New Saltire

Show Me the Money 2

noreply@blogger.com (Frank) — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:25:00 +0000

As was pointed out in a letter to the Metro yesterday, the Scottish Government recently refused to increase the fuel duty rebate to Scottish bus operators as England and Wales have done in the face of rising fuel prices. This means the bus companies pass the high fuel prices onto the consumer, raising bus fares in Scotland when they have stayed stagnant in England and Wales.

Not content with that, our Government has also scrapped universal free installation of central heating for pensioners.

Complaining about a lack of money from Westminster is one way to handle criticism like this. Freeing up money by scrapping dubious SNP initiatives such as this, this and this is an alternative way, although this would, of course, entail the Scottish Government taking responsibility for its own actions.

Show Me the Money

noreply@blogger.com (Frank) — Sat, 31 May 2008 16:37:00 +0000

Facing the contradictions and deep structural flaws of their Local Income Tax plan, and now the growing public scrutiny of this proposal, the SNP have decided on a new media management tactic. The Scottish Government is now attempting to generate headlines that evoke a sense of economic competence, while ensuring these stories don’t touch on LIT itself – the bedrock of SNP economic policy.

So first we have:

“Swinney calls for oil revenue talks” – May 19

Here, Swinney writes a letter to Alistair Darling with the boilerplate SNP demand that “Scotland’s” oil profits be given to Scotland. This misses the reality that as the oil sits in British waters, it belongs to Britain as a political entity. However, even while based upon this premise, the first parts of the letter seem reasonable enough:

“...it is vital Scotland has access to and benefits from our own resources. It cannot be right that we have fuel poverty and soaring road fuel prices amid this energy plenty.

That is why I have written seeking talks on greater financial independence for Scotland, including a transfer of oil and gas resources to the Scottish Parliament, so that we can invest in Scotland's long-term economic interests.”

But then he gives the game away. If he is serious about securing these talks, why conclude the letter with this snippy and frankly inappropriate comment?

“Such a change would mean that we could invest these revenues in the future success of Scotland after decades of unfortunate decisions by the UK Government that have seen oil revenues directed towards filling the black hole in Britain's finances rather than being invested in the sensible manner adopted elsewhere.”

Because he needs a headline to divert media attention from LIT, which he calculates the media will begin to scrutinise if he doesn’t supply them with simple fodder like this. It worked for that day in both the Herald and Scotsman.

Next, we have:

"Salmond accused of stoking fuel row"

Salmond elaborates on Swinney’s argument here, linking the growing cost of UK domestic fuel to the financial windfall that Scotland could have if it acquired sole access to British oil revenues. The status quo is a “massive national outrage”, with this escalation of rhetoric seemingly indicating the pressures entailed in identifying new economic problems in order to disguise the ones Swinney is creating.

No mention here of the possibility of LIT alleviating some financial problems facing Scots due to the rising fuel prices – why not?

And now, yesterday, Darling responds to this nonsense.

“Holyrood and Westminster at war over oil and taxes”

Darling refocuses media attention on LIT, which, judging by the behaviour of the SNP, they would really rather not talk about. He tells us that, oddly, Swinney hasn’t approached the Treasury to discuss the Scottish Government’s hope that HMRC will conduct tax collection for LIT.

"To be blunt about it, the Nationalists are refusing to talk to us about it. If they thought this (policy] was a goer, you would have thought they would open up with us and say, 'Can we use the HMRC computer systems' but they have not done it."

Swinney seems to prefer asking Darling for oil revenues to be added to the Scottish Governments’ budget while insulting him in the same letter, to making progress on the economic policy that will make or break his name in politics. What’s going on?

Ultimately, the SNP are trying to prevent headlines emerging like this one on their proposed Scottish Futures Trust:

“Swinney admits SNP funding reform relies on PFI financing”

A few more headlines like this, but regarding LIT, will do much to encourage a public debate on its merits and shortcomings. To stop this happening, the SNP generate alternative economic talking points for the media, as shown above. If they have confidence in LIT themselves (or the Scottish Futures Trust for that matter), why do they feel the need to do this?

New Prisms

noreply@blogger.com (Frank) — Tue, 13 May 2008 21:01:00 +0000

Some interesting readings I’ve come across in the last few days:

Obama’s foreign policy outlook, in which he explicitly identifies himself with the spirit of JFK (although how this translates into policy commitments is unclear)

The interest of the New York Times in Cameron’s ascendancy, and the lessons it could have for rethinking Republican ideology

OurKingdoms’s analysis of the intellectual construction and seemingly impending deconstruction of New Labour

Hold out, Wendy

noreply@blogger.com (Frank) — Tue, 13 May 2008 20:44:00 +0000

Maybe it was too good to be true. Seizing the initiative, capturing the headlines, putting the SNP on the defensive – Wendy gave us all this last week. The greatest shock of this proposal was the fact that it issued from a political party widely viewed in the media as exhausted and subservient to Brown’s half-interested wishes. The SNP didn’t know how to respond to it: they paradoxically refused Wendy’s olive branch of support for a referendum and instead noted the disparities between her position and that of Brown . This was going to be the start of the fightback. This was going to shoot the SNP fox. So what happened?

Not only has Brown publicly withheld his support for Labour participation in a referendum on Scottish independence before 2010, but there are now rumblings among Labour MSPs that the Scottish party should revert to a refusal of support for a referendum, and focus on the SNP’s failure to meet bread-and-butter manifesto proposals. But there’s no going back now, unless we want to guarantee ourselves no seats at all in the next elections for the Scottish and UK Parliaments.

Wendy intended to bring Labour support for a referendum, on the well-founded premise that the SNP would lose it. As Peter Preston argues, this was an excellent step forward, in offering to democratically demonstrate the strength of the Union, ridicule the SNP, and establish a new reputation for Wendy as a farsighted risk-taker. As Ideas of Civilisation points out, the fact that it was unlikely that a Labour referendum would proceed very far down the legislative process is beside the point. The key images to regain from the SNP were those of developing devolution and the democratic process; empowering citizens; and demonstrating assertive and innovative leadership.

Until we see some solid commitment of the MSPs and Brown (although this seems less likely in the case of the latter now), this unique moment and opportunity will be lost, and Wendy may have to resign. The Union is not threatened by this referendum, which the SNP will lose; it is threatened more by Labour continuing to be cast as the party that seeks to restrict debate on this increasingly salient issue, ceding to the SNP more opportunities to shape the Scottish political discourse.

Calculated Risk

noreply@blogger.com (Frank) — Wed, 07 May 2008 20:36:00 +0000

The headlines today scream “betrayal” in the wake of Wendy Alexander’s decision yesterday to back a Scottish referendum on independence, apparently without consulting Downing St first. Scottish Labour, it seems, will not only support the SNP’s planned referendum bill but will pressure for it to be moved forward from its scheduled introduction in 2010. This marks a tectonic shift in UK politics since this time last year.

The mock outrage emanating from sources close to Downing St regarding Alexander’s new thinking seems rather artificial. This becomes more clear when viewed in the context of the Prime Minister’s initial response yesterday, which offered implicit backing to Alexander’s position. It has been no secret that support for a referendum has attracted widespread debate within Scottish Labour since May 2007. I first argued the case for Labour support for a referendum to Richard Simpson MSP seven months ago. Nevertheless, the combination of the search for a good story and buying the Downing St narrative has led to the media fundamentally misreading the situation. The Guardian’s headline is subtitled "support for Scottish independence", when what we are supporting is a referendum on Scottish independence on the premise that the SNP will lose.

Winning the referendum will attack the soul of the SNP, illustrate the gulf between party and Scottish support for independence, and answer the independence question for a generation. Salmond conceded to Andrew Marr that “about a quarter” of the Scottish population supported independence, and outlier polls range from 19% to 44% support. There is nothing to fear.

This shows Scottish Labour taking the initiative in Scottish politics, for the first time since last May. I’ve been astounded by the lack of initiative from the opposition. There is no reason why we can’t be legislating as much as the SNP, a point Alexander realised when she argued there was nothing stopping Scottish Labour bringing forward its own referendum bill.

Urging the SNP to hold the referendum sooner puts the Scottish Government in an awkward position – if Scottish independence is as important as the Government keeps telling us, why are we waiting until 2010?

How does this work with the Calman Commission? When the Commission reports back, the unionist parties can propose a referendum bill with the options that the Commission suggests including independence, at a time of their own choosing, which the SNP will be forced to support. Simple as that.

We need to see more of this from Scottish Labour, and also UK Labour – taking risks, and taking the initiative.

Taxing Questions/More Abstract Numbers

noreply@blogger.com (Frank) — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:01:00 +0000

Swinney has failed to win public confidence for Local Income Tax, and generally seems ambivalent over whether he actually wants it to succeed or not. Perhaps he is waiting for the UK Government to confirm its pre-May refusal to extend Council Tax Benefit if Council Tax is abolished. The resultant funding gap (£381m) could be used as a figleaf for the SNP to scrap the plan, blaming Westminster for forcing the Scottish Government to retain Council Tax. Whatever excuse they use, it has been clear this plan has been unworkable from the start.

I’m all in favour of progressive taxation – however the cause of progressive taxation is better served by a well-thought out tax plan, which certainly isn’t what we have here.

AM2, writing on the Scotsman yesterday, offered an excellent breakdown of just how unworkable LIT is:

"1. Council tax raised £2.131bn in Scotland last year. The SNP’s 3% local income tax plan would only raise around £1.3bn.

2. Council tax benefit, paid by the Treasury as part of a reserved function, pays £381m of the total. If council tax was scrapped the related benefit would also stop. The SNP refuses to accept this.

3. The SNP admits the remaining £450m shortfall, but fails to properly explain how “efficiencies” can close the gap.

4. The total “black hole” is therefore £381m + £450m = £831m. That’s £320 for each of Scotland’s 2.6m taxpayers, effectively killing the idea that the plan could cut taxes.

5. The SNP reportedly claimed that the Institute of Fiscal Studies endorsed its plan. But the IFS report says that if council tax benefit ceased, the total gap “would be around £840 million”.

6. In announcing the plan, the SNP made no mention of water or sewerage charges. Many people assumed that the 3% would include those. In fact they’d need to be paid on top. The SNP website also fails to clarify this.

7. HM Revenue & Customs’ operations aren’t devolved. Holyrood can’t instruct HMRC to assess/collect a local income tax either by direct assessment or PAYE. Would such an expansion of HMRC’s function in Scotland be sanctioned?

8. Neither are there powers to force employers to collect local Scottish taxes through PAYE.

9. The SNP claims that the council tax collection cost is £65m. But that’s including the valuation boards, so water charges would have to be calculated some other way.

10. The SNP claims a £25m collection cost for local income tax. But that wouldn’t include water and sewerage charges or business rates for multiple property owners. Those would have to be collected separately though some alternative system.

11. The SNP claims that its plans have nothing to do with Holyrood's existing power to vary basic rate income tax by up to 3%. But there's no provision in the Scotland Act to alter the rates on other bands as well.

12. The Tories say “nobody believes that it would only be 3%”. The Burt Commission estimated 6.5% or 7.9%, depending on if only the basic rate band could be altered. Following the 2007 budget, the IFS said that a 5% local income tax would be needed to raise the same revenues as the current system.

13. The SNP says: “we will move towards allowing local authorities greater flexibility in setting the local income tax rate.” But are councils allowed to set rates for taxes to be deducted at source from salaries?

14. Iain McMillan, Director of CBI Scotland says: “it is patently obvious that the break-even point at which taxpayers start to pay more in local income tax than they currently pay in council tax is substantially lower than that claimed by the local income tax's proponents.”

Abstract Numbers

noreply@blogger.com (Frank) — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:44:00 +0000

From my post on the Herald - the SNP noise machine tonight is, predictably, saying that any failings in Swinney's budget is, inevitably, all London's fault.

"How can the SNP blame their failure to meet manifesto commitments on the UK government, when:

1) They knew the exact budget increase they would receive for nearly a year before they got it

2) They acquired £900m extra from the Treasury from the budget underspends of previous Executives.

Its silly to blame the decision of Parliament to keep the trams at a cost of £500m, as this was always going to happen, and should thus have figured in the SNP sums. Blaming the trams doesn't make sense when compared with the £900m EXTRA the SNP have got , leaving Swinney with £400m extra to play with when we subtract the tram money. Plus, he has the advantage of knowing how much money they would get from Westminster in advance.

For example, the £70m set aside by Salmond for hiring 1000 NEW police officers was going to be implemented with the budget they already knew they were getting. Now they have failed to provide this (the revised cost of £54m for 500, most of which aren't going to be new, seems like poor costing of the initial pledge), they attempt to blame the UK - who are they trying to kid?"

Reaganism, Not Thatcherism

noreply@blogger.com (Frank) — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:49:00 +0000

From yesterday's Wall Street Journal:

Scotland's Coming Boom

The next country to adopt Reaganite tax reduction policies likely will be Scotland. Alex Salmond, who serves as "First Minister" and heads his government's ruling coalition, was in New York recently to ring the bell at the New York Stock Exchange and deliver a message to the global investor community that his nation is hungry for investment. The occasion was the Royal Bank of Scotland's new listing on the Big Board.

Mr. Salmond tells me a key part of his agenda is "lowering the corporate income tax from 28% to 10%." He also sounds a lot like the Gipper when he says he aims to break the country's "dependency mentality that is restraining growth."

"I'm a long-time advocate of supply side economics," he tells me. "We need to rekindle our spirit of enterprise and turn Scotland into a Celtic Lion." He says Scotland aims to join the "Arc of Prosperity," a group of fast-growing nations in the region including Ireland, Iceland and Norway. Over the past 25 years Scotland's growth rate has averaged 1.8%, compared to 2.3% for Europe and more than 10% for the economic gazelle of Europe, Ireland.

In 1900, Scotland was one of the world's three richest nations in per capita income, but it turned socialist, as so many European nations did, after World War II. It got rich again the easy way in the 1980s with the discovery of North Sea oil. But high taxes have inhibited capitalizing on the petro-dollars to create a sustained economic expansion.

Scotland's problem now is that it only controls 15% of its tax system. The U.K. has veto power over the rest, including reductions in corporate taxes. But if British P.M. Gordon Brown signs off on the tax cut, Scotland may be able to duplicate the Irish Miracle in the years ahead. "We want to imitate the Irish success story," Mr. Salmond says. Ireland's tax-cutting policies aren't just a model for Scotland but for the U.S., which lately finds itself lagging in global competition because of relatively high tax rates on job creators.

American Torture

noreply@blogger.com (Frank) — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:34:00 +0000

The recent revelations of the existence and extent of the use of torture in interrogations by the CIA in the New York Times this week has confirmed what we secretly expected from the Bush administration. The main exposé article lists some of the atrocities the CIA has visited upon its detainees:

“They included slaps to the head; hours held naked in a frigid cell; days and nights without sleep while battered by thundering rock music; long periods manacled in stress positions; or the ultimate, waterboarding.”

Any one of us could have written today’s editorial in the New York Times:

“Once upon a time, it was the United States that urged all nations to obey the letter and the spirit of international treaties and protect human rights and liberties. American leaders denounced secret prisons where people were held without charges, tortured and killed. And the people in much of the world, if not their governments, respected the United States for its values.
The Bush administration has dishonored that history and squandered that respect. As an article on this newspaper’s front page last week laid out in disturbing detail, President Bush and his aides have not only condoned torture and abuse at secret prisons, but they have conducted a systematic campaign to mislead Congress, the American people and the world about those policies.”

It is a shame that the American media did not expose this program until now, as it was initiated in Bush’s first term. Nevertheless, this, with Iraq, confirms the Bush administration as probably the worst America has ever had. If Bush had any credibility or morals, he would apologise to the American people for so comprehensively discarding the values of his country in office. He will try to recycle the old excuses – 9/11 gave us a new war with new rules – with no grasp of the magnitude of his errors.

Martyrdom in Myanmar

noreply@blogger.com (Frank) — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:39:00 +0000

The clergy-led popular protests against the ruling Burmese military junta has provoked the reaction we all dreaded, and privately expected: a military crackdown.

"Burmese security forces raided two Buddhist monasteries this morning, beating up and hauling away more than 70 monks after a day of violent confrontation, sources said.

The security forces used firepower for the first time yesterday against street protests that have brewed over the past month into the biggest demonstrations against Burma's military rulers since 1988.

At least one man was killed and others wounded in chaotic clashes in Rangoon.

A monk at the Ngwe Kyar Yan monastery, pointing to bloodstains on the concrete floor, said a number of monks were beaten and at least 70 of its 150 monks taken away in vehicles."

Brown has recommended the UN Security Council deal with the situation, and that sanctions be imposed on Burma. The experience of the UN sanctions on Iraq between the two Gulf wars have shown us that sanctions only empower the offending government by its control of increasingly limited supplies and necessities.

Instead, the first thing Britain and the other UNSC states should do is stop selling arms to Burma. A threat of humanitarian intervention if an increase in humanitarian aid is not properly delivered to the people (as happened in Iraq) would put pressure on the government. In addition, we should ramp up our political and financial support of pro-democracy movements inside Burma.

Sanctions are not the way forward to aiding the Saffron Revolution, as its campaign must now change from aiming for survival instead of victory. Sanctions only hurt the people themselves, while empowering the government. We need some fresh thinking on non-military humanitarian intervention, as the strategic cultures of Britain and the US, judging by Brown's prescriptions, are still focused on oscillations between military intervention and sanctions. What happened to soft power?

Marine Energy

noreply@blogger.com (Frank) — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:11:00 +0000

The Economist looks at British investment in wave power energy facilities:

British sea power
Sep 20th 2007

"The British have always looked to the sea to protect them from the earth's dangers. The ocean is a handy deterrent to foreign armies, but it is useful for other things too. In the midst of the energy crisis of the 1970s, there was much talk that marine energy would let its possessors break free of OPEC. With the arrival of North Sea oil, marine energy was forgotten. But 35 years later, with North Sea oil in decline, climate change a big issue and wind farms facing lengthy planning delays, sea power is back on the agenda.

On September 17th the government announced that planning permission had been given for Wave Hub, a £28m project off the north Cornish coast that will provide a sea-floor “socket” allowing wave-power generators to get their electricity back to shore. The South West Regional Development Agency (SWRDA), a quango which will part-fund the project, has high hopes. Four firms are planning to connect their machines, forming what officials hope will be the world's biggest wave farm, with 30 machines supplying up to 20 megawatts of power. An existing wave-power project in the Orkney islands is set to expand, and officials are studying a multi-billion-pound private-sector plan to harness the tides near the mouth of the river Severn.

Marine energy, and especially wave power, is still an immature technology. Many designs concentrate on surviving the fury of ocean storms rather than maximising energy production. Nor is it cheap. Firms are coy about giving precise figures but the Carbon Trust, a government-funded green consultancy, reckoned the price a year ago was between 22p and 25p per kilowatt hour—around nine times the price of gas-fired electricity.

Boosters argue that technology and mass production will bring costs down. British officials seem to agree. Having noticed the success of the Danes in developing their wind-turbine industry, both the SWRDA and the Scottish Executive want to do the same for ocean power.

Geography is one advantage: rough seas and big tides make the British isles one of the best places in the world for sea power. The Carbon Trust believes that, in theory, sea power could provide 20% of the country's electricity. There is engineering expertise, notably in Aberdeen, where the offshore oil industry has been installing complex machinery in rough seas for decades. The International Energy Agency thinks that Britain is pursuing more marine-power designs (29) than any other country (America, with 13, is second). Scotland already boasts the European Marine Energy Centre, a research outfit, an advantage the West Country hopes to counteract by spending £15m on a similar organisation attached to the universities of Exeter and Plymouth.

The economics are more complicated. David Weaver, the chief executive of Oceanlinx, one of the firms planning to use the Wave Hub, argues that Britain's liberalised and transparent power markets make life easier for newcomers, although others argue that fluctuating power prices make planning tricky. Subsidies are more generous in countries such as Portugal, which is keen on building a marine-power sector of its own and offers extra cash to less mature technologies.

Not everyone is enthusiastic. When the Wave Hub was announced, Cornish surfers worried that it might make their tubes less gnarly. Others are more concerned about the price. Mr Edge reckons that the Danes spent around £1 billion creating their wind-turbine industry. Setting up a British marine-power sector will cost a similar amount, he says—a big jump from the £28m Wave Hub."

More Ethical Divestment

noreply@blogger.com (Frank) — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:06:00 +0000

Jim Mather, the Enterprise Minister, today announces he is to move his £350,000 of shares into a blind trust to avoid a conflict of interest. This is what he should have done upon assuming his ministerial position, not nearly 5 months later and then only under media pressure. Donald Dewar moved all his shares into a blind trust upon being first elected to government as Scottish Secretary, preventing him from these accusations of a conflict of interest. I find it amazing neither Mr Mather nor Mr Stevenson thought their failure to do so would matter.

Indeed, Mr Mather sums it up best himself:

"The reality is that for those of us who hold portfolios that are as wide-ranging as enterprise, energy and tourism, it is very hard to hold shares in anything that doesn't impinge upon our work."

Still wonder why the Herald isn’t covering this at all…

Ethical Divestment

noreply@blogger.com (Frank) — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:29:00 +0000

Well, what a day. My tipoff to the Scotsman and the Herald two days ago about Stewart Stevenson's possession of £30,000 of shares in ScottishPower is today's front headline of the Scotsman. Stevenson decided to sell the shares last night, after insisting there was no conflict between his role in shaping energy policy and his financial interests in a major energy company which had just won a £200m contract from his ministry in the Scottish Government.

I wonder why only the Scotsman decided to run with this story, as I informed both the Scotsman and Herald news desks of the conflict of interest at the same time. The Scottish Government is still clearly on its honeymoon with the Herald. I would have thought any reporter would leap on a conflict of interest story, whether it be regarding a councillor, MSP, MEP or MP.

In Stevenson's announcement, he says he is to also sell shares in another energy company called Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE). These shares were not disclosed on his register of interests as of yesterday.

Clarity in Brussels, Confusion in Bute House

noreply@blogger.com (Frank) — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:26:00 +0000

EU Commissioner Joe Borg:

"On the issue concerning Scotland's independence, that's not my competence to assess or to evaluate but if, for one moment, we were to assume that Scotland gained independence and therefore is eligible as a new member state for the European Union, I would see that, legally speaking, the continuation of the membership would remain with the rest of the UK - less Scotland. And, therefore, Scotland, as a newly independent state, would have to apply for membership."

Spokesman for Alex Salmond:

"The reality is very clear, and was expressed by the late Robin Cook, when foreign secretary, in his statement that an independent Scotland would remain a member of the EU: 'It's in the nature of the European Union, it welcomes all comers and Scotland would be a member'.

"When we have recently welcomed Romania and Bulgaria into full EU membership, how could it be otherwise for resource-rich Scotland?"

Jim Mather MSP:

"We are an incumbent member state - what about England having to re-apply?"

Out of these three individuals, who is the most qualified to state the EU position on the accession of an independent Scotland?

Scotland will have to reapply to join the EU upon leaving the UK, as the UK as a political entity belongs to the EU and Scotland is no longer part of that political entity. England won't have to reapply because England is still in the UK, which answers Mr Mather's question.

The spokesman for Alex Salmond is a bit more nuanced - he states that it is likely that Scotland would gain EU membership, but, again, obfuscates the fact that there is an application process involved. We will not become a separate member of the EU the day after independence, as one SNP poster promised.

Leaving the UK also means leaving the EU. This exposes Scotland to all the high external tariffs on trade with the EU (by far Scotland's biggest trading partner) that continue to restrict economic growth in Africa. These tariffs will severely damage the Scottish economy at a time when we need economic stability most. This will also be a time when the economic unviability of the SNP's economic plan for Scotland (high public expenditure - no bad thing - but with insufficiently low taxes to cover public spending)becomes clear. In addition, we will lose the EU agricultural and other grants that the Scottish economy needs - Scottish farmers have received £115m in EU grants over the last 5 years.

If we can take the EU's treatment of the 10 new member states and Turkey as custom, Scotland will have to negotiate to enter the EU, which can take months or years, but probably months in Scotland's case. As part of the application process, our democratic credentials and financial health will be assessed. I have no doubt we would pass the democracy test with flying colours, but I am less certain about the financial health test for the reasons above.

Once the EU and Scotland agree that Scotland can join, we may have to face a 10 year wait until we actually join, as the 10 new member states and Turkey are currently facing. That's 10 years of high external tariffs and no financial support from the EU, which will have a deeply negative impact on Scottish growth and financial stability.

The saddening thing is that Salmond and the SNP leadership, deep down, know all this is true. Yet they are promising the Scottish people things they can't deliver, such as joining the EU overnight. I'm going to believe that Jim Mather is deliberately distorting the reality of an independent Scotland and the EU, as it is too astounding to consider that he genuinely believes that England, remaining in Britain, will somehow not remain in the EU if Scotland leaves.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1497442007

Tory Report: Quality of Life Better under Labour

noreply@blogger.com (Frank) — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:44:00 +0000

The recent "Blueprint for a Green Economy" report unveiled by the Tories (but where are the policies?) agrees that the quality of life in Britain both under Callaghan and Blair was better than under Thatcher and Major.

"Blueprint for a Green Economy,'' a report commissioned by Conservative leader David Cameron, suggests that alongside gross domestic product, the standard scale of a country's success, the U.K. should use a gauge called the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare.

A graph in the report shows the measure reaching a record in 1976 under Labour Prime Minister James Callaghan, whose three-year tenure was marked by rampant inflation and labor strife. It falls to a 30-year low under Margaret Thatcher, who championed wealth creation as Conservative prime minister in the 1980s, before rising again under Labour's Tony Blair."

Here's the link.

Saving Sudan: A Return to Humanitarian Multilateralism

noreply@blogger.com (Frank) — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 08:34:00 +0000

UN Security Council Resolution 1769, passed July 31st, authorises the UN to send 20,000 peacekeeping troops to the Darfur region of Sudan to assist the African Union peacekeepers there. It is great to see the cooperation between Brown and Sarkozy to ensure this deployment, and some action finally being taken on Sudan. Working through the UN gives this mission a legitimacy that a unilateral approach lacks. Let's hope this will stabilise Darfur, and that UN peacekeepers can continue to be deployed further out in Sudan as needed.

Conflict of Interest at Heart of SNP Energy Decisionmaking

noreply@blogger.com (Frank) — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:19:00 +0000

I just found this on Ridiculous Politics. Stewart Stevenson, the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Minister, owns shares in Iberdola-Scottish Power.

"Iberdola-Scottish Power recently took over Scottish Power, a company that supplies a significant number of Scottish homes and businesses with electricty. The company's corporate vision is to "increase our renewable energy capacity in the UK to 1,000 MW by 2010" and aims to be "a world leader in renewables".

And who is the Minister in the Scottish Executive responsible for promoting renewable energy capacity in Scotland? Step forward, Mr Stevenson."

It is unbelievable that this is the first I've read of this, and that this hasn't been reported in any newspapers. Stevenson will be making decisions as a government minister that directly affect his business interests.

Here is the letter I sent to the news desks at the Herald and Scotsman:

"Stewart Stevenson MSP, the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and
Climate Change, is responsible for energy issues and supply in the
Scottish Government. His role is within the Finance and Sustainable
Development Ministry, which lists one of its responsibilities as
"Energy". He owns shares in Iberdrola-Scottish Power. You can see
these shares on his Register of Interests here:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/membersPages/stewart_stevenson/roi.htm

The Iberdrola-Scottish Power website outlines one of its aims as:
"...having 10% (1,000MW) of generated electricity come from renewable
sources by 2010. This will be achieved primarily through the building
and acquisition of windfarms, but also by investing in biomass and
other emerging technologies such as wave power." (link:
http://www.scottishpower.com/EnergyWholesale.htm)

This means Stewart Stevenson is making decisions as Government
Minister that affect his financial interests."

On top of this, Scottish Power just won the contract for a major new wind farm in Dumfries.

"ScottishPower was today granted final planning consent by the new Scottish Government for Harestanes windfarm, a project of up to 213 MW capacity in Dumfries and Galloway. The £200 million, 71 turbine project will provide enough green energy for approximately 120,000 homes."

We desperately need some scrutiny as to how Scottish Power won this contract. Stevenson should have moved both his shares in Bank of Scotland and Iberdrola-Scottish Power into a blind trust upon assuming his Ministerial job - why hasn't he? The value of his shares will have definitely risen with Scottish Power's acquisition of this contract from his office.

The Drums of War

noreply@blogger.com (Frank) — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 09:16:00 +0000

The Observer analyses the recent incursion of 8 Israeli planes into Syrian territory, and gives weight to Robert Fisk's article on September 1 that Israel are preparing for another war with Hizbullah in Lebanon.

"(Leaks from US officials) also combined a series of neoconservative foreign policy concerns: that North Korea was not being properly monitored in the deal struck for its nuclear disarmament and was off-loading its material to Iran and Syria, both of which in turn were helping to rearm Hizbollah.

Underlying all the accusations was a suggestion that recalled the bogus intelligence claims that led to the war against Iraq: that the three countries might be collaborating to supply an unconventional weapon to Hizbollah."

Letter Published in Today's Scotsman

noreply@blogger.com (Frank) — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:54:00 +0000

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/letters.cfm?id=1478502007

The letter is the "Population Control" post on this blog. It has been given a title by the Scotsman: "SNP's contradictory stance on Union and EU membership defies all logic"

Mission Accomplished - 4 Years Later...

noreply@blogger.com (Frank) — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 10:08:00 +0000

The Daily Kos leads today with an analysis of Bush's national television address last night. He fumbled the Republican strategy of presenting the Petraeus Report as the nonpartisan, technocratic opinions of the generals ("who know best"), when it is officially the White House's own report to which Petraeus has been invited to contribute.

"The Republicans Are All In

by Devilstower

Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 10:34:06 PM PDT

Last night Bush went on television to explain how driving the world's greatest military to the point of destruction was his definition of success. Faced with reducing the current escalation only because there are no more troops and equipment available, he painted this not only a victory, but one in which he invited others to share. I think it's safe to say that Democrats will not be rushing to celebrate damage to our military that no foreign enemy could have accomplished. Republicans only wish Bush had kept his mouth shut.

Some key Hill Republicans, in fact, were upset that he returned front and center on the issue at a time when the White House had so carefully ceded the selling of the surge to Petraeus and Crocker. "Why would he threaten the momentum we have?" says one frustrated Capitol Hill Republican strategist with ties to the G.O.P. leadership. "You have an unpopular President going onto prime time television, interrupting Americans' TV programs, to remind them of why they don't like him."

Bush did more than remind the American people that this is his war, and that in supporting this war, the Repubicans are placing loyalty to the worst president in history above any demands of decency or common sense. In his speech, Bush raised the stakes of his long-shot gamble.

In the life of all free nations, there come moments that decide the direction of a country and reveal the character of its people.

Do you smell that? That's the odor of every possible bridge being burned. By supporting Bush now, Republicans are supporting the idea that Iraq is more than just a miserable conflict, badly planned and horribly executed. They're buying the idea that America is defined by what happens in Iraq.

In supporting Bush, they are placing every chip on the table, and accepting that they can never draw them back. You can not accept this cause as the cause and change your mind later. The Republicans are absolutely invested in this war. They hold only a 7-2 off suit, but they are all in.

Now all that is wanting is someone to call their hand.

This is another indicator that the next President will be a Democrat, with Iraq probably being the defining theme of the 2008 campaigns. Another indicator is the departure of Ken Mehlman, RNC Chair of the 2004 election, to advise a New York hedge fund on dealing with a Democratic White House and Congress.

The Economist looks at the influence of Iraq in Western politics this week, and asks why the anti-war movement has become so influential in the US yet nearly disappeared in Britain. It argues that "Britain's steady withdrawal from Iraq has also played a role in dampening active dissent. Why march to bring the boys home when Gordon Brown, the prime minister, is already expected to cut the forces in the field?" Its also important to bear in mind that this is the reverse of what is happening in the US: confronted with a failed strategy, Brown isn't ordering a "surge" as a last gamble with British lives for the sake of his reputation.

I marched against the war twice in 2003, and am happy to see the British troops being pulled out. Both Clinton and Obama promise that if they are elected, the US will be out of Iraq entirely by mid-2008. The sooner the better.

Foreign Investment Update

noreply@blogger.com (Frank) — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:58:00 +0000

Scotland scores bigger and smarter in European Inward Investment Results

European Investment Monitor Report Published at La Baule

Today's (28th June 2007) release of the European Investment Monitor (EIM) report for 2006, which records foreign investment flows in Europe, has shown a 22% rise in the total number of projects that came to the UK, of which Scotland gained an increased share, particularly in larger scale projects in the services sector and in R&D projects.

The UK was the most successful country in attracting inward investment in Europe in 2006 winning 684 projects. Scotland won 62 of these, placing it in second place in the UK behind London and the South East of England. Of particular note, based on the available EIM data, is the number of projects of scale that Scotland has secured, winning over 25% of all projects coming into the UK which individually created 250 jobs or more.

Scotland also won more R&D projects than at any time over the previous six years. In 2006 Scotland secured 12 R&D projects out of a UK total of 47, equalling the number won by first placed London and the South East for the first time.

The EIM report findings were announced today at the La Baule World Investment Conference in France at which Scotland has been selected as a guest of honour. The focus of this year's conference is 'Green Technologies and Services' - highlighting the link between environmental awareness and responsibility, and Europe's capacity and potential to attract and develop green technologies, investments, talent and capital.

Martin Togneri, CEO of Scottish Development International, is part of an international panel which will discuss the implications of the findings of the EIM report in recognition of Scotland's success in attracting foreign investment and the thriving Scottish renewable energy sector.

"We are pleased to see that inward investment in Europe is on the upturn since the market's global low point in 2003. I am also delighted that Scotland is winning a very healthy share of this revival.

"Importantly, we are also encouraged not just by the number of projects, but also the quality and sustainability of the investment we are attracting. The strategy SDI is pursuing puts particular emphasis on attracting high value jobs such as those in research, design and development functions. Provisional figures for the success of this strategy for the year ahead are also looking very positive."

We are the World

noreply@blogger.com (Frank) — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:11:00 +0000

A section from a large post on the Herald board trying to motivate a debate on how to improve social integration in Britain:

"I think the Scottish Government should launch a "good neighbour" campaign encouraging people to welcome newly arrived asylum seekers and immigrants into our local communities. Simply smiling and saying "hello" to a new face on your street can make a difference, you could even invite them in for a cup of tea if you're feeling particularly charitable (I would).

We should also ramp up funding for English classes which could be taught by all our local authorities, in conjunction with local colleges or universities. The Home Office could send letters to the newly arrived, if it has determined their English skills could use some improvement, e.g. not able to get by in employment with even basic broken English.

With that as one campaign, the Scottish and UK Governments can launch campaigns -"We are all Scots" for the Scottish Government -"We are all British for the UK Government". The campaign should encourage tolerance for people of all colours of skin and beliefs, and remind people that our asylum seekers and immigrants can, and do, have a valuable contribution to make to our economy and society - a point that I'm sure we can all agree on."

Realism in the Middle East

noreply@blogger.com (Frank) — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:40:00 +0000

This essay has caused quite a stir in the US. It was published by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, two scholars of the "realist" school of international relations - believing that rationality rather than identity should determine how a country acts in international relations, and that the foreign policy conduct of a country is primarily determined by its power status and position in the international system.

The article argues, accurately, that Israel is not helping the US (or Britain) in foreign policy objectives or in the war on terror, despite receiving $3bn annually of American financial assistance. The citizens of the Middle East can't believe our pronouncements of hope and democracy for the region when juxtaposed with Israeli state-sponsored terrorism in the continued clinical eradication of Palestinians and acquisition of their land through the settler movement and "security wall".

"A final reason to question Israel’s strategic value is that it does not behave like a loyal ally. Israeli officials frequently ignore US requests and renege on promises (including pledges to stop building settlements and to refrain from ‘targeted assassinations’ of Palestinian leaders). Israel has provided sensitive military technology to potential rivals like China, in what the State Department inspector-general called ‘a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorised transfers’. According to the General Accounting Office, Israel also ‘conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the US of any ally’. In addition to the case of Jonathan Pollard, who gave Israel large quantities of classified material in the early 1980s (which it reportedly passed on to the Soviet Union in return for more exit visas for Soviet Jews), a new controversy erupted in 2004 when it was revealed that a key Pentagon official called Larry Franklin had passed classified information to an Israeli diplomat. Israel is hardly the only country that spies on the US, but its willingness to spy on its principal patron casts further doubt on its strategic value."

The article concludes that we should treat Israel as a normal state in the Middle East, and cease our unconditional support for its activities, to detach ourselves from support for this agenda and improve relations with other states in the Middle East, all valuable prescriptions. However, a New York Times review of the article stated that this is unforseeable in the near future - support for Israel is too deeply rooted in our view of the Middle East to change policy. Nevertheless, this article is to be applauded as a valuable contribution to the Israel-Palestine conflict and wider policy in the Middle East. The authors have published this article to a heavy cost on their careers - despite being world-famous in their field of study, they have been banned from speaking at several universities.

I find it disappointing that all the American presidential candidates, Democrat and Republican, are resolutely pro-Israeli, as this will close off any debate on Israel during their campaigns. This makes the publication of this article all the more refreshing.

Population Control

noreply@blogger.com (Frank) — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:52:00 +0000

Copy of a letter I sent to the Scotsman today:

"Paul Henderson Scott (Opinion, 10 September) argues that Scotland has
9% of the UK's population. This means its MPs can be overruled in
Westminster and is taken as an indicator of the unsuitability of the
Union for Scotland. It seems a reasonable point to make, until you
explore that logic a bit further.

There are only 15 MSPs from the Highlands out of a total of 129, meaning with Scott's logic the Highlands get a raw deal in terms of political representation. We
all know the difference in culture, history and traditions between
Highland and Lowland. However, I see no political movement in the
Highlands using these differences as evidence that the Highlands be
independent from Scotland, and the UK. Sounds silly doesn't it?

Moving this logic in the other direction, the SNP plan for an
independent Scotland involves continuing its membership of the EU. Yet
Scotland only makes up 1.03% of the EU population. This somewhat
undermines Scott's argument that that is it unfair for Scotland to
belong to a political institution to which it contributes only 9% of
the population of that institution. On top of this, 75% of UK laws
come from the EU. An independent Scotland wouldn't have the ability to
steer the EU as Britain does, and would be much more at the mercy of
the whims of Brussels bureaucrats. Indeed, many of Scott's criticisms
of "external control", "the English" and their influence on Scotland
could seamlessly be applied to the EU. Yet the SNP are more than
willing to continue the European arrangement in their hazy view of a
post-independence Scotland. As we can see, the logic falls apart."

noreply@blogger.com (Frank) — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:26:00 +0000

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1444572007#comment953969

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1444572007#comment953854