I take a curious pleasure from combing through my finances each week. Maybe it’s the mathematician in me or maybe it’s the accountant, or maybe I just need to get out more, but knowing that there’s no surprises in there, that the monthly balance is slowly moving upwards and that bills are (largely) getting paid on time brings a certain calming joy.

It didn’t always be this way though.

I still shudder at the way I used to organise the admin in my life. It wasn’t just unpaid bills, it was unopened letters that were getting stuffed in drawers or even piled up in the hallway for weeks on end, and zero checking of what was going in or out of my account. This wasn’t even because of money issues, the money was there for the bills to be paid, that’s the absurdity of it all. But then the scarier looking letters would appear on the doormat and I’d be jolted into action, usually costing me an extra £30 for putting my fingers in my ears for so long and no doubt needlessly ruining my credit score. It was an utter, utter shambles, for years, never to be repeated.

This is all a roundabout way of saying that I honestly can’t imagine what it must feel like to have to choose between council tax, electricity bills, rent and/or food if your financial situation literally depends on your last penny each month. I self-induglently dipped my toe in those waters but have never had financial misery heaped upon me from on high and am mercifully a world away from that type of stress. We probably need financial planning included in the school curriculum as a matter of course (as per other European countries) and a reappraisal of numeracy classes that have been cut back in recent years but sadly even that is way down the country’s depressing priority list.

I am well aware, as my Green votes hopefully testify, that a rebalancing of rich and poor needs to occur, urgently. How you do that with the Tories in charge and when 70% of Scots live off less than the average wage is beyond my simple mind though. I intend to keep voting for the party promising the highest tax increases, in order to finance a proper welfare system, and just hope something will give at one of these elections I suppose.

The more I dip into it though, the more I realise the welfare changes that are on their way are going to be an utter disaster, potentially in every sense of that word. They don’t impact me of course, I couldn’t tell you what pain was meant to be coming my way to help pay down the UK debt as part of ‘we’re all in this together’, but I can tell you I haven’t felt it if it exists. Quite the opposite infact, I’m paying off my mortgage at a rate of knots and frankly, if I chose to be selfish about it, long may it continue. The irony is I’m thinking of finding somewhere with a second bedroom, just around the same time people that need theirs much more than I ever would are having it taken away from them.

From April, those at the rough end of the income scale are in for some serious changes:
– The housing allowance that will go direct to the tenant rather than the landlord will inevitably result in many instances where the rent doesn’t get paid and the tenants get evicted. Total madness.
– The bedroom tax is presumably meant to ensure that precious housing is allocated as efficiently as possible but anecdotal accounts just make the government sound plain old mean (disabled children sharing with siblings, fathers moved into one-bed homes). Totally heartless.
– Caps on the total amount of benefits for households (around £500 per week for lone parents and couples, £350 per week for single adults, including housing benefit).
– Concern that IT capacity to deal with all of this might fall through.

And I’m sure that’s just scratching the surface.

The SNP took a bit of a hammering in the Sunday Herald yesterday for writing out £600m of redundancy cheques in cutting employment rather than using that money to safeguard jobs. Money for firing not hiring as Labour put it and, well, why not, on the face of it? The SNP is getting similar grief on the BBC for not doing anything to offset the impact of the Bedroom Tax. There is, to be fair, little the SNP can do about not having control of the welfare system, little it can do about the fixed block grant it receives from Westminster and little it can do about a coalition government intent on wreaking this kind of economic havoc. That said, it hasn’t helped the situation by denying itself the option of increasing income tax, something that I personally would absolutely be happy to see happening if it meant jobs saved and extra support for those at the sharper end of Osborne’s stick. No pain no gain and all that.

Of course, we learned back in 2010 that the SNP Government chose to not maintain the option of the Scottish Variable Rate that, although deeply limiting, would have afforded Scotland the option of some sort of alternative plan given the dire situation many of us are in. The suggestion back then was that the SVR would not be available until 2013/14, so I do hope someone has asked the question as to whether it will be an option this year? And if not, why not? Patrick Harvie, I guess I’m looking hopefully at you.

That aside, the SNP really needs to show Scotland that it’s still governing, to show that it has answers to current everyday problems and isn’t infact obsessed with the independence referendum that is still in all likelihood over 18 months away. It needs to do something, and be seen to be doing something, even if solutions are merely tactical rather than strategic. This, right here, is where national Governments step in and step up.

This is probably where I’m meant to rhyme off what I would have them do, and I’ll give it a go, but it’s not unreasonable to hope for your Government to act without knowing specifically what needs to be done, or at least hope for a clear explanation as to why they are powerless. For me, whether it’s Government-sponsored credit unions to stamp out exorbitant payday loans, council-backed mortgages to take the pressure off social housing, encouraging job sharing in the private sector and arranging it in the public sector where possible, a McBig Society drive to boost charities or a smarter, smoother solution to housing association arrangements, more needs to be done. I want to see my Scottish Government sweating blood and tears to offset the pain being sent up from London, not getting giddy over Danish actresses who happen to be in town.

Just because it’s difficult, and it is bloody difficult out there, that doesn’t mean Holyrood shouldn’t rise to the challenge. What is the big plan? What makes Scotland different? The stage is yours Salmond & co, and you could lock up a Yes victory with this alone if you find a radical edge that will make a difference.

It’s alright for me of course, tossing these thoughts in my mind as I swirl a nice glass of Merlot around in a warm, cosy middle-class glow but, as the Sunday Herald highlighted in its paper today, Holyrood doesn’t really listen to anybody except the McChattering classes apparently, and April 2013 is closing in fast.

In the absence of a tangible vision for continued membership of the United Kingdom, and amid the relentlessly positive rallying calls from Yes Scotland, it can be baffling to witness consistently stubborn Scottish independence poll ratings that show support for a Yes vote at roughly between a quarter and a third. The most recent poll may have suggested that less than 50% of Scots intend to vote No, but a Yes victory still seems a long way off.
 
The Electoral Commission stated in its report last week that both sides of the debate need to make it clear what a Yes or a No vote will mean in the weeks, months and years following the referendum itself. With the vague promise of ‘jam tomorrow’ from all parties within the Better Together umbrella and a clear majority of Scots wanting more powers at Holyrood, one would expect that something would have to give over the next eighteen months in terms of direction from anyone in the unionist camp from David Cameron to Johann Lamont.
 
And yet, there is every chance that this impasse may drift up to, and beyond, Autumn 2014 with Scots still content to trump out and vote No.
 
Citizens around the world would respond in greater and lesser degrees to lofty language lulling people into a new constitutional setup, largely depending on their geographical location. Barcelona saw one million people calling for independence with typical Catalan energy and colour, Hong Kong held a purposeful but muted protest in similar numbers against China, while Quebec nationalism is often met with a somewhat ironic ‘Bof’ from the locals.
 
In a global context, it is perhaps no surprise that Scots would be amongst the most reticent to change. Scotland is, after all, a largely Calvinist nation, an historically Protestant land that wants for little and asks for less. We are, broadly speaking and whatever our political party persuasion, small c conservatives, though indeed used to be big C Conservatives.
 
There is a widely known but nonetheless remarkable factoid that it is the Conservatives that are the only party to have won a majority of constituencies in Scotland with a majority of the popular vote in any general election. One could argue that the new conservatism of the Labour party has merely replaced the old conservatism of the Tories, aided and abetted by Thatcher’s hollow spectre. Labour nowadays tend to win more seats in Scotland the less radical it actually is. Rocking the British boat, or any sizeable boat for that matter, has not been on the agenda for decades.
 
Indeed, it is testament to the peculiarities of the United Kingdom that, for decades, a largely poor Scotland happily forwent billions of oil revenues to an already cash-rich London, despite the Norwegian example showing that we were sitting on a winning lottery ticket that would transform our schools, infrastructure and employment prospects if we only stood up and fought for it.
 
This economic piety is perhaps not borne out by the poll that suggested a majority of Scots would vote for independence if it meant an extra £500 in the bank account each year. This SNP-minded redistribution of public cash strikes me as playing up Tory-esque electioneering tax cuts but, either way, such squalid squander will not be a feature in Scottish minds when the referendum comes around. It’s easy to cash those cheques in one’s mind on a call to a pollster, but the Scottish mentality that is engrained within so many of us is less easy to shift when it comes to big decisions.
 
We have been called out on this outlook before of course, the American priest that said Scotland is ‘a dark place full of homosexuals’ drew ire not just rightfully because of his bigotry but also wrongfully because he struck a nerve. In our heart of hearts, few Scots would argue against their nation being a dark place in the context of history, health or humour. It’s grim up north.
 
Indeed, the difficulty that Yes Scotland (and the SNP in particular) face in trying to buy an independence victory through promises of savings from Trident, through a reduced Defence budget and/or through bountiful oil revenues may not just stem from being up against immovable Scottish conservatism, but also rather ironically from all the way back in 1707 when Scotland was united with England in the Treaty of the Crowns.
 
The 18th century Robert Burns poem ‘Such a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation’ remains popular today, particularly the line where the bard castigates those Scots who were believed to have been “bought and sold for English gold”. We Scots resented being bought over back then and, by jove, we won’t make the same mistake again, even if that would involve righting the original wrong. ‘Salmond can hold onto his purse strings, we’re fine as we are’, some may say.
 
Many Scottish Calvinists and conservatives alike quietly pride themselves in not asking for much and not being a bother. No wonder then that Yes Scotland’s task of delivering momentous change to the United Kingdom is so challenging; we already have No riven through us like a piece of rock.

Do you agree that “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?” is an independent enough question?
 
That is the question, apparently, or it certainly has been for the Electoral Commission that has deliberated on this matter for the past few months.
 
In order to look like they are doing their job, and to justify the length of time spent on this, a change will undoubtedly be made, most likely taking the “agree” out of the equation. Alex Salmond will have to sit on his hands and bite his tongue now that Blair Jenkins, and belatedly the SNP, have agreed to abide by the Electoral Commission’s findings.
 
It’s worth noting that it is smart politics to forego this battle as drawing an independent body into partisan bickering would have come at a significant price for the SNP, even if they did ramroad their preferred question through Parliament.
 
That said, I would argue that just because Salmond’s preferred question is the one most likely to lead to a Yes vote, that doesn’t necessarily make it unfair. Perhaps the other questions are even less fair, with the pejorative term ‘separate’ typically being preferred by the unionist side, even though Scotland isn’t geographically going anywhere.
 
This splitting of hairs can be extended to the fact that Scotland won’t be “independent” as we live in such an inter-dependent world. This is a favourite navel gaze of Labour MP Tom Harris but such trifling matters won’t both the Electoral Commission, one would hope.
 
There is, of course, a recent Scottish precedent in all of this.
 
In 1997 we were asked “Do you agree there should be a Scottish Parliament?”, which is interestingly entirely consistent with the SNP’s preferred question. I don’t really understand why that style of question was good enough then but isn’t good enough today but, at the end of the day, if voters aren’t convinced enough by the merits of independence that they may be swayed into voting No when they look at the question, then do we really want to embark on this great adventure at all?

Some of history’s greatest American journalists are working right now. Exceptional minds with years of experience and an unshakable devotion to reporting the news. But these voices are a small minority now and they don’t stand a chance against the circus when the circus comes to town. They’re over matched. I’m quitting the circus, switching teams. I’m going with the guys who are getting creamed. I’m moved. They still think they can win and I hope they can teach me a thing or two.

From this moment on, we’ll be deciding what goes on our air and how it’s presented to you based on the simple truth that nothing is more important to a democracy than a well-informed electorate. We’re not waiters in a restaurant, serving you the stories you asked for, just the way you like them prepared. Nor are we computers, dispensing only the facts because news is only useful in the context of humanity.

The above is a quote from Aaron Sorkin’s excellent TV show The Newsroom where the main character decides to move away from the tired excuse for journalism that reporting in the US has become in order to usher in News Night 2.0.

As this weekend’s reporting of Scottish Politics testifies, we could do with a bit of the same in this country.

In my own job, as an accountant, there is often pressure to obscure the facts, to downplay bad news and exaggerate the good news. A particularly senior manager once told us to remember that we in Finance should be the single arbiter of the truth, the honest broker and that we should never go native in aligning ourselves with the somewhat murkier business side of our company, those that we face off to that don’t own the reported numbers. I would expect that if there was any other profession out there that should hold the same mindset, it would be journalism.

So it was depressing to read Nicola Sturgeon’s account of the backstory behind the BBC’s news article headlined “EU application would take time” that suggested a difference in opinion between Ireland and the Scottish Government on Scotland’s continued membership of the EU, post-independence. The Irish Minister herself has written to Nicola Sturgeon “concerned that an interview which I conducted with the BBC is being misconstrued” and was of the belief that she “thought that my reply was largely in line with that of the Scottish Government”.

The clear inference to be drawn is that a decision was taken, subconsciously or otherwise, that such alignment between Ireland and the Scottish Government would not be newsworthy and Lucinda Creighton’s quotes would have to be cherry-picked in order to carve out a certain angle, a negative angle, as seems to have been the case.

That the national news organisation should take a foreign Minister’s words “out of context” (according to the Minister herself) should concern us all, but how many people will delve past the headlines and the news stories on the BBC website to know what’s really going on? Not many, sadly. The Scottish public’s news stories are being served to them warm, just the way they like them.

It is, regrettably, a similar story today for the Scotland on Sunday.

The paper has kicked off its “Scotland Decides” series today by inviting Nicola Sturgeon to write an article for the paper on the constitutional question. The front page has the paper’s own take on the arguments being made by the Deputy First Minister and it seems to have fallen back on old tricks once again.

The Scotland on Sunday’s classic ruse is to talk up how balanced it is being when it invites a senior SNP individual to write for it, only to paint the SNP in a negative light with a dubious spin on said article from its all important front page.

That was Stephen Noon’s experience last month when he wrote a wonderful article for the paper about how each Scottish political party could help drive an independent Scotland forwards in their own way and that Stephen wouldn’t be sure who he would vote for in that happy scenario. The SoS’ front page ran with the angle ‘SNP could disband after independence’. This was not at all the message Stephen was looking to get across and his positive arguments were drowned out by a rather hollow debate surrounding the SNP as an entity post-2014.

It was the Deputy First Minister’s turn today with the opening lines of the front page article rather negatively stating that “Voting “No” in the independence referendum would be “a vote for nothing”…, Nicola Sturgeon claims today”.

However, the quote was truncated and missed out the “other than” which is in Nicola’s own article, significantly altering the meaning of what that part of the article was about, that voting No will result in no guaranteed changes to Scotland’s constitutional setup.

This difference changes the meaning from saying (quite reasonably) that a vote for the status quo brings no change to a suggestion that the UK has no value, you are voting for something worthless (which would be unreasonable).

These examples of the questionable objectives and purpose of the Scottish press abound, across the entire gamut of Scottish political reporting, and have become very tiring indeed. This is where I could put in a few petty paragraphs regarding the Scotland on Sunday’s circulation and BBC Scotland’s downwards spiralling budgets, but nobody wins if you go down that road of mutual loathing.

A strong Scotland requires a strong press, which is why I bought copies of both the Sunday Herald and Scotland on Sunday today, but a basic requirement of the Scottish press must surely be that it respects the Scottish Government, whichever party forms it, and treats it with decency and integrity.

We’ll continue to stay a long way from that goal for as long as the circus remains in town.

In the aftermath of David Cameron’s speech on Europe, there is no avoiding considering the impact that a ~2016/2017 EU referendum may have on the 2014 Scottish independence referendum.

It is interesting to first note that the Prime Minister intends to fix the UK’s relationship with the EU before we take to the polls whereas with the independence referendum any improvement to the current arrangement was kicked out to after 2014 and promised as ‘jam tomorrow’. Read into that what you will.

There is an argument that this Europe referendum will muddy the independence waters and mentally bind people into the UK’s future. For example, even SNP MP Pete Wishart was talking about how “we” would be having this referendum in 2017, clearly subconsciuously visualising taking part in it. An EU referendum ahead of us and an Olympics just behind us. It’ll continue to be difficult for Yes Scotland to stop Brits feeling British. That in itself shouldn’t stop people from voting Yes but, realistically, it will.

A separate argument is that David Cameron is risking the unionist side’s strongest card in the independence referendum, namely the UK’s influence across the continent and wider world. Barack Obama is keen for the UK to stay inside the EU, Angela Merkel has already voiced her objections to the speech delivered today and Carl Bildt (Sweden’s foreign minister) warned Cameron against a “28-speed Europe”, reminding the PM of the need for each members to progress together. Further frustration with the UK’s lamentable attitude could lead to overtures towards an independent Scotland and the undermining of Cameron’s current position of one of the ‘big 3 in Europe’ as a result.

A neutered British bulldog would make EU round tables much more palatable for continental countries post-2014. Scotland would just be happy to be there, nodding matters through and wagging its tail excitedly, not that that is necessarily a bad thing.

Further to this, the considerable anti-EU bloc in England may judge that they would have a great chance of success in the 2017 referendum if Scotland didn’t get to take part in it. Donations and resources going into the Better Together campaign could dry up if this philosophy takes hold. If the choice for UKIP sympathisers (of which there are clearly many) was between leaving the EU or keeping the UK together, a fair few would opt for the former.

Personally for me, one of the most interesting aspects of Cameron’s speech, and highlighted at today’s PMQs, was the absence of any real vision from Ed Miliband. The Labour leader seems stuck between a largely Eurosceptic public and the need to differentiate from the position that the Prime Minister is taking. This is unfortunate for Ed as (1) he would not seek to take the UK out of EU save for the most remarkable of circumstances and (2) if we were in the run up to a general election, Ed would be promising precisely what Cameron is. Labour and the Tories read the same polls, they operate in the same narrow centre ground and the difference between their respective party Governments is not very much.

The choice in 2014 is becoming clearer, you can either vote for an independent Scotland that will likely seek to be a proactive and enthusiastic European team player or you can vote to be part of a UK which remains on the backfoot regarding all things EU, if it even remains a member at all.