FMQs Review

After what has felt like a number of months of FMQs being almost exclusively focused on the independence debate, opposition members turned their attention to other issues of importance to Scotland.

Johann Lamont tackled the First Minister on the issue of waiting lists, and highlighted the case of one of her constituents who had been left on a trolley at for over 8 hours. The Labour leader has often been at her strongest when presenting individual cases, and using them to reflect wider problems. Most notably over the issue of blankets in hospitals.

The First Minster pivoted to the larger questions of the NHS, arguing that people were more satisfied with the service than ever before, while at the same time funding was at its tightest in a generation. In response Lamont widened out the issue from her constituent, highlighting figures from NHS Glasgow which showed that the number of people waiting in A&E for over four hours had trebled from 10,100 to 31,700.

In a weaker performance than normal, the First Minister concentrated on the record of Labour in Wales, and the lack of commitment from the party in Scotland to secure the health budget and keep hospitals open.

While focused on health, the questioning from Lamont was really about the performance of Nicola Sturgeon in her previous role as Cabinet Secretary for Health, and her anticipated future appointment as leader of the SNP.

Ruth Davidson questioned Salmond on the issue of life sentences following a high profile case this week of a convicted murderer who was released early, and had used European legislation to allow him to apply for parole after 30 years of imprisonment. The First Minister responded that Ministers should not be able to intervene in legal matters such as sentencing, but that he would be open to hearing suggestions from the Conservative leader.

While some barbs were traded between the leaders, this was a FMQs grounded in the day to day issues facing people in Scotland.

By Robert

FMQ’s Review

With the First Minister making his apology over quoting the inaccurate figures last week, it was no surprise that Johann Lamont went on the offensive over this issue in the Chamber. In a back and forth that was neither leaders greatest moment, the accusations flew thick and fast.

For the First Minister, it was a simple mistake, having been handed incorrect data. For Scottish Labour, it was another example of Alex Salmond not taking responsibility for his actions. Lamont wanted to cast the First Minister, and by extension, the Scottish Government, as not having a grip on Scotland’s colleges.  She also raised once again the issue of whether Salmond could be trusted.

The First Minister, for his part, accepted that the mistake had been made, and  then attacked Labour for a range of promises he claimed that they had reneged on, as well as raising the issue of the Iraq War.

Somewhere in there, the issue of college funding was raised, but for the most part neither came out of the debate looking their best. Lamont overplayed her hand, while Salmond allowed himself to become too fixed on the record of Labour.

In an amusing moment, the Presiding Officer once again called Ruth Davidson, “Ruth Lamont” – something which has caused much merriment with the SNP backbenches. 

Davidson also went on the issue of the incorrect figures, but left herself open to attack when she accidentally read out the wrong numbers (although she apologised immediately).  This allowed the First Minister to demonstrate how mistakes can happen, before rounding on her for claims she had made that a range of courses at colleges had been cut, when in fact they were still available.

By Rob

Scottish Labour – Looking to the Future

It is no great secret that post-devolution, Scottish Labour have struggled to create a separate identity from the central UK party. With Labour MPs still commanding impressive majorities in Scottish constituencies and, up to very recently, much of the senior leadership of the party being led by Scots, there has always been a perception that the Scottish Parliament is a second tier for the party.

Getting the balance right between the two camps created a tension which was finally exposed in the 2011 Scottish Parliamentary Election. There was a presumption, given the excellent showing that the party had made the previous year at the General Election, that victory could be secured by running the campaign along the same lines.

Beyond sandwich shops, and policy announcements halfway through the election, this was the fatal flaw which resulted in Labour having one of its worst defeats in a century. The Scottish electorate has responded to devolution with increasingly sophisticated voting patterns. They understand the differences between Westminster and Holyrood elections, and allocate different priorities to each one. 

Given that, over a decade since devolution, Labour are still trying to get to grips with this sea shift, provides some context to the news that Johann Lamont is beginning to assert her authority over the party in Scotland.

Previously the leader of the Labour MSPs was just that. They had little power outside of Edinburgh – just another cog in the party apparatus, on the same level as a group at Glasgow City Council. This system worked while leaders such as Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling were leading the party and had an ear to the ground, but with the UK Labour party now more London-centric, the need for reform has been exposed.

Following the 2011 election, a review of the party, led by Jim Murphy MP and Sarah Boyack MSP, recommended that the position of Scottish Labour Leader be created, local parties reorganised and that the headquarters be moved from the current location at John Smith House in Glasgow, to Edinburgh.

These measures, which are still in the midst of being implemented, are about shifting the power base of Labour away from the MPs and Glasgow City Council, and to the East, where the Scottish Parliament sits.

Last week it was revealed that Rami Okasha, the head of strategy, communications and policy for Labour in Scotland, is on leave while facing disciplinary proceedings for alleged “insubordination”, the details of which have not yet been made public. Following this the General Secretary for the party in Scotland, Colin Smyth, announced that he was resigning from his position. These moves are being seen as the first shots across the bow for Lamont, as she tries to reposition the party.

However, while internal reviews are needed for the party, Scottish Labour is continuing to face the same problems which plagued the Iain Gray leadership. What exactly does the party have to offer the electorate, and how does it get that message across effectively?

As Labour found out to their cost, it is not enough to announce policies a few weeks before, or during the election. They need to be given time to be embedded. At present Labour has positioned itself only as a monitor against the SNP. First Minister Questions is the centrepiece of the week, despite having a questionable impact on the overall electorate.

All the while the SNP has some simple messages which demonstrate competence in Government. The council tax has been frozen. Prescription charges are free. Students are not faced with paying fees. Against this effective messaging, Scottish Labour continues to flounder.

The party simply cannot attack the SNP for the next four years, and presume that things will turn around. Policy development needs to be underway now. The next two years are going to be dominated by the independence debate. There will then be less than two years before the next Scottish Parliament elections (irrespective of the result). Two years to turn the party around, and articulate an alternative vision for Scotland may not be enough.

There are signs the new leadership are aware of this. Johann Lamont has previously announced a review into extending powers for Holyrood. While this review has not yet taken place, and membership has yet to be established, it does demonstrate some understanding of the need to prepare the groundwork now, for the next election.

But they need to go further. If voters reject independence, one of the big issues of the 2016 election will be local government reform, particularly around council tax. The council tax freeze (which we should all remember, started life as a placeholder for reform) will be nearly a decade old. The SNP have previously declared in their manifesto that they would be looking at the issue during the lifetime of this Parliament, and present a new model ahead of the 2016 election. Labour could take this time, when the Scottish Government is focused on the referendum, to prepare to take the lead on the issue.

When the history books are written about the party in Scotland, the last few years will without a doubt be considered to be one of its darkest periods. But there are positives – both Westminster and local elections showed strong Labour support. This makes it clear the problem lies with the Holyrood party and its policies.

Critiquing the Scottish Government for cutting services, and demanding that they “do more” for people, did not work last time, and it will not work next time. Reform is long and hard and can create division, but it will also reap rewards in the future.

By Rob

The Price of Politics

The Scottish Government’s Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) Bill passed the Stage One vote in the Chamber. Whilst it was always going to pass, the Bill received the support of both the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Conservatives who had, in the last parliamentary session, voted against the Bill.

Labour, which has led opposition to minimum pricing, abstained from the vote, while at the same time introducing its own alcohol bill to the Parliament.

Minimum pricing has been a contentious issue since the SNP came to power in 2007. While acknowledging that minimum pricing wouldn’t be the only measure needed to tackle the deep rooted issues at the heart of Scotland’s relationship with alcohol, the SNP believe that it will have an effect, in conjunction with other measures.

Labour on the other hand, see minimum pricing as giving supermarkets a windfall as prices for the cheapest alcohol increase. They also see minimum pricing as being inherently unfair, as it targets people on lower incomes, while alcohol addiction transcends the social ladder.

The Bill was defeated in the previous Scottish Parliament, due to the SNP being a minority government. Now of course, with a clear majority in the Chamber, they can pass whatever legislation they wish.

In the UK Parliament the Coalition has indicated that it is considering minimum pricing as well thus both the Scottish Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have come round to supporting the Bill, albeit with conditions. These are a sunset clause should the measures be shown not to be effective, and clarification as to whether minimum pricing is legal within EU legislation. 

Labour continues to oppose minimum pricing, and have brought forward its own proposals which include introducing a legal limit of 150 mg per litre of caffeine of pre-mixed alcoholic drinks and rolling out “bottle tagging” to identify which shops have sold alcohol to underage customers.

This Bill is separate to the one which was supported by the Parliament yesterday, but it begs the question as to why Labour is engaged in this strategy. These measures could be introduced into the Government’s bill before it arrives at Stage 3, and coupled with the sunset clause inbuilt with regard to minimum pricing. It is becoming increasingly difficult to see why Scottish Labour would wish to oppose the Government Bill.

By Rob

Launch of Devo-Plus

The question confronting Unionist parties as they begin to articulate their arguments against independence is how to present to the Scottish people a credible alternative, while continuing to remain as part of the United Kingdom.

The conceptual idea of “devo-max” put forward by the SNP, is still in its infancy. David Cameron, in his visit to Scotland two weeks ago, expressed a willingness to extend the powers of the Scottish Parliament but was unable to articulate what this actually meant. Sir Menzies Campbell is in the midst of leading a Liberal Democrat Commission on the issue, and civic groups have set up their own campaign on the future of Scotland. 

Today, another group entered the fray. Led by the former shadow finance spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, Jeremy Purvis, the “Devo-Plus” group has been formed to present an alternative to both independence and devo-max.

Essentially the plan would place responsibility for income tax, corporation tax and most welfare spending with Holyrood, while leaving pensions, VAT and national insurance with the UK Parliament. Scotland would be given the power to raise the money that it spends.

The proposals, which were formed in conjunction with Reform Scotland, have received cross party unionist support, with Alex Ferguson MSP of the Conservatives, Labour MSP Duncan McNeil, and former Liberal Democrat leader Tavish Scott putting their names to the plan.

Tactically the launch has given the Unionists the chance to take the initiative away from the SNP with regard to the extension of devolutionary powers to Scotland. Devo-Max is still an ill-defined concept, and the SNP has been so far unable to fully explain what it would entail. Now, with yet another alternative on the table, there will be pressure for them to respond and explain how their plans differ.

Of course, should the Scottish people vote Yes for Independence, all of this becomes academic and there is a danger, in framing the debate in terms of extending powers, that Unionist parties miss the bigger picture.

However, for today the ball is in the SNPs court, and they will have to present a full idea of what they mean by Devo-Max much sooner than they perhaps would have wished.

Labour Conference: Scottish Leader Becomes One Step Closer

Scottish Labour is one step closer to having a recognisable and undisputed leader. Today, 93% of delegates voted that Scotland should have a definite Scottish Leader, one of the recommendations from the recent Jim Murphy and Sarah Boyack led review of the party.

The importance of today’s vote should not be exaggerated. Firstly, this is not an endorsement of the whole list of recommendations in the review. The details of these plans still need to be fully drafted before being voted on by a special one day Scottish Labour Conference, and then ratified by Labour’s National Executive Committee.

It does suggest that in a small way Labour’s national delegates understand that the party must devolve further if it is to genuinely compete with the SNP in the future. Allowing the establishment of a genuine Scottish figurehead is also noteworthy for a party that has often been guilty of centralising and controlling instincts.

It also means that Tom Harris MP will be allowed to run in the contest. Mr Harris is in many ways the outlier in the contest, but he has been the boldest and most radical contributor to the leadership debate so far. The Glasgow MP probably won’t win, but the contest will undoubtedly benefit from the vision and vigour he will deliver.

So this is just one small hurdle cleared for Scottish Labour’s raft of reforms. The rest of the Review’s suggestions still need to be debated and agreed. This is to say nothing of the necessary changes in mindset and culture that no simple review, or restructure can achieve. Nevertheless, although a small step, it is certainly one in the right direction.

By Kenny

This Week in Scotland

This week marked 100 days since the SNPs momentous victory in May’s Scottish Elections. During these 100 days, the Scottish Government has outlined ambitious plans to increase the powers of the Scottish Parliament, including devolving responsibility for corporation tax, the Crown Estate and increasing borrowing powers. However it has also become embroiled in a series of high-profile rows most notably with the Scottish Legal establishment.

In 2007 Salmond burst out of the blocks with announcement after popularist announcement. This time round Salmond has sought to focus on pressurising Westminster to devolve more powers to Holyrood. His desire for further borrowing powers has seen movement, though those concerning Corporation Tax have gone nowhere.  Hampered by the summer recess, the Governments legislative programme is not expected until September, while its attempts to fast-track the Offensive Behaviour at Football & Threatening Communication (Scotland) Bill came unstuck amidst claims the timescale did not allow for adequate consideration.

Meanwhile, Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill was again defending his decision to release the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, 2 years after his release.  MacAskill was left further red-faced when he admitted that officials are not 100% sure of Al-Megrahi’s whereabouts.  Efforts have been made to contact Libyan rebel leaders to help track down the Lockerbie bomber but the “dust of the battle” will have to settle before the picture is clear.

The Scottish Labour Leadership contest received the welcome injection of a candidate. Tom Harris MP announced that he would be willing to lead the Scottish Party as long as Jim Murphy and Douglas Alexander remained uninterested. Harris’s announcement has received a mixed reaction so far with some arguing that with the supposed dearth of talent in Holyrood a Westminster heavy(ish) hitter is required to take on Salmond, while others believe the Scottish Party has enough talent to select from within. The so-called ‘big fish’ that survived the election drubbing have been anything but enthusiastic in throwing their names into the hat. Johann Lamont has declared, Hugh Henry has declined, while Jackie Baillie has remained on the fence. The new leader will be chosen in late November following the results of the internal review into the future of the Scottish Party.

This Week in Scotland

Former MP, John Mason has provoked a furore with a motion he has submitted to the Scottish Parliament. Motions often deal with worthy but mundane issues like charity campaigns and successes by local people. However, Mason tabled a motion on the subject of same sex marriage which reads: “While some in society approve of same-sex sexual relationships, others do not agree with them … No person or organisation should be forced to be involved in or to approve of same-sex marriages.” The motion has attracted a few signatures of support and defenders have said that Mr Mason is trying to mount a defence of religious institutions and believers rather than attack the principle of gay marriage. However, the motion has also attracted significant criticism. Unsurprisingly this has come from opposition spokespeople like Patrick Harvie for the Scottish Greens and Johann Lamont for Scottish Labour. More surprisingly has been the reaction of some SNP colleagues including Pete Wishart MP who tweeted: “John Mason’s nasty little anti-gay marriage motion is just wrong, and really disappointed that other colleagues have signed it.” It will be interesting to see if this issue could expose a genuine rift in the SNP Parliamentary Party.

Alex Salmond has been accused of trying to “seduce” Rupert Murdoch and News International after it emerged that he offered the media baron a series of gifts and has met him or his executives 25 times since becoming Scotland‘s first minister.Labour’s Scottish leader, Iain Gray, said Salmond was guilty of “highly questionable behaviour.” Defenders of the First Minister have indicated he has merely followed the examples of Labour and the Tories who have courted the backing of the News International power broker.

Finally, the final chapter of the Tommy Sheridan trial was written as the former MSP was informed he will not be given leave to appeal his perjury conviction, the Scottish Courts Service confirmed this week. Following his conviction, his lawyer lodged an appeal on the grounds that Sheridan had been denied a fair trial because of the amount of publicity generated before it began. The Scottish Courts Service has now confirmed this was rejected by three appeal judges on the grounds it was “not arguable”. Sheridan will now have to serve out the remainder of his three year sentence.

By Kenny

This Week in Scotland

Recess is in full swing.

The financial gulf between the SNP and Scottish Labour has been reaffirmed this week as figures indicate that the SNP spent £2.1million in 2010 compared with Labour’s £600,000. Although much of Scottish Labour’s income and expenditure is accounted for at a UK level, the figures show the widening gulf that exists between Scotland’s two main parties. This extra financial clout enabled the SNP to pour thousands of extra pounds into their ultimately successful re-election campaign.

The Scottish Affairs Select Committee at Westminster reported that the UK Governments policy towards immigration will have a “disproportionate effect” on Scottish Universities. The UK Government is committed to reducing immigration to 10’s of thousands per annum. Restricting visa applications for foreign students is seen as one of the easiest ways of achieving this ambition. The Committees report went on to say that Scottish circumstances had not been adequately factored in and that high quality foreign students will be put off applying to study in Scotland.

Finally, the Scottish Government has announced more than £4 million funding to improve the countries local sports facilities ahead of the Commonwealth Games.

Inverclyde by-election

With just over two weeks to the Inverclyde Westminster by-elections focus is slowly turning towards this two-horse race. While by-elections are often built up as of barometers of public attitude towards parties, leaders and politics, in truth, the vast majority of them tell us nothing and do little to change the tide of power or thought. The likelihood of this by-election being any different is slim.

Yes commentators will build the contest up as a means to discover whether Labour have steadied the ship or as further evidence of a nationalist tide sweeping across Scotland.  Importantly, and what is often forgotten is Scots ‘get’ devolution. Think back to the General Election 12 months ago where Labour swept Scotland based on UK issues. Now think back 6 weeks to when the SNP swept across Scotland on a platform of Scottish issues. The issue for many is will this trend continue?

Regardless of the result, there will be a number of interesting sub-plots to navigate and understand. If Labour fail or see their majority significantly weakened how this will reflect on Ed Miliband (The Scottish Leader has already indicated he is stepping down in the autumn). The Scottish Elections were a disaster for him; the English Local Elections were not much better, the polls show him making little impact while his backbenchers continue to wonder if they have elected the wrong brother. Alternatively, if Labour maintains this seat with a significant majority, will we see a buoyed Miliband? It is also worth noting that since taking over as Leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband has a 3/3 strike rate on by-election victories. With the Coalition Parties remaining unpopular and on the basis of the Scottish Elections where will their voters desert too?  We’ve already seen an emboldened Alex Salmond, how will he and the party react either way?

As a reminder, the by-election will take place on Thursday 30 June, following the untimely death of the sitting Labour MP David Cairns. Dr Cairns enjoyed a majority of 14,416 following the last General Election. Compare that to his Scottish Parliament equivalent (boundaries are slightly different) Duncan McNeil who clung to his seat by only 511 votes.

The parties have already made clear that jobs and the rising cost of living will be the central pillars to their campaigns. Labour has selected the Leader of Inverclyde Council Iain McKenzie who saw off former MSP Dave Whitton to secure the nomination. The SNP have selected Anne McLaughlin the former fundraising manager and Glasgow List MSP. While the Tories have nominated Inverclyde deputy provost David Wilson and the Lib Dems the leader of their youth wing Sophie Bridger.