Archive for category Westminster

Why the Coalition is outgunned by the SNP

The intensity of the debate/kerfuffle/furore about the independence referendum continues to build with the publication of the UK Government’s consultation document today – which at first glance doesn’t appear to bear much relation to the weekend spin from the Prime Minister.

Despite the legal concerns of Scotland’s finest legal tweeters, I share Jeff’s view that Holyrood could ask a question which is politically equivalent to an independence referendum, even if the previous “open negotiations” one is a poor choice and one that would require a vote on what had been negotiated. No matter: the Coalition proposal is for clarity on Holyrood’s ability to legislate here, and that’s welcome. The date limits and nature of the question are far more problematic, and I’ll return to the latter shortly unless someone gets in ahead of me again here. On the date front it’s long been my view that a late poll with a tired SNP administration (domestically they’ve basically run out of ideas already) is more likely to be lost, so both sides appear to be arguing for the position which suits them least.

In any case, the constitutional battle is truly upon us. But are the armies well-matched? Is the terrain more suited to one side or another? Is there a parity of intelligence? Clearly not. Just consider the main combatants: the Coalition versus the SNP administration.

Starting with the ground war, the former have, at a Ministerial level, the full-time efforts of Michael Moore and David Mundell. Even the most ardent Lib Dem or Tory wouldn’t pretend they were their parties’ most imaginative or tactically shrewd generals. The best you can say for Moore is that he’s tall and looks Ministerial, whereas Mundell is no friend to his notional colleagues at Holyrood and hardly a first-class campaigner. Neither of them appear terribly in touch with matters on the ground – even just working in London rather than Scotland can’t help, and Moore, like most Lib Dems, has the air of someone who knows he’s not got another Parliamentary term awaiting him: time to enjoy the limo, the staff and the state receptions before heading off into oblivion.

The Coalition also have the Prime Minister’s occasional attention, as this week, which typically doesn’t help very much. David Cameron, despite the name, clearly views Scotland as a far-away country where one’s chums go shooting, which makes it more interesting than the North of England, but only marginally. He regularly overplays his hand, as this week, and I have no doubt that every time he discusses the constitution or Scotland a little dial in SNP HQ twitches perceptibly towards the shiny yellow YES end.

And as for the rank and file, who are they? Imagine a non-party No campaign had been set up: other than hacks from the three main anti-independence parties, who joins up? Who volunteers to be the lion led by these donkeys? Who wants to spend their rainy evenings in a forlorn attempt to move David Cameron’s drinks cabinet six inches closer to Edinburgh? And where are the financial backers who’ve waited their whole lives to fund a defence of the Union?

Consider next the Coalition’s air force. The Scotland Office has perhaps three press officers, and no credible sign of a strategy unit. According to Guido, there isn’t even a SpAd in evidence, while the press team’s work is the kind of stolid and neutrally-worded stuff the civil service insist upon. Finally, the big intellectual guns – presumably naval to stick with my metaphor – in other words, Unionist campaign central. What is it? Where is it? There is simply no devoted and organised hard core with the preservation of the Union as its raison d’être, contrary to Alex Neil’s suspicion of a Yoonyonisht Conshpirashy. Admittedly there are first class journalists for whom the Union is crucial, including the trenchant Alan Cochrane, the self-described black-hearted Unionist, and Alex Massie, who deserves a wider audience than Twitter and the Spectator, but the current field of battle regularly leaves them bemoaning their side’s mistakes.

Above all, the Coalition has lots of purposes, some contradictory, some associated with grinding the faces of the poor, and some day-to-day fire-fighting. The Scottish question is not their main concern, apparently not even for those Scottish Lib Dems for whom the prospect of independence ought to be focusing their minds. Fighting on lots of fronts at once is much harder than a single determined effort, and it shows.

As for the SNP and the Scottish Government, they have an entire team of Ministers with a dedicated interest in the constitutional question. The FM and DFM are truly first class officers, generals with strong tactical nous, irritating as I find the Great Puddin’ in particular. The next tier has brains too, notably Swinney and Russell. They’re all based here in Scotland, which makes for a much stronger connection to the ground campaign, their careers still look like their trajectory is upwards, and their supporters don’t cringe when they come on the telly. And those front-line troops are gee’d up to say the least. They’ve just had the best ever election result in their lifetimes, they’re experienced, and they believe one more push will see them achieve total victory. They can also call on irregulars, ex-SNP fundies and those for whom the current leadership is too right-wing, people who wouldn’t campaign in a local election ever again but who would do anything they could to deliver independence.

And on the air war side the SNP have a staggering array of media professionals. They have a team in the party’s own offices, from where electioneering and campaigning are led – and they buy in strategic support. They have Liz Lloyd’s well-run team on the fourth floor at Holyrood, dedicated to getting backbench SNP MSPs into the papers and on the telly. They have their own vast civil service press team who can’t promote the SNP, but promote the hell out of their Ministers in a pseudo-non-partisan way, just as they did for the last lot (and who seem brighter than the UK equivalents). And they have 11 SpAds, led by the always-on Kevin Pringle (incidentally, the odds on an all-male team like that occurring purely by chance are less than a twentieth of one percent, all other things being equal), bridging the gap between the civil service press teams and Ministers’ partisan positions. Each and every one of these people is based in Scotland, and they know the key Scottish political hacks in a way the Coalition’s press team simply don’t. With the exception of the Record and the Telegraph, all the important papers backed them in May, even if they won’t back a Yes vote whenever it comes.

I felt the disparity when it was just me doing media for the Green MSPs by day and for the party by night and weekend, but the assets the Coalition itself can deploy on a day-to-day basis fall almost as short: the exception will be on rare weeks like this where Scotland is indeed their overall front line.

Finally, the SNP itself is that single-issue big gun the Union side lacks. They have some serious shortcomings – how and by whom the constitution should be written is one, what they want to do with an independent Scotland is another – but they know how to make the case and they have the organisation. They’ve also got an overflowing war chest, from poets to lottery winners, and they’re supported by a series of thinkers like Pat Kane and Gerry Hassan, blogs like Bella Caledonia and, well, there’s actually a bit of a dearth of non-mental SNP-backing blogs, but you see the argument. (edit – this has been taken as an insult to first-class bloggers like Kate and LPW: it’s not, just that neither are exactly uncritical, and there are others too, but many good ones are now sorely missed)

These substantial disparities don’t guarantee an SNP win over how the referendum will be held, nor in the referendum itself, but they’ve certainly put themselves in about the strongest position possible, and the appearance of a UK administration being a larger force is superficial and entirely misleading. In fact the gap between them is almost what Iain Banks calls an Out Of Context Problem in the opposite direction. Your civilisation is getting on swimmingly with swords and pikes when a ship turns up and men with guns get out. Taking account of all these imbalances, the next phases of this war remain the SNP’s to lose.

Drop the clangers and find a cause

It’s not just the goofs and gaffes plaguing Ed Miliband and Labour at Westminster which are stopping the opposition’s recovery. It’s how Labour responds that needs improvement.

The week started with Labour guru Lord Glasman’s declaring in the New Statesman that Miliband has “no strategy and no narrative”. The turmoil continued with the leaking of Director of Communications Tom Baldwin’s memo, which insisted comparisons between Miliband with Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard are “well wide of the mark”.

Later in the week, Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy’s acknowledged that Labour has to start accepting some of the coalition government’s cuts. Although no different from previous statements by Miliband and Ed Balls, Murphy’s comments were covered in the press as adding to the general sense of seams unravelling.

But these were dwarfed almost entirely by Twitterstorms. A race row caused by Diane Abbot’s sloppy tweeting, and a sloppy social media faux pas of Miliband’s own making: a ‘Blackbusters’ Freudian slip on his Twitter feed on the death of national treasure Bob Holness.

Separated out, none of the above clangers are life threatening to Labour. Memos leak, tweets are mistyped, Diane Abbot says nutty things, Glasman’s pronouncements are usually ignored and when Obama’s cutting defence by $450 billion in the next decade, Murphy agreeing to £5 billion is a start, rather than a stop.

But altogether, it feels like the Labour Party is stuck in a real-life episode of The Thick of It. The party’s solution to this, as ever, will be the inevitable relaunch in the next week or so.

Back in 2009, The Economist rightly identified the set-piece parliamentary announcement as one of the “few trustier gambits in the Brownite playbook”, because “these opportunities to set the terms of debate, and to stage carefully prepared appearances rather than have to think and communicate” entirely suited Brown.

And they did work when he was Chancellor, with set-ups like introducing the pre-budget report giving him the platform to continue his ascent against Blair. But as leader they didn’t work so well. In September 2008, a year after his election, Brown’s first relaunch of his leadership was announcing a mortgage rescue scheme to reverse the plummeting house market. It was scuppered by Chancellor Alistair Darling’s (correct) assessment the weekend prior that the British economy was at a 60 year low and getting worse.

Since Brown’s tenure, Labour Party positioning has felt like Bambi skating. It gets to the point where it’s just about standing up and keeping it together, when a wobble causes mis-step and collapse.

As Brown’s former advisor, Miliband too favours the use of the set-piece announcement whenever the Labour Party needs to stave off a crisis. Miliband’s bigger problem, unlike Brown, is that too many of his announcements are about the party, not about policy or governing or even opposition.

Since his election as leader, Miliband has announced scrapping elections to the Shadow Cabinet, loosening relationships with the unions, reinvigorating annual conference and allowing ‘registered supporters’ to participate in internal elections as attempts to stamp his authority on the party. None have given Miliband his desired Clause 4 moment and is leading to a policy vacuum with the public.

So next week Miliband needs to make sure his recovery announcement trailed in today’s Guardian, on how the Labour Party will look beyond redistribution of wealth as the means to a fair society, is an announcement very much about policy, and not about party.

Unlike Scottish Labour at Holyrood, where much deeper reforms are needed to combat the malaise, what will make Labour electable in terms of Westminster isn’t how reformed the party’s internal structures are, but policy, popularity and proper opposition.

In another week, Murphy’s comments on defence spending would’ve worked; positioning Labour towards all three of the necessary strands for electability. Speaking this week, Murphy said:

“There is a difference between populism and popularity. Credibility is the bridge away from populism and towards popularity. It is difficult to sustain popularity without genuine credibility. At a time on defence when the government is neither credible nor popular it is compulsory that Labour is both.”

Policy that acknowledges to tackle the fiscal deficit will need some cuts – they just should be the right ones, like cuts in defence spending, that don’t harm the vulnerable in society. Popularity in finding a position which most of the electorate also share. Proper opposition by getting the first two right and giving the foundation to properly take on the coalition government.

Behind all the goofs and gaffes, the rest of the Labour Party does seem to be getting on with this strategy – Gregg McClymont MP’s Cameron’s Trap pamphlet launched between Christmas and New Year indicates a strong awareness of the need to get the position with the public right, rather than worrying about party structures. Let’s just see if the Leader of the Opposition can start to talk policy, over party, without slipping again.

 

Scottish Politician of the Year

Colin Mackay being funnyI’m confined to quarters with a bug, which annoyingly means I’m almost certainly missing tonight’s annual Herald-sponsored prize-giving. Someone else will have to put out any unduly flammable curtains and finish the minature whiskies for me.

So I’m going to play predictions instead.

The nominations are as follows:

BEST SCOT AT WESTMINSTER
Danny Alexander
Douglas Alexander
Angus Robertson

Three strong contenders, apart from Danny Alexander, who has to be the most out-of-his-depth senior politician Scotland has ever produced. For my money it’s Douglas Alexander: he has found a purple patch since losing Ministerial office and taken full advantage of the profile Shadow Foreign Secretary has offered of late.

DONALD DEWAR DEBATER OF THE YEAR
Alex Neil
Michael Russell
Nicola Sturgeon

Only Nats do debating? For me this is between Mike Russell and the Deputy First Minister – Alex Neil’s style is too student debater for my taste. Although Nicola goes from strength to strength (and would make a far more emollient FM than the current gaffer), Mike’s erudition and grasp of political history are hard to beat.

NEWCOMER OF THE YEAR
Ruth Davidson (Con)
Jenny Marra (Lab)
Graeme Pearson (Lab)
Willie Rennie (LibDem)
Humza Yousaf (SNP)

Alison Johnstone should clearly have been on this list, but then I’m biased. Ruth Davidson’s obviously the most prominent newcomer, and, contrary to the spin from SNP head office, her first few days have been steady and thoughtful, so I’m giving it to her by a nose ahead of future First Minister Humza Yousaf.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLITICIAN OF THE YEAR
Michael Cook (Ind Borders)
Michael Foxley (LibDem Highland)
David Stewart (SNP Moray)

Foxley here, I think, and not just to counter accusations of anti-Lib Dem bias. He’s claimed a national role and profile, admittedly in part by some pretty bonkers outbursts.

PUBLIC CAMPAIGN OF THE YEAR
Argyll Schools
Coastguard Stations
RAF Lossiemouth

A toughie. The Argyll schools campaigners got Mike Russell to save them, effectively, but that might possibly have been electioneering on his part. For me, professionally, the messaging from the coastguard campaigns was first class, so I’m going for them.

POLITICAL IMPACT OF THE YEAR
Patricia Ferguson (Lab)
Murdo Fraser (Con)
Tricia Marwick (Presiding Officer)

I rate Patricia, but I’m not seeing much political impact from her this year. Tricia’s style of chairing will certainly have a huge impact on Holyrood over this session, but, for impact outside Holyrood, it’s Murdo all the way. His radical proposal to abolish the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party and reform some new independent right of centre party meant the Tories’ leadership election was actually discussed by civilians, unlike Labour’s. Outside Parliament. I heard them do it. The fact that he lost doesn’t change the need for change, and although I reckon the panel will probably pick the PO, he’s the right choice.

LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT
They don’t announce nominees for this in advance, so that gives me a free hand. Lifetime achievement award for a Scottish politician the November after an election means someone who stood down or was defeated in May. Name me another politician who single-handedly saved his or her party, who led that party into the mainstream and elected office for the first time, and who stood down having left said party a fixture of the Scottish political scene. It’s a no-brainer. It’s Robin Harper all the way. And yes, in 1994 or so, before I was a party member, he turned round a debate at a demoralised party conference on the question of whether the party should dissolve, as well as fighting countless impossible elections for the Greens. An extraordinary boss, and the party’s only elder statesperson.

But I suppose Jack McConnell would be a strong second place.

SCOTTISH POLITICIAN OF THE YEAR
As above, there isn’t a shortlist here either. But there doesn’t need to be. After the most successful Scottish election campaign in living memory, there can be only one. The First Minister, the Great Chieftain o’ the Puddin’ Race, Alex Salmond.

Could someone record Colin Mackay’s intro for me, incidentally?

Council Tax Freeze: a bung to Westminster and to the rich

A very welcome guest post here from Steve, who’s a lefty with a particular interest in how we tackle poverty in Scotland. You can tweet him at @3pSteve. He occasionally blogs at taxingscotland.wordpress.com.

Imagine you’re a minister working for the Scottish Government, and Alex Salmond says, here’s £700million to dish out to people living in Scotland. You decide how it’ll be done, who gets what, come up with a plan and get back to me.

What would you do? Maybe you’d decide to give every individual the same amount, give all 5 million of us £140 each? Maybe you’d give them a token to spend on food so they couldn’t waste it on booze and cigarettes? Maybe you’d give it all to children, or to disabled people, or to the poorest members of society. It depends on you and your own personal politics of course but let me ask you the following:

Would you start by giving over £100 million of it to the UK Government?
Would you give more to the richest 10% of people in our society than to the poorest 30%?
Would you give almost twice as much to the richest 50% in Scotland as you gave to the poorest 50%?

I ask because that’s exactly what the council tax freeze does.

We’re in year 4 of the freeze, and by the end of this year the freeze will have cost £700 million. The UK Government benefits to the tune of £112 million.

People in Scotland get the remaining £588 million shared out between them, and the rich get a lot more than the poor. To date the Scottish Government has not published an income decile analysis of the impact of the council tax freeze but John Swinney has stated a number of times that relative to income the freeze benefits the poor more than the richest.

I wanted to examine that in more detail, so I asked Margo MacDonald MSP if she could ask the Government for an income decile analysis of the freeze. I’d just like to say thank you to Margo MacDonald, and to Mary who works in her office. The Government obliged and sent the following table (SG info on CT freeze):

Income Decile

Bottom 10%

Decile 2

Decile 3

Decile 4

Decile 5

Decile 6

Decile 7

Decile 8

Decile 9

Top 10%

Saving as % of net household income

0.8%

0.5%

0.5%

0.5%

0.5%

0.5%

0.5%

0.4%

0.4%

0.3%

This shows the council tax freeze to be progressive. On average, as a proportion of household income the poorest get a greater benefit from the freeze than the richest. But in cash terms the story looks a little different. Take a look at the following table, created by combining the data provided to Margo MacDonald with official Government data on income deciles:

Income Decile

Bottom 10%

Decile 2

Decile 3

Decile 4

Decile 5

Decile 6

Decile 7

Decile 8

Decile 9

Top 10%

Av. cash benefit of 4-yr freeze

£141.44

£150.15

£182.00

£214.50

£246.35

£284.70

£330.85

£309.40

£382.72

£507.00

Cost of freeze (£m)

30.3

32.1

38.9

45.9

52.7

60.9

70.8

66.2

81.9

108.4

What this shows you is the average cash benefit of the council tax freeze for households in each income decile, and the amount it has cost to hand out those sums.

For example, households in the bottom 10% get £141.44 on average, while the top 10% get £507 on average, three and a half times as much. The higher the income bracket, the more the council tax freeze costs, targeting resources at the richest in society, at the relative expense of the poorest.

Finally, what about my claim that the freeze benefits the UK Government to the tune of £112 million? Well the freeze works by protecting the council tax payer from potential increases. Scottish Government figures show that the UK Government pays 16% of all the council tax in Scotland through the council tax benefit scheme, and so they benefit from the freeze too. Sixteen percent of the £700 million goes to the UK Government, which is £112 million.

Look again at the table above. The council tax freeze saves the UK Government more than the bottom 30% of households in Scotland combined. That’s the poorest 700,000 households in Scotland receiving less from the freeze than the UK Treasury. Does that make any sense?

The longer the freeze goes on, the more expensive it becomes. I think it’s time to ask if there isn’t a better way to give households in Scotland a financial break.

As I asked at the start, what would you do?

England, Wales and Northern Ireland do not have to join the Euro either

The media is having another kick-around of the old idea that Scotland, if independent, would be required under EU rules to join the Euro. As the Commission’s website confirms, the only EU members with an opt-out are Denmark and the United Kingdom. Even Sweden must join, in theory, when the time is right, and they’re probably not yearning to do so at the moment.

Any other existing EU members not in the Euro have to join ERM II and fulfil convergence criteria, which presumably right now means “is your economy nosediving and are your bonds not selling very well?” Sweden appears to have avoided this risk by deciding not even to join ERM II yet. This neat trick means they are not officially beginning to converge with the Eurozone, so can stay out. In practice it appears that new members could probably pull off the same trick, akin to Gordon Brown’s famous five tests, but despite reading the whole of the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties over the weekend, I’m really no clearer about that.

But that may not matter. So we’ll start again.

The argument is this: an independent Scotland would be either be outside the EU, shivering in the cold, or we’d be a new member, obligated to join the Euro just as putative future EU member states like Croatia would have to. But assume the referendum results in independence – why would Scotland have a formally different status to “England, Wales and Northern Ireland”? Let’s do a few implausible thought exercises.

Perhaps it’s because it would be Scotland’s decision to “leave”. Is it down to who takes the decisive step? Imagine the Clarksonite argument that the Scots are a drain on the exchequer triumphed at Westminster, and Dave decided to cut us off, metaphorically. Would we be forced into the Euro in those circumstances? Or if EW&NI were the ones who were seen to have initiated the breakup, not us, would therefore they be required to join the Euro instead? Both are absurd prospects.

Perhaps it’s a question of scale? Just because the bulk of the UK’s population would remain in EW&NI, does that make them the only successor state? There is some precedence for scale, notably when the USSR broke up and the Russian Federation got to keep the embassies, but the consequences of that decision for the other former Soviet republics weren’t as radical as a requirement to join a currency union. But still, that can’t be right. Imagine an EU member state, let’s call it Belgium, divided relatively amicably into two equal parts. Would only one of Flanders and Wallonia be left the successor state to Belgium, according to which was marginally bigger in population terms? No way, which is what makes this legal advice ridiculous.

Another option is that both halves could decide not to take on the rights and responsibilities. When Czechoslovakia went through its Velvet Divorce, neither country sought recognition as the sole successor state, and both were treated as new UN entrants, yet both remained parties to all treaties signed by their predecessor state. But that’s not going to happen, especially in this case.

Fortunately, we don’t need to play these games. In practice, the question of successor states is determined by the 1978 Vienna Convention. Colonies achieving independence are not bound by the treaties of their former colonial masters, whereas in “cases of separation of parts of a state”, all new states remain so bound (or in this case, free). Only the wilder fringes of cybernat-dom regard independence as the last act of decolonising the British Empire, so a newly independent Scotland would be covered by existing treaties, just as EW&NI would be. Thankfully.

And so the First Minister’s desire for independence and his desire for us to join the Euro can at least be dealt with separately by those of us who agree only with the first objective.