Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Westminster

Time for a rebate on the organised robbery of land ownership

Aug 28

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood, Westminster | 24 Comments

In last week’s Sunday Herald there was an eye-raising story regarding Alex Salmond slapping down John Mason for suggesting that the SNP should hold a policy of raising the top rate of income tax above 50%. To me the story illuminated Salmond’s fears that the public may mistakenly view an independent Scotland as a place where wealth is choked off to fund welfare and the public sector. One of the First Minister’s objective is quite plainly, and quite understandably, to not scare too many horses before Scots troop out to vote in the independence referendum, whenever it may be.

So tax rises from the SNP are out for political purposes, tax rises from the Conservatives are out for ideological reasons and tax rises from Labour are out because they are powerless to implement them.

For many of us who are not too fussed about the referendum and keen to make sure Scotland’s, and the UK’s, Warren Buffett’s and Liliane Bettencourt’s pay their fair share of tax, who are we to look to?

Well, the Lib Dems seemingly and good news in today’s Sunday Times comes with the front page story that “Lib Dems want a land tax on rich”. This may be something of a policy grab from the Green party’s LVT but it shows that, within the Government, a focus on wealth distribution does exist in some quarters.

It is admittedly disappointing that Nick Clegg may have to give the Tories a cut in inheritance tax to get the deal through but the proposal appears to be that levies would be fixed at 0.5% of the capital value of the land, determined by the independent Valuation Office Agency. It seems to be a workable, deliverable policy that would be difficult to avoid. As Vince Cable says: “land tax is the one thing you can’t take off to Monaco”.

Anyway, a headline, progressive policy that differentiates the Lib Dems from the Tories would be welcome and is certainly long overdue.

Talk is cheap and the deficit is expensive but hopefully, somewhere between the two, a political party can rise through the political reticence to raise taxes and extract more from those with the deepest pockets. Right now, it seems it’s the Lib Dems who are best placed to deliver.

Will the National Transitional Council hand Megrahi over to the USA?

Aug 24

Posted by Guest Blog in Crime, Holyrood, International, Westminster | 18 Comments

A guest post from Stuart MacLennan. Stu is a PhD Candidate in the Faculty of Law at Trinity College, University of Dublin. He is a former adviser to the Scottish Parliament Labour Group on External Affairs, which is why he wrote us a piece about Megrahi. He was also a Parliamentary Candidate – but the less said about that, the better.

Scotland may well find itself facing another diplomatic row with the United States of America. New Jersey Senators Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg have called on the Libyan National Transitional Council to hand Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi over to the United States. Until yesterday it was easy to dismiss this call as just another stunt by vote-hungry US Senators, but with the National Transitional Council (NTC) on the cusp of full control of Tripoli it has become a question that warrants some consideration.

Of course, legally and politically the situation is far more complex than Lautenberg and Menendez would have us believe. Leaving aside the dubiousness of the original conviction there are questions as to jurisdiction, international law, United States law, as well as the diplomatic, political and practical considerations.

At first glance jurisdiction seems simple. The flight blew up shortly after crossing the corner of the Solway Firth into Scotland and fell out of the sky towards Lockerbie and Langholm. Ergo, the bombing of flight Pan Am 103 is subject to the criminal law of Scotland, right? Well, things are slightly different where aircraft are concerned. The United States has never been shy about extending its jurisdiction extra-territorially, and the Tokyo Convention on Offences and Certain other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft 1963 creates the so-called “Aircraft Jurisdiction”. The Convention provides that the Country in which an aircraft is registered has jurisdiction over criminal acts while the aircraft is in flight or on the surface of the high seas. The United States has therefore always claimed jurisdiction over the bombing of flight Pan Am 103.

However public international law also comes into play where the Lockerbie trial is concerned. The United States along with the United Kingdom jointly sponsored Security Council Resolution 1192, binding members to accept the jurisdiction of a Scottish Court constituted in Camp Zeist in the Netherlands as the trial venue for Megrahi and his co-accused Lamin Khalifah Fhimah. The United States cannot unilaterally ignore this resolution, though as a permanent member of the Security Council it could propose a resolution overturning it. Without a further resolution, as Professor Robert Black points out, the Federal Government would not only be in breach of International Law but also of Art. VI, Clause II of their own Constitution.

But wait! “What about double jeopardy?” I hear you ask…

The famous double jeopardy rule contained within the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is not as airtight as it first appears. The dual sovereignty exception, which was developed by the Supreme Court in order to protect the rights of the federal government and the states to prosecute crimes independently of each other, appears to have been extended to foreign prosecutions [U.S. v. Richardson 580 F.2d 946 (9th Circuit 1978)]. Therefore provided the United States remains in compliance with its international obligations there is no bar on Megrahi standing trial again in the U.S.

So handing Megrahi over to the U.S. to stand trial is, theoretically speaking, possible in law however the politics make things even more difficult. The Obama administration is understandably keen to avoid being seen to be flouting Security Council Resolutions, so if they wanted Megrahi back they would have to have the acquiescence of fellow permanent member, the United Kingdom – but would they receive it?

In both Government and Opposition David Cameron has been clear about his objections to the release of the Lockerbie bomber. He has continued to maintain that he felt it was wrong that Megrahi was released though has never stated that he believes he should be returned to prison (despite what his spokesperson seemed to think today). The political row that returning Megrahi to the United States would create would be one that I believe David Cameron would wish to avoid.

Alex Salmond appears to relish in the controversy his Government has created. He has succeeded in putting successive UK Governments in a tricky spot over Megrahi, and in attracting the ire of Hillary Clinton has been elevated to the status of a world statesman. I do not believe David Cameron would put Whitehall on yet another collision course with Holyrood, particularly given the concessions the UK Government has already made to the Nationalists. Nor would Cameron wish to further enhance Alex Salmond’s quasi-Presidential status in the run-up to a referendum on Scottish Independence.

From a practical perspective – at present we do not know where Megrahi is. Megrahi was released on license and returned to a Government which for the most part doesn’t exist any more. East Renfrewshire Council, the local authority responsible for monitoring Megrahi’s release on license, admits it is in “uncharted territory” in monitoring his license and is urgently trying to make contact with him. Furthermore Tripoli could remain in turmoil for some time to come and Megrahi may well slip through the net.

Finally, given the uncertainty as to what kind of state may emerge in Libya, there’s no guarantee that the new regime will be any more acquiescent with the United States than its predecessor. Even if they manage to find Megrahi they may not hand him over. And given that it took the joint efforts of the United Kingdom, the United States, the United Nations Security Council and the passage of more that ten years to extradite him the first time around – Senators Lautenberg and Menendez may have to accept that Megrahi will never see the inside of a prison cell again. To paraphrase Kenny McAskill: the next judgment Megrahi faces will almost certainly be that of a higher power.

I Vote Life – The complicated e-petition of Britain and Capital Punishment

Aug 9

Posted by Guest Blog in Crime, Society, Westminster | 6 Comments

Another guest post, this one from Alex MacDonald who is a social entrepreneur, political activist and university student.  He loves following current affairs and in particular, to read and write about the controversial issues of the day.  Susceptible to having his opinion swayed, and therefore would welcome your thoughts and views – brave man!

Epetitions.direct.gov.uk allows members of the public to create and sign petitions of their choice. The website is a fantastic opportunity to raise awareness of important and sometimes tender issues that the public want addressed in parliament and when it went live on 4th August, it crashed later that day due to overwhelming demand. Petitions need over 100,000 signatures to be passed into the House of Commons for debate and for parliamentary procedures to begin.  So far, the site’s first and second most popular petitions relate to Britain’s stance on the death penalty, with one calling for the restoration of capital punishment:

“We petition the government to review all treaties and international commitments which may inhibit the ability of Parliament to restore capital punishment. Following this review, the Ministry of Justice should map out the necessary legislative steps which will be required to restore the death penalty for the murder of children and police officers when killed in the line of duty. The findings of the review and the necessary substantive legislation to be presented to House of Commons for debate no later than 12 months after this petition passes the acceptance threshold.” 

According to this petition, should an offender murder a child then the offender would be sentenced to death but should an offender commit serial murder on people over the age of 21, the offender would receive a life sentence.  This policy does not address murder as an entity but as two separate entities, murder that is not acceptable and murder that is more acceptable. It also promotes the understanding of hate crimes across the United Kingdom as it is a policy that protects a collective body of people. When in reality murder should be addressed as murder and not divided between social groups, gender and other variables.

The murder of a child is a devastating incident that  affects the whole country. However, another problem with this category is that it may be difficult to classify an individual as a ‘child’. Who exactly is a child, and by definition when is a child no longer a child? Parents  are able to claim child benefit until their children reach the age of 20, yet it may be hard to justify describing a 20 year old  as a ‘child’. As individuals, we can marry at 16, and we can drink, smoke and vote at 18. However, these milestones show how difficult it is to define the point when an individual is considered mature enough to take responsibility for their own decisions, which is an integral part of adulthood. So how can an arbitrary reference to age adopted in legislation be justified?

According to this petition, the intentional killing of a child is one of the more serious forms of murder. It could be argued that children are defenceless and particularly vulnerable victims. This acts as an aggravating factor, which makes the offence more serious. So from a legal perspective it can be argued that a separate sentencing may be appropriate for child murder.

This leaves many questions left unanswered as children are not the only defenceless and vulnerable group in society. Other vulnerable groups such as the elderly and the disabled should therefore be considered to be included in this petition. Yet further questions surround this issue, how old would one have to be to be considered elderly, and how disabled would one have to be to be considered handicapped? This new law on many occasions would fall into a grey area. Age is not a defining factor for the elderly, as people grow and die at different ages. Nor does disability necessarily inhibit a person’s understanding of certain situations and scenarios to make them more of a vulnerable victim.

Emotionally I feel that child murder is worse than any other murder, to lose a life that young is a devastating tragedy. However, logically it should not be the case that the law is based around emotional perspectives. If the law is written around emotional perspectives then that will counter balance a fair system.

The new law would promote one life over another and set up divisions between groups of people. One niche group would be protected by the death penalty where as other groups would not be. The law would be found asking itself which group is more important to society. If a crime is illegal then why is there the need of mixed sentencing? Murder is murder, regardless of the age, race, sexuality and etc of its victims. With this petition we question who is vulnerable and who is not. Minority groups and the homosexuals and lesbians are all examples of vulnerable people, so should the law protect them differently? Or as I previously mentioned, does this just needlessly group people?

The murder of police officers acting in the course of duty often provokes a public outcry. The police do a vital job in keeping Britain safe, and so when the death of a police officer hits the headlines, it is always difficult and upsetting to see.

However the idea of a law that solely protects the police promotes inequality amongst the British public, which further adds to bias crime acknowledgement. According to this policy the murder of an on duty policeman is worse than the murder of any other professional in any other job. What about when that policeman goes off duty? Is it still bias motivated crime? Or is it then a personal attack?

What about the murder of on duty doctors, firemen and the Prime Minister? Further to this, what about receptionists, jockeys and bankers? Surely all people should be protected equally by the law?

Such a distinction can be justified; children are vulnerable and need to be protected, and the police risk their lives on a daily basis to keep the public safe.  However, in conclusion , this petition fails to protect other vulnerable groups such as the disabled and the elderly.  The law should not draw an arbitrary distinction between different groups.

I am against capital punishment. If the state sentences a murderer to death, then the state is stepping on common ground with that murderer, regardless of the atrocities of the crime.

However, from a hypothetical perspective, if capital punishment is to be introduced back into the UK, then the law should protect all groups of people, regardless of age, career and other variables, as the law should be set to protect everyone in society.

But what do you think?

 

 

 

Meanwhile, over in Inverclyde…

Jun 27

Posted by Jeff in Elections, Westminster | 28 Comments

The Inverclyde by-election is almost upon us. The Westminster issues have been explored in depth and the local public can’t wait to do their democratic duty candidates have verbally battered each other and party activists have stuffed letterboxes with literature to a largely uninterested and increasingly frustrated electorate.

The truth is, of course, a by-election makes little difference at a local level and only really helps to shape the narrative for parties at a national level, albeit for only a short period.

So, if that is what is at stake, let’s see how this Thursday might go for each of the stakeholders…

Labour – In one respect, the red hot favourites have everything to lose and, in another respect, they have nothing to lose. The next Westminster election is 4 years away, the next Holyrood election is 5 five years away and Ed Miliband’s renewal of the party has only just begun. Does it matter if Inverclyde goes yellow? For a few days, maybe even a full week, yes, but after that the disappointment will be swept away as the next crisis/disaster/scandal comes along to take its place.

SNP – For the SNP to win this by-election it would be a big surprise, though perhaps not a huge shock since the campaign seems to be going swimmingly and Anne McLaughlin has acquitted herself very well in the tv debates. However, in the media narrative, you are either a winner or a loser so to avoid the latter, the SNP will have to find a way to be the former. Most of the public won’t appreciate how great a result it would be for the Nats to fall within a couple of thousand votes of Labour in this area so some of the gloss might come off Salmond’s veneer from this Thursday, over and above the self-inflicted problems that is.

Conservatives – They will finish third. They may save their deposit. There will be no embarrassment but there will be no reason for cheer either. From a Tory perspective, this by-election will only serve to remind the UK that David Cameron’s message, and the coalition’s at large, is not being heeded north of the border.

Lib Dems – They should finish fourth, they will lose their deposit. The Lib Dems will have given their youthful ‘rising star’ (a phrase used too liberally if you ask me) a good deal of experience and exposure in this contest but, at best, it can only be a disappointing night for them. The disaster would be finishing below UKIP who received 433 votes in 2010, to the Lib Dems’ 5,007. I wouldn’t rule it out, but that may just be heart ruling head.

Greens – There’s not much point in standing in a contest when you know you will lose your deposit but the Scottish Greens will not be discussed during this campaign nor during the results broadcast so they are already ontrack for a disappointing night as they seek to gain a foothold in the political imagination of Scotland.

So there we go, that’s about the long and short of what Thursday evening will mean despite the hours of discussion that anoraks will lap up and the rest of the country will not be listening to. Maybe I’m getting cynical in my old age, maybe the SNP’s arguments are getting through but I would only sit up and take notice of a Scottish by-election if it was for Holyrood rather than Westminster.

Not a bad endorsement of how important the Scottish Parliament has become in 12 short years.

Can the SNP win the Inverclyde by-election?

Jun 9

Posted by Jeff in Elections, Westminster | 20 Comments

The sad, untimely death of David Cairns is the cause of the first election in Scotland since the Holyrood vote last month. Speculation will of course be mounting as the date of 30th June draws nearer as to whether the SNP can wrest this seat from Labour and take its tally of MPs up to seven.

The 2010 election result was:
Labour – 20,933
SNP – 6,577
Lib Dem – 5,007
Conservative – 4,502

The 2011 Scottish Parliament election result (for what I believe is a very similar area) was:
Labour – 12,387
SNP – 11,876
Conservative – 2,011
Lib Dem – 1,934

The contest will of course be a two-horse race between Labour and the SNP, there is little point in pretending otherwise and the candidates are confirmed as Iain Mackenzie (Labour) and Anne McLaughlin (SNP).

The SNP has picked a great candidate – Anne has experience of being an MSP, was the mastermind behind the Glasgow East by-election triumph a few years back, is female and seems to be very likeable. However, Labour have picked a great candidate too as Iain is the leader of the local council and perhaps has more ‘local credentials’ than his rival. The opening salvos do seem to suggest that a common Labour refrain will be ‘this area needs a strong local voice’.

The by-elections in the last term are not much to go on in terms of by-election form. The SNP won Glasgow East with a shocking swing from Labour but were then brought down to earth with thumping defeats in Glenrothes and Glasgow North East.

The problem for the SNP of course is that it is easier for it to take seats from Labour in a Holyrood election than it is in a Westminster election. There is no ‘strategy, vision, team’ from before, there is no Swinney record to rely upon, there is no Council Tax freeze to outmanoeuvre Labour on and there is no Iain Gray to set against Alex Salmond for First Minister. In a media-driven narrative of Cameron vs Miliband, how does Angus Robertson get a look in? Let alone a Scottish Tory, Scottish Green or Scottish Lib Dem viewpoint? One genuinely has to wonder if it’s worth those three parties gambling with their deposits and instead just staying at home.  

Furthermore, the independence hare is off and running, cooped up as it was before May 5th. How many voters will that keep at home or spook into voting elsewhere? 

Labour will send busloads of activists up north telling all sorts of terrible tales about the Tories down south and, at the end of the day, if you define yourself by not watching Coronation St, you watch Eastenders instead, not BBC Alba or Gardener’s World. The 2010 election did help confirm that, in a Westminster context, Labour vs Tory is indeed the norm.

Many will seek to make inapplicable hay out of the SNP finishing second and the Salmond honeymoon being shortlived. It shall be tosh. I am sure the Nats are in it to win it but falling a few thousand votes short, as I believe they will, is a result to be proud of in a deep red area like Inverclyde and Greenock. Â