Devo-not-quite-max

Now the dust of the Scottish General election is beginning to settle Labour are looking for a new role following their second humiliation at the ballot box.  The market place of Scottish politics is quite crowded now, with SNP (independence, centre-left), Tory (Union, right), Green (independence, left-wing/environmental), RISE (independence, far-left) and LibDems (federalism, errrrr help me out here).  Where are Labour to place themselves to stand out from the crowd?

The answer appears to be to become the party of the centre-left that supports full federalism within the UK.  The party of Devo-max.  Devo-max is generally agreed to mean that the Scottish parliament has all powers except for those over defence and foreign affairs and retains all money raised in Scotland, paying an agreed contribution towards defence and foreign affairs.

This would seem like a smart move for Labour.  It would give them a unique selling point to the voters, one which could get them back in the game, since it would almost certainly have been the most popular option had it been permitted on the referendum ballot paper.  But what is this we see?

[Anas] Sarwar, who is expected to take a senior frontbench role after winning a Holyrood seat on Thursday, said finding a middle way between nationalism and unionism was the “fundamental challenge” still facing the party.

[...] Sarwar’s intervention adds to growing pressure on Dugdale to agree that Scottish Labour should investigate home rule, a form of federal arrangement in which Holyrood has more control over taxation, welfare services and law-making.

Under that model, Westminster would chiefly control foreign policy, defence and perhaps some major spending areas such as pensions.

Dear god, it's the Smith Commission all over again.  Despite the fact that federalism/Devo-max has a generally accepted definition, Labour want to interpret it as a few more token powers that they feel like having, leaving most of them with Westminster.

Clearly Labour have still learned nothing from their precipitous decline.  And despite all the protests about how they will start listening to the voters, it's clear that they have no intention of doing any such thing.  They are still of the mindset that they know what's best for Scotland, so we needn't worry out little heads about it.

Mr Sarwar is widely tipped to be Ms Dugdale's successor, possibly after next year's council elections if their performance is as bad as this year's.  On the above evidence of his thinking, he may well be the last.

Turd polishing

This weekend has seen most of the commentary on last week's Scottish general election, and anyone unfamiliar with Scottish politics would be forgiven for thinking that Ruth Davidson and her party won it.  The Guardian, long regarded as a bastion of left-wing thought, is besotted with Ms Davidson, with article after article on her and the Scottish Tories.  Other papers and TV programmes are also giving us variations on the theme of 'Hail the Conquering Heroine Comes'.  It might therefore come as a surprise to many that Ms Davidson and her party came second, and by a long way behind the SNP.

Mind you, Labour being beaten into third place in Scotland is quite a story.  The most amazing sight during the election results was that of a Tory taking a seat from Labour in Glasgow, something that would have been quite unthinkable prior to the referendum in 2014.  How far are the mighty fallen.

One of the main reasons Ms Davidson won second place is by running a campaign almost exclusively on the topic of a second referendum on Scottish independence and how the Tories would oppose it.  They did have some other policies, such as bringing back prescription charges and bring in tuition fees, but there was very little mention of these in her coverage.  Instead Ms Davidson harped on and on about the subject of a second referendum and how she would be the chief defender of the Union.  Clearly this was a very successful strategy for her, since she evidently picked up the die-hard Unionist voted which might otherwise have gone to Labour, who vacillated on the question.  It was, however, a somewhat ironic campaign, in that she was demanding that the SNP respect the result of the last referendum and move on while dwelling on the constitutional question to the exclusion of everything else herself.

So now Ms Davidson is leader of the 'official opposition' (something which does not actually exist at Holyrood), with the right to ask the first questions of Nicola Sturgeon at FMQs.  This could prove a double-edged sword however.  For while Ms Davidson gets to question Ms Sturgeon on her government's policies, she will also have to defend the policies of the Tory Westminster government as they affect Scotland.  I suspect that will lead to more than a few embarrassing moments for her.

When all's said and done, Ms Davidson is a Tory, someone who believes in removing benefits from the disabled and unemployed, who believes in low taxes for the rich and who believes in every person for themselves.  All the plaudits from the press don't change this.  In fact the adulatory coverage from the press is simply a demonstration of that fact that, while you can't polish a turd, you can roll it in glitter.  However, it's still a turd, and glitter has a terrible habit of being shed.  One wonders how long it will take before the press fall out of love with Ms Davidson and return to business as usual.

Private dancer

Today the Guardian carries this video of Kezia Dugdale being interviewed by Owen Jones.  In it they discuss Labour's toxicity in Scotland, what it's like to be LGBT in Scotland and the perceived role of Brian Soutar in forming SNP policy.

Ms Dugdale attributes the Tories' toxicity in Scotland to 18 years of Thatcherism but seems at a loss to explain why Labour is becoming equally toxic in Scotland. In my opinion this is because of the referendum, not because they worked with the Tories in Better Together but because a lot more people became politically informed and began to question why, if Labour has been in power in Scotland for so many, many years, does Scotland still have huge problems with poverty and inequality, given her wealth of resources? Labour supporters will, no doubt, point out that they have not been in government in Holyrood for the past nine years, ignoring the fact that they still control the majority of local councils and therefore local spending and policy decisions.

With regard to the LGBT and equality issues Ms Dugdale raises, there is no doubt that more can be done on this front.  However, some credit should be given to the SNP for having a gender-balanced cabinet.  It was notable that Labour immediately copied this idea, for the first time in their history in Scotland, perhaps in an attempt to shift the perception that they are a party where business is done between men behind closed doors.

Mr Soutar seems to have become something of a scarecrow for Labour, dragged out whenever Labour want to suggest a shadowy conspiracy in Holyrood.  There is no doubt that the man holds some unpleasant views on LGBT matters, but to suggest that he is somehow the eminence grise of Scottish politics is a bit of a stretch.  It is also quite hypocritical of Labour, who have not always been very particular about their donors.

Ms Dugdale, to me, comes across as someone who talks the talk but doesn't really walk the walk. It's as if she knows all the steps but just doesn't have the natural talent to make a good dancer. She is in good company, however, as I don't see any of her colleagues as having any more talent than she does. The overall effect is that it gives what she says a certain air of insincerity which people are picking up on. This is one of their major problems, and not one that can be solved easily.

Marshmallow woman

STV's political editor Bernard Ponsonby is conducting a series of one-to-one interviews with the leaders of the parties fighting the Scottish General Election.  The most excruciating of these is the one with Kezia Dugdale.

She reminds me of someone who has brought a family-sized bag of marshmallows to a gunfight, with about the level of effectiveness you'd expect from such a scenario.  She doesn't have her facts at her fingertips and constantly relies on 'well that's what I've been told'.  Shades of Johann Lamont, whose interviewing style was equally hapless.  See, for example, this interview with Gordon Brewer regarding one of Labour's tax plans.  Compare and contrast with Nicola Sturgeon, who is generally well-prepared on the topic she's discussing and is therefore almost always able to think on her feet when challenged. 

This illustrates a fundamental weakness with Labour politicians in Scotland.  They try to reduce debate to the level of soundbites, and when the interviewer asks a question that departs from their script, they flounder.  One wonders if this is because any Scottish Labour politician with any talent is quickly moved off to Westminster, leaving behind the less talented for the Scottish parliament, which is to be regarded as the minor leagues.  This is key to understanding why Labour in Scotland are doing so very badly in the Scottish general election.

The SNP are very much a party for the people of Scotland, and this is illustrated by the fact that not all of their best politicians are hived off to Westminster.  Labour and also the Tories are perceived not to be interested in Scotland and its people, preferring instead to send all of their best to London.  The electorate are not stupid and can discern which parties are for Scotland first and which are for the UK first.

If Labour and the Tories in Scotland want to become serious contenders for the Scottish government, they will have to find some way to show the electorate that Scotland is important to them.  Almost inevitably this will mean them supporting federalism at the very least and probably ultimately independence.  So far this is not a step they are prepared to take, and they risk the very real possibility of being left behind by history if they are not prepared to change.

Shhhhh!

At the end of last week it was announced that 7,000 pupils in Edinburgh would not be returning to school today, as serious structural defects have been found at Oxgangs Primary School, where a wall collapsed back in January.  As the school was built under a PFI deal, all other schools built under similar arrangements have now been closed until safety checks can be carried out.

The reporting of this has been most amusing, if only for seeing the contortions that the newspapers have gone through to avoid mentioning who was responsible for letting the PFI contracts for the schools in question. And who was in charge at the time?  Well, Edinburgh Council was Labour-controlled, Holyrood was Labour-controlled and take a guess at who was in charge at Westminster.  Why that would be Labour!

As an example of the reporting, take this example from the Guardian, where the story is headed by a large picture of Nicola Sturgeon.  Labour supporters have been trying to argue in the comments that the story explains that this is not the fault of the SNP, but they are being somewhat disingenuous, as many people will simply skim the headline, see the picture of Ms Sturgeon and jump to an erroneous conclusion.  Event the Guardian seems to have felt some embarrassment, as their second attempt at the story was headed by a picture of the collapsed wall.  Notably, however, neither version of the story mentions the role of Labour in the debacle.

It was inevitable that at some point the papers were going to attempt to blame the SNP.  Step forward the Herald and the Scotsman, who are both running a story headlined 'SNP accused of refusing calls for school building checks'.  This turns out to be an almost verbatim retelling of a Tory press release from Liz Smith (yes, I don't know either).

Have we heard calls for a full public enquiry from Labour's own rentahonk, Jackie Baillie?  The silence is deafening.  Has Willie Rennie fired off yet another missive demanding a full investigation?  Strangely he does not appear to have deployed his pen, or if he has, he's not telling us about it.  How very odd, given their previous history of demanding enquiries at the drop of a hat.

Clearly the strategy seems to be that if they don't mention it, it'll all go away, with the voting public none the wiser.  I think, however, that it will have an unexpected side-effect, and not one they're going to like.  Many of the electorate will see this as an attempt to weasel out of taking responsibility.  And why, the voters will ask themselves, should we elect a party that will do anything to avoid taking responsibility for their actions?

In my local area recently, a phantom #SNPOuter with a sheet of stickers has been decorating the lampposts.  The stickers read

#SNPOut

Scotland Deserves Better 

Yesterday, when out walking my dogs I observed a hoodied youth on a bike stopping at each lamppost.  Curious, I went to see what he was doing.  He was using a black marker pen to obliterate the word 'Out' on each sticker so that it now reads

#SNP

Scotland Deserves Better

 He's right.  Scotland deserves far better than the current Unionist parties.

Kezia's amnesia and Wullie the White Knight

And so the attempts to smear the SNP go on, most recently with the story that Kezia Dugdale twice sought work experience as a researcher with the SNP when she was a student, was turned down on both occasions and subsequently joined the Labour party.  The rest, as the saying goes, is history.

So far so dull.  This particular piece of information has been bobbing about amongst Yes supporters for quite some time, so the Scottish Sun is somewhat late to the party.  The basic story seems to be that Ms Dugdale twice e-mailed Richard Lochhead to enquire about the possibility of an unpaid internship with him.  Note that it does not say anything about a job application, simply that an enquiry was made as to whether there were any opportunities.

Ms Dugdale herself says she has no recollection of making any such enquiry, which I find a little hard to believe.  I rather suspect that she has been advised to take this line, in which case her adviser has done her no favours.  A better approach would have been to own it and to say that yes, she did make the enquires but that it was a long time ago and she has subsequently found the Labour party to be a better fit for her political beliefs.  Job done, move along, nothing to see here.

However Willie Rennie seems to see this as his big chance to play the knight in shining armour, charging to the defence of Ms Dugdale by writing to the Data Protection Commissioner to demand an enquiry as to whether the whole affair has breached the Data Protection Act, which requires details of a job application to be kept confidential, rightly so as job applications contain personal information.  However, that's not what we're talking about here.  An enquiry as to whether there are any positions available does not constitute a job application.  Mr Rennie appears to be being somewhat disingenuous by conflating the two things, thus enabling another 'SNP Bad'.

Mr Rennie and Ms Dugdale seem to be developing a surprisingly friendly relationship of late.  During the leaders' debate on STV last week it was notable that, in the section where each leader was questioned by the other leaders, both Mr Rennie and Ms Dugdale were throwing each other softball questions, leading some people to wonder if there had been some collusion beforehand.  And now we have Mr Rennie rushing to the defence of Ms Dugdale over the matter of some ancient e-mails being leaked to the press.

Of course Labour and the LibDems have a bit of a history of friendly relations, as evidenced by their coalition in the Scottish Parliament prior to 2007.  One wonders if they may be hoping that, in the event that the SNP don't win an overall majority in the coming election, they could form a coalition to enable them to become the Scottish Government once more.  It's not looking likely according to the polls at the moment, but it may be their only chance of a sniff at power in the current climate.  Time will tell.

To report or not to report?

Yesterday I had an interesting debate with someone on Twitter regarding the story published in The National about the latest scandal engulfing Natalie McGarry.  In essence the story is that the SNP's Glasgow Regional Association (GRA) is unable to properly account for £4,127.62 of its funds.  Ms McGarry's involvement is that she was convener of the GRA from 2011 until last year and, as such, was the main signatory on the association's bank account.  The money appears in the accounts under 'Other payments', but there are no receipts to account for the spending.  Ms McGarry is reported to be being unco-operative regarding the matter.

Essentially there were two grounds for arguing that the article should not have been published in The National:
1. That the story was unsubstantiated gossip
2. That by publishing the story The National was undermining the independence movement

On the subject of unsubstantiated gossip, the main argument was that no-one is named as a source in the article.  This is true.  However, the article is very specific in some of its details, such as the amount of missing money and how it is presented in the accounts, not to mention the fact that the GRA is mentioned specifically, which would make it very easy to verify the story.  Judging by the information given, the meeting at which the matter was discussed seems to have become quite heated, so it would be understandable if people did not want to be named, but were happy to speak off-the-record.  Finally one would imagine that The National would have run the story past their lawyers in order to ensure that they would not be liable to a charge of defamation by Ms McGarry.  All these things would suggest that there is some basis for the story and that there is therefore a legitimate public interest in it.

As for the second point, that The National is undermining the independence movement by publishing the story, this is very much a slippery slope.  This is essentially demanding that The National, as a pro-independence newspaper, should censor its content, on the basis that the Unionist media will be undermining the independence movement anyway, so The National should refrain from adding fuel to the fire.  But where do you draw the line?  Are members of the pro-independence movement to be given what is, in essence, a free pass from any wrongdoing on their part being reported to their supporters by pro-independence media?  The Unionist media would have a field day with that one, using it as proof of their narrative of the SNP as a one-party state which controls the media in Scotland.  And why should independence supporters be shielded from any less-than-stellar behaviour by pro-independence 'superstars'?  Is support for independence so weak that any hint that leading figures in the movement are less than perfect will lead to mass desertion?  I don't think so.

On balance I think The National were right to publish the story.  The independence movement has a right to know how their public figures are behaving, good or bad.  What we don't need is a pro-independence media which is a mirror image of the Unionist media, colluding with the Establishment to cover up bad news and scandal.  The independence movement wants to see a better, fairer Scotland, and that includes allowing the pro-independence media to hold political figures to account where warranted.