I'm going to be blogging a little less than normal this week. I'm working on the next chapter of my dissertation and so time for other things (apart from study and work) will be limited. But because I have the issue firmly at the front of my mind, I thought I'd do a quick blog on the 'Banana Wars' and the legal issues it raised in the EU legal order.
Earlier this month it was announced that the Banana Wars were coming to an end. A deal was reached to reduce the import tariffs on bananas from Latin America, while protecting the traditional 'duty free' entry from those African and Caribbean nations with historic links to EU Member States like the UK and France (i.e. former colonies).
The dispute over banana tariffs had resulted in significant tension between the EU and the US, whose companies have important stakes in Latin American production. It has also led to retaliation on the part of the US with higher tariffs imposed on a range of EU products (from pecorino cheese to coffee makers). It had also been the subject of legal dispute between the largest nations in the EU, with Germany in particular resorting to action in the European Court of Justice to try to annul EU legislation on banana imports on the grounds that the measures breached the Union's international law obligations.
The EU legal order has traditionally been seen as 'open' to international law. International agreements signed by the EU in its own right, or in areas where the EU has assumed the powers previously held by Member States (in trade for example) become part of EU law. That means you or I can go to our local court and argue on the basis that a national law or piece of EU law is in breach of the EU's international obligations. The international obligation has to meet a series of conditions before it is judged to have what is called 'direct effect' (that it can be relied on by individuals like us in a court case) but these conditions are pretty much identical to those in place for legislation passed directly by the EU itself.
But there is one major exception and that is what brings us back to the 'Banana Wars'. In a a famous case in the 1990s, Case C-280/93, Germany v. Council, the Court confirmed that international trade law, first GATT and then in later cases WTO law, could not be used as a basis to challenge the legality of EU legal measures. This principle had already been adopted to prevent individuals from taking the EU to court for breach of GATT rules - the Court has ruled on numerous occasions that GATT and WTO law cannot be directly effective. But in Germany v Council it extended this restriction to actions brought by Member States themselves. This set the cat among the legal pigeons and generated page after page of argument and counter argument (much of which I've had the 'joy' of reading over these past few weeks.)
The basic position is that if an EU regulation is in breach of WTO rules there is no legal route (except in a couple of very specific scenarios) for individuals or governments to challenge that breach within the EU. This is to give the EU executive room for manoeuvre in the inevitable horse-trading and discussions within the WTO. Instead of a legal solution within the EU itself, a political/diplomatic solution must be sought. The Court of Justice does not want to tie the EU Commission's hands in any deal-making: if the Court declared that an EU measure was illegal, that would effectively bring negotiations to a premature end.
Although, of course, premature might a bit of an understatement. In the case of the Banana Wars the negotiations have dragged on for many, many years. And other EU producers have been hit as a result of the retaliation. A price has been paid by many for the EU's determination to protect banana producers in the former colonies. So is this approach of the Court the right one? On balance I think yes. A solution has now been reached, which satisfies both sides. The deal specifically compensates producers in Africa and the Caribbean. And that is not something that would have happened if the Court had stepped in all those years ago and forced the EU's negotiating hand.
Tuesday, 22 February 2011
Friday, 18 February 2011
The view on the doors
We've been getting some interesting reports back from the doorsteps on the Labour leadership issue.
The received wisdom this week, following the Mori poll in the Times showing the SNP edging back into the lead for Scotland's election, has been that the problem for Labour is that people don't know Iain Gray. Today's Scotsman highlights this particular factor with only a tiny fraction of Scots shown Mr Gray's picture able to identify who he is. The thinking goes that people are changing their mind on Labour because Labour's candidate for First Minister is an unknown quantity. There is an easy logic to this and indeed it is a theory I had bought into.
But over the past few weeks, we've been getting some rather different feedback from our canvass teams. The problem for Labour appears to be not that people don't know Iain Gray (which they don't) but instead that they don't like Ed Miliband, the new Labour leader in the UK (and therefore also their new leader in Scotland).
The roots of this go back to the UK election. Then, our canvass teams reported that many Scots rallied to Labour because of the Gordon Brown factor. They didn't necessarily think he was doing a great job, but they hated the way he was being treated by the metropolitan press. He was "one of ours" and the more he was attacked the more Scots reacted. And once Gordon Brown had gone there was a new reality - encapsulated by one voter in the memorable phrase:"Labour has lost its Scottish heart".
Perhaps that realisation is now moving to a new phase. It is not now a question of regret that a Scottish leader has gone. Voters have had time to make their judgement on his replacement. And they aren't liking what they see. And the real problem for Labour strategists is that this goes to the heart of an important strand of their planned campaign. Over the past few weeks across Scotland, leaflets have gone out from Labour for the Scottish election which focus almost exclusively (and in some cases entirely) on Westminster issues. Their tactic is clear: make this election about the 'fightback', make it the first step in removing the Tories.
There's a lot still to happen in this election campaign: plenty more time for voters to make up their mind. Leadership will be a central consideration, but perhaps not in the way many of us had first assumed.
The received wisdom this week, following the Mori poll in the Times showing the SNP edging back into the lead for Scotland's election, has been that the problem for Labour is that people don't know Iain Gray. Today's Scotsman highlights this particular factor with only a tiny fraction of Scots shown Mr Gray's picture able to identify who he is. The thinking goes that people are changing their mind on Labour because Labour's candidate for First Minister is an unknown quantity. There is an easy logic to this and indeed it is a theory I had bought into.
But over the past few weeks, we've been getting some rather different feedback from our canvass teams. The problem for Labour appears to be not that people don't know Iain Gray (which they don't) but instead that they don't like Ed Miliband, the new Labour leader in the UK (and therefore also their new leader in Scotland).
The roots of this go back to the UK election. Then, our canvass teams reported that many Scots rallied to Labour because of the Gordon Brown factor. They didn't necessarily think he was doing a great job, but they hated the way he was being treated by the metropolitan press. He was "one of ours" and the more he was attacked the more Scots reacted. And once Gordon Brown had gone there was a new reality - encapsulated by one voter in the memorable phrase:"Labour has lost its Scottish heart".
Perhaps that realisation is now moving to a new phase. It is not now a question of regret that a Scottish leader has gone. Voters have had time to make their judgement on his replacement. And they aren't liking what they see. And the real problem for Labour strategists is that this goes to the heart of an important strand of their planned campaign. Over the past few weeks across Scotland, leaflets have gone out from Labour for the Scottish election which focus almost exclusively (and in some cases entirely) on Westminster issues. Their tactic is clear: make this election about the 'fightback', make it the first step in removing the Tories.
There's a lot still to happen in this election campaign: plenty more time for voters to make up their mind. Leadership will be a central consideration, but perhaps not in the way many of us had first assumed.
Tuesday, 15 February 2011
SNP manifesto taking shape
Since our campaign launch in January, the SNP manifesto has been taking shape, both behind the scenes, and with a series of public announcements.
At the launch, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister confirmed that the Council Tax would be frozen for another two years, that the 1000 extra police on our streets would be maintained and that the NHS budget would be protected.
With the freeze, the government covers the cost of the increase, so families don't pay any extra on their bills, but Councils get the equivalent cash from the government as they would if Council tax had gone up by 3%. This means the money that would have come in from households is still available to spend on local services.
And with the NHS pledge, we are committed to passing on the Barnett consequentials from planned increases in NHS spending down south. We'll be setting out in full detail in the manifesto what we intend to deliver for the NHS and healthcare over the next four years.
And over the last two weeks there have been some substantial announcements on jobs and housing. On Monday, John Swinney and Angela Constance announced our latest pre-election policy pledge, promising to deliver 25,000 apprenticeship places a year for the next four years and an expanded programme to help young people into work with 25,000 training places. This new initiative is called Youth Employment Scotland (YES) and builds on the announcements made in last week's budget. The £40 million Youth Employment Scotland package includes
• 25,000 apprenticeship places a year – each year for the next FOUR years
• £20 million of extra investment in training for work places – ensuring 25,000 places for young people struggling to get into work
• Record support for bursaries by continuing the £10 million of additional funding this coming year to provide 50,000 bursaries a year for the next four years
• Powers for councils to increase council tax on empty properties to fund new house building
• Maintaining existing secured tenancies at affordable rents - the UK Government is diluting secured tenancies in England.
• Help for first time buyers by funding New Supply Shared Equity schemes and the Open Market Shared Equity Programme
• Housing health checks to ensure those in social rented accommodation are able to work out the best housing option for them
• Extended support for the Shelter Scotland Empty Homes scheme to identify empty homes and bring them back into use.
At the launch, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister confirmed that the Council Tax would be frozen for another two years, that the 1000 extra police on our streets would be maintained and that the NHS budget would be protected.
With the freeze, the government covers the cost of the increase, so families don't pay any extra on their bills, but Councils get the equivalent cash from the government as they would if Council tax had gone up by 3%. This means the money that would have come in from households is still available to spend on local services.
And with the NHS pledge, we are committed to passing on the Barnett consequentials from planned increases in NHS spending down south. We'll be setting out in full detail in the manifesto what we intend to deliver for the NHS and healthcare over the next four years.
And over the last two weeks there have been some substantial announcements on jobs and housing. On Monday, John Swinney and Angela Constance announced our latest pre-election policy pledge, promising to deliver 25,000 apprenticeship places a year for the next four years and an expanded programme to help young people into work with 25,000 training places. This new initiative is called Youth Employment Scotland (YES) and builds on the announcements made in last week's budget. The £40 million Youth Employment Scotland package includes
• 25,000 apprenticeship places a year – each year for the next FOUR years
• £20 million of extra investment in training for work places – ensuring 25,000 places for young people struggling to get into work
• Record support for bursaries by continuing the £10 million of additional funding this coming year to provide 50,000 bursaries a year for the next four years
You can hear John Swinney talking about the launch of this policy package by visiting http://www.audioboo.fm/theSNP. Our proposal for 50,000 work training opportunities is far in excess of the 10,000 promised by Labour on the same day through their Future Jobs Fund.
And, at the end of last week, Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Neil announced our housing policies for the election in May. The plans include a pledge to fund 5000 Council Houses over the next four years. Over the last 4 years we have funded 3,300 Council Houses compared to just 6 built by the previous administration between 2003 and 2007. Other proposals include:
• Maintaining existing secured tenancies at affordable rents - the UK Government is diluting secured tenancies in England.
• Help for first time buyers by funding New Supply Shared Equity schemes and the Open Market Shared Equity Programme
• Housing health checks to ensure those in social rented accommodation are able to work out the best housing option for them
• Extended support for the Shelter Scotland Empty Homes scheme to identify empty homes and bring them back into use.
This is good news for families across Scotland, and builds on a fantastic record over these past 4 years, including the construction of 15,000 affordable homes.
There will be more to come in the weeks ahead. I'll keep you posted.
Sunday, 13 February 2011
The caveman diet
When I started this blog just over a month ago my aim was to write a good bit about some of the non-political aspects of my life: dance, uni, fitness. But I haven't quite managed. So today I hope to redress the balance a little with a blog about my best discovery of last year: the paleo or 'caveman' diet.
The first thing to say is that paleo isn't really a diet in the sense of Atkins or the Cabbage diet or weightwatchers. When I say to people I am on this diet, they look at me oddly because I don't carry any excess weight. Paleo is more of a lifestyle than a diet.
The basic premise is that the food we eat today cuts against our nature. For millions of years mankind and our ancestors ate food that is very different from the food that fills most family fridges. The change point was the agricultural revolution. A diet that was based on meat, fish, nuts, fruit and vegetables became one dominated by grains and in the modern age by grains and processed sugar. The science behind it - and of course the science is contested - is that our bodies are designed to process some foods better than others. Our digestive system can't handle grains (gluten) or cows milk very well and eating high-carbohydrate foods causes damaging spikes in certain hormones and leads to inflammation (a cause, it is argued, of many of the 'modern' diseases: obesity, cancer, heart disease, stroke and even alzheimer's - again all contested). The caveman may have died a brutal and early death, but he died with good teeth and in good physical shape.
I am in no way qualified to assess the competing science, but I can reflect on my own experience. I tried paleo as part of a 30 day challenge, set by a crossfit gym. The argument presented was that I would see a big improvement in my sleep, my body composition and my overall energy and performance levels. I was sceptical, but within a week of doing paleo the difference was noticeable and by the end of the 30 days my energy levels were significantly higher, I was sleeping much better, I was leaner and was managing a whole series of 'personal bests' in my weight-lifting and crossfit workouts. And since starting in the early autumn, I have continued on paleo and it has been a life-changing and life-improving decision.
So how does it work for me? I eat only meat, fish, nuts, seeds, fruit and vegetables. You can also eat egg, but I've never been a fan of eggs. I don't eat processed foods and have avoided anything with wheat or oats or even rice. The couple of times I have had wheat - once by accident and once by design (Christmas cake), the reaction was pretty immediate and not very pleasant.
The downsides for me are that eating paleo requires a bit more preparation: I can't just pop in for a sandwich somewhere, and here in Scotland some outlets have absolutely nothing paleo on offer (Greigs being the obvious example). A friend from the States who was also doing the 30 day challenge spent a week in Scotland and when she ate out had the choice of salmon and salad or chicken and salad, which became a bit monotonous. One Edinburgh restaurant, which will remain nameless, even offered the classic line "we don't have any vegetables". And looking more broadly, many argue that paleo is an impossible diet for mankind to follow because we need grains to feed a fast growing population.
But there are plenty more personal upsides. I now cook fresh all the time and have discovered how to properly use spices. With paleo I also try to minimise salt intake so the flavour in my food is drawn out or enhanced by a host of new (for me) and different spices. I've also discovered coconut milk as a very pleasant alternative to cows milk (or indeed soya milk which is not paleo). I look forward to my coconut milk latte and coconut milk cocoa.
I've also started eating far more fish and a wider variety of fish. My old Scottish favourites of haddock and salmon have now been extended to include mackerel, trout, sea bass, snapper and herring. It's not that I didn't eat these before, but I now eat them as a regular part of my diet. I have fish at least once, and maybe twice every day. And it has also opened up a world of new vegetables and new flavours - squashes, kohl rabi, fennel, chicory - and I'd be surprised if there was a day when I didn't eat at least 10 portions of fruit and vegetables. The impact on my skin, hair and general wellbeing has been remarkable.
I'm not going to pretend that moving to paleo was easy or that there isn't still sometimes the urge to have that bagel or sandwich. The first few days were tough as I tried to fill the gaps in my usual diet. But if you can get over that first hump the rewards are definitely worth it. So give it a go. Try your own 30 day challenge: eat just fish, meat, eggs, vegetables (but not beans or peas), fruit (but not too much unless you lead an active lifestyle), nuts (but not peanuts) and seeds. Avoid cereals (including rice) and dairy. You can find out more online. And enjoy the new you.
The first thing to say is that paleo isn't really a diet in the sense of Atkins or the Cabbage diet or weightwatchers. When I say to people I am on this diet, they look at me oddly because I don't carry any excess weight. Paleo is more of a lifestyle than a diet.
The basic premise is that the food we eat today cuts against our nature. For millions of years mankind and our ancestors ate food that is very different from the food that fills most family fridges. The change point was the agricultural revolution. A diet that was based on meat, fish, nuts, fruit and vegetables became one dominated by grains and in the modern age by grains and processed sugar. The science behind it - and of course the science is contested - is that our bodies are designed to process some foods better than others. Our digestive system can't handle grains (gluten) or cows milk very well and eating high-carbohydrate foods causes damaging spikes in certain hormones and leads to inflammation (a cause, it is argued, of many of the 'modern' diseases: obesity, cancer, heart disease, stroke and even alzheimer's - again all contested). The caveman may have died a brutal and early death, but he died with good teeth and in good physical shape.
I am in no way qualified to assess the competing science, but I can reflect on my own experience. I tried paleo as part of a 30 day challenge, set by a crossfit gym. The argument presented was that I would see a big improvement in my sleep, my body composition and my overall energy and performance levels. I was sceptical, but within a week of doing paleo the difference was noticeable and by the end of the 30 days my energy levels were significantly higher, I was sleeping much better, I was leaner and was managing a whole series of 'personal bests' in my weight-lifting and crossfit workouts. And since starting in the early autumn, I have continued on paleo and it has been a life-changing and life-improving decision.
So how does it work for me? I eat only meat, fish, nuts, seeds, fruit and vegetables. You can also eat egg, but I've never been a fan of eggs. I don't eat processed foods and have avoided anything with wheat or oats or even rice. The couple of times I have had wheat - once by accident and once by design (Christmas cake), the reaction was pretty immediate and not very pleasant.
The downsides for me are that eating paleo requires a bit more preparation: I can't just pop in for a sandwich somewhere, and here in Scotland some outlets have absolutely nothing paleo on offer (Greigs being the obvious example). A friend from the States who was also doing the 30 day challenge spent a week in Scotland and when she ate out had the choice of salmon and salad or chicken and salad, which became a bit monotonous. One Edinburgh restaurant, which will remain nameless, even offered the classic line "we don't have any vegetables". And looking more broadly, many argue that paleo is an impossible diet for mankind to follow because we need grains to feed a fast growing population.
But there are plenty more personal upsides. I now cook fresh all the time and have discovered how to properly use spices. With paleo I also try to minimise salt intake so the flavour in my food is drawn out or enhanced by a host of new (for me) and different spices. I've also discovered coconut milk as a very pleasant alternative to cows milk (or indeed soya milk which is not paleo). I look forward to my coconut milk latte and coconut milk cocoa.
I've also started eating far more fish and a wider variety of fish. My old Scottish favourites of haddock and salmon have now been extended to include mackerel, trout, sea bass, snapper and herring. It's not that I didn't eat these before, but I now eat them as a regular part of my diet. I have fish at least once, and maybe twice every day. And it has also opened up a world of new vegetables and new flavours - squashes, kohl rabi, fennel, chicory - and I'd be surprised if there was a day when I didn't eat at least 10 portions of fruit and vegetables. The impact on my skin, hair and general wellbeing has been remarkable.
I'm not going to pretend that moving to paleo was easy or that there isn't still sometimes the urge to have that bagel or sandwich. The first few days were tough as I tried to fill the gaps in my usual diet. But if you can get over that first hump the rewards are definitely worth it. So give it a go. Try your own 30 day challenge: eat just fish, meat, eggs, vegetables (but not beans or peas), fruit (but not too much unless you lead an active lifestyle), nuts (but not peanuts) and seeds. Avoid cereals (including rice) and dairy. You can find out more online. And enjoy the new you.
Friday, 11 February 2011
Minority government: the unsung heroes and why minority government works
Listening to Alex Salmond on Newsnight Scotland last night, I was pleased to hear that his preference is for a minority government once again (this time of course with more SNP MSPs). This has made me reflect on my own experience of working in the Scottish Government from just after the 2007 election to just under a year ago.
This week there has been much comment about the success of John Swinney and Bruce Crawford in guiding a fourth budget through parliament (something that was perhaps inconceivable for some, or indeed many, 4 years ago). But what has not been mentioned is the role of the unsung heroes of the minority government: the thousands of civil servants who work day in and day out behind the scenes.
I know from my time with the government that Scotland is blessed with very many talented and dedicated officials: men and women who work hard to make our country run. Over these past few weeks the Finance Team will have been flat out, supported by policy and communications colleagues across portfolios. The final package presented to parliament and supported by parliament (the 25,000 apprenticeships, extra help for college students and the job creation support for small businesses, among others) would not have been possible without their efforts.
And over these past four years many other teams have played a crucial role. It would be unfair to name names, but I have no doubt that without them minority government would not have been so successful.
But of course the strength of Scotland's civil service is that they show the same dedication and commitment no matter the colour or nature of the government. In the days of the Scottish Office they had to manage with ministers in London most of the week. Under the last administration they had to deal with the more complicated negotiations within government that the coalition arrangements required. And if there is a new or different configuration some time in the future, we can be sure that the civil service will be doing all they can to make it work.
I believe though that minority government is the best configuration, for a number of reasons.
When we arrived in government in 2007 it was clear to me that the previous system had been clogged up and that ministerial decision making was too slow. From what I was told, special advisers spent their time negotiating wordings and compromises as the political side of things edged towards decisions. Cabinet papers took an age to agree. New initiatives became difficult to implement: restricting what could be achieved beyond the coalition agreement. The system, despite the desire and ability of the civil service teams, was not as effective as it could be. Coalition made government harder and slower, although of course it made parliament easier. The votes were (usually) already in the bag.
And for these reasons, minority government is better. Decisions are taken more quickly. There is a more coherent team around the Cabinet table and, inherently, a greater degree of trust between political colleagues from the same party (at least within the SNP). As a policy special adviser I was able to work on policy, not negotiation, which was a relief. And even though parliament is more of a challenge, the advantage is that the consensus when it is built, as it has to be, is built in this more public forum. Having a minority in parliament forces the government to work harder, because the scrutiny is more intense.
No system is perfect, and yes sometimes politics gets in the way of the right decision in parliament (minimum pricing springs to mind). But there is no question in my mind that minority government has, on balance, worked well. I believe it is a better way than what went before. It has been good for government and parliament. And while an SNP majority after May would be great, a minority government is a very acceptable second best.
This week there has been much comment about the success of John Swinney and Bruce Crawford in guiding a fourth budget through parliament (something that was perhaps inconceivable for some, or indeed many, 4 years ago). But what has not been mentioned is the role of the unsung heroes of the minority government: the thousands of civil servants who work day in and day out behind the scenes.
I know from my time with the government that Scotland is blessed with very many talented and dedicated officials: men and women who work hard to make our country run. Over these past few weeks the Finance Team will have been flat out, supported by policy and communications colleagues across portfolios. The final package presented to parliament and supported by parliament (the 25,000 apprenticeships, extra help for college students and the job creation support for small businesses, among others) would not have been possible without their efforts.
And over these past four years many other teams have played a crucial role. It would be unfair to name names, but I have no doubt that without them minority government would not have been so successful.
But of course the strength of Scotland's civil service is that they show the same dedication and commitment no matter the colour or nature of the government. In the days of the Scottish Office they had to manage with ministers in London most of the week. Under the last administration they had to deal with the more complicated negotiations within government that the coalition arrangements required. And if there is a new or different configuration some time in the future, we can be sure that the civil service will be doing all they can to make it work.
I believe though that minority government is the best configuration, for a number of reasons.
When we arrived in government in 2007 it was clear to me that the previous system had been clogged up and that ministerial decision making was too slow. From what I was told, special advisers spent their time negotiating wordings and compromises as the political side of things edged towards decisions. Cabinet papers took an age to agree. New initiatives became difficult to implement: restricting what could be achieved beyond the coalition agreement. The system, despite the desire and ability of the civil service teams, was not as effective as it could be. Coalition made government harder and slower, although of course it made parliament easier. The votes were (usually) already in the bag.
And for these reasons, minority government is better. Decisions are taken more quickly. There is a more coherent team around the Cabinet table and, inherently, a greater degree of trust between political colleagues from the same party (at least within the SNP). As a policy special adviser I was able to work on policy, not negotiation, which was a relief. And even though parliament is more of a challenge, the advantage is that the consensus when it is built, as it has to be, is built in this more public forum. Having a minority in parliament forces the government to work harder, because the scrutiny is more intense.
No system is perfect, and yes sometimes politics gets in the way of the right decision in parliament (minimum pricing springs to mind). But there is no question in my mind that minority government has, on balance, worked well. I believe it is a better way than what went before. It has been good for government and parliament. And while an SNP majority after May would be great, a minority government is a very acceptable second best.
The Power of Positive Campaigning
This is a blog I wrote earlier in the week for the Scotland Votes website. It follows on from some of my previous thoughts on positive campaigning:
I have no doubt that the SNP’s decision to adopt a purely positive and optimistic approach to campaigning was crucial to victory in 2007. And it was great to hear the Party leadership confirm at our ’100 days to go’ launch that Campaign 2011 will also be aspirational: that it will be a campaign based on hope, opportunity and what Scotland can be and can achieve.
Science and statistics back up this decision. An analysis of US election campaigns over the course of the last century tells us that on almost every occasion the most optimistic campaign won. Indeed the more optimistic the campaign was, the bigger the eventual majority. And the Scottish Election Study 2007 confirmed this in a Scottish context, with the nature and style of the SNP’s campaign in 2007 demonstrably attracting more votes, particularly it seems on the Regional list.
And pop-psychology should also give us a clue. If politicians make people feel good about themselves and about their nation, then people will in turn feel good about those politicians.
In 2007 I believe one of Labour’s greatest failings was to focus their campaign on fear and on doom-laden (and over the top) predictions about independence. If Labour’s campaign was meant to make the SNP worry, the truth is it made us laugh as we saw them blunder from one clunky attack to another. As far as I was concerned their approach sent a message – whether implicitly or explicitly – that Labour thought Scotland was not good enough. Quite simply, that was bad politics. And, of course, in 2007 Labour fought a referendum campaign while the SNP fought a Scottish election campaign.
On a personal political level it delights me that the opposition, once again, seem poised to adopt a similar strategy. They seem determined to (re)fight a UK election campaign when a Scottish one is called for: after all the Scottish Government is responsible for our schools, hospitals and police (to name just a few). And, perhaps worse than that, there is a relentless negativity already from the red corner: not just in the words that appear in the newspapers, something which of course can be warped by the newspapers themselves, but more importantly in the material that is now going through Scottish letterboxes or flashing up on our computer screens.
The contrast was starkly drawn a few weeks ago. With 100 days to go, the SNP announced a major new policy to protect funding in the NHS and Labour issued 100 tweets of alleged SNP broken promises (20 of which were misquotes from our manifesto, either words missing to change the meaning or sentences actually changed).
And even where there is a genuinely good suggestion and agreement, for example, over the living wage, the contrast between the two parties is striking. Labour present it on the basis of so-called SNP failure and in their literature hide the fact the SNP government is already acting. The Scottish Government gives a nod, at least, to the shared roots of the idea.
No party has a monopoly of good ideas and I think it is genuinely to the SNP’s credit that in government we have been prepared to work with others, whether political parties or outside experts: on the living wage (with Labour), extra police (with the Tories) or the removal of business rates for getting close to 80,000 Scottish businesses (with the Federation of Small Business). It would not have been possible to survive almost 4 years as a minority government without this attitude and approach.
This is all part of the same mindset. My experience tells me that what is said and done in the campaign carries on into government. I remember well the energy the SNP brought into the Scottish Government in 2007: the can do attitude of the campaign quickly infected the government machine. Campaign 2011 takes place in very different circumstances, but there is no question in my mind that a positive and optimistic campaign will benefit the SNP’s poll ratings. And, more importantly, it will deliver a second-term SNP government focused on what is good about Scotland and what can be made better still. Believing in Scotland is the essential first ingredient for any government that wants to make our nation more successful. The SNP has that belief in bucket loads, as our campaign will demonstrate, and that is good news for all of us.
Wednesday, 9 February 2011
SNP leadership team speaks straight after tonight's Budget vote
I was able to speak to Finance Secretary, John Swinney, and both the First Minister and Deputy First Minister straight after tonight's Budget vote in the Scottish Parliament. Here's what they said:
John Swinney on passing a fourth budget.
Alex Salmond on Labour's Budget hypocrisy
And Nicola Sturgeon on the importance of the 25,000 modern apprenticeships.
You can click here to sign up to the Alex Salmond for Minister facebook page, to see and hear more from Alex as we approach the Scottish election campaign.
John Swinney on passing a fourth budget.
Alex Salmond on Labour's Budget hypocrisy
And Nicola Sturgeon on the importance of the 25,000 modern apprenticeships.
You can click here to sign up to the Alex Salmond for Minister facebook page, to see and hear more from Alex as we approach the Scottish election campaign.
Tuesday, 8 February 2011
Being a new minister and a mum
I caught up with Scotland's newest minister, Angela Constance MSP, at the end of last week to ask her what it was like being a minister and a mum.
Here's what she told me:
Here's what she told me:
Monday, 7 February 2011
A 4 day school week - a cut too far?
It is with some amazement that I have watched Labour's education policy spill out into the public domain over the past couple of days.
Before going into the details, I must also say that I am pleased the SNP responded so quickly to confirm, if re-elected, that we would act to block their proposed cut in the school week. But I am getting ahead of myself . . .
First, a leak emerged on Sunday suggesting Labour in North Ayrshire was looking at the option of cutting the school week to 4 days. And then this morning, in trying to step back from this position, the Labour group leader told Good Morning Scotland on the BBC that they were also looking at cutting a whole year off primary school. We've gone from a day off a week to a year off in less than 24 hours.
This tells me two things. First, that Labour's plans for education are in a pretty chaotic state. And second that if they get their hands on power in Scotland we are in for some massive structural cutbacks in our schools. Whether it is a day off or a year off or something else off, this is bad news for pupils, parents and our nation's future. Last year Labour promised cuts 'deeper' and' tougher' than Margaret Thatcher - we are now getting a glimpse of what they mean.
This is a real wake up call for anyone who was considering voting Labour in May. If you want to help us stop this idea dead in its tracks, then sign the new petition. Be one of the first and then tell your friends and family.
And also, Shirley-Anne Somerville MSP has posted a great video comment on the Labour 4 day week plans. It is worth a look:
Before going into the details, I must also say that I am pleased the SNP responded so quickly to confirm, if re-elected, that we would act to block their proposed cut in the school week. But I am getting ahead of myself . . .
First, a leak emerged on Sunday suggesting Labour in North Ayrshire was looking at the option of cutting the school week to 4 days. And then this morning, in trying to step back from this position, the Labour group leader told Good Morning Scotland on the BBC that they were also looking at cutting a whole year off primary school. We've gone from a day off a week to a year off in less than 24 hours.
This tells me two things. First, that Labour's plans for education are in a pretty chaotic state. And second that if they get their hands on power in Scotland we are in for some massive structural cutbacks in our schools. Whether it is a day off or a year off or something else off, this is bad news for pupils, parents and our nation's future. Last year Labour promised cuts 'deeper' and' tougher' than Margaret Thatcher - we are now getting a glimpse of what they mean.
This is a real wake up call for anyone who was considering voting Labour in May. If you want to help us stop this idea dead in its tracks, then sign the new petition. Be one of the first and then tell your friends and family.
And also, Shirley-Anne Somerville MSP has posted a great video comment on the Labour 4 day week plans. It is worth a look:
Sunday, 6 February 2011
Why positive beats negative
One of the most powerful lessons I learnt in the run up to the 2007 campaign is that positive campaigning will beat negative. This only works when the positive message is strong and consistent: a mixed message, sometimes up, sometimes down, does not work as well.
I have no doubt that in 2011 there is an even greater public desire for politicians to engage on vision and ideas.
Why is this the case? First, negative campaigning is inherently inefficient. If a politician says service A is bad, that claim will only have impact if the voter has a direct interest in service A and a personal (direct or indirect) experience of the problem. But if the voter already has a direct interest in the service and an experience of the problem then the politician gains very little new. They are preaching to the converted.
Second, people want to hear about solutions more than problems. If a politician spends his time saying why something is bad but fails to say what he or she would do to make it better, then that is a wholly wasted effort. Constant carping is a huge turn off. The party or person who caused the problem may still get the votes if their solution is more credible (or indeed if their solution is the only one on offer).
And third, negative campaigns can come back to bite you. Two education examples in the west of Scotland spring to mind. A few months ago the Labour Party in Renfrewshire ran a campaign against local plans to change school transport: moving from more generous provision to the legally required provision. There was a hue and cry from the local Labour MSPs, until the neighbouring Labour authorities began to do the same. And more recently in Renfrewshire the Labour Party has been running another education campaign about class contact time. The local council has decided that when specialist non-teaching staff are in the classroom there is no need to have a teacher sit in the class at the same time. An example of this would be when the local priest comes in to take a religious education lesson. This has been presented as a cut in teaching: teachers replaced by "unqualified" staff. An effective and emotive campaign - perhaps. But one that has been fatally undermined by what Labour is doing just a few miles down the road. In neighbouring North Ayrshire the Labour Party is actually suggesting that schools move to a 4 day week! People aren't daft and they can smell hypocrisy a mile off, or indeed a few miles off.
And finally, negative campaigning can often miss its intended target and boomerang spectacularly. It seems pretty obvious to say that an attack has to have credibility. I laugh each time I hear Labour using the phrase 'the Salmond slump'. The only poll I have seen on blame for the economic crisis had the new UK government (Tories) and previous UK government (Labour) neck and neck on around 40%, with the Scottish Government (SNP) blamed by just over 10%. So by using this phrase Labour say something people don't believe and instead of behaving like adults and taking their share of responsibility they act like the naughty school boy. I have no doubt people want their politicians to be adults. And similarly, on teacher numbers. I remember, when I used to work on FMQs, that I would get all bothered by the Labour attack on teacher numbers until I met some post-probationer teachers. Yes they were angry at not having a job, but they didn't blame the Scottish Government. They blamed their would be employer - their local (Labour) council.
I have no doubt that in 2011 there is an even greater public desire for politicians to engage on vision and ideas.
Why is this the case? First, negative campaigning is inherently inefficient. If a politician says service A is bad, that claim will only have impact if the voter has a direct interest in service A and a personal (direct or indirect) experience of the problem. But if the voter already has a direct interest in the service and an experience of the problem then the politician gains very little new. They are preaching to the converted.
Second, people want to hear about solutions more than problems. If a politician spends his time saying why something is bad but fails to say what he or she would do to make it better, then that is a wholly wasted effort. Constant carping is a huge turn off. The party or person who caused the problem may still get the votes if their solution is more credible (or indeed if their solution is the only one on offer).
And third, negative campaigns can come back to bite you. Two education examples in the west of Scotland spring to mind. A few months ago the Labour Party in Renfrewshire ran a campaign against local plans to change school transport: moving from more generous provision to the legally required provision. There was a hue and cry from the local Labour MSPs, until the neighbouring Labour authorities began to do the same. And more recently in Renfrewshire the Labour Party has been running another education campaign about class contact time. The local council has decided that when specialist non-teaching staff are in the classroom there is no need to have a teacher sit in the class at the same time. An example of this would be when the local priest comes in to take a religious education lesson. This has been presented as a cut in teaching: teachers replaced by "unqualified" staff. An effective and emotive campaign - perhaps. But one that has been fatally undermined by what Labour is doing just a few miles down the road. In neighbouring North Ayrshire the Labour Party is actually suggesting that schools move to a 4 day week! People aren't daft and they can smell hypocrisy a mile off, or indeed a few miles off.
And finally, negative campaigning can often miss its intended target and boomerang spectacularly. It seems pretty obvious to say that an attack has to have credibility. I laugh each time I hear Labour using the phrase 'the Salmond slump'. The only poll I have seen on blame for the economic crisis had the new UK government (Tories) and previous UK government (Labour) neck and neck on around 40%, with the Scottish Government (SNP) blamed by just over 10%. So by using this phrase Labour say something people don't believe and instead of behaving like adults and taking their share of responsibility they act like the naughty school boy. I have no doubt people want their politicians to be adults. And similarly, on teacher numbers. I remember, when I used to work on FMQs, that I would get all bothered by the Labour attack on teacher numbers until I met some post-probationer teachers. Yes they were angry at not having a job, but they didn't blame the Scottish Government. They blamed their would be employer - their local (Labour) council.
Thursday, 3 February 2011
Who's getting rich from Scotland's oil?
First, some numbers:
And then a few more:
So just who is getting rich from Scotland's oil? This isn't about the future value of Scotland's oil or how many billions of barrels are left (and yes, we're talking billions in the Scottish sector of the North Sea). It is about what is happening here and now. Just look at these figures and tell me, who is getting rich from Scotland's oil today? And who isn't?
Is it right, is it fair? Damn right it's not. So tell me, what are you prepared to do to change it?
- the price of a barrel of oil is now back at the $100 level
- Shell today announced $18.6 billion of profits for 2010
- revenue from North Sea oil is now expected to be £2 billion more than anticipated a few months ago
- planned fuel duty increases will net the Tory government in London an extra £1 billion
And then a few more:
- Scotland's budget is being cut by £1.3 billion over the next year
- the UK Budget is to hit the poorest hardest according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, taking 5% of net income or around £400
So just who is getting rich from Scotland's oil? This isn't about the future value of Scotland's oil or how many billions of barrels are left (and yes, we're talking billions in the Scottish sector of the North Sea). It is about what is happening here and now. Just look at these figures and tell me, who is getting rich from Scotland's oil today? And who isn't?
Is it right, is it fair? Damn right it's not. So tell me, what are you prepared to do to change it?
Wednesday, 2 February 2011
What Audit Scotland said about the trams in 2007
In case any of you had forgotten, here's what the Audit Scotland report on the Edinburgh trams said in 2007:
Edinburgh trams
9. The Edinburgh trams project is intended to support and promote a growing local economy and create a healthy, safe and sustainable environment. The project is being taken forward in phases. Phase 1, the subject of this report, consists of a tram line connecting Leith Waterfront to Edinburgh Airport (Phase 1a) and a section from Roseburn to Granton Square (Phase 1b).
10. The current anticipated final cost of Phase 1 in its entirety is £593.8 million and estimated project costs have been subjected to robust testing.
11. The Scottish Executive has committed to provide up to £500 million for Phase 1a of the project and CEC a further £45 million. Funding for Phase 1b has yet to be confirmed.
12. A total of £79 million was spent on the project up to the end of May 2007, which includes £17 million to take the two Bills through the Parliamentary process.
13. Some slippage in the project has occurred but tie is taking action to ensure that Phase 1a can be operational by early 2011.
14. Arrangements in place to manage the project appear sound with: a clear corporate governance structure for the project which involves all key stakeholders clearly defined project management and organisation sound financial management and reporting procedures in place to actively manage risks associated with the project a clear procurement strategy aimed at minimising risk and delivering successful project outcomes.
15. The project is approaching a critical phase leading up to early 2008 when Cabinet Secretaries and CEC are expected to be asked to approve tie’s final business case. This will allow infrastructure construction to commence. A range of key tasks needs to be completed before the final business case can be signed off and unless work progresses to plan, the cost and time targets may not be met.
Remembering also, some of the Opposition quotes in the debate on the future of the Trams in June 2007:
Wendy Alexander: "The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change claimed that the costs were out of control, but they are not." June 27th Col.1137
David McLetchie: "The Auditor General has given a clean bill of health to the management of the trams project." June 27th Col. 1154
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)