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.

How do you solve a problem like oor Kezia?

How do you solve a problem like oor Kezia?  After this week's car crash of a First Minister's Questions (which even had me face-palming for her), we now get her big speech to her party faithful at the Spring conference.  Well, I say conference, but it was held in Glasgow's IMAX theater which has a maximum capacity of 370, which tells you a lot about the plight that Labour in Scotland finds itself.

Anyway, in her big speech she gives us her vision for what will happen if Labour gets into power in seven weeks time, something which she herself doesn't think will happen apparently.  And what do we get?  Not very much as it turns out.  Even Severin Carrell seems to be struggling here.

The 1p rise in income tax?  Oh yes, that was the one that was going to involve some sort of council rebate to the lowest earners.  Quite how it's going to work is still a bit of a mystery, but they've got at least seven weeks to come up with the answer. 

A guarantee of every Scottish resident being able to see a GP within 48 hours?  But that's already a target of the Scottish government, hampered by the fact that there aren't enough GPs to meet that target due to difficulties with GP recruitment.  So how does Kezia intend to implement her guarantee?  We're not told.

Strict fiscal rules to stop Holyrood from cutting taxes and spending at the same time?  A decent principle, but principles have a habit of being changed once faced with the reality of their implementation.

And that's it.  The rest is just jibes at the SNP in general and Nicola Sturgon in particular, a strategy which clearly isn't working, but it's all they've got.  And Kezia seems to have a particular jealousy of the First Minister.

 I want Nicola Sturgeon's chair, her desk and the possibility of all the powers she has at her finger tips .

she says, managing to sound both megalomaniacal and envious at the same time.  I can't help but think that Kezia would find 'all the powers' to be rather less than she imagines if she were to actually achieve this.  After all, that's what the independence referendum was all about.

Jibes about selfies?  One wonders how often Kezia gets asked for selfies by the public.  That's the point she misses.  Nicola Sturgeon takes selfies with people because people ask her to, not because she offers.  It's a bit like people who tut at someone saying 'I'm on the train' into their mobile.  It's because the person on the other end has almost certainly asked 'where are you?'

Sadly I think Kezia is a fine example of the Peter Principle, and has reached the level of her own incompetence.  And that's a bad thing because Scottish politics needs a decent opposition for the SNP.

Will Kezia hang on as leader after May?  I suspect she will, until after the council elections in 2017.  After that, all bets will be off.

We're wide awake

Yesterday Wee Ginger Dug published a blog that captures superbly how it feels to be an independista in present-day Scotland.  The sense of possibility and yes, of our own power to effect change has never been stronger.

It's an unintended side-effect of the referendum in 2014.  We learned to question, to cast a critical eye over what we were told, whether by politicians or by the media, to stop taking things at face-value and to look for the hidden motives.  These skills have served us well since September 2014. A sleeping giant is awake, and one that is not inclined to simply turn over and go back to sleep. 

Jim Sillars told us that

 Between 7am and 10pm on the 18th September we are totally sovereign.  We have power in our hands for the first time in our history.  Whether at one minute past ten we remain sovereign and powerful or at one minute past ten we've given it all away and we're powerless.

A very large number of us watched as the small majority elected to give it all away and become powerless.  And instead of accepting defeat, those of us who voted Yes decided that it was worth fighting to get that sovereign power back again.  Initially we were sad and we mourned, but that sadness very quickly turned to rage, a rage that continues to burn within us.

The Unionist parties fully expected that things would go back to normal, where they could play their political games without troubling much about the electorate except when it came time for voting, and even then it was expected that votes were an entitlement that could be taken for granted.  Aghast, they realised the folly of this belief too late and watched powerless as safe seat after safe seat fell to the SNP in the General Election.  It was one of the best nights in my life.

Even now, they don't understand the enormity of what the referendum created.  They don't understand that a large proportion of the electorate finally realised what power we have and we are not inclined to give that power up.  They don't understand that a major part of the appeal of the SNP is the possibility of effecting change, of getting rid of the tired old political system and replacing it with something different.  It won't be perfect, but it would better serve our needs than the current system.

History may well come to the conclusion that David Cameron's primary error was to allow the referendum in the first place.  The law of unintended consequences was never better illustrated.

The bold Kezia

In today's Daily Record there's an opinion piece by Kezia Dugdale in which she waxes lyrical about how the new powers coming to Scotland will enable a Labour government in Scotland to

be even bolder in the decisions we make to stop the cuts in Scotland and give young people a chance to get on in life.

Let trumpets sound and rejoicing begin!  Of course, as Ms Dugdale's chances of becoming First Minister in April are currently in the area of, er, zero, she can make these claims safe in the knowledge that she'll never have to make good on her promises.  Also, based on their record in government in Holyrood in the past, 'even bolder' isn't much of a stretch.

It's a piece filled with deep irony.  For example

It’s an amazing opportunity for Scotland to chart a difference course, if our politicians are brave enough to take it.

Surely the amazing opportunity was for Scotland to have voted for independence, no?  Then there would be no negotiations over new powers.  We'd have them all, and could use them as we think best to solve our own problems.  Tax rates could be freely adjusted, economic levers applied. But alas, Labour in Scotland weren't brave enough to grasp that particular opportunity. 

(There's further irony in that she claims the new powers will stop the cuts in Scotland, but omits to mention that Labour in Westminster opposed the cuts by abstaining from the vote, but I digress.)

There's also contradiction.  She says

Taking on responsibility for Scottish taxes means we should shoulder the risks but it shouldn’t mean losing the rewards we get from being part of the UK and the system that shares money out across the country.

Well, she can't have it both ways.  Either we're taking risks or we're relying on the UK to make sure that the risks aren't all that risky.  And we know that, since Labour in Scotland opposed independence, they're what can only be described as risk-averse anyway.  Can't cut off their access to the Westminster gravy train - that would be a calamity!

In short, this is a fine example of current Labour in Scotland thinking.  Confused, contradictory and unfocussed.  No wonder they're tanking in the polls.

Veni, vidi, errrr...

So the case against Alastair Carmichael came to an end yesterday, with the judges ruling that each side should pay their own costs, much to the chagrin of Mr Carmichael, who is now telling everyone that he is not a rich man and that the costs should be awarded to the winner of the case, clearly himself in his mind.  But was he?

I don't think we can say that Mr Carmichael was vindicated, since he was found against in two of the points and was essentially found not proven on the third.  Indeed, since the judge said that he had 'told a blatant lie', it can now be fairly said that he is a proven liar.

As for costs, he had asked that costs be awarded against the Orkney 4, and that he also hoped that a punitive element would be included.  But what exactly did he want punished?  Did he want punishment for calling him a liar?  Clearly that wasn't going to happen, since he is a proven liar as the result of this case.  Did he want his opponents punished for daring to question the validity of his election, 'pour encourager les autres'?  That would be a very dangerous path to go down.  Everyone is supposed to be equal before the law, MPs and constituents alike, so to discourage people from taking recourse to the law for fear of punitive damages if they were found against strikes at the very foundations of society.

All of this could have been avoided if either Mr Carmichael had chosen to come clean about his involvement in the 'Frenchgate' memo in the first place or if he had resigned as MP and run as the Lib Dem candidate in the resulting by-election, thus allowing his constituents to either show their confidence in him or to select someone else to represent them.  That, however, would have taken courage.

Mr Carmichael is an educated man, so you'd think he'd be aware that 'vindicate' and 'vindictive' may be near-neighbours in the dictionary, but they are not the same thing.  He certainly wasn't vindicated and has shown himself to be vindictive.  Not a good outcome for him.

The softly-spoken magic spells

On Tuesday we had a Guardian editorial telling us that the latest policy pronouncement by Labour in Scotland, the addition of a penny to income tax rates across all tax bands for Scots, together with a rebate scheme for the lowest paid, was 'a big, bold move'.  Oddly, the Guardian did not say the same when Willie Rennie announced a similar policy the previous Wednesday, so it would appear that the newspaper has reverted back to its traditional Labour-supporting stance.

The most interesting thing about the editorial was this sentence:

Alternatively it may shift nothing at all. Either way, it is high time that the SNP’s “best of both worlds” approach is challenged effectively.

When I first read it, the sentence jarred.  The SNP's best of both worlds approach?  Surely that was one of Better Together's slogans towards the end of the referendum campaign, first adopted by one G Brown and repeated ad nauseam?

The Guardian has a bit of a reputation, as far as Scottish politics is concerned, for simply taking Labour press releases and regurgitating them pretty much without question, so it would be a fair assumption, I think, that the use of the 'best of both worlds' approach came from such a press release.  An odd turn of phrase, perhaps a mistake.

On Wednesday the calls from the Lib Dems and Labour for the 1p increase to tax bands were rejected during the debate on the draft Holyrood budget, voted down by the SNP and the Tories. The debate was notable for the fact the Jackie Baillie, when questioned on how the rebate part of Labour's scheme would work, said that the details didn't matter, it was the principle that mattered.  It was also notable for the fact that Labour claimed to want to work with the SNP 'to end Tory austerity in Scotland', conveniently overlooking the fact that, had they campaigned for Scottish independence we would currently have been on the threshold of leaving the UK and therefore the very Tory austerity they rail against.

Then on Thursday we had First Minister's Questions, the weekly circus that really does no credit to most of our politicians.  Naturally Kezia Dugdale's question was on the 1p on income tax policy that had been rejected.  During her peroration she uttered the phrase 'The SNP and the Tories stood should to shoulder'.  Again, an interesting turn of phrase, one usually applied to Labour in regard to the fact they campaigned with the Tories against Scottish independence.

So, are we seeing the start of the next Labour strategy?  Clearly, it would seem the Labour thinking goes,  phrases like 'standing shoulder to shoulder with the Tories' and 'best of both worlds' are at the root of their catastrophic loss of support in Scotland.  That being the case, let's apply them to the SNP and watch their popularity nose-dive.  Cause and effect, like a magic spell.  So obvious when you think about it.

It's not going to work though.  People are not stupid, and can remember the original authors or targets of phrases and the circumstances in which they were used.  Words are important, not least because they have associations.  Simply applying phrases to your opponents that were originally applied to you won't magically have the same effect as they had on you because of those associations.  It will be interesting to see if Labour continue in this vein.  If so, it implies a woeful lack of any real political talent in Labour in Scotland.

Fashion

The other day there was a report on Len McCluskey's speech to the first policy conference of the Unite union in Scotland.  In it he used a phrase which has become common parlance among Scottish Labour politicians, to wit:

The SNP stole most of the radical clothes that historically should have belonged to Labour.

Originally the Labour party chose policies that reflected the hodden grey of the working classes.  A fair day's pay for a fair day's work.  Paid holidays.  Sick pay.  The welfare state.  All excellent ideas and ones that Labour had succeeded in implementing during the 20th century, for which they deserve praise and recognition.  However, a funny thing happened.  Labour politicians spent much time at Westminster, where they noticed that the Tories had much more colourful clothes and, what's more, the wealth to afford them.  And many of them seem to have become dazzled by the Tories' designer gear and decided they want some for themselves.  So they have cast off the old hodden grey of social justice and borrowed the Tories' more dazzling clothes, since those clothes seem to be much more popular with the electorate in the leafy suburbs of south-east England.  Fashion (turn to the right).

Now if you have old clothes that you don't want any longer, you can hardly be surprised if someone else comes along and wears them.  After all, you don't want them any more.  The SNP have given the hodden grey clothes a bit of a tartan twist, but you can still see the basic clothes beneath them.  Fashion (turn to the left).

Now, with Jeremy Corbyn as leader, there are fashion wars in the Labour party.  Some want to hang on to the designer gear, some want to go back to hodden grey and yet others want a mixture of the two.   The current wardrobe wars are entertaining for the rest of use, but are doing real damage to the Labour party with the electorate.

The thing about ideas of social justice is that you can't copyright them.  Labour have no more right to exclusive policies on social justice than any other political party, and they need to realise this sooner rather than later if the party is to have any chance of survival at all.  They need the political equivalent of Trinny and Susannah.