Archives for October 2007

Herewith a little grouse.

On Sunday, the first minister cited Scottish Government statistics to the effect that Scotland, with oil revenues, had the potential to be the third wealthiest nation in Europe.

He said that the figures showed that, in terms of GDP per head, Scotland would lag behind only Luxembourg and Ireland.

Since then, the Scottish Government has been under pressure to produce those figures or, more precisely, the detailed calculations upon which they are based.

“Show us your working” is the cry, familiar to generations of maths scholars. As I write, the figures have yet to be published.

Not good, say I. Not good at all. I am not yet ready to join the parade of those accusing the first minister of using the civil service for partisan purposes.

He’s the boss. He’s entitled to ask for advice and statistics in any area he fancies will help him do his job as first minister.

If he then chooses to put a political spin on that material while at party conference, I am relaxed.

However, that material should be freely and fully available so that opposition parties can examine the details, can offer comments as to the interpretation placed upon those statistics.

It should also be available, freely and fully, to the wicked - and waiting - media.

I'll get back to you when it is.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

And there’s more. Also at the weekend, it was suggested that the Conservatives are set to favour Sir Malcolm Rifkind’s suggested answer to the West Lothian question.

Sir Malcolm apparently feels that there is something lacking in the customary Labour Ministerial reply which, to paraphrase, is: "Go away and stop asking such irritating questions."

The Rifkind wheeze is that there would be an English Grand Committee in the Commons (given the numbers, it would be Vast rather than merely Grand, but let that pass).

Said EGC would vote on purely English legislation. The House of Commons, as a whole, would technically retain the final voting right but members from Scotland would, by convention, abstain.

Herewith a few lines from a book published in 1999, at the outset of the devolution adventure:

"It is reasonable to argue that the great conundrum which has yet to be tackled seriously is the question of how to govern England under the reformed constitution which is emerging.

"Perhaps I should start with a few trite truisms. The English Question is first and foremost for the people of England to address: that is if they believe there is a problem at all.

"It affects Scotland only inasmuch as there may be a connected effort to alter Scotland’s representation at Westminster.

"In reality, as opposed to perception, the governance of England has not been altered at all by Scottish devolution."

Can’t fool you guys. Wouldn’t try. Those are among the opening sentiments in a chapter from my own little effort, snappily titled "The Scottish Parliament."

Wouldn’t change much, especially the last line.

To reprise, the good and sensible people of England were apparently content to be governed by the Union Parliament, pre devolution. That governance has not changed. At all. In any way.

Indeed, "Scotland’s representation at Westminster", as I foreshadowed, has been cut from 72 MPs to 59. That means England’s intrinsic dominance at Westminster, quite reasonable given relative population, has been entrenched and indeed enhanced.

"In reality, as opposed to perception, the governance of England has not been altered at all by Scottish devolution."

To reprise, again, it has been much more common in the past for Scotland to vote one way, in terms of seats, and to receive a government of a different colour when seats from elsewhere in the UK are included.

That has happened 14 times since the reform act of 1832, including during the Thatcher and Major years (poll tax, anyone?).

It has only afflicted the voters of England on six occasions.

If you like, devolution prevents that 14 becoming 15. It does nothing, however, to prevent six becoming seven.

All of which is fact. However, as I also envisaged in 1999 (and previously), perception matters.

The Tories calculate that they can win votes on the back of disquiet in England. I do not remotely chastise them for that. The grumbling disquiet is genuine, even if it is occasionally based on less than complete analysis.

However, there is another element. Tory leaders since William Hague, since the party lost power, have toyed with the issue of "English votes on English issues".

They have tended to back off on the grounds that this is a strategy which, whatever else it does, might be thought to run counter to staunch support for the Union. Which, one might think, poses a problem for the Conservative and Unionist Party.

Right now, the Tories are facing the same choice. Again. Once more, to reprise, "the English Question is first and foremost for the people of England to address."

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Quite a weekend, all things considered.

Tense anticipation, delivery, then the struggle, the real struggle, to disdain gloating, to spurn smugness.

And it was even more difficult for the SNP. After all, I was only contending with yet another triumph for the boys in Tangerine. Routine, these days. Standard fare.

SNP leaders were experiencing their first party conference in power.

To watch them, it was as if Kevin Pringle had implanted a loop CD in their lugs, the contemporary equivalent of the medieval court jester.

Don’t grin too much. Remember Kinnock/Sheffield: punching the air is explicitly banned. The phrase “ya dancer” is to be excised from all published texts.

Announcements aplenty - but I was most struck by two events. Firstly, an item on the BBC Scotland live telly coverage (What d’ya mean, you didn’t watch it?).

I was interviewing two Jimmies, Halliday and Lynch respectively, about party history. We were discussing the tensions which had beset the Nationalist cause down the years.

Halliday, J, recalled his first conference, in 1955, dominated, he said, by internal disquiet.

Have those tensions utterly gone? Yes, absolutely, for now. What would bring them back? Same as always: differences over the strategic approach to winning independence.

Which is why Alex Salmond’s views on this were of passing importance. He said - on that same BBC telly show (you really should have watched it) - that he would table a bill for a referendum within the present four-year term, regardless of whether the bill stands a chance of success or not.

To clarify, he hopes it will succeed. He will strive to make it succeed. He hopes there will be a referendum. He hopes that too will……you get it.

But, if rivals continue to block his objective of a referendum, he will table the enabling legislation anyway.

In the Salmond analysis, that would oblige them to vote it down and to take the consequences at the subsequent election.

Why table a bill that will go down? Two reasons. As above, to smoke out the opposition on the presumption that the voters generally like the concept of plebiscites.

But, secondly, to assuage party activists that ministers haven’t forgotten about the objective of independence.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Hugs and kisses, high fives, laughter and jubilation.

I haven't seen so many happy faces gathered together in one place since the last home game at Tannadice.

Yes, the SNP conference in Aviemore is the place for funsters. It is the 73rd such gathering but the first one to feature the party in power.

However, there are limits. The arrival of Alex Salmond on stage produced warm, genuine applause. They stood and clapped. But they didn't cheer or whoop. It was restrained.

Now perhaps the SNP doesn't do cheering or, indeed, whooping.Perhaps they're intuitively suspicious of even the mild orchestration which preceded his arrival. (Showing a Party Political Broadcast to stir the blood.)

But perhaps too they're alert to the strategy of Ministers at this event. Celebrate triumph by all means - but recollect that the triumph was constrained, that they're a minority government. And one with a huge challenge ahead.

John Swinney spelled it out when he described the new financial settlement. His political message was to claim that the relatively tight nature of that settlement made the case for independence. Oil prices, he said, were by contrast at a record high.

That, of course, is a longer term argument. Right now - on November 14, to be precise - Mr Swinney has to set out the details of his own budget.

And he faces problems. If, for example, he is to meet even the toned-down version of the pledge on police officers, then something else may have to go.

Further, expert analysis suggests that if the Scottish Government attempts to match the pledges for England on health and education, that of itself would swallow up virtually all the money available.

Today Fiona Hyslop has announced extra spending for colleges. But that doesn't set a general pattern. It's capital investment drawn down from the underspending fund, as per the agreement with the Treasury.

So it's going to be tough. Welcome to government.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

So where are we now on the elections guddle?

At Westminster, David Cameron chose to major on it in questions to the prime minister.

At Holyrood, Alex Salmond shelved his planned statement on his trip to the US in favour of one re the Gould report.

At Westminster, the prime minister repeatedly stated – accurately – that the Gould report deliberately avoids apportioning blame.

Also at Westminster, Douglas Alexander attempted to squash the controversy by tendering an apology for any actions taken by the Scotland Office during his tenure which might have contributed to the mess.

At Holyrood, his sister Wendy Alexander wisely stayed silent, leaving her colleague Andy Kerr to offer an apology on behalf of Labour in Scotland.

Contrition appears to be in vogue. Des Browne has already said sorry; the PM did likewise.

However, they are careful to spread culpability – as was Gould. They are inviting others to say sorry too.

The mood is nostra, not mea, culpa.

Specifically, Andy Kerr suggested that Mr Salmond might care to join the litany of apologies, in his case for the “Alex Salmond for First Minister” tag on the regional list ballot paper which was criticised by Gould.

Mr Salmond declined.

Which leaves us where?

Firstly, looking backwards, still apportioning blame. Should Douglas Alexander resign?

Don’t expect it any day soon. He is NOT singled out by Gould.

Further, Gould said the big problem was sticking both Holyrood votes on a single ballot paper.

That was endorsed across the major parties. If it was wrong - and it was - then they were all wrong.

Is it tough for Mr Alexander and other Labour Ministers? Yes.

Should they have been more alert to the problems pointed up in the preparation? Yes.

Is it notably awkward for Labour’s election co-ordinator (Alexander, D)? Yes, especially now it’s been highlighted by the Tory leader.

But, secondly, looking forwards. Alex Salmond says he accepts all the Gould recommendations; those aimed at Westminster and those for his Scottish Government to implement (dealing with local government for which Holyrood is responsible.)

That means he accepts council elections on a different date from Holyrood. I think they’ll be shifted to 2012, leaving Holyrood a clear run in 2011. That’ll happen, with cross-party support.

It means he accepts the notion of a Chief Returning Officer for elections in Scotland. Bit more scepticism, there. Some wonder whether that cuts across the Electoral Commission.

It means he accepts redrafting the ballot papers. No more cramming both Holyrood votes on a single sheet. Again, he’ll find no arguments.

The big battle? Should Holyrood be given control of Scottish Parliamentary elections? Gould said yes. Salmond says yes. The LibDems say yes. The Greens say yes. The Tories say maybe, but it’s not the big priority.

And Labour? The early steer was that UK Ministers might accept that administrative control could be shifted to Holyrood. Now they say no. Not necessary, they say, if councils and Holyrood go to the polls on different days.

But I don’t detect the same degree of opposition among Labour MSPs.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, they seem relatively open to the notion of endorsing that element of Gould, although they’d want to study the detail.

Me? On balance, with caveats (anathema in confrontational politics), I think it’ll eventually happen.

With careful safeguards and, probably, with Westminster retaining ultimate legislative control. Why? Read Gould.

If you want one team in charge to avoid confusion, it’s the “logical” option.

Even in partisan politics, logic tends to be powerful.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

I try to keep a fairly calm sough, both personally and professionally. (The exception, of course, is while viewing united - although that has become a decidedly less pressurised experience in recent weeks.)

Mostly, I affect an air of gentle Scottish detachment. Think Blandings combined with the Broons.

But, on occasion, the mask slips. On the night of the Scottish elections in May, I was angry. Angry on behalf of the voting public.

What a guddle! They couldn’t get the postal ballots out in time, the voting papers for Holyrood were so complicated that folk couldn’t make sense of them - and, if people contrived to overcome these hurdles, then the authorities couldn’t count the blasted votes with their brand shiny new system.

Well, of course, it was over-egged. And Ron Gould, who conducted a review into the elections, is attempting to maintain whatever the equivalent of a calm sough is in his native Canada. (Given the Caledonian influence, it’s probably "a calm sough".)

Launching his report, he reminded us that fully 96% of voters managed to surmount the hurdles placed in their way. “Only” 4% stumbled.

Secondly, he appeared to me somewhat bemused by the extent of the fuss surrounding these elections: demands for judicial review and the rest.

Then again, the vastly experienced Mr Gould has run and supervised elections around the world.

But still one phrase jumps out from Mr Gould’s excellent and thorough report. The voter, he says, was “treated as an afterthought” in planning and organising the May 3 elections.

The prime concern of politicians was . . . politicians. Quite.

And the instant reaction of the political parties? Blame rivals, exonerate themselves.

For any sake, gie’s peace! Give it a rest. Cease. Desist. Enough.

Yes, Labour Ministers appear primarily culpable. They were in office. At Westminster or Holyrood, their decisions meant the local and Scottish Parliamentary elections were run on the same day, with different voting systems.

Crucially, the UK Ministers also insisted on the regional and constituency Holyrood votes being crammed into a single ballot paper: the key practical problem, according to Gould.

But hang on. The report also criticises the SNP for “sloganising” (Gould’s word) on the regional list: setting out their cause as “Alex Salmond for First Minister”, rather than simply using their party name. That was potentially confusing.

And let’s be blunt. The big parties knew what was happening when the regional and constituency votes were lumped together. It was designed to ditch the Greens and the SSP, to end the impression that the regional vote was a “second choice”, a chance to take a risk.

They knew what was happening - and they acquiesced. (Incidentally, it worked.)

Remember, too, the atmosphere in the Holyrood committee which settled the ballot paper for local elections. It was utterly partisan - and the Executive position was defeated.

Remember too the earlier agitation for and against various forms of electoral change. Each and every demand from political parties was informed by partisan interests.

Ron Gould’s verdict, in an interview with me? They were all at it. All of them.

Ah, but, were Labour most at it? Yes. They were in power, in a position to act. QED.

Well, Scotland collectively can continue to pick over this. Or, as a nation, we can focus now on Gould’s suggestions for sorting things.

Transfer control to Holyrood, separate the council and Parliamentary elections, put the regional and constituency votes on separate papers, get a single body to take charge.

With any luck, we might regain voter trust in the electoral system. And I can maintain a calm sough at the next elections. Which, if Ron Gould has his way, will be counted the day after polling.

For any sake, gie’s peace! Give it a rest. Cease. Desist. Enough.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Do you agree that Trident should be based on the Clyde?

Do you agree that decision is properly taken by MPs, including Scottish MPs, in the UK Parliament?

Do you think the Scottish Government has a role to play?

Firstly, let’s agree that those are distinct, although not mutually exclusive, questions. It is possible, for example, to say Yes to both one and three: to think that Scotland should be consulted but that the enhanced Trident should go ahead.

It is possible, further, to say No to question one – but Yes to question two: in other words, you don’t want Trident and believe that MPs, who properly have the final say, should reflect that view.

I am being more than customarily pedantic on this because of the rather heated commentary which has surrounded today’s summit on the subject, convened by SNP Ministers in Glasgow.

Questions. Can this summit decide anything on Trident itself? No, defence policy is reserved. That is why this was a convocation of the modest and the good in a posh Glasgow pub-cum-theatre at the top of Byres Road rather than a full-scale governmental gathering.

Does that mean it’s a complete waste of time? That’s where opinion divides. SNP Ministers say it’s part of their National Conversation – and they’re entitled to examine options within devolved powers for thwarting the practical implementation of the Trident upgrade.

Critics say that those same Ministers should start delivering on the promises in their manifesto which dealt with substantive devolved issues such as policing, schools and housing.

They say this is another example of SNP Ministers indulging in gesture politics while neglecting their own in-tray.
Are the Nationalists out to gain political capital?

Unquestionably. They are presenting a direct political challenge to Labour, particularly Labour in Scotland. They are after votes.

But perhaps there is a balance to be struck.

Arguably, it would be somewhat strange if the SNP offered no resistance whatsoever to Trident. Their opposition to the nuclear deterrent is of long-standing.

Further, as the elected administration at Holyrood, they have a right, if not a duty, to consider wider issues of concern to the Scottish people. I suspect most neutral observers would concede that Trident is of passing interest to Scotland.

Against that, though, there is some substance, is there not, in the Labour complaint that the SNP initiative in contacting the 189 countries who are members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty risks running across the UK’s diplomatic remit.

Don’t think we can push that one too far, though. I cannot see the bells ringing at the UN when the news breaks that Bruce Crawford is on his feet in Byres Road giving it laldy to an audience of unions, church leaders, Greenpeace et al.

In general, SNP Ministers will be judged as a Scottish government not by their stance on Trident – but by their success or otherwise on those very devolved issues advance by their critics today.

But let’s remember that one of the biggest fallacies in politics – in a long list – is the fallacy of priorities. Don’t do this, do that instead. “I will take no lectures on ferret-taming from a politician who signally failed to tackle the problem of crop blight while in office.”

Anti-nuclear campaigners will say there is no bigger question than Trident. That doesn’t mean that SNP Ministers should spend every waking hour contesting Trident. They shouldn’t, they can’t, they won’t.

Equally, it is rather bogus to say that there is absolutely no time whatsoever to consider Trident, even though it is reserved, for as long as other manifesto promises remain pending. If that were simplistically true, then ministers would never do anything at all, for fear of neglecting something else.

Voters, I suspect, know that – and will judge accordingly.

PS: Much happen while I was away? Apart that is from Scotland winning then losing, United gubbing Hearts and Ming standing down?

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Do you wear the kilt? About the closest I get to Our National Dress is wearing tartan galluses.

For the purely practical purpose of keeping my breeks above the pavement.

I once tried on a kilt, with a view to purchase.

My elder son, who was acting as my fashion consultant, had to be helped from the shop, he was laughing so hard. Apparently, my resemblance to an early Spike Milligan sketch was marked.

Actually, come to think of it, I once donned a kilt as a three-year-old page boy. But, as Groucho said, there’s no need to bring the Civil War into this.

However, kilts aside, I take a passing interest in how Scotland projects herself to the wider world.

The First Minister, Alex Salmond, is in New York right now on just such a mission, following in the brogue footsteps of his predecessors.

Again today, he was asked about tartan. Was it not a bit “shortbread tin”? For any sake, what’s wrong with shortbread? A little shortie with your tea, splendid fare. What have people got against it?

OK, OK, I know, it’s shorthand for railing against kitsch, against the kailyard. I get the concept.

But I think you can go too far the other way. If you’re known for a tradition – especially a home-made one like tartan – then work with the weft.

I say “home-made” advisedly. I am perfectly well aware that Tartan, as presently marketed, is a relatively modern invention.

I am aware too of the glorious irony of Lowland Scots presenting their country to the world on the back of a distorted version of the once-suppressed Highland dress.

Me, I say: relax. Go with the flow. As the FM rightly said, most countries around the world are desperate to find a simple, straightforward image to project.
We’ve got one, ready made. Tartan, bagpipes, haggis, whisky. Perfect. You can wear it, you can play it, you can eat it and, above all, you can drink it.

What’s the alternative? Present our modern, high-tech image to the world? Hey, guys, we’ve got smart scientists and working computers? Join the queue.

Or perhaps tell it as it really is in parts of our cities? Less Princes Street, more Pilton?

Well, yes, we should ensure that the benefits of economic gain are widely spread.

But you don’t help the people in Pilton or Whitfield or Easterhouse by neglecting an opportunity to market Scotland internationally, thus attracting job-creating investment.

Let’s think of ourselves like old-style showfolk. They needed a gag to get people to come to their tent in the first place.

Then they could entice them to part with their cash.

So, it’s roll up, roll up, look at the guy in the plaid skirt. While you’re here, you’ll have a dram. Single malt? Oh, and by the way, did you know that we happen to run a world-beating company, with close links to a top-ranked university? You didn’t? Step this way.

PS: Off on leave for a spot. Abnormal service will resume after next week.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Tricky thing, trust. Absolutely vital in government – but, by definition, a two way process.

So, where lies trust in the row between the Scottish Government and the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs over financial assistance for farmers?

As a journalist, my starting point is total disclosure at all times. I am in favour of finding things out.

However, I appreciate that – on the inside – government cannot operate that way.

Within Cabinet, Ministers must feel able to float half-formed ideas with colleagues, in confidence.

Equally, between Whitehall and the devolved territories, there must be a substantial degree of trust.

For example, London and Edinburgh must be able to kick ideas around, privately, in advance of formulating the common UK line on European negotiations.

Without trust, government does not operate.

So, have SNP Ministers, has Alex Salmond, breached that trust by disclosing the details of a draft DEFRA statement to the Commons in re rural aid? Quite simply, yes.

However, is it possible that there was also a breach of trust – and, arguably, a greater breach – in the other direction?

Mr Salmond’s claim is that, on Friday, DEFRA was ready to fund support for Scottish farmers – as well as those in England. The leaked draft, he says, makes that clear.

By Monday, however, the statement actually delivered to the Commons made no mention of this aid, confining support to farmers in England. (DEFRA is primarily responsible for English agriculture. Alex Salmond’s case is that they also have powers, including financial responsibility, in relation to wider animal welfare.)
DEFRA says it will not comment on a leak – other than to say that there is “not a word of truth” in the First Minister’s further allegation that the apparent switch owes much to the cancellation of the election over the same weekend.

Back, though, to the general issue of government trust.

I have argued before on this site that it is near impossible for officials in London and Edinburgh to share information as freely as in the past.

That is because they are serving different political masters: two parties who are not just rivals but enemies.

However, it is in the interests of both administrations to continue to share information: in daily communication, in European negotiations as outlined above and in regard to tackling the emergent, common crises which beset all governments.

There will never be full confidence.

To repeat, they serve different masters, different ends. But here’s the deal – for both sides. Treat us fairly – and we won’t leak your confidential material.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

We wuz robbed. Or wuz we? (Incidentally, on that theme, United wuz definitely robbed when Kalvenes was sent off against Killie. That ref needs to have a word with his shirt sponsor.)

Anyway, as forecast, a top grade political row over spending.

In one corner, the chancellor, the Scotland Office and Labour MSPs lobbying hard - seriously hard - to persuade the wider world of the merits of this deal.

In the other corner, SNP ministers and special advisers vigorously stressing the downside - with Scottish Government officials doing the sums.

Here’s your handy Q&A:

Has Scotland’s budget been cut? No, it’s going up, more than inflation. The row’s over the rate of increase.

Is it a tight deal? Yes, by comparison with recent years.

Has the Barnett formula been applied strictly? Yes, to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Is that a good thing? It used to be when Barnett felt generous. The formula’s been tightened over the years. Now tends to squeeze, esp in NI.

Was the formula fiddled? No

What’s this about the new baseline? The Treasury decided to recalibrate certain existing budgets for England, principally the NHS: essentially, assuming they’d got less this year than the actual out-turn figure.

Why did they do that? Version One, it was a standard statistical exercise. Version Two, it made the percentage increase for health look bigger.

Why does that affect Scotland? Barnett. Scotland experiences changes consequential upon all comparable English departments, eg health.

Is that fair? It’s the formula. Live with it - or negotiate everything from scratch, which might not be to Scotland’s advantage.

What does it do in practice? It explains why Scotland Office say the growth increase over three years is 1.8% while Scottish Government say it’s 1.4%. They’re using a different starting point.

What else? It explains why Alex Salmond says the first year growth increase is just 0.5%. The effect of changing the baseline impacts in the first year.

Has Scotland been punished for voting SNP? Alex Salmond is not making that assertion. Neither am I. There is no evidence for that.

Did SNP ministers see this coming? Mostly, yes. The Treasury had been clear this would be a tight round. But John Swinney says he had received assurances that the impact of recalibration would be smoothed over three years.

What happens now? Scottish Government can complain to the Treasury about the first year deal.

Chances of success with that? 0.0%. In real terms.

And after that? John Swinney works out his Scottish budget details over the next month.

Will that hit their spending plans? Yes. At the very least, big schemes may have to be deferred beyond the first year.

Which is? A feeble excuse or a sound reason, according to taste.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Right, calculators out again. More on the public spending details due to be announced later today.

The SNP manifesto for May said: “We know from the most recent UK budget that the Comprehensive Spending Review will allocate an additional £1.8bn to the Scottish Block.”

This afternoon, we’ll learn the outcome of the CSR. However, it’s been suggested to me that the result for Scotland will be at least an extra £3bn over the three years covered by the review – 2008-11.

How’s that calculated? Take the existing Scottish Block, top it up by 2.5 per cent per annum to cover forecast inflation.

Then top it up again by 1.6 per cent annually. That’s the UK Government’s calculation of the growth rate in Scottish spending. Result: £3bn + more.

Everyone OK, then? Well, no. Far from it. SNP Ministers say that’s comparing apples and pears. Plus they suspect there’s a worm at the core of the apple.
How so?

Firstly, they contest the 1.6 per cent growth rate. They say that the baseline has been recalibrated, making the growth rate look more than it actually is.

Crucially, they’re not suggesting that’s been done for Scotland alone. Rather, they say the recalibration principally affected the NHS in England – with Scotland experience consequentials through the application of the Barnett formula.

Why does this matter? Because, if you recalibrate, you’re starting from a different – and, in this case, lower base. So the top up money appears, in percentage terms, more generous.

Labour response? Recalibration happens regularly – and is part of the Treasury mechanism.

Plus, if Scotland’s base has been shrunk by Barnett, then the top-up, again via Barnett, is proportionately better. Precisely, say the SNP, it’s a ruse.
But hold on. Treasury says £3bn increase. SNP forecast £1.8bn. What’s the problem?

Well, this. The £3bn figure includes money to cope with inflation. The £1.8bn doesn’t.

SNP Ministers say that when they forecast “an additional £1.8bn to the Scottish Block”, that was growth over and above inflation.

They point to an analysis of the various parties Scottish spending plans, conducted by the Centre for Public Policy for Regions.

That estimated that the CSR would be worth “an additional spending capacity” of almost £3.4bn over three years. So, say the SNP, if the Treasury is now talking about £3bn, that’s less than analysts expected. QED.

But, says Labour, the £1.8bn figure in the SNP manifesto didn’t have any caveats attached. Nor did the spending promises.

At this point, we return – almost thankfully – to raw politics. In essence, Labour will say: “You’ve got buckets of cash. OK, it’s tighter than in the past – but you shouldn’t have made costly promises you can’t keep. You knew this was coming. You said you’d need to make efficiency savings. Make them.”

The SNP will say: “It IS tighter than in the past. And it’s even tighter than you’re claiming. We’ll make efficiency savings – but don’t try to tell us this is a good deal. It’s lousy.”

PS: Perhaps I should respond to the little spat which has developed over comments in my previous blog, Pounds and Pence. The reference to “exaggerated, uncosted promises” in the SNP manifesto was a reflection of the Labour view.

When I used that phrase, I was quoting. Not endorsing. Quoting. It was attributed to Labour.

The clue is in the preceding line which began: “Labour says”.

If that wasn’t 100 per cent clear, then my apologies. Again, I was quoting. Not supporting or condemning.
I know it can be exasperating, as a reader, when you are perhaps looking for your own opinions to be sustained, rather than for analysis.

But, hey, that’s journalism. For the avoidance of any doubt, it is the only –ism to which I subscribe. (With the exception of fanatic-ism directed towards the boys in Tangerine.)

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Hey, things have got a bit dull: shall we have an election?

Enough, Brian, enough. Back to the politics of governing rather than seeking to govern.

Tomorrow, in the Commons, the Chancellor Alistair Darling will set out the details of his comprehensive review of public spending for the next three years.

He’ll also assess the state of the economy in his pre-Budget report.

Yes, it’s Big Bang budgetary day – with two statements pulled together into one. Just in case You Know Who wanted to call an early You Know What.

To govern is to choose – and, as a consequence of today’s statement(s), a choice will confront Scotland’s Finance Secretary John Swinney.

Here’s the SP. Mr Swinney will proclaim today’s settlement for Scotland as a “lousy deal”. Take that as read.

He then has to choose whether to sustain a political battle with his UK counterparts in the Treasury – or to offer to work to ensure that the spending package benefits Scotland to the maximum.

Mr Swinney’s response, of course, will blend both grousing and determination. His choice is the balance - which avenue does he emphasise?

Does he use the deal to begin to hint that some SNP manifesto commitments might be beyond reach? Or does he stress his resolve to meet those pledges within the spending deal on the table?

This is going to be a Grade A political battle. But, hey, why wait? Battle has already been joined – and, indeed, has raged since this blog first explained the competing claims by Labour and the SNP.
There’s a fight over the sums. The UK figure for spending growth is 1.9 per cent over three years.

For Scotland, Labour says the figure is 1.6 per cent - bang in line with the Barnett formula which is designed to narrow Scotland’s big, historic spending lead over England.

No, say Nationalists. The Treasury has fiddled the figures by using a baseline which strips some £300m out of Scottish spending this year.

That makes the year on year increase look bigger. The real growth figure is between one and 1.5 per cent.

Facts? We’re talking about growth, not cuts. Real terms growth, ahead of inflation. But that growth is much less than in recent years. The tightest settlement since devolution.

SNP Ministers say it’s hyper-tight for Scotland. Unpredictably tight. Further, they’re not inclined to talk up the deal which gives them control of some £900m from past underspending.

UK Government sources say it’s a special bargain, negotiated by Mr Swinney in talks with the Treasury.

Team Swinney say it’s Scotland’s money – and he was simply ensuring it stayed in Scotland.

Labour says there’s plenty money to pay for schools, hospitals, tackling crime and the rest.

But, perhaps, not enough to fund the exaggerated, uncosted promises in the SNP manifesto.

You choose

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Picture, if you will, a future Holyrood election. You know, one of those that comes along, by statute, every four years.

The hotline rings in Alexander Towers. “Team Brown here. Don’t worry about a thing. We’ll take charge of the Labour campaign as we always have.”

What do you imagine the response might be? Admittedly, the memory of this weekend’s Oktoberfest of Fun will have faded somewhat. Months, years, events.

But will Team Brown’s reputation for sharp, polished political strategy ever be quite the same again?
Scottish Labour is trying its best today.

Apparently, the only one truly scared of an election is Alex Salmond.

Well, it’s a gallant effort. Not quite up there with the suggestion that David Cameron’s Blackpool speech was a subliminal appeal to the SNP. But not bad.

So what’s left from this non-election weekend? Will we, in years to come, recall fondly where we were when we heard that the election was off?

(Personally, I was at Tannadice to witness the annihilation of Motherwell by one superb goal to nil.)

I suspect not. I suspect too that the sound and fury, the lampooning and lambasting, is amplified by the political bubble, whether at Westminster, Holyrood or on the party conference circuit.

The voters, I guess, know this is a pretty spectacular guddle. But, equally, I suspect they will be more concerned in the long-term about what their leaders do – rather than, in this case, don’t do.

At the UK political level, they will be interested in taxation and spending. The chancellor is due to give us much more info about all that on Tuesday with his spending review and pre-Budget report – while voters are still digesting that intriguing Tory offer on inheritance tax etc.

They will want to know more about the progress of Britain’s military adventures. The Prime Minister is promising a detailed statement on Iraq in the Commons tomorrow, having trailed the issue of troop redeployment while in Basra.

In Scotland, the voters will want to examine the options on crime, health and education. More to come on that from the still relatively new ministerial team and their opponents.

Still and all, as I heard one politician say, this is scarcely a “glad, confident morning” for the PM.

If I remember aright from my days studying literature in the Auld Grey Toon of St Andrews, that is a quotation from Robert Browning’s poem about Wordsworth, accusing him of selling out to the establishment. It is called The Lost Leader.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Just a thought, but if Gordon Brown now wants a way out of an early election, he could do worse than use the postal strike as justification (Translation: excuse).

Why might he want a way out?

Look at today’s published polls, each suggesting that Labour’s lead over the Conservatives has been pegged back, if not eliminated - perhaps because of the Tory conference, perhaps because of the Tories’ tax pledges targeted on middle-income households.

To repeat, an autumn election is constitutionally unnecessary.

Mr Brown has a substantial Commons majority. He has a clear mandate, derived from his party’s manifesto which was placed before the voters. There is no great, over-arching controversy which demands a popular test.

The only reason for calling an early election is partisan: for Labour to take advantage of apparent difficulties faced by the Conservative leadership.

That does not mean that an early contest is intrinsically wrong. Voters might welcome the chance to make a choice between the pair now at the peak of British politics. I suspect a fair few would find an election a nuisance - but others would probably like a say.

However, the underlying partisan motivation for an early ballot means that it could be rather tricky to sound statespersonlike in calling a halt to such a contest.

If you were only saying yes because you think your party would gain, then how, credibly, do you say no? What reason do you give?

Try this for size: “We did quite fancy an election when it looked like we might win. Now it looks as if we could lose, we’ve changed our minds. What are we like, eh?”

See what I mean? Lacks gravitas.

You need a pitch that stresses the public interest. The postal strike could fit the bill.

Election officers are already warning that an autumn poll would be held on an out-of-date register - and that they’re not ready.

Encouraged by political parties, thousands in each constituency already choose to vote by post. Many more might consider that option in gloomy November.

In May, at the Holyrood elections, many postal votes failed to get through to be counted. It was, frankly, a mess.

Now there’s a postal strike under way which is certain to create a backlog of mail and add extra burdens to an already stretched service.

So the statespersonlike response could be to say that the election talk was always just wicked media speculation (“We were getting on with the job"). Further, Britain’s postal service doesn’t need any more grief.

As I say, only a thought.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Just what is it with Alex Salmond and Annabel Goldie? Again, at First Minister’s Questions today, he replied to Ms Goldie not with a bang but a simper.

By contrast, Mr Salmond lambasted Wendy Alexander and lampooned Nicol Stephen.

Now, before you all reach for the “send” button, I am aware that the First Minister said the Tories were “knackered”. I am aware that he is opposed to the Tories.

I am aware that he has worked all his days to displace the Tories from Scottish popular affection. As a certain Welsh comedian used to say: “I know ‘cos I was there.”
But, still and all, Alex Salmond’s attitude to Annabel Goldie is markedly different from that adopted towards other leaders (and, occasionally, members of his own party.)

He woos, he cajoles, he shares little confidences. Even today, he was teasing – rather than tormenting. Mimicking David Cameron’s inadvertent comments at the end of his Blackpool speech, he said he wasn’t sure whether he loved Ms Goldie any more.

Now, part of this is the personality of Ms Goldie. She is widely liked across the political divide. She is the Forces Sweetheart at Holyrood. She is Auntie Annabel. You can’t be nasty to Auntie Annabel. It would be as unthinkable as being rude to Lord James (Douglas-Hamilton).

But is there more to it? After Mr Cameron’s Blackpool speech, the Scottish Labour party issued the following comment: “David Cameron's speech was a thinly veiled cry for help to his SNP bed fellows.”

Eh? Run that by me again. I was in Blackpool to hear Mr Cameron. All 67 minutes. If it was an appeal for the SNP to bail him out, it failed. Or I missed it entirely. Or it was so cleverly veiled that only Labour could see it.

The claim is, of course, piffle – although there is more substance to Labour’s concomitant argument that, in practical terms, only Labour or the Tories can expect to lead the next UK Government. Expect that to run if/when Mr Brown goes to the country (for an election, that is, not for fresh air.)

Arguably, the SNP might prefer a Conservative Government at Westminster on the possible grounds that it might incline the Scots more towards maximum devolution or even independence.

However, I do not expect that the SNP’s Westminster campaigners will want to ease up on the Tories to any degree in Perth or Angus or Moray or, to broaden the argument, in Ochil or Argyll or…..well, you get the point. I do not buy the theory or the practice.

I think Mr Salmond’s tactics owe more to the situation at Holyrood rather than the potential breakdown of seats at Westminster.
He leads a minority government. He has already lost a few votes in the chamber. With legislation and, particularly, a budget Bill ahead, he needs to minimise the opportunity for defeat. Hence, in advance, the agreement with the Greens.

But what about the major opposition parties? Can he expect any help from Labour? Behave yourself. Wendy Alexander went for him today on the schools building programme – and will do so again.

Can he expect substantial help from the Liberal Democrats? Bit more likely – but Nicol Stephen followed Ms Goldie today in claiming to detect discrepancies between promise and potential delivery over the issue of police numbers. Each was rather effective, in different ways.

More, the LibDems have already rebuffed Alex Salmond when they turned down a coalition. That attitude can become habit forming.
Which leaves the Tories. They have already declared they’re open to deal on individual issues: indeed, they’ve made it their career option. So be extra nice to Auntie Annabel, First Minister. You might just need her help one day.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Like an ad-libbing actor, David Cameron meandered across the stage at the Winter Gardens in Blackpool.

No written text. No cue cards or teleprompter. And no strutting, no overblown oratory.

Was it good? It was, rather.

The wicked elf that resides within me occasionally thought of the old political counsel: “The key is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”

But, casting the internal elf aside, I was mostly impressed. As an opposition leader, just how do you deal with an apparently popular government and a new prime minister?

Satirical comedy won’t work. Your audience in the hall love it, the audience at home hate it.

Tragic bleating doesn’t do it. Pretending your opponents are the embodiment of all evil is bogus - and the voters know it.

So David Cameron tried empathy.

Labour ministers were, generally, honourable. They were well-intentioned, for the most part.

The snag is their policies, for example on poverty, hadn’t worked. Tories would do better.

Of course, it wasn’t all just cuddly and warm.

Mr Cameron needed applause in the hall - so he offered the audience some classic red Tory meat. Discipline in schools, curbs on immigration, support the troops, scrap benefits for those who won’t take reasonable offers of work.

At one point, he talked nostalgically of National Service.

A few representatives sat forward in eager anticipation. He wouldn’t, would he? No, he was talking of citizens service, urging teenagers to help with social projects.

There’s been a lot of talk lately about dog-whistle politics - targeted messages which focus upon the core concerns of the party faithful. Well, he whistled - and they begged for more.

Does it make an early General Election more or less likely? Still no firm decision - but now looks inevitable.

Does it make the outcome more or less predictable? Not in itself, but at least this week in Blackpool the Tories stayed united and advanced policies, for example on inheritance tax, which could win votes if they can withstand criticism from rivals.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The Conservative Conference in Blackpool has discussed defence and foreign affairs.

Along with the broad economy, these issues will, by definition, form the core of the next UK General Election in Scotland, whenever one is called.

For why? Because other big election issues - health, schools, crime and the rest - are all devolved to Holyrood. And MSPs are not up for election.

I am acutely aware that I have a pedantic tendency to labour this point. Perhaps it’s an obsession, perhaps it’s a foible, but I dislike muddle. I lean towards clarity.

So let’s be clear. In a UK General Election, candidates and parties contesting seats in Scotland should generally confine themselves to the issues reserved to Westminster, rather conveniently set out in schedule five to the Scotland Act 1998.

They should not promise to cut hospital waiting times. That’s not on their ward. They should not promise to improve literacy. Not their book. They should not promise to tackle street crime. Not their neighbourhood.

In truth, that has been the case since the advent of a Scottish Parliament in 1999.

Remember the guddle Labour got into when they tried to major on health at their Scottish campaign launch in 2005?

However, in addition, we now have a devolved administration in Scotland which is of a markedly different political colour from the present UK Government and any potential successor.

That adds edge to an existing factor.

It means, again, that a would-be MP in Scotland simply cannot credibly promise action on devolved topics.

Let’s say a Tory candidate wants to focus on crime, perhaps under the slogan, "hug a hoodie, really hard.” No can do.

Kenny MacAskill, of the SNP, remains the Scottish Justice Secretary - and will do so whatever happens in a UK General Election.

Or perhaps a Labour or Lib Dem candidate wants to spotlight schooling. No can do. Fiona Hyslop remains . . . well, you get the concept.

This applies to SNP Westminster candidates too.

They can haver all they like about the actions of their colleagues at Holyrood. But, if they win through to Westminster, they won’t be voting on devolved issues. It won’t be part of their job.

They too should keep their tanks off the devolved lawn.

Too prissy, too restrictive? Well, perhaps - but such an approach would have the advantage of honesty.

Voters are already fed up of promises not delivered. Imagine what they would make of promises that are constitutionally impossible to deliver.

In truth, the reserved list is sufficiently extensive. The broad economy, most taxation, welfare and pensions, immigration, terrorism and security, relations with the EU, wider foreign affairs, defence including Britain’s nuclear deterrent, the Union and the Crown.

More than enough, I would suggest, for substantial debate and argument - without encroaching on Holyrood territory.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

So what do you reckon? Should there be a snap General Election or not?

As a source of innocent merriment, I have posed that question to sundry folk at the party conferences, Labour last week, Conservative this.

At Bournemouth, the Labour answers were universally predicated on party advantage. Would we win? Would we win big? Could we gain revenge on the SNP for May?

Yes, they had considered factors such as the weather, the dark nights, the unnecessarily early timing, possible apathy, possible voter antagonism - but only in terms of the impact upon their own party, not as issues of distinct substance.

In truth, I wasn’t surprised. In a democratic system, it is healthy - and inevitable - that politicians will calculate the potential impact on their own party’s chances of success. It is a vital check.

However, it was just a mite depressing that every single interlocutor gave a partisan reply to a neutral question.

I hadn’t asked about the impact upon Labour. I had asked in general terms about the rights and wrongs of such a step.

An early election is, strictly speaking, unnecessary. The Government has a substantial majority. There has not been a confidence vote defeat. There is no great, unsolved question to go before the people. Gordon Brown is not a president requiring a personal mandate - he can govern according to the mandate given in 2005 to his party’s manifesto.

However, politics is about momentum rather than pure constitutional theory.

Those facing election will, understandably, ask: "What does this mean for me?"

The rest of us can decide for ourselves whether it feels right, at this point in the political cycle, that Britain’s new prime minister should subject himself to our verdict.

Consequently, I wouldn’t use the phrase deployed by Sir Malcolm Rifkind at a Conservative conference fringe meeting today.

He said an election just two years on from the last such contest was “a constitutional outrage”.

Indeed, he suggested - with a broad grin - that if/when Gordon Brown goes to Buckingham Palace, the Queen should refuse his request to dissolve Parliament.

Grinning still more broadly, Sir Malcolm added: “It might well be the end of the Monarchy - but what a way to go!”

However, Sir Malcolm’s is not the most commonly expressed view here in Blackpool.

Instead of indignation and drollery, most Tories here feel themselves obliged to offer bold bravado. Bring it on. Come and have a go if you think you’re hard enough.

Also on the fringe, Annabel Goldie challenged Mr Brown to “stop footering” - and call the election instantly.

Do they mean it? Well, some do. But a fair number here in Blackpool suspect that their party’s policy portfolio isn’t yet quite in a shape to endure sustained exposure to voter scrutiny.

Philip Hammond, who shadows the chief secretary to the treasury, said he and his colleagues were carefully studying the report from their economic policy group, adding in a wry aside that they might well have to accelerate the process if an election is called.

Because of course, just as with Labour, the real consideration for the Tories here in Blackpool is - what would an early election mean for the party?

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?