Operational or political?

More embarrassment today for Kenny MacAskill, with the press reporting that the justice secretary signed the order allowing convicted murderer John Brown to go on temporary leave from Castle Huntly open prison, leading to his escape, and it's also emerged that the killer had his licence revoked previously for failing to adhere to conditions.

Opposition politicians have also stepped up the pressure on First Minister Alex Salmond, with Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray accusing him of misleading parliament by failing to disclose Brown's escape while answering several questions on the issue of absconders from the open prison estate during Thursday's FMQs, despite becoming aware of the killer's disappearance the previous evening.

Of course, the Scottish Government claims that ministers were not at liberty to disclose the information because this was an "operational matter" for Tayside Police. But doubt over the precise meaning of this is clearly heightened by the fact that Mr MacAskill signed the order which ultimately led to John Brown's disappearance.

And while there may be good reasons for information of this type to be withheld from public disclosure, the precise rationale in this case hasn't emerged. Last night's Dundee Evening Telegraph outlined the procedure when a prisoner absconds:

The SPS said that, in the case of prisoners failing to return to Castle Huntly, Tayside Police is usually notified within an hour of their non-appearance.

Responsibility for tracking down the abscondee then lies with the force. The two bodies consult before deciding whether or not the public should be notified about absconders.

This process takes into account the risk posed by the individual, current information about their whereabouts and the wider public safety.

However, in the present case no specific information has been made public as to why Mr Salmond felt required to withhold the facts of the abscondence from MSPs and the public. Indeed, the Scotsman's report states that both government officials and Tayside Police admit no discussion took place over what could be said by ministers - since the First Minister would have known the issue would be raised in parliament and that the disclosure of Brown's abscondence would fuel the political debate, it seems damning that he did not ascertain whether and to what extent the facts of the case could be made public.

Thus all this underlines the impression outlined here yesterday that the veil of secrecy over these matters seems born of reasons other than issues of criminal justice and the public interest.

Don't mention the absconders...

Justice secretary Kenny MacAskill was already in some difficulty over the escape of violent criminal and past absconder Brian 'Hawk' Martin from Castle Huntly open prison near Dundee, but now Alex Salmond has been drawn into the controversy following news that a convicted murderer has recently absconded from the same jail. If the debacle of 'the Hawk' wasn't embarassing enough for Mr MacAskill, the First Minister had spent a considerable part of yesterday's FMQs indignantly defending his government's open prison 'estate', its record on absconders and the actions of his under fire justice secretary, while conveniently keeping to himself the fact that 57-year-old killer John Burt Brown had failed to return after home leave (sic!), despite being informed of this 18 hours previously.

Mr Salmond's spokesman has defended the non-disclosure on the basis that informing MSPs would have interfered in what was an "operational matter" for Tayside Police, whatever that means precisely.

However, Tayside residents have been familiar with this veil of secrecy in relation to Castle Huntly absconders for a couple of years, following a campaign by the Dundee Evening Telegraph to keep communities informed about the identity and past records of escaped criminals.

At that time the ludicrous crux of the case for keeping the public in the dark was that the absconders' rights to privacy (sic!) was given primacy:

Prison chiefs said they believed the privacy of people who illegally leave jail before the end of their sentence outweighs the public interest.

Thus it seems that the human rights of criminals convicted of the gravest of crimes, the cover of police "operational matters" and the need for Kenny MacAskill and Alex Salmond to avoid political embarrassment are clearly more important than the public's right to know the facts.

Sleepless in Dundee?

Not sure if it's a national issue, but a story in last night's Dundee Evening Telegraph concerns a hoo-hah about Labour telephone canvassing for the forthcoming European elections.

The relevant regulations forbid political parties making "wholly automated unsolicited marketing calls to any subscriber who has not consented", and SNP MSP Joe FitzPatrick has called for an investigation into automated calls received by his constituents from the Labour Party's Dundee branch, and he cites a pledge by the Information Commissioner to take action against any parties in breach of the regulations.

In turn, Labour has accused the SNP of "smear tactics" and denies that the calls fall foul of the relevant law:

It was conceded that, while it is a requirement that political parties should not make such calls to encourage people to vote Labour or to gather support for Labour (this is marketing), the Privacy and Electronic Regulations Act 2003 makes it explicitly permissible to use this method to carry out an opinion poll (this is market research).

The spokesperson said, “Dundee Labour’s calls at no point encouraged people to vote for Labour or against any other political party. They simply asked people how they would vote if there was a general election tomorrow, and whether they would prefer a Labour or Tory government. It is sad the SNP is reduced to this kind of embarrassing smear story.”

Sounds a bit like Labour breaching the spirit of the regulations but trying to defend their conduct on the basis that it complies with the letter - now, where have we heard that before? Perhaps in the current climate political parties should be concentrating on adhering to the spirit of the law rather than concocting solutions to usurp it.

Meanwhile, Mr FitzPatrick describes Labour's unsolicited calls as "outrageous behaviour". If this is true then it would be interesting to hear his views on more important issues, but it's perhaps safe to assume that Mr FitzPatrick has difficulty getting to sleep at night.

Outside the Luton political bubble!

Even without an expert knowledge of all things politics it's always interesting to see how unknowledgeable/disinterested other people can be about the subject matter of this blog.

For example, at the weekend I had a brief chat with a lady from Luton, who was in Scotland to visit her daughter at university. Ever the diplomat, I resisted the temptation to ask her what she thought of Luton having the dubious honour of being voted top of Britain's 'crap town' league.

However, in view of the prevailing zeitgeist on MPs' expenses, I thought it would be OK to ask her what she thought of Luton South MP Margaret Moran, who infamously 'flipped' her second home designation to her husband's house in Southampton and then spent £22,500 of taxpayers' money on dry rot treatment for it, subsequently tried to brazenly deny she'd done anything wrong when exposed, but later agreed to repay the money in view of the public outcry.

Although the Luton lady was aware of the expenses scandal and seemed to know that Margaret Moran was an MP there, on the other hand she was totally ignorant of the rotten business of the politician's expenses imbroglio, and neither was she aware of the potential challenge to Moran from television presenter Esther Rantzen at the next election.

Of course, there are no doubt many even more ill-informed people in the country - who could not name the prime minister, for example - but amidst the politicos' debate about 'root and branch' reform of the expenses system and more far-reaching constitutional change, it's perhaps a salutary reminder about the limitations of participative democracy.

Rules detrimental to morality?

A recent Telegraph opinion piece by philosopher A C Grayling claims - in the context of the Westminster expenses scandal - that the decline in public morality is due to society's move from living by personal principle to a system of rules and regulations, which are then manipulated, pushed-against and broken. But his case is perhaps undermined by his cricket analogy: Grayling says batsmen won't 'walk' now even when they know they're 'out'. Instead, they wait for the umpire's finger, and thus adhere to the letter rather than spirit of the rules.

But the rules of cricket have not changed fundamentally - it's the attitude towards them that's now different. By the same token, the essential tenets of the criminal law have remained largely unchanged, while the average individual's propensity to breach those laws has clearly increased.

Rather than a rules-based culture being detrimental to morality, it's arguably things like the rights-based culture from the liberal left and individualism on the libertarian right that have led to a lack of respect for rules and laws.

Somewhat ironically the left has tried to address the consequent decline in respect for the law - and the increasing complexity of modern society - by attempting significantly more micro-management, but this is arguably ineffectual, and indeed counter-productive, against an increasingly dominant anti-law ethos.

Independent thinking

The Westminster expenses scandal has exacerbated public disillusionment with the political process, and it's also clear that none of the main parties are untainted by the affair. Hardly surprising, therefore, that there has been some debate about the possibility of a glut of independent candidates standing in forthcoming votes, with the next round of House of Commons elections understandably taking centre stage.

Thus TV personality Esther Rantzen has announced that she's strongly considering standing against Labour's Margaret Moran, the Luton South MP whose expenses claims seem as rotten as her partner's floorboards. Former independent MP Martin Bell has been wheeled out for articles and interviews, with his 1997 victory against Neil Hamilton - a doyen of the sleazy Tory Party of that era - providing a cause célèbre for those keen to usurp the more venal of current MPs, or perhaps even to challenge the current bankrupt political process more generally.

Naturally, the response of commentators and politicians has been mixed. In the Telegraph Gill Hornby posits that MPs are terrified at the thought of a "multitude of Martin Bells", but warns against hijacking by "fading celebs [and politicians] after a career boost", while in The Times a sceptical David Aaronovitch points out the ineffectual nature of independents in Parliament and underlines the resources and organisation available to established political parties for the complex task of passing legislation and running the country. No great shock, then, that political dinosaur Roy Hattersley also takes the conservative Aaronovitch line, suggesting that such independent thought would throw up celebrities like Jeremy Clarkson and Amy Winehouse, which would represent a policy-free politics, when what's required are more "ideologically committed" MPs.

Of the celebrities themselves, Janet Street Porter - who claims to have been asked to stand on a ''sensible" platform dozens of times - says that both she and Esther Rantzen would make "lousy" MPs, and reform of Parliament requires young blood rather than rich, well-meaning pensioners. Rantzen herself points to her background in investigative journalism, dealing with consumer issues and other successful campaigns such as ChildLine. Meanwhile, Martin Bell himself made it obvious on Thursday's Question Time that he was strongly considering standing again on the issue of trust.

Of course, the naysayers have a point: the experience of independents in both the Westminster and Holyrood parliaments is not particularly encouraging in terms of grand ideas and moving mountains. However, that considerable gaps in the knowledge and experience of independents might detract from their effectiveness is surely no greater an argument than can be employed against MPs from the main parties, who are very often little more than lobby fodder voting on issues they probably neither understand nor care about. On the other hand, an individual with Esther Rantzen's experience would be ideally placed to deal with the more bread and butter work of MPs such as dealing with constituents' problems.

At a more general level, the ineffectiveness of independents is largely because they are steamrollered by the party political oligarchy, and if relations between the mainstreams parties are demonstrably conflictual, then what does unite them is any kind of external threat to the status quo.

Of course, the chances of a parliament of independents supplanting the current political class seems highly unlikely and, indeed, a legislature mainly comprising MPs belonging to organised parties seems both inevitable and desirable. But the performance of the recently formed Jury Team - an umbrella group for independents - in the forthcoming European elections might prove instructive, and a poll published in today's Independent shows significant support for the idea of independents standing against "unethical" MPs.

While no one wants the cult of celebrity to be any more involved in politics than it is already - and let's hope that a recent poll showing strong support for the likes of Simon Cowell, Chris Moyles and Katie Price as potential prime ministers was undertaken with humorous intent - on the other hand the difficulty that independents face in making an impact against the party juggernauts and an often unsympathetic media - although the current atmosphere could change this - means that those who have a high public profile and have made their name outside politics might be required to stand in order that there's any serious chance of defeating candidates from the established parties.

But the expenses fiasco could presage the election of significant numbers of independently minded politicians who could thus start to exert real influence against the current festering political process.

Expenses iniquities

(Sent as a letter to the Courier; the letters referred to are not online.)

George McMillan's solution (Letters Extra, May 19) to the MPs' expenses debacle - a sliding scale of expenses based on the distance of the MP's constituency from London - is superficially attractive, but in practice would perhaps be over-complex and require stringent monitoring, and thus be open to abuse.

The problem with fixed expenses is surely that it would reward non-attendance at Westminster and penalise the more diligent and industrious MPs. To equitably reimburse it would thus have to take account of things like the number of nights stayed in London, and this would clearly require careful auditing.

In the Scottish context Alex Salmond demonstrates what a non-job a House of Commons MP can be, because he combines this with his roles as an MSP and First Minister at Holyrood, not to mention being able to squeeze in the likes of a dozen visits to the Glenrothes by-election last year.

Despite this, and not to mention his paltry attendance rate in London, Mr Salmond has still managed to cost the taxpayer dearly in relation to his role at Westminster. Thus Mr McMillan's scheme would further widen the gap between the recompense provided and the actual costs incurred by the MP.

As for correspondent David Brown's defence of MPs' food bills, if they are provided with taxpayer-funded accommodation in London then why should it cost them any more to eat there than at home?

After all, since they've claimed (successfully or not) for things like a £9,000 TV, a £1,600 'duck island' for a garden pond and extensive property renovations, would it be too much to expect them to obtain some kitchen equipment and do a bit of cooking?

Probably!

The Speaker's lack of X Factor

There's something about the Michael Martin debacle that brings to mind TV programmes like X Factor - someone clearly excruciatingly talentless is displayed for all to see and set up merely for the purposes of scorn and ridicule. In more respectful times such people would have been kept away from the TV screens and perhaps told as politely, diplomatically and constructively as possible that their abilities might lie elsewhere, instead of being exploited in some kind of contemporary freak show masquerading as light entertainment.

Thus to the soon to be ex-Speaker of the House of Commons, a man self-evidently out of his depth, but who was promoted beyond his ability via the hardly unheard of rationales of Buggins's turn, political expediency and the desire of some to elevate people patently in breach of the Peter Principle as long as it satisfies some doctrinal imperative of equality, or suchlike.

Of course, the difference between X Factor and Mr Speaker is that the latter wasn't deliberately set up for a fall - indeed, many of Mr Martin's supporters are self-evidently also in breach of the Peter Principle insofar as they're delusional enough to think he's been doing a good job - but the end result is much the same, culminating in Monday's car crash Commons statement from the Speaker and subsequent debate, which of course sealed his fate.

But the chickens have well and truly come home to roost, and the humiliating nature of Mr Martin's departure merely adds grist to the mill of the jeering and sneering brigade who delight in the class and race-charged 'Gorbals Mick' insult and who are like clever Dick schoolboys just waiting for their classmates to trip up so they can unleash a deluge of gleeful scorn and derision.

Granted, it was not the Speaker's ability per se that was the immediate cause of his demise; instead, the expenses fiasco and Mr Martin's role in and response to it made him an obvious sacrificial lamb among politicians running round like headless chickens looking for a representative of the expenses 'system' to take the heat off themselves, and his mishandling of Monday's debate merely slit his own throat.

Thus the circumstances of his departure have inevitably led to claims from Mr Martin's supporters that he's being used as a scapegoat for the recently exposed venality of many MPs. But someone should carry the can in this respect, and the Speaker is the obvious candidate in terms of responsibility and accountability.

And while it's easy for some to feel sympathy for Mr Martin, he himself hasn't of course been shy at exploiting the Westminster gravy train, and will enjoy a very comfortable retirement at the taxpayers' expense. And many will plausibly argue that his humiliation is merely his just deserts.

Michael Martin is, of course, merely one of many in the Parliamentary Augean stables of greed, arrogance and incompetence, and no doubt many will get their comeuppance in the coming months. But, even then, a bastion of democracy, integrity and ability seems a mere aspiration rather than a likely denouement.

The potential profiteers

Today's Herald has published a list of the MSPs who stand to benefit by selling properties using Holyrood's second home allowance scheme, which funds the mortgage interest repayments out of taxpayers' money.

The newspaper's analysis shows the MSPs in order of potential profit, based on current valuations by an estate agent, but the list below is categorised in terms of the political parties and underlines the cross-party nature of the issue. No Scottish Greens appear to be part of the scheme, which is presumably why Patrick Harvie is the only MSP to have stuck his neck out and called for any realised profits to be handed back to public coffers.

The list below is shown in order of party size in relation to their total number of MSPs.

SNP
Brian Adam (Aberdeen North) - £122,000
Alex Neil (Central Scotland) - £95,505
John Swinney (North Tayside) - £95,000
Richard Lochhead (Moray) - £83,400
Linda Fabiani (Central Scotland) - £83,000
Adam Ingram (South of Scotland) - £83,000
Stewart Stevenson (Banff & Buchan) - £55,000
Stewart Maxwell (West of Scotland) - £52,500
Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn & Lochaber) - £42,000
Rob Gibson (Highlands & Islands) - £45,000
Andrew Welsh (Angus) - £35,000
Nigel Don (North East Scotland) - Break even

Labour
Hugh Henry (Paisley South) - £92,400
Rhoda Grant (Highlands & Islands) - £83,900
Peter Peacock (Highland & Islands) - £80,050
Duncan McNeil (Greenock & Inverclyde) - £45,000
Andy Kerr (East Kilbride) - £41,050
Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) - £19,050
David Stewart (Highlands & Islands) - £15,500 loss

Conservatives
John Scott (Ayr) - £106,500
Murdo Fraser (Mid-Scotland & Fife) - £54,000
Nanette Milne (North East Scotland)*

Liberal Democrats
Nicol Stephen (Aberdeen South) - £206,667
Tavish Scott (Shetland) - £120,000
Ross Finnie (West of Scotland) - £63,050
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross) - Break even
Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine) - £99,000 loss

Presiding Officer
Alex Fergusson (Galloway & Upper Nithsdale) - £125,000


* According to the Herald's analysis Nanette Milne's property was gifted to her and is now worth £150,000. It's unclear why a gifted property would be subject to a mortgage loan and thus be eligible for allowances under the sca...er...scheme.

Shoddy politician, but no shoddy bookcases

A strong candidate for the chutzpah awards for services to the Westminster expenses scandal must surely be former Labour MP Tam Dalyell. Two months before he was due to retire from the Commons he tried to claim £18,000 for bookcases to store his collection, which he intended moving from London to his 200-acre estate in Scotland. Justifying his claim last night, he was reported as saying:

I didn't want shoddy bookcases - I wanted good ones. The cases were 'high quality' and made of 'very good wood'.

My conscience is absolutely clear.

Sir Thomas Dalyell of the Binns, 11th Baronet and former Father of the House, indeed.

But Commons officials eventually agreed to reimburse only £7,800 for the bookcases from John Lewis.

Well that's alright then.

Speed camera paradox

James Dale, director of the Scottish Safety Camera Programme, might be correct in his claim (in a letter to the Herald) that the sight of visible speed-enforcement measures might mean drivers travelling below the limit will not suddenly exceed it, but the more self-evident phenomenon is surely speeding drivers slowing down when they see the cameras or enforcement vehicles.

Thus, while covert measures might have resulted in a more general deterrent on the roads, more conspicuous enforcement has encouraged a culture of slowing down merely in the vicinity of the cameras. This so-called camera "surfing" has, paradoxically, been identified by the authorities as problematic, and addressed to a limited extent by average-speed cameras.

In this vein of contradiction and mixed messages, parts of Mr Dale's letter allude that speed limits are only enforced exceptionally, with stringent criteria applying before specific measures are employed.

While the surfing ethos has perhaps resulted in reduced casualty statistics in the vicinity of speed cameras, the fact that overall numbers have not necessarily reflected this is maybe due to speeding elsewhere resulting in more accidents away from the cameras.

Clarity and consistent enforcement is necessary for good law, but the issue of speed limits seems far from this ideal.

(Published as a letter in the Herald)

Clegg digs hole for....?

Interesting story in today's Herald concerning Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg's suggestion that his MPs should forgo any profits made on the sale of second homes funded by the taxpayer. Unfortunately for him five Lib Dem MSPs, including Scottish leader Tavish Scott, stand to gain on second homes in Edinburgh which have mortgage interest repayments funded from the public purse. The report says that the MSPs are not planning to follow Mr Clegg's suggestion, thus he seems to have dug himself or his party into something of a hole of hypocrisy, or Tavish Scott et al will have to see their profits disappearing into a black (and orange/yellow) hole of political atonement.

Meanwhile, the Courier reports that Sir Menzies Campbell has repaid around £1,500 of a £10,000 expenses claim for the refurbishment of his taxpayer-funded London flat, but paradoxically seems to be refuting any suggestion of wrongdoing, á la Labour's Mark Lazarowicz. Must be an Edinburgh thing.

But Sir Menzies defends his claim for things like a lavvy brush, scatter pillows and flat-screen TV on the basis that:

MPs must receive financial assistance to maintain a London home if we are to ensure people from less well-off backgrounds are not excluded from entering politics.

Fair enough, but if MPs are reimbursed for travel and property costs then should they be able to claim for things like food, which should presumably cost them no more than they'd be saving by not eating at home, unless they need to always eat out when in London because they need their wifey to cook for them?

Well that should be their own business, and if they want to spend extravagantly on food when away from home then they should be able to do so out of a £64k salary without deterring the less well-off from entering politics.

Indeed, I daresay that millions of the less well-off would accept a salary of that magnitude and make their own way to London for a few days a week and fund their accommodation out of that salary and still feel absolutely minted. In fact, I'm more than willing to volunteer to demonstrate this! But perhaps the problem here is that Sir Menzies' - and plenty other politicians' - perception of "less well-off" is probably very different to that of the vast majority of the population.

On the other hand, it seems that the SNP have nothing to hide as regards the expenses scandal, and the party will wait until all claims have been independently audited before taking any action. Like Nick Clegg the nationalists too think that MPs should not profit from taxpayer-funded second home sales, but hypocrisy on this is hardly removed by Angus Robertson's claim that the London property market is in the doldrums and thus sales wouldn't currently realise a profit, and of course there's the problem of SNP MSPs who stand to profit on Edinburgh property sales, such as Nigel Don.

Meanwhile, in a eulogy to David Cameron, the Telegraph's Benedict Brogan praises the Tory's "leadership" and "courage and conviction" on the expenses issue, and describes how he has outflanked Gordon Brown.

Yes, Mr Brogan, Mr Cameron has certainly excelled at standing by while many of his party's MPs and, indeed, some of his closest lieutenants have made hay from the allowances system and has now deftly exploited the issue for his own political advantage.

Clearly a politician par excellence.

Honour among thieves?

It's been interesting to compare the varying defensive approaches to the MPs' expenses scandal, particularly since public opinion is so overwhelmingly condemnatory of what has been revealed. Of course, some of the MPs themselves have ludicrously tried to defend their more self-serving claims, and one that springs to mind is the member for somewhere or other who claimed thousands for dry rot treatment on a house which was nowhere near either somewhere or other or Westminster.

Then there's some who have expressed regret but have tried to lump most of the blame onto the system rather than their own conduct - I think Tory Alan Duncan tried that one.

Perhaps worse are those who have not been directly implicated in the current scandal but have tried to deflect attention from what's been going on. Commons speaker Michael Martin's petulant attack on MP Kate Hoey and his preoccupation with the leak of the information rather than the substantive issue perhaps reflects some paranoia regarding his personal track record on lining his own pockets, not to mention what the revelations say about his stewardship of the House. Even more excruciating was yesterday's BBC performance of George Foulkes, who thought there were more important things going on in the world, seemed to think that the remuneration of BBC employees excuses greedy MPs and that it was all being dealt with anyway and thus we should move on - yes, let's not say another word about it, it's sorted!

While it's perhaps easy to rationalise why those who benefit as members of the political bubble would be defensive about the issue, more inexplicable is why those less directly involved would risk opprobrium by trying to defend MPs. For example, actor Stephen Fry took the Foulkes line about there being worse things going on in the world, and also that we're all fiddling expenses anyway. Yes, tell that to someone on the minimum wage who pays taxes to fund things like horse manure for wealthy MPs. Lib Dem blogger Stephen Glenn this morning defends his party on the basis that they're not as bad as the others and because Sir Menzies Campbell has been an MP for a long time! Perhaps Stephen would do better to put his personal credibility above that of the party tribe. Indeed, unless there are further revelations to be made regarding SNP MPs, on the basis of Stephen's logic then the SNP must get the party prize for moral rectitude, which he presumably wouldn't endorse?

Of the party leaders, perhaps David Cameron has been most impressive, fulsomely apologising and ordering Tory MPs to repay some of the more ludicrous claims on pain of the sack. Nick Clegg also said on this morning's BBC Breakfast that he would repay any profit he makes on a second home funded by the taxpayer, which seems eminently commendable. However, this does raise questions regarding why these people have only now responded in this way when they should surely have had a good idea of what has been going on, and have only acted when forced to by the media onslaught and public backlash.

Hazel Blears has also gained plaudits for voluntarily agreeing to pay capital gains tax on a taxpayer-funded property that she had sold and profited from, but surely this means she will still have gained a substantial sum on the deal, which employing Nick Clegg's logic she should account for to the taxpayer?

In the weeks before the scandal broke there was talk of resignations and even suicides, but such is the self-evident scale of the problem that a radical response from individual MPs seems unlikely in general terms - the paradox is that so many of them have been caught at it that they will collectively feel able to tough it out in a sort of honour among thieves mentality. However, some reports have suggested that the Telegraph is keeping the most egregious exposés until last, so who knows what might be revealed in the next few days.

Of course, it is to be hoped that the investigation into past expenses claims will be suitably thorough and an appropriate replacement system put in place, but given the past record of Westminster in so many scandals, should we really be holding our breath? It's perhaps instructive how few calls have been made for resignations from within the Westminster bubble; as Political Dissuasion points out, if the scandal had not affected all parties then there would have been resignation calls aplenty.

But when it's the political bubble versus the public then we all know who wins that particular battle.

Update: Perhaps I spoke too soon about the SNP's expenses rectitude!

Wise words, Calum

As the Westminster expenses exposé rumbles on, one excuse employed by MPs caught with their hands in the taxpayers' till - that what they did was within the rules - has rightly been greeted with some contempt. Of course, it's all about the spirit of the rules, not the letter, and arch-nationalist blogger and SNP candidate Calum Cashley puts the case eloquently and compellingly:

Some time ago it was within the rules to shove a child up a chimney for the purposes of removing soot from the flue. That didn’t make it right. Not so long ago it was within the rules to pay a woman less than a man for doing the same job. That didn’t make it right. It used to be within the rules to deny workers the right to withhold their labour. That didn’t make it right.

But when Calum wrote this he presumably hadn't anticipated that a few hours later SNP leader Alex Salmond would be the centre of one of the expenses stories, and the latter's defence was:

The claims for food allowances were entirely in accordance with the Green Book rules at the time.

Quite. Of course, Mr Salmond's claims hardly seem quite in the league of dishonour of the Labour MPs featured thus far in the Telegraph's exclusive, not to mention this morning's revelations concerning the half million pounds expenses claimed by Sinn Fein MPs who haven't even taken up their seats in the House of Commons.

However, the SNP leader's claims for food at the maximum rate allowable even when the Commons was in recess certainly raises questions, as does a £1,600 claim for a bed and bedding, and that the latter may have been necessary to sleep off the effects of the former represents little solace for the taxpayer, particularly in view of Mr Salmond's paltry attendance record at Westminster. On the other hand, his disallowed £9 minibar bill is almost literally small beer, albeit that he says the claim was for soft drinks only.

But even if the Holyrood first minister's expenses claims as a Westminster MP perhaps add credence to the view that our MSPs may not be whiter than white but they're a darn sight better than their House of Commons equivalents, Calum's view of the latter should at least partly resonate with Mr Salmond:

There appears, however, to be far too many Members of the Westminster Parliament who are willing to lurk in the shadows, who have accepted a culture which stretches the envelope of the system – a system which is already too lax and too hidden – and who appear to regard the interest of the public as intrusive rather than justified. It’s the psyche that believes MPs to be rulers rather than servants, which rates Parliament as a private club to be enjoyed by its members rather than as the crucible of debate about political direction. [...]

The system used in Westminster isn’t good and they should learn from the Scottish Parliament, but that does not excuse the grasping greed and the shoddy morals. These people should not be in office.

Oh aye? Another commentator employing a rather unnuanced analysis is Matthew Parris, who closes his column in yesterday's Times by proffering the following crude dichotomy:

...the honourable profession that, despite this week, politics in Britain still is. Call him what else you like, but does anybody really, really think that Gordon Brown is a crook?

Well I certainly wouldn't call either Mr Brown or Mr Salmond a crook on the basis of this weekend's revelations, but there's surely lots of shades between that and calling MPs members of an honourable profession?

The SNP's polling paradox

The results of a poll published in today's Times are likely to make discouraging reading for Scottish nationalists. The central conclusion of the poll - conducted to mark the tenth anniversary of devolution - is that the proportion of Scots supporting independence has fallen from a third at the time of the SNP's 2007 election victory to a fifth today.

Of course, support for the SNP administration is still riding high or, indeed, even increasing, so why this apparent paradox? Perhaps the most obvious explanation will be self-evident from this morning's media, which juxtaposes the ongoing and increasing scandal regarding the expenses of Westminster MPs - and members of the Labour Government's cabinet in particular - with the results of the Times poll, but with the UK's current dominant political issue overwhelming the coverage of the opinion of Scots on the issue of independence.

To that extent the disillusionment with Westminster in general and with Gordon Brown's government in particular explains the SNP's buoyant support at Holyrood - there is arguably no huge enthusiasm for the Scottish Government, and it perhaps hasn't set the heather alight, but on the other hand it's not done anything particularly unpalatable either.

Thus nationalists point to the popularity of the SNP administration overturning the usual lack of mid-term popularity for incumbent governments as demonstrating a consolidation of their cause, but a more likely rationale is the unpopularity of Labour in London being reflected in Holyrood polling, together with the relatively anodyne and conservative nature - born to a large extent of minority government necessity and its limited powers - of Alex Salmond's administration.

On the other hand, the limited impact of the SNP government also helps rationalise the decline of support for independence; the public like the unadventurous nature of the current devolution settlement and the limited ability of Holyrood administrations to take risks, thus despite cynicism regarding Westminster and the Union, independence for Scotland is still seen as too much of a shot in the dark. The economic crisis is likely to have underlined this thinking, with question marks over an independent Scotland's ability to recapitalise the banks, for example, taking precedence over the UK's role in creating the mess in the first place.

Of course, this simplifies the myriad factors shaping the dynamic, but the poll results perhaps reflect the inherent caution of ordinary Scottish people - they are patriotic and see this reflected in devolution, while an SNP government demonstrates disillusionment with new Labour and keeps Westminster in its place. On the other hand, like a teenager leaving home for the first time they continue to return home for a decent meal, to get their washing done and for a hand out from the 'bank of mum and dad', and see no reason to cut the apron strings completely.

Of course, nationalists will claim that the teenager will eventually grow up and fly the nest completely, but perhaps the Scottish people are more Timothy Lumsden than teenage tearaway.

Devolution's policy-lite decade

Today marks the 10th anniversary of the first Holyrood election polling day. At the weekend I suggested that the Scottish Parliament's achievements in the intervening decade have been distinctly limited, and a couple of articles in last weekend's Sunday Post perhaps add credence to my analysis, albeit that that was probably not the intention of the authors of these pieces.

First, Labourite Lorraine Davidson kicks off on a sceptical note, noting the initial devolution disillusionment about MSPs awarding themselves medals and cashing in on the second home allowance, not to mention the costly and farcical Parliament building project and the perception of second-rate politicians. Public confidence was further shaken by the premature death of inaugural first minister Donald Dewar and the dubious circumstances of successor Henry McLeish's resignation.

But Lorraine then says that the devolution debate has evolved from claims that Holyrood's powers should be lessened to how it can be strengthened with extra ones. And she also dismisses claims that health and education have been poorly served by devolution by pointing out the benefits of free personal care for the elderly and the abolition of student fees.

Thus despite her optimism, this doesn't seem much to show for ten years (wot, no smoking ban?). Ah, but Donald Dewar said that devolution should be evaluated not just on policy differences but by how it has changed the nature of politics. And, indeed, Lorraine compellingly points out that, er, Scotland's MSPs have their snouts less in the trough than MPs at Westminster, what with the latter's expenses claims for things like patio heaters, bath plugs and the nanny, and, of course, that's just the tip of the iceberg. Our MSPs have also put rows over taxi fares, the sub-letting of an office and a dodgy donation behind them, she tells us.

Margo MacDonald, meanwhile, also starts on a sceptical tone, pointing out the "10 years of realpolitik" and "brutal verbal battles" as compared to the idealism on display before the parliament was up and running:

...a load of old tosh was spouted by starry-eyed devolutionists, who thought devolution would cure cancer and eliminate world poverty, about how confrontation “Westminster-style” was bad and consensual policy-making was good.

The horseshoe-shaped debating chamber was meant to engender constructive dialogue and make history of the passionate invective that characterises the constitutional debate and colours every other policy issue in Scotland, from NHS quality of care standards to domestic violence.

Quite. Indeed, Margo says little about substantive policy achievements but instead remarks on how MSPs such as John Swinney, David McLetchie, Ross Finnie and Iain Gray have raised their game in terms of personal effectiveness.

So there you have it; they've done next-to-nothing, but they're not as bent as the Westminster rabble. Oh, and they're more effective as politicians. Was it all worth it?

However, Margo does point out that few MSPs now oppose greater financial and economic powers for Holyrood, and they are all now trying to work out how they can "exercise real power independently of Westminster".

Thus perhaps an implicit acknowledgement that ten years of devolution has achieved little - excepting the soaring rhetoric, nationalist idealism and political/personal aggrandisement - and that the SNP Government is unlikely to achieve much before the next election in 2011 in any case.

Thus the pivotal issue as regards the future of devolution is perhaps not so much who wins the next election - which is likely to result in another emasculated minority government or a compromised coalition - but how the probable Cameron government will view the Scottish, er, problem. With tax rises and the public spending squeeze likely to increase tensions between Holyrood and Westminster for some years to come, perhaps a Tory government would view fiscal autonomy for Scotland as a way to heal a running sore. But, of course, such a move would be seen by many as a threat to the Union.

Interesting times.

(Lorraine Davidson's article is not online; Margo MacDonald's is, but is likely to be replaced by the weekend.)

Planet Politics tops blogging poll!!

Talking of misleading headlines, a classic of the genre appeared in a recent edition of The Herald:

Salmond’s financial competence at heart of poll boost

However, the headline appears to be premised on voters' answers to the following question, on which the SNP trounced the other parties:

Which party do you think cares most about the Scottish economy?

But caring about something is surely not the same as being competent in relation to it, as I've regretfully had to admit to myself a few times over the years!

And in view of some of Mr Salmond's past claims about Labour over-regulating the financial sector and his feting of the likes of RBS and HBOS, it's perhaps safe to assume that the answers from those polled would have been slightly different had the question asked actually related to financial competence.

Thus The Herald's headline seems as much wishful thinking as my own title to this post!

The Calman ivory bubble

Following the Calman Commission's interim report towards the end of last year I wrote that the process, "had the character of a 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin'-style of debate, and ex-Scottish Office minister David Cairns was right that further devolution is of interest primarily to the 'McChattering classes'."

This perspective was surely underlined earlier this week when it was reported that economists advising the commission are suggesting giving Scotland control over some of the tax revenue raised here and the discretion to vary taxation rates while at the same time reducing the size of the block grant from Westminster, the aim being to make Holyrood more directly accountable to Scottish voters. For example, with regard to income tax the UK Government would retain control over allowances and bands, and half the current tax rates would be applied by Westminster, while the Scottish Government would have the power to vary the other half of the tax rate up or down, thus the Scottish Parliament would make a decision on revenue raising and, voila, our political class is more accountable to the electorate.

Fantastic, eh? Clearly the epitome of democracy, transparency and accountability. Well, on paper, perhaps, but back in the real world the convoluted and opaque nature of this proposal seems unlikely to endear itself to an already befuddled electorate. A particularly pertinent case in point is the ongoing spat between the SNP and Labour regarding whether or not the UK Government's future plans for Scotland represent significant spending cuts or, alternatively, a little bit of restraint here, the odd efficiency saving there and everything will just chug along as before.

If it's difficult enough to know which party is more plausible on this, the new Calman proposals prima facie seem even more impenetrable to us men (and women) on the Lochee omnibus. Granted, once the new system was implemented the tax/spend dynamic vis-a-vis Holyrood could become more apparent to Scottish voters and thus increase accountability, but setting the thing up would surely entail endless complex debate and bickering. For example, the block grant from Westminster would be reduced commensurately to the imputed size of the taxation revenue which would have been raised prior to implementation (but which could then be varied at the discretion of the Holyrood) and that would thereafter would "probably be based on Scotland's wealth-generating capacity". Don't all rush at once!

And, of course, once implemented would Holyrood actually use the new rate-varying powers? Well the current debate over the Scotland's share of the UK Government purse - which is essentially about the SNP and Labour trying to outdo each other in the public spending machismo stakes - surely indicates that a downward variation in tax rates is about as likely as Guido, Subrosa and Jess the Dog pledging their undying commitment to Gordon Brown and new Labour. And the Scottish Government already has the power to vary the basic rate of tax upwards, but has chosen not to do so, presumably on the basis that this would simply be compared unfavourably by voters with tax rates in the rest of the UK and thus represent electoral suicide.

Therefore this latest Calman suggestion seems a recipe for complication, confusion and conflict rather than anything that will appeal to voters or in fact increase accountability, and it's perhaps hardly surprising that it's emanated from ivory-towered academics reporting to a constitutional fig leaf concocted by the unionist parties to thwart the SNP's gathering momentum towards independence, all of which is taking place in the Holyrood political bubble.

Even as an unconvinced independence-sceptic/agnostic who would prefer the constitutional status quo I would nevertheless instinctively prefer full fiscal autonomy or even independence itself to this concoction - if Calman needs to throw the nationalist dog a bone to gnaw on rather than biting Westminster on the bum then please stick to something simple and straightforward - like jurisdiction over air guns - rather than anything more likely to complicate the constitutional question.

Of course, with the usual more pressing issues such as crime, health and the economy becoming more acute as Calman has proceeded it would have been preferable if this diversionary process had in fact never seen the light of day. Likewise, while the SNP may need a presumably pointless debate on an independence referendum as a distraction from its threadbare legislative programme, from the perspective of the 'people of Scotland' it would surely be for the greater good to get on with running the country rather than being preoccupied with a constitutional shot in the dark.

Indeed, with the Scottish Parliament's tenth aniversary upon us its limited achievements underline scepticism that the whole devolution project represented little more than another tier of government for the indulgence of the self-serving political class.

In this vein an article by Murray Ritchie in this morning's Scotland on Sunday neatly demonstrates the dichotomy between the rose-tinted rhetoric and idealism of devolution and the marginal nature of what Holyrood has achieved - some benefit for pensioners, students and the sick, but not much else to show for 10 years. Mr Ritchie does, however, make the valid point that the proportional representation system engineered for Holyrood by the unionists to keep the SNP from the levers of power has misfired somewhat. However, and notwithstanding what the future may hold, the political paralysis and lame-duck minority government currently resulting from PR seems at odds with his optimistic claim that "Holyrood thrives", which seems only slightly less rose-tinted than claiming that Gordon Brown's position is safe as houses.

Twenty firsts meme

Thanks (I think!) to Malc for tagging me for the 'Twenty firsts meme'.


First job

Probably strawberry, raspberry and tattie picking, which most youngsters in my area did during the school holidays (the autumn break was called the "tattie holidays", although I doubt if that's used nowadays). I wasn't particularly adept at any of them, but the tatties were quite hard work because unlike berry picking you couldn't plod along at your own pace.

In my last year at the tatties I made it onto the 'kerts' (carts), which meant throwing the baskets of tatties onto the trailer rather than gathering them into the baskets, and driving the tractor up the 'dreels' on every third or fourth lap, which was an important step up on the way to alpha maledom.

Dark and cold 6am alarm calls (the mornings tended to be frostier back then), paranoia about your 'bit' being bigger than everyone else's (the farmer just paced them out) and disputes with other 'howkers' about where the boundaries lay are among the abiding memories of something that I don't look back on with huge affection.


First real job

After leaving school I worked with an agricultural merchant for a couple of years testing grain in the laboratory (I've still got some scars from sulphuric acid burns on my arms as a reminder!) and doing the paperwork in the weighbridge for visiting trucks and tractors.

Although permanent and full-time this was a very seasonal job and some days during the winter I'd do next to nothing, while during the harvest I'd work perhaps eight weeks without a day off and from early morning till mid-evening. We got Saturday evening off though, and then I usually managed to go out and get blootered until the early hours and be back in work at 8am on Sunday, in a further attempt to consolidate my alpha male credentials.

A dead-end career wise, but the EU grain mountains that were stored there helped build up the business might well have been the genesis of my now considerable political cynicism.


First role in politics

This blog is probably the nearest thing I've had to a 'role' in politics, so to that extent I probably haven't had a proper role at all!


First car

A yellow(!) Triumph Dolomite Sprint, which was essentially the boy racer's variant of a standard family saloon. Was largely a waste of money, since I think it cost more to insure than to buy, and it quickly developed a major engine problem which made it uneconomic to repair. I traded it in for a Ford Cortina 2.0 Ghia Mk V, bought on HP because it was a good deal more expensive than the Dolomite.


First record

I think it was Wig Wam Bam by Sweet, and I bought several of their singles (Hell Raiser and Blockbuster were my favourites) and also a few of Gary Glitter's as well. I was a member of the latter's fan club and they sent me a piece of his shirt, which my sister now keeps reminding me was perhaps symptomatic of some kind of sinister intent, but I suspect that it was simply a marketing gimmick! All very glam rock in those days, but one of my sisters liked Donny Osmond, while the other was a big David Cassidy fan.


First football match

My Dad took my to Pittodrie a few times to watch Aberdeen play c. 1970, but I don't recall that they were big matches or that the Dons were playing anyone too exciting. I do, however, more distinctly recall going there for the first Dryburgh Cup final, in which Aberdeen beat Celtic, much to my disappointment. According to the relevant Wikipedia page the tournament was a short-duration pre-season affair, and was the first such Scottish cup competition to be commercially sponsored, and the match I saw was presumably the 1971 final.


First concert

The Boomtown Rats at the Caird Hall in Dundee, which I think was in 1978. At that time Sir Bob was just plain old Bob Geldof and the Rats were moving from the punk/new wave fringe into more mainstream pop (Rat Trap, etc). My recollection is that this was the loudest gig that I ever attended, but perhaps I merely got that impression because it was my first experience of that kind of thing.


First country visited

England, where I actually lived for a half dozen or so years. I also visited Wales for around an hour one lunchtime while working in Cheshire for a few days.

If that sounds a bit flippant then that's not the intention because I've never actually been abroad!


First TV appearance

Does CCTV count?


First political speech

No formal speeches.


First girlfriend/boyfriend

Not sure how this is defined, but my first relationship which had a smidgen of the non-platonic about it was probably with a girl called Morag at primary school, although perhaps I just imagined it.

(Morag's a good Scottish name, though, but I doubt if it's used much as a girl's name these days.)


First encounter with a famous person

When Arbroath FC were in the old Scottish First Division (there were only two divisions in my younger days) my Dad took me to Gayfield when the bigger teams were playing there and I did a bit of autograph hunting after the games. Most memorable was probably Kenny Dalglish, who had by then supplanted Gary Glitter as my hero. Kenny also let me down, though, albeit in a different way, because I well recall a Shoot! magazine article entitled something like, 'Why I always want to play for Celtic'.


First brush with death

That would be with the Dolomite Sprint from the 'first car' question above. A combination of my, ahem, exuberance and a brake imbalance led to a loss of control one day and the Triumph weaving uncontrollably across the road like in a car chase from a movie. By dint of either luck or my incredible driving ability(!) the car eventually came back under control, and luckily only my pride was hurt.

I managed to write off the Cortina though - too much power, too much speed, wet roads, a lack of experience and rear-wheel drive - but came out of that unscathed as well, although the pride suffered irreparable damage. And also a devastating blow to that elusive search for alpha maledom.


First house/flat owned

Bought a flat in Dundee in 1992. Bad move. Very, very bad move.


First film seen at a cinema

Can't remember, but it was probably 101 Dalmations (the original animation) Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, The Sound of Music, Jungle Book or similar. I more distinctly remember Bedknobs and Broomsticks, though, but I think it bored me rigid apart from a couple of scenes.


First time on the radio

Never.


First politician I met

Haven't met any, in a political context at least, but I do recall SNP MP Mike Weir kindly witnessing a signature for my Dad gratis while he was still practising as a solicitor in Brechin.


First book I remember reading

Probably Enid Blyton's Five On A Treasure Island, or one of the other Famous Five titles - I read most if not all of them, and some several times. Ditto Blyton's similar Secret Seven series.


First visit to the London Palladium

Never.


First election

Not sure precisely what this means, but my earliest recollection is of the mid-1970s Ted Heath/Harold Wilson era, the miners' strike, the three-day week and power cuts etc. I think I wanted Labour to win merely because that's what my parents wished; there were two general elections in 1974 and Labour won both of them.

My first recollection of anything less passive is conducting a sort of vox pop of primary school classmates for the EEC/Common Market referendum in 1975, which of course kept the UK in Europe.

I've never been much of a voter, but my first outing was in 1987 when a bit of SNP tactical voting saw me supporting Andrew Welsh in Angus East to help get rid of the Tory incumbent Peter Fraser (later Lord Fraser of Lockerbie bombing prosecution and Holyrood Parliament building inquiry fame). I supported Labour at that time, but I daresay I'd vote the other way round these days!

If anyone is still interested in this then I'd like to tag some of the more mysterious Scottish bloggers, namely Wardog, Scottish Unionist, Ideas of Civilisation, Lallands Peat Worrier, Nationalist Mythbusting (sm753) and Holyrood Chronicles (HW).