Yesterday the Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) figure for last year were published. They show a worse position than previous years, mainly due to the falling price of oil. Scotland saw its revenues per head fall but, interestingly, the tax take rose, amounting to some £400 per head higher than elsewhere in the UK. So, not the best of years for Scotland, but all countries expect to have good years and bad years.
Needless to say, Unionists have been doing quite a bit of crowing about this, claiming it as definitive proof that Scotland could never survive as an independent country, since it clearly needs subsidies from the rest of the UK. However, it doesn't seem to occur to them that this state of affairs has come about under the management of the Union, so is hardly a ringing endorsement. Scotland is a country rich in natural resources and human capital, and any other country starting out with those advantages would be very, very happy.
And yet we also have the other side of the coin going on at the moment. Over the last few days we have had quite a few articles threatening mayhem if Labour should do any sort of deal with the SNP after the election in order to get into power. Yesterday at Prime Ministers Questions (PMQs) there was a particularly ill-tempered exchange between David Cameron and Ed Miliband, in which Mr Cameron challenged Mr Miliband to definitively rule out any sort of deal with the SNP, while Mr Miliband scorned Mr Cameron over his reluctance to take part in a head-to-head debate.
So, on the one hand we are incompetent, stupid, totally unsuited to run a country, but on the other we are to be feared if we return a large enough bloc of MPs with Scotland's interests first and foremost in their sights. The barbarian horde at the gate almost.
So the question from the referendum remains. If we are 'too wee, too poor, too stupid', why are the UK so desperate to hang on to us? Surely it would be better for their bank balance to let us go. The answer is, I think, twofold. Firstly they need our natural resources and exports to prop up the economy. Secondly, a successful independent Scotland on their doorstep would not play well with the electorate in the rUK. If they saw a small, prosperous nation taking care of its people as the Scottish government does now, there would be questions asked about why it couldn't be the same in rUK, and that's a risk they are not prepared to take.
Thursday, 12 March 2015
Tuesday, 10 March 2015
Book review
I've just finished reading 'Alex Salmond, My Part in his Downfall' by Alan Cochrane. This takes the form Mr Cochrane's diary over the period of the referendum campaign, finishing pretty much after the referendum itself.
It's a much better read than David Torrance's effort. Although I don't agree with many of them, Mr Cochrane is not short of an opinion or two and quite happy to share them, which makes for a far more entertaining read. He's definitely a Unionist (with a capital U), but not a fan of any particular party, although he does spend some time wondering if he should become a Tory. With regard to politicians, he either likes them or regards them with contempt, but it doesn't relate to which party they're a member of. For example, he likes Nicola Sturgeon but doesn't think much of Ruth Davidson, despite the Tory leanings.
He reserves special venom for Alex Salmond (unsurprising, given the title of the book), but he never tells us why he loathes Mr Salmond so much. One can only assume some terrible incident from the past, involving a snubbing perhaps.
The diary also gives you some insight into life chez Cochrane, and it's clear that he loves his family, both immediate and extended (in most cases). He also often complains about being constantly broke, then in the next entry recounts a dinner at an expensive restaurant with his family or some political contact - might be a bit of a clue there, along with the fees for the private school frequently mentioned, one feels.
All-in-all an entertaining read which gives plenty of insight into the unseen side of the referendum campaign, including the gossip. Definitely worth a read, even if you're a Yes supporter.
It's a much better read than David Torrance's effort. Although I don't agree with many of them, Mr Cochrane is not short of an opinion or two and quite happy to share them, which makes for a far more entertaining read. He's definitely a Unionist (with a capital U), but not a fan of any particular party, although he does spend some time wondering if he should become a Tory. With regard to politicians, he either likes them or regards them with contempt, but it doesn't relate to which party they're a member of. For example, he likes Nicola Sturgeon but doesn't think much of Ruth Davidson, despite the Tory leanings.
He reserves special venom for Alex Salmond (unsurprising, given the title of the book), but he never tells us why he loathes Mr Salmond so much. One can only assume some terrible incident from the past, involving a snubbing perhaps.
The diary also gives you some insight into life chez Cochrane, and it's clear that he loves his family, both immediate and extended (in most cases). He also often complains about being constantly broke, then in the next entry recounts a dinner at an expensive restaurant with his family or some political contact - might be a bit of a clue there, along with the fees for the private school frequently mentioned, one feels.
All-in-all an entertaining read which gives plenty of insight into the unseen side of the referendum campaign, including the gossip. Definitely worth a read, even if you're a Yes supporter.
Sunday, 8 March 2015
Breaking up
This weekend we have seen Ed Milliband up in Edinburgh, addressing a special conference of the Labour Party, more or less pleading with the Scots to vote for him. Why? Because he's a nice guy, because we shouldn't take any risks, because he will force politicians to take part in TV debates for our entertainment (you didn't think it was for our edification (haha) did you?).
I am irresistibly reminded of the opening scene from Spaced.
Meanwhile we have the fragrant David Hamilton, Labour MP and unreconstructed Scottish male. In his speech at the special conference he attacked the SNP by way of criticising Nicola Sturgeon's hairstyle and height. This was swiftly followed up on Twitter by plaudits from the more Neanderthal elements of his party. Really boys? Let's not bother engaging with the issues, the important thing
is that we criticise a woman's appearance for not confirming to our stereotypical notions. Way to go on alienating the female vote there lads, and on eve of International Women's Day too.
As ever, Twitter's response was swift and funny. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
I am irresistibly reminded of the opening scene from Spaced.
Meanwhile we have the fragrant David Hamilton, Labour MP and unreconstructed Scottish male. In his speech at the special conference he attacked the SNP by way of criticising Nicola Sturgeon's hairstyle and height. This was swiftly followed up on Twitter by plaudits from the more Neanderthal elements of his party. Really boys? Let's not bother engaging with the issues, the important thing
is that we criticise a woman's appearance for not confirming to our stereotypical notions. Way to go on alienating the female vote there lads, and on eve of International Women's Day too.
As ever, Twitter's response was swift and funny. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Saturday, 7 March 2015
Please, please (me)
Today Ed Miliband is making a speech to the special Labour in Scotland's party conference in Edinburgh. In it he will say the following:
'Vote SNP, get Tory.' Nary a mention of policy, or reasons to vote Labour, just threats and misdirection.
The misdirection has been expertly debunked over at Wings over Scotland, who have demonstrated that the line about 'the biggest party gets to form the next government' is true if the Tories win a majority (in which case how Scotland votes is irrelevant) and not true if they don't. The threat is kind of diluted by the fact that Labour endorse most of the Tories pro-austerity policies, so cuts are likely regardless of whether it's a red or blue government.
So, why isn't Mr Miliband's speech giving us a preview of their manifesto policies, thus giving us a reason to vote for them? I think Johann Lamont's parting shot about Labour in Scotland simply being a branch office is at the root of this. It's noticeable that the many policy initiatives that Jim Murphy has been spraying around can only be implemented by Holyrood, not Westminster. More nurses? Devolved to the Scottish parliament. Drinking at football matches? Devolved to the Scottish parliament. Tuition fees? Devolved to the Scottish parliament.
In other words, Mr Murphy is not permitted to set different policies for Labour in Scotland for a UK General Election. This makes sense, as we are voting for the Westminster government. However, Labour in Scotland want to avoid any appearance that they are given their orders from London, and Mr Miliband coming up to Edinburgh and announcing policy would give exactly that impression. Thus they are reduced to bleating 'Vote SNP, get Tory'. As a reason to vote for any party, that's a poor one.
Really Mr Miliband's speech appears to boil down to begging the Scots to vote for him so he can fulfil his lifetime ambition to be Prime Minister. You can practically hear the tears as he sees his support melting away in Scotland and there seems to be nothing he can do about it.
The Tories can wreak havoc in Scotland without winning a majority,
They can do it simply by being in government as the largest party. It would mean a Tory decade for Scotland: 10 years of David Cameron in Downing Street; 10 years of injustice; 10 years of unfairness; 10 years of attacking everything we hold dear in our country.My, the recent Ashcroft poll really has got them wetting their knickers. And what is their response?
'Vote SNP, get Tory.' Nary a mention of policy, or reasons to vote Labour, just threats and misdirection.
The misdirection has been expertly debunked over at Wings over Scotland, who have demonstrated that the line about 'the biggest party gets to form the next government' is true if the Tories win a majority (in which case how Scotland votes is irrelevant) and not true if they don't. The threat is kind of diluted by the fact that Labour endorse most of the Tories pro-austerity policies, so cuts are likely regardless of whether it's a red or blue government.
So, why isn't Mr Miliband's speech giving us a preview of their manifesto policies, thus giving us a reason to vote for them? I think Johann Lamont's parting shot about Labour in Scotland simply being a branch office is at the root of this. It's noticeable that the many policy initiatives that Jim Murphy has been spraying around can only be implemented by Holyrood, not Westminster. More nurses? Devolved to the Scottish parliament. Drinking at football matches? Devolved to the Scottish parliament. Tuition fees? Devolved to the Scottish parliament.
In other words, Mr Murphy is not permitted to set different policies for Labour in Scotland for a UK General Election. This makes sense, as we are voting for the Westminster government. However, Labour in Scotland want to avoid any appearance that they are given their orders from London, and Mr Miliband coming up to Edinburgh and announcing policy would give exactly that impression. Thus they are reduced to bleating 'Vote SNP, get Tory'. As a reason to vote for any party, that's a poor one.
Really Mr Miliband's speech appears to boil down to begging the Scots to vote for him so he can fulfil his lifetime ambition to be Prime Minister. You can practically hear the tears as he sees his support melting away in Scotland and there seems to be nothing he can do about it.
Friday, 6 March 2015
It's frothy man
Today there is a very amusing article in the Daily Mail by Max Hastings entitled 'The terrifying prospect of the Scots ruling England is now all too real'. Apparently this is a nightmare scenario. The article rapidly descends into frothing-at-the-mouth madness and is quite funny. It does, however, also reveal a few things about the Establishment which are interesting.
It starts by outlining how the No vote won the referendum and how polls are showing a potential tsunami of SNP MPs following the coming election, thus possibly leading to some sort of arrangement where Labour and the SNP form a majority. Mr Hastings says
Mr Hastings continues:
The Establishment are shitting bricks, and I make no apology for the phrase. They can see their cosy way of life, based on a nod and a wink and the old boys network crumbling, and the prospect absolutely terrifies them. We're obviously doing something right.
It starts by outlining how the No vote won the referendum and how polls are showing a potential tsunami of SNP MPs following the coming election, thus possibly leading to some sort of arrangement where Labour and the SNP form a majority. Mr Hastings says
If this sounds a nightmare scenario for the English people, and indeed for everybody with a head on their shoulders throughout the UK, it is the way events could turn out if the polls are right, and the two left-of-centre parties emerge dominant at Westminster.Firstly Labour is a left-of-centre party? Many people would say that Labour have not been left-wing since the advent of Tony Blair and his hingers-on. I suppose from a Tory point-of-view they are more to the left than the Tories. But we shall let that one pass. More interesting is this. During the referendum campaign we were repeatedly love-bombed, told that we were part of one big happy family and that it would be tragic if that were broken up. Scotland voted No and remained part of the happy family. Except there seems to be a hidden addendum. We are part of the family so long as we're not in charge and just do as we're told. In our case that would be to vote for Labour as our civic duty to maintain the (nominal) two-party state.
Mr Hastings continues:
Alex Salmond, almost a broken man last September following his referendum defeat, now intends to take a Commons seat because he sees himself as power-broker in the new parliament.Why bleak? Aren't we all equal in the UK since we voted to remain in it? Ah, we were supposed to shut up and get back in our box. Somehow we seem to have missed the memo.
It is hard to imagine that the SNP, which espouses policies to the left of Miliband, would help David Cameron to remain in Downing Street, even if the Tories win more seats than Labour.
We thus face the bleak prospect of five million Scots determining the fate of almost 60 million people in the rest of the UK
Nicola Sturgeon would name her price for supporting Labour, which would include a dumper-truck of English taxpayers’ cash to fund the Scottish socialist dreamAh yes, have to shoehorn in a 'subsidy junkie' reference - it's not an article on Scottish politics without it.
How on earth has it come about, in a few months, that the referendum which was supposed to silence debate about the UK’s constitution for a generation, today appears instead to have triggered an avalanche?
A string of factors, some blameworthy and others mere accidents of our times, have come together. It was, of course, a mistake for Cameron to agree to hold a Scottish independence referendumReally? They want to silence debate about the constitution? Isn't that a revealing turn of phrase. And they accuse the SNP of being Stalinists.
Throughout the western world, electorates are fragmenting, becoming harder to manage or predict as voters abandon lifetime loyalties to big parties, and instead cherry-pick policies and factions that look pretty on that night’s supper table.In other words, electorates are just voting fodder. No need for thinking, just pick your tribe and stick with it. We know best, don't worry your pretty little heads about a thing.
Hundreds of millions of European voters reject governments that promise them balanced budgets, affordable welfare systems, the politics of prudence.
They cling instead to past entitlements and established privileges, heedless of new economic realities. This is what has happened in France and Greece — and could happen to Britain in May.And there's the cherry on top of the cake. Nice bit of transference there regarding past entitlements and establishment privileges.
The Establishment are shitting bricks, and I make no apology for the phrase. They can see their cosy way of life, based on a nod and a wink and the old boys network crumbling, and the prospect absolutely terrifies them. We're obviously doing something right.
Cat amongst the pigeons
Lord Ashcroft's second poll results were announced on Wednesday evening, and they have put the cat well and truly amongst the pigeons. This time in Scotland his poll was of constituencies which were strongly No voting in the referendum, and included those of people like Mags Curran, Jim Murphy and the Alexanders (Dougie and Danny), and the results are extremely bad news if you're a Labour, Tory or LibDem MP in Scotland. If his findings are replicated at the poll, the Scottish political map will be a sea of yellow. Even Jim Murphy's seat is by no means guaranteed.
Total panic seems to have ensued. There are several grassroots campaigns being launched to steer people into who to vote for keep the SNP out. Labour have resumed their usual in-fighting and back-stabbing over how to fight the election, specifically on where their scarce electoral resources should be deployed to try and shore up their vote. Meanwhile all they seem to be doing in baaa-ing the 'Vote SNP, get Tory' slogan. Can't see how that'll work. After all, we see from the past the 'Vote Labour, get Tory' is frequently the outcome.
The tactical voting campaigns are, I think, a bad move. Labour voters being told to vote Tory in order to keep the SNP out? I can't see that it will sit well with people who vote according to family tribal loyalties. It also puts Labour in a logical conundrum. Surely if you tell your supporters to vote Tory, it negates your slogan of 'Vote SNP, get Tory'?. If you're going to tell people to vote for a Tory MP, that will give the Tories an extra seat if enough people do it. Labour have been caught in a very neat trap, and they didn't see it coming.
The prospect of a Grand Coalition between Labour and the Tories has been mooted again, this time by Gisela Stuart, Labour MP for Edgbaston. For Labour that really would be the death knell, not only in Scotland but also in England and Wales. It would prove that there really are very few differences between Labour and the Tories and that all that both parties are interested in is power. That wouldn't really harm the Tories, since they have never pretended to be anything else, but Labour would be finished.
So, in Scotland the general election seems to be turning into a rerun of the referendum, with SSP and Scottish Greens being encouraged to lend their vote to the SNP at UK level, and the Better Together parties encouraging their supporters to vote for whoever has the best chance of beating the SNP. It will be interesting to see whether Yes or No win out this time.
Total panic seems to have ensued. There are several grassroots campaigns being launched to steer people into who to vote for keep the SNP out. Labour have resumed their usual in-fighting and back-stabbing over how to fight the election, specifically on where their scarce electoral resources should be deployed to try and shore up their vote. Meanwhile all they seem to be doing in baaa-ing the 'Vote SNP, get Tory' slogan. Can't see how that'll work. After all, we see from the past the 'Vote Labour, get Tory' is frequently the outcome.
The tactical voting campaigns are, I think, a bad move. Labour voters being told to vote Tory in order to keep the SNP out? I can't see that it will sit well with people who vote according to family tribal loyalties. It also puts Labour in a logical conundrum. Surely if you tell your supporters to vote Tory, it negates your slogan of 'Vote SNP, get Tory'?. If you're going to tell people to vote for a Tory MP, that will give the Tories an extra seat if enough people do it. Labour have been caught in a very neat trap, and they didn't see it coming.
The prospect of a Grand Coalition between Labour and the Tories has been mooted again, this time by Gisela Stuart, Labour MP for Edgbaston. For Labour that really would be the death knell, not only in Scotland but also in England and Wales. It would prove that there really are very few differences between Labour and the Tories and that all that both parties are interested in is power. That wouldn't really harm the Tories, since they have never pretended to be anything else, but Labour would be finished.
So, in Scotland the general election seems to be turning into a rerun of the referendum, with SSP and Scottish Greens being encouraged to lend their vote to the SNP at UK level, and the Better Together parties encouraging their supporters to vote for whoever has the best chance of beating the SNP. It will be interesting to see whether Yes or No win out this time.
Wednesday, 4 March 2015
Nothing to fear
Yesterday in the Guardian there was another story about how the Scottish Government is about to invade all our privacy by setting up a centralised identity database, effectively bring in identity cards by the back door. This is Severin Carrell's second go at turning this into a drama - you can read his first go here.
Essentially the story is this: The Scottish Government are looking at adding postcode information to the existing NHS database, which is generally regarded as the most reliable database which covers the Scottish population. The proposal is then to use this database to allow people to access government services online. The database will be used for identity verification. So, if you want to use a service, a query will be sent to the NHS database which will send back a Yes/No answer. The queston will be 'Does the information this person has supplied match the information that you have?' The minimum possible data will be shared between organisations.
The database will also be used by HMRC (A UK organisation) to identify Scottish residents for the purposes of the devolved taxation proposed by the Smith Commission.
The Scottish Government are holding a consulation on the proposal, and the document outlining it is here.
I listened to Morning Call on BBC Scotland on this subject this morning. I am amazed at the hysteria this has produced. So, as a professional database programmer, here are some answers.
'Hackers could get in and see my medical records!'
If a hacker were to get into the database, it would be most likely by social engineering rather than by technical means. Assuming that the database has been built on an enterprise level database, technical hacking would be very difficult. Not only would they have to crack the database, they would also have to pass through the network unnoticed. The odds of that happening are pretty low, unless they have gained access to compromised accounts. As this database already exists, the risk will be no greater than it is now.
'Anyone from the long list of organisations could see my data!'
No, they could only see what they were allowed to see. Just because data exists in a database, it doesn't mean that anyone with an account can see it. I have previously set up a database with a special technology which means that even if you give the command 'show me all of the data on this topic', the database itself will restrict you to only the data you are allowed to see and there is no way round it. In this case it looks like most organisations will only be allowed to ask if the data they have from you matches the data in the database, and it will be a simple yes/no answer. It won't tell you how the data is different.
'What's to stop someone who works from the council looking at my information even if they don't need it?'
Database access is generally audited, so the database administrators can see who has been accessing what data. Also, databases can be restricted to show only some of the data to a particular database user. Essentially, however, this problem exists now. Adding a postcode to the NHS database isn't going to change that.
'The Scottish Government will be able to find out everything about me!'
Got a Tesco Clubcard or a Morrisons Match and More card? Private companies know far more about you than the Scottish government will, and those companies can mine their data to make inferences about your life. They will also sell that data on. If you're not worried about Tesco or Morrisons knowing about you, why would you be worried about this?
As a database professional, this does not worry me. I do think, however, that a consultation is necessary to make sure that everyone is aware of the uses to which the data will be put and what safeguards will be put in place. That is the minimum we should expect in a democracy.
Essentially the story is this: The Scottish Government are looking at adding postcode information to the existing NHS database, which is generally regarded as the most reliable database which covers the Scottish population. The proposal is then to use this database to allow people to access government services online. The database will be used for identity verification. So, if you want to use a service, a query will be sent to the NHS database which will send back a Yes/No answer. The queston will be 'Does the information this person has supplied match the information that you have?' The minimum possible data will be shared between organisations.
The database will also be used by HMRC (A UK organisation) to identify Scottish residents for the purposes of the devolved taxation proposed by the Smith Commission.
The Scottish Government are holding a consulation on the proposal, and the document outlining it is here.
I listened to Morning Call on BBC Scotland on this subject this morning. I am amazed at the hysteria this has produced. So, as a professional database programmer, here are some answers.
'Hackers could get in and see my medical records!'
If a hacker were to get into the database, it would be most likely by social engineering rather than by technical means. Assuming that the database has been built on an enterprise level database, technical hacking would be very difficult. Not only would they have to crack the database, they would also have to pass through the network unnoticed. The odds of that happening are pretty low, unless they have gained access to compromised accounts. As this database already exists, the risk will be no greater than it is now.
'Anyone from the long list of organisations could see my data!'
No, they could only see what they were allowed to see. Just because data exists in a database, it doesn't mean that anyone with an account can see it. I have previously set up a database with a special technology which means that even if you give the command 'show me all of the data on this topic', the database itself will restrict you to only the data you are allowed to see and there is no way round it. In this case it looks like most organisations will only be allowed to ask if the data they have from you matches the data in the database, and it will be a simple yes/no answer. It won't tell you how the data is different.
'What's to stop someone who works from the council looking at my information even if they don't need it?'
Database access is generally audited, so the database administrators can see who has been accessing what data. Also, databases can be restricted to show only some of the data to a particular database user. Essentially, however, this problem exists now. Adding a postcode to the NHS database isn't going to change that.
'The Scottish Government will be able to find out everything about me!'
Got a Tesco Clubcard or a Morrisons Match and More card? Private companies know far more about you than the Scottish government will, and those companies can mine their data to make inferences about your life. They will also sell that data on. If you're not worried about Tesco or Morrisons knowing about you, why would you be worried about this?
As a database professional, this does not worry me. I do think, however, that a consultation is necessary to make sure that everyone is aware of the uses to which the data will be put and what safeguards will be put in place. That is the minimum we should expect in a democracy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)