Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Democracy

Holyrood Park to be Community based

Dec 3

Posted by Jeff in Democracy | 9 Comments

A couple of Sunday Herald news stories over the past couple of weeks may have passed by even the most dedicated of Scottish Politics sports fans out there, but their future impact on Holyrood should not be underestimated.

The first story reported that Labour would allow Scottish Parliament candidates to stand on both the constituency and the list ballots with the second reporting that existing regional Labour MSPs would not be guaranteed a space at the top of the party lists at the next election.

This didn’t make much of a splash given we’re still a full 3.5 years shy of the next Holyrood contest but this latest show of strength from Labour leader Johann Lamont could be tantamount to handing out P45s to the majority of Labour MSPs at the Parliament.

For example, had Labour stalwarts Ewan Aitken and Lesley Hinds been at the top of the Lothians list as well as standing in Edinburgh Eastern and North West respectively, that would have meant no MSP jobs for bright young things Kezia Dugdale and Neil Findlay. Former councillors such as Anne McTaggart and Hanzala Malik wouldn’t have tripled their salaries overnight had grizzled former constituency MSPs Charlie Gordon and Pauline McNeill been included on the party lists. Similar remarks can be made across all the regions of Scotland, where constituency MSPs were caught blind sided and battered by an SNP tidal wave. These same individuals are no doubt chomping at the bit to get involved again. The challenge for the current list Labour MSPs is to stay high up on their regional lists and try to win the candidacy for a winnable constituency. That’ll be no easy feat for most of them and creates the risk of Labour jostling for position amongst themselves rather than fighting together to beat Yes Scotland in the run up to the 2014 referendum.

This could all be read as a damning assessment of the current crop of Labour MSPs, but more likely it is an overdue correction of the party’s ill-considered approach to Holyrood elections that has given their rival parties an unnecessary advantage in avoiding scalps. Too many researchers and councillors were promoted before their time, perhaps best symbolised by Anne ‘public speaking for dummies’ McTaggart reportedly hiring Stephen Purcell to act as a quasi-MSP on her behalf.

It didn’t need to be this way.

Had Nicola Sturgeon lost Glasgow Govan for the third time in four attempts it’d have been no problem as she’d have been guaranteed the SNP’s first regional list in Glasgow. Had Iain Gray lost East Lothian (as was so very nearly the case), Labour would have suffered the ultimate humiliation of losing their party leader. And yet, placing their leader so perilously close to the edge of the electoral cliff was not a risk worth taking.

The SNP has in the past made similar mistakes, less so out of poor strategy and seemingly due to a calculated resentful envy, effectively deselecting impressive individuals from being MSPs by holding them far down the list and/or banishing them to Labour heartlands to fight for their political future. Furthermore, they clearly also didn’t see the 2011 result coming given Alex Salmond joked that he barely knew who some of the new crop of MSPs were, a comment that lost its funny side when we all learned that the SNP had carelessly let an alleged wife-beater into Parliament alongside them.

This casual approach to the list system, all quite distinct and distant from the voting public, was furthered in this parliamentary term. John Finnie and Jean Urquhart leaving their party is one example. Being voted into the Scottish Parliament strictly as an SNP MSP only to leave that party over an issue that the Scottish Parliament has no control over takes a certain type of stubbornness. Another example is today’s news, John Park stepping down as an MSP to join Community, allowing the next person on the 2011 ballot list (Jayne Baxter) to join the Parliament.

Let’s be clear, the good people of FIfe didn’t vote for Jayne Baxter. They didn’t vote for John Park either of course, they voted for Labour bums to boost the number of Labour seats. Button pushers basically, and the same can be said for all parties as this is a Holyrood issue rather than one for a specific party. I’m sure a lot of good work gets done at the committee stage by all politicians but, at the end of the day, they are there to represent their constituents and how many Scots could name their regional MSPs?

Johann Lamont’s move is also an example of how little power the public has over which individuals will be in place at their Parliament and also the extent to which Holyrood operates a two-tier system of MSPs.

It is perhaps telling that the most recognisable regional MSP at Holyrood is Margo MacDonald, the only MSP that didn’t have the luxury of party coat tails to glide her into power. The same could be said of the Greens, who I would argue are the next most recognisable list MSPs. This is all save for the party leaders lacking constituencies, of course.

Don’t get me wrong, Johann Lamont has made the correct decision here. Too many of her colleagues have left the chamber and one has to wonder if the lack of talent on the Labour benches has had a hand in the estimable John Park’s decision here. Would the Parliament still enjoy the skills and personalities of Andrew Wilson, Susan Deacon, Duncan Hamilton, Derek Brownlee et al if the voting system better reflected public regard for our MSPs rather than the invisible hand of party favour? We can only guess.

There is no clear solution here, and indeed the current d’hondt system may yet be the least worst option. We could have open party lists but then the voting would be skewed in favour of those with surnames higher up the alphabet, an arguably inferior method of selecting list MSPs than letting party’s sort it out internally, with cloaks on and daggers drawn.

STV is an attractive option though and change is surely inevitable given the various cracks in the d’hondt system just waiting to be exposed or taken advantage of. Opening Holyrood up to the public rather than allowing parties to close ranks behind an arcance voting system has to be a priority.

For me, the main result from Johann Lamont’s decision is that it reinforces the philosophy that to get ahead in politics you need only impress your party and not necessarily the public. The Denis Canavan’s and Margo MacDonald’s are a rare sight these days, truly independent backbenchers with something fresh and original to say. John Park was amongst the closest Holyrood had on the party benches to something similar, but alas he has understandably handed in his badge in and opted for a different challenge.

Who’d be an MSP these days? It’s a question with a depressingly narrow (and narrowing) band of answers, and that should concern us all.

The Problem with Political Jokes

May 16

Posted by Kirsty in Democracy, Parties | 1 Comment

The peril of every politician is the heckler. Despite the security of spin, handpicked television audiences and packing the front rows of your conference with student politicos primed to applaud like performing seals, stick a politician out in public, and someone’s bound to shout something, at some point, that sticks.

Poor Theresa May, heckled and jeered during this week’s Police Federation Conference in Bournemouth. Her speech, defending 20% cuts, ended in silence. Awkward.

Pity too Andrew Lansley, who was also heckled this week, not his first time, thanks to Mrs Hautot, but this time at the Royal College of Nurses conference as he struggled to state the correct number of nurses cut from the NHS frontline by the coalition. And it’s not just Tories who generate the nurses’ ire – Patricia Hewitt was notably heckled twice in one week by healthcare workers when Health Secretary back in 2006.

Trade union conferences do seem the domain of the heckler. Less to do with the origins of the word ‘heckler’ from some stroppy jute workers in Dundee. More probably thanks to an audience freer from the controls which can be exerted by political parties at their own respective conferences. Vince Cable was booed at last year’s GMB conference. Nick Gibb was too at the Association of Teachers and Lecturers’ conference in 2011.

And it’s not just the coalition – Ed Miliband’s first address as Labour leader to the TUC saw heckles shouted and hackles raised after he called public sector pension strikes ‘a mistake’. Luckily for Ed, the same RCN conference that jeered at Lansley this week granted him a standing ovation.

In his brief history of heckling, Michael White bemoans that the art of political heckling has all but disappeared, with what is described as heckling of politicans today really being “more of an organised verbal assault: anger, not wit; abuse, not tempered outrage; a blunt instrument, not a rapier.”

Indeed, in all the examples above, there’s not a single witty one liner of the type a decent stand-up can transform from bellow to banter. Even Walter Wolfgang, disgustingly manhandled and evicted from Labour Party Conference in 2005, merely had the gumption to shout “nonsense” at Jack Straw.

I suspect today that the Statlers and Waldorfs are all too busy being clever on Twitter. But no matter. Even if heckling isn’t the fine witty art it once was in the days of public meetings (and do go back to White’s brief history for some cracking examples), it can still have an impact.

Nobody’s career has ever been destroyed by a heckler (no doubt someone will prove me wrong in the comments but it’s worth remembering if you’re a candidate and have a sticky moment); incidents do however serve as an audio litmus test of how a politician is being received.

Any hopes Tony Blair might have of returning to a more active role in British politics should be humbled by the boos of his own party to mention of his name. I would suspect, should Cameron’s much-anticipated reshuffle be shuffled along soon, May and Lansley will be among those being slow-clapped off the stage.

P.S. The punchline to the title is, of course, that they get elected.

Consulting Detective

Apr 2

Posted by Kirsty in Constitution, Democracy, Holyrood | 96 Comments

Over the weekend the Scottish Government has been under accusation of attempting to rig its independence referendum consultation through accepting anonymous submissions, with Labour demanding a “proper” consultation.

According to Scottish Labour Deputy Leader Anas Sarwar, “Everyone knows that Alex Salmond desperately wants a second question on the ballot and now he has left the door open for his army of Cyber-Nats [sic] to deliver the response he wants.”

The Scottish Government has now announced that anonymous submissions towards the independence ballot rules will be excluded. But this rules out only 414 anonymous responses out of the total of 11,986. I suspect it’s very unlikely this 3.5% has in any way been transformative of the consultation findings through some sinister cybernat diktat.

James Maxwell has an excellent piece up on today’s Staggers, discussing the fallacy of the unionist parties continuing to accuse the SNP of “civic chauvinism”. But the tendency to denigrate the nationalists as foaming-mouthed, petty-minded little Scotlanders, not worthy of higher political debate amongst the elite, is not only a mistake in terms of perception of the SNP’s identity. It is also symptomatic of the laziness in which the other political parties, but especially Labour, constantly attack the Scottish Government on the first sliver of a perceived wrong, instead of providing a proper opposition.

Instead of trying to work out exactly what failings in ideology, message, narrative and policy have led Labour to be at this abysmal state in Scottish politics, it’s far easier to attack the SNP for being anti-English, neo-fascist, crazy… Absolutely none of these accusations tally with the party and people that make up Scotland’s party of government, but it’s too simple and straightforward a soundbite for Labour politicians to resist. Too stupid as well.

I don’t think anonymous submissions to consultations are a great idea. But by attacking the SNP on this Labour have again focused on the facile, and not the fundamentals. Dissing how the consultation is run is far easier than engaging with a consultation with a sizeable number of respondents. And again Labour have attacked on the first sliver of perceived wrongness. To jump up and down demanding parliamentary recall on an issue resolved by one simple decision by the Scottish Government again makes the SNP look measured and in control, and Labour hysterical.

One simple change to the acceptance of consultation responses turns Labour’s agitation into tomorrow’s chip paper, and reinforces the SNP’s strength and competency on the Scottish political sphere.

Devolution Beached

Mar 23

Posted by Kirsty in Democracy, Environment, Holyrood, Westminster | 1 Comment

On Monday, the Scottish Affairs Committee published its report into the Crown Estate in Scotland, recommending the devolution of Crown Estates Commission’s responsibilities for and ancient rights over Scotland’s coastline, firstly to Holyrood with the intention of further devolution to local communities.

Gaining control over Scotland’s foreshore and seabed is certainly not a trifle: this move gives Scotland powers over a vital economic sector. Currently, the Crown Estates Commission holds gems like mineral and salmon fishing rights, while renewable energy projects like wind farms and offshore gas storage facilities on Scottish Crown Estate is projected to generate an annual sum of £49m by the end of the decade. Meanwhile, it acts like an absentee landlord or tax collector, doing little to re-invest to any significant extent in the sectors and communities from which it derives income.

Interesting then, that Ian Davidson, Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee, dismissed the Scottish Government’s demand for the devolution of powers over the Scottish Crown Estate back in November as “entirely vacuous”, telling Linda Rosborough, the acting director of Scottish Government agency Marine Scotland, that “Asking for power over the Crown Estate without having any idea of what you do with it is a position that seems entirely vacuous.”

According to The Scotsman, Rosborough advised that the Scottish Government would only bring forward detailed proposals for its Crown Estate plans and hold a consultation if Westminster agreed to devolve the powers. Pretty standard, and Davidson should know that. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the new powers devolved to Scotland in this week’s Scotland Bill, like tax and borrowing powers, air weapons, drink driving and speed limits needed extensive consultation in Scotland prior to the agreement being made.

Land reform is one of the best things to come out of Scottish devolution, especially local measures like community right-to-buy. I think it will hopefully be improved under this Scottish Government, with Roseanna Cunningham announcing an intention to review and improve the legislation within the year. It’s abysmal that the Crown Estate has failed Scotland since devolution: failing to account for Scottish rights and assets. It is entirely right that these powers are devolved to Scottish communities, but it should not have taken Westminster more than a decade to give Scotland’s coastline back to Scotland.

Davidson might have had to conclude that the Crown Estate Commission should no longer be the body responsible in this case, but for proponents of devolution as Labour MPs should be, the transfer of these powers should be both obvious and necessary. It’s disappointing that Westminster appears to be begrudging handing Scotland powers, just because they fear it might in some way help the independence campaign. If you really want to oppose independence, diminishing devolution which Scottish communities need and from which the economy benefits is certainly not the way to win.

Jam Tomorrow

Feb 21

Posted by Kirsty in Democracy, Westminster | 20 Comments

Image from Bella Caledonia

One should never really believe political promises, but ‘vote no for more powers later’ has to be one of the worst. Especially from the mouth of someone making that promise only because he feels he ought.

Last week, while speaking in Edinburgh, David Cameron offered Scotland more powers, but only if independence was rejected.

“I am open to looking at how the devolved settlement can be improved further”, he said. “And, yes, that means considering what further powers could be devolved.”

Offering voters what they might want through a different and delayed means of your own choosing strikes me as less political masterclass, and more desperate politician.  Nonetheless, Conservative-supporting facets of the media have applauded Cameron’s move.

Writing in The Guardian, Conservative Home editor Tim Montgomerie has followed
Cameron’s statement with a call for him to “seize the moment”.

“By offering to extend Scottish devolution he can be the Conservative leader who saves the union. By promising to balance Scottish devolution with a commitment to new arrangements for the government of England, he can radically improve his own party’s electoral prospects. And through these changes – with the introduction of city mayors and greater localism – he can be the PM who replaces one of Europe’s most centralised states with a political architecture fit for the 21st century.”

I’m a big fan of devolution. I think the best place for power to be is as close to the people as possible. For me devolution and the debate around independence isn’t just about territory or a binary discussion between what powers reside and why in Westminster and Holyrood, but how powers – democratic and economic – extend down to councils and to communities, and how those powers are used.

Montgomerie has identified the ill – the moribund institutions that can dominate sections of English local democracy. The cure he proposes will be interesting to watch – the 12 new city mayors to be elected, as well as police commissioners, will hopefully revitalise local democracy in England. And there is always a case for councils and communities across all nations of the UK to enjoy greater localism.

But Cameron’s jam tomorrow promise for Scotland is a hurried attempt to claw back ground gained by Salmond and the SNP, a ‘shush now, behave, and we’ll give you a treat’ attempt at cajoling voters using a strategy that ceases being effective once someone’s older than about six. Cameron and today’s Conservatives have scant interest in devolution – Montgomerie in the same piece notes it was Salmond, and not Cameron, that “[chose] to put Scotland’s relationship with the rest of the UK at the top of the political agenda”.

Cameron’s intervention in the independence debate is a self-interested salvo, an attempt to adhere to the role of UK Prime Minister and retain the power it brings, a role that he feels he must play, rather than a great passion or driving ambition on his part.

Cameron and the Conservatives seem likewise only interested in localism and English devolution when it stands to benefit their own grasp on power. You can’t argue for reducing the number of seats in Westminster in order to make everyone’s votes more equal, when you are also switching to individual voter registration despite warnings that up to six million voters are currently missing from the electoral roll. For others like Eric Pickles, localism and cohesion are being confused with ill-thought out assimilation. And slashing local public services, from lights to libraries, doesn’t inspire hope that Cameron is really interested in standing up for what’s happening on the doorsteps of England.

Any intervention by Cameron into the independence debate with pledges and promises will be regarded with bemusement by the majority of the Scottish electorate. We expect his thoughtlessness and hashed attempts at making do when it comes to the devolution debate. But he risks more by only being half-hearted and damaging about changes to English democracy, especially when his own party are arguing for him to be otherwise.