tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25863890621827280982024-03-17T20:03:01.485-07:00ianssmartianssmarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07863217818794644141noreply@blogger.comBlogger443125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2586389062182728098.post-75731127645061191922024-02-26T08:27:00.000-08:002024-02-26T08:27:38.566-08:00Where stands Scotland on Gaza?<p>Where does Scotland stand on Gaza? Actually nowhere, "Scotland" is not a political party, let alone a political position, it is one of a longstanding union of two historic nations reaffirmed less than ten years ago. But, even had that not been reaffirmed and Scotland was now, once again, alone, it still would not, collectively, "stand" for either side. Insofar as it might have a view, even ignoring the bizarre idea that an entire Country might have the same view, it would be pretty much the same view as the rest of the remaining UK. That it presents a choice, on the one side, of mad bastards with cause to be mad and, on the other, with ruthless bastards with equal cause to be ruthless. </p><p>But, let us be clear about two things. That even among those with a view within our devolved polity, that view ranges wildly. At one extreme, we have those who genuinely support the (somehow possible) actual eradication of the State of Israel. But they are a very small number indeed. On the other we have those who think October 7th was only a culmination of events that justifies the expulsion (somehow possible again) of the entire population of Gaza to......somewhere. They are an equally small number. Amongst those more reasonably engaged, actual opinion ranges along a much broader spectrum: from the not unreasonable view that the civilian death toll is such that the Israelis must settle for the revenge they have already had, to the equally not unreasonable view that, terrible though the side effects are, the Israelis cannot be expected to stop until they have secured the return of their kidnapped citizens, or at least a process for that to happen. The Labour Party contains within it opinions that range right across that spectrum and has ended up in the slightly ludicrous position of supporting an unconditional ceasefire but subject to conditions. That the hostages are released being the most obvious, but not the only, one.</p><p>I've said this on twitter, but the obvious fault line is what happens if the Israelis stop attacking but the hostages are not released? Any time our Party's representatives are asked this in the media we.......obfuscate. There are in truth only two answers. The first is that this would justify a resumption of Israeli hostilities and the second is that the Israelis would just have to suck this up. For the avoidance of doubt "Hamas would release the hostages" is not an answer. For at least two months, had Hamas released the hostages, World, particularly US Government, pressure would have ensured Israel at least significantly scaled back its military operation. If Hamas won't release the hostages with the IDF at the mouths of their tunnels, why would they conceivably do it if the Israelis just went home?</p><p>But as someone who has an opinion I am in danger of undermining my principal point. Because it is this. THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE A STRONG OPINION ABOUT GAZA. That is Scottish and English people alike. They think it was terrible what happened on 7th October and the subsequent death toll among Palestinian civilians is equally terrible. But they also think, insofar as they think about it at all, that the whole situation is complicated, with both fault and merit on both sides and that there is no easy solution. And, anyway, what has any of this got much to do with us?</p><p>Now I appreciate this blog has a readership almost entirely of people interested in politics but I ask you this. Yes, political people are engaged with this but from your dealings with the far larger group of people who's politics consist of mainly voting at elections, do you think they are interested in it at all, let alone that it might be a factor in deciding how they vote? Very opinionated people, mainly but not exclusively on the Palestinian "side" seem to have persuaded my Party at a UK level that not "having a position" (on their side needless to say) will lead to electoral disaster. But there is no opinion poll support for this at all, Since Labour has dithered, our opinion poll leads have largely increased! Because this is not an issue that concerns the vast majority of voters, at least to the extent that it would influence their vote.</p><p>And in Scotland the position is even more bizarre. The SNP think that their are votes to be won from, or at least not lost to, Scottish Labour by "standing up for Gaza" in much the same way that they once won and still try to win votes by "Standing up for Scotland". This is utterly deluded. I could go on to explain but to be honest, you, reader, already know that. For, beyond thinking it a terrible tragedy all round, I repeat, THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE A STRONG OPINION ABOUT GAZA. And, among the small minority who do, there are a fair number of people with whom you would not want much association. </p><p>But, as Napoleon once observed, never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. So if Humza wants to continue his virtually daily commentary on the position then who am I to object. </p>ianssmarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07863217818794644141noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2586389062182728098.post-13080479155836949882024-01-28T13:03:00.000-08:002024-01-28T13:03:42.164-08:00 A con-man is a con-man. Even if they are a woman<p> <b><u>THE PROLOGUE</u></b></p><p>I start this blog with an extended anecdote. But I suspect some who read it might think it can't be true. For couldn't this all have been sorted out with a few emails? Except it comes from an age before emails. Where the only means of instant communication, and even then only when your correspondent could reciprocate, was the new fangled fax machine. </p><p>I am currently in possession of my 44th and last practicing certificate from the Law Society of Scotland. The profession I entered is almost unrecognisable today. Where the day to day conduct of business was dependent on the mail. Where when you went to court you were uncontactable until you returned and when you went home in the evening you were uncontactable by anybody except the Polis, who had your only line (your landline) but chose to employ that even then if it was convenient for them to do so.</p><p>Anyway, it was a different age and everything I say in what follows has to be seen against that background. Although its conclusions today remain equally valid.</p><p><b><u>Con-men</u></b></p><p>In the late 1980s I had just arrived at what was then the Cumbernauld office of Ross Harper & Murphy. Which was then, in turn, by some way, only rivalled by Beltrami Dunn & Co as the main criminal defence firm in Scotland. And that reputation brought in a good deal of interesting "off the street" business. </p><p>So, one day, I am asked to see urgently, a man who has walked in off the street needing advice. And that is how I first met George Beattie (needless to say not his real name). </p><p>Anyway, Mr Beattie, then found his way in to my office. A man in his late twenties, very good looking impeccably turned out. He explained their was a warrant out for his arrest. About which he was visibly upset. He then told me his story. </p><p>Mr Beattie was originally from Cumbernauld, By his own admission he had not enjoyed school so had left at the earliest opportunity to become a joiner. He had served his time but at 19 or so had decided to see a bit of the world. So he had decided to move to Hong Kong, then still a British Dependency. Where he continued his trade and developed a reputation for an expertise for fitting out bars and restaurants. That in turn had decided him to set up his own business and to ultimately end up in partnership with a local man of Chinese extraction. George would do the designing and occasional specialist work and his partner would recruit the local tradesmen and bridging finance to enable it to be carried out. To the significant mutual benefit of them both. </p><p>But they both knew their was uncertainty about the future in Hong Kong given the imminent handover to China so they had decided to hedge their bets by setting up a Scottish arm of their business. In furtherance of which George had returned to Scotland with a partnership cheque to finance this enterprise. He had opened a bank account with a major bank here and, in anticipation of a future business arrangement, had asked to speak to the bank manager to introduce himself. A week or so later he had returned to inquire of the manager if the cheque had cleared to be told it yet hadn't. A week after, the same story. Whereupon he explained to the manager that this was all a bit awkward but he had secured a major contract from which he would need to walk away if he could not show some evidence of immediately available capital. Whereupon. according to George at least, the bank had volunteered to provide some interim funding. Not to nearly the amount of the as yet not honoured cheque. which was for a very large sum indeed, but nonetheless for a very large sum. </p><p>Now, you know what is coming here, but I can only say that as an admittedly young lawyer but still possessed of the cynicism that most of your clients are guilty. I believed this. But, never mind that, so. as I'll come on to narrate, did others. </p><p>The cheque had, needless to say, bounced. But, far from George being the perpetrator of fraud, he had been the victim of it! He had tried to phone his office in Hong Kong to work out what was going on, only to find the number disconnected. He had tried to phone his bank but understandably they wouldn't speak to someone who could be anyone on the phone. His best assumption was that his partner had cleared out the firm's account and disappeared. </p><p>But, I asked, not being a complete idiot, why had he not explained this to the Police before it had reached the stage of their being a warrant for his arrest? Well, George explained, when he had returned to Cumbernauld, he had stayed with his mother, but she had been unable to accept that he was now a grown man and things had proved difficult there. In the meantime he had met a young lady and had asked if he could move in with her. To which she had readily agreed. He forgetting that his mother's address was the only one by which he could be contacted. And since this was before mobile phones, it was only when he had phoned his mother weeks later that she advised him that first of all the bank and then the Police had been looking for him? But why had he himself not been in touch with the bank after learning the cheque had bounced? He was trying to work things out and had I, myself, never been distracted by love?</p><p>I'm telling this tale , even as I do so, exposing myself as an idiot, but as I again go on to narrate, so proved others. He was so charming and so apparently distressed as to his circumstance that I at least thought he might be telling the truth. </p><p>But let's move on to when he voluntarily answers the warrant and appears in court. Even non lawyers will be familiar press report that someone has appeared in court and made "no plea or declaration". Nobody ever makes a declaration. But this time we did, For establishing that George had himself been a victim required investigation on in Hong Kong that was beyond my resources but if we raised it as possibility we could require the Crown to look in to it. So I told George that was his best option. It was prosected by someone who subsequently became a very, very senior figure at the Crown Office but was nobody's mug, even in her then more junior role and proceeded before a Sheriff who normally objected to his time being wasted by "obvious criminals". </p><p>But he utterly charmed them both. At the end of his declaration as above, the Crown indicated that they wished his passport forfeited as a condition of bail, As I stood up to object, George intervened to say he had no objection as he would not be leaving Scotland until his name was cleared. Whereupon the Sheriff observed that while the passport would be taken, if George needed to go abroad, the Court would be likely to be favourable if Mr Smart made an application for its reasoned return. </p><p>And then the fiscal, the hard but fair Fiscal, tells me, after the hearing that she will arrange for this to be looked into in Hong Kong as a matter of urgency! We were all utterly bewitched. </p><p>So anyway, about six weeks later, the Fiscal gets back to me. She has gone through the Foreign Office to get co-operation from Hong Kong. George had indeed lived there but had left after fleeing various people he had defrauded there. He had indeed had a business but it had failed long before his departure and certainly had never remotely had funds to cover the cheque he had presented to a Cumbernauld Bank. </p><p>And when I present this to George? His response is that it was worth a try, gives me a smile and goes to jail. </p><p>Now, before I make my, shorter (I promise) political conclusion, I just wanr to add an epilogue. </p><p>About five years later, out of the blue, I am phoned at work by a woman who has both a posh name and is very well spoken. "Thank you for taking my call, Mr Smart, I am phoning about a mutual friend, George Beattie. Have you heard from him lately?"</p><p>Ethically. I'm in a bit of an ethical dilemma here. So I ask if I can call her back. But in the end I conclude my obligation of professional confidence to George ended after I saw him in Barlinnie to agree there would be no appeal against sentence, So I phone the woman back only to discover the number she has left is not a direct line but is that of a well known firm of Chartered Accountants. And on asking to speak to her I don't initially get transferred to her directly but to her personal assistant. From whom I extract the information that my initial caller is a partner there before I am put through. </p><p>What follows is awkward. </p><p>"Why did you think to phone me?"</p><p>" George always said you were a friend of his. I haven't heard from him for ten days or so and wondered if you had?"</p><p>The rest of the conversation involved a tale of a brief romance during which George "a former airline pilot" had persuaded her to fund his project to set up a flying school(!) and then disappeared. In the end I had to tell her why I knew him and we parted company on civil terms.</p><p>Now why do I tell you this? Because there are those on my side maintaining that what went wrong over Covid and its aftermath was due to Civil Servants and other public servants being partisans of Scottish Independence. They were not. They were simply conned. Being unwilling to even contemplate that the priority of the First Minister,, the charming First Minister, of any Party, during a pandemic would be something other than saving lives. And yet it is increasingly obvious it was. </p><p><br /></p><p> </p><p><br /></p>ianssmarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07863217818794644141noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2586389062182728098.post-56343003644718285232024-01-21T09:09:00.000-08:002024-01-21T09:09:44.959-08:00Useless to the end.<p>So, today, we had Humza on the Sunday morning political telly. In my opinion, in his own terms, he did alright. His offer to Keir Starmer was a bit strange. How Parties work together after the next election is a matter for after the next election and if Humza had intended this as anything other than a stunt he wouldn't have qualified what he said by insisting that Starmer needed to come to Scotland for this meeting. Anyway, Starmer will have better things to do in Scotland between now and the election than meet with Useless. </p><p>But of course after the election the UK Prime Minister will have to have meetings on some basis with the First Minister of Scotland. And that got me thinking. Will that be Useless? </p><p>Now, I'm not writing a mystery story here, so I will start with the conclusion. Yes, it will. The SNP are stuck with Useless until May 2026. Because nobody else will want the job.</p><p>Let's just start with the current political consensus drawn from the current polling. Come the next UK election, the SNP are going to lose a lot of seats, probably more than half their current roster. For what it's worth, I think they'll do a lot worse than that for there is no upside for them about the year ahead. Branchform will eventually report. I strongly suspect there will be charges and amongst those charged will be the former first minister. The significance of her being arrested has I think. if anything, been underappreciated. Section 1(1) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act provides:-</p><p><span face="arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif" style="color: #1e1e1e; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">A constable may arrest a person without a warrant if the constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person has committed or is committing an offence.</span></p><p>That's it. For the avoidance of doubt, a "constable" includes a Police officer of any rank and the word "only" is implied because without "reasonable grounds for suspecting that person has committed an offence" the Police do not have any power of arrest. Given the prominence of the arrestee you can be satisfied that these suspicions were believed to exist by officers of the highest rank . And I think further, given the reputational damage to the arrestee, if the Police had no further interest in her as a suspect that would long since have been made public.</p><p>But in any event, the one consolation for Useless might be that unless charges resulting in appearance in Court follow pretty soon then there will be no trial before the UK General Election and contempt of court consequences will prohibit any comment until the trial. Nonetheless, this will now hang around the SNP like a bad smell until any criminal proceedings are concluded, </p><p>But that is only the beginning of the troubles that lie ahead of Useless in the nine months or so until the General Election. For starters there is the Covid Inquiry. It has only just started its work in Scotland but already with devastating impact. And it has weeks here to run. And then, in case the First Minister, might at least think "thank goodness that is behind us", we have still to have the distinctly Scottish Inquiry, a wholly unnecessary exercise brought about by the hubris of Sturgeon, determined to get ahead of the UK but which is now, in typically Scottish Nationalist manner of promising more than they can deliver, is now trailing months behind. Months that, assuming Lord Brailsford's early return to health, will nonetheless trail on throughout and beyond the election.</p><p>And then, currently, we have the Michael Matheson inquiry which has already run for nearly two months without anybody being clear who exactly is doing the inquiring, or what inquiries they have made to date or even having the remotest clue as to what is to happen when these inquiries are over. Suffice to say this will run and run but if the ultimate conclusion is, on a Parliamentary vote divided along Party lines, that Matheson should face no sanction? Suffice to say that is likely to have electoral consequence with, unfortunately for the SNP, an election imminent.</p><p>And that's without even considering the already suppurating sores: The ferries; the health service; the schools; local government finance; the wholly inadequate ministerial team. To which bonfire of doom, Humza seems determined to throw on another rotting corpse in the form of revisiting the issue of Trans demands, albeit from a different direction.</p><p>So, suffice to say, the omens are not good for a SNP recovery at the polls. Yet Humza will survive the UK General Election, even if the SNP lose far more than half their seats.</p><p> He will survive for two reasons. Firstly, there is simply no alternative from within the Sturgeon continuity faction who still dominate the higher ranks of the SNP. We've so far had four previous Deputy First Ministers: Jim Wallace; Nicol Stephen; Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney. Even their worst enemies would not have doubted their ability to step up to the top job as Wallace did (temporarily) twice and Sturgeon more permanently. The best Useless has been able to recruit is Shona Robison who, to be fair, given the limited pool he was prepared to fish in, was as good as it was going to get. But, suffice to say, when Useless eventually does go she will hardly be the first name on every, or indeed any, lip to succeed him.</p><p>But the second reason he will survive is that the obvious alternative candidate, Kate Forbes, would be mad to take the job on with perhaps less than 15 months until the next Holyrood election. The aftermath of a decisive reverse to the Nationalists will be a complete bloodbath. Dozens of Nationalists will be out of work. Not just MPs but their staff and other advisers. Fury will be in the air but not just fury, desperation to find other elected office. not least to pay the bills but also to continue to have a role in what was famously described as "showbusiness for ugly people".</p><p>And that will coincide with the commencement of the SNP's selection process for the Holyrood contest to come. There will be a battle royal for places on the list as sitting MSPs work out that their constituency seat is very much at risk. A battle joined by dismissed MPs and possibly some of their redundant advisers. This might even spill over into direct challenge to some of the more anonymous existing back benchers. And every Party knows such internal contests can....no inevitably are.....brutal. Who would want to be part of that. Particularly if they knew their very own elevation to the leadership might cause a collective nervous breakdown in certain quarters? Never mind among the inevitable departure of their coalition partners among a combination of denunciation and outrage. </p><p>Oh, and then there will finally be the Branchform trial. </p><p>And at the end of all this? Without much time to turn things round in terms of either policy or achievement (just one budget) and at the end of it all, every prospect of loss of government office and even a consequential leadership challenge. It is hardly an attractive vista.</p><p>So Useless will survive. Which is an additional reward for Anas and Jackie in the week the latter received her well deserved early reward. We'll hardly have to worry about having a competent Deputy First Minister when the time arrives.</p>ianssmarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07863217818794644141noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2586389062182728098.post-73169844284292075462023-12-30T11:21:00.000-08:002023-12-30T11:21:29.725-08:002026<p> I left my office for the holiday at about 1.30pm on 21st December. I hadn't finished working but I was going to Court and not planning to return. It was only as I drove there that it occurred to me that every year since 1978 I had departed work on the last working day before Christmas. as I had just done, for the last time. For next year I will be retired and, just to discourage any back sliding on that, no longer in procession of a practising certificate. </p><p>However, for the moment, I am back to work on the 3rd and indeed have a quite important trial the next day. My only business emails during the holiday have indeed been emails from that client advising as to lines of cross examination in that matter, most of which are irrelevant, at least one incompetent and even avoiding these pitfalls, others positively lunatic in the cause of securing his acquittal. I'll reply on the 3rd but that is one aspect of the job I will not be missing come Christmas 2024.</p><p>Anyway, when I left the office on the 21st I took with me a box of work to be done "over the holiday". I even took it in to the house when I arrived home on that day putting it down on the floor ever since. I'll do it eventually, probably on the evening of 2nd January. It'll still have been done over the holiday, if only just. </p><p>I can't honestly explain the reason for that being anything other than lethargy but that is hardly the worst of the seven deadly sins. Indeed it isn't even one at all. Although sloth is, but who uses the word sloth nowadays? </p><p>The other thing I had resolved to do over the break was to write a blog but, until now, I haven't done that either. And for reasons more complex than my unattended box of work. I had no real idea what to write about.</p><p>There are accepted forms for Christmas writing about politics. You can simply reprise the previous twelve months. Or you can draw on that period's unresolved issues to predict how they might play out over the year ahead. Or you can just ignore the past year and predict ahead anyway. And in doing to assert your own politics. But that's been done in spades by professional writers ranging in views from "We will finally see the benefits of Brexit" to "The treatment of Jeremy Corbyn will yet cost Labour a landslide." Neither of things will come to pass but people have to make a living, so, particularly at Christmas, they should be left to get on with it.</p><p>In Scotland there have been a few of these similar pieces, mostly themed around "Alright, the SNP are going to get gubbed at the General Election but the cause of Independence is not dead," This kind of ignores the fact than in democracies elections are quite important events but.....it's Christmas. The other side, my side, have been quieter, appreciating that patience is a virtue, although if you were so inclined you might have been tempted to inquire that if the SNP might yet retain 20+ seats then where exactly are these seats? But it is, I remind myself, Christmas.</p><p>So what would I write about. At all?</p><p>It won't be 2024, for that's been done, But it won't be 2025 either. For I suspect that will be quite a boring year. No. my interest is 2026, May in particular, The date of the next Scottish Parliament election. </p><p>The SNP. in office for nearly thirteen years now have completely run out of ideas about the Government of Scotland. They never were that much possessed but, under Salmond, they did at least have some. Not least demonstrating that they could govern Scotland as competently as the Labour Party. Which, between 2007 and 2011 they did, and earned their electoral reward. But more recently they have failed in that task. And Labour is reaping the fruits of that. But despite the manifest talents of Jackie and Anas, not yet sufficiently well in Holyrood polling at least. </p><p>You see public services in Scotland are a shambles but Labour's alternative, beyond the rather abstract idea of making them "more efficient" is non existent. We are, for example, also in favour of a National Care Service, just not the one promised, but now pretty much abandoned, by the SNP. We want to "improve" Education provision but not to the extent of abandoning the "Curriculum for Excellence" which seems to me to be a large part of the problem but which, whisper it, was developed under our own Party's stewardship before 2007. I could go on,</p><p>I am no Blairite but the 1997 landslide was on the back of two different things coming together: the Tories having run out of ideas and we, on the other hand, having new ideas, The new ideas were not an afterthought, But currently, in the world of Scottish Labour, it is assumed they can be. </p><p>However they can't be if we want to win not just in 2024 but in 2026.</p><p>Happy New Year when it comes.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>ianssmarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07863217818794644141noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2586389062182728098.post-51152872370893045112023-10-28T10:27:00.003-07:002024-02-02T06:52:10.007-08:00It takes two to ceasefire<p>What is happening in Gaza is horrific. Even accepting that Israel is attempting to minimise civilian casualties, the Israelis themselves concede that there have been and will be significant civilian casualties. </p><p>So it is understandable people want this to stop. And think the best way for that to come about is for there to be a ceasefire. Keir Starmer is coming under internal pressure to make that the declared position of the Labour Party. Prominent Party members, including our leader in Scotland have already made personal calls to that effect.</p><p>Except, in truth, they are only making that demand on one side, the Israelis. IF Labour was in power and IF we had any influence on matters, the best we could do is call on the Israelis to cease firing. That might just have some effect, particularly if similar calls came from other major western governments. But it would have no effect on Hamas. And that's why this whole ceasefire call is a complete blind alley. If Hamas was prepared to release the hostages and undertook to stop lobbing random missiles in to Israel then there might actually be the basis for a ceasefire. Except they are unwilling to do either of these things. Hamas not only started the current war, they wish it to continue. </p><p>And so long as they wish to continue fighting Israel then inevitably Israel has to continue fighting them.</p><p>That's the problem. The UN Secretary General was right when he said the 7th October events cannot be seen in a vacuum. But Hamas cannot be seen in a vacuum either. They do not want peace on any terms other than the complete destruction of Israel. Yet that is clearly something that could never happen. Nine million people live in Israel, they are not going to go away voluntarily and it is, on any objective view, never mind the "merits" of such a development, impossible for Hamas to achieve their removal any other way. Yet Hamas by it's very nature has to insist that this outcome will be achieved some how, some day. And to, literally, keep fighting for it. </p><p>So a ceasefire will never be acceptable to them. A humanitarian pause in hostilities perhaps but never a ceasefire. I repeat, those calling for just that ignore this reality.</p><p>The Israelis have clearly decided that not just 7th October but the potential of future 7th Octobers requires to be dealt with militarily now. And they are dealing with a foe whose most basic demand could never be conceded by Israel as the basis for any kind of negotiated peace. Yes, there could and should be a two state solution to the Palestine issue but that is no more wanted by Hamas than it is by the most fanatical of West Bank settlers. That's the reality. Hamas are a major obstacle to peace. They need dealt with at some point. A ceasefire doesn't change that. It only postpones that reckoning.</p><p>Starmer sees that. So should others</p><p><br /></p>ianssmarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07863217818794644141noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2586389062182728098.post-10946192339590983992023-07-17T14:39:00.002-07:002023-07-17T14:49:00.529-07:00May 2026<p>I've kind of stopped blogging. You might have noticed that. Principally this is because I mainly blogged in the past to outline arguments against Scottish Independence and that ship has sailed without any other lunatic idea appearing over the horizon. So why bother? </p><p>But I retain an active interest in politics. So would like to have some continued readership for my blog. And that's why I write tonight about the Scottish General Election in 2026.</p><p>They say the best chess players can think five moves ahead. I'm not much of a chess player but, with due modesty, like to think of myself as someone who can think a few political moves ahead.</p><p>Now, in truth, even the best chess players don't really need to think these five full moves ahead. For their opponents next move is probably THIS, in which case they will have already decided to do THAT. And for two or three other moves whatever. Unless their opponent decides to do something unexpected, which might be a masterstroke or simply a mistake. But, either or any way, these are the rules.</p><p>And the rules of the political game are ultimately as iron. </p><p>There is not going to be a UK General Election until Autumn 2024. The Tories are going to hold on as long as possible in the hope something will turn up but Autumn 2024 is as long as is possible. Beyond that point their worry about differential turnout is cubed by differential turnout in the depths of Winter. </p><p>And the Tories will lose. That's a conclusion not just reached by current polling. They themselves have essentially given up, barring "events". As, with benefit of the memoirs from a much better group of Tories, they had done so at least a year before the 1997 Election.</p><p>And at that 2024 election, the SNP will suffer a considerable reverse. In my view being likely to being reduced to the second Party in terms of Scottish seats, even possibly the third. But let's give them their best conceivable result. Still the largest Party but 20 seats down. That will be a complete game changer. </p><p>Partly this is because people forget (or choose to forget) the 2017 General Election. The loss of 21 seats then severely dented the momentum of Scottish Nationalism. They had long since decided they wanted another go at a referendum but even they then went quiet on the matter for a time. Not just because everything said they would lose again but also because such a demand lacked all credibility. How much more so in the aftermath of a significant 2024 defeat? What happens then within the SNP might be usefully the subject of a different blog but it would surely involve Useless departing the scene in favour of Kate Forbes and the Greens returning to the political wilderness. And that's even without anybody ending up in the jail in the meantime.</p><p>But that's just me thinking three or four moves ahead. Let's go to five. </p><p>Labour will win in the UK in 2024 on the basis of no increase in current levels of income tax. That seems pretty certain. But in Scotland we already pay higher rates than the rest of the UK. This is currently, politically, justified on the premis that the Tories are not taxing enough. Forget for the moment whether that is true. It remains a defensible argument between a Tory Government at Westminster and a Nationalist one at Holyrood. But it is not conceivably a defensible argument between a Labour Westminster Government and a potential Labour Holyrood one.</p><p>So here is my fifth move ahead. Labour will fight the May 2026 Election in Scotland based on cutting Income Tax in line with the rest of the UK. "Close the Foreign Embassies, stop subsiding STV, shut down the quangos" Never mind whether the economics of this add up. Let the Nats defend them. Unless of course Kate Forbes, a formidable opponent, has already been one move ahead of us. </p>ianssmarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07863217818794644141noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2586389062182728098.post-41183600605703797912023-06-10T10:39:00.000-07:002023-06-10T10:39:18.676-07:00A suggested letter<p>I have a friend, Andrew Nicol who is, or at least was, a Scottish novelist. I however knew him in another capacity, as a political journalist. Away back, I was so determined to get him to write a sequel to his novel, "If you are <i>reading </i>this then I'm already dead" that I wrote the first chapter for him myself. </p><p>It did not persuade him and since then I have abandoned literary pastiche. </p><p>But tonight I am writing again in the name of a Scottish novelist who, no disrespect to Andy, is of somewhat greater literary renown, J.K. Rowling.</p><p>It is not an attempt at the eighth Harry Potter novel or even an attempt to finally, and surely, get Strike and Robin together.</p><p>It is an simple suggested letter. Written by J.K., who I have never met, to two people I do know. One by reputation only but the other since I "knew his faither". Copied in to one of my best and surest comrades. Enough introduction</p><p style="text-align: right;"><i>Hogwarts Tower </i></p><p style="text-align: right;"><i>Edinburgh </i></p><p style="text-align: right;"><i>11th June 2023 </i></p><p><i>Dear Anas and Keir,</i></p><p><i>I trust this finds you both well.</i></p><p><i>As a long since supporter of the Labour Party and opponent of Scottish Independence, I was delighted to learn of the forthcoming by-election in Rutherglen and Hamilton West. offering a significant opportunity to strike a blow against the SNP, and have been thinking of what I might do to assist.</i></p><p><i>With due modesty, I would clearly be in a position to offer you a substantial financial contribution, as I have done in the past, but I understand that money is unlikely to be an issue here. So I thought I might offer something more. </i></p><p><i>While I never sought this, I appreciate myself that I have become something of an "international celebrity", My appearances on public platforms attract disproportionate, in my opinion, attention. But they nonetheless do. So my suggestion therefor is that I should make such an appearance at a public meeting to support of your, indeed our, candidate in Rutherglen. I would propose to say no more than encouraging Scotland to play its part in removing the Tories and securing a Labour Government</i></p><p><i>The event would need to be managed but, with due modesty, would be likely to appeal not only to many members of the local electorate, the important people here, but indeed to a much wider national, indeed international audience. But in some ways ignore the latter. The former are the key players in what I appreciate is likely to be a significant contest. If I can add but a few votes to our tally, I would be privileged to do so. Again, with due modesty, I think that is a role I might play. </i></p><p><i>So, subject to my own commitments, I am at your disposal to speak at a place and time of your choosing.</i></p><p><i>I appreciate that this offer is in itself likely to be of assistance to our cause so I have taken the liberty of copying this letter to the Press Association. </i></p><p><i>With every best wish,</i></p><p><i>See you in Rutherglen,</i></p><p><i>Jo</i>.</p><p><i>To: Anas Sarwar MSP</i></p><p><i>The Right Honourable Sir Keir Starmer MP</i></p><p><i>cc. Jackie Baillie MSP. </i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p> </p>ianssmarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07863217818794644141noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2586389062182728098.post-34491796446515415382023-06-04T11:19:00.000-07:002023-06-04T11:19:24.948-07:00Is it over?<p>The polls remain stubbornly good for the SNP. Yes, you read that correctly. Their vote has taken a dent but it has not collapsed. Were there to be a Holyrood election tomorrow they would almost certainly remain the largest single Party, albeit, even with the assistance of their gerrymandering colleagues in the Greens, somewhere short of an Independence majority at Holyrood. Not that this matters anyway for the road to Independence does no run through Holyrood alone. </p><p>Nicola Sturgeon's "brave" decision to ask the Supreme Court to deliver their conclusion to that effect expressly was her parting gift to the SNP. That and a campervan.</p><p>It has to be conceded that the prospect of Independence has been a leitmotif through Scottish Politics since 2011. Cameron thought to kill it by conceding a referendum but the Nats came closer in that event than anybody ever considered likely and, in its aftermath, rolled up the large but significant losing minority behind their banner in a formidable wrecking ball. Wrecking the old Scottish Labour Party, ludicrously complacent in its sense of entitlement, in the process.</p><p>But in truth 2014 took place in just about the most favourable circumstance possible for the SNP. They could choose a single year in the recent past (not the one immediately before the referendum right enough) to make a just about plausible case that independence would not inevitably lead to the slashing of public expenditure. They could insist they'd keep the Pound Sterling against all evidence to the contrary and portray UK denials of this as "just one more piece of evidence" of English perfidy. They succesfully created the ludicrous illusion that Independence could be grafted on to Devolution with little more than the expenditure of, in Government terms, small change. And as to the border, well if there was effectively no border between the UK and France, since both were in the EU. why would there possibly be a border between Scotland and England? </p><p>But the real genius was not in carrying that off that in 2014, it was in getting people to ignore the fact that within two years this was all proved to be nonsense. That to borrow the phrase of Theresa May "Nothing had changed,"</p><p>But never mind that, it also ignored the not unimportant fact that there had been a referendum! And they had lost. Not narrowly, as they insisted, but quite decisively in a binary choice. And that they themselves quietly conceded that the reason they had needed the "Edinburgh Agreement" to have a referendum at all was in the second word there. And that prospect no longer existed. </p><p>But all credit to the smoke and mirrors that has kept this on the road. Even, to some extent, still is. </p><p>But I think this is all coming to an end. That's not just based on the polling or that Useless has nothing like the political skills of Salmond or Sturgeon, although patently he doesn't. It is simply that they have nowhere to go. </p><p>When Alex Salmond set up his vanity project of the ALBA Party, its main selling point was that the SNP, through their elected representatives should be doing "more" to advance independence. There has however been a deathly silence as to what that more might be. The only substantive proposal of any sort seems to have been the suggestion that The Stone of Destiny shouldn't have been sent to London for the Coronation. I'm not entirely sure what this, even if carried off, would have achieved? In truth, neither are they. "You can't have our Stone unless we have another referendum?" You are reminded of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. "Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government."</p><p>There is nothing more that can be done. The strange period of Scottish politics since 19th September 2014 is over. Scottish Parliament elections cannot and will not constantly be run as gigantic opinion polls on whether the Scottish Government should write a letter demanding to have another independence referendum. Westminster elections in Scotland likewise. Devolved Scottish Parliament elections are about who should govern devolved Scotland. In health, education, transport etc. etc. does anybody think that is currently being done well? And Westminster elections are about who should govern the UK. That will, at 18 month intervals, over the next three years, become apparent in spades. </p><p>So it is over. The rest is just process. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>ianssmarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07863217818794644141noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2586389062182728098.post-47227250564013888472023-05-21T12:31:00.000-07:002023-05-21T12:31:02.459-07:00Institutional Capture<p>The mess the SNP Scottish Government has got itself in to on Gender Recognition Reform is well documented and the reasons for that also well documented. </p><p>In advance of the legislation they gave in to those with loud voices while others were not particularly interested or even noticing. Even if they had been asked. Which they weren't. </p><p>Thus, the idea that the current Gender Recognition process was somehow traumatic or humiliating was established at an early stage as a given. Without any real evidence in support of that. That there were insufficient resources to gain a diagnosis of gender dysphoria was therefor written off as irrelevant because it didn't matter anyway. It would still be "traumatic and humiliating" even if it were the doctors willing to provide a diagnosis waiting for patients rather than the contrary. "Why?" remains the question never asked. Because there had been institutional capture. If you consult only those of a predetermined view, and nobody else, then you inevitably end up with their predetermined view as your own. </p><p>Now, in the marketplace of twitter, that has led me in to allyship with women of strongly feminist persuasion. But tonight I may be about to fall out with them because I fear, in a different context, we may not agree. </p><p>For the proposals to abolish by trial by jury for sexual offences betray a similar institutional capture. </p><p>It proceeds upon a consultation on this matter headed by Lady Dorrian. </p><p>But let us look at who sat on that consultation. The Judiciary (five Judges or Sheriffs) and their support team from The Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service (another five). Fine. The Polis and the Crown. Fine. Some legal bureaucrats from the Scottish Government and relevant agencies. (Again fine). And, finally three representatives of the defence. Again, up to this point, fine. All professional players with an informed view, even if I might not agree with their individual views. </p><p>But then what happens? We need some lay representatives so who are they. One person from Scottish Women's Aid, one from Rape Crisis Scotland and one from Victim Support. And that's it. </p><p>I respect the work of all three organisations but they hardly represent the totality of opinions here, Where was SACRO (The Scottish Association for the Care and Rehabilitation of Offenders)? Where was Justice or any other organisation involved in preventing miscarriages of Justice? Where was anybody to contest that the issue in rape prosecutions was not that 50% of all those accused of rape were acquitted but rather that 50% of people innocent of rape had been prosecuted at all? For that had been the verdict of a jury in each case. And, for what it is worth, where was the space for the conclusion of the defence bar that, out of external pressure, the Crown themselves are prosecuting rape cases they know have little prospect of success.</p><p>I speak with some experience here. Rape is a difficult crime to prove. It involves a crime to which the complainer might have approved. In a way few complainers might ever have conceivably approved to being stabbed or robbed. </p><p>But I want to choose another example Simple theft. If I was sitting on a jury assessing a person complaining of theft, I would undoubtedly give greater credence to someone who reported their loss five minutes after they knew of it rather than five years later. That would not be a theft "myth" other than it would be any other kind of "myth". It is simple life experience. Yet it is the position of those allowed privileged access to the Dorrian review that to hold such a view about an alleged particular type of crime is unacceptable. Just like suggesting that a man in a dress is not really a woman is equally unacceptable, (Sorry sisters),</p><p>Likewise and more specifically, I most certainly do not hold the view that rape must also involve other physical injury but if someone gives an account of events, alongside the rape, that would inevitably, have occasioned physical injury, and yet there is no such evidence, well I do think that might inform my decision making on credibility. There is equally no evidence of "myth" involved in that process</p><p>But even Lady Dorrian had to conclude she was faced with divided opinion on abolishing jury trials for serious sex offending. Quite how divided is a matter on which Her Ladyship remains silent but if it did not include the vast majority of lawyers involved then I suspect I am equally the Shah of Iran. </p><p>And yet. </p><p>The Scottish Government proposes to press on and do so. Not as recommended by The Lord Justice Clerk, as they claim, (for it wasn't) but by post event lobbying by the very lobby groups that sat on her consultation. And, in the process, managed to keep the prospect alive. Institutional capture yet again.</p><p>And while we are at it, if you consider the responses of complainers/victims, their main issue about the system is delay. I agree, But, somehow, this ends up in second place to them needing more, publicly funded, support by the very third sector organisations proposing that, Far from it being for me to criticise the Lord Justice Clerk but, in her position, I might have suggested that their presence in the room was to assist potential victims of crime rather than to find reasons to line their own pockets. Instead everybody else seems to have signed this idea off with a sigh,</p><p>I am quite a strong advocate of much else that is the current Bill. "Not Proven" should have been long since done in. Reducing Juries from 15 to 12? I shrug, even while thinking that doing so to bring Scotland in to line with England is an odd decision by...... the SNP. </p><p>But on removing juries I have never seen a more united legal profession. It is a fundamental part of our system that you cannot get serious jail time without somebody beyond lawyers deciding that. That is the conclusion of defence lawyers who are free to speak our minds. Male lawyers and female lawyers; unionist lawyers and nationalist lawyers, Bur also prosecutors and judiciary who can't speak publicly but can speak privately. </p><p>For the SNP? To paraphrase John Wayne, this should not be "Remember the Alamo!" but rather "Remember the Gender Recognition Reform Bill."</p><p>Here is hoping Angela Constance will. For this time Alister Jack won't be able to ride to the rescue. </p><p><br /></p>ianssmarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07863217818794644141noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2586389062182728098.post-40956642735057234662023-05-01T05:26:00.000-07:002023-05-01T05:26:19.804-07:00Tides<p>Happy May day!</p><p>On Thursday night past I went to the selection conference for the next Labour Candidate for the Westminster constituency of Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. In some ways it was an absurd event. Speeches and then questions and then a vote. One member of the audience had decided that she was going to ask the same question of every candidate. "Was it acceptable that people who were working had to resort to foodbanks?" A fair point, except that having announced that she would ask the same question of every candidate, she asked it of one candidate who had made "it is ridiculous people who are working have to resort to foodbanks" a central element of her, already delivered, speech. But the same question had to be the same question, even as the chair knew it would be the same question and yet called it again in preference to others in the room with their hands up. </p><p>And that's not even to get me started on the guy who suggested to one aspiring candidate that the solution to the NHS was more private provision. An arguable point hardly one you would anticipate being advanced by a member of the Labour Party. </p><p>As to the candidates themselves? THey were genuinely all more than adequate to for the position they sought. not just of Labour candidate but Labour MP. Mind you, one of them thought it was a point in his favour that he was proud to have the support of ASLEF, the CWU and Unite. He might as well have sung "Oh, Jeremy Corbyn!". Again a view but hardly one to endear him to anybody who knew the remotest thing about the membership of Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East CLP. Or indeed Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill. Unsurprisingly he got gubbed. </p><p>Since this was a "twinned" selection, gubbed by Frank McNally, who will be our candidate for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill. And almost certainly the MP for that seat come the next election.</p><p>But my point here is not about Frank's seat. It is about my own. Which was regarded as the consolation prize. For while we should get Coatbridge etc back from the Nats, indeed we did 2017-19, Cumbernauld etc is supposedly a much harder nut to crack. </p><p>Except for something said by the candidate I voted for on the night, Katrina Murray. The old constituency, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, was always a bit marginal between us and the SNP. But when the Kirkintilloch East bit was added in it became, at the time, altogether safer. When Greg McClymont succeeded Rosemary McKenna in 2010 he could not unreasonably have concluded he had a seat for life. Except that he went, in a single election, from being 14.000 votes ahead of the SNP in 2010, to being 14.000 votes behind five years later. Through no fault of his own. A swing is a swing. </p><p>But as Katrina observed on Thursday, when you are swept in by a rising tide, you are at least as easily swept out again as that tide recedes.</p><p>The press continue to flog the idea that Scottish Nationalism remains a live thing. And, in advance of that thesis, to maintain that while SNP might suffer some losses to Labour in the 2024 General Election, it will continue to be a live thing. I have written elsewhere why that reporting brings with it a substantial element of self interest but that is not my point here. It is that the next General Election will not just be about Scottish Labour, if we appear to be on the way to being the UK Government, and particularly if the Nats stick with Useless, picking up 10 to 15 seats from the SNP. Rather it might easily be about us picking 30 to 40. Including Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East . As I readily concede the Nats did to us the other way round in 2015. As even we did not think that possible, in much safer seats than Cumbernauld etc, before that traumatic event. For first past the post is brutal for the SNP. Just as at a certain level it has been brutal for us since 2015. Two facts not to lose sight of. In 2015 we still got 24.3% of the popular vote but only one seat out of 59. But in October 2074 the SNP got 30.4% and 11 of 71 seats, while Labour, with just 36.3%, less than 6% ahead, got 41. Because their vote was everywhere, whereas ours was overwhelmingly just in the central belt. Indeed the Tories with considerably fewer votes than the SNP nonetheless got more seats (16) because their vote was also concentrated, albeit, obviously, elsewhere</p><p>Could that happen again? Perhaps at least that possibility should be starting to be reported? That the SNP seats might melt away as rapidly in 2024 as comprehensively as ours did in 2015. Perhaps it finally will be after the Rutherglen by election? Bring it on.</p><p><br /></p>ianssmarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07863217818794644141noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2586389062182728098.post-28258341608619283232023-03-19T10:42:00.000-07:002023-03-19T10:42:28.399-07:00Quite a big thing that nobody seems to have noticed.<p>To say that the SNP leadership contest has been interesting would be something of an understatement. But you won't be short of pieces elsewhere to provide the gory details.</p><p>So what I wanted to write about here is the most interesting thing of all but has been little noticed. Even the candidates for the leadership of the SNP have conceded that Scotland is not going to be independent,, at least in the foreseeable future.</p><p>What? I hear you cry. All three of them said at the conclusion of one of the TV debates that they were confident Scotland would be independent within five years. And indeed they did. But they were lying. Not to persuade anybody in the wider electorate but to appeal to the apparently eternally gullible membership of the SNP. Or at least what is left of them. Scotland is not going to be independent</p><p>For look not at that momentary answer, look at what they are actually saying. Both of the candidates with any chance of winning are conceding that the only way to secure independence is by way of a referendum. And accepting that needs the consent of the Westminster. Which they do not have and in current circumstance are unlikely ever to have, even if the Party in power at Westminster changes hands in the Autumn of 2024. Now, admittedly they assert that Westminster could not defy clearly expressed majority demand for a second referendum and, for what it is worth, I agree with that. Indeed Michael Gove and (I think) Alister Jack have said as much. But, frankly, that is not going to happen any time soon. And they know it.</p><p>Since 2016, the SNP have had the most fortuitous set of circumstances: Brexit; chaos at Westminster; Boris Johnson and then Liz Truss!!!!! as Prime Minister on the one hand and the Queenly Nicola, Our Lady of the Pandemic, on the other, with the bonus of only having a sporadically competent opposition. Yet the dial has not moved. Indeed the only occasion recently where Yes led in a few polls in a row was during the BBC's usual ludicrously anglocentric coverage of the World Cup. A quadrennial event that turns a fair bit of Scotland in to 90 minute nationalists.</p><p>So, why should that more consistent stasis change? Ms Forbes thinks it might if the SNP could run Holyrood more competently. It might indeed but that is a long term project before it would show any results. And, even if achieved, raise questions as why it hadn't happened before. Useless, showing his well earned reputation for hard work and attention to detail, thinks it might change just because it might. </p><p>So, in truth, there will be no pressure of public opinion on the Westminster Government to concede another referendum and no prospect of them doing that without that pressure. So, Scotland is not going be independent.</p><p>Now what does that mean in the world of politics? Well, I think that depends on who wins. If it is Ms Forbes, who I believe to be sincere in her desire to improve the quality of Government, the public might just be prepared to give her a chance. If it is Useless, I suspect it would be carnage at the 2024 polls and his probable demise before the end of that year. Only, in the latter case, for any successor to have the same problem.</p><p>But that's not really my point. My point is that the issue of whether Scotland imminently is going to become independent, which, with the assistance of a press with a vested interest in that "possibility", has dominated Scottish politics for ten years has been settled. It is not. </p><p><br /></p>ianssmarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07863217818794644141noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2586389062182728098.post-59695209005027738102023-02-17T11:30:00.002-08:002023-02-17T11:33:05.774-08:00Monreale<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgOAgB_5PqtGe9C9r8ANXdq4tInCOQh6Ryo0vtRk23th7n7Ob_UMKKiB_gDQqg1KlPGoqLvoC21wWdYCmUAfOZWxFfG4_LUL1FtYc6b9ToGx5PEt1V0dWH19z4-9XvcXEOadR6xnDXgRKd8AaYM2TOgK0BuBXl5HL3oJJPoA_8csiUlwXYDuvuosKzq" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="510" data-original-width="408" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgOAgB_5PqtGe9C9r8ANXdq4tInCOQh6Ryo0vtRk23th7n7Ob_UMKKiB_gDQqg1KlPGoqLvoC21wWdYCmUAfOZWxFfG4_LUL1FtYc6b9ToGx5PEt1V0dWH19z4-9XvcXEOadR6xnDXgRKd8AaYM2TOgK0BuBXl5HL3oJJPoA_8csiUlwXYDuvuosKzq" width="192" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="text-align: left;">Courtesy of a Christmas present from my wife, Andrea, I have just returned from a short break in the Sicilian capital, Palermo. As many of you will know from Twitter, I have travelled all over Italy, Palermo was probably my twentieth or so regional capital, and I have also travelled widely in Sicily alone but I have never previously been to Palermo. With the benefit of hindsight, this was a mistake. It is a wonderful city with great squares, churches and other public buildings throughout. It might not be Bologna when it comes to sit down food but its street food is magnificent. And, although we were there in the middle of February, so was the weather. Warm enough to eat the self same street food outside in comfort in the evenings and, indeed, warm enough to wander about by day in nothing more than a light jumper. All in the most astonishing quality of light. I cannot commend it too much.</span></div></div></div></blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><div><span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span></div></div></div><div>But while in Palermo you really need to visit the wonderful cathedral in nearby Monreale, which we resolved to do on Wednesday 15th February, our penultimate day. I had actually been there before on a day trip, perhaps 25 years past, from nearby Cefalu but this had not been the most satisfactory of experiences as, in the very high Summer I drove in prescription sunglasses only to realise that this meant, on arrival, that I was faced with the choice of taking them off, and being unable to see the detail of the wonderful mosaics for which the cathedral is famous, or leaving them on and thus seeing not very much at all. This time I would make no such mistake. And the mosaics were wonderful. Hence the photo with which I start.</div><div><br /></div><div>But, let's be honest, few people read my blogs for a travelogue. Which is why I have specified the date of our visit. </div><div><br /></div><div>You reach Monreale by a bus from a terminus on Via Indepenza just outside the wall to the north of the city. From there the bus climbs continuously up, providing increasingly spectacular views of the Mediterranean as you go. En route I nonetheless had a wee look at twitter (I know!) causing La Signora Andrea to express annoyance at my distraction. I noticed however that a couple of Scottish political journalists were expressing surprise as to being called to an unanticipated press conference. For fear of the formidable signora, I put my phone away before returning to it only after having seen the Cathedral and its almost as wonderful cloister.</div><div><br /></div><div>But that having been done, we repaired, as one does, to a bar by the side of the Cathedral where I once again had a look at my phone. Sturgeon had resigned! Instead of my intended cappuccino, I ordered a large beer and even Andi, who doesn't normally drink very much, resolved upon a Cuba Libre. </div><div><br /></div><div>I have the experience of three shock political resignations. The first was when Harold Wilson resigned and I was informed of this by a Tory opponent in the beer bar in Glasgow University Union. I was so incredulous that I phoned my mother for confirmation. The second was when Mrs. Thatcher fell and I learned of it from a Court Cop at Airdrie Sheriff Court as I waited to see a Sheriff to try and interdict a Poll Tax Warrant Sale. This was the third. </div><div><br /></div><div>If Sturgeon has no legacy beyond this, she certainly resigned in the most beautiful of these three settings.</div><div><br /></div><div>Yet, while the precise timing of the event might have been a surprise, the fact of it happening sometime around now was not. For I had predicted it on myself on <a href="http://ianssmart.blogspot.com/2023/01/a-big-change-in-2003.html" style="background-color: red;">7th January</a></div><div><br /></div><div>If you look at a lot of the commentary, as to why since Wednesday as to why she has had to go it seems to consist only of what was staring these commentators (and me) in the face at the turn of the year. There is and was no way forward for independence. To to steal a line from Yaz, for Sturgeon, the only way was down.</div><div><br /></div><div>Anyway, here is the question, given that, who exactly would want the job? </div><div><br /></div><div>Do not forget there are two jobs on offer here. First Minister of Scotland, certainly, and which ambitious politician wouldn't want that? You get well paid and, in Scotland at least, get to enjoy "showbusiness for ugly people"</div><div><br /></div><div>Except there is also a second job, leader of the SNP. And it is that job Sturgeon has decided she needs to leave. </div><div><br /></div><div>And who at this point would want that?</div><div><br /></div><div>For, as I say, the only way is down.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now, this is where personal position and political calculation come together. </div><div><br /></div><div>I start with the political.</div><div><br /></div><div>There is a poll today suggesting that the SNP might lose half their Westminster seats at the next UK General Election. A poll carried out before their most well known, and regarded, politician resigned. I make no bold prediction in suggesting that, even are things are not as bad as that, the Nats are likely to lose a fair number of MPs in (most likely) the Autumn of 2024. </div><div><br /></div><div>Now Sturgeon survived such a reverse in 2017 but could say, implicitly, that they only had these seats to lose in the first place because she had won them to start with. So her survival then was never in doubt. </div><div><br /></div><div>But if her successor presides over a, probably worse, reverse? And the Party is then staring down the loss of Holyrood with all the loss of profile and sinecures and patronage that would follow? </div><div><br /></div><div>So let's not assume this would be the last change of SNP Leadership before Holyrood 2026. </div><div><br /></div><div>And that is where the personal comes in. </div><div><br /></div><div>The blindingly obvious successor to Sturgeon is Kate Forbes. But the time is not right for her. She is still on maternity leave. She also has three step children with her widower husband. For both reasons it is difficult to see that she could easily move her principal home and establishment from her Highland Constituency to Edinburgh as the job of First Minister would necessitate. It is certainly possible for my feminist colleagues to say that "this isn't fair" but it is also just life. Everything else you know about Ms. Forbes says that she would not neglect her child or her step children in pursuit of political ambition. I applaud her for that.</div><div><br /></div><div>But here is where I have a sense of deja vu and a more shocking sudden vacancy, when Donald Dewar died. </div><div><br /></div><div>Then, there were three obvious candidates to succeed him. None of whom won (first time round), For two of them were young(ish) women for whom the time was not right. The third was eventual FM, Jack McConnell. He was the obvious choice but, then, the assumption was that a competent Labour FM would be in post forever. So the solution was for them to rally around the utterly inadequate figure of Henry McLeish who big Donald himself had decided, during his penultimate illness, was not even capable of being temporary First Minister. Their assumption was that after a few years he'd have to go and they'd be personally better placed to challenge for the job. As indeed Henry did, only much sooner than anybody anticipated. Whereupon the prize fell to Jack on an essentially "told you so" basis. And without even a contest. So here is my prediction. Forbes won't stand. But she will in time be the next SNP candidate for popular election as First Minister. For the other runners are utterly inadequate.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>ianssmarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07863217818794644141noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2586389062182728098.post-26429494511564185732023-01-17T14:10:00.000-08:002023-01-17T14:10:04.669-08:00Some thoughts on today<p> So, it is done. </p><p>Contrary to what I thought, the UK Government has intervened under s.35 of the Scotland Act 1998 rather than s.33. As I understand their rationale it is that there was no point mucking about. Had they invoked s.33, which allows the Supreme Court to strike down Holyrood legislation on the grounds that it lies outwith legislative competence, they would have been on solid ground in my opinion but it would have required the UK Government to take the matter to Court and I recognise the Scottish Government might have had an argument. If The Scotland Office had decided that if they (legally) lost the argument they would then invoke s.35, then why not just cut to the chase? So that's what they've done.</p><p>Sturgeon's response to this has been bizarre. It is perfectly legitimate, from her perspective. for her to be annoyed. She does not believe in devolution so any intervention from Westminster would be anathema to her. But instead of sticking to that political point she decided to declare that she would be going to Court.</p><p>Now, the timing of this was, to put it mildly, strange. </p><p>At this point, I will cut and paste for you s.35.</p><p></p><div id="__reading__mode__content_end_mark_container_id" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: #f9f5e9; color: #333333; font-family: "Sitka Text", Georgia, Cambria, Calibri; font-size: 18.24px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin-block: 0px; margin-bottom: 25px; margin-inline: 0px; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"></div><p></p><div class="__reading__mode__extracted__article__body" id="mainContainer" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: #f9f5e9; color: #333333; font-family: "Sitka Text", Georgia, Cambria, Calibri; font-size: 18.24px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px; orphans: 2; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><div style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;"><h4 class="LegClearFix LegP1ContainerFirst" style="font-family: "Sitka Heading", Georgia, Cambria, Calibri; font-size: 1.315rem; font-weight: bold; line-height: normal; margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px; margin-top: 2.192rem; padding: 0px;" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><span class="LegDS LegP1No" style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;">35</span><span class="LegDS LegP1GroupTitleFirst" style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;"><span> </span>Power to intervene in certain cases.<span class="LegExtentRestriction" id="extent-U.K." style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;" title="Applies to ">U.K.</span></span></h4><div class="eniw" style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><span class="enNote" style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;">This section has no associated Explanatory Notes</span></div><p class="LegClearFix LegP2Container" style="hyphens: manual; margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px; margin-top: 1.096rem; padding: 0px;" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><span class="LegDS LegLHS LegP2No" id="section-35-1" style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;">(1)</span><span class="LegDS LegRHS LegP2Text" style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;">If a Bill contains provisions—</span></p><p class="LegClearFix LegP3Container" style="hyphens: manual; margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px; margin-top: 1.096rem; padding: 0px;" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><span class="LegDS LegLHS LegP3No" id="section-35-1-a" style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;">(a)</span><span class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text" style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;">which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would be incompatible with any international obligations or the interests of defence or national security, or</span></p><p class="LegClearFix LegP3Container" style="hyphens: manual; margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px; margin-top: 1.096rem; padding: 0px;" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><span class="LegDS LegLHS LegP3No" id="section-35-1-b" style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;">(b)</span><span class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text" style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;">which make modifications of the law as it applies to reserved matters and which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would have an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters,</span></p><p class="LegRHS LegP2Text" style="hyphens: manual; margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px; margin-top: 1.096rem; padding: 0px;" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">he may make an order prohibiting the Presiding Officer from submitting the Bill for Royal Assent.</p><p class="LegClearFix LegP2Container" style="hyphens: manual; margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px; margin-top: 1.096rem; padding: 0px;" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><span class="LegDS LegLHS LegP2No" id="section-35-2" style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;">(2)</span><span class="LegDS LegRHS LegP2Text" style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;">The order must identify the Bill and the provisions in question and state the reasons for making the order.</span></p><p class="LegClearFix LegP2Container" style="hyphens: manual; margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px; margin-top: 1.096rem; padding: 0px;" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><span class="LegDS LegLHS LegP2No" id="section-35-3" style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;">(3)</span><span class="LegDS LegRHS LegP2Text" style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;">The order may be made at any time during—</span></p><p class="LegClearFix LegP3Container" style="hyphens: manual; margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px; margin-top: 1.096rem; padding: 0px;" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><span class="LegDS LegLHS LegP3No" id="section-35-3-a" style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;">(a)</span><span class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text" style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;">the period of four weeks beginning with the passing of the Bill,</span></p><p class="LegClearFix LegP3Container" style="hyphens: manual; margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px; margin-top: 1.096rem; padding: 0px;" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><span class="LegDS LegLHS LegP3No" id="section-35-3-b" style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;">(b)</span><span class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text" style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;">any period of four weeks beginning with any<span> </span><a class="LegCommentaryLink" href="read://https_www.legislation.gov.uk/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.legislation.gov.uk%2Fukpga%2F1998%2F46%2Fsection%2F35%3F3739a18c-0c68-43cc-a4cb-b8b99e9bfd72%3D38a03ca1-b2b8-4cdd-b98b-355d9504239f#commentary-key-b6b0cb3d822313532536c7944de06fd4" id="reference-key-b6b0cb3d822313532536c7944de06fd4" style="color: var(--sepia_default-link-color,#0072C9) !important; margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px; text-decoration: none !important;" title="View the commentary text for this item">F1</a>... approval of the Bill in accordance with standing orders made by virtue of section 36(5),</span></p><p class="LegClearFix LegP3Container" style="hyphens: manual; margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px; margin-top: 1.096rem; padding: 0px;" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><span class="LegDS LegLHS LegP3No" id="section-35-3-c" style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;">(c)</span><span class="LegDS LegRHS LegP3Text" style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;">if a reference is made in relation to the Bill under section<span> </span><span class="LegChangeDelimiter" style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;">[</span><a class="LegCommentaryLink" href="read://https_www.legislation.gov.uk/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.legislation.gov.uk%2Fukpga%2F1998%2F46%2Fsection%2F35%3F3739a18c-0c68-43cc-a4cb-b8b99e9bfd72%3D38a03ca1-b2b8-4cdd-b98b-355d9504239f#commentary-key-3179362646dab8bb09a2043b20bc4654" id="reference-key-3179362646dab8bb09a2043b20bc4654" style="color: var(--sepia_default-link-color,#0072C9) !important; margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px; text-decoration: none !important;" title="View the commentary text for this item">F2</a><span class="LegAddition" style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;">32A(2)(b) or</span><span class="LegChangeDelimiter" style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;">]</span><span> </span>33, the period of four weeks beginning with the reference being decided or otherwise disposed of by the<span> </span><span class="LegChangeDelimiter" style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;">[</span><a class="LegCommentaryLink" href="read://https_www.legislation.gov.uk/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.legislation.gov.uk%2Fukpga%2F1998%2F46%2Fsection%2F35%3F3739a18c-0c68-43cc-a4cb-b8b99e9bfd72%3D38a03ca1-b2b8-4cdd-b98b-355d9504239f#commentary-c20292901" id="reference-c20292901" style="color: var(--sepia_default-link-color,#0072C9) !important; margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px; text-decoration: none !important;" title="View the commentary text for this item">F3</a><span class="LegSubstitution" style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;">Supreme Court</span><span class="LegChangeDelimiter" style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;">]</span>.</span></p><p class="LegClearFix LegP2Container" style="hyphens: manual; margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px; margin-top: 1.096rem; padding: 0px;" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><span class="LegDS LegLHS LegP2No" id="section-35-4" style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;">(4)</span><span class="LegDS LegRHS LegP2Text" style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;">The Secretary of State shall not make an order in relation to a Bill if he has notified the Presiding Officer that he does not intend to do so, unless the Bill has been approved as mentioned in subsection (3)(b) since the notification.</span></p><p class="LegClearFix LegP2Container" style="hyphens: manual; margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px; margin-top: 1.096rem; padding: 0px;" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><span class="LegDS LegLHS LegP2No" id="section-35-5" style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;">(5)</span><span class="LegDS LegRHS LegP2Text" style="margin-block: 0px; margin-inline: 0px;">An order in force under this section at a time when such approval is given shall cease to have effect.</span></p></div></div><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p><span style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: 0em; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Now let us deconstruct this.</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: 0em; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Alister Jack has clearly acted under subsection 1(b). </span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: 0em; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">But let us look at the rest of the section. </span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: 0em; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">First of all subsection 2. It requires that when making the order the Secretary of state <u>must</u> "state the reasons for making the Order". But, at the point Sturgeon spoke to the BBC, Alister Jack had not made the Order he had only announced his intention to do so. And in consequence had not required to state his reasons. Yet Sturgeon had already announced her intention to go to Court, whatever his reasons were. It is most unlikely Sturgeon had legal advice on this since any lawyer asked about the prospects of going to Court over any decision would start by saying we must first know the reasons for the decision. Yet Sturgeon, when she gave her interview, hadn't yet seen these reasons. No one had.</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: 0em; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I don't practice in the courts at the highest level but every so often you get a zoomer client with an intention of suing but who has no legal case at all. My favourite one was a man who had fallen down the stairs in his own house. He wanted to sue the Council. I inquired about on what basis. </span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: 0em; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">"Was there perhaps a faulty step or a loose carpet?"</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: 0em; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"> "No."</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: 0em; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"> "So in what way was the Council to blame/"</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: 0em; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"> "It was their house".</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: 0em; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"> "Yes but what caused you to fall?"</span></span></p><p><span style="background-color: white; letter-spacing: 0em; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"> "I was drunk." </span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white;">"Sorry, you fell down the stairs in your own house because you were drunk? Why do you think that would let you sue the Council?"</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white;">"It was their house."</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white;">Ms Sturgeon made as much sense today. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white;">But let us go back to s.35 before returning to Ms Sturgeon. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white;">And in particular s.1(1). </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white;">All that the Secretary of State needs to be possessed of before making an order is "if a Bill contains provisions which the Secretary of State <u>has reasonable grounds to believe</u> (my emphasis)..........(2) makes modification of the law as it applies to reserved matters........."</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Now, the words above have a meaning, in particular the subordinate clause "which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe". If they were not there the test in any Judicial Review would be objective. "Does the Bill do this?" But these words are subjective. It does not matter whether it does or does not, it only matters if the Secretary of State reasonably <u>believes</u> that it does. And as Alistair Jack was at pains to repeat over and over in the Commons today, he has formed that view because it is the legal advice he has received. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">So a Judicial Review would go nowhere. Did he have that belief? Was it reasonably formed? Case over.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">And that is the legal advice Sturgeon will receive from the Lord Advocate if she ever gets round to asking. Probably, that it is so unstateable that the Lord Advocate won't even be prepared to to attempt to state it. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Now, I am aware that journalists are not lawyers but they are all people of above average intelligence. Well, most of them are. Yet Sturgeon was allowed to tell a very senior BBC Journalist today that she would be going to court without being asked if she had any legal basis for doing so. To which the only honest answer would have had to be that she didn't know yet. But that question was not asked. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">And no other electronic media journalist appears to have seized on this either. Obviously, as I write, we await the print media but I am not holding my breath So the Gender Recognition Reform Bill is dead. Not perhaps quite so dead as a Second Independence Referendum but pretty dead nonetheless. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">But we are left with the bald fact that it is unprecedented for the Secretary of State to intervene in this matter and here I go to my friend and indeed briefly business partner, Donald Dewar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">He wrote s.35. As some junior Labour MSPs should remember. And when it was going through the Commons (as then Clause 33) in January 1998 he said this.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">.<span style="background-color: white; color: #0f1419; font-family: TwitterChirp, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, "Segoe UI", Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; text-align: left; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>“I stress that the process of government is a process of negotiation and discussion; it is a matter of bilaterals and discussions at an official level… Common sense dictates, consensus emerges and agreement is reached 999 times out of 1,000.”</b></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">There has been no process of negotiation and discussion here. Kemi Badenoch, the Equalities Minister specifically came to Scotland to offer that. Shona Robison sent her homeward to think again. You might almost think, latterly, that SNP objectives here were simply to pick an anglophobic fight and, if there was no benefit at all to trans people from this entire process, they would simply have to be pawns sacrificed for "The Cause".</span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 0.8em; letter-spacing: 0em;"> </span></p><p><br /></p>ianssmarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07863217818794644141noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2586389062182728098.post-42149820505932839132023-01-08T10:03:00.002-08:002023-01-08T10:15:48.984-08:0035 or 33?<p> As a few people have noticed, I published a blog <a href="http://ianssmart.blogspot.com/2023/01/a-big-change-in-2003.html">ianssmart: A big change in 2023?</a> yesterday. I commend to you. </p><p>In truth however most of it wasn't written yesterday but on January 2nd. I planned on finishing the next day but it turned out I was much busier work wise than I anticipated over the next few days so I couldn't get it done until Saturday. I wondered if I had perhaps missed my moment but concluded ultimately that I hadn't, for what I have had to say would have relevance for several months ahead. </p><p>I say that only because what I have to say today will have a shelf life of less than a fortnight. But it is important.</p><p>The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed by the Parliament on 22nd December 2022. As with any other (ordinary) Bill there is now a period of twenty-eight days before the Presiding Officer sends it to (now) The King for it to be given Royal Assent. </p><p>And during that period The Secretary of State for Scotland can intervene.</p><p>All the attention in the press has been about whether that intervention will be under s,35 of the 1998 Act. Firstly however, there seems to me to be a misapprehension both about what the provenance of s.35 is and what it exactly allows. Invoking s.35 would not be "an attack on devolution". It is part of devolution. It's original author was none other than that arch anti-devolutionist, Donald Dewar. The always excellent Joshua Rozenberg summarises the history here <a href="https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/scottish-gender-recognition-who-decides-a41" target="_blank">Scottish gender recognition: who decides? (substack.com)</a>. It is not difficult to see various scenarios where this provision might need to be utilised. If, for example, Holyrood reduced the age of consent, you can well see the rest of the UK objecting to their young teenagers being able to engage in sex with older men legally simply by getting driven by them over the open border to North Berwick. Certainly, s.35 has not been used to date but that's because Holyrood hasn't done anything so stupid to date. </p><p>Creating a situation where Scots born people can have the benefit of being women in the rest of the UK based on a birth certificate that the other home nations can't be sure is accurate surely falls in to a similar category? </p><p>So, for that and other reasons a s.35 challenge would. in my opinion, be likely to succeed. But just for the avoidance of doubt s.35 does not give the UK Government an absolute veto. It can only be invoked if certain criteria are met, reasons must be set out in writing and, as big Donald says in the debates Mr Rozenberg refers to, these reasons would be subject to judicial review leading potentially to the s.35 objection being quashed. </p><p>And a s.35 challenge would have one other huge advantage for the Tories. It is a long, long time since they were on the right side of Scottish popular opinion. Even the sale of council houses, hugely popular in its uptake, enjoyed that popularity largely in secret. But on Gender Recognition reform, popular opinion would side overwhelmingly with them. It is difficult to argue that a step taken to protect women's rights, with overwhelming public support, could ever be plausibly portrayed as an "insult to the people of Scotland", (sic). Particularly if it leads you logically to arguing that one of the "advantages" of full independence would be to make Scotland a less safe place for women.</p><p>The power of s.35 challenge lies with Alister Jack but the decision would surely be taken in conjunction with the Equalities Minister, Kemi Badenoch. And if the Tories had the sense to make Ms Badenoch the public face of any announcement it might also give them the advantage of being seen to have modernised their act, contrary to nationalist propaganda that they are all still middle aged men in mourning over, at best, their lost bowler hats and, at worst, their tweed plus fours. </p><p>So it would be daft for them not to act under s.35. But they won't.</p><p>Because, at first at least, they will act under s.33. </p><p>The legislative powers of the Scottish Parliament in terms of the 1998 Act proceed logically. s.28 provides the authority to make legally enforceable legislation. s.29 restricts that power to matters within legislative competence and defines that legislative competence. The famous s,30 allows for legislative competence to be expanded by Westminster, either permanently or, as happened for the 2014 referendum, on a temporary basis. But here now is the interesting bit. </p><p>s.31 provides that for a Bill to be introduced at all its introducer must certify that it is within legislative competence. That is stage one at which a Bill could be stopped. </p><p>s.32 provides that once passed the Presiding Officer must submit the Bill for Royal assent <u>but not for a period of twenty eight days or the final conclusion of any reference under s.33 if (almost inevitably) later. </u></p><p>s.33 provides that within that twenty eight day period various law officers, the relevant one here would be the Advocate General for Scotland, may refer a Bill to the Supreme Court for their opinion on the Bill's legislative competence. Their view is final. That is stage two at which a Bill could be stopped.</p><p>s.34 has been repealed you'll be pleased to learn, although possibly not when you realise why.</p><p>s.35 gives a final opportunity for the Secretary of state to block a Bill. As I say above, that is subject to judicial review but subject to that caveat, this is stage three, and the final stage, at which a Bill might be stopped. </p><p>But here is the point. s.35 is clearly intended as a long stop only to be used if s.33 cannot be deployed or has been deployed unsuccessfully. Indeed the wording of s.35(3)(c) as good as says that. For the time limit for a s.35 challenge is 28 days from the passing of the Bill <u>or</u> 28 days from the determination of any s.33 challenge. It doesn't expressly say the s.33 challenge has to have been unsuccessful but that is as good as expressly said, for if the s.33 challenge has succeeded then there is no Bill needing blocked under s.35. </p><p>HOWEVER! If you go down the s.35 route and are then judicially reviewed successfully then the UK Government can't go back and try to use s.33, for the 28 day window for that would have been long since up. For while a s.33 reference postpones that 28 days insofar as it relates to the Bill being sent for Royal Assent there is no such reference in s.35. </p><p>So, essentially, by going directly to the option of a s,35, the UK Government would be giving up, forever, on the potential earlier remedy of s.33. Why would they do that? And it seems to me at least that, in changing the definition of a woman, the Bill itself trespasses in to the subject matter of the (reserved) Equality Act, particularly (now) in light of the Judicial conclusions in the two <i>For Women Scotland </i>cases. </p><p>So, watch this space. If the UK Government is going to act at all, they have until 17th or (arguably) 18th January. But it is never good legal practice to bang up against a time bar for the sake of it so they will act next week. And it will, firstly, be under s.33.</p><p><br /></p><p>Footnotes.</p><p>I don't normally do footnotes but a few things occurred to me, or were drawn to my attention on the way, and couldn't be easily fitted in to the text already written.</p><p>1. I have previously written on why the Bill might be beyond devolved competence. The link is here. <a href="http://ianssmart.blogspot.com/2022/02/a-dead-duck.html">ianssmart: A dead duck</a></p><p>2. Failure to challenge under s.33 by the UK Government would not, of course, prevent challenge by members of the public even after Royal Assent standing the terms of s.29. I wrote about that here. <a href="http://ianssmart.blogspot.com/2021/05/section-29.html">ianssmart: Section 29.</a></p><p>3. As I didn't want to be too wordy, I didn't put the sections of the Scotland Act directly in the blog but you'll find them here <i>et seq. </i><a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/section/28">Scotland Act 1998 (legislation.gov.uk)</a></p><p>4. In relation to fronting up the challenge for the UK Government, I was intending to say something slightly disparaging about Alister Jack's lack of public profile until it was drawn to my attention that he is one of only two cabinet ministers continuously in post since December 2019. So he may simply want a low profile. The only other survivor is Ben Wallace.</p><p>5. There has been much criticism of Lady Haldane's judgement in <i>For Women (Scotland) No.2 . </i>I think this is unfair, She simply applies the law. It is the law, particularly s.9 of the original GRA, which is an ass. </p><p> </p><p><br /></p><p>I </p><p><br /></p><p><u><br /></u></p>ianssmarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07863217818794644141noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2586389062182728098.post-16792382580269215972023-01-07T06:06:00.002-08:002023-01-07T06:08:36.267-08:00A big change in 2023?<p>There was an assumption among the commentariat in their predictions for the new year that, politically, nothing much will change. I beg to disagree.</p><p>Say what you like about Nicola Sturgeon, she is formidable politician. She has accomplished not only dominance over her own Party and Scottish Television, both of which she admittedly pays for with public money, but also over wider Scottish Civil society. There was polling towards the end of last year about name recognition of Scottish politicians. She was completely off the chart as opposed to anybody else of any Party. Including, it should be noted, her own Party, where the now departed Ian Blackford at Westminster was better known than any other SNP Holyrood politician. </p><p>But at some point this runs in to a wall. Although Sturgeon hasn't to date admitted it, there will not be a second referendum, de facto or otherwise, this year. And, one suspects, after the "de facto referendum" special conference it will be clear that there will not be a referendum, de facto or otherwise, in 2024 either. And when the dust settles on the 2024 General Election? If Labour has won, there still won't be a referendum but the political landscape would be transformed. No longer would it be "Only Independence can save us from the evil Tories". For we would have been "saved" from the Tories, evil or otherwise. If it is a hung Parliament then the SNP will face the prospect of voting with the self same evil Tories or becoming Labour lobby fodder. If they don't want to lose their seats in short order, the SNP at Westminster will face a Hobson's choice in that regard, but they'll be left sitting in Westminster for a purpose other than advocating "Freeeeedum!" The internal SNP politics of that will be.....................challenging. For, despite it being a ludicrous proposition, there are undoubtedly a fair number of Nats who are capable of holding in their heads at the same time the idea that, although the Tories are "evil", it is a matter of indifference whether they or the Labour Party are in power at Westminster. Even Nicola's formidable abilities as a Party manager will struggle to manage that. And finally, just for completeness, there is of course a third possible UK General Election result, an outright Tory victory. But what would that mean? The status quo and no referendum for (at least) another five years. And nothing to be done about it.</p><p>So, remaining leader of the SNP and First Minister long, or even medium, term has limited attractions. Scotland is not having a referendum, let alone achieving independence for at least ten years. There is of course the fame and the money but fame has its downside. A proper private life is almost impossible. No wandering down to the paper shop on a Sunday morning in your slippers and joggers but without your teeth. No opportunity to have an uninhibited night out. No freedom to tell idiots they are just that (a particular problem if you are regularly mixing with people in the SNP).</p><p>And as for the money? It is impolite to talk about personal remuneration being a consideration for politicians but it undoubtedly is. I suspect however for the very reasons above about the limitations on a personal life, Ms Sturgeon has not had much opportunity to spend much of what she has earned since 2014. If required, I also doubt she would have much difficulty securing a position with some sort of international quango. Even her worst enemies do not dispute she is an intelligent person with a proven ability to work hard.</p><p>So what is the reason for Sturgeon to hang on? There is of course the appreciation that, for her to leave the stage would be tacit admission that the game was up, at least for the duration of her potential future time in office. But she knows that anyway and perhaps better to depart the stage than to face the groundhog day of assuring SNP Conference twice a year that a referendum is just around the corner, with ever decreasing credibility? Then there is the fact that there will be a UK Election in 2024 and Sturgeon is, on any view, the Nats most formidable campaigner. But she was younger and fitter and fresher in 2017 and that didn't stop her losing twenty one seats. Such a reverse again might well lead to circumstance where her departure was, at least perceived to be, not entirely voluntary. Then there the issue of a managed succession. That has to happen before Holyrood 2026 if Sturgeon plans to be gone by then or indeed, failing defeat at the polls, then plans to depart not before at least 2028. </p><p>Leadership contests involving Parties in power are inevitably blood baths. Don't just consider what happened among the Tories last year, look at how Gordon Brown was anxious to avoid this in 2007, the SNP themselves in 2014 and indeed Rishi at the end(?) of the Tory Thirty Month War. Sturgeon has no obvious successor. Yousaf is useless and the SNP know that. Robertson, one suspects Sturgeon's chosen successor, has clearly decided he would rather travel the world at public expense than do the hard yards and, among the current Cabinet, Swinney, the day before yesterdays man, and possibly (Keith) Brown are nonetheless the only other people you would trust to run a tap. I exclude from this the undoubtedly able Kate Forbes on the basis that, with a new baby and a distant constituency she genuinely doesn't want the job. </p><p>So there will be a contest wider than the current cabinet and it will be a bloodbath and Sturgeon must know that. And if she is, as she surely must be, seized of the desire to avoid that bloodbath on the eve of an election, either 2024 or 2026? Everything, both from a personal and wider political point of view, then says Sturgeon goes this year. Possibly as soon as the de facto referendum "strategy" collapses. And then, well here is something for your consideration. leadership contests can also mark generational change. </p><p>The quality of the SNP back benches leave a fair bit to be desired. But they now have a new member. I have never met Ash Regan but, before she shot to fame over the last few weeks, I knew of her by reputation through her former junior Ministerial position as inter alia the Legal Aid Minister. She was highly thought of in that capacity: on top of her brief; sympathetic to reasoned argument; not afraid to say immediately that she was unsympathetic to not so reasoned argument. </p><p>She has emerged with great credit from the the Gender Recognition debate. You don't have to agree with her views on this matter to respect a politician prepared to pay a personal sacrifice for their beliefs. Equally, her ability to deliver compelling Chamber speeches written by herself contrasted bluntly with the inability of the Minister "in charge" of the Bill to even properly read out speeches written for her by others. Regan looked the part of a politician on the way up; Robison as someone utterly out of her depth and surely shortly out in any other capacity. </p><p>But there is something more. I doubt very much that the ludicrous Gender Recognition Bill in its current form, would ever have commanded a majority at an SNP Conference. Those former stalwarts who have departed for Alba are not truthfully much different from the remaining SNP rank and file and there is little doubt where Alba stands, more or less unanimously, on this matter. The Bill is very much the creature of Sturgeon and a small group of trans activists who have attached themselves to the SNP cause. But of course the Bill, in detail, was never put to an SNP Conference. However if the Bill is not passed in to law, which seems to me almost inevitable, and there might then be then an SNP members vote about whether to walk away from another attempt? Particularly if there is little to choose between the candidates on the national question, this might easily become a key issue in a leadership contest. </p><p>Sometimes you are simply in the right place at the right time without having actually planned to be there. Margaret Thatcher; Tony Blair; Angela Merkel; Voldoymyr Zelensky,</p><p>Ash Regan? </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>ianssmarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07863217818794644141noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2586389062182728098.post-71844249635363947732022-11-26T08:59:00.001-08:002022-11-26T08:59:30.598-08:00Conundrum solved<p>Recently, a Glasgow Sheriff ruled that a fugitive from American justice had not acquired distinctive tattoos, similar to those born by the guy the US were seeking, as a result of them having been applied recently, by persons unknown, in Scotland, while the suspect was under a general anesthetic. The Sheriff therefor ordered that the guy be extradited.</p><p>Last Wednesday, in a judgement just about as certain in advance as the tattoo case, the UK Supreme Court declared that the Scotland Act 1998 did not allow Holyrood to hold a unilateral independence referendum. This was hardly surprising since it was the same conclusion that had been reached back in 2011 by Alex Salmond and his then deputy, Nicola Sturgeon.</p><p>I have no idea why Sturgeon chose to bring this misfortune upon herself. Had she wanted to, she could have proceeded in a number of different ways than that on which she did. Her problem initially arose from the Scottish Ministerial Code which asserts that Government legislation cannot be introduced without the consent of the Lord Advocate but there were three ways round this, Firstly, she could have changed the Ministerial Code. Secondly, she could have appointed a different Lord Advocate. Both Joanna Cherry KC and Claire Madison Mitchell KC (who wrote the SNP intervention in the case) are eminently qualified to be Lord Advocate and both believed the Bill to be competent. Thirdly, she could have had the Bill introduced by an SNP back bencher who wouldn't need the Lord Advocate's approval. She did none of these. Instead, having failed to persuade the Lord Advocate that her Bill was competent, she did persuade the Lord Advocate to ask the Supreme Court if Ms Bain might be wrong in being unpersuaded. Unanimously, a Supreme Court, from a bench where English Judges were in a minority and with a Scottish Judge in the chair, ruled unanimously with the Lord Advocate. Indeed with Mr Salmond and the younger Ms Sturgeon.</p><p>There is much anger among independence campaigners about Ms Sturgeon's approach. I would invite you, if you have the time, to track down a vitriolic piece from the veteran Yesser Robin McAlpine in this regard or indeed the thoughts of the returned Wings over Scotland, who now sees Ms Sturgeon as a bigger obstacle to Scottish independence than even Mr Sunak. Last but by no means least, STV did a lengthy interview with Mr Salmond himself who, for some unexplained reason, conducted the interview from his garden in late November but who made many of the same points. Maybe, like the decision to backdate the sexual harassment complaints process, it was all just a terrible mistake by Ms Sturgeon. I leave the membership of the SNP to work that out for themselves.</p><p>The First Minister is now left only with her plan C, to fight the next UK General Election in two years' time as a de facto referendum. Note the two years' time bit. The SNP Westminster Group could of course resign their seats now and fight a series of by-elections. This would have no constitutional significance but if they were returned with increased majorities then it would be a grand gesture. Noticeably however they are not doing that for it would involve a bit too much dependence on the "if". Or the SNP could call an early Holyrood Election. All they'd have to is get Ms Sturgeon to resign and vote down all alternative candidates for FM for 28 days and the Scotland Act then triggers an election. Again, a nationalist increased representation would demonstrate that Scotland really was in the state of outrage the Nationalists claim, but noticeably they are not doing that either.</p><p>If they have these worries now, believe me they are only putting off bigger worries to come in 2024. For if the Lord Advocate's reference was a mistake, then having a de facto referendum which won't be recognised by "Unionist" opinion if the Nats, almost inconceivably, win, but which will certainly be recognised as them "having had their referendum" by the Unionists if the Nats almost inevitably, lose? Well, that's brave. In the Sir Humphrey use of that word. </p><p>So, the Nats are completely stalemated but there remains a bit of a niggle on my side at the suggestion that there can never be another referendum without Westminster consent, That this consent would never be forthcoming is of course a nationalist invention. Michael Gove, who mainly leads for the Tories on these matters, has stated that Westminster would consent if it became clear that independence was truly established as Scotland's settled will. The furthest Labour goes is "now is not the time", although you suspect "the time" will not arise at any point during the term(s) of the forthcoming Labour Government.</p><p>But I don't think that is enough as it does ultimately seem a bit undemocratic so I have solution! The solution to the conundrum lies in the referendum we did have in 2014. Then, there were 2.2 Million No voters. So, why don't we put in the Scotland Act that if, at any Westminster or Holyrood election, Nationalist Parties get more than 2.2 Million individual votes then they would be absolutely entitled to a second (or indeed a third etc if they did it again) referendum. Respects the result of the 2014 vote but doesn't leave it frozen in time. Can't surely say fairer than that?</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>ianssmarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07863217818794644141noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2586389062182728098.post-45551107275571332832022-10-30T09:20:00.000-07:002022-10-30T09:20:50.174-07:00I praise of boring<p> It is time things were a bit more boring. </p><p>Since the beginning of 2015, British politics have been a state of some chaos. We have had a referendum, three General Elections, five Prime Ministers and no less than eight Chancellors of the Exchequer. Oh, and we have also had a pandemic. And a proper war in Europe. </p><p>And through quite a lot of that time people have been worried. Not always the same people. In the run up to the Referendum people worried they might lose their right to live in the UK. Then others worried that such was the state of the Tory Party, Jeremy Corbyn might become Prime Minister with all that would mean for our Jewish population. Then they worried that leaving the EU with no sort of deal at all would wreck the economy. Then they worried they were going to die or, even if they survived, they would lose their livelihoods as a result of lockdown. Then. just as they'd started to worry about the cost of living, they were distracted by worrying about the possible collapse of their pension fund. Then, when that latter threat receded, they went back to worrying about the cost of living, not least whether they could afford to heat their homes through the Winter ahead. And then finally, to top it all, they found themselves worrying that there might be a nuclear war. </p><p>So boring, for a while, would be good. And, despite his ludicrous false first step over Braverman. I think Sunak will, in a good way, be quite boring. And Sir Keir will bore back, promising a Labour alternative that can also be trusted to be reassuringly boring. Now, while I'm for that Labour Government as soon as possible, I'm realistic enough to think the Tories would be mad to go the Country before the Autumn of 2024. The problem for the Tories then is, just as John Major, our last boring but competent Prime Minister. could never quite get over Black Wednesday, I suspect Rishi will never get over the 44 days of Truss. A Party daft enough to do that once could not be trusted never to do so again, at least until a respectable period of time had passed. </p><p>Anyway, I don't normally write about UK politics and I'm not really writing about that here. For there has been another aspect to the chaos of the last seven years that has caused some fear. That, such was the state of UK politics, a crucial number of middle ground voters might conclude that an Independent Scotland could hardly be worse. Now my point here is not to knock that belief down but rather to acknowledge its existence as a concern. </p><p>The SNP leadership were sufficiently realistic to accept in the aftermath of the 2014 referendum that they couldn't immediately credibly demand another go. But a fair number of their rank and file were not. The Women for Independence group was not wound up for a single day, nor were any number of "Yes" Groups throughout the Country. The All Under One Banner organisation, charged with demanding a re-run referendum was actually <u>set up </u>in October 2014!</p><p>Now to square this circle, Sturgeon's 2016 Holyrood Manifesto found a form of words. A SNP run Scottish Government would not seek a second referendum unless there was a material change in circumstance, such as a vote to leave the EU in the then forthcoming EU Referendum.</p><p>This was an easy pledge to make. It bought off the marchers with the illusion of a possible second referendum yet, in May 2016, proceeded on the assumption that there was not the remotest prospect we would actually vote to leave the EU. Everybody in the SNP could be happy. Insofar as they are ever happy.</p><p>And yet we did then vote to leave the EU. And Sturgeon had hung herself on a hook she has been wriggling on ever since.</p><p>However, she has been helped by wider events. If it was inconceivable that we would leave the EU; inconceivable that Jeremy Corbyn might nearly become Prime Minister; inconceivable that Boris Johnson would actually become Prime Minister, let alone Liz Truss, and yet all these things happened, why then was it so inconceivable that there be a second independence referendum within ten years of the first? </p><p>The answer to that question now is boring. Because the answer to that question is boring. </p><p>We are now set for an attritional two years of UK politics. Labour will argue the coming austerity is because the Tories have mismanaged the economy. The Tories will argue that they have learned from their own mistakes and that a Labour Government inevitably means more tax (heavy emphasis) and spend(thrifery). </p><p>The point is that nationalist politics will be irrelevant to this, For the age of chaos is over. When the Supreme Court delivers its inevitable ruling next month, any lingering mirage of a referendum next October will disappear. And, given that, we are then left with either the option of a second s.30 consent (inconceivable from UK Governments of either stripe) or a <i>de facto referendum </i>when the UK goes to the polls in 2024. "It doesn't matter to us if it is a Labour or Tory Government, we are voting in a de facto referendum instead," Good luck with that SNP. No. I really mean that.</p><p>This has been an odd period in Scottish politics. But it is about to be bored to death. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p> </p><p><br /></p>ianssmarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07863217818794644141noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2586389062182728098.post-14459358667509762032022-10-09T11:22:00.000-07:002022-10-09T11:22:26.110-07:00No more worlds to conquer <p> There is a famous quote referring to the final campaign of Alexander the Great "And Alexander wept, for he had no more worlds to conquer". I have always assumed this had some classical, or at least renaissance, origin but, having researched its source for this blog, it appears to have originated, at least in its now accepted form, with Alan Rickman playing the baddie in the Hollywood blockbuster <i>Die Hard!</i>!</p><p>But of course Alexander, having won Afghanistan did have more worlds he could have <i>tried </i>to conquer but, in truth, his army, having looked at the formidable task of invading India concluded it was beyond even them and mutinied. Alexander had no choice but to withdraw. A couple of years later he was deid. At the grand old age of 32.</p><p>So, interesting though this is, what relevance does it have to the matter I usually write about, Scottish politics?</p><p>This weekend the SNP are meeting in Conference in Aberdeen, their first in person Conference for three years. This is supposedly because of Coronavirus but that did not stop the other Parties having in person events last year.</p><p>As you look on from afar, you can see why they were so keen to avoid such a gathering, for the whole thing has a distinct <i>fin-de-siecle </i>feel to it. </p><p>Since 2006 the SNP have been a Party moving forward. They were either anticipating winning elections or celebrating having done so. Sure, there has been the occasional setback but none fatal, all of the momentum was with them. But they have now reached the end of the road. And postponing conferences has now run out of mileage as well.</p><p>I kind of anticipated more tub thumping about their prospects in the Supreme Court, at least as red meat for their rank and file. Instead however they seemed strangely resigned to losing there and acutely aware that the lunatic tactic of a self declared de facto referendum delivers nothing if they, exceptionally improbably, win and disaster if, overwhelmingly likely, they lose. "You'll have had your second referendum" will be the unanimous declaration of the opposition.</p><p>And then there is the prospect of a Labour Government. It is noticeable that the Nats biggest reverse since 2006 was in 2010, when Labour looked that they might win and had a credible candidate for Prime Minister. The last time since then it turns out. </p><p>Come (most likely) 2024, that will not be the case. Now, the Nats can try and sit this General Election out, declaring they have no interest in whether Labour or the Tories win, that they are engaged, instead, in a <i>de facto </i>Referendum but I suspect the Scottish electorate will not share that view. And any but idiots in their leadership have surely worked that out. And to be fair, at a leadership level, they have a good number of people who are not idiots.</p><p>So, I suspect they will have to find a way of getting themselves off the hook Sturgeon, it appears almost unilaterally, has hung them on. Watching that will prove entertaining, not least as it will force them to spell out expressly whether they might vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour Government. A call which, if it entails doing that without a second referendum, has the potential to cause an actual split. When Brown told the SNP Conference that for Nationalists there was nothing to choose between a Labour or Tory Government, while most people thought "Whit!" he had a ready audience in the hall. </p><p>Except if not the <i>de facto </i>referendum, then what? There has never been much doubt that Holyrood could not call a unilateral referendum but within six weeks or so the Supreme Court will settle that conclusively. Beyond that neither Labour or the Tories will grant them a s.30, so, to quote not Alan Rickman this time but Roy Orbison, "It's over".</p><p>And I wonder if the cleverest of all the Nats doesn't know that better than anybody. As First Minister she has won every election she has fought. Interestingly, despite what people might think on Twitter, according to polling in today's Scotland on Sunday, virtually no other SNP politician has even 10% name recognition. If she was to go after the anticipated Supreme Court reverse she would depart, electorally, undefeated and avoid the potential of having to go after a significant reverse at the next General Election. That surely has to be tempting prospect. </p><p>Alexander was forced to retreat by the mutiny of his army. I wonder if the Yes army might be forced to retreat by the mutiny of its general?</p>ianssmarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07863217818794644141noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2586389062182728098.post-41396407391068472472022-08-18T12:18:00.001-07:002022-08-18T12:18:59.940-07:00We need to talk about "Scots"<p> Some time ago, longer than I might like to confess, I was taught that when addressing a jury, you must make your key points first.</p><p>So here they are. Last week, there was a survey of Afghan refugees to the UK. . It discovered they did not want to come to Scotland. Because they believed people here did not speak English. And that conclusion on their part, and its consequence, was the overt objective of our SNP Government. For they did not want them here.</p><p>Nationalists across Europe do not want refugees with brown or black skins. Hungarian nationalists do not want them. Polish nationalists do not want them. Italian nationalists do not want them. French nationalists do not want them. Swedish nationalists don't want them. Danish nationalists do not want them and, yes, British nationalists do not want them. I could go on. So why conceivably would Scottish nationalists be an exception to that? Of course they aren't. They are nationalists. </p><p>But Scottish nationalists are trying to build a coalition that requires the involvement, no matter how deludedly, of those who regard themselves to be left wing. So Sturgeon needs a solution that keeps them on board while not confessing her personal politics are little different from those of Orban, Morawiecki, Meloni, Le Pen or (I'll skip the Scandanavians) Farage. And that solution is not to say they can't come here, just that they really, really wouldn't want to. And her mechanism is Scots. "Don't come here. If you thought learning English as a second language was difficult, just think how difficult learning "Scots" is going to be?" So, stay where you are, in England. While we will hypocritically insist you are being terribly treated while, at the same time, putting up an implied language barrier to you being encouraged to come here. An entirely fictitious barrier but that's not the point, except it actually is.</p><p>Nobody, nobody in England will have told refugees that we do not speak English in Scotland. But plenty in Scotland will have told them we do. That is not my conclusion, it is the conclusion of the refugees themselves. I refer again to the polling</p><p>The whole thing is, and I do not hesitate to use the word, racist.</p><p>Pretty much everybody in Scotland has a dialect. Ayrshire does not speak like Fife. Nobody speaks like bloody Aberdeen. Again I could go on. But we all recognise that, if we slow down a bit, we can mutually understand each other. In English. just as we would in Newcastle or Truro,. So why, I repeat, are potential immigrants to here encouraged to reach a different conclusion, as they apparently have? That we in Scotland, all of us, speak a different language here. An assertion made by no less than the SNP Scottish Government? </p><p>The why has its own answer.</p><p>There is no such thing as "Scots" as a language. It is a dialect of English. Don't take my word for that, take that of Robert Burns. And even he might have doubted that if he had ever been north of Falkirk. </p><p>If you look at who promotes the idea of "Scots" being a language you quickly reach the conclusion that they are invariably white middle aged, and older, men on the blood and soil wing of the SNP. They are entitled to their views. I have no plan to stand outside their meetings , throwing eggs, spitting at them and shouting incoherent abuse. But I see them. We should all see them. And as to the SNP Government giving them public money? We should see that as well and appreciate why.</p><p><br /></p>ianssmarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07863217818794644141noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2586389062182728098.post-89017407796371040792022-07-23T09:35:00.003-07:002022-07-23T09:35:47.038-07:00Conflict of Interest<p> The position of Lord Advocate is a curious one. Until Jack McConnell appointed Eilish Angiolini to the position in 2006, it has always required its holder to be a supporter, or better still a member, of the governing Party. But you required also to be a lawyer of standing in your own right. </p><p>I had a lifetime ambition to be a member of the Scottish Parliament, even before there was such an institution, but had I ever reached such a position while Labour still ran Scotland, I would still never have accepted such an appointment, even if offered. For while I continue to, immodestly, think I have the political skills for the rough and tumble, I was never of the legal eminence required for such a position. For to hold it you need not just the support of the government but the recognition of the legal profession and the judiciary that you are qualified for the job. That's why Roseanna Cunningham was never considered for the position after the SNP formed a government in 2007. She is a formidable politician and she is also a really good trial lawyer but she is not someone with the comprehensive stretch of knowledge to be a law officer. That is no insult to her when I concede a similar fault on my own part.</p><p>So, even when the Nats got in in 2007, Salmond asked Eilish to stay on and when she departed office for entirely personal reasons, asked her equally non political sidekick, Frank Mulholland, to replace her. I know them well enough to describe them both as friends. Since they both rose up through the Procurator Fiscal Service neither has never expressed an overt political opinion although I have always suspected Frank is a (soft) Nat and Eilish (whisper it) a liberal Tory.</p><p>But, on Frank going on to the bench, from 2016 we had James Wolfe as Lord Advocate and if he is a raving Nat then I am the King of Siam. And since 2021, we have had Dorothy Bain.</p><p>"Top lawyer" is a phrase much loved by the tabloids, usually followed by "stole money" or "slept with divorce client" or "struck off for lying to Court". Few of these people are in truth "top lawyers". But anyone who has held the office of Lord Advocate is truly a top lawyer. </p><p>And the Lord Advocate is given a specific, guaranteed, role under the Scotland Act 1998. Not only must someone hold that role as the independent head of the prosecution service in Scotland, but they must also, in terms of the ministerial code, sign off on the legal propriety of any Bill introduced to Holyrood as being within devolved competence. </p><p>And that is what Dorothy Bain has refused to do on the proposed "advisory" Referendum the SNP propose to introduce at Holyrood. </p><p>But she has agreed to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court as to whether her own refusal to sign off on the Bill might be wrong. </p><p>Now, I am not a top lawyer but I was taught forty years past that proper legal practice requires you to articulate both sides of the argument if making an argument in law before a court. Indeed I will do so (twice) in the next two weeks in cases of much lesser importance I am currently to conclude on the basis of more or less agreed facts but disputed law. </p><p>So, top lawyer, Dorothy Bain, has done that in her published written submissions to the Supreme Court. You'll find this easily available in this internet age. And I would defy you to conclude, with reference to the terms of the Scotland Act 1998 and <i>Pepper v Hart, </i> that she herself has not concluded the overwhelming argument is against her. I'm also not clear why, to give it bulk, these submissions consist in almost half of a recitation of history for those members of the Supreme Court who might have never gone to school or indeed read a newspaper. But possibly someone down the line of command was being paid by the page. Anyway, let's wait and see what Lord Reed thinks about that. </p><p>But, anyway, that is not my concluding point. This morning, apparently, the SNP have decide to intervene in the Supreme Court, to argue that the case argued by the Lord Advocate, appointed by the SNP Government, is not the position of the SNP. An intervention to which the Lord Advocate must agree or object. I might not be a top lawyer but I can certainly recognise a conflict of interest when I see one. So let us await events</p><p><br /></p>ianssmarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07863217818794644141noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2586389062182728098.post-28985971638127082692022-06-19T08:54:00.011-07:002022-06-20T02:56:17.431-07:00Constitutional thoughts from my garden<p> Good afternoon and greetings from my garden where, improbably in the West of Scotland in June, it is actually sunny and warm enough to sit in the shade to see a lap top screen.</p><p>As you are probably aware Sturgeon once again this week "restarted" the campaign for a second independence referendum with a paper which had as much rationale as one from Cowdenbeath suggesting that, since Manchester United and Liverpool play in red, if Cowdenbeath only started playing in red then they would soon be just as successful in European competition. </p><p>But I'm not here to mock Sturgeon (beyond that) but rather to try to bring together in one place various propositions surrounding this initiative which remain misunderstood by political commentators who, frankly, in many cases should have better informed themselves. I don't think I'm saying anything new, just trying to bring it together in one place.</p><p>The easiest way to do this is by asking various questions of myself and then answering them, For the sake of brevity I will only cite sources where absolutely essential.</p><p>Question 1, Could Scotland unilaterally declare itself independent? </p><p>Patently not. There are various legal obstacles to this but altogether more practical issues in to the bargain. HMRC and The DWP are UK institutions without access to which we'd have no way of collecting taxes , paying for public sector wages and, even if we had access to resources, paying pensions or benefits. That, rather than dry constitutionalism, is why events in Catalonia were such a farce.</p><p>Question 2. Would that change if we had a unilateral referendum and voted for independence?</p><p>No, why would it?</p><p>Question 3. Could the Holyrood Parliament hold a unilateral referendum anyway? .</p><p>No. The constitution and the Union are matters reserved to Westminster. Any attempt to do so would be stopped in the Courts but it wouldn't even get to the stage of that as to even introduce such a Bill the Ministerial Code requires the approval of the Law Officers, which would patently not be forthcoming given the law is so clear. Indeed, by the SNP's own admission they haven't even asked them. And does anybody think that if Alex Salmond thought he could just do this then he wouldn't have done so in 2011? </p><p>Question 4. So what is Sturgeon's "Wizard wheeze"?</p><p>The Nats think they can get round the problem immediately above by introducing a Bill declared to be expressly "advisory" which might get Law Officer consent. More importantly which might get through the Courts.</p><p>Question 5. Would it get through the Courts?</p><p>This could only be decided once it was passed. It is well established law that the Courts can interfere in Holyrood's activities as they go on (Whaley v Watson) but the relatively recent decision in Keatings v The Lord Advocate indicates they'd be reluctant to do so. </p><p>Question 6. So it would be up to the UK Government to refer the matter to the Supreme Court?</p><p>No. This is easily the most common misconception repeated as late as this morning by Martin Geissler on the BBC. In terms of s.29 of the Scotland Act 1998, legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament outwith its legal powers <u>is not law</u> and can therefor be ignored by private citizens and public and private corporate bodies. My best theory as to how things would then play out is that in a Council not controlled by the nationalists, the administration would instruct their officials not to comply with any central government instruction to start to organise such a referendum as it is not law and force the Scottish Government to take them to Court. Alternatively any Scottish citizen could bring proceedings to declare the legislation null and void. That's what happened with the named person legislation. Michael Gove has already said on the record on TV that the UK Government themselves would not bring a legal challenge. Something simply ignored as journalists dance a jig to a nationalist tune.</p><p>Question 7. Who would win such a litigation?</p><p>That depends on the terms of the Act as passed. If it contained an express declaration that "The result of the vote in this referendum will be of no consequence whatsover.". or they even made that concession in court itself then the Nats might win.. The latter concession is not as absurd as its sounds . They did of course win the court case to strike down their ban on fracking by advising they hadn't actually banned fracking, they just had said that they had. Alternatively, if the court took the view that they could then look to the purpose of the vote and conclude that it was to advance something itself ultra vires of the Parliament they might well lose. The balance of academic opinion is in the latter camp but it is a balance and nobody has seen the putative legislation.</p><p>Question 8. Which court would decide this?</p><p>In the first instance the Outer House of the Court of Session and on appeal the Inner House. It could in theory go to the Supreme Court but only if the Party then in the losing position chose to send it there. You could therefor see the SNP Government asking the UK Supreme Court to overrule our highest, purely domestic court but somehow I doubt it would come to that.</p><p>Question 9. What happens if the legal challenge succeeds? </p><p>That's the end of the matter. Forever. For it would be established that Holyrood could never hold a referendum, even an "advisory" one, on a unillateral basis</p><p>Question 10. And what happens then?</p><p>You'd need to ask the SNP that.</p><p>Question 11, What happens if the legal challenge fails?</p><p>There is an advisory referendum. We don't turn up on the basis that the SNP would only accept the advice if it was advice they wanted to hear. That was precisely the outcome in 2014.</p><p>Question 12. But doesn't that mean they'd win? </p><p>Well yes and no. You see, back when they first suggested holding an advisory referendum, as long ago as the 2007-11 Parliament, this might have been, if allowed, a useful tactic. But we have since had an actual referendum with an unprecedented turnout. A referendum where the nationalists got 1.6M votes while losing. Now that referendum took place in an unprecedented blanket of media coverage. That would not, outwith the pages of The National (circulation 20,000, supposedly), be repeated. And if you made the effort to vote Yes then it was in the belief your vote would trigger actual independence. That belief wouldn't be there either in 2023 (ha ha ha). They most certainly would win this one horse race. They might even, with a huge amount of effort, get a million votes. But, the day after, all the UK Government would say is "The SNP have spent £20M of public money to establish that fewer people want Scottish Independence now than did in 2014. We could have told them that for nothing."</p><p>Question 13. What happens then?</p><p>You'd need to ask the SNP that.</p><p>Hopefully that answers all the questions addressed to me via twitter. If I've missed anything anybody needs to know please get back to me on twitter as I've blocked replies because I get ridiculously spammed here by people advising me how to cast a spell to get my wife back, Advice I don't need partly because I don't believe in spells and partly because she has not left me. Although, admittedly she has spent a ridiculous amount of time out shopping for doorknobs so, perhaps, who knows.</p><p>And with that I think I've earned a beer.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>ianssmarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07863217818794644141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2586389062182728098.post-15027044098503764582022-05-29T06:35:00.001-07:002022-05-29T06:36:02.297-07:00Why all the fuss?<p> In the last ten days the SNP have worked themselves up to more and a more of a lather over events in our Councils following the May 5th Election. In summary, Labour has formed minority administrations across Scotlland in places where they did not have the largest number of councillors and yet no other Party (in urban Scotland, essentially the SNP) had an overall majority.</p><p>Now it seems to me this is something they might have anticipated. After all Anas had made it clear we would be forming no coalitions with anybody. If you thought that through for a minute that was obviously going to leave the Tories as kingmakers in a large number of councils and, logically, they would be likely to support Labour administrations if forced to choose from the lesser of two evils. That has indeed transpired.</p><p>None of this explains however quite why the SNP have gone just so tonto over this. </p><p>I think there are four explanations.</p><p>Firstly, events have made them look stupid, and nobody likes to look stupid. They simply did not see this coming, although five minutes thinking through Anas's pledge of no coalitions should have alerted them to its possibility.</p><p>Secondly, in local government in particular, power is money. Committee Conveners, chosen by the administration in power, earn twice as much as ordinary councillors, while Council leaders can earn up to three times as much. So a lot of Nats have lost a lot of money personally as a result of what has happened. That's enough to annoy anybody.</p><p>Thirdly, there is the lingering mirage of a second independence referendum. Referendum's are legislated for by Governments but carried out by councils. I have written elsewhere about the legal controversy that might follow Holyrood legislating for an ultra vires independence referendum. Suffice to say, failing to control a number of our major Councils does not assist the SNP in that context.</p><p>But these are not the main reasons the Nats are going ballistic. That is because they have suddenly realised what this might mean for their continued control of Holyrood after the 2026 Election.</p><p>In 2007, the SNP had, by one seat, the largest number of MSPs but they had nowhere near an overall majority. Against that background, on any view, Alex Salmond played a political blinder. From his opening salvo "It may not yet be clear who has won this election but it is clear who has lost" to the point of his election as First Minister he proceeded on the basis that this one seat margin entitled the SNP to form a Government. He was, it has to be said, assisted in this by the other major Parties. The Lib Dems decided they wanted to go in to opposition. Labour just kind of gave up after that while the Tories were never more than interested bystanders since nobody would form an administration of which they were part. So, although all four major Parties nominated for the position of First Minister, as their candidates were knocked out, they thereafter abstained and ultimately Salmond then became FM with only 49 of the 129 votes available.</p><p>Now, I'm not sure how wise these tactics by the opposition were given subsequent developments but what's done is done. And in the process the SNP believed themselves to have set a precedent that the largest Party was entitled to the position of First Minister. None of this has really mattered since because the Nats did get an absolute majority in 2011 and, counting in their wholly owned subsidiary that is the Scottish Green Party, effectively did the same in 2016 and 2021.</p><p>But they have suddenly woken up to the precedent they themselves thought they had set in 2007 is not accepted by the other Parties. So if the SNP and Greens are still the dominant force at Holyrood in 2026, but fail to gain a combined total of 65 MPs, then anything could happen. If the Tories and Libs decide, unlike 2007, that a minority Labour Administration is, as I say earlier, the better of two evils and vote for a Labour FM then that is what we will have, It is precisely that which has happened in Councils across Scotland since May 5th.</p><p>And that is the main reason the Nats are so outraged. Because they are worried.</p><p><br /></p>ianssmarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07863217818794644141noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2586389062182728098.post-32634759534301086052022-05-23T07:56:00.000-07:002022-05-23T07:56:32.361-07:00Not making the trains run on time. Or often even at all. <p> On 2nd April past, St Mirren were playing Motherwell away. I wanted to go for a pint with my brother and some other pals before the game, so Andrea dropped me off at Cumbernauld Railway station for me to get a train. The creation of a direct service between Cumbernauld and Motherwell was a grand gesture some years back so that local residents would feel part of North Lanarkshire Council, who have their headquarters in the latter town. But nobody actually uses this service. </p><p>I was conscious that only one other person got on the train with me and no more than two or three got on or off at any station en route. On the way back, seven people initially got on but this was rather undermined by three of them being off duty Scotrail employees. By the time the train reached Cumbernauld only me, the driver and the guard were being carried.</p><p>This is entirely normal usage on this service. You could replace it entirely not with a bus but with one or, at "peak" times, possibly two taxis.</p><p>So, given the nationwide shortage of train drivers has this been done? Well, no. There is to this day an hourly service from 0617 to 2017. </p><p>Now this first train from Cumbernauld to Motherwell is earlier than any train from Stirling to Glasgow and on return, although still earlier, only by a mere half hour before that on which you could make a last return to Stirling. </p><p>If we have a shortage of train drivers this is a ludicrous deployment of resources and by far and no means an isolated example. But it is in keeping with the general shambles that has been the nationalisation of Scotrail.</p><p>It was announced in December 2019 that Abelio were to lose the Scotrail franchise in March 2022. It takes nine to twelve months to train a train driver, months before that to recruit, so it was surely have been patently obvious that Abelio had no incentive at all to do that from at least January 2021 onwards? In March 2021 it was announced that Scotrail was to be taken into direct public ownership, so, at that point at the latest, checking where we were on this became the specific reponsibility of the Scottish Government. Did anybody do that? (Very) apparently not. So when the railways passed in to the hands of the Scottish Government on 1st April 2022 (that was the date, really), only then did it become clear that, although we had enough trains, we did not have enough drivers. And this is not a computer game. Having realised your error, you can't go back to an earlier saved version and start again. So we are stuck with this situation for, it appears, at least a year.</p><p>Now there are three things I want to conclude from this. The first, in some ways, is not a directly political one. The senior management of Scotrail are one and the same from those in place before nationalisation. Somebody there must surely have had responsibilty for recruitment and training and been aware, that in the field of train drivers at least, no such activity was being undertaken? Yet what? Did they decide for some bizarre reason to keep their in counsel on what was going on? Did they perhaps tell somebody higher up who failed to act and then forget all about it when the latter did so? It would be inconceivable that you turn up a Tesco to be told you couldn't actually buy anything because they didn't have enough check out operators. Why is that apparently acceptable on the Railways? Why, frankly, has nobody been sacked?</p><p>And then Scotrail, before and after nationalisation, was hardly operating in an impenetrable fog. Their activities, or lack of them, was being monitored by the Scottish Civil Service. What, if anything, were they doing? I was involved in the sale of a relatively small business some years back. Fifty or so employees. As part of a standard disclosure, pre contracting, the prospective purchasers solicitors sent us a questionnaire. How many staff did we have? What were they all paid? Who were the "key" staff? What age were they? Were we confident they would stay? What turnover of staff did the business have? How easy did they find it to recruit? Lots of others. </p><p>Surely the Scottish Government went through a similar process and, crucially, surely one of their questions would have been, "Are you satisfied you/we will have enough staff to deliver the current service post nationalisation and, if not, what are you doing to address that?" Surely? I have written before <a href="https://ianssmart.blogspot.com/2020/06/institutional-failure.html" target="_blank">here</a> about how the failures in the day to day governance of Scotland go well beyond the current SNP/Green Government. We have failures at an institutional level across the board. In health; education; justice and, not now but now much more so still, in transport. You could parachute in a political administration of an entirely different political complexion and stuff it with a multi-talented team of ministers and yet it would still take them years to sort this out.</p><p>Yet the SNP are not innocent in this. They have after all been in power for fifteen years. It is easy just to say this is because they have no real interest in running the devolved administration as they have another priority but while this is, of course, a partial explanation, it is not the whole picture. They are just hopeless at recruiting themselves. They do of course have competent ministers. I might disagree with their politics but I would concede Kate Forbes, John Swinney, Keith Brown, Sturgeon herself at least know what they are doing. But they are choosing the rest of the Government from far too shallow a pool within their Parliamentary group. If you look back at the Scottish Labour Party in my lifetime, pretty much all of the major players: John Smith; Gordon Brown; Robin Cook; John Reid; Douglas Alexander etc, , were "assisted" by the leadership, directly or through proxies, to find a seat. The Tories do the same down south and, in earlier times, up here. George Younger had little connection to Ayr before he became its MP, nor Michael Forsyth to Stirling.</p><p>Yet the SNP simply do not do that. I can think of many Nats of my generation working in or around the backrooms, I won't embarrass them by naming them, who would make excellent MSPs and, in time, Ministers. Journalist pals assure me that among Sturgeon's horde of spin doctors, they can identify other, younger, people of undoubted talent, whatever their politics. None of them seem to have been encouraged, let alone assisted, to step up. While the leadership also sat back and watched Andrew Wilson, Joan McAlpine and (albeit temporarily) Mike Russell being effectively deselected in favour of complete numpties. Never mind that a fair bit of talent, not just Joanna Cherry, are forced to sit about at Westminster kicking their heels by Party rules that make "coming home" (their mentality not mine) almost impossible.</p><p>And yet when it comes to the 2021 intake? Almost all have been plucked from local obscurity and delivered into even greater national obscurity. If you look around them, far from spotting a potential future Party Leader, you would struggle to spot a future junior Minister.</p><p>And all this comes at a price. Useless bureaucrats and quangocrats sometimes need firm management by Ministers. But that requires the Minister themself to have the ability and intellectual confidence to apply that firm management. It is surely the comprehensive lack of that at transport which has led to the perfect storm surrounding rail nationalisation. Jenny Gilruth appears to have awaited this morning's armageddon not only by taking the weekend off herself but also by failing to insist that any others did not.do likewise. When ASLEF said they were happy to talk, anytime,anywhere, they did not qualify that with Monday to Friday, nine till five; four thirty on Fridays. </p><p>Are the rail unions exploiting previous management incompetence? Of course they are. But what are the Scottish Government doing to remedy that? Here is some unsolicited advice. Settle with the nurses. The Scottish Government announced last year that they would negotiate directly with the Nurses rather than rely on the pay review body. As with so much else with this Government, a good headline for a day. Except that, in common with their general level of competence, as of 22nd April, these negotiations<u> hadn't even started </u>although the pay increase should have been in place by 30th April past. But if you get the nurses to settle for X% you could turn the tables on ASLEF by suggesting "Do you really think you deserve more than the nurses?" And if they do, perhaps apply a bit more robust management. Starting with insisting the times of first and last trains within and between cities are not negotiable, even if that does mean temporarily suspending some quiet backwater services altogether.</p><p>And here is some further unsolicited advice for the SNP. If I wanted to advocate an independent Scotland, surely a good start would be to recruit people capable of competently managing a devolved one? There is no reason the two need be self contradictory. </p><p><br /></p>ianssmarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07863217818794644141noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2586389062182728098.post-73474597306112922702022-05-07T04:23:00.001-07:002022-05-07T04:23:15.169-07:00A bad result for everybody<p> Well, actually, not a bad result for everybody for the Lib Dems actually had a more or less unconditionally good result. But "A bad result for everybody (except the Liberal Democrats)" lacks impact as a headline. So excuse me.</p><p>But for everybody else it was a bad result.</p><p>Obviously, for a start, the Tories. They lost lots of votes and lots of seats. Douglas Ross's flip flopping over Boris Johnson didn't help but the fact he had a UK Party leader that he had to flip flop about was surely the major factor. In Scotland the Tories lost approximately one in four seats they were defending. But, in England, they also wrote about one seat in four they were defending. So while Ross undoubtedly didn't make things any better for the Scottish Tories, it is difficult to argue he made them worse. And it was not all bad news for the Tories. All the profile will be on Glasgow and Edinburgh where not only did they do disastrously but, unfortunately for them, so do most of the Scottish Political Press Corps live. But actually in rural Scotland they still did "alright". In North Ayrshire and Moray they actually gained seats and, as no less a figure than Ruth Davidson pointed out on Twitter, they still have far more seats than they held prior to their <i>annus mirabilus </i>of 2017. So, a bad result but not that bad a result.</p><p>And then we have the SNP. These elections were last held in 2017, where the SNP got, by some way, their worst election result between 2015 and today. They did, a very little bit, better today. But it was still their second worst result in that period. They very nearly failed to be the largest Party in Glasgow, where, despite holding every Westminster and Holyrood Parliamentary seats they lost councillors, while they failed to make any progress at all in Edinburgh in terms of seats, even though the Tories departed the field, going from first to.....fifth in a day.. The whole narrative of the SNP is based on them being on an unstoppable march to a second Independence Referendum and "Freeeeedum!" They remain the dominant Party across Scotland, no denying that, but the 2017 Local elections, where the SNP had, by their standards, a terrible result were of course followed by the 2017 General Election, where they did only marginally better. You'll remember that election. It was the one where they lost 21 seats,</p><p>And so to my own Party. I'm writing a blog, not acting as a Party spokesman here. You can spin this as a great result but in truth that would be spinning. We came second but were still well off first. We increased our number of councillors and share of the vote but in each case by very slightly less than the SNP. Unionist non Labour voters, unimpressed by Boris, seem to have simply stayed away from the polls when we were the alternative Unionist choice (although notably not when that was the Lib Dems). And quietly, the results in our former strongholds of North and South Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire (where the Nats were one seat off an absolute majority) and never mind Fife (don't even look!), were disastrous. And still being second in Glasgow despite the rats was disappointing in a city where we still enjoyed an absolute majority as recently as the 2012 elections. Down South they talk of "long Corbyn" as being a handicap but up here we've also got long Dugdale and long Leonard to contend with. It was a step in the right direction on Thursday but a pretty small one. To be fair, both Anas and Jackie recognised that in their post poll interviews.</p><p>And then we have, very briefly, Alba and the Scottish Family Party. When these figures are available, it will be (mildly) interesting to see who got the most votes. That tells you all you need to know.</p><p>And then, finally, the Greens. "They did well!" I hear you protest. But did they? Sure they nearly doubled their seats but outwith Glasgow and Edinburgh (where they undoubtedly did do well) there were 1.094 councillors elected across Scotland on Thursday. The Greens got precisely 15. Less than !.5%.of all seats. It seems to me there is a big decision looming for the Greens. Are they a political Party in their own right or are they, as is often alleged, just the gardening wing of the SNP, exploiting the electoral system at Holyrood to secure any representation there at all? You can't avoid the fact that their list votes correlate almost entirely with the difference between SNP votes in the constituencies and the list, so that works for their representatives at Holyrood at least. But having fallen into the arms of a vampiric SNP are they ultimately realising that this means they now can't go out in daylight? We'll see. They are likely to be offered the choice real power and influence by us and the Libs in Glasgow and Edinburgh as opposed to a few sweeties in exchange for five years unconditional servitude by the SNP. If they choose the latter, by the next elections, somebody should perhaps set up a real Scottish Green Party. I suspect quite a few people would vote for that.</p><p>And that's that. Next year, unless Boris or whoever goes early, there will not be a nationwide election (or referendum) in Scotland.</p><p>But that doesn't mean there will be no form of election in Scotland during that period. Patrick Grady awaits the judgement of the Commons Standards Committee* If he gets suspended for 14 days there can and will be a recall petition and a by-election in his Glasgow North Constituency. If you look in detail at the Local Government results there that could lead to a very interesting result indeed.</p><p><br /></p><p>*So does Patricia Gibson but the allegations against her are much less serious</p>ianssmarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07863217818794644141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2586389062182728098.post-65118355307922058062022-05-01T06:04:00.004-07:002022-05-04T03:51:06.730-07:00Some thoughts about Thursday<p> It is polling day in the local elections on Thursday 5th May.</p><p>Now the last time these elections were held in 2017 produced the worst result for the SNP of any election to date since the tsunami election of 2015. Their 32.4% share was worse even that in the following month's General Election, where they famously lost 21 seats.</p><p>So if the Nats only stand still that would be a very bad result for them indeed. </p><p>The assumption is however that the Nats will at least stand still but but I wonder if that is well founded?</p><p>It proceeds firstly on the assumption that the Tories will go backwards from what, in 2017 was their best Scottish local government result in living memory. I agree with that starting premise. Both from the point of view of competency and integrity, this is easily the worst Tory Government of my lifetime. They thoroughly deserve to get gubbed. But I find it difficult to see any Tory reverse benefiting the SNP. Scottish Tory voters are inclined to see their Conservative and Unionist affiliation as having equal importance attached to both names. They might be disillusioned with the Coinservative part but they remain faithful to the Unionist bit. So they may take their votes elsewhere but it won't be to the SNP. THis is, I think, good news for the Indpendents (of a different sort) who remain significant players in rural Scotland but also for the Lib Dems and perhaps for Labour. It is not for nothing that Douglas Ross has been running about making the ludicrous claim that Labour is soft on a second independence referendum but I think his cries will fall on deaf ears. That, I accept did have resonance when we were led by the nightmare team of Kezia Dugdale and Jeremy Corbyn. It simply however lacks all credibility when attached to Anas Sarwar and Keir Starmer.</p><p>Which leads me to my simpler second point. Labour is in a much more formidable state than we were in 2017. Anas and Jackie have a far higher profile than Kez and..........even I can't remember who. But the Party is also in a much better place UK wise. We might not yet be placed to be first in Scotland but we will certainly be second.</p><p>Then there is the fact this is, after all, a local government election. Now that only has a limited resonance outside the cities. North Lanarkshire has been run by us since 2017 and South Lanarkshire by the SNP but, even as someone very interested in Scottish politics I have no awareness of any huge difference between them in service delivery, not least as I am unsure how I would go about finding that out. But it is different in the cities. They have their own media: daily and evening newspapers but also dedicated radio stations and, because of their easier identifiability, greater coverage in the Scotland wide media. To return to North and South Lanarkshire, both are larger local authorities than either Aberdeen or Dundee but they get a fraction of Scotland wide attention. Now this "City" factor will not play out well for the SNP, particularly, in Glasgow. The SNP's stewardship of our largest city has been, on any view, utterly disastrous and, more importantly still, the people of Glasgow know that. If there is any justice this will make a difference on polling day in a city where Labour gaining a mre 5 of the 85 seats on offer from the SNP restores us to being the largest Party.</p><p>"But what about the polls?" I hear you ask. They suggest the SNP will get around 45%. Well here is the interesting thing. In the run up to 2017 there were two polls. Both placed the SNP in the mid forties as opposed to the less than the less than thirty five percent they actually got. Now, the main reason for that is differential turnout. In local government elections who votes is as important as how they vote. Everything says Labour will do well in the English local government elections next week but past experience would tend to suggest that will be as much down to Tory voters withholding their support as to them actually switching to us. Which leads me to my last significant, if tangential point. The census.</p><p>The census has been a debacle. I could write an entire blog about why but,someone already has<a href="https://populistsplaybook.com/2022/03/11/a-lack-of-common-census/" target="_blank"> here</a>. The really interesting thing is where it has particularly failed. It is not, as conspiracist cybernats have been put up to suggest, as a result of "Unionists" boycotting it, rather the best response has been in Aberdeenshire and The Borders, just about the most unionist areas of Scotland. Actually the poorest response has been in areas that voted Yes or only narrowly No. Now, if nationalists can't be bothered to fill in "their" Government's census what are the odds they'll be keen to turn out to elect "their" Government's councilors?</p><p>So, for the first time in eight years, I am looking forward to a Scottish election with some optimism.</p>ianssmarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07863217818794644141noreply@blogger.com0