Anyone who has witnessed the Holyrood parties lining up over the past four years to slavishly vote along party lines on whatever the issue of the day happened to be will have been particularly surprised to hear the news that retiring Lib Dem MSP John Farquhar Munro is backing Alex Salmond as First Minister for the coming term. Indeed, one of my favourite moments of the last parliamentary term was when John Farquhar had to miss the independence referendum vote in Holyrood for “health reasonsâ€, that reason being a health lecture he was rather conveniently giving in Germany that day (convenient because JFM may well have voted against Mike Rumbles’ whip and also not as worrying a reason as the Lib Dem team had cheekily been letting on!)
Many will assume, no doubt partly correctly, that this move from John is as a direct result of the Westminster coalition and the cuts that we are seeing emanating from London. If so, this rationale undermines Tavish Scott’s desperate pleas that the Scottish Lib Dems are a different breed altogether from their southern colleagues (even if Jo Swinson is Deputy Leader of the Scottish Lib Dem group).
Personally, I reckon that the reason for this move is more local and, at least partly, stems from a distaste for the incoming candidate, Alan Macrae. Now, I don’t know Mr Macrae from Adam but surely loyalty to an incoming candidate who has delivered leaflets and been out on the stump for you should be enough to dampen down any wider concerns you may have about the party’s direction. My suspicion was partly confirmed by a Tweeter noting that Alan is an ‘Orange booker’, a philosophy which I can easily imagine flies in the face of John Farquhar Munro’s brand of politics.
Interestingly, this is Charlie Kennedy’s turf and one can’t help but wonder whether this announcement of support for the SNP will hasten the day when the former leader of the Liberal Democrats has to decide if he has both feet in this coalition project or not.
So this headline for today really sums up the crux of the issue that the Scottish Lib Dems face in general: Are they the old farming, gentrified party of old or are they the more earnest, more market-friendly, righter-wing party of the Orange Book? The two can apparently not be reconciled and the internal turmoil and activist tumult shall only continue until the question is faced up to. Surely, a more clearer, cleaner splitting of the Liberal Democrats is in order if the Clegg/Cameron coalition is for the long-term.
And what does this mean for the constituency itself? Well, one has to think that the outgoing MSP has just made a big dent in the chances of a Lib Dem hold, particularly as the SNP will be sure to have a big slice of future leaflets containing John’s profile and a quote of support for Salmond. (This is not to mention that JFM has stolen the headlines from the Tory manifesto launch) In the H&I region watch series, I had Dave Thompson overcoming the 2007 majority of 2,784 over after a mental coin-toss. I’d have to say that he’s now odds on to take this seat.
I try not to make mountains out of molehills but in bagging this particular Munro, Alex Salmond may well have gone a long way to claiming swathes of the Highlands & Islands for the SNP.
#1 by Tormod on April 4, 2011 - 6:15 pm
Hells Bells the man has the put the cat amongst the Libdem pigeons.
The SNP building momentum.
#2 by Andrew MCHale on April 4, 2011 - 6:25 pm
John Farquhar Munro hads been a highly respected MSP. I am sure that there are plenty voters who would consider this endorsment of Salmond with the view ” if he’s good enough for JFM then he’s good enough for me”
#3 by DougtheDug on April 4, 2011 - 6:51 pm
If I was a Lib-Dem activist anywhere I’d be mad.
JF Munro has kept his seat in the Scottish Parliament with the financial help of the Lib-Dems and with the support of volunteer activists who have been out on the stump delivering leaflets and campaigning on his behalf. Now he’s just kicked the props out from under his successor Alan MacRae in the new constituency of Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch.
As an SNP supporter all I can say is, “Go John Farquhar!”
#4 by Jeff on April 4, 2011 - 7:18 pm
Apparently tomorrow sees the launch of the Lib Dem manifesto. That can’t be a coincidence surely and would anyone rule out another MSP rebelling before then?
#5 by Caron on April 4, 2011 - 10:30 pm
Jeff, JFM has made it clear that he will be backing Alan MacRae and working to get him elected.
#6 by Jeff on April 4, 2011 - 10:37 pm
Well, I’m not convinced he’s made that clear at all Caron.
Can one really suggest that, by serving up all these SNP-friendly and LD-damaging headlines, the experienced JFM has been naive? Seems far-fetched.
#7 by Caron on April 4, 2011 - 10:54 pm
He couldn’t have been any clearer that he backed Alan in the interview I’ve just watched on Reporting Scotland. Maybe you don’t get that in London?:-)
#8 by Jeff on April 5, 2011 - 8:56 am
Yes, and which quotes did those Scottish papers that I can’t see from London go with on their front pages today?
The fact is, the SNP now has a killer quote from the outgoing MSP to use on its local leaflets and the perception of an imploding Lib Dem party continues. As a result, he may chap a few doors over the next few weeks, but JFM’s contribution to Alan’s campaign can only be negative on the whole.Â
Granted, this may have been a somewhat negative post but this is a significant development in the campaign so blogworthy.
Furthermore, with disillusioned former Lib Dem voters supposedly moving to Labour, might this suggest many are swinging to the SNP? Â
#9 by Douglas McLellan on April 6, 2011 - 1:17 am
“…this may have been a somewhat negative post…”
Shock.
When the post author states: Jeff and the tag is either elections or Holyrood then it is unlikely to be anything other.
Granted the timing was spectacular.
#10 by douglas clark on April 4, 2011 - 11:46 pm
Jeff,
That was a very insightful and amusing post. No, really it was.
Can I assume you see the Greens as Corbetts?
#11 by Alec Macph on April 4, 2011 - 11:55 pm
For the SNP, this is good news. For the LibDems, Munro’s done a Livingstone viz. the Tower Hamlets mayoral contest.
But, then again, a LibDem being an opportunistic chancer, who’d have thunk it?
~alec
#12 by Ali Miller on April 5, 2011 - 9:23 am
I am a SNP voter and member – is it bad that I am feeling sorry for the Liberal Democrats??
#13 by Andrew MCHale on April 5, 2011 - 9:51 am
Well I am certainly looking forward to campaigning today with Dave Thompson, the SNP Candidate for Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch. John Farquhars endorsement of Salmond certainly wont have done Thompson any harm. Wherever JFM campaigns the Lib Dem message will be lost, as his support of Salmond will be the first thing on all everyone’s mind.
It may be better for the LIb Dem candidate if JFM just stays at home.
#14 by Top Tory Aide on April 5, 2011 - 2:13 pm
More interestingly, when are we getting another region analysis. More interesting than a former MSP saying Salmond is better than Gray – which is all he said afterall.
#15 by douglas clark on April 5, 2011 - 3:24 pm
Top Tory Aide,
Perhaps you could explain your manifesto commitment to chucking wains out of school at 14?
#16 by Jeff on April 5, 2011 - 3:36 pm
Allow me. I vividly recall classmates who were just sitting around waiting to turn 16 at which point they’d go out and start working. They were disruptive in some classes quite simply because they were bored stiff and had no incentive to be there. Passing History Higher wasn’t part of the masterplan.
Why not let people with such plans leave school early and get cracking with work? It is, it pains me to say it, a ‘common sense’ proposal.
#17 by cynicalHighlander on April 5, 2011 - 10:04 pm
Okay so there are problem children in school surely its up to the education system to accommodate them not dump them on employers as that is just moving a problem elsewhere. Then all the added paperwork, HSE, extra insurance, clearance to work with minors the list is endless. Silly proposal.
#18 by Top Tory Aide on April 7, 2011 - 9:15 am
Type your comment here
It allows those that have a apprenticeship etc to be able to get cracking with it but if they should fail the course or be thrown out of it they have to go back to school. That’s certainly my understanding of it.
#19 by douglas clark on April 5, 2011 - 3:56 pm
jeff,
I vividly recall exactly the same thing. Is that, perhaps an argument for making education voluntary? Why 14? Why bother at all?
It pains me that you see it as a ‘common sense’ proposal.
It is nothing of the sort. It is a scrap heap philosophy writ large. Perhaps we should stream kids at 12 into Junior Secondaries and assume that the best they can do is dig ditches?
We will desperately need an educated public in the years to come. This is regressive nonsense.
#20 by Jeff on April 5, 2011 - 4:38 pm
So what are you proposing? 100% of kids attending university? By all means disagree with the policy but to dismiss anything different from the very narrow status quo as “scrap heap philosophy” and “regressive nonsense” doesn’t really advance things does it?
Chaining 14/15 year olds to schools in order to prolong the fantasy of ‘oh, we’re all the same really’ is not really working in my view (and experience). Let the kids who want to work go off and work, let the kids who want to learn stay at school and learn in peace. I’m not saying schools should be an open door optional opt-in but teachers having the power to let pupils opt-out (if they have somewhere to go) works for me.
Teachers have their arms twisted behind their backs because they know they have to keep all pupils until they’re 16 so let’s bring some flexibility into the system and get a step closer to keeping all of the people happy all of the time.
#21 by Doug Daniel on April 5, 2011 - 5:40 pm
I have the same memories of school as you Jeff – certain children clearly having no interest in learning and just disrupting the class – and I distinctly remember thinking at the time that something like this would be the answer.
However, I found it alarming when I heard about the proposal. Are 14 year olds really mature enough to know what is best for them? If you ask a 14 year old if they like going to school, I can’t imagine a great many of them will say “yes”. I can think of many classmates who would probably have left school at 14 if they’d had a chance, but two years is a VERY long time at that age, and many of those ended up staying into fifth year and some even until sixth year (which, incidentally, was the most pointless year in my education).
The answer isn’t to let these children quit the education system – it’s to make the education system better suited for them. It’s easy for us middle-class folks to think “och, they had no interest in learning, they obviously didn’t want to be there, so just let them go so they stop disrupting the learning of those that do want to be there!” but the easy thing is rarely the right thing. Chances of the Tories who thought up this idea having asked the kind of children (current and grown-up) who this could or would have effected? Zero.
#22 by Douglas McLellan on April 6, 2011 - 1:24 am
Having suffered from being in a class with several disruptive elements I am inclined to agree that they should not have been in the school. However, 14 is too young for my liking and I think that at least a basic qualification in English and Maths should be achieved by all school kids.
Perhaps a mix of work-based learning/apprenticeships/vocational college course with a qualification tied in? The english needs to cover all aspects of reading and writing but the maths element only needs to cover calculator based arithmetic with an element of understanding personal finance thrown in.
I think the Tories have the right idea thought as school is not for everyone and I think that basic fact needs to be accepted by those who advocate no school leaving until 18.
#23 by Mike on April 5, 2011 - 4:03 pm
I’ve read comments on other sites that the Tory proposal re kids working, to be akin to slave labour! Completely over the top imo. I’m definitely no fan of the Tories but this seems a great idea. From my recollections of school we all seemed to be funnelled through to a ucas application no matter suitability to further education! With all the talk of too many universities and too many ‘fashionable’ degrees, surely this can filter folk into good careers they can progress through to further education as they would like at an age they’re mature enough to appreciate it. I didn’t!
#24 by douglas clark on April 5, 2011 - 5:12 pm
Jeff,
Just because someone is capable of a counter intuitive idea doesn’t make it right. The failure of our educational system is not solved by giving up, which is what this proposal appears to be tantamount to doing.
You don’t like ‘scrap heap philosophy’?
Why not?
It is exactly what this is.
Frankly I am surprised that you, of all people, would argue the converse of that sort of case. It isn’t some sort of intellectual game we are playing here, it is apparently a manifesto commitment from one of your opponents for election to the Scottish Parliament.
#25 by douglas clark on April 5, 2011 - 5:20 pm
I suppose I should never have mentioned Corbetts 😉
#26 by Jeff on April 5, 2011 - 5:23 pm
I’m not even going to let on how long I was trying to remember what they were called….
Does that mean we can call Robin and Patrick the Two Ronnies?
(Ronnie Corbett, oh do keep up at the back….)
#27 by Shuna on April 5, 2011 - 5:27 pm
The secondary school my pair attended had a vocational stream that the less academically interested could opt into around 14s year old. This included hairdressing, agriculture, bricklaying, joinery, mechanics etc. Funding was a problem and it involved involved partnership working with a local college (by local I mean a college based 50 miles away!) and funding from a well known tory peer who was at least philanthropic.
The main problem I have with the 14 year old leaving option is the question how many 14 year olds (even those academically inclined) know what they want to do?
#28 by Indy on April 5, 2011 - 5:29 pm
Jeff what makes you think employers would have the slightest interest in getting involved with training disruptive 14 year olds who can’t be arsed with school?
They are not social workers after all!
#29 by Jeff on April 5, 2011 - 5:35 pm
That’s fine, if employers are not interested in the 14/15 year old that wants to leave school then he/she should stay at school in my view.
Look, I don’t even know what the Tory policy is, I’m just saying that on the face of it, letting some kids leave school to get started with work/apprenticeships doesn’t sound like a bad idea, that’s all.
Where’s that Top Tory Aide when you need him………..
#30 by Mike on April 5, 2011 - 5:50 pm
Shuna. The vocational stream at your kids school would have been the very thing I could have used, personally speaking. I do think that something like that COULD avoid the apprentice trap I seem to remember of the time. Firms were given money to train youngsters however many were let go prior to achieving the full term, leaving quite a few half trained bitter young people about. I’m not saying It’s the best thing ever but for gods sake, why does everything need to be so black & white! It wouldn’t be for everyone but neither is further education!
#31 by douglas clark on April 5, 2011 - 6:01 pm
Och!
So now you are saying that the disruptive and difficult 14 to 15 year olds should be left in schools. Because the market doesn’t want them?
How does that, in any way, address your comment @ 15?
Holes, digging, etc.
#32 by Alec Macph on April 5, 2011 - 6:18 pm
‘ere, eyes up, moderated comment waiting.
I’m inclined to agree with Indy. Implement vocationally-based courses, definitely, but the image of kids leaving school dates from a time before adolescence had been extended to the point it is now… there are many in their 30s who aint left it, and not-a-few older than that.
It’ll result in more benefits claimants, methinks.
~alec
#33 by douglas clark on April 5, 2011 - 7:39 pm
Alec Macph
I have no idea what you are talking about.
I happen to think Jeff Breslin is completely wrong on this topic, and I have said so.
Frankly, Jeff Breslin is an honest and open web host. He lets me disagree with him and we don’t fall out. He doesn’t go into a strop, and he seems to me at least to be that rare beast on the internet, someone that listens.
It is as much about his honesty that I read this site a lot.
#34 by Jeff on April 6, 2011 - 9:00 am
Well, that’s very kind of you Douglas. And I happen to think we have the best god darn comments page this side of Gretna. Well, that side of Gretna, I’m in Crewe right now…
#35 by cynicalHighlander on April 6, 2011 - 12:57 am
The Lib Dem manifesto, adrift in a sea of verbiage
Continue to expand the options available to pupils with the opportunity to attend college to do a course of their choice from the age of 14. Our approach to engage the top 20 private sector employers in new ways of thinking will help promote much greater private company involvement in post 14 vocational opportunities.
and
Incentivise public sector procurement which grows the local economy and develops social capital. We will encourage greater use of community benefit clauses and social impact bonds.
Even Patrick can make gains with this sort of opposition.
#36 by Indy on April 6, 2011 - 9:15 am
I have no issues with vocational education – far from it – but I think vocational education and training should be delivered in partnership with schools, not as an alternative to school.
And the key point for me is that pupils should go into the vocational stream because they WANT to and are motivated to learn – not simply because they are bored in the classroom. A child who is bored in the classroom could be equally bored, and equally disruptive, in a vocational setting.