There are many ways to look at the news that Stagecoach tycoon Brian Souter is to repeat his funding of the SNP with a donation of up to £500k. The two conflicting views that I hold are these:
1 – It allows a fair contest to take place between the historically under-funded SNP relative to the more established (but currently skint) Labour party
2 – It pushes Scotland closer to an unbecoming two-party system, much like the hideously riven-in-two United States
We have already seen this week how large the divide between Labour and the SNP is in terms of consensus politics. As Duncan Hamilton describes in deliciously vicious detail in the Scotland on Sunday today, Labour couldn’t even bring itself to vote for a Scottish budget that contained all of the detail that Iain Gray had been calling for. A political arms race between two parties that increasingly detest each other to the decreasing benefit of Scotland can only end badly. Funding candidates who gleefully talk about getting “pugils at the ready” and calling the other side “patsies” doesn’t seem to be getting us very far. However, as can be backed up by electoral math, Labour and the SNP could be on course to take 100 of the 129 seats in the Parliament this year, a worrying milestone for those wanting to move away from punch and judy politics.
The correlation between winning seats and spending power speaks for itself. The four largest parties all spent about £20k-£30k per MSP during 2007, suggesting that the number of leaflets rather than the message printed on them is key. The Greens spent about £54k per MSP, suggesting perhaps that, all things being equal, more money goes further once you have some momentum. With the top two parties seemingly raising even more than the rest here and now in 2011, the direction of travel for our beloved Parliament is pretty clear.
Interestingly, it is the Liberal Democrats who spent the least, £19k per MSP, which suggests that they have a stronger base of support out there that money is less of a factor with, a suggestion that would perhaps contradict the widely-held prediction that Tavish Scott is on a hiding to nothing come May.
On his Twitter page, Patrick Harvie has noted that he would rather have no money than Brian Souter’s money (albeit through the ‘RT’ of another’s message). One would think that Patrick might believe he could spend said money better than Brian could, or Alex Salmond for that matter, but money is a game changer in Politics, that’s the unfortunate reality of our current setup and probably the least worst solution too. It is commendable that the Scottish Greens believe so wholeheartedly in their message that they stand more squarely on it, eschewing more traditional (and perhaps more grubby) political practices.
With 50%+ of Tory donations coming from the City while Osborne arranges jaw-dropping tax cuts for big business, not to mention the eyebrow-raising sweeping away of bus regulation from the SNP manifesto four years ago (an omission that would have pleased Brian Souter), we just have to make sure that campaign money is a game changer only for elections, and not for policies.
All in all, I am mostly glad that the SNP can fight this election on the same financial footing as Scottish Labour but, with the real risk that our once Rainbow Parliament takes on a distinctly red and yellow hue, we should be careful what we wish and vote for.
(Note – That is a National Express vehicle in the photo, not a Stagecoach one. I am not suggesting anything untoward with its inclusion, and certainly not that Jim Barrie or Stewart Hosie have a face like the back of a bus!)
#1 by CSbungo on February 13, 2011 - 11:47 am
I’ll support nationalisation of public transport in a nuclear-free, independent Scotland
#2 by Jeff on February 13, 2011 - 11:59 am
Three reasons to vote Green then…
#3 by aonghas on February 13, 2011 - 12:26 pm
Patrick Harvie has noted that he would rather have no money than Brian Souter’s money (albeit through the ‘RT’ of another’s message). One would think that Patrick might believe he could spend said money better than Brian could, or Alex Salmond for that matter
Haha yes, good point. Considering his party’s policies, it’s clearly Patrick Harvie’s deeply held belief that he’s much better at spending other peoples’ money than they are. 🙂
#4 by Jeff on February 13, 2011 - 12:28 pm
Ha, I walked into that one. I’ll keep setting them up if…. etc etc
#5 by Neil Craig on February 13, 2011 - 2:33 pm
The point is that there is an almost complete consensus between the SNP & Labour on policies, and indeed with the other 3 parties. This is why they bitch at each other – because there is nothinmg substatnive to disagree over. This is shown in the example you choose in the SoS article. It is all about Scottish Labour being rude about the SNP releasing Megrahi but anybody can se that, ehatever both pretend, that release was produced by a cosy deal between Labour, in Westminster & the SNP, to release somebody they both had always known to be innocent but whom it was no longer financially convenient to keep locked up.
Another round of cynicism & lies then.
Can anybody name a major policy on which the parties have a genuine & deep disagreement? Not on destroying the economy; not on increasing electricity prices & freezing pensioners; not on spending stealing £2 billion from us for the Forth Bridge (granted the Greens are against building it but only because they want the rip off more directly into their pockets); not on blaming London for everything; not on our declining education; not on the catastrophic warming they allege we are seeing. So on what?
#6 by Jeff on February 13, 2011 - 2:52 pm
I don’t really agree that there is no major difference between Scottish Labour and the SNP on Megrahi and, whichever way you look at it, it was a devovled decision with global (or at least transatlantic) implications so it was a big deal.
There isn’t as much of a difference in this election as perhaps previous elections but there is still a difference and to say five parties are all the same takes some doing. Indeed, it’s not clear what your preferred policies actually are?
You talk vaguely about ‘destroying the economy and declining education’, as if that’s the top line of individual party manifestos. To be fair, you do mention specifics on electricity prices and freezing pensioners. Well, the Greens want power companies to put more investment into local supply of energy which has been proven to reduce heating bills drastically in other countries. Greens also want a much, much bigger push on insulation and proper glazing which would keep bills low and unfreeze those pensioners you’re worried about. Sweden is about to embark on ensuring homes are triple-glazed as standard. We’re so far behind that benchmark it’s a joke. So there’s a difference to consider.
Differences arise between all parties on Council Tax/LIT/LVT. You may sneer and want to see huge policy differences but real life doesn’t work that way; subtle changes in policy are important too.
Without wanting to veer too off-topic, what specifically would your ideal policies be?
#7 by Neil Craig on February 14, 2011 - 1:58 pm
This is my economic programme http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2010/05/scottish-conservatives.html which all parties are o[pposed to.
As regards differences on Council Tax etc – not only are those very minor tactical differences but no serious attempt has been made by any of the parties to implement changes.
That education standards are declining compared to England is not vague but factual.
That all parties are committed to destroying 58% of our electricity capacity, which since they are closely linked, means roughly 58% of the economy over the next 9 years is a matter of fact.
The Green party wishing to legislate extra costs for power companies to impose useless Luddite nostrums is not, under any circumstances, an attempt to reduce fuel poverty & if the Greens were remotely honest they would admit their objective is merely to first in the race to economic destruction. Considering that 93% of electricity prices are already the result of Luddite government parasitism no big party can ever, remotely honestly, claim not to be killing pensioners & trying to destry the country.
Again “Can anybody name a major policy on which the parties have a genuine & deep disagreement? “
#8 by Doug Daniel on February 13, 2011 - 2:53 pm
Type your comment here
Council tax?
#9 by Doug Daniel on February 13, 2011 - 4:01 pm
Replying to posts on here is far more difficult than it should be on a touch screen phone. Down with rollover hyperlinks!!!
#10 by Jeff on February 13, 2011 - 4:03 pm
Yes, I wasn’t sure if the presentation was as you intended. Gave you the benefit of the doubt, as you can see…!
#11 by Doug Daniel on February 13, 2011 - 4:23 pm
No problem, I’ll just blame it on the person who created the Arclite theme on WordPress not paying enough attention when they did user interaction classes at university! Rule 1: never rely on JavaScript for functionality.
This is getting a bit off-topic now…
#12 by James on February 13, 2011 - 2:58 pm
The SNP voted for coal and against nuclear. The Labour party voted for nuclear and against coal. The Tories voted for both. The Lib Dems used to be against nukes but Huhne has changed his mind, and they voted against coal. The Greens are against both, because Scotland has almost six times more in renewable potential than the electricity we use.
#13 by DougtheDug on February 13, 2011 - 4:28 pm
Minimum Pricing of Alcohol
Local Income Tax
Independence Referendum
Council Tax Freeze
And the biggie, the SNP want Scotland to be an independent state, the Labour party want it as a British region.
#14 by DougtheDug on February 13, 2011 - 4:39 pm
“2 – It pushes Scotland closer to an unbecoming two-party system, much like the hideously riven-in-two United States”
Political parties are private organisations which are involved in politics and their funding is highly regulated under law. Two party politics develop because third and fourth parties can’t capture the voters and the money that follows them and in Scotland’s AMS system no-one can complain that the results aren’t proportional.
If the Lib-Dems can’t attract money and voters to support their core principles then they don’t have any right to expect to to have members in the Scottish Parliament and the same goes for the Conservatives. Two party politics are actually the result of the failure of third and fourth parties to attract the voters not the fault of the two remaining parties.
#15 by Jeff on February 13, 2011 - 4:45 pm
I don’t disagree with that Doug, I still regret the emerging two party politics coming through though. I’m not really assigning blame, certainly not to the SNP who can hardly pass up a £500k cheque that gives them a fighting chance to hold onto power.
Indeed, I’ve been bashing against Greens and Lib Dems on Twitter (for longer than I perhaps should have) who are trying to take the moral high ground by saying they wouldn’t want Souter’s money even if they were offered it. I suspect it is easier to turn down donations that have already been given to another party but I still would like to see the ‘smaller parties’ widening their base of donations where possible. Aren’t there successful, rich renewables-based companies that could back the Greens a bit more? I have no idea but I’d like to think so.
#16 by jfiek on February 13, 2011 - 5:16 pm
who is in charge of the SNP’s fundraising efforts?
#17 by fitalass on February 13, 2011 - 5:36 pm
“With 50%+ of Tory donations coming from the City while Osborne arranges jaw-dropping tax cuts for big business”
Jeff, where do you get the info that 50+ of Tory donations come from the City?
#18 by Jeff on February 13, 2011 - 5:38 pm
It was in the Guardian the other day. Should probably have linked to it but it was big news…
#19 by Doug Daniel on February 13, 2011 - 5:55 pm
I can understand why Patrick Harvie would rather have no money than Brian Souter’s money, that’s a perfectly fair comment from him. As an SNP member who would like to see nationalised public transport in an independent Scotland, I’m a bit wary of such big donations from the head of a bus company (although I’m far more concerned about nationalising trains than buses, particularly as I can already choose between Stagecoach and First Bus to travel around some parts of Aberdeen), especially in light of what happened in 2007 with the SNP apparently dropping their commitment to bus re-regulation after Souter donated £500,000 (although I believe it was a bit more complicated than that – can’t find any links, but I read somewhere back then that it had only been flouted as a possible manifesto policy, so wasn’t actually there to BE dropped at that point…)
However, the fact is many of the things I want to happen in an independent Scotland are exactly that: they’re secondary to the main aim of independence. Taking this money from him now does not commit a Scottish Government in an independent Scotland from saying “actually, I think we WILL re-regulate buses”.
I’ll also make this point. If the £500,000 last time round was indeed an attempt to “encourage” the SNP not to support bus re-regulation, then why is he doing it again this year, when no such policy is on the cards? Could it be that he really is just trying to redress the funding imbalance?
Incidentally, there’s a rather humorous quote (well, I think so anyway) from John Park on the BBC’s article: “The SNP are trying to re-fight the 2007 election. They don’t understand that this is a doorstep election, not a big money election.” Is this perhaps an indication that the Labour party coffers are finally running dry?
#20 by Doug Daniel on February 13, 2011 - 5:56 pm
In regards to the rainbow parliament becoming more like SNP vs Labour, I can only suggest that this is an indication of where Scottish politics is going. SNP are the main pro-independence party, and Labour are the main anti-independence party. As the debate for independence becomes stronger, so too will the polarisation of the vote onto these two opposing sides. Also, I think it perhaps indicates a complete lack of ideas from the Tories and Lib Dems, not helped by the coalition in Westminster. If you don’t favour independence, but you also don’t like the Tories, then where will your vote go? The Lib Dems are now seen as Tories-in-disguise to an extent, so the vote goes to Labour.
The fact is, if you favour independence, you have to vote SNP. Granted, the Greens and some others are in favour of it, but it’s very hard to imagine this doing anything but dilute the overall pro-independence representation at Holyrood, particularly as these parties do not consider it to be top of their list of priorities. I’d love to see a situation where pro-independence Labour supporters (and we know they exist) sided with the SSP or Greens instead, giving us a much more balanced parliament, instead of the SNP-versus-the-world scenario we’ve had for the past year especially. But until the anti-independence campers build a much more mature argument for their adherence to the Union, then it’s just not going to happen.
#21 by Douglas McLellan on February 13, 2011 - 7:57 pm
I think that this is a very good point. If a person does not favour independence then that makes it quite hard for them to vote for the SNP, Greens or SSP. If that person is also keen on high public spending and state run public services then the Tories and Lib Dems will not attract that persons vote. Where else can a voter go but Labour?
#22 by Indy on February 13, 2011 - 9:29 pm
It’s a bit sloppy of you to repeat the canard that the SNP removed bus regulation from its manifesto.
Bus regulation was never in the manifesto.
And given that the SNP aimed a bit too high with some of what WAS in the manifesto – writing off student debt etc – it’s just as well they didn’t, ever, make any commitment on bus regulation otherwise it would have ended up on the “broken promise” list lol.
#23 by Jeff on February 13, 2011 - 10:02 pm
To be fair, I didn’t say it was ever in the manifesto just that it was swept away from it which it was. Whether that was as a direct result of Souter’s cash or not I guess we’ll never know but it’s fair to call it eyebrow raising (I did).
It’s no more than that though. I mean, let’s face it, if any of the parties felt that strongly about regulating buses (then or now) then they are free to put that in their manifestos and people can vote accordingly. I don’t see it being a game changer somehow.
You can bet your bottom dollar that, rightly or wrongly, gay marriage is going to be pushed very hard indeed as a policy by a non-SNP party at some point soon.
#24 by James on February 14, 2011 - 1:41 pm
It was certainly in the 2003 SNP manifesto and then not in 2007. I doubt there was a pre-Souter draft in 2007 that retained it.
#25 by fitalass on February 13, 2011 - 10:45 pm
“It was in the Guardian the other day. Should probably have linked to it but it was big news…”
jeff, it wasn’t that big a news at all, mainly because the ‘facts’ had been debunked before folk even got to read about it over their cereal. I know that it was on the Guardian front page, and it was an investigation by the new ‘Bureau of Investigative Journalism. But that doesn’t mean its always necessarily quite what the headline seeks to imply. The BBC even stuck it somewhere on their front page, but it didn’t quite get the prominence that they were hoping for because Guido had pulled their basic premise apart without breaking sweat.
#26 by fitalass on February 13, 2011 - 10:47 pm
Oops. Here is a link to the Guido scoop.
Bureau of Investigative Journalism Like Inspector Clouseau
I feel a bit naughty posting a link to Guido on Better Nation. LOL
#27 by Indy on February 13, 2011 - 10:48 pm
But it was never part of the SNP manifesto Jeff.
Seriously. Read the SNP’s pre-manifesto consultation from 2006.
It was not consulted on. It was never going to be in the manifesto.
The whole story of the SNP removing it from its manifesto was created at the time Souter donated money in 2007, on the basis that SNP Conference had voted for a resolution in favour of bus regulation. SNP Conference did vote for that and, in an ideal world, we would do it. But a manifesto is not written for an ideal world, it is written for what you can actually afford to do in government. So it’s just as well the SNP didn’t put it in because nobody has yet put a cost on it – and a cost there would be, if it were to be effective.
As for gay marriage – I agree with modernising the law on that, though I would rather see it described as equal marriage. I don’t think there should be any such thing as “gay” or “straight” marriage. People should just be able to get married if they want to, without their gender coming into it. I would guess there is probably majority support for it among MSPs so supporters would be pushing at an open door.
#28 by Jeff on February 13, 2011 - 10:59 pm
Fair enough on bus regulation. I’m not that fussed though as I said in my earlier comment and only really mentioned it for completeness. Maybe it was a bit of skullduggery from other parties. As I say, an easy riposte is asking if it’s in a.n.other’s manifesto (which, now I think about it, it probably will be!)
Not convinced about the ‘pushing on an open door’ on the same sex marriages front. The Catholic lobby is still a considerable force in Scotland and I can’t imagine it’d take too kindly to be forced to opt out of any new legislation which allowed for ‘gay marriages’ (for want of a better term) to take place in a church. The SNP could yet be in a tough spot there if it’s something they simply don’t want to get bogged down with be it cos of Mr Souter, religious groups or whatever.
We’ll see though, early days.
#29 by Tormod on February 14, 2011 - 1:11 pm
Change Brian Souter for Unison or Lord Ashcroft, the only difference is Brians money is donated to the SNP.
All the usual hypocritical guff from Labour is typical.
#30 by Doug Daniel on February 14, 2011 - 5:28 pm
To be fair, that’s not entirely untrue. Perhaps less so in Ashcroft’s case, where the main complaint was that he doesn’t pay tax in the UK, which is not true of Brian Souter.
Personally, I would still like to see a better way of funding political parties than the current model (not only does it lead to uneven funding, but there’s the question of what these people are getting for their money and the feeling that people are trying to “buy” an election victory). But until that happens, the SNP need guys like Souter to balance out Labour’s funding from the unions and the Tories’ funding from the rich.
#31 by Una on February 14, 2011 - 5:08 pm
I don’t like grubby politics from anyone, but I don’t think the greens can claim any sort of moral high ground over the big two. They certainly give the impression of loathing the other parties and participate in petty name-calling (‘great chieftain o the puddin race, etc.) They also show themselves to be willing to ignore complexities and play fast and loose with the truth to suit their agenda – witness yesterday’s false allegations that the SNP would oppose gay marriage.
#32 by James on February 14, 2011 - 5:25 pm
I find it very hard to read this comment to the papers as anything other than contentment with the status quo rather than equal marriage.
Also, it’s just me that calls him the Great Puddin’ O’ The Chieftain Race. Reversing it makes it funnier, no? Also, if you see that as devoid of any warmth you’re misreading me.
Finally, I’d be delighted to see any evidence that we’ve taken money from people we disapprove of, or any suggestion that we’ve bent policy to suit donors’ interests. I think there’s at least a case to answer on that from the other parties (Souter, supermarkets, etc).
#33 by Indy on February 14, 2011 - 6:06 pm
What utter nonsense. This is the kind of politicking which totally undermines the Greens’ claim to be so above everyone else.
That statement means exactly what it says. The Scottish Government has no current plans to change legislation – which considering there is only slightly over a month to go till Parliament is dissolved is hardly surprising!!!
What did you expect them to say – of yes we’ll pass a quick bill next week, why ever not?
Or are you suggesting that civil servants can make commitments on behalf of a future and as yet unelected government?
#34 by James on February 14, 2011 - 6:26 pm
I disagree. Any Minister who was committed to equality would have found a way to express that.
But you’re right, I wonder what the SNP manifesto contains. If it commits them to proper marriage equality I’ll take it back and accept Brian S’s donation hasn’t influenced this part of policy.
#35 by Indy on February 14, 2011 - 6:40 pm
Lol how do you think that a minister could have found a way to express an intention to legislate when there is not the slightest possibility of doing so within the available timescale?
I also wonder why you did not consider waiting to see what is in the SNP manifesto before accusing Brian Souter of influencing it.
#36 by James on February 15, 2011 - 8:58 am
“.. Ministers support the principle of equal marriage, but obviously there would not be time to legislate before dissolution ..”
“.. the Scottish Government accepts that civil partnership is a stop on the way to full equality ..”
Or, frankly, we could have got a party quote here, which happens on plenty of occasions:
“.. SNP MSPs will support moves to full equality in the next session ..”
It’s not that hard.