SNmr

Mr Cameron's speech

2012-02-17T14:34:00.001Z

Once again, it's been a while since my last post!

However, I couldn't resist a quick comment on Mr Cameron's speech in Edinburgh yesterday.

It had some wonderfully crafted sections, with real poetry and some nice imagery. But, like candy floss, it was all fluff, with no real substance. And, after the initial sugar rush of sentiment, the hunger for change remains.

There was one section of his speech that was of particular interest to me - the Prime Minister's suggestion that the case for independence is weakened because many Scots live south of the border, and many English people north of the border. I lived in England for over 10 years and worried about the state of the English NHS and voted in local elections and cared about the quality of the school my (English) partner's son went to. But none of this made me think that Scotland should not be independent.

Indeed, I think the fact that so many Scots live in England and have built a life and a family in England should lead us to the opposite conclusion.

First, Scots living in England is clearly not an argument against independence. When I last looked at the figures there were, proportionately, as many people from the Republic of Ireland living in England as Scots - and clearly Ireland is not ruled from Westminster.

Second, it is also not an argument for closer union. The fastest growing and largest group of people now living in England is EU citizens. A UK government parliamentary answer in 2009 suggested that almost 900,000 people from the EU 15 states (i.e. not the new accession countries like Poland or the Czech Republic) live in the UK and Channel 4's fact check quotes an ONS figure of almost 1.8 million for 2008-09. So, if the Prime Minister's argument is correct, he should be telling us about the need for even greater European integration - which clearly he is not.

Finally, the reason why the PM has unwittingly undermined his own anti-independence case is that the number of Scots living in England (and vice-versa) is confirmation of the strength of our social union, which will continue with independence. What will end is the residency in London of the 59 Scottish MPs sent to the House of Commons (at a cost of £50 million). We will no longer have a political union which sees a Tory PM we didn't vote for, running far too many of our affairs.

The connections that bind us together as part of a family of nations will remain. How do I know this? Well, it was in the 1980s that Westminster lost its final legal power to legislate for Canada and Australia (what we seek for Scotland) and yet, this doesn't stop tens of thousands of Canadians or Australians setting up home in the UK. Add to them the New Zealanders or South Africans, the Indians and Pakistanis (and more) who live in and contribute to England. The same parliamentary answer I referred to earlier, shows 150,000 Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders living in the UK.

These Commonwealth citizens reside happily in England and they are proof that yes, independence means the end of Westminster rule, but it does not mean the end of the close bonds of history, family or residency that link us together. The fact that so many Scots live in England is proof, if it was ever needed, that the social union will flourish with independence.

Tomorrow

2012-01-24T18:00:00.001Z

Tomorrow is a day that will go down in Scottish history.

In 20 years time, as we look back on how Scotland became independent, 25th January 2012 will be seen as the starting point. The interviews to the media, the photographs from the referendum consultation launch, will feature in the retrospectives and in the history books. Those images and soundbites will become part of our nation's story, a well-remembered back drop: the sights and sounds at the very beginning of a process that will change Scotland for good.

This is the most exciting project that any nation can undertake. We have the opportunity to choose a better way forward, to choose the right path for this 21st century.

70 journalists from nations around the globe will be in Edinburgh tomorrow to witness events. They know something is happening in Scotland - they can see a nation on the move. I was speaking to one of them today. A man who has witnessed the emergence of many new, independent nations, and indeed, whose own country became independent in living memory. And he used a phrase that has stuck with me:

"Every independence movement has its heroes, men and women who perform herculean tasks for their country."

Across Scotland tonight are the men and women who will become Scotland's heroes. The people who will build our new, independent nation. Some will be at the coal face of government, working hard to ensure that on day one as an independent country, Scotland has everything in place, with the firm foundations we need to prosper and grow. Knowing many of these people, I have no doubt that they will be successful in this task.

However, the majority of our independence heroes will not work for the government or for the SNP. But, over these next two and a half years, they will be the people who deliver independence. They will be advocates and ambassadors for independence, making the case in their work places and on the doors.

And, they will have a powerful and winning message: independence will put the people who care most about Scotland, that is the people who live and work in Scotland, in charge of Scotland's future and Scotland's success.

No one is better placed to govern Scotland than the people of Scotland themselves. No one will do as good a job, because we have the greatest stake in making our country the best it can possibly be. It really is that simple.

Another one bites the dust . . .

2012-01-23T21:03:00.000Z

Another independence scare-story bites the dust, or in this case, more precisely, has been explictly denied.

The Independent on Sunday, quoting UK government sources, suggested that Spain would seek to veto Scottish membership of the EU. The parallel given was Spain's refusal to recognise Kosovo and the claim was based on alleged Spanish fear that Scottish independence in the EU would "encourage separatist ambition" in Catalonia and the Basque Country.

The IoS story has now resulted in what seems to be a stern rebuke from the Spanish Foreign Minister (translation provided via Google translate).

The actual position of the Spanish government is that the referendum on independence is an internal matter for the UK and that Scottish independence and the situation in Catalonia and the Basque Country are "completely different processes in which no parallels can be drawn (translation)". The story in IoS was "strictly false".

It shows how far British ministers are willing to go to try and misinform and, basically, scare people in Scotland. As the First Minister pointed out yesterday, this story was based, not on what Spain was saying, but on a UK government briefing. However, it's a big deal for the UK to have one of its allies forced to deny a story emanating from "senior Foreign Office sources" using quotes from "a senior UK minister".

This is the latest in a string of empty scare-stories from the anti-independence campaign. In future, perhaps they should all come with a special government health warning - "please take with a very large pinch of salt".

Our own voice and our own priorities

2012-01-22T18:11:00.000Z

The anti-independence campaign has shifted focus. In their sights, Scottish defence policy. Last week we had Tory Defence Secretary Philip Hammond, describing SNP defence plans as "laughable". This, of course, from a Defence Secretary with an aircraft carrier but no planes to fly from it . . .

Mr Hammond also wishes to spend billions on new nuclear weapons, replacing Trident, a cold-war relic designed with the sole purpose of obliterating the USSR, with 'son of Trident', a nuclear missile system designed, well, to obliterate the USSR. But the USSR no longer exists - you get my point. So what is the purpose of spending £100 billion on new nuclear weapons? It seems, solely to keep the UK's seat on the UN security council - £100 billion to be spent so the British Prime Minister can keep up the pretence of global influence and power. Laughable? Perhaps, if it wasn't so serious.

And then we had Labour's Lord George Robertson of Port Ellen, former NATO General Secretary, describing SNP plans as perilous, despite those plans being for a defence posture similar to NATO members and partners such as Denmark, Norway, Austria or Sweden. I presume that when he was NATO General Secretary, Lord Robertson didn't believe those nations' defence profiles were perilous to them or their allies. Indeed, as we saw recently, Denmark, a nation the same size as Scotland, flew, together with Norway, as many sorties over Libya as the UK. To put it at its simplest, what the SNP proposes for Scotland is what suffices for the UK's allies.

I saw a quote recently, which some attribute to Ghandi: "first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you and then you win". It seems very appropriate as we watch the anti-independence campaign unfold.

The UK government clearly doesn't have a clue about Scotland or where Scotland stands today. It seems a big part of their strategy, if they have one, is to try to talk us down, to tell us that we shouldn't rise above our station and do the things the big boys do. Have an army? Not Scotland, no. Although it's ok for Norway and Denmark, for Sweden and Austria. Have our own foreign policy, our own national interests and our own priorities? No, leave that to those who know best.

The problem for the Westminster government is that we've seen how they've managed our defence policy and how they have spoken and acted for Scotland on the international stage. UK government figures confirm decades of defence under-investment in Scotland, while we bear the risk of housing Britain's weapons of mass destruction. Decades of cuts, base closures and amalgamations. Soldiers sent into the frontline with inadequate equipment, maritime reconnaissance cover removed from Scottish waters, no major conventional surface vessels operating from Scotland. A smaller military footprint in Scotland than in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria or New Zealand. And I haven't even mentioned Iraq, yet.

An ever-growing number of people are realising that taxpayers in Scotland contribute more than £3 billion to the UK Ministry of Defence and that nearly one-third of that huge total is not spent here. We pay our fair share, and more, which means, with independence we are in a strong position to safeguard our bases, regiments and the appropriate capabilities needed for the 21st century.

They want us to believe that Scotland is too stupid to run our own foreign policy. That somehow we are uniquely incapable - a claim brought to you by the very same people who delivered the biggest foreign policy disaster in perhaps 50 years, yes, in Iraq. But don't worry there's another one beckoning as Mr Cameron puts Britain on the fast-track to isolation in Europe and, if his backbenchers have their way, withdrawal from our biggest trading partner, the EU.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating, because the anti-independence camp don't yet realise. Scotland isn't the same country it once was. Our eyes were opened long ago. We won't be frightened out of this choice. The more they laugh at us, the more they fight us with their belittling scare-stories, the more certain I am that we will win. Roll on 2014.

Nostalgia meets the cold light of day

2012-01-19T16:06:00.000Z

I was fascinated by Douglas Alexander's approach on Question Time last week. Not so much his demeanour and behaviour (as someone born just down the road, I always thought Bishopton boys were brought up to behave much better than that), but more the substance of his comments.

Mr Alexander's first line of argument revolved around the question: do we really want to break up the nation that defeated fascism together? He was referring, of course, to the Second World War. We owe the most enormous debt to those men and women who sacrificed their lives to protect this country. In many ways we owe them everything. Like Douglas Alexander, I was not around to experience the horror, the fear, the heartbreak, the courage or the indomitable spirit of those who lived through the war, I simply heard the stories second hand. But what I do know, intuitively, is that the Second World War should never be used as the basis for political point scoring.

Men and women who believed in the Union and in independence fought and died together.

Nations around the world united to stand up to the fascist threat, including some newly independent of Britain and some not. Even when Britain 'stood alone', the reality is that we stood shoulder to shoulder with, and fought alongside, people from New Zealand, Australia, the West Indies, South Africa, Canada, Newfoundland and India to name just a few.

And, have no doubt, an independent Scotland and an independent England would unite to fight fascism, or a similar threat, today, just as Scots, Welsh, English, Irish (including many from the south), Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, South Africans and more did 70 years ago. You didn't have to be one country to fight fascism 70 years ago and you don't have to be one country to fight for what is right today.

The political point I will make is not about the past, it is about the future. In years to come, being independent will give Scotland the choice to fight with others, once again, in a just war, like WW II, and allow us to keep our young men and women out of an illegal war, like Iraq.

Mr Alexander's second argument followed on closely from his first: do we really want to break up the nation that, after the war, built up the NHS and the welfare state? 60 years ago the London government was building these things up, with the full support and participation of Scotland. Now, they are knocking them down.

And this is not a sudden or new direction of travel. For 30 years the choice of Westminster politicians has been to move further and further away from the social democratic founding ethos of our welfare state. This may make uncomfortable reading for Scottish Labour supporters, but they know in their hearts it is true: not even 13 years of a (New) Labour government reversed the trend, it didn't even halt it.

The country being fashioned by London governments is not the one we "built together" after the war. Devolution has allowed us to save our NHS from Tory plans to dismantle the service down south. Independence (or indeed devo-max) will allow us to save the rest of our social democratic society. And it is a society and a consensus, here in Scotland, that is under grave threat. If you doubt this, just read the Spartacus report to see what is being done, in our name, yes, in our name too, to some of the most vulnerable people in our country.

The "what we built together" argument harks back to a Britain that no longer exists. Nostalgia, as an anti-independence weapon, will back-fire spectacularly. Because, once the warm glow dissipates, the cold reality of today and the future comes crashing in.

Yes, we fought a just war together and would do the same again, but we don't want any part of Westminster's illegal foreign adventures and horrific weapons of mass destruction.

Yes, together we built the NHS, the state pension, the welfare state, but today, the NHS is on the way out in England as Tories build on Tony Blair's 'reforms'. And does anyone seriously believe the state pension or the welfare net are safe in David Cameron's hands?

Douglas Alexander is one of Labour's top thinkers, but by asking Scots to look to the past he serves only to highlight the many ways Britain is no longer the same country. The post-war Union 'deal' has changed - against the will of the Scottish people expressed in election after election. The pace has stepped up, once again, under the Tories, but have no doubt the terms of the partnership have been altered by successive Westminster governments.

If we want to protect and preserve the things we hold dear, the things that reflect our values and our priorities, then independence is the answer.

If we see the contract we thought we had signed together, changing beyond recognition, is it not time to look for a new deal? To replace the old Union we have today with a more modern relationship that works for both nations as we move forward together in this 21st century?

Let London, if they choose, spend precious billions on new nuclear bombs rather than those same billions on better childcare or decent pensions. But not in our name. Instead, let the people of Scotland, the people who care most about Scotland, choose a better way. Let us learn from the past, and build for the future with independence.

Fair shares

2012-01-13T15:19:00.000Z

As the London media tries to play catch up on the independence issue, we are starting to see many of the old hoary issues resurrected.

One, of course, is currency. What currency would an independent Scotland use?

Scotland already has a currency - its called the pound, aka sterling, aka £. On independence day that will remain our currency.

Lets be clear, the London government doesn't have exclusive ownership. It is as much our currency as it is the rest of the UK's. Any suggestion that a Tory government in London will have to give us permission to use sterling is just absurd. Decisions on sterling's future use will not be for London to take unilaterally, they will be for Scotland and the rest of the UK to take together.

And what about the Bank of England, aka the UK's central bank? Some might argue that because a Scot created it, we should take ownership after independence . . . but that wouldn't be fair!

The UK's central bank is something Scotland and the rest of the UK own together - we must not forget that. This means the rest of the UK does not have exclusive rights to the institution, or an exclusive say on its future. The Bank of England was a private company nationalised after the Second World War. Scotland will be entitled to its share of this asset and, as 'part-owner', Scotland will be entitled to representation (something we don't have just now).

An independent Scotland doesn't start from scratch. We already have everything we need (or a share of everything we need). We are entitled to a fair and equitable share of the assets and are responsible for a fair and equitable share of the liabilities we have built up together.

What we won't have a claim to is those assets that nature has bestowed on the rest of the UK. The coal under Yorkshire or Wales was not put there by the Union. Scotland has no claim to it. And the Union didn't put oil and gas under Scottish waters, so, quite simply, the rest of the UK has no claim to that.

Thank you, Mr Cameron

2012-01-09T19:20:00.001Z

It's not often that I spend my Sunday lunchtime with colleagues from the SNP, but this Sunday the smiles weren't anything to do with the quality of the food or the conversation. It was all down to the interview the Prime Minister had given to the BBC earlier on Sunday morning.

It seems the UK government has blinked.

The mistake is not to offer the Scottish Parliament the power to hold an independence referendum (not that we need it). On its own that would have been seen as a constructive suggestion designed to protect the poll from mischievous intervention in the courts by those with the determination (and deep enough pockets) to try to stop the people from having their say. It would have shown respect for the mandate given by the people of Scotland to the SNP in May.

But what is a mistake, and a monumental one, is to try and attach conditions.

A party with just one MP in Scotland, that has been rejected time after time by Scottish voters, thinks it knows best. And thinks it can tell the Scottish Parliament what to do on timing, on wording and even on the choice that will be offered to the people. No wonder thoughtful Unionists, like Malcolm Chisholm think it is madness.

It is clear that the Tory Party doesn't understand Scotland. Their Westminster MPs don't really care about what happens up here. But one thing they do understand, to the point of obsession, is Europe. So let me explain, in language they will understand, just what they are about to do. And I don't do it to try and make them change their mind, but because the die is now cast: they have chosen their course.

Just a few months ago Tory backbenchers proposed a multi-option referendum on the UK's relationship with the EU. The referendum would ask people whether they wanted the status quo, a return of some powers from Europe or withdrawal from the EU. Can you imagine the furore if the EU Commission had intervened and said you can hold your referendum but only if it is a single question, with certain wording and within a time-frame that we, the EU, will decide? Such an action by the EU would have added millions to the 'UK independence' vote.

And as with Europe, so with Scotland. This is a decision for people living in Scotland: the sovereign people who have the right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs. We entered the Union as an equal partner and we have the right to decide our future in that Union: whether we want some of the powers we gave before repatriated (as some may press for) or whether we want a completely new relationship as equal, independent nations. The Tory government in London is entitled to make the anti-independence case, but they have no right to try to hijack the referendum.

Today, we've seen a spike in hits on the SNP website and numerous telephone calls to the office. Thank you Mr Cameron! I can hardly have imagined a better start to the New Year for those of us who believe in an independent Scotland.

The Tory government is showing no respect for the voters, the parliament or the government of Scotland. They think they can treat us as though we were their Eton fag. They act towards Scotland in a way they would not accept for themselves. They just don't get it.

20 years out of date?

2011-12-21T16:59:00.003Z

I've been busy in recent weeks getting the first piece of written work for my PhD finished. It is now in, I've caught up with my sleep and so back to regular, I hope, blogging.

And it is appropriate, for this first blog back, to focus on a subject that I am starting to understand much, much better than before: an independent Scotland's relationship with the EU, in particular the legal aspects.

Jim Sillars was in the papers yesterday talking about the SNP's policy on the EU and whether or not an independent Scotland would be a member of the EU. Jim Sillars was probably the first SNP politician I ever spoke to. I remember doing an interview with him as part of a school project in the immediate aftermath of his victory in the Govan by-election. He is someone who could, and did, inspire. I left the interview not yet persuaded, but perhaps with a few seeds sown in my mind. I've still got a copy of the interview lying around somewhere, if I can ever find a cassette recorder to play it again.

But back to the EU. Jim spends about a third of his article setting out why he thinks an independent Scotland might not be a continuing member of the EU. Somewhat ironically, given that he criticises the SNP policy on Europe for being 20 years out of date, the legal arguments he uses are themselves 20 years old and now very definitely out of date.

One of the most significant cases in EU law in recent years, dealing with the relationship between international law and EU law, was a case called Kadi. This was the subject matter of my Masters earlier this year.

Kadi was about a UN Security Council sanctions regime to freeze the assets of people associated with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. To cut a long story short, the European Court of Justice held that the measures to put the regime in place EU-wide breached general principles of EU law (basically Mr Kadi's fundamental rights) and were thus illegal, even though they had their origin in a Security Council resolution i.e. the very pinnacle of the international legal order. It was the ECJ declaring (or, in reality, confirming) the autonomy of the EU legal order from international law.

What does this mean for Scotland's membership of the EU? Simply, that the decision will not be taken on the basis of international law, state succession or the Vienna Conventions. It will be taken on the basis of EU law and that can be enforced by the European Court of Justice.

In recent years, there have been some specific developments in EU law that are of relevance. First, we have a new 'voluntary withdrawal' clause in the Lisbon Treaty. This, broadly speaking, requires either (i) negotiation or (ii) a minimum 2 year period, before a Member State can leave the EU. Link this to the Greenland precedent (whereby part of a Member State had to negotiate to withdraw from the EU) and you get the picture. It is not possible for a unilateral act of a single Member State or part of a Member State to result in the immediate withdrawal of that Member State (or part) from the EU. Given this position, to claim, as some still do, that Scotland would cease to be part of the EU on independence day is, if I can revert to political-speak, lacking in credibility. Scotland would continue to be part of the EU, and negotiations on voting weight, number of MEPs etc would be conducted from within the Union.

Second, the development of EU citizenship as a 'fundamental status' for Member State nationals in the EU. This is a fast-moving area of EU law, with cases such as Rottmann and Ruiz Zambrano pointing the way. It will be the focus of my second year of studies and so I will restrict my comments. However, again, I find it difficult to conceive of a situation whereby the Court of Justice would allow the removal of EU citizenship rights from 5 million Scots en masse. On Independence Day, Scotland will still be part of the EU and Scots will still be EU citizens.

A few final thoughts. First, Jim talks about the option of being a member of the EEA. However, the non-EU members of the EEA (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein - they are described as the EFTA states) have the vast majority of the obligations of EU membership but without the opportunity to influence those decisions. The EEA agreement, at Article 6, requires that the terms of the agreement are interpreted in conformity with the case law of the European Court of Justice, but the EFTA states do not have judges on the ECJ. Article 7 requires that the EFTA states implement EU regulations and directives relating to the single market, and again, those states don't have representation in the Council or European Parliament where that legislation is developed and decided. The implementation of the single market is where a significant proportion of EU legislation and EU case law is focused and to subject ourselves to the laws without the opportunity to be part of making those laws seems far from ideal (and indeed a significant loss of sovereignty). The EFTA states also make a financial contribution on the same basis as EU members, amounting to just under 3% of the EU budget. Indeed Norway contributes over €200 million to projects to reduce social and economic disparities in the EU.

The EEA agreement excludes fishing and agriculture and also areas like foreign relations and defence co-operation and the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (including the Schengen Agreement for open borders). However, EFTA members have signed up to Schengen. It is also important to recognise that in many areas outside the single market the national veto remains, for example over foreign relations, taxation and defence co-operation (and indeed over Treaty amendments). Scotland in the EU would not have to sign up to Schengen and would retain the veto over these other key policy areas and future Treaty changes.

Finally, and briefly, another misapprehension apparent in Jim's article is that any agreement on fiscal co-operation between the eurozone states would necessarily involve an independent Scotland. As I have written elsewhere, EU law makes crystal clear that Scotland cannot be required to join the euro and it is also clear that any further economic integration, if it comes, would only be required of the eurozone countries.

Saying Scotland should join the EEA may make a good soundbite or newspaper headline, but when you look at the substance and the legal basis for the agreement, it actually means Scotland retaining most of the obligations without any corresponding representation. I don't think that is a good option or a good deal. That's why independence in the EU remains the right choice for Scotland's future.

Don't do as we do . . .

2011-11-26T16:08:00.001Z

A couple of weeks ago, if you remember, there was a furore over whether or not the Scottish Government (a) had and (b) should publish, legal advice on Scotland's membership of the EU.

At FMQ's on 10th November, the new Tory leader, Ruth Davidson, said that the First Minister was "feart to publish the legal advice on an independent Scotland joining Europe".

Speaking after FMQs that day (and reported in the Sunday Herald on the 13th November), Iain Gray thundered: "The SNP has effectively taken out a superinjunction against the people of Scotland: not only are we not allowed the facts, we're not even allowed to know whether the advice exists."

And, not to be undone, Willie Rennie of the Lib Dems, demanded that "if the Scottish people are to make any kind of informed decision, we need clarity on the advice the SNP has received. If not, it will be in danger of losing the mandate it gained in May."

The day before, in Westminster, there was similar refrain, with Lib Dem grandee and former leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, pressing Scottish Secretary, Michael Moore: "Do you agree it would help to resolve the uncertainty if the Scottish Government would publish the legal advice it has received on this point so it could contribute properly to the debate?" Mr Moore replied, "that's a very important point".

So with all these demands by the UK government parties (Lib Dem and Tories) and their Calman partners (Labour) for the advice to be released, and being an inquisitive sort of chap, I thought I would see whether or not the UK government (a) had and (b) would publish, its legal advice on Scotland's membership of the EU.

I had a fair inkling that the advice existed, given that it had been 'leaked' a few days previously to one or two of the Scottish papers. And, of course, I had a special interest. Scotland's membership of the EU is the focus of my PhD: seeing the UK government legal advice would be tremendously useful for my studies.

So, earlier this week, provoking great anticipation and excitement, the UK government's reply to my Freedom of Information request popped into my inbox. Would I get reams of detailed and considered legal argument and sombre, thoughtful conclusions? Not a chance.

Here's the reply - with my emphasis added:

"Dear Mr Noon

Thank you for your email of 10 November making a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

You have requested copies of all the legal advice arising from Scottish independence including membership of the European Union.

In accordance with section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (information subject to legal professional privilege), I am unable to confirm or deny whether this department holds any information relating to legal advice on this subject. Such advice would be advice in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings, and is therefore exempt under section 42 of the Act.

Section 42 is not an absolute exemption; it is subject to the public interest test in the Act. There is a strong in-built public interest in withholding information to which legal professional privilege applies. The Courts have recognised that where a request is received under the Act and reliance is placed on section 42, there is a strong inherent public interest in maintaining legal professional privilege. In order to overcome that public interest there would need to be a countervailing public interest factor of at least equal significance that favoured disclosure. This reflects the role of legal professional privilege as a fundamental condition on which the administration of justice as a whole rests and the importance for the Government being able to obtain free and frank legal advice so that decisions taken are properly informed and legally sound.

Whilst we recognise there is a public interest in seeing what legal advice (if any) has been provided to the UK Government on the implications for EU membership if Scotland were to achieve independence, we have concluded that this is outweighed by the strong public interest in the Government being able to seek free and frank legal advice on such matters."

So there we have it.

For the Lib Dems and Tories, a clear case of 'don't do what I do, do what I say'.

As a footnote, I was tempted to ask Mr Rennie whether this response means the UK government is "in danger of losing" its mandate, but then remembered the Tory government (and its Lib Dem supporters) have no mandate in Scotland.

A compelling and simple case

2011-11-14T15:31:00.001Z

I've had a few people ask me about the legal basis for holding a referendum on independence.

With my 'PhD student' hat on I'll say that this is something I am currently looking at, and will report back with the results of my own analysis of the legal position at some stage.

However, with my 'political adviser' hat on, I'll set out briefly some of the existing legal and political commentary on the ability of the Scottish Parliament to test the public's opinion on independence.

At its most basic, the legality of a referendum will be determined by its purpose. The argument here is a simple one. First, a referendum will only seek to find out people's views on whether or not they want Scotland to become independent. And second, and linked to this, it will not seek to change any reserved law. That will remain the responsibility of the UK Parliament.

So here are some previous legal views on the referendum:

The leading textbook on Scottish Constitutional law, (Scotland's Constitution: Law and Practice, Himsworth and O'Neill, 2009) discussing legislative competence, concludes:

“A recurring hypothetical example with a high political profile is that of a Bill to authorise the holding of a referendum on independence for Scotland. Because its purpose could be interpreted as the testing of opinion rather than the amendment of the constitution, such a Bill would almost certainly be within the Parliament's powers"

Stephen Tierney, Professor of Constitutional Theory, Edinburgh Law School, Scotsman, 7 June 2011:

"The Scottish Parliament has authority to stage a referendum. The Union is a reserved matter under the Scotland Act; the Scottish Parliament certainly cannot unilaterally authorise secession. But a referendum question, carefully framed, asking the Scottish people if they would like the Scottish Government to enter into negotiations with the UK government, would seem clearly to be within the Scottish Parliament's competence."

Colin Munro, Professor of Constitutional Law, Edinburgh Law School, Scotsman, 11 March 1998:

“There is nothing to stop the Parliament arranging to hold a referendum, because that would not involve a change in the law”

Mark Walters, Associate Prof. of Law, Queen’s University, Ontario, Modern Law Review 62 1999:

“The Scotland Act 1998 confers broad legislative powers which are (apparently) to be exercised on behalf of the Scottish electorate; hence, a consultative referendum – even on secession – would not conflict with the policy of the Act so long as its purpose is to assist the Scottish Parliament in determining the democratic will of the electorate.”

And this is what the politicians have been saying:

The Prime Minister, David Cameron, PA Newswire, 8 May 2011:

"Prime Minister David Cameron told Mr Salmond he will not stand in the way of the referendum, and said he will reflect on Mr Salmond's requests for devolution of borrowing powers, corporation tax and the Crown Estate Commission in the meantime."

Scottish Secretary, Michael Moore, BBC website, 8 May 2011

"I firmly believe the Scottish Parliament, if it so decides, can proceed with a referendum," Mr Moore said, adding: "There will be the normal electoral rules that have to be followed and it will have to be discussed carefully with the relevant authorities."

The Scottish secretary added: "We could, I suppose, try to make a constitutional issue about where the powers lie or don't, but I don't think that would be a sensible use of anybody’s time.”

Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, Scotsman 12th November 2011:

“The ball is in Alex Salmond’s court. He is the one who has advocated Scotland becoming independent, so it’s really for him to suggest how he will hold the referendum and when he will hold it.”

The argument that it is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament to hold a consultative referendum (to repeat, something that in itself doesn't change any reserved law) was, of course, put forward by the late Professor Neil MacCormick in his article "Is there a Constitutional Path to Scottish Independence, (2000) 53 Parliamentary Affairs 721. Professor Neil summed it up well, making the point that this reading of the law is "as compelling as it is simple". I couldn't agree more.

Euro membership

2011-11-10T13:14:00.000Z

There has been much discussion among politicians and the press in recent days, including at FMQs today, about whether or not an independent Scotland would be required to adopt the euro.

As someone newly qualified in EU law, I thought I would take a look, not at the political arguments, but at the black letter law - what the Treaties actually say.

So lets explore the 'worst case scenario' put forward by Labour and Tory politicians: Scotland as an accession state.

This is the legal position on euro membership:

The most recent accession treaty (for countries such as the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia and Poland) contains the following provision:

"Each of the new Member States shall participate in Economic and Monetary Union from the date of accession as a Member State with a derogation within the meaning of Article 122 of the EC Treaty"

Article 122 of the EC Treaty has now been replaced by Articles 139 and 140 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). If you stop at this point, the argument seems won - all new members "shall participate" in the single currency. However, there is another step. We need, also, to look at what Articles 139 and 140 TFEU actually say.

These articles apply to all Member States without a euro opt out, whether old or new, whether accession or not. Article 139 TFEU sets out that "Member States with a derogation" do not participate in the single currency or monetary union. Article 140 TFEU then makes clear that euro membership is not automatic. In order to join the euro, a Member State has to satisfy certain criteria, including currency convergence as part of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM II).

So what are the rules for participation in ERM II? These are set out in the 16 June 1997 Resolution of the European Council establishing the Exchange Rate Mechanism and the 16th March 2006 agreement between the European Central Bank and the national central banks of the Member States outside the euro area. These make clear "participation in ERM II is voluntary for the non-euro area Member States".

So, in summary, the Treaties make clear that a Member State can't join the euro without demonstrating currency convergence as part of ERM II "for at least two years" and because Scotland (or any other Member State, old or new) can choose whether or not to join ERM II, we can't be forced to join the euro. There is a point of decision - whether or not to join the Exchange Rate Mechanism - which is ours to take, and if we don't join ERM II, we won't be joining the euro.

As a final thought, I started work for the SNP in the House of Commons and have huge respect for the House of Commons library and its highly effective staff. It is therefore very disappointing that they should put out a report on euro membership for an independent Scotland without referring to what the Treaties and other provisions of EU law actually say. I hope that mistake is now remedied.

When yes means yes

2011-10-26T16:15:00.000+01:00

Over the past few days we've seen some comment on how a two question referendum in Scotland might work. People are asking what happens if devo max gets more yes votes than independence in such a ballot?

As the First Minister has made clear, the SNP will be campaigning full square for independence in the referendum. He is also open to including a question in the referendum on extending devolved responsibilities. And the Scottish Government has previously set out how this would work.

In the model proposed in the draft referendum bill in the last session, the choice would not be framed as an either/or. This is where the misunderstanding (or refusal to understand) arises.

Instead, the consultation paper sets out that voters would be asked, first, whether they want the Scottish Parliament to have responsibility for all matters except defence and foreign affairs. Then, they would be asked whether they want the additional powers that would take us to independence.

This is the same approach as in 1997. Scots were first asked whether they wanted a Scottish Parliament with responsibility for health, education, justice etc. Then, as the second question, whether they - in addition - wanted that parliament to have tax-varying powers. The two options weren't competing.

So if there is a 2 question referendum on independence the approach, based on the 2010 consultation paper, would, in broad terms, be as follows. First, people are asked whether they want the parliament to have responsibility for the economy, welfare, energy etc (i.e. devo max). Then they are asked if they want the parliament - in addition - to have responsibility for the other policy areas that mean Scotland would become independent.

Going back to 1997, three-quarters of Scots voted for the Parliament and just less than two-thirds for the additional tax varying powers. On the argument being presented by the Lib Dems and others, this result should mean that because the 'parliament only' option had more votes than the 'parliament plus tax-varying powers' option then the 'parliament only' option won. That is patently nonsense.

I've heard some say that in the independence referendum the two options wouldn't be linked. If you look back at the draft bill, that's clearly not the case. And, given that many of these same people are describing the middle option as 'independence-lite', the obvious point is, you can't have it both ways.

Another Scotland Office boomerang

2011-10-24T16:21:00.001+01:00

The Scotland Office has published information today on Scotland's budgetary position within the UK over the past 30 years.

The press release from Mr Moore is headlined: 'Scottish Government must explain £41 billion oil deficit'. The claim is that over the past 30 years total spending in Scotland (including our share of 'UK services' like defence and foreign relations) has been £41 billion higher than total revenues, including oil and gas revenues.

An impressive piece of politics you might think? Proof that Scotland is 'too poor, too small etc' to be independent. But no, this is the Scotland Office, and it is an attack that has quickly fallen flat on its face.

If you look at the equivalent UK figures, the total UK deficit is £715.5 billion - and Scotland's population share of this is some £60 billion.

So, under current arrangements as part of the UK, over the past 30 years, Scotland has accumulated a share of the UK deficit equal to £60 billion.

As an independent country, we would have accumulated, according to the Scotland Office's own figures, a deficit of £41 billion. That is £19 billion less debt than we currently have as part of the UK.

Put it another way, the UK has burdened each and every Scot with additional debt equivalent to £3,800.

Mr Moore's latest boomerang attack is relevant to the independence debate in two ways. First, looking backwards. He has confirmed that Scotland would have been better off as an independent country: £19 billion better off.

And second, looking forward. Because he has told us just how much Scotland has actually contributed to the UK national debt over the last 30 years, we can now work out what our share of that debt will be, and it isn't the £60 billion from our population share. Instead, Mr Moore has helpfully lopped £19 billion off the figure that an independent Scotland will inherit. That means, on independence, Scotland will have lower national debt and lower annual debt repayments than if we remain part of the UK.

Once again, the Scotland Office shoots and scores a spectacular own goal. It must be the most costly press release ever issued. Although future Scots will thank Mr Moore, because he has single-handedly saved an independent Scotland a rather handy £19,000,000,000. So all I can add is, keep up the good work!

Looking forward to the FM's speech

2011-10-22T14:09:00.000+01:00

It's the First Minister's speech to conference today and there is a real sense of anticipation among delegates and members here in Eden Court. There could be as many as five overspill rooms in the conference centre for those who can't get in to the 900 capacity main hall.

I've been doing a bit of reminiscing, thinking back to my first SNP conference in the early 90s in Rothesay, where we all easily fitted in to the community hall. The contest with today could hardly be greater.

There's also a book on sale at the Scots Independent stall that has on the front cover a picture of all the delegates at a conference in the 50s and on the back a picture of all our current MSPs, and there are more MSPs today than delegates back then.

The speech is divided into 3 main sections. The first focus is the economy, jobs and training, with some good announcements that will create new opportunities for thousands of Scots.

The second looks at the pressures on family budgets and particular the impact of rising fuel bills. Again, the FM will have something to say on help planned over the next year.

Finally, he will talk about the constitution, setting out why independence offers the greatest opportunity and benefit. It is the right of the people of Scotland to determine their future, a point the SNP understands, but which it is not yet clear the other parties fully comprehend.

#SNP11

2011-10-20T20:10:00.000+01:00

I will be missing the start of SNP conference this year - a conference that is set to be the biggest in the party's history, with some 1,200 delegates and 2,000 people attending. The gathering will contribute over £3 million to the local economy.

But I'll be following events through twitter, with the conference hashtag #SNP11.

The primary focus of conference will be jobs, the economy and the pressures on family budgets, especially soaring energy cost in a land of energy plenty.

Conference will begin with the First Minister visiting Nigg to announce a major new investment. This sets the tone for the weekend and will be the first of a series of announcements or initiatives designed to support recovery and build future economic strength. It contrasts sharply with the UK government’s decision to pull the plug on the Longannet carbon capture plant.

Energy will be a central focus, with two elements: renewables allowing us to create more jobs and re-industrialise Scotland, and the confirmation that oil and gas will flow for ‘many, many’ years to come (in the words of David Cameron). With billions flowing into the London Exchequer today and billions more to come, we should be able to invest this wealth in boosting our economy, supporting measures like carbon capture and also protecting people from fuel poverty.

The constitutional aspect will also be focused on creating jobs, controlling our energy wealth and maintaining growth and recovery. We'll be proudly stating that Scotland has the people, the resources and the ingenuity to flourish as an independent nation.

Our vision for this more successful future is underlined by our efforts on training and education: 25,000 MAs, a guarantee of a learning or training place for 16-19 year olds and university education kept free. It is demonstrated by our action on offshore renewables as we work to put Scotland at the forefront of marine renewable technology.

We also offer a different approach, based on a social contract with the people (measures such as the Council Tax freeze and the living wage). This reflects our social democratic ethos and the values that are a central part of Scottish society and contrasts with the approach being adopted elsewhere in the UK. Together, these two elements – economic and social – underpin the sort of nation we want Scotland to be and know Scotland can be.

The first part of conference will be focused on where we are already independent and our record of delivery and plans for education, health and justice. We will also be asking people to consider what more we could achieve if we also had economic and financial independence. This would give us the tools we need as a government and nation to boost jobs and economic growth – to continue with the successful Plan MacB which the UK government will not follow and now threatens with its cuts.

And we will also be pointing to the clear additional benefits that independence over all aspects of Scottish life will bring – the ability to speak with our own voice in the EU and make the right choices on issues like Trident, where with independence we could decide to invest the billions wasted on nuclear weapons on pensions and proper universal childcare provision instead.

Conference will kick off with a big thank you to the voters who gave us their support in May. This unprecedented mandate must be recognised by the UK government and throughout conference, we will be making clear the steps forward that are now expected as a result of this historic support.

The people spoke in May – it is now up to us to deliver and the UK government to listen and respond.

A double standard on tax?

2011-10-07T19:04:00.000+01:00

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about the supposed "tax bombshell" in the Scottish Government's budget. At that time various papers, politicians and institutions suggested that a forecast increase in business rates revenue equated to an increase in business tax.

One such politician was 'Scottish' Secretary Michael Moore who thundered: "I am alarmed at the reaction that the Scottish Government’s Spending Review has provoked from the business community. In particular, I’m concerned at the fears expressed about the projected business rates and the significant risk that they could prove a major disincentive to new investment in Scotland. Scottish firms’ fears that they could be facing a damaging hike in business rates set by the Scottish Government must be addressed."

This got me to thinking, and to wondering what is happening to the business rates revenue controlled by Mr Moore's government? So I looked at the Office for Budget Responsibility's March 2011 Economic and Fiscal Outlook (table 4.7) to find that business rates revenue between 2010/11 and 2014/15 is set to increase by 25% - by Mr Moore's standard surely "a damaging hike in business rates"?

But of course, business rates aren't the only form of business tax. I remember CBI Scotland suggesting that what happens to business rates is an indication of what might happen to corporation tax, and so again I checked for Westminster's corporation tax increase. Over the same period, corporate tax revenues in the UK are set to go up by a massive 26% with a 39% rise anticipated for offshore (i.e. Scottish oil & gas) corporation tax revenues. By the same standard, surely also a Westminster business tax bombshell? But not a peep from CBI Scotland.

The original Centre for Public Policy for the Regions (CPPR) report on the Scottish budget got all its publicity by a double and treble counting of the anticipated extra business rates revenue. That got us the figure of £850 million for the so-called tax increase. So I decided to do the same for the UK, but this time, not just for the various taxes on business. How about working out the total tax increase proposed by the UK for businesses, families and individuals?

According to the UK government's official forecasters, the Office of Budget Responsibility, and on the exact same cumulative basis as generated all those lurid headlines about the Scottish budget just a few short weeks ago, up to 2014-15, under UK government plans, we will pay a massive £200 billion of extra tax. Not so much a tax bombshell, more of a tax tsunami.

But of course I know, and readers of this blog know, that a revenue increase is not the same as a tax increase. Indeed the increase in UK corporation tax receipts comes at a time when the corporation tax rate is set to fall by 1% each year. Further evidence, if it was needed, of the benefits of such a policy if corporation tax were devolved Scotland.

Small is beautiful, efficient and effective

2011-10-02T16:46:00.000+01:00

Former Scottish Government Permanent Secretary, Sir John Elvidge, is under attack today as part of the opposition political parties' attempts to criticise the work of the civil service here in Scotland.

The Sunday Express highlights a report written by Sir John, in a personal capacity and after he had retired, called Northern Exposure. The Express article is critical of Sir John for saying that the new structures of the civil service here in Scotland - based on an attempt to end policy silos and create a more joined up approach to government, both good things - are working well. The piece in the newspaper is also critical of Sir John's identification of, and praise for, the role of Scottish Government ministers in taking forward this process of reform and improvement.

I had intended writing a blog about Sir John's report in any case, regardless of today's press coverage, because I wanted to contrast the position here in Scotland, as set out by Sir John, with the position in Whitehall as set out by the Public Administration Committee in the House of Commons (in a report published within a few days of Sir John's report).

This is not a party political issue, or at least should not be. It is about good government, as the comments of former UK Labour minister, Lord Adonis, on Sir John's report demonstrate. Lord Adonis said: "[Sir John] also highlights the very radical change that he introduced as Permanent Secretary to the structure of Scottish government - an end to departments, a unified approach to government which was accompanied by a political decision by the incoming government to reduce the number of Ministers. As Whitehall goes through its major change programme, Ministers and officials would do well to reflect on the experiences John outlines."

The contrast is perhaps best illustrated through two quotes. First, here is Sir John on Scotland:

"Alongside a group of politicians who have embraced the challenge of forms of government unfamiliar to them, the Civil Service has also played a central role. As well as providing essential continuity of understanding about the processes of government, it has displayed agility and energy in assisting the adaptation of that understanding to fresh challenges."

And second, this is what Bernard Jenkins MP had to say about the equivalent Whitehall machine:

"As our report points out, we know that the Prime Minister's director of strategy and others at senior levels in the Government, are exasperated by the lack of progress and are apparently appalled by the 'custom and practice' of Whitehall and by the deadweight of inherited policy."

When Scotland's civil service is being described as agile and energetic, while the Whitehall system is characterised with words and phrases like 'exasperated' and 'lack of progress', is that not something that should make papers and politicians up here pause, and perhaps praise, rather than try to criticise?

And while, in the UK, the MPs' report found that "the centre of Government does not provide the necessary strategic leadership and a governance framework to enable departments to manage their change programmes", Sir John points out that:

"In partnership between Civil Service and political leadership, a radical Scottish model of government has developed since 2007, building on the learning from the earlier period of devolution. It is based on the effort to have government function as a single organisation, working towards a single defined government purpose based on outcomes, and establishing a partnership based on that purpose with the rest of the public sector which is capable of being joined by other parts of civil society. It rests on an ambitious conception of what is achievable through such a partnership between the public sector and civil society. It places strategic leadership and the facilitation of cooperation between organisations and sections of society at the heart of the role of central government, rather than a managerialist view of the relationship of central government to others."

And if you think the problems identified in Whitehall are new, just read Tony Blair's 'A Journey'. On page 205 he describes the civil service in the following terms:

"The problem with them, as I indicated at the beginning, is inertia. They tended to surrender, whether to vested interests, to the status quo or to the safest way to manage things - which all meant to do nothing."

As part of this blog, I try to get behind the words of the opposition politicians to try and understand their actual motivation. A generally good, effective and motivated Scottish Government team of civil servants is not good for their narrative, especially when contrasted with a cumbersome Whitehall machine. The opposition, today, are trying to persuade us that with independence or greater autonomy the machinery of government would be more costly - there wouldn't be the economies of scale that the Whitehall system supposedly provides. But the picture these insider accounts paint is very different. Whitehall is proving not to be good value. In the words of UK MPs and even a former UK Prime Minister, the system at the heart of UK government isn't working. Instead it is Scotland, with the advantages of size, short lines of communication and decision making, and the ability to create a responsive government, that is performing better.

We've known for a while that in terms of economics that Scotland is an optimum size to prosper and flourish. Now we are also seeing that Scotland is an optimum size to govern. Earlier this week the Guardian ran an opinion piece by Paul Kingsnorth called 'This economic collapse is a "crisis of bigness"'. In it he quotes Leopold Kohr, from his book 'The Breakdown of Nations: 'Bigness, predicted Kohr, could only lead to more bigness, for "whatever outgrows certain limits begins to suffer from the irrepressible problem of unmanageable proportions".'

That, it seems, from the analysis down south, is the problem for Whitehall. So if, over the next few weeks, you hear UK politicians trotting out figures for the supposed cost of running a Scottish welfare system or administering a Scottish tax system, know that their figures are based on their experience of a Whitehall machine that is cumbersome and complex. They will ignore the £300 million of extra efficiencies generated here in Scotland simply by making government work better, including making it more joined up. Take their attacks, as I know you will, with a pinch of salt, because as the evidence tells us, in the real world of government, Scotland can, does and will do things better.

A ghost of referendums past

2011-09-30T15:29:00.000+01:00

Just after the election in May I spent some time reading various academic analyses of the 1979 and 1997 referendums. In 1979, the 'yes' campaign was badly damaged by the refusal of the political parties involved to co-ordinate their activities and unite in a single platform. In 1997, the 'no' campaign was seen as the Tory Party by another name and it was weakened by the refusal of Labour's primary anti-devolution MP, Tam Dalyell, to become involved. He said he would do his own thing. The lesson? Campaigns that were divided, and split along party lines, quite simply struggled.

Much of the fuss at the end of the Labour conference has been over Mr Miliband's apparent inability to remember the name of one of the candidates for the leadership of the Labour Party in Scotland. But the really interesting issue to emerge over this past week has been the difficulty Labour are facing over the prospect of sharing a platform with the Tories in a campaign against Scotland's independence. I think I know why - but more of that in a moment.

First though, some news. It seems that today, a Conservative councillor in Glasgow has launched a 'grassroots' campaign to save Westminster rule in Scotland (aka the Union), with an appeal for unity across party political lines. The organisation is called, rather confusingly, 'One Dynamic Nation'. I'd have thought that a pro-Union campaign would have recognised that there are in fact four dynamic nations in the UK, unless of course they are kick-starting their campaign with an implied slur against our friends and neighbours in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The call for a united approach is interesting. They clearly understand the lessons of Scottish referendum history. But unity in the pro-Westminster campaign also presents a challenge for the Labour Party, and the problem is fundamental.

In a modern variant of the Lorraine Mann question, I can see Scottish journalists chomping at the bit to ask Messrs Miliband/Murphy/Alexander et al, as they sit beside Messrs Cameron/Osborne/Clegg, whether or not they think a Tory government in London would do a better job of running our welfare state or our economy than a Scottish government in Edinburgh? A Scottish government that is actually elected solely by people who live here in Scotland, and therefore, will be more in tune with the social democratic values of our nation.

Would these Labour politicians rather have Tories taking decisions on the welfare support available to some of our most vulnerable families? Would they prefer that a Tory Chancellor was deciding how far and how fast to cut spending (too far and too fast it seems from Labour's rhetoric) than a Scottish Parliament with a clear majority in favour of an economic Plan B? Do they really prefer even more Tory rule to Home Rule with independence?

By the time of the referendum we are likely to have had a Tory government for pretty much 23 of the previous 36 years, that's about 2/3rds of the time. Not great odds for a social democratic Scot who sees those self-same Tories slashing into the social fabric of our nation, into the things we hold dear. And for those same social democratic Scots, who see on their TV news and in their papers what is happening to the English NHS and police, and to the UK welfare system at the hands of the Tories (and don't like it), will also come the realisation that as just 8.5% of the UK population, it is not their vote that will be crucial in determining whether there is yet another Tory government in the UK.

This, above all, is the reason why Labour politicians are so nervous about sitting beside the Tories on a pro-Union platform. As I said in a previous blog, that picture will be worth a thousand words. The choices for Scotland in the referendum will be many and varied, but perhaps one rises above the others: in one vote we have the opportunity to do what Labour promise at each and every election. We can get rid of Tory rule. Not just for a few years at a time, but for ever.

So if Labour sit with the Tories they will be putting up in flashing lights a core weakness of the Union case. And if they don't then experience tells us that lack of unity is an essential element of defeat. This is a political conundrum for Labour that puts Countdown to shame - but don't expect an answer any time soon.

Facts are chiels that winna ding

2011-09-25T19:33:00.001+01:00

I see from today's Independent on Sunday that "David Cameron is to go head to head with Alex Salmond in a bitter battle over the future of the Union" .

It seems, according to the article, that "the 'quad' - Mr Cameron, the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, the Chancellor, George Osborne, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander - have rejected a more positive campaign in favour of an aggressive response targeting Mr Salmond himself."

The meat of the article suggests that it is not only aggression that will be at the forefront of this campaign, but once again inaccurate and fear-mongering assertion. Lets take the two examples from the piece.

First, according to the IoS story, the Prime Minister "believes the First Minister has had an easy ride and not faced enough questions on how an independent Scotland would stay afloat - and bankroll its huge pensions and benefits bill without raising taxes". But as I wrote a few weeks ago, the facts show that Scotland spends a smaller proportion of its revenue on these items than the UK. Scotland is better able to afford welfare and pensions than the UK.

Here are the numbers from that previous blog post:

"A quick calculation from the figures in Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland 2010 shows that in the most recent year social protection expenditure (which includes all the elements of welfare spending reserved and devolved, the vast majority of which is the reserved benefits system) was 42% of Scottish revenues, less than the 43% for the UK. So on the basis of taxes raised, once our welfare payments are made, we actually have more left to spend on other things than the UK.

The second, is welfare spending as share of GDP - as a proportion of the size of our economy. Again, the figures for 2009-10 are illustrative. In Scotland, we spend 15% of our GDP on welfare, while in the UK they spend 16%. Quite clearly welfare payments in Scotland are more affordable on the basis of both government revenue and share of GDP.

This pattern is repeated from 2005-06 to 2008-09. For each of the last five years, Scotland has been in a stronger position than the UK on both counts, as we have been, also, in terms of overall budget position. That means Scots are better able to afford the current levels of social protection than the rest of the UK."

Second, the article tells us "the gap between public spending and taxes raised in Scotland stood at £14 billion in 2009-10, and the country receives subsidies amounting to almost 20% more per head than England."

What the article fails to say is that in 2009-10, when you include Scotland's share of its offshore revenues, our financial position is stronger than the UK. We receive 9.3% of UK spending, but contribute 9.4% of revenue. Scotland's deficit was 6.8% of GDP compared to a UK deficit of 7.6%. And in the four previous years, Scotland generated an absolute budget surplus of over £2 billion, at a time when the UK was massively in debt. On these actual figures the nation more likely to face what Mr Moore in the article calls a "Greece-style economic collapse" is most certainly not Scotland.

If this is going to be the quality of attack from the UK government, I say bring it on. They tell us we can't afford our welfare payments, but the numbers from a National Statistics publication - which means those numbers have to go through a rigorous process to ensure they are robust - show we are better able to afford these services than the UK. Those same UK ministers say we are burdened with debt, but our debt position is better than the UK, and our share of UK revenue is above our share of UK spending.

As the First Minister is often pointing out 'facts are chiels that winna ding' (or in English translation 'facts are fellows that will not be overturned'). That is the bottom line.

Scotland has moved on. When once we cowered, now we stand tall and confident, laughing at crude attempts to manufacture fear with phoney figures. And to the 'quad' - if you don't see that, you've already lost.

The tax twilight zone

2011-09-23T18:26:00.004+01:00

It's not often that a newspaper article generates absolute disbelief (although sometimes irritation or disagreement with one or two aspects). But the articles in today's Scotsman and Herald (among others) alleging that an "£850 million" increase in business rates revenue is a tax increase (or tax bombshell) are pretty much twilight zone stuff. The £850 million figure is in itself wrong, the product of double and triple counting (an approach that was much derided when it became the tactic of choice of Gordon Brown to over-inflate his spending promises - it is a practice that rightly fell into disrepute). But that is not my main beef.

The articles are based on an analysis by the Centre for Public Policy for the Regions (who should know better - this is really rookie stuff). The Scotsman piece also has quotes from two business organisations, both of whom should also know better - but of course both may have been quoted out of context.

So let me explain why the articles are wrong.

First, if you have 1000 businesses paying £1000 each in business tax, you have revenue of £1,000,000. If over time you have new businesses starting up (perhaps because of the most competitive business rates relief package in the UK) and you then have 110 businesses paying £1000 each, the total tax take becomes £1,100,000. That is a 10% increase in tax revenue, but it is not a tax increase on business because those same businesses are all still paying that self-same £1000 each. This is what is referred to as buoyancy. It means more businesses (and presumably more jobs) and is a good thing.

Second, when the government publishes its estimate for business rates revenue it factors in the possibility that some businesses will appeal against their valuation. At the start of a new valuation period that estimate is based on few real cases and few appeal results. But again, over time, actual results come in and the estimate becomes more and more accurate. So again, as illustration, taking the 1000 businesses with their £1000 tax bill. The government might estimate that 200 will appeal and 50% of them will be successful. However, in reality only 100 of them do appeal and only 50 of these are successful. That difference results in 5% more revenue than anticipated. So revenues are higher, but the tax rate for business is not increased. Those who appealed are paying what is independently assessed as the correct and fair tax rate for their business.

These two elements (along with inflation) form the bulk of the extra £500 million revenue raised. It is revenue, therefore, that reflects buoyancy (new businesses), which is good, and the appeals results, which are independent and widely regarded as fair.

None of this might generate a good headline, but it is the reality. This is not rocket science and the leading figures at the CPPR, when they worked for Jack McConnell and Wendy Alexander, must have gained this basic understanding of how the system works.

In this budget, there are two tax changes. One is a public health levy on the largest supermarkets that sell tobacco and alcohol, with the money raised going to pay for preventative spending to try and reduce the impact of, for example, alcohol or poverty and improve people's life chances. This amounts to £30-£40 million a year and will be paid by a minuscule fraction of Scottish businesses (and for those businesses, will equal just 0.3% of their turnover). As some people have pointed out, these same companies will, under minimum pricing for alcohol proposals, be prevented from selling booze at pocket-money prices. This will generate additional revenue for them and so there will be no net loss - the difference is that some of the money they will pocket as a result of minimum pricing will come back to the public purse (to be invested in making Scottish society stronger, healthier and fairer).

The second, is reform of empty property relief, which results in an even smaller additional revenue (somewhere around £18 million). This measure has been welcomed by the Federation of Small Businesses who know that the current system means there is no incentive for landlords in some of our town centres to have property occupied. As a result they can keep rental levels high and opportunities for business growth and town centre regeneration are limited. The measure is designed to remove that perverse incentive. It will mean fewer properties lying empty for no good reason in our high streets, more businesses being formed and paying business rates, and yes, as a result higher business rates revenue. The change, as proposed, will still mean that empty property relief remains, but in a more effective form and the package on offer in Scotland will be twice as generous as that available in England.

As a final thought, the CBI, in the Scotsman article, suggest that this demonstrates what would happen if Scotland had responsibility for corporation tax. Yes, it does, but not in the way they are trying to insinuate. If the same approach was adopted on corporation tax as business rates what would happen? Rates would be lower than in England, as a result more businesses would be protected during economic downturn (and survive, protecting jobs) and more would grow in times of economic recovery (creating jobs). That means that there would be more businesses in Scotland - each paying a lower tax than their competitors elsewhere in the UK - but together contributing to higher tax revenues. And Scotland would have more jobs, more income for the government and more to invest in the things that really matter, which, together, will improve the lives and life chances of more Scots.

The attack of the dead sheep

2011-09-20T19:14:00.000+01:00

Denis Healey famously described the experience of being attacked by Tory MP Sir Geoffrey Howe as akin to being "savaged by a dead sheep". In recent days I've begun to understand this description a little better. A weekend of assaults by the Lib Dems on the SNP has been the political equivalent of being savaged by a whole flock of deceased, and very woolly, ruminants.

This weekend I've also been reading Tony Blair's book, 'A Journey', and was struck by one particular passage on trust (something he knows about, given the loss of trust he suffered over Iraq, as he is painfully aware):

"the public are quite discerning, and discriminate between politicians they don't trust at a superficial level, i.e. pretty much all of them, and those they don't trust at a more profound level. This level of trust is about whether the public believe that the political leader is trying to do his or her best for them . . . This is the level of trust that really matters."

His words made me think about the contrasting approaches to the constitutional question on display in recent days. Today the latest Lib Dem 'broadside' on independence is the news that Scottish Secretary Michael Moore has asked his ministerial colleagues in every UK department to work out the costs of independence. What is the purpose of this request? Is it a genuine attempt to ensure the process of independence is as smooth as possible, if the people choose this path, or is it just designed to produce an eye-wateringly large figure which can be used to bash the independence case?

Most Scots won't pay any attention to the attack today or to the figures when they are eventually produced. They will just see them as part of the superficial, 'he said, she said', level of politics that they don't trust. As Lesley Riddoch correctly pointed out yesterday this is shadow boxing - most people will wait for the real thing. But some people will pay attention, those who have a particular interest in politics and who follow the day to day battles. They will focus on the detail of the arguments, and this is where the Lib Dem's approach has real risks on two fronts.

First, if there is the slightest weakness or inconsistency in their figures they will only serve to undermine the Unionist critique rather than the independence case. I reflect back to the widely used UK figures on the supposed cost of devolving corporation tax to Scotland, where the Treasury used different and less favourable methodology in their calculations for Scotland than they did for their calculations for Northern Ireland, in one case by a totally ridiculous factor of fifteen. When talking about the impact of lower corporation tax for the UK they included an assessment of the wider economic benefit, but for Scotland this aspect was ignored. And while the headline writers or the opposition benches may not care or may not notice, thoughtful others, in the real world, do.

Second, those same people who are following this debate will wonder why the Scottish Secretary is going all out to provide figures for the supposed costs of independence, when he can't provide figures for the potential reduction in Scotland's budget resulting from the income tax proposals in his own Scotland Bill, a measure which is going through Parliament at this very moment. They will quite rightly wonder why he is spending so much time and effort focusing on independence while ignoring the "beam in his own eye", the troublesome and potentially dangerous Scotland Bill income tax plans. There is a massive inconsistency in asking questions of the SNP when he can't answer the same questions on his own current plans. And linked to this, will people not also be wondering why he is asking UK departments to work on issues around independence but he hasn't asked them to work on sorting out the dreadful impact of welfare reform on some Scots families? Or demanded they bring the UK employment network more closely into alignment with the Scottish government's skills and training efforts so we can get more Scots into work or training right now, today, when it is so crucially important? One of my basic political philosophies is that people will judge you by what you do, not what you say (or what others say about you). And on this analysis, the Lib Dems are wildly out of touch with the mood of the people of Scotland today. It has to be all about action on jobs and recovery, nothing more and nothing less.

And this brings me to the second half of Tony Blair's trust equation: is the politician trying their utmost to do the best for the people? The SNP went into the Scottish election saying clearly that the first priority for a re-elected government was jobs and the economy, and the constitutional aspect of this was getting real job-creating powers into the Scotland Bill. The referendum and the detailed debate on independence would come in the second half of the parliament. And that is what the SNP is doing. While the opposition are trying to lay land mines for independence, the SNP government is getting on with the job as set out. And when the debate on independence does come, as it will, people will rightly assess what politicians have been doing over these years. I have no doubt they will be more inclined to trust politicians who have been working hard to create and protect employment rather than those who have been manufacturing dodgy statistics when they too should be focused first and foremost on economic growth, social progress and giving Scotland more economic powers through the Scotland Bill, although being in partnership with the Tories makes these last three an almost impossible task for Lib Dem ministers. In the slash and burn of current UK government policy, I can perhaps see why trying to divert attention away from their government's actions seems like the right solution.

Jim Mather has produced a series of slides which demonstrate just why real economic powers for Scotland are so important. The first shows Scotland's relative economic position 25 years ago (the three flags are Scotland, UK and Norway):

The second shows our relative position 5 years ago:

And the third, where Scotland will be if we don't break out of the restrictions placed on our economy within the current constitutional arrangements:

This is why the debate on economic teeth for the Scotland Bill and full financial responsibility (independence in terms of economic powers) is so important. We are growing, yes, but more slowly than we could be: we are not realising our full economic potential, with the impact felt by families across Scotland.

Mr Moore, and the other proponents of Westminster control (and, thus, Tory rule), may be happy devising new wheezes to try and frighten Scots, but that is not good enough in the face of these realities. Yes, Scottish government action has resulted in higher levels of business confidence and falling levels of economic inactivity (in contrast to the UK). It has meant rising employment and falling unemployment (again against the UK trend). Achieving this with the limited tools at hand is testament to what could be achieved with the normal powers of other nations.

The time to talk independence will come and it is a debate I am looking forward to. But today the focus must be on the immediate priorities of jobs and recovery. How politicians perform on this test is where that more profound trust will be forged. And it is a test that today the UK government is failing.

'Record' a key peg in the SNP's 'big tent'

2011-09-08T18:44:00.000+01:00

Now that my dissertation is finished I've got a little bit more time on my hands. That's meant a flurry of blogging, but it's also given me time to explore in a little more detail some interesting recent polling and survey numbers.

The first example is this weekend's Mori poll (the one which gave the SNP a record 49% support for the Scottish Parliament and a significant lead in voting intentions for Westminster and which showed, in yesterday's Times, two-thirds of Scots backing new job creating powers for the Scottish Parliament). I've been to trying to get a better understanding of some of the factors underpinning the findings. One element stands out, the fact that the SNP topped the poll, not only on the headline figures, but also for respondents born outside Scotland (that is voters from England, Wales, Northern Ireland, the rest of the EU and elsewhere). The SNP has double the support among this group as the nearest challenger for Holyrood (the Labour Party) at 44% to 22%. Even for Westminster the SNP has almost 1/3rd more support among this group than Labour.

This shows the extent of the SNP's big tent - or big bothy as some have called it. The lazy assumption might be that the Scottish National Party would only appeal to people born here in Scotland, but that is clearly not the case. That is part of the 'narrow nationalists' misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the SNP that plagues the opposition parties - they believe their own propaganda and don't see us for who we really are.

But clearly new Scots can see the reality. These poll findings provide important new evidence of the breadth of the SNP's appeal. But what is the explanation?

Ultimately voters will judge the SNP, not on what others say about us, but on what we actually do. I believe the primary factor is the party's ongoing focus on the issues that matter to people (regardless of their country of origin). The Council Tax freeze, for example, shows we understand the current, significant pressures on family budgets.

But perhaps most important is the SNP's focus on the economy and creating and protecting jobs. That has to be the number 1 priority for any Scottish Government and, indeed, it is the driving passion of the First Minister at the moment. It is why, even on the constitution, our immediate focus is getting job-creating powers for the parliament.

Jobs and delivering new opportunities for young Scots were at the heart of this week's Programme for Government. On Wednesday, the First Minister had plenty to say about the steps we can and should take to help young Scots, in particular, into training and work, including a new guarantee on learning and training places for young Scots: 'Opportunities for All'. This will mean an offer of a place to every 16-19 year old if they aren't already in a job, modern apprenticeship or education.

People want a Scottish Government that is working hard for jobs and is doing what it can to protect family budgets and generally make Scotland a better place to live. These are the issues that speak to voters no matter where they come from. And that is what the people of Scotland see, and like. This is the reality of the SNP - a party for all of the people of Scotland - rather than the crude caricatures presented by the opposition.

And this brings me to the second set of numbers, the recent Scottish Household Survey, published a few weeks ago. This set of figures provides additional explanation for the scale of the SNP victory in the recent Scottish election.

In 2010 93.5% thought their neighbourhood was a fairly or very good place to live - up since 2007. The number who thought their local area had a problem with anti-social behaviour had fallen from 16.6% when the SNP took office to just 11.3%. 97% felt safe in their homes.

91% of parents were satisfied with the education provided to their kids and 86.4% of people were satisfied with their local health services (up from 81.3% in 2007).

This is how people perceived Scotland in the months running up to the election. They were, it seems, content with the devolved services delivered by the Scottish Government, and indeed thought key aspects of quality of life were improving. Is it any wonder the opposition parties' messages of calamity, failure and disaster had so little impact?

But, while both these sets of survey figures are encouraging, they are only the start for the SNP. We know we have to keep working hard to earn the trust and support of all Scots.

There is no sense of entitlement to govern, instead a clear understanding that we are only as good as our last decision. There must be a process of continuous improvement and a relentless ambition to make Scotland more successful. I believe our Parliament has used its powers well - and the people seem to agree. I also believe that to achieve even more, we need new tools. If people think we are delivering improving local health services and are satisfied with the education their kids or grandkids are getting, they are more likely to believe we will do just as well with responsibility for policies currently in the hands of the Tories in Westminster.

We never forget that the people of Scotland - no matter where they were born - are our only bosses. They will judge us on our record and that record will be an important part of their calculation when we ask them to trust us with more powers in the independence referendum.

Scotland uniquely incapable?

2011-09-07T17:37:00.001+01:00

Little Britain is alive and well in HM Treasury. Instead of the computer saying no, we now have Treasury ministers saying no to any reasonable suggestion for enhanced responsibilities for Holyrood. And all this despite the most recent opinion poll, in the Times today, showing 2/3rds of Scots support a stronger Scottish Parliament with new job-creating powers.

The most recent Treasury 'no' has come from David Gauke, the Exchequer Secretary in London, setting out a series of reasons why Scotland can't have responsibility for corporation tax. They are all technical and ignore the powerful argument that lower corporation tax will lead to more jobs. But what is of greatest interest is the underlying assumption. Somehow, in the minds of Tories and Lib Dems, Scotland is uniquely incapable of dealing with the collection of corporation tax or the cross-border issues involved, despite the fact that every country in the world and indeed many sub-State nations or regions manage this task perfectly competently.

According to the press reports, Mr Gauke warned that corporation tax was a "complex matter", clearly concerned that the nation that produced the founder of the Bank of England, the cheque book and numerous financial innovations (yes, Scotland) lacked the intellectual capacity to deal with the collection of a tax. According to the Tory government such a task is beyond Scotland's wit. And yet, take a look across Europe where lower corporation tax is the policy of choice for a host of small countries sitting beside larger, economically weighty neighbours.

Lets look at Germany and some of its near neighbours - Finland, Estonia, Austria, Denmark and the Czech Republic. These countries all have lower corporation tax than Germany, ranging from between 4% and 9% below the German rate. This is a policy designed to increase these nations' competitiveness and it is a policy they have proved more than capable of managing.

But these countries, you might point out, are independent. Yes, but lower corporation tax is a policy lever chosen and successfully managed and delivered by sub-State nations and regions within larger states, a point I'll come back to shortly.

Mr Gauke also claims that Scotland's case is different from Northern Ireland's because our economy is more integrated into the rest of the UK, and to introduce the change would result in "significant distortions and frictional costs".

But no more integrated than the German, Spanish or US economies. In Germany, corporation tax is divided between a federal and local element, with each raising around half the total 'national' rate. And within Germany there is a variation of around 3% in these local rates. So different localities in Germany manage quite easily variable corporation tax rates.

Similarly, in Spain, the Basque Country and Navarre have lower corporation tax. But also important for this debate, they choose to exercise their responsibility not only by lowering the rate, but also by introducing specific allowances, for example to support and encourage R&D. This, indeed, has been part of their response to previous economic crises.

And, in the US, each State has different corporation tax arrangements. If you look at the figures the pattern is clear and it is not the 'race to the bottom' suggested by some. States with an inbuilt competitive advantage - New York, New Jersey, California and DC - have the highest rates. Because of their location, their position as governmental or financial centres, these States don't have to compete on corporation tax because they already have important advantages. However those away from the main centres of industry and commerce are the ones who must do something distinctive to attract investment, and so it is Arkansas, Ohio, Nevada, or South Dakota who choose the very lowest rates.

Corporation tax, for them, is a lever designed to level the playing field and allow their State to compete. And have no doubt we face the same inherent competitive distortions here in the UK with a clear cost advantage in place today which encourages companies to establish in and around London and the south-east rather than in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or elsewhere. To do nothing, therefore, is to ensure distortion and cost - but it is distortion that damages Scotland and the cost is to Scottish jobs.

On the Westminster narrative, "complex" and "costly" corporation tax is such a damaging lever [for Scotland] and so difficult to manage [for Scotland] and yet all these other countries, autonomous nations, States and even local authorities manage to do it perfectly well. The Treasury position is not only insulting, it is pure nonsense.

But, you might argue, all these entities already have corporation tax as a lever. The problem is taking on responsibility for the tax. But across the UK, and indeed the EU, sub-state nations are queuing up to take on this power. We already know about Northern Ireland, but lets look at the argument - one from the left and one from the right - in two other devolved/semi-autonomous nations.

First, Catalonia where the former representative of the Socialist/ERC government in London, points out:

"In my old job I was trying to put forward proposals to international firms to come to Catalonia; it was very difficult for me to offer the same terms as an independent state. Basically, because we were not able to offer income tax or corporation tax reductions in the same way an independent state can do."

And second, where the main recommendation of the Welsh Conservatives' economic commission (yes, the Welsh Conservatives!) was a reduction in Wales' corporation tax rate.

So there we have it. As far as the UK government is concerned having or getting corporation tax is too complex for Scotland, too risky for Scotland. In their view we are uniquely incapable. We aren't as clever or as competent as the UK itself (which can of course manage all these difficult issues perfectly well). We aren't as good or deserving as Wales (according to the Tories' own economic commission), or Northern Ireland (where a lower corporate tax rate is supported by the Tory Secretary of State). What is manageable for Finland, Denmark, Austria, Estonia, the Czech Republic, the Basque Country, Navarre, every German local government unit and every US State (to name just a few - I could have added many more including the tiny British isles of Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man) is beyond Scotland.

Scotland is fed up with being told we are too small, too poor, or in this case too stupid. But scratch the surface of the UK government's attempts at 'positive' Unionism and that is the anti-Scottish assumption you find. And they wonder why their parties in Scotland are in freefall and falling apart at the seams?

12 miles apart, but a world away for some

2011-09-05T07:36:00.000+01:00

It is a mere 12 miles (give or take) between the closest points in Scotland and Northern Ireland. On a good day you can see one country from the other, indeed I've stood on the closest point in Northern Ireland and seen for myself the Argyll coast in the middle distance. But for some, Scotland and Northern Ireland could be on different planets.

I've been reading with interest the weekend press reports of CBI Scotland's response to the Scottish Government's recent paper on the devolution of corporation tax, and comparing what the organisation is saying in Scotland with what it is saying in Northern Ireland.

Here's what CBI Scotland thinks of Scotland having responsibility for corporation tax: "the interests of the UK, including Scotland, are best served by a unitary corporation tax system, especially given the mobile nature of the underlying tax base."

Whereas, those dozen miles further west, CBI Northern Ireland suggests: "The result of lowering the corporation tax rate to 12.5% [for Northern Ireland] will lead to a transformational step change in the economic performance of the Northern Ireland economy."

The benefits, according to CBI NI, would be "a significant improvement in our international competitiveness", the "ability to attract 'profit centre' FDI [overseas investors] bringing a higher number and a higher quality (including various corporate functions) of jobs to Northern Ireland" and "an immediate improvement in the competitiveness of existing businesses, both indigenous and FDI, making Northern Ireland a more attractive location to retain jobs and to encourage more investment". These are the first three in a list of seven benefits.

Back in Scotland, the CBI argues instead that keeping the same rate as the UK "provides the simplest environment for UK and foreign investors to operate in" and "any potential benefit to Scotland of a different rate and or structure of corporation tax needs to be weighed against the impact of certain central costs, complexities and risks that would arise from devolving the tax."

Taking our journey one last time across that mammoth stretch of water, in Northern Ireland, the CBI argues that "the introduction of a low and competitive CT rate . . . is the simplest and most attractive marketing tool available" (my emphasis). Even the announcement of such a policy would, in Northern Ireland, "provide a game-changing environment" with the "benefits" commencing within a year. The words "risk" and "complexity" feature nowhere in the paper produced by the Northern Irish CBI.

But it is not just the CBI who view Scotland and Northern Ireland differently when it comes to corporation tax. I've been looking at the Treasury's response to the Northern Irish corporation tax proposal and comparing it with their recent paper on the supposed costs of devolving the tax to Scotland.

In the Northern Irish paper, the Treasury estimate the cost to the Exchequer of profit-shifting to Northern Ireland as a mere £70 million per annum. But for Scotland, that figures becomes a massive £1 billion to £1.1 billion each year. That's 15 times higher for Scotland than for Northern Ireland. Surely some mistake?

The Treasury paper also takes no account whatsover of any impact on economic growth in Scotland of lower corporation tax. Whereas, you guessed it, for Northern Ireland they suggest the dynamic effect "could recover 15-21 per cent of the foregone corporation tax receipts in each year". The Northern Irish themselves estimate that the policy would be cost neutral within a few years and be generating a surplus of revenues thereafter.

I have searched the internet for any sign that a Scottish media outlet has interrogated the Treasury's figures, but found not a single one. And yet, it has taken me 5 minutes and trusty google to find these clear differences of approach. They seem happy to have different standards and different accounting methods used, with the Treasury figures for Scotland clearly designed to over-inflate the supposed cost to Scotland of any change.

There are some important reasons why Scotland (and Northern Ireland) should have responsibility for corporation tax. Read the CBI Northern Ireland paper for just some of them. This is not about profit-shifting - the Scottish Government's paper makes clear that arrangements would take into account any attempts at 'brass plating' by companies trying to avoid tax. It is all about creating the conditions for indigenous economic growth. Over the next few weeks I will write separately about the positive case for the transfer of these crucial job-creating powers to Scotland, including what I believe is a powerful case for social democrats and the left to back corporation tax transfer.

For Northern Ireland, the estimated benefit is some 58,000 extra jobs (with one estimate as high as 90,000). Given the history and economic position of Northern Ireland those would be 58,000 crucial jobs. If in Scotland it were even just 10,000 or 20,000 (and of course the real figure would be many times more), is that not something worth securing? I certainly think so, and I have a funny feeling that most Scottish businesses, and more importantly, most Scottish people would agree. So lets get this job-creating power in the Scotland Bill where it belongs.

Who Benefits?

2011-09-02T11:53:00.001+01:00

When I first started working for the SNP one of the first pieces of work I did was a report called 'Who Benefits from Britain?'. It was based on the groundbreaking investigation by George Rosie, 'Scotching the Myth', and looked at the question of public spending in the UK and the accusation, common then and, as we've seen from recent press reports, still dredged up now, that Scots are 'subsidy junkies'.

Burns wrote that it would be a gift to see ourselves as others see us, and this week we've been able to see clearly how the Daily Mail (their headline was "English taxpayers pay for Granny McTavish to live the high life") and Daily Telegraph (a former Labour Party adviser suggesting that Mrs Thatcher mollycoddled us) view Scotland.

There are two big deceits at the heart of these subsidy attacks. The first is that those who peddle this line look at only one half of the budgetary equation. They are happy to talk about spending but ignore the revenues, that is the taxes raised. The most recent figures show that Scotland contributed 9.4% of the UK's revenues and received 9.3% of the UK's spending. This pattern is repeated for each of the last 5 years, which explains why in each of those years Scotland's budgetary position has been stronger than the UK's.

The second deceit is that the spending figures are based upon an allocation to Scotland of our "share" of UK spending on areas like defence. And yet we know from figures provided by the MoD that there has been a massive underspend on defence in Scotland. In terms of actual pounds spent here, we get significantly less than our population share. This is important and should be part of any calculation because where the money is spent is also where the jobs are created. If Scotland got its population share of defence or Foreign Office or indeed Treasury spending then we would have more jobs, a stronger economy and even more tax revenue. MoD and other spending subsidises the economy of the south-east at the expense of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and most of the regions of England.

George Rosie's original work took examples like the multi-billion pound investment in Docklands regeneration in London. Today we could include the Olympic Games. I have no argument against the London Olympics or the investment that is taking place (indeed I am looking forward to a great spectacle and a wonderful event for that city and these isles). Instead, I simply point to the fact that Olympic spending is classified as UK spending (and therefore added to Scotland's spending per head) whereas Commonwealth Games spending is Scotland only. The current regeneration element of that Olympic spending is also in clear breach of the Treasury's own Barnett Formula rules - but because they are judge and jury on this question the Treasury are able to get away with the sleight of hand, resulting in millions being lost to Scotland (and Wales and Northern Ireland).

The conclusions of my report, fifteen years ago, were twofold. First, that Scotland paid its way and that a move to full fiscal autonomy or independence would settle the question because Scots would raise our own money and spend it within those limits - there would be no question of who subsidised who, because whether England or Scotland we would each live within our own means. And second, it pointed out that the real winners were (parts of) London and the south of England and the real losers were the north-east and north-west of England. All these years later, both these conclusions still hold good. If Westminster politicians and press are so concerned about the subsidy Scot, why are they so keen to stop fiscal autonomy or independence, which would settle the matter once and for all? I wonder if it is because kicking the Scots gives them a useful excuse for not sorting out the dreadful inequality of funding in their own backyard?

This week has not only seen the return of the subsidy debate. We have also seen self-proclaimed 'positive Unionism' on display with a series of speeches and interventions by Tory government ministers, Michael Moore and Danny Alexander. From reading their comments I've struggled to work out what is meant by 'positive Unionism' but I think I have now come up with the answer - they are positive for Westminster, that is they are arguing, not for the benefit of Scotland, but instead, for the Westminster position.

Why does this matter? The reality is that Scotland is going to move to enhanced autonomy. If there is a two-option referendum the likelihood is that either fiscal autonomy or independence will win (of course I believe that independence will win). That means in a few years time there will be negotiations on a new settlement.

As part of a negotiation, even for fiscal autonomy, we will have to determine Scotland's share of oil revenues. Today UK ministers (and indeed the Labour Party) argue, despite international law, that Scotland would not necessarily be entitled to the oil and gas in our own waters. Will we have Mr Moore and Mr Alexander arguing then that Scotland should be deprived of billions of our own revenue? If so, they will be arguing against Scotland's national interest. Whose side will they be on?

As part of those same preparations, for fiscal autonomy or independence, we will have to settle Scotland's contribution to the repayment of the UK national debt. Today, the Tory government is offering a narrative on national debt that is grossly exaggerated, trying to pin more of the debt on Scotland than would be our equitable share. Will Mr Moore and Mr Alexander (and other Scottish unionist MPs) be supporting the Westminster position then? If so, they will be damaging the interests of their constituents, and working to prevent Scotland from getting our proper and fair allocation of any liabilities.

And if the people of Scotland vote for independence, will Mr Moore still be standing on the English constitutional interpretation of the Treaty of Union, as he did this week? His, is an interpretation designed to enhance Westminster and put Scotland into a subordinate position on questions of state succession. It flies in the face of Scots constitutional law and, indeed, the reality of international and EU law, which would see Scotland and England on an equal footing as we emerge as two independent states. At the point when these issues are actually important, will we have Mr Moore arguing that Scotland should not continue to be a Member of the EU? Will he be delivering speeches designed to influence the EU and effectively encourage them to throw Scotland out?

On all these three issues, when the settlement is being reached, will these two Scottish politicians (and all the others) still be arguing for positions that would damage their nation? If they do, they will be undermining their own constituents. And if they won't, if, at that point, they stand full square behind the Scottish position, the clear question becomes: why aren't they doing it now?

The challenge for 'positive Unionism' is that the case they are making isn't at all positive for the people of Scotland. It is based on arguments, trotted out once again this week, designed to undermine and weaken Scotland. And that is of crucial importance when the negotiations do come. So, if I were to ask today, 'Who benefits from positive Unionism?' the answer is clear. It is Westminster and certainly not the people of Scotland.

Through the fog of this particular debate a few clear signals, a few dominating impressions, will emerge. And here's just one of them - I have no doubt that people will see, as sharp as day, exactly who is and who isn't on their side.

Scotland's New Deal

2011-08-23T14:03:00.004+01:00

I've just finished my annual Edinburgh Festival and Fringe holiday. This year I haven't managed to see as many shows as previously because my university dissertation is also coming to a conclusion and so I've been spending part of the holiday working on that. However, the festival and two fascinating conversations during the week have sparked some thoughts on independence.

So first, the conversations. They were with two non-aligned individuals representing different aspects of Scottish society, business and academia. Both are political, but neither is party political. In the first I was asked the very simple question - what difference would independence make. And in the second, came the very powerful message that people will vote 'yes' when, and if, they have a clear and positive expectation of what independence can deliver. Although phrased differently, they are effectively the same point. Why independence?

And second, the festival. With a multiplicity of choices why do I decide to go to any one particular show? Each year I choose my festival shows on a number of criteria, each however linked to my expectation of the show. For some, I base my decision on the company or the writer. I always try to catch Scottish Dance Theatre and have been fortunate to see the various National Theatre of Scotland shows. I try to catch David Greig's work, although his Citizens Theatre show this year has been a sell out. I know their previous work, liked it, and so have an expectation that this year's offering will also be to the same high standard. For others, I base my choice on the venue. I'm a fan of dance and from trial and error in previous years have got to know that dance shows at Dancebase or Zoo Southside are likely to be good. And this year they haven't disappointed. My expectation is that these venues offer the sort of dance I like and to a quality that I can rely on. And finally, I look for other people's recommendations. Not only the 4 or 5 star reviews in the Scotsman or online, but also the reviews on the Edinburgh Fringe website. If other people enjoy the show, ordinary folk and expert reviewers, then there is a good chance I will enjoy it too.

This process brings me back to independence. I want independence for Scotland, and the conscious decision to become an independence supporter was based on my expectations of the sort of country Scotland would become. It was never for the sake of it, but always independence for a purpose.

So, what are my expectations for independence? Why will it make a difference? What is the 'New Deal' that is on offer?

First, I believe that taking on additional responsibilities here in Scotland will allow us to achieve more. It will enable us to grow the economy more quickly, strengthen Scottish society and make our nation fairer. That must always be the test, from a Scottish point of view, for any extension of responsibilities. Do we get the tools we need to make Scotland more successful? At its most basic, therefore, it is about quality of life. And my clear expectation is that independence will improve the quality of life of people living in Scotland.

But why, or perhaps more appropriately, how? Ultimately, no one cares more about Scottish success, no one is more aware of the challenges and opportunities we face, than people living here. As residents of Scotland we have the greatest stake in making our nation the place we want it to be. With the best will in the world a government in London cannot and will not put the Scottish interest first. We have seen that, over decades, regardless of the colour of the Westminster administration. So a government here in Scotland with all the tools it needs to make Scotland better is going to have more motivation than any Westminster government and ultimately, will do a better job.

Just as with the festival, I can see the reviews - have you ever heard of a Norwegian, Dane, New Zealander or Austrian who has said no to their nation's independence. For them, independence is the best show in town.

And like favourite companies, writers or venues, I can look at the track record of independent countries. Former Plaid Cymru MP, Adam Price, has just completed a year long study of the economics of small independent states at Harvard University. The research is well worth a read, but here is just one section:

"We are fortunate in having at the heart of Europe a historical field trial in the economics of independence. Independent Luxembourg (population 500,000) and the neighboring Saarland region of Germany (population approximately 1 million) both have economies with roots in coal and steel. While Luxembourg was to become one of the founding members of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the EU’s forerunner, the Saarlanders rejected the option of independent statehood and membership of the ECSC by two-to-one in a referendum in 1955. Both regions had to grapple with the painful restructuring of their steel industries, but while Luxembourg is now home to the global giant ArcelorMittal, the Saar steel industry is a pale shadow of its former self. The difference in growth rates for the independent nation of Luxembourg and the neighboring region that rejected independence is striking (see Figure 3).

Figure 3 — Real GDP Growth, Luxembourg and the Saarland (Sources: World Bank, Kim 2003, Eurostat.)

During the last thirty years, Luxembourg has pulled progressively ahead, outstripping economic growth in the Saarland by 2.5 to 3.5 percentage points a year on average. The cumulative effect has made Luxembourg one of the richest countries in the world and left Saarland the poorest German Land in the former West. If anyone still doubts the potential economic value of independence, they should take the short drive from the Grand Duchy to Saarbrücken: it pays to be a (small) country in your own right rather than just a region of some other state."

And whether it is Norway or Denmark, and yes Ireland, nations of a similar size to Scotland, the difference is clear to see. From observation, and statistics, these nations have all used their independence to create opportunity and improved quality of life. Even Ireland, in the aftermath of the global shock, remains wealthier per head than Scotland and the UK.

My expectations go beyond economics. In the EU, independence would mean our own voice and the ability to secure Scotland's national interest in key areas of life where what is good for Scotland is not a priority for, or in the interests of, the rest of the UK. CFP and CAP reform are just two examples. Does anyone doubt that Denmark, Slovenia or even the UK would trade their seat at the European top table?

On defence, I expect a different approach, which would see the obscenity that is Trident removed from our shores. Scotland would never, in my view, participate in illegal wars.

On welfare, we could bring together the reserved Job Centre network and our current devolved skills activities to help more people into work and could avoid the harsh approach adopted by the Tory government that is seeing vulnerable Scots lose essential support. We would have all the policy options at our disposal to deliver in Scotland the low levels of poverty and inequality seen in Scandinavia.

We would get the government we voted for, and I have no doubt that government would follow a better path for Scotland than the Tory government in London that is currently responsible for too much that is too important. Home Rule would mean no more Tory Rule.

I would expect us to do more to support families in Scotland. Today, if we as a nation decide our ambition is to deliver the sort of childcare and parental support that exists in gold-standard countries across Europe, we simply cannot do it. No matter how ingenious or dedicated we are to the task, too many of the levers are held by the government in London. I believe that not only should we have the ability to do it, but that we should do it. Childcare for all should be a driving and central ambition for a Scotland with independence.

And finally, I expect that we would do more to maximise the benefits from our renewable energy potential. Yes, we are able to do, and are doing, a great deal to push this industry forward, but we could achieve so much more if we didn't have to negotiate absurd Treasury rules or outdated UK transmission frameworks. Instead of a UK government withholding revenue raised in Scotland from the Fossil Fuel Levy, we could invest it now in the crucial infrastructure we need to maximise the benefit from our offshore energy resource. And rather than pushing for almost five years to get necessary changes in transmission charging to remove the discrimination against the most renewable-rich part of our nation, we should be able to just get on with it. With the right powers we could deliver a level playing field that would unleash a new wave of green energy investment and create even more jobs and opportunities.

I could write a book with other examples, but will restrict myself to one more. My expectation is that independence would mean greater self-confidence here in Scotland - we would stand that little bit taller - and, as a result, would deliver a new partnership and a better relationship between the nations on these Isles.

In the run up to the election, one of our nation's many great entrepreneurs, Jim McColl, used a phrase that I believe reflects both the emerging reality here in Scotland and also the aspirations of a clear majority of our citizens, including those who have not yet accepted the case for full independence. He said: "I sincerely hope that politicians from all political parties start working for a responsible Scotland - a Scotland which is a proud contributor to a Union of equals."

A few months ago John Major argued for Devo Max - a suggestion that is the closest, so far, from London politicians, to this union of equals. But it isn't quite there yet. And just as importantly, there is no indication that his view is shared by the UK government, who instead are re-trenching into a position of limited concessions, if any.

A true union of equals would mean a renegotiation of the relationship first agreed in the Treaty of Union of 1707. As I wrote previously, instead of an old incorporating Union based on the now irrelevant power politics and priorities of the 18th century, we could have a refreshed, more modern agreement fit for this 21st century.

From the evidence so far, with the Westminster government giving little or no positive response to the aspiration of Scots for an equal union, or indeed even to some of the key additions to the Scotland Bill proposed by the Scottish Government, the only option will be to secure this equality through independence. The UK, currently standing on a traditional all or nothing approach, is helping make the case for an overwhelming yes vote in the referendum.

Independence and more powers has never been about waving a magic wand and, in a flash, Scotland becomes better. The expectation that we will have a higher standard of living has always been based on the premise that improvement will require focus and determination. Independence is about equipping our nation with the tools it needs to enable our society and economy to flourish with the clear expectation that we use those tools to make Scottish society stronger and richer in every sense.

It is about hard work and a compelling vision, but that is what all government is about - the ability to harness all Scotland's talents and energies; the opportunity to take decisions without waiting for others to act or give us their permission. These are, with clear eyes and strong hearts, prizes worth seizing.

Benefits boomerang

2011-08-11T07:56:00.000+01:00

There's a great article by Joan McAlpine MSP in Tuesday's Scotsman about the appalling way UK government welfare reforms are impacting on Scottish families. The article was provoked by an attack made by one of the Tory government's representatives in Scotland, David Mundell. Earlier this week he had the gall to suggest Scotland couldn't afford the welfare state.

As Joan rightly says, this is yet another example of a Tory minister talking down Scotland. The approach of the last Tory government that earned them the prefix "anti-Scottish" is clearly alive and well in this new incarnation of Tory rule.

However, it is also worth examining the detail of Mr Mundell's claim. How do you judge whether or not a country can afford its welfare state?

To my mind there are two possible options. First, the size of the welfare bill as a share of government revenue (with revenue of course being the money we raise in tax for the very purpose of paying for public services). A quick calculation from the figures in Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland 2010 shows that in the most recent year social protection expenditure (which includes all the elements of welfare spending reserved and devolved, the vast majority of which is the reserved benefits system) was 42% of Scottish revenues, less than the 43% for the UK. So on the basis of taxes raised, once our welfare payments are made, we actually have more left to spend on other things than the UK.

The second, is welfare spending as share of GDP - as a proportion of the size of our economy. Again, the figures for 2009-10 are illustrative. In Scotland, we spend 15% of our GDP on welfare, while in the UK they spend 16%. Quite clearly welfare payments in Scotland are more affordable on the basis of both government revenue and share of GDP.

This pattern is repeated from 2005-06 to 2008-09. For each of the last five years, Scotland has been in a stronger position than the UK on both counts, as we have been, also, in terms of overall budget position. That means Scots are better able to afford the current levels of social protection than the rest of the UK.

I love these boomerang attacks by opponents of independence. They will say anything to try to scare people away from the freedom and flexibility, the ability to determine our own destiny, that comes with independence. As Mr Mundell's clumsy attack demonstrates, Scotland can more than pay for her welfare state. However, on the basis of the actual figures and his own logic, the question for Mr Mundell becomes, can the UK?

Home Rule, not Tory Rule

2011-07-28T09:36:00.001+01:00

I've been reading the Labour Party's reaction to a blog post by SNP MP, Pete Wishart. Writing on Better Nation, Pete explores issues around independence and British identity. It is worth a read.

There is a story about the blog post on the STV website and at the bottom comes the reaction from the Labour Party. For me, the key Labour quote is:

"Polls consistently show that the majority of Scots agree that Scotland is big enough, rich enough in talent and smart enough to make the most of all the opportunities that being part of the United Kingdom brings."

There are two things about this. First, it is almost a carbon copy of a line oft used by the SNP, except we argue that Scotland is rich enough, talented enough etc to prosper with independence. Imitation is, of course, the sincerest form of flattery and on this point, the people will ultimately decide where greatest opportunity lies.

But second, and more importantly, is where this positions the Labour Party. Essentially the party will be arguing that they see greater opportunity for Scotland under Tory rule than under Home Rule.

Analysis by David Denver, James Mitchell and others of the 1997 referendum (Scotland Decides: The Devolution Issue and the Scottish Referendum) identified an important change in Scottish attitudes towards constitutional change. Opposition to 18 years of Tory rule had hardened traditional Labour support in favour of a Scottish Parliament - the national question and the left-right cleavage came together to deliver significantly higher support for devolution than in 1979.

The Labour campaign in 1997 played heavily on this anti-Tory element. The Scottish Parliament would be there to protect Scotland from disastrous Tory policies on education and health, among others.

But today, if the quote is to be taken at face value, that Labour positioning has changed. Instead of being on Scotland's side against the Tories, they are now on the Tories' side even if that means being against Scotland. The Labour view now, it seems, is that Scotland shouldn't be protected from disastrous Tory policies on welfare or the economy. Instead we are to see them as part of the "opportunity" the United Kingdom presents. Tell that to families worried about job security, rising energy prices or the slashing of the welfare safety net.

The opportunity now offered by 'Scottish' Labour is to play the Westminster lottery: cast your vote and hope England doesn't vote Tory (once again). And if you lose (once again), just thole it for another damaging four or five years.

The balancing act Labour will need to perform is of Cirque du Soleil proportions. At election time tell Scots how awful Tory rule is, and as we saw from their 2010 and the first half of their 2011 campaigns that is about the only tune Labour in Scotland can now play. But at referendum time, present that selfsame Tory rule as part of the package: vote no for the opportunity of yet another Tory government. I look forward with anticipation to Tory and Labour leaders sharing the same 'Vote No' platform, after all a picture is worth a thousand words.

The alternative, of course, is much clearer. Vote yes for independence and end, once and for all, the prospect of Tory rule in Scotland. And looking at the 1997 numbers, I know what side of the argument I'd rather be on.

Founding father

2011-07-19T17:35:00.001+01:00

Most of us will have heard of John Paul Jones, a Scot who was founder of the US Navy. Some of us will also have heard of Samuel Grieg, another Scot who is described as the founder of the 'modern' Russian Navy. In a few years time perhaps we will be adding another name to that list - Liam Fox, founder of the Scottish army.

Alongside the unfortunate aspects of the bases review announced in the House of Commons yesterday, including the loss of Leuchars as an RAF base, came the news that a multi-role brigade of the army is to be stationed in Scotland, along with the creation or upgrading of the barracks, transportation and training facilities needed to sustain the brigade.

This is what the International Institute for Strategic Studies says about these multi-role brigades:

"each including reconnaissance and armoured regiments (with Challenger 2 tanks), mechanised and light infantry and battalions with supporting units of equipment and enablers. There will be a migration of combat support and logistic assets currently held at divisional level into these brigades."

They describe it as "an innovation in which the British Army is potentially establishing a world lead".

And the HMForces website is even more explicit about their multi-function nature:

"The multi-role brigades will include the equipment necessary to undertake a wide range of capabilities . . . These brigades will be self supporting in that they will have their own artillery, engineer, communications, intelligence, logistics and medical assets."

Why is this important? For the first time in my political memory we will soon have, in situ, the core of what the First Minister rightly described yesterday as "Scotland's army". And this army will have similar capabilities to those of nations like Norway or Denmark.

In the debate about Scottish independence, Mr Fox has made what I believe is the first major strategic error. He has, quite literally, been outfoxed.

Rather than strengthening the Union, as he went out of his way to claim, he has made it significantly easier to make the independence case. The old argument that Scotland would have to create an army from scratch has disappeared: we will have one, it will be there for all to see, created and located right here in Scotland. And yes, made up of soldiers serving today under the command of Whitehall's MoD, but established in a manner that makes it so very simple for that command, like the soldiers, to come home as it were, if we so choose.

The question is now no longer how or whether Scotland can have an army. That debate is over thanks to Mr Fox. The issue is what we ask our armed forces to do. For an independent Scotland that will certainly never be an illegal war like Iraq. And that's just one more reason why I believe, when the question is asked, Scots will vote yes to independence.

The emerging truth about the bank bailout

2011-07-13T16:38:00.001+01:00

In case you missed it, it is worth listening to this weekend's Newsweek Scotland (available for a few more days on BBC iPlayer – the segment starts 15 minutes into the programme).

The bank bailout is one of those issues used by supporters of Westminster rule – and of course that means Tory rule - to argue that Scotland can't be independent, but the truth is slowly beginning to emerge.

The programme's interest was sparked by comments made by Scottish Secretary Michael Moore in the House of Commons two weeks ago. He claimed that Scotland would have had to bear the whole burden of any bailout of RBS and HBOS – an oft repeated line by Tory, Labour and now Lib Dem politicians trying to attack independence.

In response, the programme interviews actual experts, professors of financial law. Their argument – and it is a very different one from the politicians – is that Scotland would only have been liable for perhaps as little as 5% of the RBS and HBOS support package. Indeed, in the words of one, it would be “inconceivable” for Scotland to be held liable for the whole amount.

What is most interesting from my perspective – and having a bit of a sense of how these things work - is that Mr Moore was unwilling to go on the programme to back up his claims in the face of the arguments made by the professors. The Tory MP who participated in the exchange in the Commons was also unwilling to appear. It is one thing to stand up in the chamber of the House of Commons to make this attack on Scotland unchallenged (or indeed to put the claims on a leaflet or in a quote in a press release as regularly happens) but it is quite another to have to back them up under questioning and in the face of expert opinion.

It was left to former Chancellor, Alistair Darling, to make the Westminster case. And there was an important shift in the position. Gone was the suggestion that it was British taxpayers or the British State that bailed out the banks and instead was the admission that the finances for the bailout came from borrowing on the financial markets.

Up until now Unionist politicians have been linking the size of the Scottish budget with the size of the bailout package to suggest Scotland couldn't have managed a bailout on her own. Indeed in his statement to the programme, copied in full on its website, Mr Moore repeats this comparison. But we now know it is a false comparison. Instead, the issue is whether Scotland could have borrowed the necessary finances.

However, before getting into the question of the borrowing, it is also worth highlighting one other important aspect of the fragmentation of the Westminster case - the change in the cost of the bailout. At first it was suggested that the bailout would cost Scotland £470 billion and this is a figure repeated in Mr Moore's statement. But as the programme itself details, this was not the actual cash cost – that is significantly smaller, estimated at some £66 billion. And again, as the programme demonstrates, this cash-injection was made as an investment, with the banks charged billions for the protection they received and the UK government taking preference shares in RBS and Lloyds (for HBOS) for which they would be paid a handsome dividend. The most recent Budget confirms that the UK government now expects to make a profit from its bailout package (the latest estimate is a profit of £3.4 billion).

So, could Scotland borrow between £3.3 billion and £6.6 billion, the actual cost suggested by the professors? Without doubt. Indeed, the Scotland Bill proposed by the UK government gives even the devolved parliament a borrowing facility of that order. But, even if the professors are wrong, could we have borrowed more? The answer here is also a clear yes. Any of us who have sought a mortgage or a loan know that it is ultimately about collateral. And with an asset worth over £1 trillion in wholesale terms and maybe £300-£400 billion in revenue terms in North Sea oil and gas, does anyone without a political axe to grind doubt that Scotland would be a safe investment? Those politicians who want Westminster rule say Scotland would have been like Ireland or Iceland, but the actual comparison is Norway, and they were able to use their oil and gas asset to more than cover any costs associated with the financial crisis.

The issue of the bank bailout lays bare the approach that will be adopted by pro-Westminster politicians in any independence referendum or indeed any move to greater financial responsibility. They love telling us we couldn't, wouldn't, can't do it. It is all based on a desire to instill fear so they can protect the status quo. But as we are seeing, thanks to one BBC programme, it is fear-mongering that collapses at the first scrutiny.

They are trying to treat us as fools: people who will be scared by a big number. But, as May's election demonstrated, the people of Scotland are no longer easily frightened. Remember, first they said it was £470 billion. But now we know from the experts that Scotland's share of the bailout could have been as little as £3.3 billion.

But what about this status quo they are so keen to defend and protect, even to the extent of talking their own nation – Scotland – down. Beyond the theoretical argument about what would have happened if Scotland had been independent is the unquestionable truth that the banking crisis and subsequent financial collapse did happen while we were part of the UK. The events of the past few years aren't the result of independence, they are the consequence of the Union. If we are paying a price for the banking crisis it is a cost that came with this selfsame status quo.

Back to the future

2011-07-07T12:17:00.001+01:00

I'm just back from a long weekend in Italy, with part of my time spent in Rome and part in a lovely medieval village called Santo Stefano di Sessanio in the mountains of Abbruzo. I was there for a wedding and it was a truly international occasion, with guests from a dozen or so countries of birth who lived and worked in a dozen or so more.

I always find it encouraging, when meeting people of such diverse backgrounds and experience, to see the genuine warmth there is internationally for Scotland. There was some awareness of the specific events of recent months with the SNP victory, but more generally an understanding of the broader constitutional debate here at home. And again, I was personally encouraged by people's attitude towards independence. They see it as something normal and natural for their nation and see no reason why Scotland cannot first, choose the same path and second, flourish as an independent nation.

On a weekend when many of the guest were marking Canada Day or the 4th of July - the independence days for Canada and the USA respectively - the concept of Scottish independence was well understood.

In the USA, of course, independence happened in entirely different circumstances and as a single event, but in Canada the process has been more subtle, as one of the wedding guests was keen to point out to me. Starting with the creation of Canada in 1867 as a dominion within the British Empire, it was only in the 1930s that Westminster lost the power to legislate for Canada (except when Canada consented) and indeed only in 1982 when full independence arrived with the British Parliament losing its remaining ability to amend parts of the Canadian constitution. As we saw so vividly with the visit of the Earl and Countess of Strathearn (Prince William and his new wife) to Canada, that nation remains one of 16 Commonwealth Countries to retain the Queen as head of state. And, as the same guest highlighted, Canadian and other Commonwealth forces fought alongside Britain in the second world war, with thousands of Canadian citizens also serving as part of British units, in particular the RAF.

A close relationship remained even though the constitutional aspects of that relationship changed over time. However, ending the right of Westminster to legislate first on domestic affairs and then more widely, was a crucial part of that process.

Because I was in Italy, I missed the State Opening of Parliament on Friday but caught up with it on the BBC website yesterday. I thought the First Minister's reference to the Queen's role at the head of the Commonwealth was an important one. The Queen has lived through almost every conceivable form of constitutional change within her various realms.

The end of the parliamentary session also marked the end of my first month back as a special adviser. It's been good to return after a year out working for the SNP on the election campaign. So, some quick reflections to mark the end of this first period.

First, the majority. What has been most encouraging is the real sense of opportunity that exists as a result of the government's majority in parliament, linked also to the fact this term is 5 rather than 4 years. There is a feeling of energy and potential among ministers and officials, with detailed work well under way to begin implementing the various policy initiatives that we put forward during the campaign. There will be more on this in the first weeks back after the recess as we set out our legislative and financial plans.

Second, the mood. I have written before about the professionalism of the civil service and their ability to respond to whatever governmental construct comes their way. The First Minister mischievously pointed out in his Taking Scotland Forward speech in the first week that majority government was the one option the civil service strategists hadn't expected, but the equally mischievous reply was that it was also a scenario the SNP had not expected. But whatever the expectation, officials are simply getting on with the job.

The new mandate has created a renewed sense of impetus. And that applies not only to ministers new and old, who have a clearly visible spring in their step, but also to the teams around them. This is not meant to suggest in any way an endorsement of the result by those officials, simply the reality that elections and the new situations they throw up can provide - and in this case did provide - certainty and direction.

My observation when I started working for the Scottish Government after 2007 was that the incoming ministerial team was like a micro-chip, with a new operating programme, inserted into the government machine. Today, the analogy is slightly different. The micro-chip remains in place, but this time the machine has received a fully-charged new battery.

And finally, some more personal reflections. I'm back helping out with FMQ prep and I had forgotten just how valuable the whole FMQ exercise is. This is about more than what happens in the Chamber. There is a huge benefit for the government to have the First Minister, week in and week out, being kept fully up to date on what is going on in each and every portfolio area. It means that the person at the centre of government in Scotland has a genuine feel for what is working and what is not. The glare of public scrutiny on two or three policy areas in the chamber is replicated with private scrutiny across two or three dozen policy areas in the FMQ process. And that is scrutiny by senior policy officials, by ministers and Cabinet Secretaries as the information flows through the system to eventually reach the First Minister's chamber folder where the government position must be robust.

As one colleague observed after the very first FMQs, that's one down and only 174 to go until the next election. There will be ups and downs, and as always events and surprises. However, the Scottish Government will get on with the task - to work hard, governing well and responsibly for all the people of Scotland.

Government Expenditure and Revenues in Scotland

2011-06-22T18:33:00.002+01:00

This is my first blog post for a while. My new job as a special adviser means I have less time and to some extent less freedom to write. So as a starting point in this new era for the blog, I want to emphasise that the views here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Scottish Government. Sometimes they will overlap, indeed most of the time they will overlap, but nevertheless I hope to bring my own perspective to emerging issues.

And today we have an emerging issue – published this morning the new Government Expenditure and Revenues Scotland (GERS).

I feel a special bond with GERS. It has been around the scene for pretty much as long as I’ve been involved with the SNP and I can remember the early days of GERS publication when it was used by Tory and Labour politicians to take an almighty swing at independence.

Over time, and thanks to the contribution of Margaret and Jim Cuthbert, some of the wrinkles in the methodology have been ironed out. The spending figures are now more accurate than they have ever been and we have to thank Scottish Government officials for sorting out some of the howlers in the Treasury spending database. And most recently, thanks to the work of world-leading oil economist, Alex Kemp, we now have a robust figure for oil and gas revenues that accrue to Scotland.

So, the figures published in GERS today are a world away from the initial efforts. They give a fairer picture of Scotland’s financial position within the UK.

And that brings us to the most striking feature of today’s GERS report. At the deepest point of the global crisis, it shows that Scotland’s finances are in a far more robust state than the UK. Yes, Scotland is running a deficit, along with almost every other nation in Europe (independent, oil-rich Norway being the exception), but that deficit is significantly smaller than the UK.

For five years in a row now, Scotland’s financial position is better than the UK, and a rough calculation for the next couple of GERS reports suggests that not only will Scotland once again be in a stronger position than the UK, there is the real chance that we will have returned to surplus. Even just moving to full financial responsibility (fiscal autonomy) would see Scotland able to enjoy some of the benefits of these surpluses in the years ahead, allowing us to do even more to create and protect jobs and deliver the stronger, more successful nation we all seek. That's why the immediate task of enhancing the current Scotland Bill becomes even more important.

Today's GERS tells us two things. First, that Scotland’s finances are in a healthier position, year on year, than the UK. Yes, we spend more (although our share of UK spending is falling) but we also earn more. We contribute significantly more than our 'population share' to UK coffers.

And second, as part of the UK we are being allocated a share of UK debt that we have not actually been running up. Over these past 5 years, the UK ‘current account’ has been £180.8 billion in the red. Our population share of that UK deficit is £15.2 billion but our actual position, the real numbers taking into account actual spending and tax revenue over these past five years in Scotland, is just £6.7 billion.

Or, to put it another way, if the UK had performed as well as Scotland - that is if the UK had spent to the same level and earned to the same level as Scotland - then their current account deficit would be around £80 billion in the 5 years covered by the report, a full £100 billion less.

Expect some of tomorrow’s papers to be full of some well-worn lines about GERS. Some will claim that it shows Scotland is too poor to be independent. Others will say that somehow we are financially dependent on the UK. But the true picture is very different. On these numbers it is the UK that is in the deep financial hole. Indeed the UK would be in an even worse position if it wasn’t for Scotland. Which makes me wonder, is that what is really meant by the Union dividend? It is a dividend, but not for Scotland.

A tale of two countries

2011-05-25T11:06:00.001+01:00

I haven't blogged for a wee while. In the immediate aftermath of the election I've been focusing on my university dissertation, editing down the first draft and beginning the process of turning it into the final product.

But now, with the electoral dust settling, I want to reflect on what I think will be a fast emerging reality over these next five years - the development of very different political and social models north and south of the border.

In his speech to SNP conference last autumn, Alex Salmond said: "Much has been said about the Big Society. I am more concerned with the Fair Society." These two sentences tell us a great deal about the approach that will be adopted by the SNP government. The SNP way stands in contrast to the ambition of the UK government, evidenced by their actions and articulated once again in the speech David Cameron delivered earlier this week.

In his address to the Scottish Parliament tomorrow, I believe our very different destination will become clear, and I don't mean that in a constitutional sense. As is often the case during an election campaign, some of the bigger picture themes are obscured by the day to day detail. But tomorrow's Taking Scotland Forward speech presents the opportunity to capture the various elements and present them as a whole. It will give the First Minister the chance to set out in clear terms the sort of country he believes Scotland can become. Effectively, the shape and tenor of the society we can create, together, over these next few years.

And what are some of those elements? On the economy it is a desire to continue pump-priming jobs and growth through ongoing investment in national infrastructure. The SNP, in the last session, delayed the onset of the London government's cuts and the result is a much stronger employment performance compared with the rest of the UK. This is most apparent in the construction sector which saw 14% growth over the last year. Stronger and more flexible borrowing powers in the future will be a key element, enabling us to maintain this focus on job creation.

In the health service, we are determined to ensure the preservation of a truly national service while in England, government plans will lead to the effective dismemberment of their NHS. Our model of a mutual NHS, with patients as partners rather than customers, is based on a belief in the value of a public sector ethos. We know that it is a commitment to something greater than profit that delivers exceptional performance in our public services. Contributing to a wider public good - to have meaning in what we do - is, quite literally, priceless.

In our universities, the Scottish Government's commitment to maintain free higher education stands in contrast to a Westminster approach that will see university education based on ability to pay and not the ability to learn. I have heard the First Minister, on numerous occasions, speak with pride of Scotland's early commitment to free education: free, compulsory education which produced the fertile ground for a proliferation of inventors and thinkers, gave birth to the Enlightenment and created a golden thread of learning that today is reflected in the internationally recognised excellence of our research. And that, we know, is something worth protecting.

And, if we could, we would not be spending billions on new nuclear weapons as the London government plans. Instead, as a nation, we would choose to invest, I believe, in gold-standard childcare and decent pensions. These speak more to who we are, who we want to be, than weapons of mass-destruction.

There is a harshness to the UK government's approach that goes against the grain of Scottish society. In the 1980's Scotland reacted against the then Tory government because we sensed so many of the things we held dear were under threat. And that wasn't simply a threat to any one service or any one industry - the threat was to the very fabric of our society, to the things that defined us as a nation and as a community. The Thatcher way was alien.

Then, we lacked the ability to choose our own path. Today, with a Scottish Parliament and Government, that opportunity exists. And it is an opportunity we will take. Step by step, with hard work and determination, we can build, and will build, a new and fairer Scotland. Not yet in every way, but in many ways. And, the country we create will be a very different one from the nation that is emerging down south.

This is a tale of two countries, of two very different visions of society and of the future. It reflects contrasting priorities. And that, ultimately, is what Home Rule - devolution and independence - is all about.

A government of all our ambitions

2011-05-17T08:40:00.000+01:00

There is a line in the speech Alex Salmond delivered at Prestonfield House, in the immediate aftermath of the SNP's victory in the Scottish election, that sums up perfectly what I hope and believe the SNP government, over these next five years, will be all about.

Towards the end of his comments, Alex said: "I'll govern for all of the ambitions for Scotland and all the people who imagine that we can live in a better land."

Attention is now moving away from the historic nature of the result itself, to the real issues of policy and delivery. So I want to reflect on what I think some of those ambitions are, based on the many conversations we had as part of the manifesto development process.

The list could, in many ways, be endless. For each of our 5 million fellow citizens there are ambitions that are personal and unique and indeed ambitions that are developing and changing. But from this list of infinite potential, I am going to choose just two. Regular readers of this blog won't be surprised by my choice given the powerful impact and contribution of two particular groups in our manifesto preparation.

First, Scotland's unpaid carers. The message that came from them was a very simple one. It is an aspiration, and indeed expectation, that I hope ministers do all they can to meet. Scotland's unpaid carers want to be true partners in the care of their loved ones and to be seen as partners and treated as partners. At its simplest this means turning the good words and good ideas in all the parties' manifestos into action on the ground. It means recognising the invaluable role unpaid carers play and their unique knowledge. The responsibility politicians now have - and that means politicians in all parties in parliament and indeed in council chambers - is to iron out the bureaucratic complexities that can too often get in the way.

There are three steps in particular I want to highlight. First is the early activation of the SNP's proposed Carers' Parliament so that the politicians and civil servants can hear first hand the experiences of carers. That will give them the essential knowledge they need to begin a process of reform and improvement.

Second, is a new approach in the NHS that turns the good guidance that undoubtedly exists into positive experience for carers, so that they are brought more closely into the conversations and planning of the professional care offered by the health service. I remember hearing story after story from carers who felt excluded when the information they could provide would improve the care for their loved ones and also make life easier for the doctors and nurses themselves.

And finally, we have to respond adequately to the particular needs of young carers, especially in a school setting. I can only imagine the pressure on young carers who have to juggle their caring responsibilities and their school work and the system must respond more sympathetically and effectively to their uniquely difficult circumstances. Our proposal to make the Education Maintenance Allowance more flexible is an important starting point.

The second group to deliver a powerful message of change was the Poverty Truth Commission. As the Commission itself says, for Scotland's most disadvantaged communities "nothing about us, without us, is for us". I hope these words are emblazoned in the minds of the new SNP ministerial team. Community empowerment was an important theme in the SNP manifesto and at its core this means that communities themselves must, as much as possible, have the opportunity to determine the right approach for their own circumstances. It has to mean a move away from the worst top-down policy making and decision making of the past.

I'll highlight two initiatives that I believe can make a difference. First is our proposed Warm Homes Fund which has at its heart the determination not only to insulate homes and provide sources of renewable energy for fuel poor communities, but more than this, it has the clear purpose of ensuring those renewable energy sources are community-owned and deliver a long-term financial return - an income stream which the communities themselves control and can use to improve their local area. And in my view, that source of renewable energy need not be in the community itself. I see no good reason why the fund shouldn't be used to allow the most fuel-poor communities to own a wind turbine or a share of a turbine in one of the wind-farms being constructed elsewhere. It would be good to see our energy companies as willing partners in this sort of meaningful corporate social responsibility.

Second is our Community Empowerment Bill which will make it easier for local organisations to take over unused and underused public sector assets and put them to good use. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) made very clear in the run up to the campaign just how important this step could be. If we can create or reclaim spaces for vibrant, locally-led organisations then I have no doubt that we will create stronger and more successful communities and as importantly a range of initiatives that respond more effectively to local needs. Scotland has a complex mosaic of need and that requires an equally intricate mosaic of response. To borrow another phrase from the First Minister, Holyrood does not have a monopoly of wisdom and I hope that Scotland's politicians can find ways of releasing local potential and supporting the flowering of community activity in its many forms.

In the days since the SNP election victory some commentators have asked what Scotland voted for. I think the answer is simple - for a government of all our ambitions. A Scottish Government not only working hard for the people of our nation today, but as importantly with an eye to the better land we need to create and can create.

What does that mean? Hopefully the elements I've outlined above give some illustration. Ministers, building on a clear direction of travel over these past four years to deliver an approach that is about transforming, in simple but important ways, the day to day life experience of people in all parts of our nation.

What else? How about real action on anti-social behaviour, with a clamp down on pocket-money priced alcohol to make communities safer. Incomes protected with water bills and Council tax frozen. Job creation prioritised so we can keep people in work and create new opportunities for employment. These things, and more, designed to answer basics hopes, delivering ambition that is also grounded in our day to day reality: security and peace of mind whether you are walking down your street or balancing your family budget.

As a final thought, one last campaign image, courtesy of Ewan McIntosh. This is a 'wordle' of our manifesto and it paints, in the most vivid way, what I believe is a true picture of the SNP election campaign. A campaign that, at its most basic, did have Scotland, and our many ambitions, at its heart:

Stronger together as equals

2011-05-10T12:45:00.001+01:00

In the immediate aftermath of the election a lot has been said and written about the SNP's constitutional plans. It seems already that opposition politicians have not learnt many (or any) lessons from last Thursday's results.

While the SNP has got on with the job - as we said we would - of trying to add job-creating powers to the Scotland Bill, the same parties who said the SNP would be obsessed with a referendum have spent the past week obsessing about a referendum. Do those other parties not realise how strange this looks?

And, once parliament begins its work, the SNP will be getting on with the job of delivering on our various manifesto commitments. I am looking forward in particular to the new government taking forward our Scottish Futures Fund. This fund, with its five elements, has the potential to transform key areas of Scottish society with significant investment in creating opportunities for young Scots and tackling fuel poverty, among others.

But, back to the constitution. It has also been interesting to see the wider 'Unionist' response. Already there are indications that groups are being formed to make the 'no' case in the referendum. One, it seems, is to be called 'Stronger Together'. This emerging group (if it does ever emerge) is indicative of the problem facing the anti-independence cause - they will be arguing against independence in a way that ignores the reality of what independence would be. They will be attacking so-called separatism when separatism is not on the agenda.

As far back as 2007 Alex Salmond said the following:

"Independence will bring many opportunities for our nation, and with those opportunities also greater success and prosperity. And with independence I look forward to a new partnership with our neighbours in England - one where we will be equal partners, not surly lodgers.

In that new relationship the Queen would remain the Head of State in Scotland. The current parliamentary and political Union would become a monarchical and social union - United Kingdoms rather than a United Kingdom - maintaining a relationship first forged in 1603 by the Union of the Crowns.

Independence for Scotland in the 21st century would reflect the reality of existing interdependence: partnership in these Islands and more widely across Europe."

So what does this mean? Ultimately, that we will be stronger together, but as equals. Instead of an old Union based on the power politics of the 18th century, we will have a new, more modern partnership fit for this 21st century.

Independence will mean a relationship on these Isles that is brought up to date. It is a myth to suggest that the current arrangements are about a fair and equal partnership. Today, Scotland is subsidiary - in constitutional terms Westminster still calls the shots. In the areas of policy that are supposedly shared - for example the welfare state - Scottish opinion has next to no weight in the decisions taken at Westminster. The scandalous and systematic defence underspend in Scotland provides another vivid illustration. It is 'one size fits all' under current arrangements, even if the UK way is a bad fit for Scotland.

Sometimes it is useful to visualise these things. For me the Union today is illustrated as follows:

Whereas independence becomes:

We are still connected, but in a different and more appropriate way.

There are two points to this. First, the independence illustration also reflects how many people in Scotland view themselves. Scottish first, British second and European third. In the important politics of identity, it is the independence offering that chimes with people's view of themselves.

And second, the Unionist defenders of the status quo will be attacking something that doesn't exist. Separatism may be a handy attack-phrase, but it is not what the SNP is proposing as even a quick examination of the various National Conversation papers and the independence white and green papers would demonstrate.

If Stronger Together is to be the rallying call for Unionism, it is a rallying call that will fail, because the SNP offering - stronger together as equals - has more resonance. With independence we'll be equal partners in Europe and equal partners on these Isles, on those many issues where we choose to work together.

As the SNP manifesto for the election says, at its most basic independence is the ability to take our own decisions. Does anyone doubt that an independent Scotland would choose to continue important partnerships with our nearest neighbour? For the 'no' side to pretend otherwise is their first strategic mistake. Once again they will be taking the Scottish electorate - the most sophisticated in Europe - for fools. And that is, quite simply, bad politics.

Hope did beat fear

2011-05-07T17:38:00.000+01:00

We won.

That is the shortest and sweetest sentence I can imagine writing. Even now the thought sends a shiver of delight through my tired body.

And even though I am physically exhausted, even just seeing this picture brings a new wave of elation:

A victory on this scale brings enormous responsibility and having just heard Alex Salmond speaking to the new SNP Parliamentary Group - and hearing their response - I know that sense of responsibility and duty is uppermost in people's minds. We have earned an unprecedented level of trust and support and we must respond in the same way: with unprecedented commitment, passion and hard-work.

I felt enormously proud speaking to some of our new MSPs. Despite the undoubted joy of the occasion and the initial shared words of celebration and congratulation, conversation quickly moved on to the important things: their constituents and what they want to achieve in these next five years.

The result is humbling, and seeing the response of our new team is humbling too. I took this picture earlier today of the new group being greeted by Alex Salmond. It captures a rather special moment for all of us and is without doubt my picture of the week and indeed my picture of the campaign.

24 hours ago I was standing in Prestonfield House waiting for the First Minister to deliver his excellent speech. Here's a picture I took as the media were gathering, about an hour before Alex Salmond's arrival.

The images from that afternoon will remain with me for the rest of my days.

So why did the SNP win? I blogged on polling day on the reasons people were giving us their vote. And at its most basic I do believe our campaign, which sought to inspire, did inspire. We set out a vision of hope, confidence in our nation and optimism for the future - a vision delivered by a dedicated, competent and effective team. And in contrast the other parties spent so much time trying to attack or to frighten they spent too little on their own vision thing. As is always the case, each party had uniquely good proposals, but I don't recall any of them being pushed seriously. More effort was put into telling people why we were (supposedly) so bad than into saying why they were better. Labour's offers were all about first the Tories, then the SNP and then about a future independence decision. They gave no strong reason why people would vote for them.

I've written a lot about positive campaigning over these past few months. Hope has beaten fear. Optimism has defeated pessimism. And that thought, in itself, brings a fresh smile to my face.

This election has been historic in many ways. It has broken the mould of Scottish politics as we knew it. And my personal wish is that the next time Scotland's parties go to the voters asking for the privilege to represent them in parliament or as Scotland's government, they all do so on the basis of what they will do, how they will inspire and how they will take Scotland forward. That might make things more difficult for the SNP, but it will make things better for Scotland.

A good morning

2011-05-06T08:03:00.001+01:00

It has been a pretty amazing night so far for the SNP, and there are some more good results to come.

it is very humbling to have earned the trust and support of so many people across Scotland.

There were some fantastic results including the election of a great friend Jim Eadie in Edinburgh Southern. I met Jim yesterday morning at my local polling station and it is great, less than 24 hours later, to see him elected as an MSP. He will be an effective parliamentarian and representative for the people of Edinburgh.

Our newly elected MSPs represent Scotland in its diversity. We have Scotland's first blind MSP, a new Scots Asian MSP and some strong new women MSPs, with more to come.

And what is encouraging is that the regional votes in so far are of the same sort of level as the constituency vote. We've had big swings in Glasgow and Central Regions, which suggests that our 'both votes' strategy is paying dividends.

Still some way to go, with the last results not due until later this afternoon. But what we do know is that this will be the best ever result for the SNP. So thank you.

Scottish voters sending a clear message

2011-05-06T03:53:00.000+01:00

Given the way Scotland is voting tonight, the Scotland Bill clearly needs to be significantly strengthened in terms of job-creating powers. A clear message is being sent. We know most voters want a stronger Scottish Parliament and that is one of the reasons they are backing the SNP.

I hope the UK government is watching closely - we need to see early progress on borrowing powers, the Crown Estate Commission and corporation tax.

Hope beating fear?

2011-05-06T01:05:00.004+01:00

That's the first result in, but with indications also flooding in from counts across Scotland, it seems as though Labour may be paying the price for their unrelenting and uninspiring negativity.

The people of Scotland may be about to tell Labour that they have had enough of scare-mongering campaigns.

UPDATE

The swings in East Kilbride (6.6%) and Rutherglen (7.7%) are starting to tell a story. Watch out for Hamilton next.

UPDATE

The swing of 11% in Hamilton shows the SNP gaining votes from Labour, Lib Dem and Tory. The Labour line about a re-alignment of the centre-right is mistaken. The reality must be dawning on Labour, surely, that they are paying the price for their fear-filled campaign.

UPDATE

The SNP seemingly winning Glasgow Shettleston is perhaps the most amazing result of the night so far - once it is confirmed. The anticipated swing is over 11%. And for the SNP to come within a whisker of winning Greenock also speaks volumes. The Labour majority has fallen to 500.

Rutherglen

2011-05-06T00:46:00.003+01:00

The swing in Rutherglen will be interesting - big Labour lead last time will reduce significantly I am hearing.

UPDATE

The swing to the SNP was 7.43% - Rutherglen was Labour's 4th safest seat. Could be an interesting night ahead of us.

Glasgow Kelvin

2011-05-06T00:22:00.002+01:00

Hearing that Labour are conceding in Glasgow Kelvin.

Starting to hear from the counts

2011-05-06T00:07:00.000+01:00

We are getting some interesting and positive indications from counts across the country. Definitely worth staying up for the first results.

Political betting

2011-05-05T23:23:00.000+01:00

Interesting post on Political Betting:

"Labour have given up on Clydesdale, a bell weather seat in central Scotland. My sources say that the SNP vote is up a full 10 per cent with LABOUR DOWN on 2007 even although no Liberal standing."

The starting point

2011-05-05T21:42:00.000+01:00

Not long until polls close and the campaign team is beginning to gather at HQ or at the various counts and television studios.

The starting point for tonight is of course a 1 seat SNP advantage and the starting point for this campaign was a 10% plus Labour lead.

We must remember that the best ever result for the SNP was 33%. So, if we win tonight, anything more than 1 seat or anything over 33% is a success.

We also know that Labour poured thousands of activists into key seats today - 10,000 it seems.

We remain hopeful of victory, but the votes have still to be counted. The people still have to be heard. And the result? We'll know soon enough.

10 reasons why people are voting SNP

2011-05-05T13:05:00.001+01:00

We've spent a lot of time in this election campaign speaking directly to voters and as part of our research efforts have gained a pretty good understanding of why people are voting SNP in this election, including those voting SNP for the first time. These are just some of the reasons people are voting SNP today:

1. Alex Salmond will make the best First Minister for Scotland.

2. The SNP government has done a good job over these past four years and that's a good reason for thinking we're most likely to do the same over the next five years.

3. We don't answer to anyone but the Scottish people - no split loyalties. And, as part of this they see us as representing Scotland as a whole rather than one section of it.

4. We believe in independence for Scotland. And, for those who don't share this belief, they like the fact we believe in something.

5. They think the Council Tax freeze shows that we actually understand the financial pressures and uncertainty they are facing.

6. They like the fact Alex Salmond has an ambitious vision for Scotland which is encapsulated in his determination to make the most of our green energy windfall - some see the jobs and wealth potential because of the experience with North Sea oil. There's a sense that this time Scotland should get its full and fair share.

7. They think we are best placed and most likely to stand up for Scotland.

8. They think our team is the most representative of Scotland, not just at senior level, but at all levels there are SNP people they identify with. This is most often reflected in a good experience with a local councillor or MSP/candidate.

9. They don't like one of the other parties and think the SNP is best placed to beat that party in their seat.

10. They like the fact we talk Scotland up and have a bit of confidence about our nation's abilities and its future.

There are others, specific to policy proposals or based on personal connections. But these are certainly the top 10 that we've picked up over the closing part of this campaign.

Whatever your reason, I hope that today you will trust the SNP again and, crucially, give us both your votes to re-elect the SNP and Alex Salmond as First Minister.

And here's a video from Alex Salmond, recorded yesterday, explaining why he thinks you should use both votes for the SNP today:

Final thoughts

2011-05-04T22:15:00.000+01:00

Scotland's election takes place tomorrow (in case you hadn't noticed). And it's been a long campaign to say the least. The mood in SNP HQ has remained good throughout - never too high and never too low. There's been a steady and consistent focus on the job that needs doing.

The SNP has many strengths and, as a friend and former colleague reminded me last night, one that is rarely spoken about is the nature of the leadership and campaign teams. We are people who have worked together for a good number of years - in some cases well over 20 years. It is a team, with some important additions, that in many ways remains largely unchanged from the hardy group that fought the 1999 election (and for some that could go back to the 1992 and 1997 elections as well).

What does this mean in reality? First there is a lot of collective and shared knowledge and experience - we've learnt some hard lessons and indeed many new skills. And whatever the result tomorrow we are still learning. Second, as a team we have a good sense of how each of us is going to react and we know almost instinctively who is best placed to take forward a particular task. Second-guessing is at a minimum.

And finally, a great deal of trust and respect has been built up. It would be going too far to say that we are all friends, but certainly bonds of friendship connect every single member of the team. We talk to each other a lot and we socialise with each other. That creates a very coherent, and I believe effective, group of people.

If I look around my colleagues in SNP HQ I see people who will go the extra mile, who will step in to help when help is needed. No one is too grand or too important to do even the most menial task. If something needs done it gets done.

People sometimes ask me what it is like being involved in an election campaign, and the truth is every one is unique. They are long and both physically and mentally exhausting. Late nights are followed by early mornings and there is little room for anything outside the campaign. But that is not unique to the SNP campaign.

But there is something that is unique about our campaign. I walk to work every morning knowing that my job that day is to make people feel better about Scotland; to inspire them about what we can achieve. I don't spend a minute of my day thinking about how I can frighten people or how I can knock voters' confidence. That is hugely rewarding personally and it is also a powerful antidote to tiredness. I don't envy my counterparts in the Labour Party who it seems are focused more on what Scotland can't do. For the SNP the possibilities for Scotland are endless - for Labour Scotland's potential must be constrained.

One of my jobs in the final weeks of the campaign has been to draft some of the national leaflets and floating voter letters that have gone through people's doors in recent days. Not a single word has been written in those leaflets or letters saying why people shouldn't vote Labour - it has all been about why people should vote SNP.

Here's an example of the contrast. This is the final weekend leaflet we put out:

And this is one of Labour's:

Of course, we'll find out on Friday which is the more effective. My number one criticism of the Labour approach is that it simply doesn't inspire. It doesn't even seek to inspire.

There's a fascinating video on the Guardian website that looks at people's motivations for voting in this election. Unfortunately I can't stream it directly on the blog, but if you follow this link it is well worth the 9 minutes of viewing. What struck me most was the number of people who said they were voting SNP because we offered an optimistic vision for Scotland. They seem to like the fact that we are saying to them the path ahead is a bright one.

Two final thoughts, one political and one more personal.

Again a contrast. Today's papers contain details of 200 business-people who are publicly saying they want Alex Salmond re-elected as First Minister. From some of the most successful businesses in Scotland to local corner shops. These people who create wealth and jobs in our country want Alex Salmond to take the reins of government once again. Here it is in advert form in the Scotsman:

And while we were putting out this positive statement the Tories (supported in the most shocking way by Labour) were issuing a press-release with a claim that income tax would need to increase to an eye-watering level in an independent Scotland. The people who issued the release aren't stupid and they know the basis of their claim is ridiculous and untrue. If the same calculation was made for the UK, income tax would have to rise to even more eye-watering levels, to over 60p. So why did they make it? Simply because they want to frighten people. I can only repeat: thank goodness that is not the job I have to do.

And finally, I began all those weeks ago with a blog about 'caveman campaigning' - whether or not it would be possible to keep up the paleo diet in the midst of an election campaign. The second untold story of the SNP HQ effort is that it has been fuelled by a seemingly constant stream of cake and chocolate. In the face of this remarkable level of temptation, I'm pleased to report back that I did manage. Variety may have suffered (i.e. I've been eating pretty much the same quick and easily prepared food for weeks now) but with the help of a tub of 'emergency' nuts and seeds, I've been able to keep my diet 99.9% paleolithic (the two slip ups were on my birthday)! I've also managed 3-times a week at the gym, something that has certainly helped keep the stress levels down.

I'll be keeping this blog updated through the night tomorrow as the polls close and the first results come in.

And don't forget, both votes SNP! This election is still too close to call, every vote is needed. If you want Alex Salmond for First Minister, you've got to vote for it.

Horror, humour and the vision thing

2011-05-02T19:48:00.005+01:00

We've had some interesting feedback from the doors over the past 48 hours, including today the first reaction to the BBC Leaders' debate.

Last night, as the debate was being recorded, I tweeted that I thought Alex Salmond was the only one to use the word ambition in the whole show. I thought the fact he set out a compelling vision based on ambition for Scotland was one of his key strengths on the night - and also one of the factors that set him apart from the other participants.

In a debate most viewers only take away one memorable line or one impression and it seems, for last night, that the stand out memory for many was Alex's 'vision thing' on renewables. I find that hugely encouraging, but I suppose not surprising. When people are deciding who they want to lead the country for the next five years they are naturally going to focus on where the candidate wants to lead them. Alex offered a compelling vision of a re-industrialised Scotland, and that is powerful in its own right. But it was made all the more powerful because he was the only leader to offer a vision of any kind.

The other interesting feedback from the frontline relates to the Labour Party's recent assault on independence. Certainly independence is being spoken about more on the doorsteps, but the big difference in this election is that the Labour attack is being weighed against people's actual experience of us.

There was a poll today in the Scotsman which found that 57% of Scots believe that the SNP has done a good job of running Scotland, well over three-times the 17% who take the opposite view. Against this belief, the Labour claim of a 'distracted' SNP just doesn't add up. Voters know we haven't been distracted over the past four years. They also know we've delivered a Council Tax freeze, 1,000 extra police, the small business bonus and many more positive things. People know us by our actions, not by Labour's words.

The chat on the doorsteps today confirmed this position. Voters aren't daft. They have been able to separate out in their minds an election on Thursday that is about who will form the next government in Scotland. They know it is not a Westminster election or an independence referendum campaign.

They've seen how the SNP government has behaved over these past four year and from that they can work out how we are going to behave over the next five years.

Labour could have played the independence card more subtly, but they choose to do it with the usual hysteria and exaggeration. Tonight, in their last election broadcast, they made their final pitch. And the Hammer House of Horror voiceover said it all. They missed the mark because they re-ran a 2007 attack without realising that the world, and Scottish voters, have moved on. And that is the number one reason their attack is failing on the doorsteps.

Tomorrow night is the SNP's final broadcast. And it is perfectly pitched to undermine Labour's last minute scaremongering assault. It says here is our record, this is who we are, and building on this record this is what we are going to do: Council Tax frozen again, the 1,000 extra police maintained, better and faster NHS treatment to name just a few.

As a variation on my oft repeated mantra, this time it is Pythonesque humour and hope that will beat Labour's 'Hammer Horror' and fear.

And again to close off this blog, two new favourite pics. The first was taken last night in the so-called 'spin room' at the BBC Leaders' debate. it shows the SNP team watching as the debate unfolded on the big screen in front of us, with Liz Lloyd and me engaged in some (not so) surreptitious pre-tweeting of the debate.

And the second wins my award for the most disturbing picture of the campaign (so far). Ten, otherwise sane, members of the campaign team sporting high-visibility Alex Salmond for First Minister jackets. The spring sunshine had clearly gone to their heads, but it does make a rather good picture . . .

And in case you are wondering what tomorrow's broadcast is going to be, you can see a previous version of it here:

One week to go - the final push

2011-04-30T09:05:00.001+01:00

This time next week we'll be waking up to headlines telling us who has won Scotland's election. And, as we approach the final few days, the SNP campaign is once again moving up a gear.

Over this weekend there will be extensive campaigning nationwide with efforts focused on the key seats and as importantly on the crucial list ballot. With the list vote determining the final balance of the parliament and thus deciding who will become First Minister, we will be urging voters who want to re-elect Alex Salmond as First Minister to make sure they give us both votes. First, on the larger, peach or salmon coloured ballot paper with a vote for SNP (Alex Salmond for First Minister) and then on the lilac or lavender coloured constituency ballot with a vote for an effective local SNP MSP.

This message will be repeated online, on leaflets and in the national press in a campaign that is designed to reach out to every single household in Scotland. My view is that the SNP will be doing more over these final few days than all the other political parties in Scotland put together. And what will be clear is that we are working hard for victory - working hard to earn each and every vote.

I'm playing my own small part with a declaration to the world - or at least my neighbours and passers by via window posters - my intention of voting SNP.

We have learned many lessons over the years in terms of our campaign approach and perhaps the most important is understanding better the various elements that together determine how someone will cast their vote. First is relevance - being in the race, being seen to be credible, is an essential starting point. Second is tone or, perhaps more accurately, how we tap into people's emotions. A key lesson from the 2007 election - and one confirmed by recent academic analysis of that election - is that the positive and upbeat nature of the SNP's message was crucial. A significant number of people voted for the party they thought had run the best and most positive campaign. Why? Because that campaign made them feel good about themselves, their nation and that party. The style of the campaign was a key influencer. And in this regard, hope does beat fear.

And finally, and most importantly, is what could be crudely termed as 'what's in it for me'. People are looking for a realistic policy platform that will make life better for them, for their family and for their community. The reality of a modern political campaign is that most voters do not engage with every aspect of a party's policy pitch, but they do pick up on those issues which mean something tangible to them. The SNP's Council Tax freeze is a perfect example of this, whereas Labour's scaremongering about independence, in contrast, is more distant. It is one-step removed.

And likewise, on justice where the SNP and Labour have both made strong pitches for their respective offerings, the prospect of keeping the 1000 extra police on the beat is more real to more people than Labour's alternative.

In these final few days one of the most important leaflets we will issue features these 'what's in it for me' policy pledges. This leaflet alone will go to 1.9 million households and it has been designed with swing voters in mind. At the heart of it is our determination to build a fairer Scotland, a message we know has real resonance with people who voted Lib Dem in 2010, for example. And that means a fair deal for families, with Council Tax frozen; a fair start in life for young Scots with Sure Start investment and more new schools and, a fair chance at a job with 25,000 Modern Apprenticeship places and action to support our job and wealth creating local and national entrepreneurs.

In contrast, I've seen the new leaflet Labour are putting out over these final few days in parts of the country. It focuses on the claim that the SNP are pro-Margaret Thatcher (I know, you could hardly make it up!). It offers little reason why people should vote for Labour and instead centres on a completely unreal and unbelievable claim about the SNP. If I thought the Labour material I reviewed last weekend was poor, this latest offering is even worse. Do they not realise that people have got to know the SNP, for good and bad, over these past four years? Make-believe in a leaflet cannot in any way hope to overcome the day to day experience people have of the SNP government. People know us by our own actions and not by Labour's words. And, they will cast their vote on that basis. Is this all part of a well-thought out Labour grand plan? I don't think so. But if it is all part of the plan, why on earth, on this final weekend when so many people are making up their mind, did they think it was wise to look back 20 years rather than make any offer for the future?

For the SNP, our actions in these next few days are part of a plan. Back in August 2010 we began to map out our campaign and the final week and indeed the final day message is the one that we decided on all those months ago. From our engagement with voters across Scotland what we discovered was that we had two crucial foundations for our campaign: a belief that we were the most credible government and an assessment that we had done quite a good job over these past four years. As a result we focused in the first part of the long and short campaigns on team and record, before, at the manifesto launch, moving more firmly on to the ground of team and vision. And it is this vision, deployed by our top team, that will be at the heart of our final week efforts.

Will it be enough to secure victory? I certainly hope so, but of course we won't know until all the votes are cast and counted. However, over these next few days we will be working flat out to earn the support of even more Scots. And the more people who back us, the more we can achieve.

To close off today's blog, two campaign favourites from this week. First, an excellent video posted by musician and writer Pat Kane. Pat Kane gets it 100% right when he talks about Black Watch. I've heard the First Minister wax lyrical about this excellent National Theatre Production and complex and challenging as it is, this matters less than the way it showcases Scotland's creative energy and talent.

And finally, my picture of the week. That honour goes to one taken earlier in the campaign but only this week published on the SNP facebook page. It was taken by our social media expert Kirk Torrance. The first copies of the SNP manifesto had just arrived at HQ and I think it is pretty clear that I am pleased with the final result!

And hopefully, this time next week, I will be equally pleased with the final election result. There's lots more to do if we are to secure victory, but be assured, everyone in the SNP will be working hard to earn the trust and support of the people of our nation.

And, what is in it for me, for you, for all of us? Quite simply a better and fairer nation. Together, we took the first steps on that journey four years ago and with your support we can build on the progress made. Yes, there is more to do. So lets keep Scotland moving forward.

The importance of the Council Tax freeze

2011-04-27T10:23:00.000+01:00

There was an interesting poll in the Scotsman yesterday about the continued popularity of the Council Tax freeze. It shows that 75% of Scots back a continuation of the freeze with only 19% opposed.

In many ways this shouldn't surprise us. The Damascene conversion of some Labour politicians to the Council Tax freeze in recent weeks - despite their 8 years of increasing the tax and 4 years of opposing the freeze - was evidence enough of the popularity of the policy on the doorsteps. I say some deliberately. Labour support for the Council Tax freeze is skin deep. The few conversations I've had with Labour activists confirm this - pretty soon their deep-seated opposition to this flagship SNP policy comes to the surface.

But why is this important? I think there is an underlying symbolism to the Council Tax freeze. Yes, it will save people money, but beyond this I believe it sends a signal to the voters that the SNP understands the position they are in. As a policy it communicates very simply our recognition that families are feeling the financial squeeze and that there is still uncertainty over jobs and future wage rises.

There are two very important underpinning elements of our Council Tax freeze policy.

First, what we are doing is covering the cost of an increase - the extra money that would go to local services from higher Council Tax is being paid by central government. The extra money for local services is provided, but hard-pressed families don't have to pay it through their Council tax bill.

Second, and closely linked to this, is how we are paying for it. Our position is clear - the Council Tax freeze is funded from the actions we are taking to make government more efficient. Those actions already include a 25% reduction in the number of quangos, releasing £125 million by 2013 and £39 million a year thereafter. Or the 25% reduction in the cost of senior civil service and 25% reduction in the number of NHS managers - a package of savings that will free up £100 million by 2015. The Council Tax freeze gives voters a share in these savings.

At its simplest, money is still provided for local services (£70 million extra a year). That money comes from smaller and more joined-up central government, from economies and efficiencies - and what voter doesn't think government can be more efficient? And, as result we are able to freeze Council tax bills.

It is not only a virtuous policy circle. It is also good politics. And it is one of the reasons more and more Scots are now turning to the SNP in this election. They can see we believe in the Council tax freeze. For us, it is not a one month wonder - a quick conversion - but part of a longer relationship that we have built up over these past four years.

In that very glib political phrase it demonstrates to the individual voter that we 'are on your side'. In one proposition we make clear that we have heard people's concerns and that we are addressing people's concerns. That is a very powerful combination.

Who would you believe on jobs?

2011-04-25T10:42:00.004+01:00

Just a quick update this morning following the news that Martin Gilbert, Chief Executive of Aberdeen Asset Management has today endorsed Alex Salmond for First Minister. Why is this important? It's not just the fact that Mr Gilbert won the Scotland plc Chief Executive of the Year award last week or that his company won Large plc of the year following growth in its funds under management to £183 billion.

While these all add to the weight of the endorsement, they are only part of the picture. What is important for me is that this endorsement comes on the day Labour relaunch their election campaign with a claim that a re-elected SNP will be a threat to Scottish jobs.

Who do you believe? Scotland's top Chief Executive in the Business Insider Scotland plc awards? Or the leader of the Labour Party who over the weekend claimed that his party had eradicated youth unemployment when figures from the House of Commons show that youth unemployment in Scotland went from 64,000 in 1999 when Labour took office to 62,000 in 2007 when they lost power.

Today's endorsement brings to mind a similar attempt by Labour in the 2007 campaign to scaremonger about the SNP - that too was rebuffed by leading Scottish business figures.

Here's what Mr Gilbert has said today:

"I am pretty pragmatic when it comes to who runs the country where I live and started my career and have a simple view - I want to see policies in action that create a more financially responsible and stronger Scotland. I know Alex Salmond wants that too. I've really enjoyed working with the First Minister and agree with him that there has never been a better time for Scotland to become more responsible for the way the country supports itself. I have been impressed with his vision for the future and believe he should serve as First Minister for a second-term to continue to push for growth, job creation and better public services."

Martin Gilbert lives in Aberdeen and Aberdeen Asset Management is now one of Europe's largest independent asset management groups. It employs around 1,800 people in 24 countries. Mr Gilbert is respected across the political divide. For example, in 2006 he was appointed by Jack McConnell, former Labour First Minister, to Scotland's Financial Services Advisory Board.

UPDATE - Another job-creator, Jim Spowart, has this morning also spoken about the SNP's action on the economy and jobs. Four years ago today Mr Spowart appeared in a Labour Party advert. This is what Mr Spowart has to say now:

"I was very involved in trying to prevent the virtual monopoly position the UK Government allowed Lloyds to achieve in Scotland's banking market, and was impressed by the actions and analysis of the Scottish Government - a position vindicted by last week's banking interim report.

"I have no intention of getting involved in politics, but believe the current administration has demonstrated knowledge and credibility in delivering a positive economic policy, and that it has earned the confidence of the vast swathe of Scotland's business community."

Mr Spowart is one of Scotland’s leading financial sector entrepreneurs, and has been responsible for the development of four start-up banks: Intelligent Finance, Direct Line Financial Services, Standard Life Bank, and St James Place Bank. He has had a central part in the creation of thousands of jobs.

UPDATE AGAIN - a third leading business figure has spoken today following the Labour Party's attack this morning. Peter de Vink, Managing Director of Edinburgh Financial and General Holdings has said:

"With the election next week, it is a shame to hear Mr Gray resort to negative attacks instead of offering a positive vision for Scotland. Alex Salmond and his very talented team have done an excellent job in Scotland where under very difficult circumstances they have run an outstanding administration. They have set a vision for Scotland that will create jobs and position the country well for the future.

"Alex Salmond and John Swinney have experience in both the public and private sectors so they know that supporting businesses means supporting jobs – from the small business bonus to plans to cut corporation tax.

"Scaremongering of the sort we are seeing from the Labour leader today shows that he is not qualified to lead the country, and none of his front bench has the private sector experience of the kind needed to take Scotland forward.

"Negative attacks didn’t work for the Labour Party in 2007 and it won’t work for them now. Scots are perfectly capable of deciding what they think for themselves in a referendum. The question though for next week is – who do you want to lead the country? For me, the answer is simple. Alex Salmond and his team have done a good job and deserve a second term."

Hope beats fear

2011-04-24T09:26:00.000+01:00

Across Scotland today millions of people are waking up to sunshine and the happy prospect of two long weekends to mark Easter and May Day. For a lucky proportion the long weekend will stretch into close to a fortnight of holiday time - days off to enjoy family, good weather (we hope) and the many pleasures our country has to offer.

But be warned a dark shadow is looming. Coming soon to a letter box near you, Labour's latest series of campaign leaflets. I had the misfortune yesterday to see what Labour has planned for their re-launch initiative. Two post-card style leaflets and what seems to be an ad-trailer advert. It made me smile - from a purely political perspective - because rarely have I seen a worse collection of campaign material.

There's sunshine across Scotland, people have a spring in their step and yet the Labour Party will be bringing doom and gloom, once again, to the voters of this nation.

I have written before on the nature of negative campaigning and why it doesn't work. But with the papers this weekend discussing a Labour campaign re-launch - and having seen the material that will sit at the heart of that relaunch - I am going to repeat the reasons why this approach to campaigning is not going to work.

First, and most important, at this stage of a campaign people want more than criticism of the other side. If there is a problem, they want to hear a solution. It is not good enough to simply assert why the SNP is (supposedly) so bad.

Second, in order for negative campaigning to have any impact it must genuinely tap into an issue that the voter has a personal connection to. And having seen Labour's material they fail on this all important personal connection test. But if that personal connection does exist - if the problem is a real and present one to the individual voter - the political party is still wasting its time if it all it does is scratch away at the sore. The attack may resonate with the voter, but if the political party doesn't offer a solution then the attack will still be wasted. Ultimately they are just preaching to the converted.

And third, negative campaigning can, too often, boomerang. We've seen it already in this campaign with the demolition of the Labour Party's claim that knife crime costs the NHS £500 million. This may have sounded good to the party when they began using it, but now it has only served to undermine the credibility of their leader and their finance and justice spokespeople. The policy is still, of course being promoted. Most recently in Labour's regional election address - a leaflet that will probably have dropped through your door over the past few days. But it is done in a way that distorts reality and relies on mendacity to generate fear. When we speak to people about how to make their communities safer, top of the list is more police on the beat. Concern about knives is mentioned, but it comes way after concern about drink-fuelled violence and anti-social behaviour. And more often than not the people who are concerned about knife crime also remember Labour voting against action to tackle the cheap booze. In politics actions speak louder than words.

And the campaigns they are about to launch have the potential for similar disaster. Mr Gray is claiming youth unemployment has risen by 200% under the SNP while their campaign co-ordinator, John Park, alleges it is 350%. The real figure is - by a country mile - nowhere near this. And what has happened in Scotland under the SNP is in line with what happened in the UK under Labour. And why? Because there was a global recession. Voters aren't daft. You can't simply pretend a global recession didn't happen which seems to be the underlying premise of the Labour claim. And there is a real danger here for a Labour Party that actually voted AGAINST 25,000 modern apprenticeship places in the most recent Scottish budget.

And their new justice campaign - that, if anything is even worse. It is headlined with a murder on the street, with the finger pointed straight at the SNP. Murders do happen in Scotland. They happen today under the SNP and they happened also when Labour was in office. They actually happened more often when Labour was in office. Lets take murders using a knife. In the most recent year we saw a reduction to 35. When Iain Gray was Deputy Justice Minister murders using a knife increased from 48 to 56. Over the period of our first term in government there has been a fall of 35% and indeed the homicide rate in Scotland is now at a 31 year low.

Credibility is crucial in an election campaign. And by going down a road of negativity and exaggeration the Labour Party has done little to attract voters and an awful lot to undermine its own campaign.

If I had one piece of advice for the Labour Party with just 10 days to go it would be ditch the negative. Cast aside an approach that is shrouded with dark clouds of doom and despair, and try, if you can, to offer a little sunshine, a little optimism and some hope.

I was speaking to one of my colleagues about this blog and she queried - quite rightly - why I was offering the Labour Party (good) advice. I suppose ultimately it is because I know they won't take it. Positive campaigning is no longer in their DNA. The old Labour Party that generated respect and passion, the old party that believed in something more than just getting power, has well and truly gone. Perhaps that is why widely respected individuals like Ravenscraig shop-steward Tommy Brennan and former Labour councillor Bashir Maan are backing the SNP.

Labour's approach to campaigning is all about the clunking fist. They do negative campaigning better than just about anyone. And if the SNP tried to match them on the negative, even just a touch of negative, we would be knocked out. But by keeping our campaign 100% positive we can avoid the clumsy punches of the old bruiser.

Scotland is by no means perfect and we would be fools to claim that it is. We have problems to overcome but also opportunities to seize. But as the SNP campaign proclaims, and more importantly believes: together, we can make Scotland better. Now isn't that something worth voting for?

The final two weeks

2011-04-22T11:03:00.000+01:00

We are now in the final two weeks of Scotland's election campaign. For the SNP this means the deployment of the next phase of our campaign strategy.

We kicked off our campaign with a clear focus on our record, with the 'What's the Scottish Government Ever Done for Us' party election broadcast at the heart of that phase of the campaign.

We then moved on to our team, with the deployment of our regional list strategy and the powerful message that the list vote, which determines the final balance of MSPs in Parliament, will determine who becomes Scotland's First Minister. Alex Salmond for First Minister will appear on the ballot paper, and is also proving to be an effective and persuasive campaign slogan.

Next came our vision. We published our manifesto a week after the other parties. This was a deliberate decision based on the rather obvious and clumsy attempts by Labour to 'triangulate' policy with the SNP - or to put it more simply, to try to pinch our key policies. This was something we saw coming a mile off. Labour's decision has, of course, back-fired with the public seeing their last-minute conversion as unprincipled and hollow.

It was clear from the coverage that two messages came across from our manifesto launch. First that an extended Council Tax freeze was about delivering a fair deal for hard-pressed families and second that Alex Salmond's passion and ambition to re-industrialise Scotland through our green energy windfall was part of a clear determination to create and protect jobs. Jobs and fairness are proving to be a powerful and effective campaign combination.

And for these last two weeks? A combination of team and vision will dominate. As we kick-start these final few weeks, billboards will be appearing across Scotland, including in key seats, featuring Alex Salmond and our underpinning message and vision for this campaign that together we can make Scotland better.

The endorsements will continue. This week those included Jim McColl, described in this month's Business Insider as 'the working class hero turning dreams into reality', and the Ravenscraig shop-steward, Tommy Brennan, one of the icons of the Labour movement in Scotland, among others. And of course we had the grand announcement that the Scottish Sun would be backing the re-election of Alex Salmond and the SNP. Here's the front-page, in case you missed it:

We will be stepping up our list vote strategy with a series of targeted adverts, letters, leaflets and a specific online campaign that is designed to maximise sharing through social-networks like facebook and twitter. Included is this excellent video from Elaine C Smith setting out how voters can re-elect Alex Salmond and the SNP.

And underpinning the deployment of our vision, we are providing a new and simpler way for voters to understand how the sums add up. Again designed for social media distribution, but also providing the core for more traditional voter communications, we have a new video from John Swinney which animates and contextualises our spending and savings plans.

How are you going to pay for it all, is a frequent question on the doorsteps and the approach we are adopting to explain the budget figures is streets ahead of anything deployed by the opposition.

I don't want to give away too many secrets, but some of you will have noticed the way these two videos use a variety of sensory hooks to maximise the likelihood of the key message being remembered. We've had some great advice which I hope we have put to good use. For the list strategy in particular it marks a big step forward from our already highly-effective approach in 2007. Some of you may even notice the deliberate mistake in the first video that reinforces the central idea we want to get across.

While the polls this week have contained good news for the SNP the reality is that throughout this campaign we have been focused solely on what we believe we need to do to win. That plan is not going to change and we know that over these final two weeks we must work as hard as we have done over the previous two months if we are going to cross the finishing in first place.

40 - the number of the week

2011-04-17T11:18:00.001+01:00

The number 40 has had special resonance for me this week. Not only did I celebrate my 40th birthday, but the latest polls put the SNP on the crucial 40% level for Scotland's election. That's the level we will need to reach if we are to win re-election on May 5th.

In today's Scotland on Sunday the SNP takes the lead in both the list vote and the constituency vote. The numbers are:

CONSTITUENCY VOTE
SNP: 40% (n/c)
Lab: 37% (-2)
Con: 11% (n/c)
Lib Dem: 8% (+3)
Other: 4%

REGIONAL LIST VOTE
SNP: 35% (+3)
Lab: 33% (-6)
Con: 12% (n/c)
Lib Dem: 7% (+2)
Green: 6%
Other: 7%

I believe the poll reflects a positive response to an SNP campaign that is focused on creating and protecting jobs and building a fairer nation. It is a campaign based on an aspirational message and rooted in an absolute confidence that, if we work together, Scotland can be a better nation.

As we approach the climax of this campaign every vote is important. It's clear that if people want Alex Salmond to continue as First Minister they have to vote SNP. And, over these final few weeks, we will be working hard to earn the trust and support of even more people in all parts of Scotland.

The poll is a welcome end to a big week for the SNP campaign, with the publication of our manifesto. This is a project I've been working on for almost a year now and it was fantastic to see it come to fruition. The contents are of course important, but first impressions also count and in that regard the look of the manifesto is excellent. We've had a strong and dedicated team involved and the final product is down to the hard work and inspiration of many. If you want to see the key policies we are offering, click here.

Because this has been manifesto week my favourite picture has to be the front cover:

And to coincide with the manifesto launch, the world-renowned comic book writer and film maker Mark Millar offered his support to the campaign. You can see what he had to say here:

I've got many 'favourite' bits of the manifesto. But in five years, if I am looking back at the record of a second term SNP government, one thing that I hope we have taken forward with energy and passion is the strengthening of local communities. There are many initiatives outlined in the manifesto, but as far as I'm concerned, one expresses who we are and what we want to achieve more than any other. The Warm Homes Fund will see £50 million invested in tackling fuel poverty and delivering energy efficiency in Scotland's most deprived communities, as part of the savings from the Forth Replacement Crossing.

What is good and unique about this initiative is that it is seeks to do more than just provide lower cost green energy and improved home insulation, both of which are important. It also aims to deliver community ownership of renewable energy projects. So communities will have a source of long-term income which they can invest in local priorities. They can take forward the initiatives that they know will work in their area. Over the years we've seen plenty of top-down investment in Scotland's most deprived communities and in some respects - in many respects - it has made life better. But it hasn't delivered the sort of transformational change that we need. It sometimes misses the mark.

By delivering a long-term wealth generator we do two things. First the money does not get diluted as it passes through the inevitable government bureaucracy. And second, there is certainty. The revenue will flow regardless of pressures on national or local budgets or the vagaries of changing political priorities.

I have written before about the hugely positive impact of the Poverty Truth Commission in our manifesto process. Thinking about the people I met in the Commission and the knowledge they have about the places they live, I have no doubt that a long-term revenue, put into the hands of people like these, will allow a step change for many communities. Across Scotland thousands of men and women are working hard to make their communities better. And I hope that this manifesto does provide them with more of the tools they need to make an even bigger impact.

And, one final point. I hope one other theme comes out loud and clear from the manifesto. Scotland has a wealth of natural advantages. We are blessed with many opportunities. And we also have huge talent across our nation. This applies to our creative talent as much, if not more, than any other. Over these next five years culture and cultural expression can be a true flagship for Scotland. Our cultural sector adds enormously to our society and our nation, to our economy and our wellbeing. It is an essential part of the more successful Scotland we all seek. So I hope that in five years time, if re-elected, an SNP government has played its full part in nurturing new talent, creating new opportunities for creative Scots and that Scottish culture has reached new heights at home and abroad.

Much has been achieved and there is more to do. And, over these next few weeks we can start on the next steps of Scotland's amazing journey.

4 weeks to go and coffee intake rising

2011-04-07T20:38:00.003+01:00

I always know when a campaign is hotting up - my coffee intake begins to creep skywards. And this week saw rather a lot of caffeine-fuelled late nights.

There's been some great news for the SNP in recent days and the election is now clearly neck and neck. The most recent polls have shown us narrowly ahead or just narrowly behind. There is of course a long way to go and plenty more 'events' to happen.

Biggest surprise so far was waking up to an email from a friend to say that the actor Alan Cumming had posted a video on his blog endorsing the SNP. He says some great things about Alex Salmond and the party. If you haven't seen it already in my earlier post, here is the video:

Alan makes clear that he is not in a position to vote, but if he could, it would be for the Scottish National Party. My favourite headline of the week was definitely yesterday's from the Sun, as captured by SNP Chief Executive, Peter Murrell:

What I like about both these endorsements is that they are based on support for the SNP team and for SNP policies. Brian Cox makes clear his switch from being a staunch Labour supporter is based on Alex Salmond's commitment to keeping university education free. And Alan Cumming points to the culture policy taken forward by the SNP government over these past 4 years.

And achievements were a focus for my own picture taking, just earlier today, with a sneak preview of the 'achievements wall' in the SNP manifesto. Here it is:

Of course, the manifesto is about more than past achievements. It is also about the sort of country we want to create. And today's big policy announcement made clear just what that means.

I feel very proud of our Scottish Futures Fund. First, it is only possible because of actions we took in our first term, through the Scottish Futures Trust (SFT), to deliver savings in government. The Scottish Futures Trust has created a level playing field for the public sector in contract negotiations. In SFT we have real experts, professionals who day in and day out are tasked with helping government secure the best deal for the taxpayer. And, with Transport Scotland, they managed to save the public purse a massive £250 million on the anticipated bill for the Forth Replacement Crossing. Good government has now released this huge sum of money to invest in projects for the future.

And second, the choices we have made about allocating this windfall saving say a great deal about who we are as a party. The First Minister was very clear - he wanted the money to be spent in a way that would make Scotland fairer in the future. And the first strand of the fund, announced earlier in Edinburgh, demonstrates this, with £50 million allocated to support young Scots in their early years. The money will improve the life-chances of thousands of pre-schoolers across the country. It will give them a fair start in life. As a result of this new money a cohort of young Scots will grow up better able to make a full and positive contribution to our nation. It will help them overcome some of the enormous barriers created by disadvantage and poverty.

Details of the other funds will be revealed in the days ahead. Each one will take us one step further down the road towards that better nation, and fairer nation, that we all know Scotland can be.

The fund has pride of place in the manifesto, alongside our various commitments to unpaid carers, also revealed this week. And as we approach the manifesto launch, have no doubt, the SNP will be sticking firmly to this agenda of hope and fairness.

The manifesto final lap

2011-04-01T18:32:00.000+01:00

I'm coming to the end of the manifesto development process. The past few mornings have been spent going through making small textual edits and looking for typos. But of course, there is almost always one that gets missed. If you spot it once the manifesto is published, please don't tell me. And there was one potential howler that was spotted - but not by me: a rather prominent picture with a dancing young woman, giving an unintentional flash of her underpants.

We've got a very different look this time round and it works really well. The style has a freshness and energy about it that I'm really liking. When I started all those months ago on the first drafts I had a very clear concept in my mind about the overarching theme or narrative of the manifesto. It was to convey the journey Scotland is on: the achievements of these past four years, the team and how they (we) have grown and all linked to the ambition the SNP has for the future. And the design tells this story beautifully. I can say with some confidence that it will contain features that have never appeared before in any Scottish or UK manifesto and these features turn what is a very professional document into one that is nicely personal too.

The manifesto is divided into four sections. The first focuses on the leadership and the overall direction of travel: who we are, what we are working to achieve and what motivates us. The second is the central policy detail: our actions and ambition for health, jobs, schools, justice etc. And then we come to the bits I like best. First, we have what I have called the aspiration section. This is where Scotland's creativity, talent, opportunity and potential is given centre stage. And it is within this context that we present our case for independence. Independence, not for its own sake, but because it will allow us to achieve even more for our nation. And finally, building on this, we highlight the engines of growth in Scotland. The places and industries that will drive forward future success.

As I've written before, communities are at the heart of things and there is a strong fairness agenda. It is, without doubt, a manifesto for a fairer Scotland.

And it is a manifesto that has been heavily influenced by the people we have met as part of the process. Regular readers of this blog may have read my previous blog post on the Poverty Truth Commission: after a few years working in the Scottish Government and within the Holyrood bubble that meeting was a real eye opener and, to say the least, hugely thought provoking. And the opportunity to hear direct from some of Scotland's carers and young carers was also important. In terms of the policy detail, yes, but more significantly in terms of linking together policy and life. I hope these two groups will see their influence in the text.

There's not long to go to publication. I'll almost certainly write about the manifesto again before its launch. But for those of you who are wondering, yes, there will be some surprises.

Week 1 - Caveman campaigning

2011-03-30T10:09:00.000+01:00

That's week one of the campaign over and so I thought it was time to update my blog.

My favourite endorsement of the week is definitely this morning's unexpected blog post by Alan Cumming endorsing the SNP. I love his intro - "who I'd vote for if I could". Take a look at what he has to say:

And my favourite pic so far is one taken by SNP's social media strategist Kirk Torrance during the leader's debate last night. It really captures the intensity of activity in the campaign room at SNP HQ. We had an excellent page up on the SNP website focused on the debate. It's well worth a look.

Although my own effort, before Alex Salmond recorded his budget response last week is a close second:

And now to the really important stuff. Managing the demands of the Caveman (paleo) diet during the 18 hour days of work during the campaign.

Well, it's taken a bit of an effort. With the long hours at HQ it means that I need to go in each day with three meals in my rucksack and enough nuts and fruit to keep up my energy. So mornings are a bit of a rush trying to get everything cooked and packed.

And there have been the more formal meals out and the campaign stop lunches and that has sometimes left me struggling through an unfeasibly large plate of smoked salmon and limp lettuce for my main course. But it served its purpose.

One of the things I like most about the caveman concept is that it is based on the physical and food habits that the human body is best designed to respond to. So alongside the diet that our bodies became attuned to over millions of years of evolution, it also encourages us to view exercise in a different way. Today gym going can often be focused on endless repetition of treadmills and bicep curls. But again that is not what our bodies are designed for. More common was short bursts of activity followed by ample rest. And that is where the partner to the caveman diet, crossfit, comes into its own.

If preparing my daily food has been a struggle, it has taken a supreme effort to fit in time at the gym. But because of crossfit, with its short, sharp, all body workouts I've been able to get what I believe is an even better fitness return from 10 or 15 minute workouts than 90 minutes of 'regular' gym work.

The best WOD of the week was a 9 minute blast of 10 rounds of 3 burpee bar jumps, 3 power cleans and 3 bar push ups. I was in an out of the gym in less than half an hour and, the following day, could feel I'd had a real workout.

And a final thought. I've been blogging less than usual here because I've been doing posts on the SNP website. You can keep up with the latest campaign news there - including, this morning, details of the most recent opinion poll showing the SNP in a narrow lead.

And if you like what you see, why not pledge your support - the more of us there are the more we can achieve. As the campaign slogan says, together we can make Scotland better.

A budget for what? Certainly not Scotland

2011-03-23T15:19:00.003Z

Another year and another British budget. This year the budget comes in a sharp shade of blue, but regardless of the political colour the reality for Scotland is always pretty much the same.

We sit and watch as London decides what is right for the economy, but of course the economy they are focused on is never Scotland's.

Year after year we play a central role of sorts, as the provider of the extra money. The taps are turned and the flow of revenues from the North Sea increases. But so little of the benefit trickles north. This year in fact sees the highest ever revenues from North Sea Oil - an eye-watering £13.4 billion.

Today's budget wheeze was a new tax on Scottish oil. A move that will raise £2 billion of new revenues for the UK Treasury. And this windfall revenue will fund a halt in the planned 4p rise in fuel duty and allow a further reduction of just 1p. Welcome yes, in so far as it goes. Scotland pays £2 billion more but the benefit to Scotland's economy and Scottish families is just £200 million. That puts the so-called Union dividend in context.

I can't help thinking that if this was a Scottish Budget there is so much more we could do. We could use even just half the extra revenue - £1 billion - to fund a proper reduction in Scottish fuel bills worth not 5p but 25p a litre. Now wouldn't that be good news for family budgets and businesses across Scotland?

And with the £1 billion remaining? How about half of it on increased investment in Scotland's infrastructure to enable us to create thousands of construction jobs and drive forward recovery?

How about a quarter of it used to cut corporation tax further, making Scotland a key competitive location for business investment and growth.

And the final quarter? My vote would go to a £250 million transformational investment in childcare and early years. Giving Scottish parents the level of childcare enjoyed in other small, independent nations.

How would you spend a £2 billion revenue windfall to make Scotland better. Let me know by leaving a comment below.

Are we just engaged in a game of Fantasy Budget? Yes, at the moment. But fantasy can become reality. In a few short weeks the people of Scotland will have their say. We can choose a better way. We now know the numbers - the prize to be won is a £2 billion revenue bonanza. And with fiscal responsibility and independence that is a prize Scotland can claim.

Wouldn't it be great if next year it is John Swinney, not George Osborne, who stands up on Budget day? John Swinney who tells us how he intends to spend Scotland's revenue windfall. Then we would see a real Budget for Scotland with action to create jobs and action to make Scotland fairer.

What a difference we could make with a Scottish Chancellor using Scotland's resources to invest in Scotland's economy and society. And it is within our grasp. If you, like me, want this future for Scotland, you can volunteer to help the SNP or simply sign up on the SNP website to pledge your vote.

Then we can have a truly Scottish budget, not one that is red, white and (or) blue.

Scotland's energy choices

2011-03-18T13:35:00.001Z

Last weekend the SNP published a list of 100 achievements. And there, alongside the Council Tax freeze, the 1000 extra police and the Climate Change Act, was one that makes me particularly proud.

In 2007 the SNP said there would be no new nuclear power stations in Scotland on our watch. And, four years on, despite the efforts of the UK government and the pressure of the powerful nuclear lobby, new nuclear has been kept out of Scotland. Today, with Labour and Tories united in calls for new nuclear power stations, the only threat to this position is a change of government. That thought certainly makes me more determined to ensure the SNP is re-elected in Scotland's election in May.

The ongoing events in Japan have brought the issue of nuclear power to the forefront of political debate across the globe. And while we are still in the midst of the crisis our thoughts, of course, are with the people of Japan and those brave souls who are currently directly engaged in the efforts to bring events at the reactors under control. With the outcome at the four reactors still in the balance and with that nation struggling in the face of the overwhelming impact of the earthquake and tsunami, I don't feel any need to rehearse the arguments over nuclear safety.

In part this is because my own opposition to nuclear power has never been primarily about safety issues.

My starting point has always been the issue of nuclear waste. From my short time working in government I know the complexities and costs associated with managing the radioactive waste we already have never mind a whole new generation of radioactive material. Of course, there is no real solution that allows us to deal with nuclear waste: digging a deep hole and burying it is certainly not a solution. And it is certainly not safe to transport high-levels of extremely toxic nuclear waste through towns and villages in Scotland, or around our shores, as deep disposal requires.

At the last count, the decommissioning of current nuclear plants will cost at least £72 billion and that figure just keeps on rising. Just a year ago we discovered that the UK government would need to find £4 billion over and above existing budgets for the next four years. These insatiable demands from decommissioning come at a time when investment in job creation is being slashed and when many frontline services are facing unprecedented cuts. It is just not right.

Even more nuclear waste is not a legacy any of us should want to leave for our kids and their kids – for future Scots.

But more compelling in recent years has been the economic argument. Scotland has no natural or technological advantage in nuclear power. If a new nuclear station is ever built it will use someone else's know how. There will be no boost to Scottish research and innovation, no opportunity for follow on sales benefiting Scotland and far too many of the high-paid jobs will be delivered overseas. The money we spend will get us a new power plant but that is all.

The contrast with renewables is stark. Here, every pound we spend will have multiple benefits for Scotland's economy. It will draw in high-quality research investment and skilled manufacturing jobs. It will help us develop world-leading technology, particularly offshore, which can then generate sales and opportunities world-wide. And because we have the capacity to produce many times more than our own energy needs, it will also mean Scotland becoming a massive exporter of clean, green power.

Today, in Scotland, the case against new nuclear could be made simply and solely from the perspective of this economic advantage given the scale of the renewables opportunity we have here.

This debate may have gained new momentum in recent days. However, the SNP's resolve is longstanding and remains the same. It is based on principles long held and often articulated. We enter the next five years with the same determination: there will be no new nuclear power plants here in Scotland. The people of Scotland will express their view in May, but I believe they will continue to choose a nuclear free future with the SNP.

The great fuel robbery

2011-03-15T11:12:00.002Z

A week tomorrow UK Chancellor, George Osborne, will deliver his second Budget. And all eyes will be on the decisions he takes on fuel duty and soaring fuel prices.

Already, tax increases at the start of the year have added 3.5p a litre to fuel costs and another fuel duty hike is due in April. The pressure is on the Chancellor to act and there are signs that he is buckling - the smart money is on a decision to suspend or scrap plans for the April duty rise.

But halting next month's fuel duty increase is not enough. There are already indications that the soaring cost of fuel is impacting on the wider economy. Households have less to spend whether on food, leisure or clothing and that impacts on the bottom line for the corner shop, the local restaurant and the larger retailers. As we look for a period of strong economic recovery, there is little doubt that soaring fuel prices are putting a brake on growth. As the Scottish Government's Economic Recovery Plan suggests the rising price of fuel risks suppressing domestic demand.

At the weekend, Alex Salmond revealed that at current oil price levels the UK government is likely to get a £4 billion a year revenue windfall. Even if we use just half of this windfall, we could reduce fuel duty in Scotland by 50p a litre or by 5p in the UK. There should certainly be a reduction of at least 10p a litre in fuel duty in Scotland.

However, we need more than a one off decision to reduce fuel duty or halt this particular fuel duty increase. It's time for a longer term solution and for specific action for those regions where fuel costs are punitively higher than the norm.

When oil prices go up the Treasury gets a double windfall. It is not only higher oil revenues from the North Sea but also increased VAT receipts as a result of the higher pump prices. The SNP has long argued for a road fuel regulator. This would see these higher revenues from VAT used to reduce fuel duty. It would create an automatic price stabiliser, cushioning households from the worst impact of price increases at the pump. If we are serious about protecting family budgets in the long term, a road fuel regulator is the right solution.

Scotland is an oil rich nation. We should be enjoying benefits from higher oil prices, not facing a recovery-threatening spike in fuel costs. It is a scandal that despite having the second largest oil reserves in Europe we have among the very highest petrol and diesel prices.

As part of the UK the benefit for Scotland from our oil wealth will always be diluted. We should be free to act in the best interests of Scotland's economy and Scottish households without having to wait for a decision from afar. Yes, we can pressure the UK government into action next week. But why lobby and campaign, why hope that someone else will act, when we should just get on and do it ourselves?

Blogging from SNP Conference

2011-03-12T13:57:00.000Z

I've been blogging today from SNP conference and have enjoyed sitting through all the debates in the conference hall so far. This is the first time for many years I've had the opportunity to sit in on the debates and I've been hugely impressed by the quality of the speeches.

I am tweeting regularly from inside the hall, so you can catch up on those via my Twitter account. Check out the hashtags #SNPconf and #SNP for other conference comment.

I also managed to catch up with Bruce Crawford at the start of conference. Here's Bruce talking about his hopes for conference. I'll upload some more short interviews later today. I'm hoping, in particular to get John Swinney's views on the new Party Conference Broadcast.

What's the Scottish Government ever done for us?

2011-03-11T13:06:00.003Z

UPDATE: You can now see the SNP broadcast here.

It's not often a party political broadcast raises a laugh (at least for the right reasons). But tonight's SNP broadcast promises to be different. Based on the famous Monty Python 'what have the Romans ever done for us' sketch it is a party broadcast, but not as we know it.

Building on our last broadcast, which was as much music video as political message, tonight's film opens up a new genre. It is not only very watchable but also very compelling. In my view it is the best party political broadcast we have produced, certainly in my memory.

And in case you have forgotten the original sketch, here it is on YouTube:

You will be able to see the SNP broadcast for the first time tonight at 5pm on the SNP website - or I should say, the new SNP website. There are some big improvements being made to our site which will make it the most interactive in UK politics. It will be 100% integrated with Facebook and twitter allowing us to connect with Scots in a groundbreaking way. In 2007 the SNP led the way in doorstep technology with our Activate system. Our new site takes our advantage on the doorsteps and brings it right into the digital age.

Over this weekend's conference, and right up to election day on May 5th, I will be blogging on the new SNP site. That means fewer posts here, but you will be able to get an insight into what is going on in the SNP campaign by visiting and signing up to the site.

And if you want to know what the Scottish Government has done for us - watch at www.snp.org from 5pm tonight or see it on STV at 6.25 or BBC 1 at 6.55.

Looking back on the first four years

2011-03-09T09:36:00.002Z

We are fast approaching the end of the SNP's first term in government. Looking back to May 2007 and our first few weeks, I can remember wondering whether we would be able to stay in office until Christmas, never mind lasting 4 years. And yet 4 Budgets and 34 Acts (so far) later, we have not only survived as a minority government, but in many ways flourished. Around three-quarters of votes have been won.

And thinking back four years ago, few could have foreseen the credit crunch and global economic downturn or the change in direction in public spending. After years of increases in Scotland's budget we are the first government that has had to deal with year on year reductions in the block grant.

It is against this backdrop that we have delivered 84 out of 94 of our headline manifesto commitments. That's a pretty good scorecard for any government, never mind a minority government during a period of financial crisis.

Scotland's recession was shorter and shallower than the UK and the decisions taken by John Swinney in his budgets - his social contract - mean that more is being directed to the frontline than many thought possible.

A big part of this is the action already taken to reduce costs and generate savings. Many of these steps have not been highlighted but I think are worth repeating now. Efficiency savings targets were exceeded by £300 million in 2008-09 and by £400 million in 2009-10. Our target should, again, be exceeded in the most recent year. Procurement savings of over £450 million were achieved between 2008 and 2010, including some real innovations, for example the combined public sector energy contract (saving £10 million per annum). And innovative 'reverse auctions' have, on the three occasions they've been used, saved £27 million on IT contracts.

And these savings aren't just about the past - they are having benefits for spending plans into the future. The steps taken to reduce the number of quangos will save around £125 million up to 2013 and almost £40 million a year, each year, thereafter. That's money released to spend on the frontline - it's enough to pay the wages of numerous teachers, nurses and police officers.

We entered the election in 2007 untested and untried. But can any but the most partisan now doubt the competence, credibility and experience of the SNP leadership team?

Over these past few weeks I've been looking through some of our achievements in government. Many are well rehearsed and well remembered - the council tax freeze, shorter waiting times, smaller primary classes, the extra police and 32 year low crime, the abolition of the bridge tolls to name just a few. But it is worth recalling some of the others - just a few of those that don't often get flagged up.

We've provided extra funding for Scotland's veteran charities and ensured our ex-servicemen and women receive priority treatment in the NHS.
One million more Scots are registered with an NHS dentist.
We've raised the legal age for buying tobacco to 18
We've helped 5,351 people buy their first home with our shared equity scheme
We've helped 10,000 pensioners and families secure £1.6 million through our benefits health checks
100,000 pre-school Scots are now getting almost 20% more free nursery education
55,000 school kids from less well off families are now getting free school meals
We've ensured that 4 out of 5 public sector contracts go to small businesses
We've invested £2 million in small post offices, allowing 49 of these important community hubs to stay open
Sales of Scottish food and drink have increased by 30%
Violent crime is down by over a fifth since we came to office, and
We've made it easier to prosecute people for serious sexual offences

Over these four years progress has been made. We have touched the lives of many and I believe improved the lives of many, often in small but important ways. There is of course more to do, and that is why we go into this election determined to secure victory once again. We know the job of making Scotland more successful has only just begun.

Home Rule or Tory Rule, that is the question

2011-03-07T17:53:00.001Z

I am now fast approaching my 40th birthday and one of the consequences has been some serial bouts of reminiscing. And so, late last week, when catching up with an old friend, we got talking about what it was that made us support independence.

For me, it was the 1992 election. I remember my sense of outrage at a result that could see Scotland lumbered with a government it had so roundly rejected. I went along to the post-election George Square rally and became involved in Scotland United and from that point on it was a fairly short journey into the SNP. It was exposure to the SNP's economic arguments and in particular being talked through the numbers on Scotland's budget surplus that clinched it for me. What had begun as a 'small n' nationalist outrage at the democratic deficit developed into a 'big N' Nationalist conviction that Scotland would be better off as an independent state.

And for my friend, the stand out event was the 1995 'Great Debate' and in particular the famous Lorraine Mann question. What he remembered was first the glorious sense of occasion as a nation's future was debated in front of a passionate and informed audience, and second the rather inglorious attempts by George Robertson, the then 'leader' of the Labour Party in Scotland, to avoid telling us whether he would prefer independence over continued Tory rule.

And as we begin a week when the new Scotland Bill is being debated in the House of Commons, I can't help but think again about the Lorraine Mann question. Already we have Labour MPs saying they would rather see Scotland lose an hour in the morning, with a clock change voted on in London, than have that issue decided in the Scottish Parliament. That they would rather have our coastguard stations shut down than have responsibility devolved to Holyrood. And over the next few days they will be voting to make sure George Osborne continues to decide economic policy for Scotland rather than giving that responsibility to the Scottish Government and Scotland's MSPs.

If the Lorraine Mann question was asked again today, I have little doubt Labour MPs (and very probably the vast majority of MSPs) would not hesitate. They would rather have Tory rule from London than Home Rule with independence or greater fiscal autonomy. By their deeds we know them.

I began by saying it was the economics of independence that persuaded me. That I knew independence was the way to deliver a more successful nation. And now, after almost two decades of support for independence my focus has moved beyond just the numbers on a balance sheet. What makes me even more passionate today about achieving independence for our nation is the knowledge that it will make our society stronger. Not only will we stand taller as an independent country; not only will we speak with our own voice and our own accent in the world - more importantly we will be able to build a society based upon the priorities and the values that we decide are important to us as a nation.

In another conversation, I was asked on Saturday night what my first independence legislation would be. And the answer was immediate: a ban on nuclear weapons on Scottish soil and in Scottish waters. Instead of wasting billions on nuclear bombs lets choose to invest instead in better childcare and higher and fairer pensions. That is the sort of Scotland I want to live in. It is my goal, and the goal of hundreds of thousands of fellow Scots. And it is a goal I know we will achieve. After all, how can the new Scotland Bill with its depressingly limited ambition ever hope to compete?

Nobody does it better?

2011-03-04T09:41:00.000Z

We've been doing a bit of an experiment over the past couple of weeks. Over and above our usual doorstep canvassing work we've had a dedicated team going round the country engaging 'don't knows' or Labour/Lib Dem/Tory leaners in longer conversations about their political views.

The results have now been processed and they reveal some fascinating information about the underlying opinions of ordinary Scots voters.

First, and perhaps not surprising, there is an increasing awareness of the Scottish election and the emerging issues of the campaign. Before Christmas our canvassers were reporting back that people's minds were still firmly in Westminster mode, but in recent weeks that has definitely changed. And the more in-depth engagement confirms that.

Second, and again confirming recent polls and received wisdom, Alex Salmond is by far the best known of the potential FMs with a significant number of those spoken to not being able to identify the main contender on the Labour side. And not just the best known, but also the one thought most capable of doing the job.

And here our team began to dig a little deeper. There were two prongs to their questioning. First, they asked why people thought Alex Salmond was the best choice for First Minister? There were various reasons given, but the most common response was that he didn't report to anyone else. He had no boss above him - the people he had to answer to were the people of Scotland. Not David or Ed or Nick. Sitting here now there is a certain logic to this answer, but it would not have been in my top five if you had asked me, a month ago, what I thought people's reasons would be.

And next, moving on from leadership, they asked about people's perceptions of the last four years. Not in the usual way, but through a new question: do you think any of the other parties could have done a better job than the SNP since 2007? And the surprising thing, for me anyway, was the overwhelming nature of the response. Over 90% of those spoken to said no. Knowing what they knew, the assessment of this group of ordinary Scots was that no other party could have done a better job than Alex Salmond and the SNP. This response was shared as much by Labour leaners or Lib Dem leaners or Tory leaners as don't knows.

And in answering the question, it was as though a light had been switched on for many of the folk - this gave them a different perspective and one that had a significant impact on moving their likely or potential vote towards the SNP. In the words of some, they had never thought about it that way.

So what are the lessons of this exercise? For Labour, it would certainly make me think again about the direction of my campaign. As I have written previously there is a distinct Westminster flavour to much of the material they are putting out. The chat in 2007 was that Labour hated our description of them as 'London Labour' because they knew it hit one of their weak spots with the voters: in 2011 they seem to be hitting that weak spot themselves.

And second, for the SNP, it has provided some interesting new information. I can't help but think of the infamous Hilary Clinton ad in the US - the phone rings in the President's bedroom at 3am in the morning, a new crisis has emerged: so who would you want to answer it? The answer for the past four years in Scotland, it seems, is a resounding one: Alex Salmond. And, for the next four years? Well, of course, that is for the voters to decide on 5th May.

1036 extra police

2011-03-01T10:43:00.002Z

UPDATE - I managed to catch up with Kenny MacAskill today. Here's what he had to say about the police numbers announcement.

This morning's announcement showing the SNP government will meet its commitment to deliver 1000 extra police is good news on a number of levels.

First, there is little doubt in my mind that these extra police have been a significant factor - perhaps the most significant factor - in the lowest crime rates in a generation and the big falls in violent crime we have seen in Scotland over these past four years. They have also played a big part in the reduction in people's fear of crime. Fear of crime has always appeared to be one of those statistics that, no matter what was happening on the ground, would just relentlessly rise. It is remarkable that we have now seen a turn around.

The second important point for me is that it tells us a great deal about successive approaches to justice policy. After years of gimmicks and 'get tough' or more appropriately 'look tough' policies from government after government, Kenny MacAskill went for the obvious approach: deliver a big increase in police numbers and you would see a big fall in crime. And it has worked. The lesson is simple, tough words are exactly that, they are just words. It is the quality of the action that matters. We are poised to enter an election campaign with the main opposition offering too good to be true proposals on justice: proposals that have been rejected by some of the most senior and respected people in law enforcement. Today confirms for me that the era of gimmicks is over.

Finally, I find some of the rhetoric in the justice debate amusing. Labour and the Tories united in their claim of a soft touch SNP, a call echoed and reinforced by some of the press. The Daily Mail lambasts SNP justice policy despite the record low crime rate, the falls in violent crime. It perpetuates its line of attack despite the reality that those who commit the most serious offences are going to jail for longer, more cases are being solved (the clear up rate has also increased since 2006-07) and criminals are moving more swiftly through the justice system and into jail.

Is there more work to do? Yes, undoubtedly. Is the SNP approach delivering the best results of any government in Scotland in recent memory? Equally, yes, without doubt.

The statistics on fear of crime, therefore, tell us two things. First that SNP justice policy is working. And second, that the opposition/media attacks are not. They have tried to whip up fear but they have failed. And as we enter the short campaign for Scotland's election I know the extra police, lower crime and tougher punishments will be a winning combination.

Banana Wars

2011-02-22T12:30:00.000Z

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.

The view on the doors

2011-02-18T11:32:00.000Z

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.

SNP manifesto taking shape

2011-02-15T19:00:00.000Z

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

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:

•         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.

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.

The caveman diet

2011-02-13T11:58:00.000Z

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.

Minority government: the unsung heroes and why minority government works

2011-02-11T14:43:00.002Z

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.

The Power of Positive Campaigning

2011-02-11T08:42:00.000Z

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.

SNP leadership team speaks straight after tonight's Budget vote

2011-02-09T18:05:00.001Z

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.

Being a new minister and a mum

2011-02-08T09:48:00.007Z

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:

A 4 day school week - a cut too far?

2011-02-07T17:26:00.001Z

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:

Why positive beats negative

2011-02-06T09:17:00.000Z

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.

Who's getting rich from Scotland's oil?

2011-02-03T17:37:00.000Z

First, some numbers:

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?