The Times will be thunderous

The Thunderer is this morning clearly not happy with the Torygraph. Although it does not mention its rival newspaper by name, a Times editorial clearly alludes to the Telegraph's exposé regarding the expenses abuse, outing and subsequent resignation of David Laws when it says:

...short of a prurient and wholly unwelcome prying into the domestic and sleeping arrangements of all MPs, there was no way that this technical breach of the rules could have been detected — except by gossip and innuendo. That such press revelations have caused so much hurt to a talented and vital member of the coalition is deeply regrettable.

It goes on to say that "enough is enough", a line should be drawn under the expenses scandal and MPs should be judged on the new regime now in place (excepting the most egregious of transgressors under the former system) lest this Parliament begins its work "on its knees".

Thus the newspaper will be far from pleased at this morning's latest Telegraph revelations. It's reported that Danny Alexander, Mr Laws' replacement as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, avoided paying capital gains tax on his taxpayer-funded second home when he sold it at a profit. Although there's no suggestion that Mr Alexander has broken any, er, Laws, this latest story will at the very least be highly embarrassing for the new spending chief, in what was always likely to be an exacting post, since exacerbated by the circumstances surrounding his appointment and his demonstrable lack of experience for such a position, and today compounded by comparisons of his personal financial dealings with Nick Clegg's election campaign condemnation of: "MPs who flipped one property to the next, buying property, paid by you, the taxpayer, and then they would do the properties up, paid for by you, and pocket the difference in personal profit."

The Times is perhaps both right and wrong. Mr Laws is arguably unfortunate to have come to grief in such a precipitous manner over what was not the most invidious of expenses claims. However, to argue as it does that only the worst of expenses offenders should continue to be pursued is an insult to both taxpayers and MPs who came clean in the last Parliament and paid the consequences. Mr Laws has had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing, and took a high-profile role in the coalition negotiations and subsequent administration in the knowledge that his personal position was at least dubious.

Of course, it's unfortunate that the whole thing is tied up with the issue of Mr Laws' sexuality - and Matthew Parris writes eloquently on the nature of the Lib Dem's personal agonising - and whether this provided an ulterior motive for the Telegraph's actions, but this hardly excuses his behaviour, and political motivation from the press is self-evidently an occupational hazard for MPs. Indeed, this morning's story perhaps alludes that if there's a motivation other than the expenses scandal per se, then it's the Lib Dem-inspired proposal to hike capital gains tax that's piqued the newspaper.

It's a tough world out there, and life is far from fair, but the pursuit of the truth and the exposure of wrongdoing shouldn't be abandoned to save the skins of those abusing the public purse, irrespective of however talented and otherwise decent such 'victims' might be.

Gesture licensing

Scotland's fight against the alcohol problem reached a watershed last week, with Glasgow City Council's decision to refuse several supermarkets permission to put a bit more booze on display. The ruling was taken by licensing councillors under the provisions of the new legislation that came into operation last year, and which has as one of its objectives the promotion of public health. The board ruled that the plans of Tesco, Asda et al did not accord with this aim.

A watershed, that is, for tokenism and gesture politics. Quite how the plans of the retailers - which involved as little as one extra shelf - would have been detrimental to health is not clear. Perhaps councillors - and the health professionals who predictably praised the 'crackdown' - think alcohol in Scotland is sold in a manner akin to bread in former Soviet-style shops, with empty shelves and hungry denizens queuing outside, and that the Glasgow supermarkets' dastardly plans would suddenly expose people to liver-ravaging levels of drink as compared to their previous teetotal existence.

Unlikely, of course - it would be more a case of rearranging the deckchairs. Or shelving, more accurately.

But let's give councillors the benefit of the doubt and assume that if the plans had come to fruition then the average Glaswegian would have consumed one more tin of Tennent's Lager (for example) per year and as a consequence shortened their life by the time it takes to smoke a Player's No 6 (say, or whatever it is that people smoke these days).

Then surely this means that all alcohol sales should be banned. Close all pubs, clubs and off-sales premises immediately. Failure to do this is surely detrimental to health and thus licensing councillors are responsible for any future problems in this regard.

If not, then surely the recent decision is mere gesture politics?

Meanwhile, the UK's leading retailer was also in the news recently, with Tesco's announcement that it was backing minimum pricing for alcohol. Gosh, I wonder why it hadn't thought of this before? Of course, as many others have commented, this is surely more to do with Tesco's bottom line rather than the greater good. After all, it and the other supermarkets created the plastic bag problem but more recently managed to portray themselves as riding to the rescue and limiting the availability of the blighters (tip - if you don't like grovelling for plastic bags from the newly converted environmental zealots on the checkouts, use the self-service tills).

Thus the retailer's Damascene conversion to minimum pricing doesn't cut much ice with anyone but the most gullible, surely - a bit like Gordon Brown trying to get the credit for managing to prevent his recession turning into a depression.

MacAskill misrepresentation?

The recent News of the World exposé regarding Scotland's black market in taxi licences brought to mind comments last year by justice secretary Kenny MacAskill, which seemed to allude to and endorse the existence of the trade in plates, a trade which MSP Sandra White recently claimed is a "very disturbing problem" and indeed a week later ironically seemed to expect Mr MacAskill to ride to the rescue and sort out.

But going back to last year, in a letter published in the Edinburgh Evening News I mentioned the existence of the trade in licence plates - albeit in terms less stark than a 'black market' - and essentially accused Mr MacAskill of being irresponsible in effectively portraying an 'investment' in a taxi licence as equating to some kind of mainstream business opportunity, rather than the reality of something wholly dependent upon the (rather dubious) regulatory and legal environment.

Having had an interest in all of this for around 15 years I've been surprised that it's never been highlighted, equally surprised that it has now been exposed in the media, but similarly unsurprised that it disappeared as quickly off the radar screen as it appeared and is likely to be swept back under the carpet whence it came.

Anyway, for what it's worth, here's what I said in the letter last year:

"Perhaps misleading is Mr MacAskill's reference to "cabbies who borrow from the bank or mortgage their home to buy a cab". He is perhaps referring to the purchase of a taxi licence rather than a vehicle per se, since the former often costs significantly more than the latter.

"Which perhaps explains the reference to "mortgaging their home", because the value of the licence depends on the regulatory decisions of local authorities and/or central government, not to mention the possibility of adverse legal decisions, therefore banks won't accept the licence value as collateral in view of its inherent risk, thus a loan may be secured against the purchaser's home.

"But the point is that many people like to portray a taxi licence as some sort of gilt-edged investment, whereas the banks' stance on related lending clearly demonstrate that this is not the case. It is thus arguably irresponsible of Mr MacAskill to in effect misrepresent what can amount to a high-risk gamble on the family home."

Dundee strategic objectives shocker!

Dundee City Council has set out its objectives for the next two years, and these make for revealing and uplifting reading. SNP administration leader Ken Guild says:

Our top priorities are to create jobs for Dundee and to continue to modernise the city. Together, these will cement our position as a strong regional centre.

We will also be looking to improve social inclusion for people in Dundee and improve the quality of life. We want to create healthier and safer communities, protect our children and help them achieve their potential.

Thus clearly all motherhood and haggis pie, but there's a caveat. Mr Guild continues:

In the current economic climate we will have to work smarter and do more with less. There will be difficult decisions and we will be looking to prioritise and protect frontline services that people rely on.

There's more, but does all this really tell us anything? Could anyone really disagree with the objectives? Aren't they the same ones as the last administration, and the one before that, etc?

As for the financial situation, if the council wasn't doing in the past what Mr Guild outlines will be happening in the future then perhaps it's no surprise that the public finances are in such a parlous state.

But at least the council is saving money by recycling the strategic objectives from yesteryear. Or perhaps they went through the same rigmarole as in the past to come up with the same objectives.

Probably the latter. And perhaps there's more meat on the bones of this than the Courier's report seems to suggest, but with other talk of the council working "through the Dundee Partnership to meet the single outcome objective with the Scottish Government, which is designed to ensure local and national priorities dovetail," I'm not holding my breath.

Dundee's 'big society'?

Interesting story in the Courier this week about one of Dundee's more prominent community councils, which has been, er, rocked by the resignation of two of its office bearers, and may have to fold as a consequence. The two - Sheena Wellington of Holyrood's "A Man's a Man For a' That" fame and Jill Darling, who moved to Dundee from the USA five years ago - say they feel "patronised and ignored" after pointlessly lobbying Dundee City Council on a range of issues. Mrs Darling told the Courier:

At the time [of joining the community council] it surprised me that most of my Dundonian friends advised me against this. They said it was a waste of time as the local government was known for not caring and not listening to the people, that it would effectively do as it pleased. I didn't listen and joined anyway. But as time went on, I realised the council were only consulting with groups like us in order to tick boxes.

Mrs Darling also complains about endless delays and excuses and a "far from democratic" process for setting up a special community panel. Ms Wellington said:

I have become totally exasperated by the inertia, indifference and all too frequent incompetence which seems to haunt the highest levels of this council. There are other, more productive ways I can contribute to the community.

Of course, all this might seem familiar to anyone anywhere who has much contact with politicians and officialdom. Equally predictable, perhaps, is the response of Dundee City Council's leader, who said he has "absolutely no knowledge" of the complaints of either woman and that he has never been lobbied by the community council. He also said:

Dundee City Council has done its utmost to encourage community councils over the years. They are one of the best ways of finding out what local people think.

Fine words, but clearly Dundee's version of the 'big society' has a long way to go yet.

(Lest anyone smells a political rat, I believe Ms Wellington is broadly Nationalist in outlook.)

Another democratic deficit

As someone with a bit of an interest in the licensing legislation, I've been following with interest the recent News of the World revelations about a multi-million pounds 'black market' in taxi licences.

Only one of the complainants is actually named in the NotW articles, and this individual has subsequently been subject to some abusive and threatening messages on taxi trade discussion forums. For example:

Seen JUDAS ****** looking very sheepish when he was fueling up at montrose terrace making sure no one was around .Has he changed garage is he hidding from anyone. Hope he meets with a accident sooner rather than later, maybe he's worked that one out that's how he wears pampers so as not to soil the sheet sorry seat . remember keep lickin JUDAS [Real name omitted]

A subsequent allegation is that the individual in question once assaulted his wife, but the charges were dropped, hence he has a grudge against the council. Of course, if the allegation is true then this certainly greatly diminishes the individual concerned, but this isn't really of any great relevance to the substance of the newspaper exposé on the black market. And, naturally, the abusive and threatening messages are being meted out by people cowering behind pseudonyms.

But it's thus perhaps unsurprising that the two NotW articles rely almost wholly on anonymous sources, despite the fact that the market in licences has been going on for many years, covers quite a few local authorities and has been known about by one of the quoted politicians for a considerable time. A related issue is that the drivers hired by the licence holders are casually employed, thus can be sacked on the whim of the vehicle owners. Thus they tend to keep their heads down.

But this seems typical of the kind of mess generated by political neglect and sucking up to vested interests. At least one of the holier-than-thou councils promising to investigate any irregularities has been aware of what's being going on for years, but has done nothing, and instead the result is the hate and vitriol directed towards any heretic who's willing to as much as state the facts and raise questions about what's going on.

Clearly the 'new politics' hasn't yet extended to taxi licensing.

News of the screwed

More in today's News of the World about the taxi licence "scam" that seems to affect various areas of Scotland in addition to last week's Glasgow exposé - who'd have thunk it?

An Edinburgh taxi driver says licences are changing hands in the capital for £50,000, and this black market price arises purely because of the restricted market. The councils simply charge an administrative fee for the licences, typically £200 per annum or so. The NotW claims that while some are cashing in on this, "ordinary drivers, passengers and council tax payers lose out":

In Perth, a taxi driver told us one businessman owns half the city's 70 licences - with would-be cabbies having to pay £40,000 for a permit.

In Greenock and Port Glasgow, cabbies also face paying at least £40,000 for a Hackney plate, several of which are held by Christine Easdale - mum of convicted fraudster Sandy Easdale, 40.

Public safety is also a concern, with the artificial limit on taxi licences leading to higher numbers of more lightly regulated private hire cars, not to mention unlicensed taxis.

Unsurprisingly, local authorities are proffering different interpretations of the rules, with Perth & Kinross saying the arrangements for the sale of licences are legitimate, but Inverclyde claims that it's illegal to sell them.

Meanwhile, the Scottish Government, while acknowledging that the allegation are "serious", is effectively passing the buck and saying that anyone with any evidence should approach their local authority.

Glasgow's black market in taxi licences

Interesting article in a recent edition of the News of the World. Entitled '£26 million black cab black market - taxi tycoons raking in millions through crafty licence loophole', it's about Glasgow taxi licences changing hands for up to £60,000 each, contrary to the licensing legal regime. Taxi licences in Glasgow were limited in number almost two decades ago at 1,428, thus collectively they're worth in excess of £50 million. That's the price to buy a licence outright, but their rental value (excluding the vehicle) is probably in excess of £100 per week, thus in total perhaps £10 million per year.

In view of the recent questions raised over scrutiny and accountability at Glasgow City Council in the wake of the Stephen Purcell affair, this latest revelation just adds grist to the mill. However, it's interesting to compare the political reaction. Tory MSP Bill Aitken said: "This has been going on for many years, though the sums now are a lot more substantial."

Which is particularly interesting in view of the fact that Mr Aitken is a former district council licensing chairman.

Labour's Holyrood justice spokesman Richard Baker said, "There needs to be an urgent investigation into what is going on," while for the SNP Sandra White MSP said:

This is a very disturbing problem that the News of the World has brought to light. The council should have an investigation to find out exactly what is going on, find out what checks and balances there are over this issue and renewal of licence plates and put an end to this black market trade.

Of course, in view of the post-Purcell fallout - not to mention the fact that Glasgow City Council is Labour controlled and its licensing convener is a Labour councillor - Sandra White may be making a political point here, but it should be underlined that the licensing regime in Edinburgh is effectively identical, and the chairman there is the SNP's Colin Keir, and there seems little doubt that, like former councillor/bailie Aitken, he's more than aware of the trade in licences.

Indeed, it seems that the News of the World will be featuring the issue again this weekend, this time focusing on Edinburgh.

The NotW's recent piece isn't online and is thus included below:


£26M BLACK CAB BLACK MARKET

Taxi tycoons raking in millions through crafty licence loophole

A black market in cab licences worth at least £26MILLION each year is today exposed by the News of the World.

Wily taxi plate owners exploit a lucrative loophole to rake in a fortune through the cunning scheme. The licences should cost £166 but because numbers are strictly limited by local authorities, the permits are changing hands on the streets for between £40,000 and £60,000.

And in Glasgow alone, the backdoor industry makes up to half a million pounds every WEEK. One insider said last night; “The taxi trade involves big money – this is a licence to print the stuff.”

Council chiefs in Glasgow restricted the number of black cab licences to 1,428 in the early 1990’s. That figure remains the same today. Yet of those, only THREE permits are held by named individuals. The other 1,425 are owned by small businesses who used them to generate huge sums.

Though it’s against regulations to trade the taxi plates, operators have found a way to bend the rules by setting up registered companies. When they want to sell the plates they simply inform the council that another director has joined the firm. That person can now legitimately use the licence. The back door system means no new licences are ever available – despite a massive waiting list of hopefuls across the city.

One typical example of the businessmen who are making the plates pay is Glasgow-based entrepreneur John Cowe, who rakes in up to £1.5million a year from more than 100 black cab permits. Mr Cowe – who runs London Taxis Direct – rents them or sells them in instalments to drivers who pay him £350 a week.

Posing as a would-be taxi driver, our investigator visited his office in Glasgow’s east end and was offered a deal for £53,000. He was told: “A plate is about 40,000 to buy in, plus a motor. You’re talking about a £50,000 to £55,000 package to buy in.” The taxi boss – who lives in a £1.5million home in Bothwell, Lanarkshire, with wife Margaret – offers two finance packages to fund the cab deal. And the fact that he drives a Range Rover Overfinch and Bentley, worth aroung £200,000, suggests business is booming.

Judging by taxi office notice boards across Glasgow, other cab licence owners are openly selling their permits for between £40,000 and £60,000. Our source revealed: “The council cannot say that the person licensed to display the plate is the same person who is driving or operating the cab. They can barely verify that the person named as the plate licensee hasn’t sold it on. The police regularly come up against this problem when tracing witnesses to crimes. In some ways the private hire system is more transparent – when you call them they know where you are, where you are going and who they have sent to collect you.”

More than 70 per cent of councils in England and Wales have scrapped the restricted licences scheme in a bid to make the system less vulnerable to abuse. Critics insist the artificial limit on cab numbers in Glasgow has helped fuel the black market trade in gold dust plates. Our insider added: “It costs a lot of money to run a cab, but there is a profit margin there whether it is all done above board or with corners being cut.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill last year praised black cabs as a safer alternative to the private hire taxi network, which has been rocked by a number of revelations about its links to the underworld. He pledged to crack down on rogue minicab firms and evidence of that was seen last month as councils rejected a string of applications for taxi base licences.

In the case of Glasgow-based Network Private Hire, which had a £2million NHS contract, cops had alleged close ties to the notorious McGovern crime clan. There is no suggestion the black cab industry has any connection with organised crime, but last night politicians called for an immediate probe into its licensing.

Labour’s justice spokesman Richard Baker MSP said: “There needs to be an urgent investigation into what is going on.”

And Glasgow Nats SP Sandra White said, “This is a very disturbing problem that the News of the World has brought to light. We’ve just had a crackdown on private hire taxis and now there needs to be much greater scrutiny of the hackney cab business. The council should have an investigation to find out exactly what is going on, find out what checks and balances there are over this issue and renewal of licence plates and put an end to this black market trade.”

Tory justice spokesman Bill Aitken – a former district council licensing committee chairman – added: “This has been going on for many years, though the sums now are a lot more substantial.”

However, last night John Cowe DENIED he was selling taxi plates. “I am not selling the plates. It is the goodwill of our business, the company name, the same as others are doing in Edinburgh, Liverpool, London and other cities. There’s nothing illegal about it.” When reminded of his offer to our investigator, he replied: “I never mentioned any sums of money.”

He added: “The licences are granted at the discretion of Glasgow City Council. I can’t sell something that doesn’t belong to me. I’m selling the goodwill of our business, on the condition that the person is a good and proper person and the city council will transfer the licence to them. If they are not good and proper people the licence won’t be transferred. There is no monetary value on the licence, they are granted by the council. There are several other people in Glasgow who do what I do, not just myself.”

A council spokesman added: “Taxi licences are granted or refused against a legislative regime set out by national government. Licensing committees rule on applications following consultations with police and can also hear police evidence relating to alleged beaches of licences – however, they do not themselves investigate individual cases. If the News of the World is able to provide police with evidence of licenses being abused, our committee would obviously welcome the opportunity to examine it.”

Vanity plate or part of city's heritage?

With the "cuts" blame-game moving into political overdrive, an instructive example of the attitude of some politicians to the public purse appeared in last weekend's Sunday Post. It reported that half of Scotland's local authorities own private registration numbers/numpty plates/cherished number plates/chav plates/prestige number plates/vanity plates (delete according to taste) and that some of these could be worth up to £500,000, with a total value of a million and a half pounds.

These are normally on vehicles used to transport local authority, ahem, dignitaries*, but some are unused. By some miracle the Post managed to extract a quote from the Taxpayers' Alliance, which said: "This kind of indulgence reflects the attitude of politicians towards the hard-pressed taxpayer. They should be auctioned off and the proceeds used to directly benefit communities".

Equally predictable was the righteous indignation from the local authorities involved, with Glasgow City Council saying: "These plates are not only assets that grow more valuable by being retained, they are also part of the civic history of Glasgow and the west of Scotland.”

There seems little point mentioning the fact that the registration numbers are appreciating in value if they're going to be retained anyway, but the "civic history" argument is surely scraping the barrel a bit, particularly in today's climate.

Indeed, Dundee's Lord Provost (pictured), whose TS 1 plate was valued at £150,000, was later quoted in the Courier as saying:

I understand we have to save money in a recession, but I wouldn't have thought the sale of TS 1 would be considered. A figure of £150,000 is quite a minimal sum when set against the council budget and against the history of TS 1 to the city. Selling it off would be like selling off the city's history. I doubt very much that anybody would want to say "let's sell this" as it's such a strong part of our history. If you consider other valuable things the city has, such as the lord provost's chain of office, you would have to ask where selling the family silver would stop. I think we should retain things of historical value in to Dundee.

Oh well, I must be in a minority of one then, and no doubt everyone else in Dundee considers TS 1 a strong part of our history - or municipal ostentation, perhaps? And, hey, the proceeds from a sale would pay my council tax for 150 years, or it could even be used for more worthy purposes, but it's "quite a minimal sum" really, and no doubt our public sector is full of almost innumerable "minimal sums", so that's OK then. As for the lord provost wittering on about "retaining things of historical value", er, let's not go there.

Oh, and the Post article should dispel the rumour that Lord Provost Letford's official car is a Russian ZiL; it's actually a Volkswagen Phaeton. On the other hand, this probably underlines the view that the car itself is an expensive extravagance as compared to the previous lowly Volvo s80 (the one in the Sunday Post's picture, above), which could very probably have been retained in service for another few years at a "minimal sum", not to mention Mr Letford's previous exhortations to buy locally sourced goods and services. The cost of these civic limousines was also featured in the press last year.

*Perhaps like the Midlothian provost who claimed £950 in expenses for a kilt and 150-mile trip to collect it, and when challenged said: "I've got f*** all to explain to the SNP group. And you can quote me on every word of that."

Power, principle and political promiscuity

The debate on the UK's shiny new coalition government has employed lots of imagery relating to male/female non-platonic relationships - flirting, jumping into bed together, a loveless marriage etc - but is the new relationship likely to last after an initial one-night stand, a subsequent whirlwind romance and now perhaps something of an arranged/forced/shotgun marriage rather than something born of a deep and lasting love? Will they stay together for the sake of the kids, or will it be more Kramer vs Kramer rather than a match made in heaven?

The Lib Dems have certainly conveyed the impression of political promiscuity, having had a brief fling with Labour after a holiday romance with the Conservatives, before returning to the latter and tying the knot after a mere handful of dates and concluding that David Cameron's chat-up lines were preferable to Gordon Brown's.

On the other hand, all the parties have been trying to jump into bed with each other, and it all reminds me of municipal politics in Dundee, where power, status and a few bob extra for a convenorship often seems more important than principle. Yet despite the odd spat and the usual partisanship, underneath it all there seems little to separate the political groupings other than the party label and, for example, the SNP's rise to power in the city seemed to offer little more concrete than the hope of more cash from Holyrood because of Nationalist control, thus crude pork-barrelling rather than anything more principled. But when all's said and done, on substantive policy matters the council seems fairly consensual.

Of course, on the national stage there's a lot more at stake and there's lots more in terms of policy and differences thereto, thus the potential for the sleeping around to result in a messy divorce.

But there's nothing wrong with the rhetoric of "balanced", "productive" and "co-operation" used by Alex Salmond to describe the Scottish Parliament under his minority SNP Government when proclaiming the virtues of the possibility of a hung parliament at Westminster, and Messrs Cameron and Clegg have predictably used similar terminology to describe their own nascent coalition.

That is, there's nothing wrong with the language of consensus if there's substance behind it rather than mere rhetoric. And, of course, Mr Salmond's "co-operation" perspective on Holyrood is perhaps best juxtaposed beside the reality of the yah boo politics on display at FMQs. And there's surely been nothing particularly "productive" about the SNP administration because - and ignoring the substantive merits of its policies - its lack of a majority means that it has been unable to implement most of its flagship manifesto promises. And the other parties - for their own reasons - haven't wanted to precipitate an election, hence a large degree of political paralysis.

Of course, the Westminster coalition will enjoy a healthy majority, and to that extent it can be assertive and productive, but of necessity such an arrangement means that some policies will have to be abandoned by both sides, while others will have to be watered down substantially.

Thus will Cameron's coalition government enjoy sufficient strength and purpose to tackle the UK's myriad problems? It seems unlikely that an administration at Westminster as substantively anodyne as the one at Holyrood would be able to operate for long without precipitating some major event, such as a fundamental crack appearing in the coalition and thus perhaps leading to another election.

Indeed, Clegg and Cameron's display of bonhomie and backslapping at yesterday's al fresco press conference - a sort of cross between Bush and Blair and Ant and Dec - just seemed too good to be true. Like Jordan and Peter Andre getting together after their Australian jungle capers, you just know that it'll all end in tears, and the likes of the jokes about what the politicians have said about each other in the past will eventually be replaced by something less friendly.

The problem is, of course, that politicians tend to say one thing to one audience and something else to another, and one thing at one time and another thing later.

For example, despite Alex Salmond's fine words about consensus and compromise in relation to a hung parliament, it should be recalled that a mere six months ago he was hoping that the Westminster could be "hung by a Scottish rope" in the event of the SNP holding the balance of power.

Thus it should be hoped that the reality of the Conservative/Lib Dem agreement reflects the rhetoric of consensus rather than that of conflict. But while Ant and Dec might get on famously, the contestants in the jungle proper are set on a collision course - indeed, the contrived and artificial jungle scenario invites that inevitability, despite the initial atmosphere of congeniality and co-operation.

The political Ant and Dec may get on well and have much in common as regards personal background and policy, but their MPs, wider parties, grassroots members, activists, supporters and voters aren't perhaps such natural bedfellows.

Little justification for fiscal autonomy

Barry White of the Scottish Futures Trust replied to my recent letter to the Herald on the subject of fiscal autonomy for Scotland, and my response is published today:

I thank Barry White of the Scottish Futures Trust for his informative reply to my letter about fiscal autonomy for Scotland.

If, as he alludes, his organisation is responsible for raising significant finance for capital investment in public infrastructure using non-traditional financing methods, then that certainly undermines the rationale for fiscal autonomy.

However, if the extent of public borrowing in the UK and other mature democracies detracts from the theoretical argument that making politicians more directly responsible for taxation and public spending leads to greater transparency and accountability, then surely handing a degree of de facto Scottish fiscal autonomy to a quango such as the Scottish Futures Trust must raise concerns, despite the fact that the organisation’s initial remit was to rectify various such shortcomings in relation to the PFI/PPP disasters.

Scotland’s economy already benefits from the fiscal stimulus provided by UK-wide measures such as last year’s VAT cut, and any divergence from the wider UK economy is, to an extent, addressed by the “automatic stabilisers” of a reduced taxation burden and increased benefit payments during an economic slowdown, which self-evidently confer most benefit on the worst suffering regions.

This, together with the SFT’s claimed ability to finance infrastructure investment, must mean that the justification for fiscal autonomy to address any divergence of the Scottish economy from the UK as a whole must be thin indeed.

It's business as usual again

Although the title may sound a bit like the infamous "it's deja vu all over again", the apparent tautology is deliberate and alludes to the fact that once again last week's election has given us the same old three-party domination across the UK (four, of course, in Scotland) and the sea change in politics promised in the wake of the expenses scandal failed to materialise. In particular, the hoped for election of independent-minded politicians as a bloody nose for the mainstream parties was never really on the cards, as had already been demonstrated in contests such as the European elections last June, and the Norwich North and Glasgow North East Westminster by-elections later in the year.

Thus even Esther Rantzen lost her deposit in Luton South, and there was little other evidence of independents doing well. Indeed, even the two independents from the last Parliament failed to get re-elected. And after their pitiful showing in the Euro elections and the over-hyped and ultimate humiliation of John Smeaton in Glasgow North East, the Jury Team seemed to be fielding a mere dozen or so candidates last week, but it's not even clear if this happened, or if the plug was pulled prior to the vote. An anonymous blogger wearing a mask and standing under a pseudonym claimed to be standing under the Jury Team umbrella, and this was perhaps a fitting epitaph.

Of course, Caroline Lucas was elected for the Greens in Brighton, but outside Northern Ireland that seemed to be about the nearest thing to a successful independent. In Buckingham John Stevens of the Buckinghamshire Campaign for Democracy secured a creditable ten thousand plus votes, but this was in Commons speaker John Bercow's constituency, thus there were no candidates from the mainstream parties. And even the likes of the Virtual Currency Cognitive Appraisal Party, Get Snouts Out The Trough (sic) and the Go Mad and Vote For Yourself Party failed to make an impact.

Thus the promise of reform and the retiral of the worst expenses offenders seemed to be enough to placate the public, and where the likes of Jacqui Smith were brazen enough to stand again they were replaced by another mainstream candidate. Nevertheless, it might have been thought that the strength of feeling over the expenses scandal would have thrown up one or two Martin Bell-style figures, but the nearest thing to this was perhaps Nick Clegg's initial showing in the televised leaders' debates, but even this proved a short-lived bubble when the public realised that he too was really nothing new.

Nevertheless, last week's result was of course different in that the first past the post electoral system failed to produce an outright winner from the Labour/Conservative duopoly and it looks like the Lib Dems at the very least will be involved in forming the next Government, with the price of their support being a proportional voting system, and thus the end of two-party politics forever, or so it's suggested.

But what's the betting that the inherent weakness and instability of any coalition, alliance or agreement will lead to an early election under FPTP, the return of a Conservative majority Government, and after a term or two of financial austerity the return of a Labour administration and thus back to the two-party system?

The nation rejects X Factor politics

While south of the border the electoral landscape is shaping up pretty much as expected in terms of Labour and Conservative voting patterns and a hung parliament, in Scotland the opposite is the case. The parties of the winners of the televised leaders' debates - the Lib Dems and Conservatives - have shown no benefit at all north of the border, and indeed the Lib Dems seem to have gone backwards in terms of voting share.

Meanwhile, despite - rather than, presumably, because of - the Gordon Brown factor, the Labour Party has increased its Scottish dominance, and enjoyed some frankly impressive results, such as Jim Murphy decisively holding off a Conservative challenge in East Renfrewshire, Margaret Curran resoundingly recapturing Glasgow East from the SNP's John Mason, with a similar story in the Dunfermline & West Fife constituency won by Lib Dem Willie Rennie in the 2006 by-election.

By the same token, Labour comfortably saw off challenges from the SNP in Dundee West and Ochil & South Perthshire. Otherwise the SNP has stayed largely static, but they must be happy that their incumbents from 2005 consolidated their votes, with Stewart Hosie, Pete Wishart and Mike Weir comfortably seeing off challenges from Labour and the Tories, although Alex Salmond's forecast of 20 Westminster seats has long since looked like haggis pie in the sky.

And with David Mundell remaining the only Conservative MP north of the border, a David Cameron administration in Downing Street will no doubt appeal to the Nationalists as driving a wedge between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

However, Scottish voters have clearly anticipated the likelihood of the Tories in Westminster, and have obviously preferred Labour to fight their corner rather than the SNP, but whether a Tory government safely ensconced in Westminster and a regimen of 'Cameron cuts' might tip the balance towards the Nationalists is anyone's guess, at this stage at least.

Of course, with a Tory majority still unlikely at this stage, and talk of Gordon Brown trying to cling on with the help of the Lib Dems, the Westminster scenario is still very much up in the air.

But with Nick Clegg apparently ill-disposed towards the prime minister, a continued Brown premiership seems the unlikeliest of scenarios, but given Labour's showing in Scotland there's always the possibility of Gordon Brown for first minister in 2011 - after all, Alex Salmond has managed the MP, MSP and first minister posts simultaneously!

But if the X Factor-style leaders' debates have in the final analysis had little impact south of the border - indeed the Lib Dems look likely to loose seats overall - in Scotland the evidence suggests, if anything, that success on TV has been detrimental to the parties of Clegg and Cameron. Thus perhaps Alex Salmond should be thankful that his bid to join the political beauty parade was ultimately a failure, and even the Clegg bubble has well and truly deflated throughout the UK.

The essential dilemma

After a seemingly endless barrage of debates, speeches and articles during the weeks of the election campaign, today's front pages of Britain's best selling tabloids neatly encapsulate the dilemma facing the nation as the polls open this morning.

The Sun says:

"We face a hard road to rebuild the economy. It will be painful. Whoever leads Britain will need courage, skill, integrity and passion. But we also need someone like Mr Cameron who can see light at the end of the tunnel. Someone with energy and optimism who refuses to believe it always has to be as bad as this. Look around you at the depressing shambles Britain is in.[...] Mr Cameron has spent four years making the Conservatives a modern and caring party that embraces everyone. He has fought a modern and positive campaign."

The Mirror says:

"Don’t believe a word of Mr Cameron’s patter. He would take us back to the 1980s, an era scarred by poverty and public squalor, a decade when the world looked at Britain, shuddered and turned away. This election’s exposed how little the Conservatives have changed, the same old Tories defending the same old interests.[...] The Tories are itching to start cutting services.[...] The Conservative vision of Britain is not one we share, the so-called Big Society seems merely a marketing wheeze to mask the truth about the unfairness which still drives the Tory party machine."

There are, of course, many other factors to consider, not least the alternatives to the Conservative leader - particularly in Scotland - but in essence the Cameron question represents the essential choice facing the nation.

My vote, the John Higgins factor and 'selfhood'

A few weeks ago I was struck by the reception afforded to the following anonymous comment posted on SNP Tactical Voting, which many seemed to think was a hugely compelling clarion call for Scottish Nationalism. In essence the author was saying that many in Labour would prefer to preserve the Union at any cost - even if it meant a Tory Government in Westminster - because an independent Scotland would be to their personal detriment:

There are literally hundreds of people in the 'Scottish Labour movement' who are earning way above what their skills would otherwise allow thanks to the patronage of the Labour movement, whether they are union officials, councillors, MSPs, MPs, Lords or the countless number of appointees made by political allies over the years. If the UK falls apart, then all these people stand to lose substantially.

Although that is perhaps slightly crude as regards the motivation of members of the Scottish Labour movement, on the other hand there's no doubt a substantial element of truth in the statement.

However, in the context of the debate regarding Scottish independence, the author went on:

Real people will not feel moved to defend a given constitutional settlement because they themselves do not gain from it. However, the prospect of changing the constitution will attract support from all sorts of people who feel that a new settlement might benefit them.

Which in turn seems to be saying that nationalism might appeal to some people because they would benefit from it personally.

In a nutshell, then, some defend the Union because it benefits them, while others promote independence because that would benefit them.

To that extent the motivations of the two groups seem broadly similar - self-interest - although the latter perspective seems to be posited as in some way morally superior.

But to me there seems little to recommend either standpoint from a moral perspective - in essence, people vote for whatever they think will benefit them personally. And while the comparison above largely relates to the Unionist v Nationalist perspective, to a greater or lesser extent it could be applied to much of UK mainstream politics, which is essentially why I don't support any of the big four parties that will be presented to me on the ballot paper tomorrow.

Of course, all the above is a gross oversimplification of the motivations of both politicians and voters, but while some may make all the right noises - witness Gordon Brown this week, for example - and some may be delusionally well meaning rather than purely dishonest, from a personal perspective the cynicism has long overtaken the idealism that we surely all harbour, to a greater or lesser extent.

And while there's nothing particularly original or revealing about the above, there's nothing particularly original or revealing either about the recent allegations concerning snooker world champion John Higgins, particularly in the context of sport - and indeed society - as a whole.

But it's perhaps particularly apposite that the story broke immediately prior to this week's election, and an interesting comparison between John Higgins, bankers and politicians - and what they say about society as a whole - appeared in yesterday's Telegraph:

But sports stars aren't corrupted by their social superiors in London's SW1 and EC3 alone. The grasping nature of sport, politics and high finance are symptomatic of the same cultural corruption of what we might call selfhood. Our postmodern obsession with self has deep roots; you can trace its genesis in post-Enlightenment individualism and autonomy. Our world wars turned us against service and self-sacrifice. Post-war booms gave us a consumer economy in which we felt we could and should have whatever we want.[...] The human-rights industry handed out passports to desires, as well as winning freedoms from harm. And from all of this emerges the hegemony, from Parliament to the snooker hall, of looking after number one.

Of course - and to repeat what's been said above - not all politicians and parties are the same, but I've seen enough personally of the big four parties - particularly in terms of things like low level cronyism, incompetence, arrogance, complacency, dishonesty, delusion and hypocrisy which rarely receives much in the way of publicity - to know that if I vote for any of them tomorrow then it will be for reasons other than party loyalty or unbridled enthusiasm, and will certainly have little to do with high political principle.

SNP planning presumption?

Although unlikely to be affected by the controversial proposals for Dundee’s port area, I am nevertheless interested in the political and legal debate surrounding the issue.

To that extent, I was interested to read the recent letter from Dundee East MSP Shona Robison and, in particular, her expression of opinion attributed by the word “we.”

To whom does “we” refer?

Is it Ms Robison’s household of herself and husband Stewart Hosie, who has a good chance of being re-elected MP in the Dundee East Westminster constituency.

Or, in view of self-evident splits between Ms Robison and her staff on the issue, could she be expressing an opinion on behalf of her Dundee office generally?

Or does she refer to Dundee’s SNP group of politicians and councillors generally? If that is the case the city council’s planning decision has been pre-empted in breach of the relevant law.

Or is Ms Robison speaking as a member of the Scottish Government, which could presumably in due course call in the planning application, as it did with Donald Trump’s Aberdeenshire golf development? Or is she merely expressing her own opinion, in which case, is she using the royal we?

(Published as a letter in today's Courier.)

Westminster fiscal folly relevant to Holyrood fiscal autonomy

(Published as a letter in yesterday's Herald.)

In their response to Sir Tom Farmer’s letter advocating fiscal autonomy for Scotland, Professors Andrew Hughes Hallett and Drew Scott make all the right theoretical noises, including: “Fiscal autonomy maximises the accountability of the Scottish Parliament for the spending policies it annually agrees to.”

However, it’s surely folly to ignore the significant structural deficit amassed by the supposedly accountable Westminster Parliament even before the borrowing necessitated by the need to fight the financial crisis with a fiscal stimulus.

Moreover, since its inception, the Scottish Parliament has demonstrated itself more than willing to share in this fiscal profligacy and, like a teenager on a credit card-funded spending binge blaming the bank for extending their credit limit, for electoral purposes the present Scottish Government seems unwilling to shoulder its share of the responsibility, instead preferring the crude mantra of “London cuts”.

As for the ability of fiscal autonomy to provide counter-cyclical measures specific to Scotland, an off-balance sheet element of this could have been provided by infrastructure investment via the SNP’s Scottish Futures Trust, but this has proved itself a dog with a distinctly muted bark.

Also pertinent to the Scottish Government’s economic literacy and borrowing powers is the recent experience of eurozone country Greece. When questioned recently about the SNP’s long-term commitment to euro membership, Alex Salmond’s evasiveness was self-evident.

Expenses evasiveness

Last night's Scottish leaders' debate was by now fairly predictable stuff, but none of the politicians acquitted themselves particularly well over expenses, with host Glen Campbell going for the jugular and scoring quite a few points in the process.

First up was Alastair Carmichael for the Lib Dems, who apparently has two second home allowances because the constituency he represents includes the Orkney and Shetland Isles, and there are 'only' a couple of flights each day and three ferries per week between the two. Leaving that aside, the Scottish Sun says he defended himself by saying that he only gets an allowance for one of them.

Well that's big of him - presumably one is his main residence, and he'll get another allowance for a London property, so it's not much of a defence.

Next up was Alex Salmond, and he was quizzed on the fact that he claimed the maximum food allowances when Parliament was in recess. But, said Alex, he was cleared by the parliamentary authorities, thus he used the defence that it was within the rules, but with no reference whatsoever to the spirit of the rules, and no explanation either as to why these allowances were required.

Then it was on to his £65,000 severance payment for standing down from Parliament, which is intended for MPs who are leaving politics, and thus for those who would otherwise have to rely on a few directorships, consultancies, speaking engagements, book deals and other breadline activities, even assuming they couldn't return to their previous calling or have never in fact left it while serving as an MP. Except, of course, that Mr Salmond isn't standing down from politics, unless he's perhaps lost confidence for 2011 or has already decided to make way for Nicola.

Ah, but I'm making a donation to a charitable trust, said Alex, and it'll be a five figure one. Thus the first minister could still be trousering over £50,000, so not particularly convincing either.

Then it was the turn of Tory David Mundell, who claimed £3,000 on photographic equipment. Yes, that was all about providing the public with a photographic record of what he did and the photaes were on his website, and the public want to know what their MP is up to, blah, blah.

Labour's Jim Murphy faced questions on flipping his second home from London to East Renfrewshire. He claimed this was because as Scottish Secretary he spends most of his time in East Renfrewshire, and the allowance is intended for the property where the MP spends most of their time. But what the relevance of that is is unclear; for example, on that basis a lazy MP who spends more time than the average in his own constituency mansion would be unduly rewarded by claiming the second home allowance on his main property, and at greater expense to the taxpayer.

Surely the point of the system is to reimburse MPs for the additional expense of attending Parliament and attending to their duties, thus if they're spending more time at their main residence then they should be less of a burden on the taxpayer, rather than - presumably, in Jim Murphy's case - more of a burden?

And he also said that his East Renfrewshire residence is now his first home, whereas the impression given was that that was where he was claiming the second home allowance for, as the Sun seems to be saying.

So that's that cleared up then.

Dundee youth poll shocker!

While the SNP's policy of lowering the voting age has previously led to accusations of gerrymandering - it's thought that younger voters are more likely to be pro-independence - a recent Courier article should perhaps give the Nationalists food for thought.

An election hustings took place at Dundee High School, and pupils voted after hearing the Dundee West candidates present their case. Although the party allegiances of the candidates were not revealed, a question and answer session took place, and each candidate was given five minutes to present their policies, thus presumably the identity of the SNP candidate would have been obvious.

The results were:

John Barnett (Lib Dem) 52
Colin Stewart (Conservative) 30
Jim McGovern (Labour) 9
Jim Barrie (SNP) 4

Oops. And ironically the election itself is highly likely to be a two-horse race between the latter two, even if sources as diverse as uber-Unionist Jenny Hjul in the Sunday Times and Lib Dem councillor Fraser Macpherson seem to think that the Clegg effect is looking likely to fundamentally change the electoral landscape in Dundee.

However, before psephologists use these figures to redraw Scotland's electoral map, perhaps it should be borne in mind that Dundee High School is the city's nearest equivalent to Eton, and Mr McGovern and Mr Barrie are perhaps closer to the elder statesman bracket than the youth vote, to put is as nicely as possible.

While the Lib Dems in Dundee West seem to be successfully courting the next generation of voters, elsewhere in Courier country - the Perth and North Perthshire constituency - the party seems to be taking a different approach, and its candidate Peter Barrett has kicked up a bit of a stink because an election leaflet has been sent to his son Andrew, who won't be 18 until September (shock, horror).

But given the school hustings in Dundee and the Lib Dem policy of lowering the voting age to 16, it might be imagined that Mr Barrett would welcome this attempt to engage his son with politics, rather than having a slightly distressed looking Andrew posing for a photograph with the offending leaflet, as published in the Courier.

Ah, but this latest error by gaffe-prone Tory candidate Peter Lyburn has enabled Mr Barrett to complain to the returning officer and Electoral Commission because of perceived breaches of electoral law, and because the free mailshot has abused the free electoral mailing system, with the taxpayer picking up the tab.

However, it's not illegal to give campaign literature to ineligible voters and the mistake arose because Andrew Barrett is on the electoral register as turning 18 later this year.

Thus presumably this isn't the first time this error has arisen, but it wouldn't do to let common sense get in the way of a bit of headline grabbing and negative press for the opposition.