks were a clear call for consensus instead of blame.

Will he get such a consensus? Sadly, it has to be said that in our parliament there are three problems which make it highly unlikely that any such agreement can be made while the SNP are in office. Those three problems are the Labour party, the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrat party. All three would rather snipe and carp than offer any real assistance to an SNP administration. All three would rather pile on the blame when, if being effective in opposition, they should be making alternative proposals. All three would choose to join in with the hysteria and let their media friends put more skewed reportage into the newspapers and TV news bulletins.

They may call it politics. I call it pathetic.