There’s not really much to say about the Sun’s endorsement of the SNP other than ‘Blimey, that’s a welcome surprise. Can the Daily Record have some of what they’re having please?’. The red top that loves to rant and rave has seemingly come round to the SNP a full four years after famously, and quite disgracefully, putting a noose on its front page as a warning of what would happen if the Nats got in.Â
The Scottish Sun has now reeled its neck in so far that it is in favour of a referendum, though not of independence itself. So, glossing over the tawdriness involved in courting a tabloid’s favour, it will be high fives in Bute House today, I mean SNP HQ of course, let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves.Â
And yet, how can this not cement Alex Salmond’s position as First Minister for the next five years? The demographic of the readership of the Scottish Sun is where any last battle between SNP vs Labour could have taken place, the scaremongering and the Nat-bashing. It is too late for Labour to write a manifesto that outscores the SNP’s if they did wish to fight on higher ground.Â
So, game over? I’d say so.  Â
This poses an interesting question as to who the slightly higher quality Scotsman and robust but still Glasgow-centric Herald will back (place your bets now please!). Reading between the lines of the past few weeks, I can’t see either paper endorsing the SNP and Labour must be the favourite, even if a rationale would be difficult to word. They may perhaps ‘do a Guardian’ and back a thrd party and that won’t be the Tories, can’t surely be the Lib Dems and so could only be the Greens. I can’t imagine Patrick is holding out too many hopes there.Â
However, when the SNP is clearly the people’s choice to be the largest party, if that moment does come to pass prior to May 5th, then the focus of a still rather mundane campaign will become who might support it, either with the SNP forming a minority Government or through a more formal coalition.
People do seem to be forgetting that Salmond’s team winning the most seats is not a mandate for a full implementation of its manifesto. One of the ‘other parties’ will win something from its manifesto into law and that deserves more scrutiny. Â
 Â
There is of course many other ways of looking at this endorsement and, much like Brian Soutar’s £500k donation, it probably splits the field. Another intriguing aspect for me is whether News International really does back the SNP for Scotland or whether they are taking a wider view. After all, placed in a UK context, what is the best result for the Tories?
With David Cameron’s media chums backing Salmond to, possibly, poke Ed Miliband in the eye, is this the ultimate indulgence of SNP Tactical Voting? And, crucially, does it matter?
#1 by Keith Roberts on April 19, 2011 - 9:01 am
and if only we could get the BBC to move – towards even a pretence at impartiality……..
#2 by Holyrood patter on April 19, 2011 - 9:18 am
Kind of annoyed I deleted my blog in a fit of pique could’ve sworn I predicted this a good few years ago
#3 by Holyrood patter on April 19, 2011 - 9:21 am
Also, recent indication shows daily Scotsman is sanguine about Tory representation but might back labour, the slightly less febrile SOS might back the nats
#4 by DougtheDug on April 19, 2011 - 10:04 am
The difference between the “North British Papers” which comprise the Herald, Sunday Herald, Scotsman, Scotsman on Sunday, Press and Journal and the Record and the interloping Sun is that the North British Papers are part of the Scottish establishment and are driven by political allegiance to Labour while the interloping Sun is driven purely by money.
In 2007 the Labour supporting Sun put a noose in the shape of the SNP logo on their front page and in 2009 the Sun switched abruptly from Labour to Tory across the UK so if any nationalist thinks that the Sun is in any way trustworthy they need their head examined. The Sun is looking for sales and its main competitor in Scotland is the Record. It has now decided that supporting the SNP is going to help sales, it’s nothing to do with the Tory Party, independence, the SNP or even Scotland.
#5 by John on April 19, 2011 - 10:05 am
Why get so excited? They scare-mongered against the Nats in 2007 only for them to win.
Which suggests that their influence is not as strong as everyone assumes.
And why are we so anxious about the approval of a news outlet whose reputation is being dragged through the mud daily?
#6 by Jeff on April 19, 2011 - 10:16 am
On the contrary, just think how many the SNP might have won by if it had received stronger backing by the media in 2007. A win is a win, of course, but that does not necessarily mean that everything in 2007 was agreeable to the Nat’s chances. Are you suggesting that the Sun backing the SNP is bad news?
A newspaper isn’t going to convince a reader that x = y but it can amplify the little voice in a voter’s mind that may be accepting that Salmond deserves another tilt.
I certainly take your second point. I loathe the Sun and pretty much everything that it stands for. I guess it’s one of those ‘you can be a purist and lose, or be a pragmatist and win’ options (albeit while feeling a little bit dirty).
#7 by Aidan Skinner on April 19, 2011 - 10:38 am
While the Sun is more a reflection of it’s readership than a leader of opinion, it does have quite a bit of pull in the “don’t pay any attention to politics” crowd.
Maybe there should be a multiple choice quiz on the back of the ballot paper to validate votes? 😉
#8 by Ezio on April 19, 2011 - 10:25 am
I wish the Sun would go bust (fat chance, I know) but I’ll take this.
To quote Eva Peron in Evita, “Better to win by admitting my sin than to lose with a halo”
#9 by Jeff on April 19, 2011 - 10:34 am
‘Oh what a circus, oh what a show, Rupert Murdoch has come to town….!’
I suspect a lot of candidates can get onboard with ‘another suitace in another hall’ (and don’t get me started on Salmond’s solo – ‘You must love me’)
Sorry Ezio, I have a soft spot for musicals. I might struggle to stay on topic from here on in.
#10 by Colin on April 19, 2011 - 10:35 am
As much as I hate the Sun also, having read the article it seemed, I don’t know how to describe it, but a bit honest. It wasn’t a full endorsement like it has done in the past with other parties – there were areas where it was critical.
However, having said that, in the back of my mind, whilst reading that article, my brain was saying; “Don’t get duped Colin, they’ll as soon as kill you in your sleep if it was to their benefit.”
All I can say is; beware of Greeks bearing gifts, or in this case, beware of the Sun.
#11 by Jeff on April 19, 2011 - 10:58 am
Interesting. I must admit that I’ve not even read the Editorial yet.
#12 by Jon on April 19, 2011 - 10:54 am
It’s one of the more remarkable U-turns in Scottish media history. Coming together in the same week as a poll suggesting the Nats are now in front, the campaign is coming together really nicely for them.
I suspect the only way that things can get any worse for the ex-LOLITSP, is if a grand piano falls out the sky on top of him, whilst out leafleting (and live on camera). The utter listlessness of Labour’s campaign really has surprised me.
#13 by Indy on April 19, 2011 - 11:03 am
I was really surprised by what I read. Not by the fact that they have come out for the SNP because you could see that coming but it is surprisingly coherent. I say surprisingly because I never read the Sun so hey maybe it is always like that and I just believed all the bad publicity lol. Disappointed to see the page 3 girl talking about AV rather than the Scottish election though. Maybe we will get that tomorrow.
Well of course we will. The Sun’ll come out tomorrow, bet your bottom dollar that tomorrow, come what may ….
#14 by Jeff on April 19, 2011 - 12:23 pm
‘The Sun has got the Nats won, hip hip hooray. The Sun has got the Nats won and they’re coming out today’.
This could go on for a while, couldn’t it….
#15 by Steve on April 19, 2011 - 12:42 pm
Have I been modded for calling the Sun a —— — and pointing out some of their headlines on today’s scottish sun website?
#16 by Jeff on April 19, 2011 - 12:50 pm
Yep, we invite and welcome comments but I thought that one fell short of the mark. We’re not going to fight any such fights or air such grievances for anyone on here, particulary as we don’t have very good lawyers. Any infact.
You may think your choice of wording is valid; but we make the rules I’m afraid.
#17 by Ewan Dow on April 19, 2011 - 2:39 pm
Think its worth noting that this is a U-turn on a U-turn on a U-turn by the Scottish Sun.
Prior to 1990 they were a Tory paper (and barely worth the title Scottish too), then they supported the SNP in the 1992 election, switched to Labour from 1997 to 2007, were neutral (in Scotland) in 2010 and SNP in 2011.
Political principles? Nah.
Sales figures? Oh yes.
The Sun’s support for the SNP is a good morale boost for us troops fighting the SNP’s fight on the ground, helps the Party gain another outlet to put across messages to mass audiences and as you said earlier Jeff it all helps to boost the momentum of the SNP’s campaign.
All in all its welcome news looking at things from a SNP point of view and I’m happy to bask in the warmth of the Sun for the moment knowing that like the big yellow thing in the sky it doesn’t last forever.
#18 by Jeff on April 19, 2011 - 7:28 pm
I don’t know, the newspapers can’t win can they? The Record sticks with Labour for decades and gets leotard for it. The Sun changes its support a few tmes since the early 90s and it gets pelters for it.
Having political principles is not blindly sticking with the same party come what may, I’d sooner respect someone who has the bottle to say ‘you know what, this isn’t working, we need a change’. Of course, as you say Ewan, that doesn’t necessarily tie in with the Sun which is probably just trying to back the winner, but still….
#19 by John Ruddy on April 19, 2011 - 7:54 pm
The thing I would worry about is what the Sun – or News International gets in return. Murdoch doesnt do anything out of the goodness of his heart, or because he’s met Alex Salmond and thinks he’s a good lad.
Murdoch will want something in return.
Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. but one day that phone will ring and AS will be told what the price for this is…
#20 by Doug Daniel on April 19, 2011 - 3:33 pm
Although it’s nice to see the SNP winning sections of the media over, I must confess that when I saw the Sun endorsing the SNP, my initial reaction was “what have the SNP done wrong?” I usually think that if the Sun endorses your party, be worried because it means your party has lurched to the right. But then I realised it was more likely to be a combination of Labour’s campaign being so disastrous that only dyed-in-the-wool Labour organs feel they can ignore the failures without looking ridiculous, as well as the idea that Labour being in power in Scotland would somehow help their cause in Westminster.
#21 by AliMiller on April 19, 2011 - 5:15 pm
Hello Jeff, I was wondering why you suspect that the Scotsman and Herald will go for Labour? Although the Scotsman has been very critical of the SNP over the last 4 years, it has been carrying some pro-SNP pieces and anti-labour pieces lately. There stance is not entirely obvious, but overall I have sensed that they havent really been supportive of Labour at all, other than McTernans awful rubbish. If they are going to back labour, I dont feel they have layed very good foundations for justifying the choice.
#22 by Jeff on April 19, 2011 - 6:31 pm
Hi Ali, I think The Scotsman will back Labour, or at least not back the SNP, off the back of a few articles I’ve seen recently (the main one that sticks in my mind is ‘SNP rattled by Labour cos of such and such…’ (sic) on the day of the SNP manifesto launch. I don’t understand why the SNP doesn’t get a fair run at getting their message out, like The Guardian allows them to do.
My expectation is probably a lot closer to The Herald and Scotsman just not backing anyone, a kind of ‘let democracy be the winner and get out and vote’ type post. Which is perhaps better than picking a side.
Infact, I’d say:
SoS/Sunday Herald – Back the SNP
The Herald – Labour/noone (for geographical reasons)
Scotsman – noone/Labour (because endorsing the SNP would stick in the craw too much)
But I’m only reading these papers every few days/sporadically so I’m not well placed to guess really.
#23 by Colin on April 19, 2011 - 5:52 pm
The backlash has been, and this will be confirmed now – that the Tories in London want the SNP in Scotland because it’s better for them.
This seems like it may be true, but the real question is; is it better for them because it damages Labour or is it better for them because the SNP are more of a pushover and less capable of standing up for Scotland?
It depends which side of the spectrum you fall on, but I suspect with Labour treating this election as if it were a by-election to get one up on the Tories then I would suspect that Tory reasoning is the former.
What has really angered me in this campaign in relation to this is an old claim Labour used to make and a current claim of theirs. Firstly, that the SNP would constantly pick fights with Westminster – something which now seems to be core to the current Labour plans and secondly, that the SNP would be distracted by their ‘obsession’ with independence and so would not stand up for Scotland. I’m not sure how good an idea it is to attack a nationalist and their ability to stand up for their country, but, ignoring that, couldn’t the exact same be said of Labour – that they would be distracted by getting into power in Westminster?
#24 by John Ruddy on April 19, 2011 - 7:33 pm
The difference, albeit a subtle one, is that the SNP picked fights with Westminster for the sake of it – for bashing Labour, its opposition in Holyrood, for example – while Scottish Labour will pick fights on the things that matter to ordinary Scots.
Now you could disagree with that analysis, but that I think is the nub of it.
#25 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 19, 2011 - 8:16 pm
“The difference, albeit a subtle one, is that the SNP picked fights with Westminster for the sake of it”
Such as?
#26 by John Ruddy on April 19, 2011 - 10:36 pm
Such as most of them.
#27 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 20, 2011 - 8:25 am
That’s properly pathetic – you sound like you’re in a playground. Can you give us a single actual example of the SNP picking a fight with Westminster for the sake of it? Just one? After all, you’ve got three full years to find one from.
#28 by Gryff on April 21, 2011 - 8:42 am
Your contention should be fairly easy to demonstrate. All you have to do is point to a fight the SNP picked which was not in the interest of Scotland, or which went against previous Nat position – and thus was presumably a fight for the sake of it.
#29 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 21, 2011 - 12:21 pm
I suspect we shouldn’t hold our breath waiting…
#30 by Colin on April 19, 2011 - 9:36 pm
And Labour will pick fights with Westminster for the sake of bashing the Tories.
Let’s have no misconceptions here – I have no doubt that attacks on Westminster concerning cuts will be the same if the SNP or Labour are in power after 5th May. Attacks on the Westminster government for the sake of attacking political opponents (since the Tories are the opponents of both of them) will also be the same and to pretend otherwise is simply looking at the situation with a party-political bias.
The only reason Labour didn’t have wars with Westminster when they were in power there was because they were not political opponents. Now that you could disagree with, but I think THAT is the nub of it.
#31 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 19, 2011 - 6:12 pm
“So, game over? I’d say so. ”
Comments like that give me the screaming heebie-jeebies. I’d love to let myself believe it’s done and dusted and in the bag for the SNP, but it’s madness. As has been noted, The Sun came out as strongly anti-SNP as could be imagined in 2007 and it didn’t help Labour win.
That there’s at least one paper (and the biggest one in the country at that) now openly supporting the SNP is clearly good news, but the influence of the dailies on the way people vote is, I think, wildly overestimated. If you’d gone by the papers, the Tories would have a commanding Westminster majority by now and everyone would still like the Lib Dems.
This will be a nail-biter of an election down to the last minutes. The SNP’s victory in 2007 was a lot tighter than the polls suggested, and we’re nowhere near that level of lead now – if we have one at all, given that the most recent numbers fall within the margin of error.
I do believe momentum is with us, and every time balloons like Andy Kerr and Richard Baker go on TV Labour loses a few more voters. But I’m really, really uncomfortable with assuming that one poll and one newspaper has sealed re-election.
#32 by Jeff on April 19, 2011 - 6:24 pm
Hello Rev S,
Sorry for the heeby jeebies, noone wants that; I think it helps that I’m 400 miles away and not knocking doors/delivering leaflets that means I can make glib ‘that’s it all over then folks’ claims. That and the fact that I don’t mind looking like a tube every now and again (which I will do if Mr Baker is the next Justice Secretary)
You mention the Tories having a commanding Westminster majority by now but, well, they do in the areas that Tory-leaning newspapers hold sway. Let’s remember that no Scottish paper backed the Conservatives and if the Westminster election had been held south of the border only then Cameron wouldn’t need any pesky Lib Dems propping up his leadership.
You’re right that if the election was held now on these poll showings then it’d be a nailbiter. I strongly suspect the polls will tighten and, as George Galloway put it today, the SNP will win “comfortablyâ€.
But I would say that, far removed from the action as I am and I do understand your discomfort, and those heeby jeebies!
#33 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 19, 2011 - 6:32 pm
I’m in the South West of England myself, so I’m probably no closer than you… I’m just concerned about complacency letting Labour sneak in (thanks to the inbuilt advantage the system gives them), because I won’t be able to hold my head up down here if any of my friends see mouth-breathing idiots like Kerr and Baker and Baillie running my homeland.
I’m optimistic about the way things are going right now too, but I’m still Scottish and I still remember Argentina 78…
#34 by Jeff on April 19, 2011 - 6:37 pm
Nice part of the country! I bet rolling countryside beats Square Mile for a view (I say, sitting at my desk, no end in sight)
Yes, complacency is definitely a risk. If the public sees the SNP as home and dry for whatever reason will the Nats struggle to get the vote out? Does Labour have a stronger base with which to huckle people to polling booths on May 5th? (huckled in the nicest possible way, of course)
I don’t know and I’m guessing, gambling on the result a little bit. What’s the first seat to announce? Glasgow Kelvin? I can imagine an increased majority for Pauline MacNeill being a right punch in the gut there and then.
Won’t happen though, SNP gain, easy. See, I’m doing it again!
#35 by John Ruddy on April 19, 2011 - 7:36 pm
Lets get one thing straight. The ‘system’ gives no party an advantage. If a party happens to have its vote distributed better than another, thats hardly down to campaign management, is it?
But why let facts get in the way of a cheap dig at Labour?
#36 by Jeff on April 19, 2011 - 7:45 pm
I agree with John. No votes have been cast yet, everyone starts as equals. If people tend to vote for more incumbents than challengers then that’s hardly Labour’s fault. Or ‘the systems’.
#37 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 19, 2011 - 8:19 pm
That’s not what I meant. It’s a well-enough recognised fact that if the two parties got exactly identical numbers of votes, Labour would tend to get more seats because of the way their votes are mostly concentrated in urban areas. Nothing to do with incumbents and challengers. And nobody blamed Labour for it (although they did devise the system), just noted it as a fact of life.
#38 by Jeff on April 19, 2011 - 8:23 pm
Again, I disagree. The SNP received slightly more votes than Labour in 2007 and received one more seat. That’s a d’hondt system working rather well as far as I can see.
I of course agree with you on Westminster elections.
#39 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 19, 2011 - 8:45 pm
I suspect that was more luck than judgement. (And strictly speaking Labour still gained an advantage – the SNP got 2.5% more votes but only 1.3% more seats.)
In 2003, Labour got 32% of the vote to the SNP’s 22% – about 50% more votes – but got almost 100% more seats (50 to 27).
Everyone else seems to agree broadly with this analysis:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6984356.ece
“Since support for Labour is more geographically concentrated than the SNP’s, the party is more successful at winning first-past-the-post constituency seats, which comprise 73 of Holyrood’s 129 seats.
Any unfairness in the constituency results is corrected by the allocation of 56 regional list seats, using a method of proportional representation in each of eight regional clusters of constituencies. However, Labour still gains because in some regions there are insufficient list seats to correct fully the disproportionate constituency outcomes.”
#40 by Jeff on April 19, 2011 - 9:00 pm
Well, a second and perhaps more persuasive argument I could make is that we shouldn’t assume that most Glaswegians will vote Labour and that SNP/Lib Dems will do well in the North. We start with a clean slate each election with every vote up for grabs, if any party doesn’t like that a certain area tends to vote a particular way, get in there and argue your case.
#41 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 19, 2011 - 9:11 pm
Oh, true enough. But it’s still hard to argue that 50% more votes translating to 100% more seats is an example of a supposedly proportional system working properly.
Of course, with only three sets of results to go on so far there isn’t enough data for a conclusive analysis, and 2007 was close to proportional. But in 2003 there was a large bias towards Labour, as we’ve seen. In 1999, Labour got around 30% more votes than the SNP (36.2% to 28%), but 60% more seats (56 to 35), again a doubling of the real margin. That’s a huge systemic advantage.
And while all voters are theoretically subject to persuasion, we all know the reality of where each party’s powerbase is, and it’s kinda naive to imagine that that fact played no part in the devising of the electoral system.
#42 by John Ruddy on April 19, 2011 - 10:38 pm
Strange, I thought we had proportional representation? Or are you saying that when they calculate the regional top up seats they ignore the seats which Labour has won?
Just what are you saying?
#43 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 20, 2011 - 12:57 am
I posted a link explaining the point I’m making. We have a system which is SUPPOSED to be proportional, but isn’t because of the way it’s been designed. That’s not my opinion, I provided the figures supporting the assertion from the 1999 and 2003 elections. You would appear to be claiming that neither of these events actually happened.
I’ll see if I can make it simpler for you.
In 1999 Labour got 36.2% of the votes, which under true proportional representation would have delivered 47 seats (36.2% of 129). They actually got 56, which is 9 more than their votes merited.
In the same election the SNP got 28% of the votes, which should have translated to 36 seats. In reality they got 1 fewer than that, which means Labour were handed a 10-seat advantage that was not reflected by their votes.
Had the parties received the correct proportional representation according to votes cast, Labour and the Lib Dems would not have been able to form a majority coalition – they’d have had 64 seats, one short. That’s an extremely significant error in the system.
In 2003 Labour again got 9 extra seats their vote didn’t merit. (A 32% vote equates to 41 seats, but they got 50.)
From this data it is not unreasonable to assert that the system has an inbuilt bias in favour of Labour, given that in two out of three elections it has delivered them significantly more seats than their share of the vote merited, and in none of those three elections has any other party enjoyed any such similar benefit.
Whether the system was deliberately designed to favour Labour, or just badly constructed, is of course a matter of conjecture. But in pondering that question it seems fair to ask who it was who designed it.
#44 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 20, 2011 - 1:19 am
(Incidentally, the system also handed Labour an unearned advantage over the SNP in 2007, though this time it was only 1 seat.)
#45 by Indy on April 19, 2011 - 6:13 pm
Labour’s tactic of trying to use the Scottish election as a protest vote against the Tories has been a major blunder. It’s not just a question of tactics though. It reveals something about their mindset. They can’t actually look at the Scottish elections as something different because they are so entrenched in the Westminster situation and mindset. It is hugely ironic that the Scottish Tories have actually adapted to devolution better than Scottish Labour even though the Tories opposed it and Labour promoted it.
#46 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 19, 2011 - 6:15 pm
Oh, and on that topic, since this place seems to be able to host supporters of all parties without descending into juvenile abuse – honestly, what do you feel about the calibre of would-be ministers Labour is entering this election with?
#47 by Jeff on April 19, 2011 - 7:43 pm
For me, some good and some bad. I just don’t take to Jackie Baillie and Richard Baker I’m afraid but have a lot of time for Ken McIntosh, Hugh Henry, John Park, and Andy Kerr makes a solid Minister, even if he is a bit pantomime villain at times. That’s not to mention the doubtless numerous fresh talent coming through.
I’ve never considered a Labour win to be the disaster that some make it out to be, even if Iain Gray does still need to find an inspirational bone in there somewhere, but that’d come with time too.
#48 by John Ruddy on April 19, 2011 - 7:49 pm
Jeff,
I cant speak about jackie Baillie, but I know Richard as he is my local MSP (well, as local as a regional list MSP can be!). Richard is, actually, a pretty good guy. He’s intelligent and can hold an argument pretty well – as long as you dont keep interupting him as seems to be his lot on the TV. He understands the issues within his brief, and also understands the local problems we face here in the north east.
He’ll make a good minister, despite his lack of experience. A lack which many on the SNP front bench had in 2007.
#49 by Colin on April 19, 2011 - 8:52 pm
Well, that’s not entirely fair… The SNP justice minister was a Scottish criminal legal aid lawyer. Richard Baker was an English literature student if I remember correctly.
Undoubtedly some in the Labour front bench are fit to be ministers, but I am wary of Richard Baker, especially after his performances in parliament concerning the Lockerbie bomber and the recent Cadder v HM Advocate case. Justice is an issue very close to my heart (being a law student) and the Labour manifesto concerning justice isn’t just something I shrug my shoulders at – it actually worries me. The instant I heard about the minimum sentencing for those convicted of carrying a knife I actually shook my head in disbelief that a serious political party could put forward something so crazy. As we have seen from much of the fallout on this issue it seems that my initial reaction was well justified. On top of that, there is also their promise to hold private landlord to account (to a degree) for the behaviour of their tenants. Another piece of legislation that I don’t think has been thought through.
Some justice policies I agree with – such as reforming legal aid and keeping up the current number of police, but with other parties promising identical policies it hardly makes Labour stand out.
#50 by John Ruddy on April 19, 2011 - 10:46 pm
So, you can only be a justice minister if you’ve been a lawyer, presumably you can only be a finance minister if you’ve been an accountant, an education minister if you’ve been a teacher, and a health minister if you’ve been a doctor?
I dont know about other parties, but in the Labour party, the policy isnt thought up by the relelvant (shadow) minister. I mean, its not like Richard waltzed into Iain Gray’s office one morning and said “You know what? I think we should lock up anyone found guilty of carrying a knife! I dont care what you think, I reckon its a jolly good wheeze, even though I’ve never bothered to ask anyone about it at all.”
Surprisingly enough, these policies are created by consultation, both inside and outside the party. We take the views of community groups and other people from all across Scotland into account – all feeding in ideas into our Scottish policy forum which has representatives from members all over Scotland. The knife carrying policy came from the very real concerns of the many relatives of victims of knife crime that not enoughis being done.
Oh, and in case anyone was wondering, there isnt a hotline from London telling us what to put in the manifesto.
#51 by Jeff on April 19, 2011 - 11:41 pm
“Surprisingly enough, these policies are created by consultation, both inside and outside the party. We take the views of community groups and other people from all across Scotland into account – all feeding in ideas into our Scottish policy forum which has representatives from members all over Scotland. The knife carrying policy came from the very real concerns of the many relatives of victims of knife crime that not enoughis being done.”
Is that the same process by which your policy on minimum pricing was decided upon John?
Labour has tried this mind-game trick of, ‘if it wasn’t a good policy then it wouldn’t be in the manifesto’ before. It’s a bit like the ‘if you’ve seen what I’ve seen’ excuse that didn’t get us very far on many issues, Iraq springs to mind….
#52 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 20, 2011 - 12:07 am
But not, say, the BMA Scotland, or the current and former chief medical officers of Scotland, or chief constables of police, or the head of the Violence Reduction Unit, or the Prison Officers Association, or the Scottish Police Federation, or even your own former First Minister?
Well, they WOULD feel that, wouldn’t they? If I’m the victim of a crime, damn sure I’m going to feel not enough was done to stop it. But the point is that almost everyone who has to deal professionally with the results of alcohol abuse or knife crime disagrees with Labour’s policies on these issues, and thinks they’ll make things worse, not better. But Labour insist on pushing them through against all expert advice, just like they did with everything from the war in Iraq to the Edinburgh trams.
#53 by Colin on April 20, 2011 - 12:12 am
“So, you can only be a justice minister if you’ve been a lawyer, presumably you can only be a finance minister if you’ve been an accountant, an education minister if you’ve been a teacher, and a health minister if you’ve been a doctor?”
I never said or implied anything of the sort! You said, and I quote:
“He’ll make a good minister, despite his lack of experience. A lack which many on the SNP front bench had in 2007.”
To which I replied:
“Well, that’s not entirely fair… The SNP justice minister was a Scottish criminal legal aid lawyer. Richard Baker was an English literature student if I remember correctly.”
A relevant and justified response don’t you think? Where at all did I mention that one had to be a lawyer to be a justice minister – it morely shows that he wasn’t without experience, whereas Baker, by your own admission, is inexperienced.
As for the point in your second paragraph, it doesn’t really respond to a point I was making. Maybe I was unclear, in which case I apologise, but what I was trying to get at was that an inexperienced (possible) future justice minister would be charged with the task of implementing unimplementible policy.
To your third point, I never doubted that Labour consulted groups to discover policy – it doesn’t mean that policy can’t be wrong, does it? In the case of mandatory knife sentencing it would appear that the policy is wrong. Not only has the legal profession spoken out against it as fanciful (I would expect that they would be on of the first ports of call concerning a justice issue) but all the statistics surrounding it are either made up wholesale or are plain fabrications. I refer you to Newsnight which backs up my point completely:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4-aSuOvVZc&feature=player_embedded
Ignore the obviously biased title since it is irrelevant to the content.
As for your consultations on this specific policy, you aren’t entirely clear here. Are you telling me that you only consulted victims of knife crime or is that the only example of a plethora of consultations you did? If it is the only consultation then that is very poor preparation. As sad as knife crime is and as much as we all want to do something about it, surely it would have been prudent to make sure such a policy was possible before presenting it and having to defend it right from the start?
And no, I wasn’t wondering…
#54 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 19, 2011 - 8:48 pm
McIntosh I don’t know, but Henry and Park do appear to be decent sorts, and Malcolm Chisholm deserves credit for voting with his conscience and not the party line.
#55 by John Ruddy on April 19, 2011 - 7:43 pm
You mentioned that you are in the south west. As it happens that is the party of the world I am from, and I have never seen the sort of abuse levelled at Labour politicians and supporters as dished out by nationalists at any other election I have seen.
In 1997 I was in Exeter when Ben Bradshaw was challenging for the tory held seat against the Tory “family values” campaigner Dr. Adrian Rodgers. The vicious abuse Ben got for his sexuality was brutal, and if it had been done in any other context would have involved the police. Exeter 97 is a quiet polite campaign in comparison to what Labour gets dished out up here – the ability to give out juvenille (and often not so juvenille) abuse often seems to be a requirement for supporting the nationalist cause. If its not the Labour politicians who get it, its the Labour voters.
Lets take the abuse Iain Gray gets – during this campaign I have asked everyone who has expressed a negative opinion about him how they came by that opinion. 100% of responses was “The SNP said so” – and when they said it, they realised how lame a response that was – but thats the truth. Say something often enough and loudly, and people start believing it.
Or to put it another way, throw enough mud, and some of it will stick.
#56 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 19, 2011 - 8:35 pm
“The vicious abuse Ben got for his sexuality was brutal, and if it had been done in any other context would have involved the police. Exeter 97 is a quiet polite campaign in comparison to what Labour gets dished out up here – the ability to give out juvenille (and often not so juvenille) abuse often seems to be a requirement for supporting the nationalist cause. If its not the Labour politicians who get it, its the Labour voters.”
Oh dear. I might have been a bit hasty in my appreciation of the intellectual standard here. This sort of “Maw, they’re a’ nasty tae me an’ ah never said nuthin’!” stuff is… disappointing.
For the record, because I don’t currently live in Scotland or read the Scottish tabloids (or any party websites), my views come entirely from my own observations of people on Newsnight, the Politics Show etc, and my extremely low opinion of Iain Gray (and even lower ones of Kerr and Baker especially) is my own and nobody else’s.
I don’t like liars, and all three of them have told blatant, shameful lies to the Scottish people, even if we leave out stuff that’s open to interpretation and spin.
Anyone who believes Gray would really have told Gordon Brown and Jack Straw to get stuffed over Megrahi might be interested in a bridge I have for sale. (And why was Gray saying what he’d have done anyway? If he’d been FM it wouldn’t have been his decision.)
Baker has spent the last two days repeating the words “There is no doubt that knife crime costs Scotland hundreds of millions of pounds”, when at the very LEAST it’s unarguable that there’s doubt about it, given that independent specialists working from the official stats put the figure an lot closer to £5m.
And Kerr still insists that jail sentences for convicted knife criminals will be “mandatory”, which means he’s either an illiterate idiot who doesn’t know what the word means, or is just openly lying.
All three of them arrogantly insist that they know better than almost every expert in the field on issues like minimum pricing and knife crime, for little conceivable other reason than that they think there might be votes in it.
If I was a Labour voter I’d be utterly embarrassed by all of them. There are Labour politicians I respect, but precious few of them are in the Scottish party, which is the dregs left when all the vaguely competent people have been picked up for Westminster. If you can’t get a job in the “real” Labour party when the likes of Hazel Blears and Stephen Byers are ministers, you should be working in McDonalds and grateful for it.
#57 by Jeff on April 19, 2011 - 8:45 pm
Bosh!
(Strong stuff from both, no below belt blows yet but only fair to say that this is sailing close to the ‘mandatory moderated’ side of the spectrum)
Now.. crouch, touch, pause… engage!
#58 by John Ruddy on April 19, 2011 - 11:09 pm
You yourself said that in the south west a number of political parties can get along without descending into juvenille abuse. I agree – despite having there during a vicious election fight.
Perhaps you can share with us why you think that Scottish politics, and especially scottish nationalist politics seems to revel in juvenille (and not so juvenille) abuse?
I never said that you had reached your opinion by repeating what the SNP had said, merely the observation that everyone I had spoken to in this campaign had come to the conclusion without having formed an opinion themselves. Contrary to popular belief, FMQs isnt the rivetting viewing some political anoraks might believe it to be. So people get their views in a number of ways – one of which is what the Government – and other local politicians say.
Where is your evidence for the assertion that Gray wouldnt have told Gordon Brown and jack Straw that the decision was for Scottish ministers to take – when Gordon Brown and Jack Straw said the same thing – to the Libyans? The problem is, its a hypothetical situation, so you cant know that he wouldnt – but because the reverse is true, it allows insidious statements like that to be made and to stick.Yes, you’re right, it wouldtn have been his decision – it would have been Richard Baker’s – and hes also said that he would have made a different decision, and also not have done what London wanted. The real problem with this scenario, is it totally refutes the nationalists cry that the other parties are puppets of London, creatures of another country – so when politicians say they would have done something contrary to their so-called “masters”, that has to be attacked, else it belies the attacks. After all, they cant be both “controlled by London” and “rebelling against London” at the same time, can they?
So a politician comes up with a policy that might be what people want, and thats a crime? Heaven forbid if you read the SNPs manifesto, I understand its full of things that people might want. Or is it the case that you’d rather Scottish Labour put things into its manifesto that people actively didnt want, so that it doesnt get elected?
#59 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 20, 2011 - 12:34 am
Well, it clearly doesn’t refute anything, because Iain Gray and Richard Baker WEREN’T the First Minister and Justice Secretary, so we’ll never know if these two loyal members of the Labour Party would have defied their leader, the Prime Minister, and the Home Secretary, even if it meant suffering the same fate as someone like, say, Ken Livingstone when he wouldn’t obey party orders.
I’d happily bet everything I own on the answer, mind you. Iain Gray can’t even face up to a couple of shouty protesters at Glasgow Central, so God knows what he’d have done when faced with Gordon Brown in Maximum Fury mode.
Can I take it from your lack of response that you fully support Andy Kerr and Richard Baker’s made-up figures on the cost of knife crime?
#60 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 20, 2011 - 12:41 am
Sure, when you come up with some examples, and ideally also some justification for your assertion that nationalist politics is especially guilty of it.
#61 by John Ruddy on April 20, 2011 - 8:21 am
As for “suffering the same fate as Ken Livingstone” I think the Labour party has learned a lesson there when Ken went on to win as an independant – its why he was welcomed back into the party, and indeed is next years mayoral candidate. Hardly a fate to avoid!
Lets look at things from first principles. Knife crime must have a cost to society. Many years ago, a sum of £2.2m was the widely accepted figure for the cost of an accidental death, so we can maybe assume that is now £3m. This figure is not just the cost to the NHS, police etc – but also the social cost monietarised. Last year in strathclyde alone, 36 murders were due to the use of knives. There are over 1000 non-fatal victims each year, costing possibly hundreds of thousands.
I think we can safely say that the cost of Knife crime in Scotland is in the hundreds of millions of pounds, and quibbling over that figure is not going to be of any comfort to the relatives of the next victim.
#62 by Jeff on April 20, 2011 - 10:28 am
“Many years ago, a sum of £2.2m was the widely accepted figure for the cost of an accidental death,”
That’s a less than convincing jumping off point as far as I’m concerned. “Many years ago” sounds a little too much like ‘Once upon a time’… Do you have a link? A source?
#63 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 20, 2011 - 10:57 am
#64 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 20, 2011 - 12:39 am
#65 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 20, 2011 - 12:43 am
I did? I don’t remember saying anything even remotely akin to that. Can you refresh my memory?
#66 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 19, 2011 - 6:16 pm
(Sorry, meant to say that question was directed at Labour voters.)
#67 by rullko on April 19, 2011 - 6:49 pm
Interesting speculation about the “quality” papers. Couldn’t they just not endorse anyone? My impression is that it’s unusual for a broadsheet to give a formal endorsement of a party at election time. 2007 was a bit of a departure in that regard.
#68 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 19, 2011 - 9:24 pm
Yeah, I think it’s unlikely that the Scotsman in particular will openly side with anyone. They’d love to back Labour, but right now it would just lack all credibility. The Herald I can conceivably see giving very qualified support to the SNP again, but I suspect a neutral position is more plausible.
#69 by Allan on April 19, 2011 - 10:37 pm
Agree with Rev S Campbell and other posters.
Firstly, the election – “So, game over? I’d say so.” – er… no. As it happens, whatever the S*n has said is exactly the opposite to what the Scottish voters think. 1992 did not bring independence, the 1980’s saw the decline of the Conservitatives in Scotland and lest we forget that front page from 4 years ago.
As for the theory that “It was the S*n wot won it, well they may have crystalized opinions in 1992 – but I would say that Kinnocks over confidence at the infamous Sheffield rally played a part. I see a part of that ovedrconfidence in that comment.
#70 by baz1860 on April 19, 2011 - 11:07 pm
I’m a fairly regular Sun reader. There, I said it. Its not through choice – merely that there’s almost always at least one copy lying around the staffroom and well, it doesn’t take especially long to read my copy of the IHT.
The Sun going for the SNP hasn’t been, even remotely, a surprise to me – over the last couple of months there have been considerable numbers of pro-Nationalist stories and an equal number of Labour-bashing stories. The management and proprietor have been preparing the ground for this for some time.
#71 by Jeff on April 19, 2011 - 11:42 pm
Fair point Baz, I go out of my way to not read the Sun so where my “surprise” comes from that they are backing the SNP is anyone’s guess. I’m still surprised though, even if I didn’t realise the ground had been softened for some time.
#72 by baz1860 on April 20, 2011 - 12:15 pm
It should be noted that the softening of the ground is simply because Annabel Goldie and the Scottish Tories are not a viable option – they even said as much in the editorial explaining their choice.
Equally, as regards the softening – if you’re a typical sun reader – the ‘white van man’ of yore, its possible/probable that you wouldn’t notice the move towards the SNP in previous months. It was only really drive home to me about a fortnight ago as they had a story promoting something the SNP was doing, right next to a story ripping the contents of the Scottish Labour manifesto.
#73 by John Ruddy on April 20, 2011 - 8:11 am
Type your comment here
Perhaps, instead of seeing conspiracy behind every perceived slight, nationalists would actually consider facts, there would be less heat, and more light in these arguments.
One of the big reasons why there has been a perceived bias towards labour is that Labours vote is strongest in certain areas, whilst the SNP’s vote is more evenly spread. What do you suggest Iain Gray does? Forcibly move some poeple out of Glasgow?
Another factor is the effect of smaller parties who stand only on the list. These parties effectively “take” list seats from the SNP, who would otherwise pick them up in strong Labour regions such as Glasgow, West of Scotland, Central and possibly even Lothians. If Margo wasnt standing on the Lothians list, I have no doubt that the SNP would have at least 1 more MSP – possibly 2. So, I guess you think that Margo standing is all a Labour plot? Greens are obviously Labour in disguise – just see the recent “Vote Green, get Red” thoughts coming out?
It would be funny about nationalists being so paranoid, if they wernt deadly serious.
#74 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 20, 2011 - 11:02 am
Um, facts are exactly what I provided. And I didn’t suggest Iain Gray was responsible, or that he should do anything about it. I merely noted the established fact that the system gives Labour which an advantage. You originally dismissed this as a “cheap dig”, but now seem to be agreeing with me that it’s the case.
The bias is not “perceived”, nor is it “paranoia”. Labour’s 10 extra seats in 1999 and 9 extra seats in 2003 were not theoretical. They really existed, they had real MSPs sitting in them who really influenced real Parliamentary proceedings, and they were not supported proportionally by votes. These are simple facts.
#75 by John Ruddy on April 20, 2011 - 7:21 pm
So how would you change it? The only solution would be STV with a single Scotland-wide region.
I dont think any party is suggesting that, and it would probably be opposed by as many in the SNP and other parties as it would in Labour.
#76 by Malc on April 20, 2011 - 7:30 pm
FYI, I wrote about Scotland using the current AMS electoral system with Scotland as one region here. May help give some more info on your discussion.
#77 by John Ruddy on April 20, 2011 - 8:13 am
Type your comment here
Does that refresh your memeory?
#78 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 20, 2011 - 11:02 am
Er, that’s absolutely nothing to do with what you said. I was talking about a blog, you’re talking about an electoral region of England.
#79 by John Ruddy on April 20, 2011 - 7:19 pm
I’m sorry if I mis-understood. However, if you has said “this site” it would have been perfectly clear, whilst saying “this place” indicates to me the place you are living in.
There is still the point that politics in England tends to be much less personal than in Scotland.
#80 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 21, 2011 - 2:48 am
Still waiting for any evidence or examples to back that claim up. I remember, for example, Tony Blair’s “demon eyes”, and countless other extremely personal campaigns down here. And I’ve never seen anything in Scotland like the cult of personality the Tories tried last year with David Cameron and his giant face all over posters everywhere.
#81 by Gryff on April 21, 2011 - 9:18 am
Anything on this front is going to be anecdotal of course; but my experience is quite the opposite from yours, from campaigns I was involved in in England, and those (only this and the GE campaign) I have observed in Scotland, I would say that Scotland is fairly comprehensively outclassed when it comes to devious personal campaigning!
In terms of vitriol generally, I think any between Labour and the SNP(in either direction) is put in the shade by the Labour – LD vitriol, which Scottish Labour politicians are contributing too.
A bit of passion is nothing to worry about of course, and vitriol or criticism can be entirely legitimate and/or deserved, but I don’t think anyone can claim that, say, Gray is uniguely maligned.
#82 by Indy on April 20, 2011 - 11:33 am
Richard Baker on Newsnight was car crash telly without a doubt.
There is something wrong with the press/PR operation advising Labour. I don’t know who these folks are so I’m not making a personal attack on them – it could be that they are trying to give better advice and not being listened to. But there have been some woeful incidents from Iain Gray’s subway dash to that dreadful interview. When the organisation you are quoting to support your figures says we have no idea where those figures came from and have never used them you are in big trouble.
#83 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 21, 2011 - 12:30 pm
To be fair to their PR team, the problems with Labour’s campaign is that so many of their positions are simply fundamentally indefensible.
If the party leadership has decided to stick to the ridiculous, utterly discredited claims about the cost of knife crime, for example, there’s a very limited amount a PR company can do in terms of influencing the *presentation* of those claims.
You could coach Baker or Kerr until they were actors as skilled as Robert de Niro, but it would still be Robert de Niro claiming that the giraffes were made of bananas, and even the great man would have a job maintaining his credibility if someone forced him to go out and peddle that line over and over again and insist he believed it.
#84 by Jeff on April 21, 2011 - 1:16 pm
That’s just it, remember four years ago Labour were saying they were going to have a rigorous look at Council Tax and come up with a golden bullet solution? Result – copy the SNP’s plan of a freeze for two years and then just carry on as before.
Not good enough.
Pingback: Sniffing, The Sun, sectarianism and Salmond – Scottish Roundup