Couldn't organise a piss-up...

Yesterday we hear that a member of the Labour Party has had their membership revoked for saying on social media that they were going to vote for the Scottish Nationalist Party (whoever they are).  The letter emanated from one Jane Shaw, who is apparently a Compliance Officer for UK Labour, since the address on the letter is in London.  Like many people I was unaware that Labour had such a thing as a Compliance Officer, which sounds pretty scary.  No wonder Labour seem to be quite in favour of the surveillance society, if this is how they treat their members.

Given the current dire straits that Labour find themselves in in Scotland, sacking a member for saying they were voting for another party seems to be quite the wrong approach.  Surely it would have been better to have a meeting with the member in question, to ask them why they weren't going to be voting for the party of which they were a member? 

Then there is the matter of the tactical voting campaigns in the recent General Election, where Labour members were encouraging members to vote for other parties in some constituencies if the other party in question was deemed to have a better chance of winning against the SNP.  Indeed in at least one constituency (Perth I'm told) there were even some Labour members helping out with canvassing for the Tory candidate.  No doubt there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why these people are not being expelled, possibly because to do so would be to reduce the small numbers of Labour members in Scotland even further.

On a completely different note, Neil Findlay has been on the attack against Angela Constance, demanding to know why she has done nothing about the crisis in teacher numbers in West Lothian, her own constituency.  Now there are issues within the education system in Scotland, and Ms Constance is the Education Secretary within the Scottish government.  Something will need to be done about this.  However, with regard to the teacher numbers in West Lothian, this comes under the control of West Lothian Council, who set the budgets fo education in the country. And what Mr Findlay fails to mention is that West Lothian Council is run by...Labour.  D'oh!

They can what?

Today the Scotland Act was introduced to Parliament, ready to wend its way through debates in the Commons and the Lords before passing into law.  And some in Whitehall have just noticed a provision tucked away in the labyrinthine document that has caused them some alarm.

Currently the devolved parliament in Scotland and Westminster follow something called the Sewell Convention.  This means that, when seeking to introduce legislation on reserved matters that would affect Scotland, Westminster seeks the consent of the Scottish government in Holyrood.  The Scotland Act proposes that this convention should be given the force of law.  If this is passed, this could well mean that the Scottish government will have an effective veto over legislation such as the abolition of the Human Rights Act.  It would also mean that the House of Lords could no longer remove powers from Holyrood without so much as a by-your-leave.

Naturally this has caused consternation amongst some of the Tories, who don't like the idea of Scotland having any power at all over Westminster, let alone the power of veto.  I'd guess that David Cameron will be less worried about this, since it gives him an excuse for not meeting this manifesto pledge - 'sorry, chaps, damned Scotch won't let me'.  However, this could be a very powerful weapon in the arsenal of the Scottish government.

For that reason, I suspect that this particular proposal will be amended, possibly out of existence, during its passage through the two chambers at Westminster.  The SNP will, of course, fight against it, but it may well be that the Unionist parties will force it through.  And won't that do wonders for the relationship between the Scots and the English.

Excuses, excuses

Today Alistair Carmichael was interviewed on Radio Orkney, where the topic of the interview was, naturally enough, the stooshie over the leaked 'Frenchgate' memo.  In it we discovered that Mr Carmichael has moved on from saying he made an error of judgement in releasing the memo when it was brought to his attention and he is now saying that he did not lie when he said he hadn't seen the memo as he first saw the text of it when it was published in The Telegraph.  Apparently we are to believe that Mr Carmichael, on being told about the memo, did not bother to read it for himself but authorised it being leaked sight-unseen.

I'm not sure how Mr Carmichael thinks this makes thing any better for him.  After all, the word 'memo' generally refers to a short document, maybe a couple of pages at most.  Is he saying that he didn't have time to read it?  Even if he wasn't at the same location as his spad, surely it could have been faxed or e-mailed to him for perusal prior to him authorising the leak.  Whatever the explanation, one has to wonder just how thoroughly Mr Carmichael was doing his job as Scottish Secretary.

 Sometimes in a long-running TV series there will come an episode which appears to contradict the storyline as it has thus far developed.  When this happens, fans will come up with an explanation that allows both the existing story universe and the events of that episode to be true.  It's a form of revers-engineering if you will.  The term used on the internet for this is 'fanwank', and I think that's pretty much what we're dealing with here.

Sorry kthxbai

Yesterday Alistair Carmichael admitted responsibility for leaking the memo which falsely said that Nicola Sturgeon had told the French Ambassador during a meeting that she wanted David Cameron to remain as Prime Minister after the recent election, a claim strongly denied by both Ms Sturgeon and the French Ambassador and her staff.  The investigation took from March until now and cost £1.4 million.

Mr Carmichael has apologised to Ms Sturgeon and has also said he will forgo his severance pay as a cabinet minister, a total of £16,876,  He seems to think that this is sufficient to draw a line under the matter and that everyone should just move on.

I am reminded of MPs who were caught out fiddling their expenses, who seemed to think that, as long as they paid the money back, everything was fine and they couldn't understand what all the fuss was about.  In both cases the individuals in question seem to have no moral sense that they have done something wrong, and that all they are really sorry for is that they have been caught.

The other question is why did the investigation take so long and why did it cost so much?  As far as I can gather, it was quickly established that the mobile used to contact the Telegraph with the story belonged to Euan Roddin, Mr Carmichael's special adviser.  From there is hardly required the services of Miss Marple to work out who had authorised the 'leak', especially since it appears that Mr Carmichael rolled over almost immediately.

The one honourable thing that Mr Carmichael has done is that he has not thrown Mr Roddin under the bus for this.  Nevertheless, I would think that the people of Orkney and Shetland might be asking themselves if a self-confessed liar and waster of public funds is really the best person to represent them at Westminster.

Oh yes she will

So, after a few days of dithering, Kezia Dugdale has announced she will stand for the post of leader of the Labour party in Scotland.  There's an interesting comparison with UK Labour there.  Following their general election defeat, Ed Miliband stood down as leader of the Labour party and deputy leader Harriet Harman will also be stepping down once a new leader has been elected.  Ms Dugdale, however, appears to have escaped any responsibility for Labour's catastrophe in Scotland.

Ms Dugdale says

This is a moment when Scottish Labour must and will change. It’s time for a new generation with a vision for the future of Scotland.

Well that's new and fresh...oh wait, no it isn't.  Every time Labour in Scotland have suffered a defeat from 2007 onwards we've heard the same old story, and we're still waiting for them to change.  Just as well we're not holding our breath.

 She goes on:

I do not underestimate the scale of the challenge Scottish Labour faces. But we’ve been the insurgent force before, pushing back against the political establishment and winning great victories and profound social change. We will be that force again. Our values are what we will carry forward with us – all the rest is baggage.

It's been a very long time since Labour has pushed back against the Establishment or indeed enacted profound social change.  At least 50 years I'd say.  A bigger problem with the statement is Ms Dugdale herself.  If asked, I doubt I could name one policy that Ms Dugdale espouses nor any grand political idea.  I may be doing her a great disservice here, and she hides her light under a bushel, but I can't recall any barnstorming speeches or fresh, original policy ideas by her.  Indeed, her whole approach appears to be 'SNP Bad!' - criticising anything that the SNP does, but not suggesting any alternatives or solutions.

Ms Dugdale currently has one rival for the leadership, one Ken Macintosh.  Mr Macintosh is also a bit of a nonentity as far as the Scottish electorate is concerned.  Again, I couldn't tell you what Mr Macintosh stands for in the way of policies, nor has he ever expressed any sort of alternative vision for Scotland that I know of.  Interestingly, both Ms Dugdale and Mr Macintosh are supporters of Jim Murphy.  Does anyone else detect the cold touch of Mr Murphy's minions about this?

Choppy waters

It's been a quiet couple of days.  The Labour leadership contests (both of them) proceed at a glacial pace, and in appears that in Scotland no-one really wants the gig, possibly not even Ms Dugdale, who will apparently decide over the next couple of days.  At this rate Jim Murphy will be doing a Farage and will find his resignation not accepted, which will probably be a relief to McTernan and McDougall, who will otherwise be down at the Jobcentre.  That will be a bit of a shock to the system, especially when Mr Osborne gets going with the planned cuts to the welfare budget.

Meanwhile there is a bit of a stooshie around Trident since a naval rating named William McNeilly posted an 18-page document on the internet exposing weaknesses in the UK's nuclear deterrent, specifically around security.  He has been arrested after going AWOL, since he will have broken the law by revealing information protected under the Official Secrets Act.

Essentially it appears that information that is supposed to be secret is easily available to people who should not have access to it, and that security as Faslane is rather lax.  Mr McNeilly, by revealing this, is essentially in the same position as someone who discovers a security glitch on a website.  Such people are quite frequently reported to the authorities by the companies who own the website, which has always seemed to me to be the wrong approach.  Surely the companies in question should be grateful to have such things drawn the their attention?  Similarly surely the MoD should be grateful for the information?  They won't be though.  Embarrassment requires revenge.

Finally there have been some larks down at Westminster over the matter of seating arrangements, with the SNP working in shifts to ensure prime seats in the debating chamber.  Labour in particular were aghast.  Those dreadful SNP types, riding roughshod over the hallowed traditions!  Get used to it.  The SNP will be making themselves heard, and blowing away the cobwebs.

Left, right, left, right...

And so the collapse of the Labour party continues, with the resignation of Jim Murphy, despite the fact that he narrowly won his vote of no confident (by a margin of 55% to 45% - delicious irony there).  However, his resignation will not happen until June, until which time Mr Murphy intends to lay out a strategy to revive Labour's fortunes north of the border.

The first thought that occurs is that his views on a strategy to win back key voters can easily be ignored by the next leader, whoever they are.  After all, Mr Murphy's scattergun approach to strategy during the recent election was hardly what one might call a resounding success.  The second thought that occurs is that it's interesting that he now espouses the 'one member one vote' approach to leadership elections for the future, but was happy with the electoral college approach when it saw him elected as leader.  Clearly he wants revenge on the unions, specifically Len McCluskey and Unite.

Meanwhile, down in London, the Labour party are also looking for a replacement for Ed Miliband, a task that seems as Herculean as the one north of the border according the this article in the Guardian.  There was one paragraph in the article that seemed to me to sum up the problem Labour has:

Last Monday at 6pm, Cruddas and most of the other remaining 231 Labour MPs (26 fewer than a week before) crammed into committee room 14 in the House of Commons to hear Harriet Harman, the acting leader, attempt to lift the depleted, demoralised parliamentary party off the floor. None of them, she said, should waste a second before getting stuck into the Tories again, as they prepared to elect a leader to replace Ed Miliband. They should also tear into what is now the third-largest party at Westminster, the SNP, and “own the House of Commons”.

There we have it.  Labour are still thinking in terms of 'sticking it to the Tories' and 'sticking it to the SNP'  It's all about power, and the electorate are simply a means to this end.  This was their problem during the recent election.  As pointed out in the article, they had no coherent story to sell to the electorate, and it seems that the current Labour leadership has the blinkers on and are in no mood for narratives.

Both north and south of the border there seems to be a dearth of talent to choose from in terms of leadership.  There also appears to be a huge divide between whether the party should move rightwards towards more Blairite policies or leftwards towards the Labour party of old.  The trouble is that Labour south of the border needs to appeal to the voters in the leafy shires who are traditionally in favour of lower taxes and a smaller public sector whereas north of the border the voters want to see more in the way of redistribution and social justice.  I don't think this is a circle that can be squared.  I can see Labour in Scotland breaking away from Labour in the rest of the UK over this.  I can also see Labour dividing into two parties, north of the border at least, to accommodate the two views.

If Labour in Scotland does break away it will contradict one of their stances during the referendum, which was that the Labour party should be a national party representing the workers from all parts of the UK, and that there should be no 'artificial' borders dividing the workers.  Logically that may then lead to the 'new' Labour party in Scotland to consider supporting independence.  Wouldn't that be a turn up for the books?