There are many potentially alarming lines in the world of politics – ‘we need to have a serious conversation about immigration’, ‘owning a gun is just a logical extension of free speech’ and anything equating unlimited political donations with having ‘a voice’.

The Manchester United manager Alex Ferguson has veered into this worrying terrain with his objections to the rule that those living outside of Scotland can only donate up to £500 towards either side of the independence campaign.

I can sympathise with a Scot living away from home and wanting to take part in the referendum but a rich individual complaining of being “silenced” due to donation limits rings alarm bells.

Donating £501 to a referendum campaign (as Alex has impudently done to make a point) is a far cry from the Super PACS in the USA where individuals can swing elections if they spend enough money, but both situations are wrong thanks to the same principle which is simply that in an ideal democracy, every citizen should have an equal say.

There is no doubting that there is a link between money spent and electoral success, if money moves polls then it can certainly move election results but is it fair that Alex Salmond can deposit £1m cheques from Scottish lottery winners and deceased Scottish poets but Better Together can’t cash a £501 cheque from English-based Scots? That’s debatable, but it is at least just as fair as the current law prohibiting donations from overseas benefactors, even from Scots such as Sean Connery.

Some may claim that the SNP is just trying to level the playing field with this rule in advance of the referendum campaign really getting going. My view is that there is nothing necessarily wrong with that.

I’ve often thought it dubious fair play that UK parties could bus in swathes of activists from across the country for single by-elections, at least in theory, so to make a Scottish referendum as distinctly Scottish as possible does have its merits. If that means that anomalies arise whereby Scots living outside of Scotland lose some influence in proceedings, be it through not having a vote or limited donations, then that to me is a price worth paying to ensure that it is the right people making the right decisions.

Some will disagree, and this is one of those prickly referendum issues where an objective solution cannot easily be disentangled from a partisan viewpoint. I want a Yes result in 2014 and, surprise surprise, I agree with the SNP’s argument here that too much money from outside of Scotland would tarnish the referendum process. Those seeking a No vote would no doubt disagree.

It is unfortunate but seemingly unavoidable that interested Scots seemingly take a party view on these issues, issues that shouldn’t intrinsically fall along pro- or anti- independence lines, and yet here we are. Much like devolving broadcasting or fiscal autonomy, it seems impossible to have a discussion on the merits of any single issue without it really being about constitutional positioning.

Alex Ferguson is entitled to a view and a voice on Scotland’s constitutional future, of course he is, but he shouldn’t expect to buy more of an influence than he is entitled to as just one of the world’s 6million Scots who just happens to have money to burn and, well, given he has top billing in the Scotland on Sunday today, I would suggest that he is getting his voice heard just fine.

Motion S4M-05117: Christine Grahame, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 05/12/2012
Time for a New Motions Process
That the Parliament notes that, of around 5,000 motions lodged during the current parliamentary session, the word “congratulates” appears 2,369 times, “award” 658 times and “lottery” 325 times; considers that, with the maturing of the Parliament, it is time to review the procedure and practice of lodging motions; believes that it may be appropriate for there to be two categories of motion, those that seek a members’ business debate and other motions; considers that, in relation to those motions that seek a debate, the criteria for selection should no longer include the need for explicit local or regional relevance; further considers that congratulatory messages should no longer be part of the motions process and that a separate process should be introduced for displaying these, such as a message board on the Parliament’s website or contained in an interactive display in a public area, which could include a short video or images of the individuals, groups or issues mentioned in the message, and recommends that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee gives this proposal consideration.
Supported by: Bill Walker, Graeme Pearson, John Mason, Colin Beattie, Hugh Henry, Kenneth Gibson, Anne McTaggart, Mary Fee, Jenny Marra, Ken Macintosh, Gordon MacDonald, Hanzala Malik, Jean Urquhart, Margaret McDougall, Alex Fergusson, Mike MacKenzie, Chic Brodie, Roderick Campbell, Murdo Fraser, Willie Coffey, Tavish Scott, Colin Keir

 
 
 
 
 
 
As for Worst Motion of the Week, this stinker from Gil Paterson is a lamentable classic:
 
Motion S4M-05157: Gil Paterson, Clydebank and Milngavie, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 10/12/2012
Labour Condemned by Hospital Campaigner
That the Parliament notes the reported comments of Jim Moohan, chairman of the Hospitalwatch group, criticising attempts to reintroduce a casualty unit in West Dunbartonshire; understands that Mr Moohan was heavily involved in the campaign to keep the Vale of Leven Hospital open when faced with what it considers closure by 1,000 cuts by the previous Labour/Liberal Democrat administration, and believes that the future of the Vale of Leven Hospital is secure in the hands of the SNP administration and that this will benefit all the people in the area.
Supported by: Brian Adam, Christina McKelvie, Kevin Stewart, Bill Kidd, Adam Ingram, Willie Coffey, Joan McAlpine, Mike MacKenzie, Annabelle Ewing, Richard Lyle, Gordon MacDonald, Kenneth Gibson, Stuart McMillan, Colin Beattie, Bob Doris, Chic Brodie, Jamie Hepburn, Mark McDonald, Maureen Watt, Colin Keir

Photo by John Baichtel

Today’s a very good day to bury bad news, as it were, and one of those was the frankly unsurprising resignation of Andrew Dixon as head of Creative Scotland.

You can’t really survive when the community you serve as a funding body for is attacking you so openly, good relationships are one of the key attributes board members in that world must have. Come to think of it, they’re a key attribute for board members in any world: it’s difficult to do business if your bridges are on fire.

The problems with Creative Scotland, however, go deeper than one person. There are institutional issues, as you’d expect for any organisation formed from the merger of two others. There are perceptions of bias against certain types of creativity. Those can be fixed, smoothed over.

What probably can’t be fixed is the fundamental problem of an essentially bureaucratic body attempting to decide what is “good” art, worthy of government support.

Obviously there’s a role for critical analysis, for evaluating art in its wider social context and for ensuring that public funds are used to their best effect.

However, with the best will in the world, nobody is going to get it right all the time. There’s going to be some dross funded and some good work unfairly looked over because with art, as with shares, past performance is not necessarily a guide to the future.

Given that, and because I’m a big believer in the value of art in social disruption, maybe we should allocate some portion of the Creative Scotland budget on a purely random basis. If a project isn’t funded it would go into a pot from which projects could be picked at random until the available budget was allocated. The likelihood of particularly expensive projects taking all the funding could be mitigated by weighting based on budget requirements.

This approach would have some considerable advantages: artists without a track record would have a chance, as would those out of favour with the establishment or doing unfashionable or borderline inaccessible work.

It’s not without its disadvantages. There would be less money available for panels to allocate, but I think that’s balanced by the greater variety of work this would bring. There’d also be some intolerable pretentious rubbish funded which would be overlooked in any just world, but there’s some of that that Creative Scotland will decide is worth funding anyway.

It’s a busy week at Better Nation – yesterday we unveiled Natalie McGarry, and today it’s the turn of Dom Hinde, who’s blogged here for us before. He’s a Green activist and a postgrad student of matters Scandinavian. Here’s where he’s coming from, and again, we’re very proud to have him on board.

To make it absolutely clear, I have enormous respect for both Alison Johnstone and Patrick Harvie.  Patrick in particular has shouldered a huge responsibility in recent years, and along with Caroline Lucas has done more than anyone else to put Green politics on the map in the UK. At the last Holyrood election the Greens came agonisingly close to having a good few more MSPs, beaten down only by the tidal wave of SNP list votes. At the council elections too we saw huge jumps forward. The number of seats taken may not have been game-changing, but we were increasing our vote share in areas where we had done no direct campaigning, and in some target areas we were picking up the majority of first preferences. We do however need to look for a time when Alison and Patrick are just two of many working toward a better nation.

Sometimes it feels hard to be hopeful, but I remain so, and I firmly believe that the Greens can become the driving force in modernising Scotland. I did not join the Greens to spend the rest of my days shouting in the corner. The challenges facing us are too important for that. It isn’t so much a matter of self-interest than of responsibility, because at the moment no other party is stepping up to the plate to meet the challenges, responsibilities and possibilities of the future. Everyone seems to be living in different versions of the past. Depending on the independence referendum’s outcome, the past may indeed soon be a foreign country.

The Greens are not the parliamentary arm of Friends of the Earth.  We are a political party. We exist to make people’s lives better. To paraphrase the former Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme (who was assassinated for his trouble), we are doomed to live on this earth and our job is to make life as agreeable as possible for as many people as we can. The way we will be do this is by having serious, open discussion about what is the right way forward, both morally and economically (and these two things are often one and the same). Better Nation itself is a product of the new Scotland we find ourselves in. It is a more democratic Scotland than previously, a better Scotland, but not a perfect Scotland. That devolution coincided with the beginning of the internet age was fortuitous to say the least, but it is also perhaps an apt symbol of changing times. Institutionalised media has not quite yet caught up with devolution, nor with the changing landscape of modern Scotland, its needs and its responsibilities. Neither has it really understood what Green politics in our country – almost entirely a product of the same process – is about. This was typified by the Greens being more or less shut out of the last Holyrood election campaign by the BBC. It wasn’t a conspiracy, just an inability to come to terms with the realities of modern multi-party Scotland.

The next four years, with a European election, the independence referendum and then Westminster and Holyrood could come to define not just the Scottish Greens but Scotland as a whole. I want to see a Green MEP, at least one Green on every Scottish local authority, ten to fifteen Greens at Holyrood – including from constituencies – and if it is still required to tackle the issues that matter in Scotland then a Green MP as well.

This might sound like a big ask, but if we do not aspire we cannot hope to inspire. The thing which has always defined Green politics for me is its ability to see things differently, and at this moment in time it is quite clear that the status quo simply won’t do.

Neither should politicians be the ones to consistently lead. It is a co-productive process, and many of the problems we face as a society are the result of politicians not listening. Working in academia myself, I am amazed by the slow rate of knowledge transfer between experts, innovators and government. Information exchange is the essence of any democratic society; indeed one of the most saddening things about the independence referendum has been the poor quality of information from both sides, typified by the BetterTogether devolution plan leaked today without any rationale of how it would work. People deserve better than just being told what is best for them.

For me Green politics is the politics of modernity. Born with the internet, with devolution, and with my generation of people born in the 1980s. It is liberated by its lack of history and its sense of purpose in tackling the issues of today and tomorrow. There are those who would see Green politics as just another manifestation of middle-class Marxism, or a pointless single-interest sideshow, and they would be wrong.

There may come a time when the Green party is no more, when it has faded the same way as many of the old fashioned political ideologies which now survive in name only. Then it will be time to stop, but at this time in Scotland’s development it is absolutely critical that we continue to challenge, to question, and eventually to lead. In the face of poverty, climate change, self interest and the symbolic violence against the most vulnerable, against women and against our own better natures, I have never been more proud to be a Green. It starts now.

As predicted (see third point here), Holyrood has a new grouping for business purposes: John Finnie and Jean Urquhart, plus Margo, plus the Green MSPs. Five is sufficient to win a place on the Parliament’s Business Bureau, which haggles over the business schedule. It also feels a touch more than purely technical (unlike, say, the Greens tie-up with EFA at the European Parliament), given the five share support for independence and opposition to NATO.

It’s also the same size as the Lib Dem contingent at Holyrood, who currently get a slot at FMQs two weeks out of three: the Presiding Officer has been oddly reluctant to take questions from the Greens this session, but this group should remedy that. Looking at it over fifteen weeks, on five of those weeks the new group would not expect to get a question, on four of those weeks the Greens should have a slot, plus two weeks each for Jean, John and Margo.

FMQs has become increasingly dull and frustrating, and that’s from a low starting point. Two or three typically predictable and unconstructive questions from opposition party leaders are answered with chuckling, bombast and a failure to provide an actual answer. Sometimes there’s room for a backbench SNP MSP to ask a “would the First Minister agree with me” type question, and every once in a while a genuine constituency issue is asked responsibly and answered consensually. Maybe, just maybe, this change will help raise the tone and increase the extent to which the Scottish Government is genuinely held to account.

Joint release issued just now:

NEW WORKING GROUP ESTABLISHED IN PARLIAMENT

5 MSPs have decided to form a technical working group to assist them in their Parliamentary duties.

Patrick Harvie and Alison Johnstone of the Scottish Green Party have reached an agreement with Independent MSPs Margo MacDonald, Jean Urquhart and John Finnie to establish a working group under the Parliament’s Standing Orders.

This grouping will give the MSPs representation on the Parliamentary Bureau which decides Parliamentary business, in turn providing the MSPs with further opportunities to contribute to debates in the Chamber.

The Independent/Green Group agreed this statement:

“The five of us have discussed ways in which we can work together, and after taking advice from colleagues on our options, have decided to form a grouping to enhance our ability to represent our constituents.

“Although every member of our grouping is pro-independence and believes strongly in a more equal, sustainable Scotland, it is by no means a formal, party-based arrangement; no MSP has changed, or plans on changing, their party affiliation or on taking positions different to those they have taken in the past.

“We all look forward to pushing for an independent, fair and peaceful Scotland both inside and outside of Parliament, and to working with MSPs across the Chamber to achieve these goals.”