Archive for category Holyrood

The latest Holyrood poll from the Sunday Times

Jul 23

Posted by James in Holyrood, Parties | 38 Comments

I missed yesterday’s Sunday Times, which is easy to do when it’s behind a paywall. Anyway, this afternoon (why not yesterday?) the SNP news released the following results from a poll the paper ran at the weekend with Real Radio, conducted by Panelbase. Incidentally, they’re new to me but look like they might understand the internet a little better than certain other pollsters.

First vote
SNP: 47% (+2%)
Labour: 32% (±0)
Conservative: 12% (-2%)
LibDem: 6% (-2%)

Second vote
SNP: 46% (+2%)
Labour: 28% (+2%)
Conservative: 11% (-1%)
Greens: 6% (+2%)
LibDem: 4% (-1%)

Here’s what the Scotland Votes site makes of that (click the wee image above for a graphic thereof):

MSPs
SNP: 68 (-1)
Labour: 41 (+4)
Conservative: 11 (-4)
Green: 5 (+3)
LibDem: 3 (-2)
Ind: 1 (1)

(Changes are from May 2011)

Leaving aside the big picture for a second, the SNP’s predictions in their news release were totally different. They awarded themselves four more seats than Scotland Votes did, took five off Labour, and gave the Tories two more than predicted. The Nats also kept the Lib Dems on five despite a continued decline in their ratings, two more than Scotland Votes had for them, and had the Greens unchanged on two, three fewer than predicted despite a wee Green bump.

That kind of statistical fiddling isn’t just odd, unless they’ve got a better predictor that they’ve declined to identify, it’s unnecessary. The poll shows the Nats 2% up from their 2011 triumph on both votes, despite the shambles over equal marriage and an independence campaign so watered down that it’d be hard to see the difference if they won it. Being up still further now is an excellent story to tell. The fact that Labour have had a mini bounce too and would be making small wins, including a net of just one at the SNP’s expense, is pretty minor, overall, but it looks like someone in the SNP press office got a bit over-excited about this one. Keep the head, chaps!

The Rainbow Road is Long And Winding

Jul 17

Posted by Aidan in Holyrood | 45 Comments

The Scottish Cabinet met today to discuss the long awaited Equal Marriage proposals and then promptly cancelled the 4pm press conference that had been scheduled to discuss the results of that discussion. Instead we got this press release, which seems to say a few things:

There won’t be a referendum on it.
There will still be a decision on the legislation announced by the end of the month.
There’s a subcommittee chaired by Nicola Sturgeon discussing “particular details”.
There will be a free vote on the resulting Bill.

The referendum was fairly obviously never going to happen and rightly so – in a democracy basic rights must be guaranteed by the government and not subjected to the will of the majority or they aren’t basic rights.

The delay in the actual announcement is a bit depressing given that this decision has been delayed repeatedly already and, for many people, it’s a bit of a slam-dunk in principle.

The subcommittee is interesting because while the principle that consenting adults should be able to be married by who they want to whom they want, It’s A Bit More Complicated than that given the rich variety of human sexuality, gender identity and relationship forms. It’s probably a bit too much to hope we’ll allow mixed gender civil partnerships and non-monogamous relationships, but there’s non-trivial issues around changes in gender identity or status (such as those outlined by Peatworrier here) which should be considered closely and compassionately. Perhaps something best done by Parliament in detail but let’s hope the sub-committee is considering how to frame the principles in such a way as to get the desired outcome.

The final part of this is the free vote. Now, I might have missed something but I’d expected this to be whipped. Fortunately there’s a majority in Parliament for it so it should get through anyway. It does rather suggest that the Cabinet is not as one on this to such an extent that some would feel compelled to resign over it otherwise. Which isn’t a huge surprise given some of their prior statements.

So, disappointed as I am that there wasn’t an announcement today I’m not disheartened. It looks to me like a hash job of the PR and a hefty dose of fudge to deal with internal dynamics. If a clear timetable for the Bill isn’t announced by the end of the month though I’m going to be much more concerned.

(Apologies if I’ve messed up with the language etc. here, please let me know and I’ll fix it)

Is Andy Murray up for grabs?

Jul 8

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood | 7 Comments

In case you are in the most remote part of the UK right now, you’ll be well aware that Andy Murray takes to Centre Court today aiming to be the first British man to win the Wimbledon singles title in 76 years.

As unseemly as it is to daub party colours over any apolitical sports star, the number of Google hits SNP Tactical Voting used to get linking the tennis ace to a certain Nationalist political party was nothing short of extraordinary and, as far as I’m aware, entirely without base.

Notwithstanding, it is difficult to not view David Cameron’s decision to raise a Saltire above 10 Downing Street as partly political as well as patriotic. With twenty million people expected to be rooting for Andy today in front of the tv, it is inevitable of course that politicians would seek to muscle in and identify themselves with that aspiration and success.

We are still two years away from the referendum and I suspect most Scottish sporting and tv celebrities will go out of their way to make sure their comments are not dragged into the debate as either being for or against a Yes vote. Andy Murray’s stock will go stratospheric if he wins today, it’ll remain seriously high even if he loses, but for how long can he remain neutral with politicians looking to claim him as their own?

I personally don’t see why someone who happens to be good at hitting a tennis ball should have more sway over how people should vote in an election, or makes bras for that matter, but that is the reality of the 21st century.

Politicians of both sides of the independence debate will doubtlessly remain on the edge of their seats, after today’s result, when Andy Murray faces questions from all sorts of press with all sorts of intentions.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s not about winning today, it’s the not being taken apart that counts.

A liberal case for independence

Jul 2

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution, Holyrood, Parties | 18 Comments

A history graduate, advocate for LGBT equality, Albion Rovers supporter and Liberal Democrat, Andrew Page is accustomed to being identified with minority causes. He contested Renfrewshire North and West for the his party in 2011 and blogs at A Scottish Liberal.

I’m a rather late convert to the cause of Scottish independence – a conversion that owes more to pragmatism than it does to political ideology.

I’ve never been the kind of Liberal Democrat vociferously opposed to the notion of independence. In 2007 I believed that, while a prospective coalition was a non-starter due to simple arithmetic, the party was misguided to rule out co-operation with the SNP on the basis that a referendum represented a “fundamental barrier”. Neither have I ever accepted the flawed logic of previous Scottish Lib Dem leaders in consistently denying Scottish voters the referendum – an ultimately futile tactic that has made it easy for political opponents to portray us as small-minded arch-unionists and contributed in no small way to our alienating of many traditional supporters.

The leadership line for the previous few years has been more pro-unionist than the view of the party membership, and has been influenced more by antipathy towards the SNP than by either a coherent political strategy or a commitment to democratic principles. The referendum represents the fairest and most liberal option and is certainly preferable to elected politicians and Westminster policy makers deciding Scotland’s future on our behalf. I have struggled to reconcile our party’s democratic credentials with what I perceive as a poorly conceived and fundamentally illiberal approach in recent years and have become increasingly convinced that, far from being anathema to convinced liberals, independence offers significant opportunities.

Not being a nationalist, the question of Scotland’s constitutional future has always been of secondary interest to the creation of a liberal society and a fairer political system. Features of the liberal Scottish society Liberal Democrats aspire to achieve include tolerance, an embracing of pluralism, the guarantee of free expression, the fostering of autonomous choices and greater democratic freedoms. A liberal society is one in which its citizens are empowered to take greater control of their own destinies. Liberals in the UK have a history of campaigning for a fairer and more democratic voting system, a green economy, decentralisation and localism, an end to the privileges afforded to the unelected House of Lords, reducing the voting age to 16 and the fairness agenda (so beloved of Nick Clegg). For those of us living in Scotland, liberals are far more likely to achieve such objectives in an independent Scotland than within a dysfunctional Union. A British system of PR is unlikely to be achieved in my lifetime, but may well be a feature of an independent Scottish democratic system
in which concerns about the House of Lords would be both academic and redundant. Similarly, our objectives on fairness, the economy, green energy, lowering the voting age and empowering communities would have a greater chance of fulfilment after independence than they would have under the status quo, which has a proven track record of non-delivery.

The preamble to the Liberal Democrats’ constitution states that “the Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community”. The key question for Liberal Democrats therefore must be “which constitutional arrangement best allows for the creation of such a society?”

The preamble also makes the claim that “we believe that sovereignty rests with the people and that authority in a democracy derives from the people. We therefore acknowledge their right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs and commit ourselves to the promotion of a democratic federal framework within which as much power as feasible is exercised by the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.” This is clearly inconsistent with the leadership’s stance in recent years but also, in theory at least, simultaneously commits liberals to the right of self-determination and “democratic federalism”.

If I genuinely felt that the Liberal Democrats were capable of achieving this “democratic federalism” I would be supporting all attempts to make it a reality, as my inclinations are liberal, not nationalist. What we have learned is that, in eight years of coalition in Holyrood and two years in Westminster very little progress has been made on the federalism front. To put it bluntly, if it was a crime to be a federalist there would be very little evidence with which to convict the Liberal Democrats. We are not the “guarantors of change” Willie Rennie disingenuously claims us to be. Even if the premise that the party is by nature a federalist one is accepted, it is naive to believe that the best channel by which to achieve the benefits of federalism is affiliation to the negative Better Together campaign, which lacks any kind of vision for a post-referendum Scotland.

We have a Deputy Prime Minister who asserts that “we are a devolutionist party”. That, of course, is not entirely true. Federalism is many things but it is not devolutionism. Jo Grimond recognised that a risk of devolution was “too much government” and that “it is no good transferring from Westminster to Edinburgh the diseases which…are bringing British democracy to its knees.” What is needed, insisted Grimond, was an arrangement that is open and accountable – “less government, better government and government nearer home”. He retained suspicions about romantic and inward-looking nationalism but also argued that, as far as Scotland’s future was concerned, “not to go far enough may be worse than going too far”. Devolution is not by nature a liberal arrangement and has a tendency to deliver over-government. Independence on the other hand, while clearly going further than federalism, does have the potential to provide both more effective local government and less government. From a liberal perspective, this has to be the best of both possible worlds.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats talk of federalism and Home Rule, which is welcome. Unfortunately, the actions of the leadership in identifying themselves with the Tories and Labour in a coalition of cynical negativity is likely to compromise both the party’s distinctive message and attempts to portray itself as anything other than committed to unionism. However, public perception is simply one challenge for the Liberal Democrats: another, more pertinent, difficulty being that the scope for achieving whatever the Home Rule Commission recommends is zero. Pragmatic liberals realise that without an additional option on the ballot form the choice is between the status quo, with no clear indication of what Scotland’s future will look like post-referendum, and an independence which offers opportunities for both Scottish liberalism and the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

There would be electoral opportunities for the Liberal Democrats in a post-independence Scotland of which the party should be mindful. It is unclear what would happen to the SNP but, even if it continued as a political force, having achieved its primary goal the Scottish Liberal Democrats could be well-positioned to benefit from uncertainty within the SNP’s ranks. Independence could prove to be an antecedent for a liberal revival, especially if the party is able to use the referendum campaign to its advantage. Admittedly, the second possibility is looking more remote by the day but it remains an inescapable fact that independence could serve the Liberal Democrats well, in a similar way to how devolution has benefitted the Scottish Conservatives.

Of course, embracing independence will require surrendering the commitment to a federal Britain in which Scotland is part. I have no difficulty with this, especially as inaction on the part of the leadership is largely responsible for undermining my faith in the achievement of federalism. While I would have preferred the party leadership to have done everything in its power to ensure an option more closely relating to our position would be presented to voters, what is precious about federalism isn’t a doctrinal commitment to it but the kind of society it can help create. Federalism, like all constitutional arrangements, is simply a tool; a means to a desired end. The focus must be on end goals, not the journey. We must be mindful that the final destination – a fairer, better Scotland in which liberal values can thrive – is so much more significant than the route by which we arrive there.

In 2014, like millions of other Scots, I will be voting on the future of our nation. I will do so from a commitment to liberal values and a determination to progress the cause of liberalism. That is why I will vote “yes”.

If you had to start from scratch, how would you structure Scottish football?

Jun 29

Posted by Guest Blog in Holyrood | 22 Comments

A grand guest today from Garve, a middle-aged website programmer based in the Highlands, passionate about Scottish independence, Ross County FC and open government. He’s very annoyed that some numpty took the Twitter handle which is rightfully his, but doesn’t use it, and that he’s had to resort to @G4rve.

The recent release of an SFL document prepared after talks with the SPL and SFA, which crudely both threatens and bribes Scottish clubs to ignore any niggling remnants of the integrity they might once have possessed in order to vote a new club into SFL Div 1 simply confirms my belief that the entire system is broken and corrupt.

Take one issue. I’m convinced that every single person involved in Scottish football agrees that one-up/one down between the SPL and SFL1 is wrong, and that at a minimum, playoffs should be introduced. What do you call a system where for years everyone agrees something is wrong, where it would only take a vote to change it, and yet nothing happens? Broken. Why is this the case? Because those who can vote are also those who gain or lose through the result of their votes. Corrupt.

If I were to create a new structure, it would be run by people whose allegiance was to the sport only, and not to individual clubs. They’d be tasked with making the game entertaining, promoting youth development and pretty much nothing else. They’d do so without any thought for the preferences of the big clubs or the television networks.

What would be possible under such a structure? Well, just about anything. We’re constrained by the rules on the pitch, which is fine, but off it we should use our imagination. Most fans agree that the current league structure is often dull and far too predictable.

I’m only one supporter, but I’ve got a dozen fantastic ideas to improve things. I say fantastic in that 95% of them are fantasy, crazy and unworkable, but 5% would be great improvements. Unfortunately I don’t know which is which, and up to now there hasn’t seemed to be any chance that they could get voted through the current moribund structure anyway.

But the crisis brought on by Rangers’ failure may have changed that. It’s clear that the decision of many SPL clubs to vote no to a newco claiming a place was brought on by fan power, until now a fluffy, feelgood concept which the clubs were happy to pay lip service to, but never believed would really matter to them. If fan power can do that, is it time to take it a step further and use it to force through a complete revamp of the game? If it’s ever going to happen it needs to be now.

So here’s a fanciful program for change. A fan’s forum collects enough signatures to credibly put the footballing authorities on notice that a new structure is to be developed for the start of the 2013/14 season, with boycotts to ensue if it’s not accepted. A month is taken to allow fans to submit all the crazy ideas that have for a new system, then 100 people from all over the country are elected to take these and turn them into a workable structure and competition. This is released before Christmas to be simulated, tested and commented on for a month, a further month is taken to incorporate those findings and the plan is finalised by the end of February. Until then, clubs won’t know if they are playing for promotion or fighting relegation, because the league structure of the next season is unknown, if it’s a league structure at all.

What about my fantastic ideas then? Well, here are a few.

Start with clubs having no representation within football’s authorities whatsoever.
A national 16 team league with a pyramid structure beneath it formed of 3 regional 16 team leagues. 3 up/3 down, with a further 3 play-off places. Relegation from the regional leagues to local feeders, giving a route for any club to make its way through the system.
A new cup for the top league and teams which finish in the top half of the regional leagues, which also invites teams from Northern Ireland, the Republic, Wales and one each from the Faroe Islands and the Isle of Man.
Two franchise places in the league system for London Scottish and Manchester Scottish teams. UEFA won’t stand for it? Have we ever asked them?
50% of money raised by the authorities through sponsorship or TV rights is distributed equally to clubs throughout the game to increase competition, with the rest paid in prize money on a sliding scale. No club can receive this money unless they have an active youth and women’s football setup. Part of this money also withheld from clubs which don’t have a certain level of fan representation on their boards.
All players to have a registration record which holds information about the clubs, league and non-league, which they played for or trained with until they were 18. A proportion of any prize money their later clubs earn goes to the clubs which developed them, along with other payments. For instance, if Cowdenbeath develop a player who eventually plays for Scotland, they get £1,000 each time he (or she) is capped.

Dumb ideas? I’m only one fan, and out of a thousand dumb ideas there will be lots of great ones, enough to be the structure of a new, more exciting setup for Scottish football. If Iceland can crowdsource its new constitution, perhaps we can do something similar.

Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Holyrood