Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Holyrood

Has Murdoch been worth it First Minister?

Apr 25

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood | 54 Comments

“I met with Alex Salmond’s adviser today. He will call Hunt when we need him to.” (BBC)

If that’s not a potentially career-ending line then I don’t know what is.

There is little doubt that Rupert Murdoch has it in for David Cameron at the moment with sly pro-Indy digs on Twitter and considerably less sly front page digs at the Prime Minister’s Government in his tabloids. Rupert carries no such resentment towards the First Minister given Salmond has loyally, if foolhardily, stuck by his News International buddy. Of the little that I have seen ,the recent positive SNP coverage has been conspicuous. (I try not to look directly at The Sun, for health reasons).

The First Minister has denied the largely Lib Dem levelled allegations that there was a ‘quid pro quo’ deal done with Murdoch whereby the SNP gets an easy ride and News International gets something in return. It’s not the type of allegation that a politician would admit to without a fight and the Scottish media isn’t slow to pick up the scent when the SNP may have been wounded. No smoke without fire? Time will inevitably tell.

Even so, one has to wonder why this has all been worth the risk for the SNP. Rupert Murdoch is toxic right now with politicians, barge poles at the ready, doing all they can to stay away from him. Politicians except for Alex Salmond that is who had him round to Bute House for lunch as recently as February. The often childish mudslinging that has ensued isn’t completely lacking a point, who is the First Minister serving with this unseemly closeness? The Scottish public or the SNP? It’s difficult not to assume the latter with the referendum just over two years away.

Of course, the questioning from the opposition over Rupert Murdoch’s apparent favour for Salmond and the SNP may well backfire. The media mogul is after all preferring Salmond over the rest of them and, irrespective of what one may think of the hacking scandal, an endorsement of the First Minister from an intelligent and powerful man such as Rupert Murdoch carries plenty of weight. Sean Connery, no more.

Both sides insist that there was no deal and for as long as deniability remains in place, however conveniently constructed that may be, both sides may well get away with it but the scrutiny from opposition parties and investigative journalists is going to be intense and unless the quote above was incorrect or throwaway, I can’t see how it won’t prove to be career ending, though whose career remains to be seen.

Jeremy Hunt’s adviser resigned today, presumably in a bid to direct the flak away from the Minister, I suspect another such resignation will be close behind. A ‘shadow of sleaze’ surrounds this issue according to Ed Miliband, just how far north does it travel?

Brian Paddick needs to be tough on both crime AND drugs

Apr 23

Posted by Guest Blog in Crime, Governance, Health, Holyrood | 17 Comments

A guest post from Ewan Hoyle the founder of Liberal Democrats for Drug Policy Reform and author of their new drug policy (debated here: bit.ly/LibDrugs) who is also their council candidate for Glasgow’s Anderston/City ward. There’s a Glasgow Skeptics meeting on this topic on the 14th of May

The people of London would undoubtedly be better served by their police force if cannabis users were not being arrested and charged. And for the vast majority of cannabis users a criminal record would be far more damaging to their prospects than using cannabis will ever be.There is nothing factually wrong with Brian Paddick’s “Police are wasted on cannabis” campaign.

So de facto, turning-a-blind-eye, decriminalisation is a step in the right direction. But as a policy end-point it is starkly illogical. If a drug is illegal, but no one is ever prosecuted for using it, then there can be no justification for its continued illegality. A trade that could be regulated and taxed and contribute greatly to the national economy should not be allowed to be dominated by organised crime. We might be able to save money in not prosecuting users, but we would still be spending money and time pursuing and prosecuting the producers and dealers. This endeavour has not had any success in restricting cannabis supply to any meaningful extent in the past, and is highly unlikely to do so in the future. If the act of using is no longer immoral to the extent that society deems it should be illegal, then the act of supplying can not be deemed immoral if the responsibility lies in the hands of a supplier who has only the best interests of the customer in heart. A policy of strictly controlled legal supply can create such a supplier and is the one that government should be investigating with great urgency.

The motion passed by Liberal Democrat conference last September was determinedly “tough on drugs” in its intent. Past policies that implied tolerance of drug use were swept aside in favour of policies targeted at the restriction of the ability of drugs to do harm. Paddick’s proposals sadly take us back to our old ways, and may even increase the potential for harm caused by the drug itself. If we exclude the obvious harms of a criminal record, arrest at least focuses the mind of the user and their family on their drug use and might cause them to re-evaluate their behaviour. By removing the chances of that happening, any problems users experience are more likely to develop further and have serious implications for their health and happiness.

So, on the scale of “tough” to “soft” on the ability of cannabis to do harm, de facto decriminalisation as proposed by Paddick is probably a step towards softness. If we want to get tough on the ability of cannabis to cause harm, then we have to deploy policies which are more likely to prevent problems emerging and which are more likely to facilitate early intervention in order to halt the progression of any problems which do occur.

The model of decriminalisation adopted in Portugal – where possession is still illegal but an administrative and not a criminal offence – takes us back in the direction of toughness. Rather than turning a blind eye to cannabis use, the police refer users to panels tasked with determining whether treatment is appropriate and delivering education on harms and available services. In a situation where contact with the police can only be positive for a drug user’s prospects, concerned family and friends need have no qualms about seeking help for a loved one. In Portugal, prospects for cannabis users are better, but again their de jure decriminalisation policy is starkly illogical for the same reasons as the de facto decriminalisation proposed by Paddick.

It is only with strict government control and regulation of a legal market that we can optimise our restriction of the ability of cannabis to cause harm. Rather than have information on the harms of cannabis delivered only after an unpredictable encounter with the police, this information can instead be provided in the environment of a pharmacy, by someone trained for the purpose, prior to the first time a customer uses the legally supplied drug. The ability to advise customers on the potency of strains and encourage safer modes of administration, means the customer is far less likely to come to harm. The undermining of the illegal market combined with age restrictions should hopefully reduce availability of cannabis for children, while reducing further the necessity to expend police resources against the black market suppliers. If it is decided to educate first-time users on the early warning signs of psychosis, then the increased number of people in society equipped to identify these signs means those developing psychosis are more likely to be helped regardless of their drug use history.

So Brian. It is time to move beyond liberalising our drug laws. De facto decriminalisation is not the best answer for the people of London or anywhere in Britain. The policy that is the toughest on drugs and crime is a plea to government for the strict government control and regulation of a legal cannabis market.

I have strong suspicions that if it is communicated properly, it will garner you far more support that your soft-on-drugs, baby-step, 4/20 announcement.

Walker: was there a cover-up?

Apr 22

Posted by James in Crime, Holyrood | 38 Comments

The normal rule of thumb is that headlines ending in a question mark should be answered with a “no” – for example, “Does Sudoku Cause Cancer?” However, if Paul Hutcheon‘s story is true, as it surely is, the constituency office of the Deputy First Minister herself was told about Walker’s violent past more than three years before the unfortunate people of Dunfermline got saddled with him as their MSP.

When his past started to come out, I argued that the SNP didn’t do proper vetting on him, and SNP activists argued (reasonably, I concede) that if he’d kept it quiet there’s no obvious way for the party to have found out. That’s true: we don’t want parties to have to hire private investigators to look into candidates. But if a former brother-in-law of Walker had told Nicola Sturgeon’s own office about his unsavoury past, which the SNP’s quote admits, that’s that question answered. They knew because they were told, and they admit that the information went to head office.

If they’d been told in April 2011 I could almost understand not making a scene about it. Who wants to have to deselect a constituency candidate during an election? (Although obviously it would have still been wrong not to act) But February 2008? As with so many scandals, this one has become that which sensible politicians fear most: who knew what and when, and who covered up for the original offence? Incidentally, it’s extremely dangerous and ill-advised for the party to give an account of the meeting which can be disputed by the man who called it, Rob Armstrong.

Note: comments which make allegations against Walker which are not already in the media or which downplay domestic violence will not be approved.

Pickiness over Purdah

Apr 20

Posted by Kirsty in Economy, Holyrood, Local government | 25 Comments

The Scottish Government, together with Cosla, has announced plans to offset proposed cuts in council tax benefit at a cost of £40m in a new one year deal.

At present, councils administer council tax benefit, with rates and eligibility set nationally. Westminster will abolish the existing benefit in April 2013 as part of their welfare reforms, devolving a successor scheme to UK regions and nations, as well as cutting the budget of this replacement by 10%.

The Scottish Government and Cosla will plug this shortfall in 2013-14, providing £23m and £17m respectively.

Over half a million vulnerable people in Scotland are in receipt of council tax benefit, including the unemployed, pensioners, carers and people unable to work through disability. Cutting this vital support is yet another attack by Westminster on people who can least afford it, and the Scottish Government’s intervention is welcome, and necessary.

The UK Government’s welfare changes are going to have a devastating effect on low-income households across Scotland and the rest of the UK. From the ‘Granny tax’ to slashing welfare for disabled people to ending child tax credits for 73,300 Scottish families, Cameron’s government are simply cutting where they know they can get away with it.

So it isn’t news that the Scottish Government are going to announce spending where they can to mitigate the effects of Westminster cuts. I don’t think any voter in Scotland would be surprised to find out that the SNP wants to be a bulwark against slash and burn Tory policies that are going to ravage our society.

I don’t say this to negate the SNP’s announcement, in any way; my point is yet another note of disappointment with Scottish Labour instead, in refusing to see and act on the issues where their permanent stance of oppositionism achieves nothing.

Labour’s Shadow Health Secretary Jackie Baillie took a position of “try harder” with “Everybody knows the Tories are cutting too hard and too fast, but we can’t pretend this announcement plugs the gap.”

But then she frustratingly adds: “This timing of this is deeply peculiar. If the SNP were serious about supporting local councils, they would not have waited until two weeks before the council elections – flagrantly breaching purdah – to make this announcement”.

I think purdah, the convention of not announcing policy or spending during an election period, is as outdated as the colonial and sexist overtones of the word itself. Between rolling news, Twitter and a cynical electorate I don’t think government announcements have a tremendous sway over voting intentions, with an electorate that surely knows they’re trying to be bought or bribed instead of seduced.

The impact of this announcement by the Scottish Government will be tremendous on the lives and livelihoods of people who need council tax benefit to get by, and will be exactly zero on the local election results on May 3rd.

For Scottish Labour’s main comment to be that this vital measure breaches an almost-obsolete civil service standard is ridiculous.

This week the Scottish Parliament’s Welfare Reform Committee took evidence that the UK Government’s plans could result in 100,000 extra children living in poverty in Scotland. There needs to be no other statistic which shows why Scottish Government needs to act fast against Westminster cuts. This week, Johann Lamont criticised Salmond in FMQs for not announcing the withdrawal of investment by Doosan: “If he will suppress serious issues like this iconic project before the local elections, what is he capable of hiding before the referendum?”

So which announcements do Labour want in the pre-election period? Just the bad ones and not the good ones? They do know how political communication and spin… oh wait.

I want a Scottish Labour Party that opposes every ConDem cut, and cajoles the SNP through criticism and through constructive opposition to ensure Scotland becomes a country and a society where power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, and not the few. And yes, I quote Clause 4 quite deliberately. Too many Labour Party politicians have forgotten it.

When it comes to protecting the most vulnerable, sod the party politics. Sod the timing. Labour should welcome the spending, and fight the local elections on pledges and promises, not on being picky about purdah.

Preferentially speaking

Apr 17

Posted by Aidan in Holyrood | 42 Comments

It’s only the second time round for STV council elections, and the first time they’ve been decoupled from the Scottish Parliament elections so people are still figuring out how this works. On The Doors(tm) there’s still a degree of uncertainty amongst the electorate about how this works so the parties (and the Electoral Commission) are providing guidance. Fair enough, however some of the parties are asking people to only vote for their candidates and to not continue ranking candidates further down.

It’s fairly obvious why you would want first, second and third preferences for your parties candidates and why different candidates are asking for first preferences in different bits of the ward. It’s no good getting a ton of transfers if you’re knocked out early on due to a lack of first preferences, though the practicalities of that and some of the second order effects it has have strengthened my view that we should switch to Condorcet instead.

I genuinely don’t understand the “please don’t vote for any other candidates after those of party X” though. It’s not like there will be fewer councillors elected if someone doesn’t make quota. Since a voters preferences are only redistributed to other parties once the candidates are elected or eliminated it doesn’t detract from them.  Unless there’s a general fear that SNP voters might continue down their preferences and then start ranking Labour candidates and vice versa – the visceral, spiteful antipathy that some members of those two parties have for each other is rarely shared by voters afterall – I can’t see the point. Is that it? Is it a hope that it marginally improves the chances of a more palatable Green or Lib Dem or Tory candidate filling those seats?

Seems daft to me. Personally, I’ll be using all my preferences until I’m forced to work out who I like least out of UKIP, the Scottish Unionist Party and the Scottish Christian Party.