I've read Eck's speech and it's a good speech.
Salmond is a good platform speaker but even his closest friends and allies would concede privately that, before today, his most recent efforts had given concern as to whether he was losing his mojo. Today he was back to top form. Credit where it is due.
It is worthy of more wider consideration however as to whether platform speeches, although regarded universally among the political class as an essential part of "the leader's" tool kit are really as important as we (all) think. The best two major Party leaders of recent times in delivering a platform speech (Kinnock and Hague) never won an election between them whereas the most electorally successful, Thatcher and Blair, never really spoke from the platform to the nation (as opposed to their Parties) in a way that was truly memorable.
I followed Eck's speech on twitter from the terraces at New Greenhill Road, where I suspect that I was the only person present more interested in that than in whether Rangers could really be losing at Brechin. Tomorrow, the 2% of the population really engaged day to day with political debate will pour over the analysis of the speech in the Sunday Herald and Scotland and Sunday but when the "don't knows" finally make up their mind ten months from now I doubt if a single person, for or against, will attribute their final choice to what Eck said today. It would have been an astonishing achievement for today's speech to have been a game changer and, good though it was, today's speech changed nothing . It simply confirmed the best argument that can be made for freedom/separation (delete to taste). And it confirmed, in a different way, that this argument is not enough.
The real reason that we are waiting three and a half years from the 2011 Scottish General Election until the referendum is that in their heart of hearts the Nationalists knew that they couldn't win without "something turning up". And, logically, the longer they waited, the more chance there was that this "something" might turn up. But, increasingly time is running out on that. The remaining hope is that the Tories might look like winning in May 2015, but I suspect that will be no more a possibility in September 2014 than it is today. Even then, I suspect that this has already been factored in by those who might vote Yes or No based on that potential outcome.
To be fair, I have met one solitary person who said that they might vote Yes if they were certain that the Tories would win the 2015 General Election but in September 2014 even the most optimistic Tory will not be certain of that. And even the one person who did express that opinion in Lefty/liberal company was more than outweighed by others weighing in to argue that they would rather have Thatcher, never mind Cameron, than Salmond. Sorry to disappoint any Nationalist readers but a very large number of people on the left really don't like your leader at all.
Yet the prospect of a Tory Government in 2015 remains the straw to which the Nationalists cling. For it is increasingly clear that they are incapable of changing the game by their own efforts. That was the real message from Eck today. "This is as good an argument as we can make". And yet, outwith the ranks of the faithful, it is patently not an argument that is sufficiently strong to convince.
My money remains on 28%.
Saturday, 19 October 2013
Sunday, 13 October 2013
An Interesting By-Election.
There was a really interesting by-election last week. No not that one (although I'll come back to that). The by-election I'm referring to was in Tweeddale West on the Scottish Borders Council.
But first an anecdote. In 1995, Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, the Tory MP for Perth and Kinross died, triggering a by-election in that seat. This was the absolute high watermark of new Labour. We were polling well ahead of even the result that brought us a landslide two years later and the most recent by-election in a Tory seat, Dudley West, had seen one of the largest ever recorded swings between the major Parties.
So our comrades in the South initially looked forward with some optimism to Perth and Kinross. They were soon disillusioned by the Scottish end of the operation. Somewhere like Perth and Kinross would never vote Labour we assured them. These people were posh and rural. The likes of them did not vote for the likes of us. Ever. And so indeed it proved.
But the high water mark of New Labour popularity was also the absolute nadir of the fortunes of the Tories. So those unwilling to vote Tory but horrified at the prospect of voting even for bright happy smiley new improved Labour had to go somewhere. And that somewhere was the SNP. Where they have more or less remained.
The 2011 landslide for the SNP was built on three pillars. The first was the true believers. People who genuinely believe in an independent Scotland and who finally had a credible vehicle through which to express that support. Polling on the referendum puts that at about a half of those who voted SNP in 2011. The second pillar was "Labour Despairers": those who would have liked to have voted Labour but who despaired of the Party for reasons ranging from the Iraq War to the intellectual bankruptcy of our 2011 campaign, But the third pillar was the "Anybody but Labourers", people who would never ever vote Labour, perceiving us as statist, congenitally inclined to higher taxes and (not unimportantly in Scotland) really only interested in the central belt. These people are natural Tories. By voting No in large numbers, they were key to the indecisive vote in the 79 Referendum but somewhat bizarrely by 2011 had found themselves voting SNP on, the principle that now there was to be a Scottish Parliament, the last thing they wanted was it to be a Labour run Scottish Parliament.
Of the five mainland Westminster Parliamentary seats held by the SNP, an area not, I think, unreasonably to describe as their heartlands, only one (Dundee East and on different boundaries) has ever been held by the Labour Party. Or ever will be I suspect. And the Nationalists in power in Holyrood have looked after these people pretty well. Not just by the Council Tax freeze and the often overlooked small business rates exemption (on any view overtly right wing policies) but by other initiatives that carefully cloak middle class perks as egalitarianism, such as universal free prescriptions and, most obviously of all, "free" higher education at the expense of slashed college budgets and maintenance grants for poorer students.
But, nonetheless, two separate developments are slowly persuading these people that perhaps they should return to their original loyalties.
The "problem" for the SNP is the Independence Referendum. Firstly, it is demonstrating, in spades, that in addition to looking after the comfortable middle class under a devolved settlement, the SNP also actually do stand for Independence for Scotland. And that's not what the rural shires signed up for at all. But, secondly, the nature of the campaign being waged in support of a Yes outcome, in pursuit of the left wing voters seen by some at least as key to victory has suddenly put the sober suited, patently centrist, Church going, John Swinneys and Angus Robertsons of this world in some pretty strange company indeed. Suddenly the prospectus is not just a Scotland "running itself" but a Scotland inevitably then running itself in a much more left wing direction, with Scandinavian levels of public spending, and, more frighteningly, personal taxation; a willingness to indulge the long term unemployed (from Glasgow!) with a wholly unreformed benefit system and an open door to every waif and stray from around the world who might want to settle here. And not only that, a nod and a wink to the likely long term future of the Queen and the Pound Sterling.
Most worryingly of all, a Scotland, once freedom is achieved, anticipated to be run by a more left wing version of the current Labour Party!
Now this might play well at the SSP Conference, or even Calton Hill, but somehow I doubt if it represents the on the street opinion in Forfar, or Elgin, or Perth.
But you don't need to take my word for that. Last Thursday, there was a by-election in Tweeddale West for the Scottish Borders Council. And there was an eighteen percent (you are not misreading) eighteen per cent increase in the Tory vote. A full half of it at the expense of the SNP. And on the same night, amidst my own Party's euphoria in Govan, the Tory vote resolutely refused to be squeezed in a Nationalist direction as would have been routine in an SNP/Labour marginal until very recently. Indeed, in percentage terms, the Tory vote actually increased there as well.
Now, this is of course completely counter-intuitive to those who maintain that Scotland is a "naturally" more left wing country than England. How can Scotland be the only part of the UK where the "universally hated evil English Tories" currently appear to be making progress in the polls? Best just look the other way.
In Dunfermline, the SNP are desperately trying to cling on to this vote, with entire election literature highlighting the Council Tax freeze, Labour's threat to other middle class Holyrood perks and, that old faithful of the Right everywhere, the alleged profligacy of the Labour controlled Council. And, tellingly, not mentioning Independence at all. Let alone the "Common Weal".
Let's see how well they get on.
But first an anecdote. In 1995, Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, the Tory MP for Perth and Kinross died, triggering a by-election in that seat. This was the absolute high watermark of new Labour. We were polling well ahead of even the result that brought us a landslide two years later and the most recent by-election in a Tory seat, Dudley West, had seen one of the largest ever recorded swings between the major Parties.
So our comrades in the South initially looked forward with some optimism to Perth and Kinross. They were soon disillusioned by the Scottish end of the operation. Somewhere like Perth and Kinross would never vote Labour we assured them. These people were posh and rural. The likes of them did not vote for the likes of us. Ever. And so indeed it proved.
But the high water mark of New Labour popularity was also the absolute nadir of the fortunes of the Tories. So those unwilling to vote Tory but horrified at the prospect of voting even for bright happy smiley new improved Labour had to go somewhere. And that somewhere was the SNP. Where they have more or less remained.
The 2011 landslide for the SNP was built on three pillars. The first was the true believers. People who genuinely believe in an independent Scotland and who finally had a credible vehicle through which to express that support. Polling on the referendum puts that at about a half of those who voted SNP in 2011. The second pillar was "Labour Despairers": those who would have liked to have voted Labour but who despaired of the Party for reasons ranging from the Iraq War to the intellectual bankruptcy of our 2011 campaign, But the third pillar was the "Anybody but Labourers", people who would never ever vote Labour, perceiving us as statist, congenitally inclined to higher taxes and (not unimportantly in Scotland) really only interested in the central belt. These people are natural Tories. By voting No in large numbers, they were key to the indecisive vote in the 79 Referendum but somewhat bizarrely by 2011 had found themselves voting SNP on, the principle that now there was to be a Scottish Parliament, the last thing they wanted was it to be a Labour run Scottish Parliament.
Of the five mainland Westminster Parliamentary seats held by the SNP, an area not, I think, unreasonably to describe as their heartlands, only one (Dundee East and on different boundaries) has ever been held by the Labour Party. Or ever will be I suspect. And the Nationalists in power in Holyrood have looked after these people pretty well. Not just by the Council Tax freeze and the often overlooked small business rates exemption (on any view overtly right wing policies) but by other initiatives that carefully cloak middle class perks as egalitarianism, such as universal free prescriptions and, most obviously of all, "free" higher education at the expense of slashed college budgets and maintenance grants for poorer students.
But, nonetheless, two separate developments are slowly persuading these people that perhaps they should return to their original loyalties.
The "problem" for the SNP is the Independence Referendum. Firstly, it is demonstrating, in spades, that in addition to looking after the comfortable middle class under a devolved settlement, the SNP also actually do stand for Independence for Scotland. And that's not what the rural shires signed up for at all. But, secondly, the nature of the campaign being waged in support of a Yes outcome, in pursuit of the left wing voters seen by some at least as key to victory has suddenly put the sober suited, patently centrist, Church going, John Swinneys and Angus Robertsons of this world in some pretty strange company indeed. Suddenly the prospectus is not just a Scotland "running itself" but a Scotland inevitably then running itself in a much more left wing direction, with Scandinavian levels of public spending, and, more frighteningly, personal taxation; a willingness to indulge the long term unemployed (from Glasgow!) with a wholly unreformed benefit system and an open door to every waif and stray from around the world who might want to settle here. And not only that, a nod and a wink to the likely long term future of the Queen and the Pound Sterling.
Most worryingly of all, a Scotland, once freedom is achieved, anticipated to be run by a more left wing version of the current Labour Party!
Now this might play well at the SSP Conference, or even Calton Hill, but somehow I doubt if it represents the on the street opinion in Forfar, or Elgin, or Perth.
But you don't need to take my word for that. Last Thursday, there was a by-election in Tweeddale West for the Scottish Borders Council. And there was an eighteen percent (you are not misreading) eighteen per cent increase in the Tory vote. A full half of it at the expense of the SNP. And on the same night, amidst my own Party's euphoria in Govan, the Tory vote resolutely refused to be squeezed in a Nationalist direction as would have been routine in an SNP/Labour marginal until very recently. Indeed, in percentage terms, the Tory vote actually increased there as well.
Now, this is of course completely counter-intuitive to those who maintain that Scotland is a "naturally" more left wing country than England. How can Scotland be the only part of the UK where the "universally hated evil English Tories" currently appear to be making progress in the polls? Best just look the other way.
In Dunfermline, the SNP are desperately trying to cling on to this vote, with entire election literature highlighting the Council Tax freeze, Labour's threat to other middle class Holyrood perks and, that old faithful of the Right everywhere, the alleged profligacy of the Labour controlled Council. And, tellingly, not mentioning Independence at all. Let alone the "Common Weal".
Let's see how well they get on.
Sunday, 6 October 2013
What is there to say
Even by the standards of this seemingly never ending referendum campaign it has been a particularly boring period. Both sides seem to have run out of new things to say. In the middle of September, there was a brief flurry of excitement when it was suggested Eck was going to announce a "new fact" but as it turned out that came to nothing, presumably because it was discovered it wasn't new. With a different politician you might also have to accept the possibility that it wasn't a fact at all but in the First Minister's case that's not a consideration that has concerned him in the past.
Last week, the Scottish Government's Council of Economic Advisers produced another report confirming that Independence would mean tax rises or major public expenditure cuts but nobody on either side got particularly excited as this was hardly something new, being only what they'd said previously. It seems to me the Nats have largely given up on this point, just resorting to bland assertion in the belief that the game is up anyway and what they claim is never going to be put to the practical test. We used to point out that "Divorce is an expensive business" but it's a pity we couldn't organise a wee trial separation.
The most entertaining thing I saw from either side was this video which I initially thought was a BetterTogether spoof but which if you persevere proves to be the genuine view of (some) on the Nationalist side. Stick with it past the pensioners with the "Ban the BBC" placard (and the balloons on sticks) until you get to the man with the toupee. The best efforts of Blythswood Square could not have invented this.
Increasingly we're being told that the White Paper will be a game changer but to be honest I fail to see how or why. We know the prospectus of the SNP and its unlikely to change dramatically before the end of November. Radical ideas such as "Banning the BBC" are unlikely to find themselves making a late bid for inclusion. "Answers" are unlikely to suddenly emerge to the questions on Currency, EU Membership, Pensions etcetera etcetera etcetera which, to the mind of our side have not been answered to date, or which, to the mind of the true believers, have been answered entirely satisfactorily already.
Nor is the sudden emergence of an Eck v David debate going to ride to the rescue. It's patently not going to happen and, having made legitimate capital on that point, at some point the First Minister will eventually work out that he can't spend the entire campaign sulking, like Achilles, in his tent or speaking only to the ready converted.
In other news, Patrick Harvie made a whistling in the dark speech to his conference suggesting that Green and other Radical elements might yet be decisive. Somehow I think that's more appropriately judged by the two by-elections in which the Greens did and will trail in behind UKIP and in which the other Radical elements lacked the courage to face the electorate at all.
In reality, the campaign has already moved on to how effective the Big Parties are at getting their vote out. And that's kind of boring, which is why, I suppose, so is this blog.
But I am exhorted constantly by Blair McDougall to emphasise that THERE IS NO ROOM FOR COMPLACENCY. So, I repeat, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR COMPLACENCY.
But, in an entirely uncomplacent way, feel free to sit back and enjoy the video.
Last week, the Scottish Government's Council of Economic Advisers produced another report confirming that Independence would mean tax rises or major public expenditure cuts but nobody on either side got particularly excited as this was hardly something new, being only what they'd said previously. It seems to me the Nats have largely given up on this point, just resorting to bland assertion in the belief that the game is up anyway and what they claim is never going to be put to the practical test. We used to point out that "Divorce is an expensive business" but it's a pity we couldn't organise a wee trial separation.
The most entertaining thing I saw from either side was this video which I initially thought was a BetterTogether spoof but which if you persevere proves to be the genuine view of (some) on the Nationalist side. Stick with it past the pensioners with the "Ban the BBC" placard (and the balloons on sticks) until you get to the man with the toupee. The best efforts of Blythswood Square could not have invented this.
Increasingly we're being told that the White Paper will be a game changer but to be honest I fail to see how or why. We know the prospectus of the SNP and its unlikely to change dramatically before the end of November. Radical ideas such as "Banning the BBC" are unlikely to find themselves making a late bid for inclusion. "Answers" are unlikely to suddenly emerge to the questions on Currency, EU Membership, Pensions etcetera etcetera etcetera which, to the mind of our side have not been answered to date, or which, to the mind of the true believers, have been answered entirely satisfactorily already.
Nor is the sudden emergence of an Eck v David debate going to ride to the rescue. It's patently not going to happen and, having made legitimate capital on that point, at some point the First Minister will eventually work out that he can't spend the entire campaign sulking, like Achilles, in his tent or speaking only to the ready converted.
In other news, Patrick Harvie made a whistling in the dark speech to his conference suggesting that Green and other Radical elements might yet be decisive. Somehow I think that's more appropriately judged by the two by-elections in which the Greens did and will trail in behind UKIP and in which the other Radical elements lacked the courage to face the electorate at all.
In reality, the campaign has already moved on to how effective the Big Parties are at getting their vote out. And that's kind of boring, which is why, I suppose, so is this blog.
But I am exhorted constantly by Blair McDougall to emphasise that THERE IS NO ROOM FOR COMPLACENCY. So, I repeat, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR COMPLACENCY.
But, in an entirely uncomplacent way, feel free to sit back and enjoy the video.
Sunday, 29 September 2013
An unsatisfactory blog
As regular followers will know, I always publish a blog on Sunday night. What they might not know is that it is usually written over the weekend before and only polished off and then published on the Sunday.
And this Sunday my blog was meant to be about the pros and cons of abolishing corroboration in Scottish Criminal law. On which matter I would have ended up, conditionally but emphatically, in the "con" camp.
But Lallands Peat Worrier got there before me, I swithered about resorting to outright plagiarism but have, in the end, resigned myself to rather pathetically commending to you my comment on his site.
So, instead, I offer you some music. Enjoy.
And this Sunday my blog was meant to be about the pros and cons of abolishing corroboration in Scottish Criminal law. On which matter I would have ended up, conditionally but emphatically, in the "con" camp.
But Lallands Peat Worrier got there before me, I swithered about resorting to outright plagiarism but have, in the end, resigned myself to rather pathetically commending to you my comment on his site.
So, instead, I offer you some music. Enjoy.
Sunday, 22 September 2013
Numbers
Yesterday we had a bit of fun on twitter over the number who
had attended the Independence March and Rally in Edinburgh.
I have no idea why this has become such a shibboleth for
some Nationalists. It was the same last year when the limitations of those in attendance
were easily demonstrated by the published capacity of the Ross Bandstand, where last year's rally was held, and it was yesterday when despite a police estimate of
8300 marchers, Nicola Sturgeon insisted there were 30,000 there.
What did it matter? Even I accept that more than 30,000
people support Scottish Independence and that even the most diehard of
bravehearts might have something better to do on a Saturday afternoon. I myself
was at the Saint Mirren end at Easter Road where Irvine Welsh did the half time draw (and was subject
to some literary criticism from our fans in the process). I didn’t think however
that this meant he had abandoned his support for Scottish Independence or “snubbed”
the March and Rally. He would just rather have been at the football.
Indeed, you could take the hypothetical 30,000, add a zero
and double it and find even the most optimistic Better Togetherer prepared to
accept that this still underestimates the number who will likely vote Yes next
year.
So why did it become so important for various cybernats, and
a few others who should have known better, to insist the 30,000 figure was
accurate even when an aerial photograph taken at the height of the rally (2.20
pm to be precise) showed this to be patently absurd.
Because Nicola had said it. And, for some, whatever Nicola, or Eck, say must be
true, even in the face of objective, indeed in this case photographic, evidence
to the contrary.
Cybernat opinion was split on how to explain the photograph.
Some insisted in defiance of their own eyes, that there were indeed 30,000
people in it. Others, that it must have been taken at a different time of day.
The maddest suggested it had been taken by a MI5 Drone and then doctored by the
British Security Services before being passed to their trusty contacts at
Scotland on Sunday!
Now none of this would be of anything other than amusement
if it were not for this cavalier attitude to much more important figures being
an increasing feature of the Nationalist movement.
Last week on the television on Wednesday evening, John
Swinney, understandably evaded when asked if an Independent Scottish Government
would renationalise the Royal Mail as he clearly had no idea what this would
cost or indeed whether it could be afforded. The next day, in the Parliament,
so did Eck. Until at the third time of asking he obviously thought and essentially
said “To Hell with it! Never mind the cost! (of which I have no idea) Yes we
will!”
And then in this morning’s papers we learn that, in an
independent Scotland, we will all apparently be able to retire earlier! Again,
never mind what that might cost or that we know from an earlier leaked paper
that in private Swinney has doubts about the affordability of even the existing
pension provision after independence.
Well, just like the 30.000 on Calton Hill yesterday, these
things don’t become true just because the SNP leadership say them. And I
suspect that increasingly these outlandish claims are only persuading the
remaining undecided that the Nationalists have no idea what they are talking
about. Indeed, yesterday morning’s Good Morning Scotland revealed that, Ken
Cairnduff, formerly a leading figure in the
pro-independence Business for Scotland group was now undecided as to how he
would vote. I suspect he’s far from alone.
The Pension “pledge” did not lead
Scotland on Sunday today because that newspaper saw it as a positive for Yes
Scotland, of which that newspaper is hardly an enthusiastic supporter, but
rather because it gave an opportunity to hold the Nationalists up to ridicule,
which has proved to be the overwhelming reaction.
Eck suddenly announced mid week that “Even opponents of
independence accept Scotland would be a prosperous independent country.” No we don’t.
We accept Scotland would, at a significant cost in terms of living standards, be
a viable independent country. That is far from being the same thing. And that
is the conclusion of all independent economic analysts, most recently this week
past, the independent Institute of Fiscal Studies but most importantly of all the Scottish
Government’s own hand picked Council of Economic Advisers, who concluded in their last report that an independent Scotland, albeit not as immediately suggested by the IfS, would face either significant tax rises or cuts in public
expenditure. And certainly not the opportunity for uncosted capital
acquisitions or revenue giveaways.
Now the conventional conclusion of others who have pointed
out this inconsistency has been to suggest that the Nationalists will promise anything to secure a Yes vote. But there is of course another conclusion. That
if the Nationalists have concluded that they are not going to win, it doesn’t really matter what they promise.
Saturday, 14 September 2013
A Scandal of a different sort. Conspiracy, Cock up and Crichel Down
I want to start by saying that I do not agree with the approach taken by the Labour Front Bench to the scandal whereby land acquired for the Glasgow Airport Rail Link (GARL) in 2008 for £840,000 was sold back to the original seller for £50,000 after the Rail Link was cancelled.
Santiago Carillo, the first post Falangist leader of the Spanish Communist Party, famously wrote, in Euro-communism and the State, that while with the benefit of hindsight it is clear that the Anarchists were not secretly allied with Franco during the Spanish Civil War, it was understandable at the time that many people concluded that this was the only logical explanation for their behaviour.
I fear this is the trap that Johann has fallen into over the GARL scandal. Such is the degree of ineptitude and gross incompetence involved, it was difficult to imagine this was done innocently, but in the end that has to be the conclusion. The alternative would involve a conspiracy so vast, not only within the Governing Party but within the permanent institutions of Government that it would surely be beyond the talents of Even Alex Salmond to organise.
And, in any event, even I, as one of the First Minister's fiercest critics, do not believe him to be financially corrupt. There's far too much of this nonsense on all sides in the Parliament. I've written before about back-benchers having to be found something to do and one of these somethings seems to investigating each others expenses in forensic detail. It was ludicrous that the late David McLetchie lost the leadership of the Tories over allegations, at their highest, that he had charged taxis to the wrong account. And it was equally ludicrous that Wendy was brought down over a matter as trivial as failing to check that a named donor to an unnecessary leadership campaign was actually on the UK Election Register.
"Every error has to be corruption!" Well, no it doesn't. Sometimes it can just be incompetence. Or in the case of the GARL deal gross incompetence.
The responsible Minister made an incredibly stupid decision and Mr McGlynn, successful businessman that he is, saw the chance to make a killing. On one view hats off to the latter. Shows a spirit of enterprise all to often lacking in Scotland.
But in the aftermath of the scandal being exposed something very interesting happened. Despite their assertions to this effect being completely untrue, the Nationalists tried to suggest that this was all the fault of the Westminster Government. They claimed that they were bound to act in accordance with "Treasury Rules". No they weren't. There were indeed rules and they acted within them, although not as required by them, but these were ENTIRELY DEVOLVED SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT RULES. That had nothing at all to do with Westminster except that we had, ENTIRELY VOLUNTARILY adopted them. I'll come on to their detail.
Now here it is time for a wee history lesson. For whatever reason the compulsory acquisition of land by the state, although it goes back several centuries, has always been a controversial matter, even although, since time immemorial, it has involved compensation being paid based on an independent valuation of the value of the land. There is a certain mindset, at least among those who have ever owned land, that no matter in what dodgy way it might have originally been acquired, that "your" land shouldn't be taken off you against your wishes. And that, although you've been paid for the land by the State, once the State no longer requires it "you" should be entitled to get it back, albeit at a price. For the avoidance of doubt this is a mindset that applies to land only. No matter what one thinks of the privatisation of coal, steel and the railways, nobody suggested that the original owners should be given first refusal when they were sold back into the private sector.
But land is different, for whatever irrational reason, perhaps because it is the last redoubt of the........landed.....classes.
In the run up to the Second World War, the State, for understandable military reasons, acquired a great quantity of land. And one of the pieces of land involved 75 Acres attached to country estate, Crichel Down, in Dorset. The land was to be used for bombing practice. The owners were given good money for it but they were also promised they'd be given the chance to buy it back once it was no longer required.
After the war, that didn't happen. Instead, the land was developed for agriculture and leased out. And the owners threw a wobbly. By the time they were eventually offered "their" land back it had been improved to an extent that it was valued beyond their pocket. So they threw an even bigger wobbly.
But the owners were "well connected" so, eventually, there was a public inquiry and the Civil Servants involved were much criticised.
Now this matter had a long tail and left two very major scars on the Civil Service. Firstly, it established that civil servants acting in good faith could nonetheless be open to criticism. Some credit it with the ultimate creation of the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Secondly, the Minister responsible resigned, on the basis that although he had no personal involvement (indeed much of what had happened had happened under a previous, Labour, administration) he felt he had to take the fall for his Department. The senior ranks of the Service decided that this left a stain on their own character for having let an innocent man down.
So rules were introduced to ensure such a thing could never happen again. Not rules, one might have thought, setting out when it was legitimate for the State to retain land compulsorily acquired but rather rules requiring that land so acquired and then no longer needed for its original purpose should be offered back to its original owner or sold on the open market as soon as possible. Perhaps not a surprising way forward for a 1950s Tory Government but......
Now just in case you are wondering what any of this Wessexian rural whimsy from the Nineteen Forties and Fifties has got to do with 21st Century Scotland I will eventually give you the link to the Scottish Government Finance Manual. and in particular the section entitled "Disposal of Property, Plant and Equipment". Click on the link within that document to the Annex and then look at point 3 of paragraph 2. For, in disposing of Land acquired compulsorily or under threat of compulsion, it remains the rule, but crucially not the law, that one of the first steps to be taken is "To check the application of the Crichel Down Rules"!
Now, reader, you and I might think that in this day and age the owners of property who have already been compensated for its loss, particularly property of no conceivable sentimental value, should have no particular preference if our Government decides to sell that land on. But it is worse than that. When the land is originally acquired, the valuation includes an element to reflect the benefit it will gain from the development to be built upon it. When however the land is offered back, it is offered at a value reflecting the fact that this development will not now take place. Thus, inevitably, almost certainly at a significantly lower value.
Now, you and I might again be wondering why such a situation favouring land owners at the expense of taxpayers is in place. The only answer is that these are "The Rules". And, I repeat, they are not Westminster's Rules, they are entirely Scottish Rules, adopted voluntarily by the Scottish Government.
Beyond even that however, why, if the former owner doesn't want the land back at an independently fixed price, do the rules suggest the land be sold as quickly as possible, irrespective of market conditions? For that was what happened with the GARL land? Answers on a postcard to St Andrew's House.
Anyway, did these Rules even require (rather than suggest) that the GARL land had to be offered back to anybody? No they didn't. Look at Rule 3.
3. Holdings of property, plant and equipment should be kept under constant review with a view to disposing of surplus assets as quickly as possible. Surplus land and buildings should usually be disposed of within 3 years of being identified as surplus, and surplus residential properties should usually be sold within 6 months of becoming vacant. (my emphasis)
Point one, was this land surplus? GARL was cancelled by the SNP Government for financial reasons. They were never opposed for reason of principle. It remained and remains a favoured policy of the principal opposition Party who, resources allowing would go ahead if returned to power. Indeed, if we take the SNP at their word and that "after Independence" we'll have so much money we won't now how to spend it, who is to say the SNP themselves won't revisit the idea in the future? Surely it would make sense to retain this land against either eventually, rather than have to......eh..... buy it back again?
Point two, "usually". For, it is important to emphasise, yet again, that these are self imposed rules made by Ministers, not required by law. It is thus open to the Minister, at any time, to decide to disregard or change the rules. We know that Sarah Boyack, as Minister for Transport, did just that when it was suggested to her that land acquired for the second Forth crossing should be disposed of when that project was abandoned by the 1999-2003 Lab/Lib administration.
And that leads me to my most important point? Why anyway are these the rules? Why is the Scottish Government subject to "rules" that inevitably favour, at best, the former owners of land, and, at worst, at the bottom of the market, property speculators who can acquire property in a market where no private seller would ever sell? This is entirely devolved, so why are the rules exactly the same as those applying to England? Is there a political consensus across the UK that the Government should be expected to sell land at a significant loss to the taxpayer? I very much doubt it.
I acknowledge, in concluding, that this as much a criticism of our eight years as the six that have followed but why have all of our politicians been so unaware or unwilling to use the existing powers of the Parliament and the devolved administration?
That's the real scandal about GARL. A scandal of gross ministerial incompetence and more general political cowardice. That should have been more than enough for Johann to get her teeth into last Thursday.
Santiago Carillo, the first post Falangist leader of the Spanish Communist Party, famously wrote, in Euro-communism and the State, that while with the benefit of hindsight it is clear that the Anarchists were not secretly allied with Franco during the Spanish Civil War, it was understandable at the time that many people concluded that this was the only logical explanation for their behaviour.
I fear this is the trap that Johann has fallen into over the GARL scandal. Such is the degree of ineptitude and gross incompetence involved, it was difficult to imagine this was done innocently, but in the end that has to be the conclusion. The alternative would involve a conspiracy so vast, not only within the Governing Party but within the permanent institutions of Government that it would surely be beyond the talents of Even Alex Salmond to organise.
And, in any event, even I, as one of the First Minister's fiercest critics, do not believe him to be financially corrupt. There's far too much of this nonsense on all sides in the Parliament. I've written before about back-benchers having to be found something to do and one of these somethings seems to investigating each others expenses in forensic detail. It was ludicrous that the late David McLetchie lost the leadership of the Tories over allegations, at their highest, that he had charged taxis to the wrong account. And it was equally ludicrous that Wendy was brought down over a matter as trivial as failing to check that a named donor to an unnecessary leadership campaign was actually on the UK Election Register.
"Every error has to be corruption!" Well, no it doesn't. Sometimes it can just be incompetence. Or in the case of the GARL deal gross incompetence.
The responsible Minister made an incredibly stupid decision and Mr McGlynn, successful businessman that he is, saw the chance to make a killing. On one view hats off to the latter. Shows a spirit of enterprise all to often lacking in Scotland.
But in the aftermath of the scandal being exposed something very interesting happened. Despite their assertions to this effect being completely untrue, the Nationalists tried to suggest that this was all the fault of the Westminster Government. They claimed that they were bound to act in accordance with "Treasury Rules". No they weren't. There were indeed rules and they acted within them, although not as required by them, but these were ENTIRELY DEVOLVED SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT RULES. That had nothing at all to do with Westminster except that we had, ENTIRELY VOLUNTARILY adopted them. I'll come on to their detail.
Now here it is time for a wee history lesson. For whatever reason the compulsory acquisition of land by the state, although it goes back several centuries, has always been a controversial matter, even although, since time immemorial, it has involved compensation being paid based on an independent valuation of the value of the land. There is a certain mindset, at least among those who have ever owned land, that no matter in what dodgy way it might have originally been acquired, that "your" land shouldn't be taken off you against your wishes. And that, although you've been paid for the land by the State, once the State no longer requires it "you" should be entitled to get it back, albeit at a price. For the avoidance of doubt this is a mindset that applies to land only. No matter what one thinks of the privatisation of coal, steel and the railways, nobody suggested that the original owners should be given first refusal when they were sold back into the private sector.
But land is different, for whatever irrational reason, perhaps because it is the last redoubt of the........landed.....classes.
In the run up to the Second World War, the State, for understandable military reasons, acquired a great quantity of land. And one of the pieces of land involved 75 Acres attached to country estate, Crichel Down, in Dorset. The land was to be used for bombing practice. The owners were given good money for it but they were also promised they'd be given the chance to buy it back once it was no longer required.
After the war, that didn't happen. Instead, the land was developed for agriculture and leased out. And the owners threw a wobbly. By the time they were eventually offered "their" land back it had been improved to an extent that it was valued beyond their pocket. So they threw an even bigger wobbly.
But the owners were "well connected" so, eventually, there was a public inquiry and the Civil Servants involved were much criticised.
Now this matter had a long tail and left two very major scars on the Civil Service. Firstly, it established that civil servants acting in good faith could nonetheless be open to criticism. Some credit it with the ultimate creation of the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Secondly, the Minister responsible resigned, on the basis that although he had no personal involvement (indeed much of what had happened had happened under a previous, Labour, administration) he felt he had to take the fall for his Department. The senior ranks of the Service decided that this left a stain on their own character for having let an innocent man down.
So rules were introduced to ensure such a thing could never happen again. Not rules, one might have thought, setting out when it was legitimate for the State to retain land compulsorily acquired but rather rules requiring that land so acquired and then no longer needed for its original purpose should be offered back to its original owner or sold on the open market as soon as possible. Perhaps not a surprising way forward for a 1950s Tory Government but......
Now just in case you are wondering what any of this Wessexian rural whimsy from the Nineteen Forties and Fifties has got to do with 21st Century Scotland I will eventually give you the link to the Scottish Government Finance Manual. and in particular the section entitled "Disposal of Property, Plant and Equipment". Click on the link within that document to the Annex and then look at point 3 of paragraph 2. For, in disposing of Land acquired compulsorily or under threat of compulsion, it remains the rule, but crucially not the law, that one of the first steps to be taken is "To check the application of the Crichel Down Rules"!
Now, reader, you and I might think that in this day and age the owners of property who have already been compensated for its loss, particularly property of no conceivable sentimental value, should have no particular preference if our Government decides to sell that land on. But it is worse than that. When the land is originally acquired, the valuation includes an element to reflect the benefit it will gain from the development to be built upon it. When however the land is offered back, it is offered at a value reflecting the fact that this development will not now take place. Thus, inevitably, almost certainly at a significantly lower value.
Now, you and I might again be wondering why such a situation favouring land owners at the expense of taxpayers is in place. The only answer is that these are "The Rules". And, I repeat, they are not Westminster's Rules, they are entirely Scottish Rules, adopted voluntarily by the Scottish Government.
Beyond even that however, why, if the former owner doesn't want the land back at an independently fixed price, do the rules suggest the land be sold as quickly as possible, irrespective of market conditions? For that was what happened with the GARL land? Answers on a postcard to St Andrew's House.
Anyway, did these Rules even require (rather than suggest) that the GARL land had to be offered back to anybody? No they didn't. Look at Rule 3.
3. Holdings of property, plant and equipment should be kept under constant review with a view to disposing of surplus assets as quickly as possible. Surplus land and buildings should usually be disposed of within 3 years of being identified as surplus, and surplus residential properties should usually be sold within 6 months of becoming vacant. (my emphasis)
Point one, was this land surplus? GARL was cancelled by the SNP Government for financial reasons. They were never opposed for reason of principle. It remained and remains a favoured policy of the principal opposition Party who, resources allowing would go ahead if returned to power. Indeed, if we take the SNP at their word and that "after Independence" we'll have so much money we won't now how to spend it, who is to say the SNP themselves won't revisit the idea in the future? Surely it would make sense to retain this land against either eventually, rather than have to......eh..... buy it back again?
Point two, "usually". For, it is important to emphasise, yet again, that these are self imposed rules made by Ministers, not required by law. It is thus open to the Minister, at any time, to decide to disregard or change the rules. We know that Sarah Boyack, as Minister for Transport, did just that when it was suggested to her that land acquired for the second Forth crossing should be disposed of when that project was abandoned by the 1999-2003 Lab/Lib administration.
And that leads me to my most important point? Why anyway are these the rules? Why is the Scottish Government subject to "rules" that inevitably favour, at best, the former owners of land, and, at worst, at the bottom of the market, property speculators who can acquire property in a market where no private seller would ever sell? This is entirely devolved, so why are the rules exactly the same as those applying to England? Is there a political consensus across the UK that the Government should be expected to sell land at a significant loss to the taxpayer? I very much doubt it.
I acknowledge, in concluding, that this as much a criticism of our eight years as the six that have followed but why have all of our politicians been so unaware or unwilling to use the existing powers of the Parliament and the devolved administration?
That's the real scandal about GARL. A scandal of gross ministerial incompetence and more general political cowardice. That should have been more than enough for Johann to get her teeth into last Thursday.
Sunday, 8 September 2013
Not going away
Graeme Pearson and I come from different ends of the criminal justice system. Before becoming an MSP he had spent all of his life as a policeman, latterly a very senior policeman, catching the bad guys and seeing them prosecuted. I, on the other hand, have never prosecuted anyone in my life, my own career being devoted to defending the innocent and sometimes the not so innocent.
But Graeme and I have one skill in common, spotting when somebody's story doesn't ring true. And when Graeme says in a press release today that Nicola Sturgeon's "alibi" over Bill Walker simply does not add up, he has my unconditional endorsement.
I blogged about this on the day Walker was convicted since when various other pieces of the jigsaw have come to light.
Firstly, it appears I was too readily prepared to accept the version of the SNP about the meeting Rob Armstrong, Walker's former brother in law had with Nicola Sturgeon's office in 2008. The SNP claimed that it was primarily about a child access dispute and indeed in my previous blog I was crtical about their breach of confidentiality in that regard but here we have Mr Armstrong's version of events.
"[that] is a totally inaccurate assessment of that meeting. The purpose of the meeting was purely about Bill Walker."
Now, Mr Armstrong subsequently gave an interview to Raymond Buchanan on Newsnight Scotland, unfortunately no longer available online, but anyone who saw that will have formed the impression of a man measured in his remarks who was at pains to say that he had no wider animus against the SNP and indeed was positively complimentary about the First Minister who he clearly did not think had any personal knowledge of these matters. Yet, it would appear that, this notwithstanding, the SNP are accusing Mr Armstrong of lying.
Then we have this this carefully worded statement from the SNP after Walker's conviction.
"The matter was considered by a member of staff at SNP headquarters and reasonable enquiries made, but there was no evidence of any complaint in law or legal proceedings into Mr Walker's conduct, and the inquiry was closed."
Now that is true but exceptionally economical with that truth.
For we now have much more detail about what the SNP did know about Walker in 2008.It is here.
I draw your attention particularly to this section
Now, that may not be "any complaint in law or legal proceedings into (The SNP's word) Mr Walker's conduct but it is certainly evidence of legal proceedings about his conduct. And the affidavit, for the avoidance of doubt was not from a third party who might have had an axe to grind. It was from Walker himself.
How, faced with that evidence, the admission by a middle aged man that he regarded it as appropriate behaviour to strike his teenage stepdaughter on the buttocks, was it decided that it was appropriate to "close the (sic) inquiry"? That is surely something that can't be shrugged off as a regrettable oversight? While readers can form their own view, it certainly looks to me like a wilful decision to overlook child abuse to prevent political embarrassment.
And then we have Nicola's own (very) carefully worded statement.
"It is, of course, the case that knowing what is now known about Bill Walker, we all wish that he had been prevented from becoming an SNP candidate."
I don't doubt that for a moment! That however is some considerable way from the much simpler statement that it is regrettable that the SNP did not act on the information they possessed in 2008.
And it remains unclear why that is not the clear and public position of the Deputy First Minister. In light of the information about the affidavit signed by Walker himself it is clear that the earlier suggestion by the SNP that they had no way of verifying the "allegations" is simply unsustainable. They may not have had the means to get to all the detail ultimately exposed by the prosecuting authorities but they had the man's own admission of the smacking incident and the assault with the saucepan, albeit in respect of the latter presumably subject to the same plea of "self defence" that Walker unsuccessfully advanced at his trial. They also had the newspaper reports which, if untrue, would surely have been defamatory to a degree that Walker might at least have been asked why he had not sued.
But, then again, it appears Walker was never asked anything about the information provided by Mr Armstrong, either at the time or when he was later adopted as a Parliamentary candidate.
I do not know the identity of the SNP official who decided to "close the inquiry" but I agree with Mr Armstrong in the opening paragraph the last article quoted that whoever it was ought to be considering their position. As should anybody else who knew of that decision and approved it.
And I also know this. If the SNP decide to continue to bury their heads in the sand over this matter it will most certainly not go away. And people more widely will start to ask if this is an attractive advertisement for the would be government of an independent country.
They need, As Kate Higgins suggests today, to set up an independent inquiry into what happened. Might I suggest Mungo Bovey, the leading Nationalist QC and a person of unimpeachable integrity, as a suitable candidate for its chair. And they then need to act on the result of that inquiry. No matter who it implicates.
And, before I'm asked, that would certainly be my position had Walker been elected as a Labour MSP. I'm not suggesting wrong calls on such matters are the exclusive preserve of the SNP. But I am suggesting that all the evidence points to a wrong call having been made. Zero tolerance has to mean just that.
But Graeme and I have one skill in common, spotting when somebody's story doesn't ring true. And when Graeme says in a press release today that Nicola Sturgeon's "alibi" over Bill Walker simply does not add up, he has my unconditional endorsement.
I blogged about this on the day Walker was convicted since when various other pieces of the jigsaw have come to light.
Firstly, it appears I was too readily prepared to accept the version of the SNP about the meeting Rob Armstrong, Walker's former brother in law had with Nicola Sturgeon's office in 2008. The SNP claimed that it was primarily about a child access dispute and indeed in my previous blog I was crtical about their breach of confidentiality in that regard but here we have Mr Armstrong's version of events.
"[that] is a totally inaccurate assessment of that meeting. The purpose of the meeting was purely about Bill Walker."
Now, Mr Armstrong subsequently gave an interview to Raymond Buchanan on Newsnight Scotland, unfortunately no longer available online, but anyone who saw that will have formed the impression of a man measured in his remarks who was at pains to say that he had no wider animus against the SNP and indeed was positively complimentary about the First Minister who he clearly did not think had any personal knowledge of these matters. Yet, it would appear that, this notwithstanding, the SNP are accusing Mr Armstrong of lying.
Then we have this this carefully worded statement from the SNP after Walker's conviction.
"The matter was considered by a member of staff at SNP headquarters and reasonable enquiries made, but there was no evidence of any complaint in law or legal proceedings into Mr Walker's conduct, and the inquiry was closed."
Now that is true but exceptionally economical with that truth.
For we now have much more detail about what the SNP did know about Walker in 2008.It is here.
I draw your attention particularly to this section
[Mr Armstrong] said he recalled showing Sturgeon's aide at least three documents: a hand-written affidavit by Walker about a child access case; an old newspaper cutting about his past; and a damning court judgment.
In the 1987 affidavit, Walker wrote about an incident in which he hit his former step-daughter Louise with a saucepan.
Walker also responded to Louise's claim that he smacked her on the bare bottom until the age of 15.
He wrote: "After no more than [waiting] 15 minutes she did receive her 'punishment', one smack on each buttock with a slipper, with her navy blue knickers on."
Now, that may not be "any complaint in law or legal proceedings into (The SNP's word) Mr Walker's conduct but it is certainly evidence of legal proceedings about his conduct. And the affidavit, for the avoidance of doubt was not from a third party who might have had an axe to grind. It was from Walker himself.
How, faced with that evidence, the admission by a middle aged man that he regarded it as appropriate behaviour to strike his teenage stepdaughter on the buttocks, was it decided that it was appropriate to "close the (sic) inquiry"? That is surely something that can't be shrugged off as a regrettable oversight? While readers can form their own view, it certainly looks to me like a wilful decision to overlook child abuse to prevent political embarrassment.
And then we have Nicola's own (very) carefully worded statement.
"It is, of course, the case that knowing what is now known about Bill Walker, we all wish that he had been prevented from becoming an SNP candidate."
I don't doubt that for a moment! That however is some considerable way from the much simpler statement that it is regrettable that the SNP did not act on the information they possessed in 2008.
And it remains unclear why that is not the clear and public position of the Deputy First Minister. In light of the information about the affidavit signed by Walker himself it is clear that the earlier suggestion by the SNP that they had no way of verifying the "allegations" is simply unsustainable. They may not have had the means to get to all the detail ultimately exposed by the prosecuting authorities but they had the man's own admission of the smacking incident and the assault with the saucepan, albeit in respect of the latter presumably subject to the same plea of "self defence" that Walker unsuccessfully advanced at his trial. They also had the newspaper reports which, if untrue, would surely have been defamatory to a degree that Walker might at least have been asked why he had not sued.
But, then again, it appears Walker was never asked anything about the information provided by Mr Armstrong, either at the time or when he was later adopted as a Parliamentary candidate.
I do not know the identity of the SNP official who decided to "close the inquiry" but I agree with Mr Armstrong in the opening paragraph the last article quoted that whoever it was ought to be considering their position. As should anybody else who knew of that decision and approved it.
And I also know this. If the SNP decide to continue to bury their heads in the sand over this matter it will most certainly not go away. And people more widely will start to ask if this is an attractive advertisement for the would be government of an independent country.
They need, As Kate Higgins suggests today, to set up an independent inquiry into what happened. Might I suggest Mungo Bovey, the leading Nationalist QC and a person of unimpeachable integrity, as a suitable candidate for its chair. And they then need to act on the result of that inquiry. No matter who it implicates.
And, before I'm asked, that would certainly be my position had Walker been elected as a Labour MSP. I'm not suggesting wrong calls on such matters are the exclusive preserve of the SNP. But I am suggesting that all the evidence points to a wrong call having been made. Zero tolerance has to mean just that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)