Ed's turn

Yesterday we had the pleasure of Ed Miliband's company here in Scotland, when he visited the East End of Glasgow on a campaigning trip.  While here he promised that if Labour is elected he will see to it that a bill for home rule for Scotland will be put before parliament within 100 days after their election.  Sounds great, doesn't it?  As ever, though, the devil is in the detail.  You and I think of home rule meaning the Scottish parliament makes decisions on everything except matters of defence and foreign affairs.  Mr Miliband's interpretation is somewhat different.

For Mr Miliband, home rule means the watered-down recommendations of the Smith Commission that were in the recently published command paper,   And if that isn't enough, they intend next month to force a vote on devolving the promised job-creating powers.  And if that doesn't work, Labour will immediately devolve power over the Work Programme on taking power in May.

As damp squibs go, it's wetter than a haddock's bathing suit.

Mr Miliband yesterday also gave Labour in Scotland his full backing to make its own decisions.  However, he also gave the game away.

Speaking at a campaigning event with Murphy in Glasgow’s east end, the UK Labour leader praised his Scottish counterpart’s “energy, dynamism and vision”, adding that it was “absolutely right that when it comes to devolved issues, for Jim to make those decisions”.

 So, as it turns out, the fabled autonomy that Jim Murphy has been boasting of since he was made leader turns out to be only on matters devolved to the Scottish parliament.  For everything else, it's the Labour party line.  Not quite the sweeping powers he has been leading us to believe then.

Moratorium

Yesterday the Scottish government announced a moratorium on all planning consents for extraction of unconventional oil and gas, which is great news.  What a contrast with Westminster, who voted down a UK-wide moratorium on Monday,  In the vote, the majority of SNP MPs voted for the moratorium, while Scottish Labour MPs abstained.  I think that tells us a lot about what we can expect from Labour in Scotland should they get into power.

Of course, a moratorium isn't an outright ban,  It's simply a breathing space where evidence will be gathered and examined, allowing a decision to be taken at a later date.  Still, it's a step in the right direction, and demonstrates that the Scottish government is at least willing to listen. 

Scotland has the potential to lead the world in alternative power generation - wind and wave power for example.  That being the case, it makes a lot more sense to follow that path rather than destroy our land and poison our water by pursuing fracking and gas extraction from coal beds.

Freedom

Imagine this.  You're living at home with your parents and three brothers.  You have a job which is reasonably well-paid.  Your parents insist that you give them your salary each month, and they give a small proportion of it back to you to spend as you will.  The rest goes towards supporting the household.  Your brothers do the same.  None of you are allowed a credit card, in case you run up debts, but your parents have one, which they use quite frequently.

You spend your money wisely, paying for an Open University course and buying all your necessities such as clothes and toiletries.  You've also managed to buy yourself some luxuries such as a smartphone and a tablet, although you spent a bit more than you wanted to on them, which didn't please your parents.  But now you're back on track, balancing your budget and debt-free.  However, you'd like a bit more freedom, and the responsibilities that come with it.  Maybe even strike out on your own.

Your family has a meeting to discuss your desire for more independence.  You present your case, and you can see that some of them find it persuasive.  However, by a slight majority your family decides that you're better off staying with them.  They do recognise, though, that you could cope with a bit more autonomy, and after a long discussion it's decided you will get more of your money returned to you each month, while at the same time you will receive less food and fewer domestic services, as you will now be able to pay for these things yourself.  Further discussions will be had by your parents on how this will work, and they will get back to your with their proposals.

Decision day arrives and your parents sit you down for a talk.

'Well, son, we've thought the situation over and here's what we've decided.  We're going to return 25% of your money to you instead of 10%.  You can also have a credit card'

'Great!', you say, thinking of all the new things you can do with that money to improve your life.

'Hang on, son, there's a few new rules though'

'OK, what are we talking?'

'Firstly, if you want to make any big purchases, you'll have to get permission from us first'

'Oh?  Why's that?'

'Hmmm, suppose you go out and buy a big flat screen TV, for example.  That wouldn't be fair on your brothers if they don't get one.  It would cause arguments and we can't have that'

'Oh.  Can they not get their own TVs?'

'Well they could, but what if they don't want one?  What if they want a small TV?  We can't have one of you with something better than the others'

You feel slightly deflated.

'And the credit card, son?  You have to get one with the lowest possible interest rate and a low credit limit.  We don't want you getting into a lot of debt, and then we have to bail you out.  We just don't have the money for that'

'Really?  But you have a credit card, and you use it a lot'

'We do, but that's for the good of you and your brothers.  Anyway, if you want to use your credit card you'll have to tell us what you want to use it for and how you propose to pay it off.  If we don't think your plan will work, you won't be allowed to buy whatever it is'

You feel even more deflated.  Still, it's a better deal than you have now, even if it's not all you hoped for.

Your parent notice your lack of enthusiasm and try to cheer you up.

'Don't worry son.  We're letting you put any posters you want on the walls of your bedroom.  Now don't say we're not good to you'

Call-me-Dave pops in for tea

Today David Cameron is visiting Scotland for the first time since the referendum, presumably in connection with the production of the draft legislation resulting from the Smith Commission recommendations, which is expected to be published today.  Coinciding with it, Downing Street have confirmed George Osborne's remarks from earlier in the week, saying that Scottish MPs would have their role reduced in Westminster, in that they will not be permitted to vote on matters of taxation that do not affect Scotland.

In principle I, along with most Scots, don't have a problem with English Votes for English Laws (EVEL).  It's only fair that we don't vote on matters which don't affect us.  The difficulty, however, is in identifying such matters, since many pieces of legislation which look on the surface to exclude Scotland actually do have an effect through the Barnet consequentials.

Yesterday Nicola Sturgeon gave an example of this, saying that the SNP would, for example, consider voting on legislation to stop privatisation of the NHS in England in Wales, even though Scotland has its own devolved NHS, if this would result in more public funding of the NHS in England in Wales and therefore in Scotland through Barnet consequentials.  This has, of course, been interpreted as the SNP showing willingness to interfere in 'English' matters and howled down.

Imagine an action movie, about three quarters of the way in.  The hero and some sidekicks are trapped in a building which has suffered huge damage of some kind.  We see our doughty crew in a room, staying still and listening.  There are groans and screeches as the building starts to settle, and a moment of drama when a roof beam starts to collapse but miraculously stops before anyone is injured.  You know, however, that it's only a matter of time before the building collapses completely.  This, for me, is the current state of the UK.

Will our merry band get out before the building is reduced to rubble?  Stay tuned...

Chest wig

Today an alliance of the SNP/Plaid Cymru/Greens has tabled a motion calling for Trident not to be renewed.  This has been branded as a 'stunt' by many Labour MPs, most of whom will not be in the House of Commons for the debate and who will therefore not be voting on it.  One honourable exception is Katy Clark, who ran against Kezia Dugdale for Deputy Leader of the Labour Party in Scotland.  She will be voting for the motion.

The Trident programme was announced in 1980 and began patrols in 1994.  It consist of four Vanguard-class submarines each carrying a maximum of eight missiles and 40 warheads, which are intended to provide 'the minimum effective nuclear deterrent as the ultimate means to deter the most extreme threat.'  There are various safeguards and checks in place to ensure that the missiles are fired only after following a series of steps.  However, if the submarine commander has reason to think that the UK government is no longer operational (and one of the checks is whether BBC Radio 4 is still broadcasting), they are able to retrieve letters of last resort written by the Prime Minister and follow those instructions.

The motion proposed by the SNP/Plaid Cymru/Greens has arisen because the submarines have a life expectancy of approximately 25 years, meaning they will be due for replacement in the 2020s.  Discussions are currently taking place on whether to extend the life of the Vanguard-class submarines, replace them with a new submarine design or replace them with a modified design.

The option that is not being discussed by any of the major parties is that of simple not replacing Trident at all.  The Liberal Democrats would prefer to look at less costly options, but still believe that the UK needs to have a nuclear deterrent.  They are all in favour of us retaining our manly chest wig equivalent.

Really a step back needs to be taken here.  We are a set of small islands on the western fringes of Europe.  We once had an empire that spanned the globe, but these days we are of very small account to large powers such as the US, Russia and China.  Psychologically, however, our politicians are still wedded to the idea  of Britain 'punching above its weight' and having a seat at the top table in the UN Security Council.  The reality is somewhat different.

Most European nations do not have a nuclear deterrent and manage perfectly well without one.  We could do that too.  Getting rid of Trident would mean we no longer have to have weapons of mass destruction stored near Scotland's largest city, and no longer have to have convoys of warheads travelling through Scotland's most populated areas.

Ed Miliband and the Liberal Democrats have both said that they want to look at cheaper alternatives to Trident.  Well here's an idea - how about not having one?  Can't get much cheaper than that.

You twit(ter)

It's becoming evident that the Red Tories have identified Twitter as one of the more successful vehicles for the Yes campaign during indyref and have decided to jump on the bandwagon (becoming something of a speciality of theirs these days is bandwagon-jumping it seems).

On Saturday we had the #myfuturescotland hashtag, which was, of course, promptly subverted by supporters of independence.  This morning we have the #askjimmurphy hashtag, and guess what's happened to that one too?

So far Mr Murphy and his team appear to be unable to come up with any new or original ideas.  1,000 more nurses than the SNP?  Trying to steal the campaign on imprisoning mothers from Women for Independence and the Howard League?  Aping the #yesbecause Twitter campaign? 

Clearly they were impressed by the Yes side during indyref, judging by their willingness to use the same strategies, although you'll never hear them admit it.  The trouble is that they don't seem to have anything more than a superficial understanding of how it worked, hence the Twitter campaign has backfired.  Their other problem is that indyref awakened interest in politics for many people, so the attempts to hi-jack ideas from other parties is pretty transparent.  I'm not saying they won't work on some people, but I doubt they will be as successful as the Murphyites believe.

So far the Red Tories have impressed only with their lack of originality and superficial understanding.  They're going to have to up their game considerably if they expect to honour Mr Murphy's promise to retain every single seat they currently occupy in Scotland.

Great chieftain

I see that one of our esteemed 'betters', Lord McColl of Dulwich, has said that he thinks that the US should lift the ban on the importation of haggis, as it would help to address the obesity issue in that country.  Apparently he thinks it's a scandal that American-Scots are being denied this 'wholesome' food, which US citizens would no doubt find a welcome alternative to their native fast-food.

I have to wonder if there's something in the water in the House of Lords (or maybe the champagne?).  Firstly haggis is a bit like marmite - you either love it or loathe it.  I loathe it personally.  Secondly, I can't see people who are used to McDonald's, Taco Bell and Domino's taking to haggis, even though the ingredients probably are rather better than what they're used to.

Finally, if haggis is such a healthy food, how come we have an obesity problem here, the home of the haggis?  Not to mention the appaling rates of heart disease.

Frankly I think this one must have come about after an exceptionally good lunch.  Maybe they had haggis on the menu in the House of Lords that day.