Fuelling zero price transparency

No doubt my recent post bemoaning Tesco's cynical price rise and marketing gimmick regarding its Cola Zero product has been the talk of the steamie. But for those in need of a reminder, the two litre product had been retailing at around 45p, while a hefty rise a few weeks ago had increased the price by 10p or so. And more recently this had rocketed to 78p, with even an accompanying three for two offer leaving the basic price well above what it had been until relatively recently.

Not to worry though, because there are other large supermarkets and competition is intense, what with price wars and all that malarkey. Indeed, Tesco's main rival locally is Asda, and the Scotsman reported thus earlier this week in the context of the price of fuel at the forecourts:

Andy Peake, Asda's petrol director, said: "Customers shouldn't have to buy into gimmicks and promotions to benefit from cheaper petrol - no-one should have to pay a premium on food to lower the cost of fuel. Once again, Asda is leading the way in saving drivers money and, in only 72 hours, we've taken up to 5p a litre off the cost of filling up."

Obviously Asda has a rival product to Tesco's Cola Zero and its "every little helps" philosophy (although how that squares with a near doubling of the price in a few weeks is anyone's guess), thus I thought I would give that a try, bolstered by the former's ethos on petrol pricing.

Surprise, surprise, Asda's cola product had also been ratcheted up to 78p, thus identical to the Tesco price, and to add insult to injury there was no three for two offer.

Hence hardly consistent with Asda's waffle regarding fuel prices, but of course it's quite normal for the large retailers to price match like this, with the supposed intense competition between these behemoths often being little more than a misleading marketing gimmick itself.

Naturally price matching like this might be indicative of a price-fixing cartel, but one theory is that in an 'oligopoly' dominated by a small number of big players there is little incentive to compete on price. A simple theory is that if one charged cheaper prices then the others would just follow to retain their customers, while if one charged higher prices then it would lose all its customers. Thus charging higher or lower prices than competitors is pointless, so the tendency is to price match.

Thus when Asda claims to be leading the way in saving its customers money it might just as well be claiming to be leading the way so that its competitors follow.

Political shift, legal status quo?

It was interesting to listen to Kenny MacAskill on BBC Radio Scotland following yesterday's interim report from the expert group set up to review the UK Supreme Court's relationship with the Scottish criminal justice system in the wake of the Cadder and Fraser cases.

The group, set up by Alex Salmond, is recommending that the 'asymmetry' between the Scottish and English systems be ended, thus access to the UKSC on human rights grounds would require leave from Scotland's criminal courts, as is currently the case in England. But politically it is axiomatic that the group is not proposing that UKSC be bypassed completely in favour of direct access to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Nevertheless, the language and tone adopted by both the first minister and justice secretary following the Fraser ruling seems to have been replaced by a more conciliatory approach, with Mr MacAskill eschewing talk of UKSC intervening "aggressively", "ambulance chasing lawyers" and the ridiculing of its judges' knowledge of Scots law in favour of an almost welcoming approach to the expert group's recommendations.

But the justice secretary conceded that even if the Cadder case had gone to the ECHR then the decision of that court on the human rights convention would have been substantively similar to that of UKSC.

Hence Mr Salmond's formation of the expert group managed to douse the political flames engulfing him and Mr MacAskill following their rather intemperate remarks, and its recommendations have enabled them to deflect attention from those earlier events and now strike a more diplomatic tone, but as was the case at the outset it's not entirely clear what substantive advantage would be conferred by the SNP's preferred solution of displacing UKSC's jurisdiction entirely with that of ECHR.

But yesterday Mr MacAskill reiterated the point that the considerably longer timeframe associated with an ECHR referral would allow the requisite changes to be made to Scotland's criminal justice system at a more considered pace as compared to the emergency legislation necessitated by the UKSC's Cadder ruling. As indeed - as he later made clear on Newsnicht - would be the case under a reformed relationship with UKSC, thus neither court could "open cell doors", using the phraseology employed earlier by Mr Salmond.

But how would this work in practice? Does this mean that Holyrood would make changes to Scots criminal law while waiting for an ECHR judgement, even when any changes required could obviously not be known until the judgement is delivered? Or if an ECHR judgement several years down the line found that a convicted criminal's human rights had been breached, could they remain in jail until whatever remedy Holyrood deemed necessary was enacted, with perhaps MSPs' lenghty summer holidays taking precedence over the rights of someone denied a fair trial?

Thus with the various different opinions from our learned friends on the practical effects of all this bringing to mind that old joke about umpteen economists proffering umpteen different perspectives on the same scenario, even if the procedural inconsistency between Scotland and England was ironed out it remains to be seen precisely what advantage would be conferred by ECHR over UKSC, other than placating the SNP's innate dislike of the UK as compared to their more favourable disposition towards all things European.

However, as well as Mr MacAskill's self-evidently more moderate approach, the Scotsman also reports thus: "A spokesman for the First Minister declined to say whether the Scottish Government "still hoped to see appeals heard in Strasbourg rather than London, saying the government would "take things a step at a time"."

Which arguably reflects the SNP's more accommodating stance towards the UK generally as regards the forthcoming referendum and what voters will consider palatable in respect of Scotland's future in the Union.

Alex hung Roseanna out to dry?

Contrasting the Westminster coalition's U-turn on prison sentences last week with the SNP Government's Holyrood volte-face on the anti-sectarianism legislation, Duncan Hamilton quotes Ken Clarke as saying that U-turns should always "be performed with purpose and panache when you have to do them".

The SNP supporting Scotland on Sunday columnist says that while the SNP's change in direction had purpose, it was devoid of panache: "Sending Roseanna Cunningham into the Chamber to defend, with her usual vigour, the necessity of immediate action before the start of the next football season, only to then have the First Minister perform a handbrake turn wasn't political management of the highest order."

But didn't the way it was handled limit any political damage to the First Minister, while leaving the hapless Ms Cunningham to carry the can?

After all, if the justice minister had made the announcement prior to FMQs that would have allowed the opposition leaders to maximise Alex Salmond's discomfiture on the eleventh hour U-turn. Likewise, if the First Minister had defended the legislative timetable at FMQs, then to subsequently announce the more measured approach would have provided an open goal for opponents and the press.

However, by announcing the change in direction under the FMQs' spotlight Mr Salmond managed to both sound statesmanlike and nonplus the opposition leaders. As the Peat Worrier says: "It also made for a bizarre edition of FMQs, with Iain Gray, Annabel Goldie and Willie Rennie left flailing, totally wrong-footed - their raft of critical questions about the detail of the Bill suddenly losing their political vitality."

Or as Alan Cochrane says in the Telegraph, it was a "masterful piece of politicking by the First Minister".

Thus from the perspective of Ken Clarke's statement, the SNP's U-turn was surely performed with purpose and panache, at least from Mr Salmond's perspective, if not the SNP Government as a whole, and regarding Roseanna Cunningham in particular. The precise timing of and venue for the announcement allowed the First Minster to maximise his political advantage while at the same time limiting any damage.

But in any case Duncan Hamilton says last week's events at Holyrood demonstrated the First Minister's adherence to the 'Prestonfield principle', thus "pledging a consensual, respectful and intelligent approach to governing".

Except, of course, in relation to his own minister. As Cochers says: "All serious politicians have only one answer to the question: "What are junior ministers for, if you can't let them down?""

In defence of Indygal's defensiveness on defence

It's about time the politicians and media stopped giving completely disproportionate attention to by-elections. For a start, how about banning past and present elected members of either parliament from visiting the constituency? Or stopping the likes of STV's Politics Noo from devoting a whole programme to the candidates interrogating each other?

Of course, it won't happen, because the status quo suits all concerned, and the public can largely ignore the whole thing and carry on regardless.

Anyway, Thursday night's offering on the Inverclyde by-election was always one to watch in bed, if only because I usually watch the programme on STV+1 just before midnight so I can also see if there's anything interesting on Newsnicht earlier, but mainly because the bedclothes would be useful for hiding under at the inevitably cringeworthy moments, and I'm not just talking about the usual 'fighting for jobs, pensioners and hard-working families' soundbites.

However, I felt a bit sorry for the SNP's Anne McLaughlin - Indygal in the MacBlogosphere - who couldn't really be blamed for her inability to answer presenter Bernard Ponsonby's fairly straightforward questions on defence in an independent Scotland.

After all, despite defence being a reserved matter and the by-election in question being for a Westminster constituency, and despite one of the SNP's constant campaign themes being the retention of defence jobs in Scotland, and despite the SNP's several decade raison d'être being an independent Scotland, and despite four years at the Holyrood helm thinking about an independence referendum, and despite the promise of a referendum during the party's second Holyrood term, the SNP bigwigs clearly don't have much of a clue about how an independent Scotland would be defended.

Indeed, such is the SNP's lack of clarity about what an independent Scotland would look like, it's of course still not entirely clear whether an independent Scotland's defence capability would be independent at all.

Thus poor old Anne was left to carry the can and eventually revert to the "whatever Scotland needs" non-response - redolent of Nicola Sturgeon's "best interests of Scotland" reply on the sterling/euro question - but at least she was otherwise reasonably honest: she didnae ken!

But fortunately Bernard Ponsonby had the good sense not to utter the n-word in the defence context, since that would surely have precipitated an outpouring of righteous indignation from the SNP candidate.

Instead that was reserved primarily for the possibility of compulsory redundancies at Labour-run Inverclyde Council.

But what about SNP-controlled Fife, led by Peter Grant? Of course, once upon a time Mr Grant also had high hopes in a by-election as well...

Zero transparency

About a year ago I developed a bit of a thing for extra mature cheddar on toast washed down by low calorie coke, in fact a whole two litres of the stuff. And as regards the latter I quite liked Tesco's Cola Zero, which retailed at forty-something pence, so was a good deal.

Of course, shoppers will have noticed some huge price increases in recent months, and indeed some of Tesco's pricing is bizarre at the best of times, so it often pays to pay close attention. Thus my Cola Zero seemed to be edging up in price by a penny or so all too often, and then a few weeks ago it suddenly rocketed to something like 56p, hence a rise of around 20%.

Which put me off buying it slightly, particularly as two litres of coke in half an hour or so is perhaps excessive for someone weighing nine stone-something - OK, all that cheese on toast has made me gain a few pounds and I'm now over ten stone - and it's certainly not advisable if you won't have access to toilet facilities for the next few hours.

Nevertheless, in true Tesco style the 20% price rise was soon followed by a 'buy two, get one free' offer, thus it was game on again for the bulging bladder!

Wait, though. The three for two offer detracted attention from yet another price rise - a further 40% had been added to the basic price, hence a rise from 56p to 78p! Thus even with the stupendous mega bargain deal the price was still significantly higher than it was a year or so ago.

Another one I noticed recently was the price of Tesco's Value range lavy roll* (OK, I'm not fussy, and my budget is limited). The price of a four-pack seemed to rocket a few months ago, resulting in a pack price of £1.20, which if my recollection of the previous price is correct means that it had more or less doubled.

Not to worry, though, because in true Tesco style the twelve-packs weren't much dearer, so it was a bit of a no-brainer - twelve rolls rather than four for little more cost.

However, one day subsequently I was sitting in a, er, contemplative environment and noticed that the hole through the middle of the roll seemed to have increased in size significantly. So I checked the packaging and it transpired that the twelve-pack rolls comprised only 200 sheets, as compared to 400 sheets in the four-pack rolls.

Thus while the packs gave the impression of comparing the price of four rolls with twelve, in actual fact the four rolls were effectively comparable with six in the bigger pack. So while buying the bigger pack seemed significantly better value, the reality was that the price per, ahem, wipe was largely similar.

The moral of all this of course being that the figures being bandied about in relation to the Edinburgh trams fiasco should be taken with a very large pinch of salt. Or several pints of coke.

Marketing gimmicks and political spin. Not much difference, just a change of environment.

*Officially 'toilet tissue', terminology which I doubt the average purchaser of the Value range uses much.

A Morrissey gig and that sectarianism crackdown

No, this post isn't about long-standing allegations that Morrisey is racist, or his unfortunate association with English nationalism; let's not go there. Instead it's partly about my experience at last week's Moz gig at Perth's Concert Hall, the first in his 2011 tour.

Sat up in the balcony I extracted my elderly low-tech mobile phone to take a couple of photos, which seems to be accepted practice at such events these days. Although such photos that I've taken in the past are usually blurred and generally of poor quality, I knew that if I took a few then the camera's autofocus would get it right once or twice, despite its difficulty in doing so in such poor light scenarios.

But before I'd managed to take more than a couple a member of staff had put a halt to my endeavours. Which was doubly annoying because there were plenty of other people taking photos and videos unhindered, and many of the latter can be found on YouTube. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few people managed to video the whole gig, and using equipment self-evidently far more sophisticated than my own.

I daresay others were also stopped from recording the event, but there was certainly significantly more evidence of people flouting the ban - assuming one actually existed - than of staff stopping them.

So why was I 'persecuted' in this way, to use the language often deployed by those subject to selective or arbitrary law enforcement.

Of course, in the wider context of law enforcement such behaviour can be rationalised in several different ways. For example, political posturing; to provide a more general deterrent; the 'revenue raising' argument when a fine is levied; a box-ticking exercise; the 'easy target' scenario; or perhaps arbitrary enforcement based on something like racism (or, as a corollary, avoiding enforcement against someone who might 'play the race card'). Or perhaps the individual or agency performing the enforcement is untypically zealous - the 'little Hitler'-style scenario - or poor communication means that they lack awareness of the rules being policed or established enforcement practice.

Hence at Perth's Concert Hall there was clearly no revenue raising rationale and there didn't seem to be much in the way of a general deterrent. Thus perhaps sat near the end of the aisle I was an easy target, while those near to the stage in the standing area downstairs - where there was clearly plenty of video recording going on - were a more difficult proposition as regards being brought to book. Perhaps the member of staff was ignorant of the rules and enforcement practice, had an attitude problem or just didn't like the cut of my jib.

All of which brings to mind the Government's crackdown on sectarianism, and in particular the much-maligned bill currently making its way through the Holyrood legislative process at a pace that by the usual standards of these things seems positively frenetic.

The learned Peat Worrier has expressed his extreme legal and political scepticism on the proposed law over several posts, an excoriative Alex Massie examines the bill in the context of sectarian sing-songs, while Ideas of Civilisation highlights the unseemly political haste regarding the process. Last week academic Stuart Waiton (no misspelt relation!) lambasted the proposals from a libertarian perspective, while yesterday's Scotsman lead story examined the possibility that singing God Save the Queen or Flower of Scotland could come within the ambit of the proposed offence of offensive sectarian behavior (rather than offending against good taste!). Kenneth Roy of the Scottish Review represents a rare voice among the commentariat in actually supporting the measure.

But the political context of the bill and the obvious difficulties regarding definition and enforcement perhaps suggests that the legislation is more about kneejerk political posturing and subsequent gesture policing as a reaction to a few adverse newspaper headlines during a particular period rather than genuinely attempting to address the problem. Indeed, that's not to say that the politicians aren't genuine in their intent - for example, thinking that the law per se would provide sufficient deterrent without much enforcement required (like the smoking ban in pubs, say) - but the obvious lack of clarity about how the new law would be enforced in practice perhaps demonstrates that it mightn't be enforced much at all.

And as regards any enforcement per se it could well be largely similar to the Morrissey scenario, thus while most carry on with their sectarian misbehaviour regardless, one or two individuals will be picked on to prove some kind of political/policing point and will thus feel persecuted and resentful. In effect, then, the legislation could serve little useful purpose other than to make the authorities look as if they're doing something - anything - and by the same token they will subsequently do their best to portray the introduction of the measure as a resounding success.

Also interesting is to assume that ongoing law enforcement difficulties in this regard could be addressed by the new law, and to compare this to the SNP's approach to another - and not unrelated - of Scotland's major problems, namely that of alcohol abuse and related crime.

Thus in the latter case the approach is not to deal with enforcement difficulties regarding longstanding laws, but instead to take an indirect approach to the problem by way of minimum pricing for alcohol.

In the context of football-related sectarianism the equivalent approach might be to raise the gate prices of Old Firm matches or the level of Sky Sports subscriptions. Which might alleviate the problem of sectarianism slightly - indeed perhaps more so than the proposed law would in practice - but in the wider context of the problem would be next to useless.

And indeed whenever the words crackdown or clampdown are associated with a particular issue it often alludes to years of failure to address a problem and then a portrayal that the powers that be are doing everyone a favour by riding to the rescue, only for things to revert to normal in short order. Until the next crackdown, that is.

But of course there's no end to posturing and gestures in politics.

(The Morrissey photo - not that you can tell! - represents the best of my efforts before I was rudely interrupted. Incidentally, I last saw him live as frontman of The Smiths in Dundee the best part of 30 years ago. Which thought makes me feel very old! And no comments please suggesting a link between Morrissey and this blog's 'miserablism', as Gerry Hassan might term it!)

The new Scotland?

Somehow the media managed to find out about Donald Trump's low-profile visit yesterday to his under construction "best golf course in the world", hence there's a fair bit of stuff about it in today's newspapers. But from the purely political perspective it was interesting to hear Mr Trump's remarks on last night's STV News:

We are really honoured by Alex Salmond...what he's done...just to make sure that Trump and other people come to this country, and that means jobs and it means economic development, so Alex has been fantastic and Sean Connery came out in favour early on when it wasn't in vogue, and I will always appreciate Sean, he's a great man, he's a great guy.

Gosh, wasn't the first minister supposed to have nothing to do with the planning decision, and didn't he get into trouble over suggestions of undue influence?

Of course, Mr Salmond countered these claims at the time by saying that he was only acting in his capacity as an MSP showing an interest in a matter of importance in his constituency. But Mr Trump's remarks certainly seem to suggest that his role in the granting of planning permission to build a slice of the USA in Scotland was more significant than conceded at the time.

On the other hand, 'The Donald' does seem to have a propensity to haver at times, thus also saying in the interview that the "small controversy with literally a couple of people" had helped publicise his venture, and that "the people of Aberdeen, the people of Scotland love it". Well perhaps those objecting to Trumpland are disproportionately vocal as compared to their actual strength, and the significant numbers supporting the project - if not Donald Trump per se - are maybe more inclined to keep their heads down, but Mr Trump's statement certainly exaggerates the support while understating the opposition.

But - and continuing yesterday's theme of money, power and influence in Scottish politics - it's interesting to note the juxtaposition of the first minister with Donald Trump, and with SNP supporter Sir Sean Connery thrown into the mix for good measure. Thus the wealthy tax exile and knight bachelor is here Trumped by the filthy rich rapacious capitalist American.

And even more interesting is that Mr Trump wants Sir Sean and Mr Salmond to open his shiny new golf course next year, which would neatly crystallise the juxtaposition.

Which would in turn either neatly represent the new Scotland that the first minister wants to portray and thus help pave the way to winning that independence referendum, or would represent a PR disaster for Mr Salmond and the SNP.

Thus something of a Souter-esque dilemma for the Nationalists, and indeed Telegraph readers might be forgiving for thinking that the three online articles centred around yesterday's visit are being used as a stick to beat the first minister, even though Mr Salmond's name is only mentioned once.

Or perhaps yours truly is just imagining too many conspiracy theories!

He who pays the piper...

Pro-independence columnist Duncan Hamilton recently invoked the words of Burns regarding spending in the forthcoming referendum campaign. Recalling 1707, the bard wrote that many were "bought and sold for English gold". Mr Hamilton says "the Scottish Government seem determined it won't happen again", comparing Burns' words to the claim that "apparently a raft of southern donors will dig deep to save the Union".

Thus Mr Hamilton cites the Scottish Government's proposals from the last parliament which make it plain that spending will be closely regulated by a new and independent body called the Scottish Electoral Commission*.

But this seems a slightly hypocritical point to make in view of the SNP's reliance on wealthy donors during both the 2007 and 2011 Holyrood campaigns, with the size of the Nationalist war chest - and consequent gloss and glamour - being widely regarded as instrumental to the party's electoral success.

Thus there clearly seems to be a different approach to buying democracy in a parliamentary election as compared to a referendum on independence. So why would the SNP be willing to risk opprobrium by taking the likes of Brian Souter's shilling in the Holyrood context in view of his bigo..er, socially conservative views - which seem at odds with concepts like civic nationalism and inclusiveness - while presumably being unwilling to accept similar largesse to campaign for a 'yes' vote on independence?

Well perhaps Mr Souter's recent acceptance of a knighthood from our colonial masters in London shows which way the wind is blowing as regards his contribution to a campaign for Scottish independence. And of course some of those who provided support previously in the hope of an SNP administration in Edinburgh may be less willing to contribute to the break up of the Union.

Thus since the Holyrood campaigns indicate that the SNP is no more principled on the matter of campaign donations than any of the other major parties, perhaps the proposal to control spending in the referendum context is simply an opportunistic recognition that in this particular contest the SNP's opponents are likely to amass a bigger war chest.

However, an article in this morning's Scotsman says the Tories are complaining that the proposed Scottish Referendum Commission* will "hardly inspire confidence" because it will be monitoring spending rather than the UK's established Electoral Commission. Annabel Goldie echoes Duncan Hamilton's invocation of Burns, but instead cites Kenny MacAskill's recent warning to the UK's Supreme Court that "he who pays the piper calls the tune".

But this is said in the context of news that the late makar Edwin Morgan has bequeathed almost £1 million to the SNP, and the Scotsman's article suggests this is "expected to be the first of many large donations coming the party's way as it gears up for the referendum".

So if the SNP is going to be able to amass a significant referendum war chest anyway, then what precisely would the new commission be controlling? If it's the level of expenditure, then presumably this will just be set at the SNP's desired amount to ensure the Unionists don't exceed it.

On the other hand, Duncan Hamilton's reference to Burns' "English gold" and to the origin of donations points to something other than the amount of expenditure.

Thus perhaps the intention is that donations from the rest of the UK will be disallowed, but those from a so-called homophobe, subsidy-junkie cronies, tax exiles and recipients of the awards and baubles from the residue of the British Empire will be OK.

Or if the donations keep rolling in then perhaps the SNP won't regard the regulation of expenditure as quite so important after all.

*The nomenclature in the two articles is slightly different, but presumably they're talking about the same thing.

A question of balance

(Published as a letter in today's Scotsman)

Finance secretary John Swinney (Letters, 15 June) states that his SNP administration has "run a balanced budget every single year". But the Scottish Government can't borrow money and thus has to balance the budget, so would it have mattered which party or coalition formed the administration?

And Mr Swinney wants his government to have borrowing powers, thus he's making a virtue of balanced budget necessity when he actually wants to put Scotland into debt.

Indeed, Mr Swinney was more than happy to indulge in the spending spree that contributed to what he calls "Westminster's economic incompetence in racking up record debt", and of course he'd have spent even more given the chance.

I can't really recall the SNP complaining about Westminster's ballooning debt when Holyrood was spending the money.

Debt delusion

Reacting to yesterday's Scotsman story that an Institute of Economic Affairs report had estimated Scotland's post-independence share of UK debt at £110 billion - putting it on a par with Greece and Portugal - Margo MacDonald today claims that this is the "best argument for independence" and the sum would be "worth the end of the UK". Says the independent MSP: "The IEA is saying that we would have an economy like Portugal or Greece, while I would point out that it's the British government that has been running Scotland's economy and the state they've got it into is the best argument for independence there is."

Funny that it's the SNP who take the credit for running Scotland's economy when it's good news, but the British Government takes the blame when it's bad. Thus a bit like the Andy Murray 'British when winning, Scottish when losing' thing in reverse.

Anyway, the point regarding the UK's appalling debt levels - and now for the technical bit - is that it's all down to government spending in excess of government revenues. And Scotland has had its fair share of this largesse, hence the doubling in public spending since Holyrood's inception. And of course the SNP supported this and indeed wanted more, as broken manifesto spending promises from 2007 indicated. And now they shift the blame when the bills have to be paid.

But that's why an independent Scotland would have to shoulder its fair share of the UK's national debt. And in the meantime the SNP Government is been granted borrowing powers by Westminster. Naturally, Alex Salmond and Co want more. Debt, that is, although it's normally dressed up as 'borrowing for investment', or suchlike.

So Margo acknowledges the problem of Scotland's share of UK debt, but wholly blames the latter, while Scotland is taking on as much additional new debt as it can.

Of course, she predictably points out how well off Scotland would have been with all the North Sea oil revenues, but 300 years of post-Union hindsight is a wonderful thing, and now we're moving from the cash cow of oil to subsidy hungry renewables, or are the SNP just making a virtue of dwindling oil reserves necessity on this issue?

Equally, there's nothing wrong with government borrowing during a recession with a view to paying off the debt in better times, but something just doesn't add up with the SNP's low tax/high spend vision for Scotland.

Of course, it was Gordon Brown who demonstrated the folly of such a delusional strategy, but even despite the legacy of this the UK still has a triple-A credit rating. On the other hand, Ireland's borrowings cost several times more than the UK's to service, and of course it had to call in the EU and IMF when its debt became unmanageable.

The danger for Scotland is perhaps that Alex Salmond still thinks of Ireland as being part of the arc of prosperity.

Scotland trumps principles

Amidst the lack of both realism and economic rigour surrounding the SNP's proposal for a lower corporation tax rate to attract investment to Scotland, the supposed progressives in the Nationalist movement seem to have conveniently forgotten the stock response to such measures, namely that it's done by business-oriented parties on behalf of their corporate cronies. Thus if George Osborne had been proposing such a measure UK-wide you can imagine the reaction from many supporters of Scottish independence.

Indeed, the same could be said about SNP support for the oil industry and Alex Salmond's recent proposal that oil companies should be guaranteed a specified rate of return on their investment, which seems to be a convoluted way of saying that they would be guaranteed a profit. Thus all very moral hazard-ish, but certainly sounds better for public consumption than underwriting their profits. But at least this demonstrates the paradoxical air about the SNP wanting to lead the world in the renewables revolution while oil companies are encouraged to extract every last marginal drop of the dirty black stuff from the North Sea.

But in any case the general point was made by opposition MSP Neil Findlay at the most recent FMQs, when he reminded the first minister of the time when as a firebrand new MP 23 years ago he branded the then Tory chancellor Nigel Lawson's budget speech pledge to reduce the rate of corporation tax an "obscenity", leading to Alex Salmond's suspension from the House of Commons.

Mr Salmond refuted this, claiming he was referring to something else, but the point of principle was nevertheless well made by Mr Findlay. But irrespective of what actually happened in the Commons all those years ago, the air of hypocrisy surrounding all this was neatly demonstrated in the related question by new SNP MSP John Mason, who asked: "Does [the first minister] agree with Jim McColl [OBE] of Clyde Blowers Capital, whose company works around the world in many taxation systems and who says it has no problems with a reduced rate of corporation tax in Scotland?"

In fact I've paraphrased this slightly and Mr Mason actually said that Clyde Blowers Capital has "no problem operating in different tax systems", which is about as useful as asking whether a business or individual would like to pay a lower rate of tax, but of course spinning us a different - and less obviously self-serving - line.

Indeed, as a Chartered Accountant Mr Mason will also be more than aware that the SNP-supporting Jim McColl OBE is resident in Monaco for tax purposes, thus clearly has no problem "operating in different tax systems", the rationale of course being to maximise his personal wealth, thus underlining the true nature of Mr Mason's question.

And indeed Mr McColl is also an OBE (did I mention that?) which it should be recalled stands for Order of the British Empire, thus it's good to know that endorsement of the remnants of imperialism is still alive and well in the Scottish Nationalist ranks. Which of course we all knew already à la Sir Sean Connery, who scurried off abroad rather than pay tax here and fight for his principles, unlike Iain Gray (say).

All of which may hardly seem worth mentioning, but of course the big news in imperial Scotland this weekend is that SNP sugar daddy Brian Souter has been knighted for his services to the paradoxical position of being a predatory capitalist and subsidy junkie at the same time. Or something like that.

But all this merely underlines that the transformation of Scotland supposedly ushered in by last month's SNP victory at Holyrood is a mere fantasy, as indeed the Scottish Parliament itself has arguably demonstrated since its inception a dozen or so years ago.

And that prominent Nationalists are still prepared to accept Her Majesty the Queen's titles and baubles when it suits merely underlines that Scotland will always be a mini-me version of Westminster, independent or not, and that's even before considering the issue of corporate cronies and the like.

Thus when Scotland and nationalism is at stake then clearly this trumps any notion of ideals or principles. And speaking of Trumps....

Mandate for what?

Politicians don't half haver some nonsense at times, and an exemplar of this was provided by the first minster last week regarding his London trip to demand more Scottish Government powers be devolved from Westminster. The Scotsman reported thus:

At the JMC meeting yesterday, Mr Salmond made it clear to the Prime Minister that the SNP had "an overwhelming mandate" from the Scottish Parliament election, having won a majority for its six demands to be included in the Scotland Bill.

He said: "I put forward the six points as improvements and enhancements to the Scotland Bill. These are not just SNP points, they are not even just Scottish Parliament points, but the view of the people of Scotland."

An "overwhelming mandate"? Well less than one in four of the electorate endorsed the SNP last month, and as pointed out here there are good reasons to suggest that many voted for Mr Salmond's party for negative rather than positive reasons.

But having endorsed the SNP, what precisely were voters providing a mandate for? No doubt Mr Salmond's six demands were detailed somewhere during the campaign, but it's surely stretching credulity to suggest that this was the "view of the people of Scotland". It seems unlikely that, if asked why they endorsed the SNP, the average voter would answer something along the lines of: "Inter alia, I'd like to see corporation tax and excise duty devolved to Holyrood, along with broadcasting powers. Oh aye, a guaranteed greater role for Scottish ministers in EU discussions as well, and the Crown Estates revenue is a 'tartan line' issue. And borrowing powers would be braw as well, ken?"

Dinnae think so somehow. I certainly can't really recall these issues being addressed during the campaign, and while far from being an expert I probably pay more attention to these things than the vast majority of the "people of Scotland".

And this election leaflet (for example) probably contains many more pledges than the average SNP voter could articulate as a voting rationale, but there's certainly no mention of any of Mr Salmond's six demands.

Similarly, in a Scotsman opinion piece the SNP's George Kerevan says: "But sensible folk do accept that such an overwhelming mandate indicates the Scottish electorate wants more powers transferred to Holyrood."

Again the characterisation of an "overwhelming mandate" is questionable, but Mr Kerevan rightly points out that opinion polls suggest a clear majority want more powers devolved.

However, the hugely sophisticated Scottish electorate will be aware that the devolution of powers to Holyrood is for Westminster to decide, and at the last vote for the latter parliament the SNP polled how much compared to the Calman parties?

Thus presumably the real "overwhelming mandate" for the transfer of more powers to Holyrood is for the Calman proposals as per the Scotland Bill currently being considered by Westminster.

But at least Mr Kerevan has the grace to conclude: "The SNP won an overwhelming victory in the Scottish Parliament elections. [...] I'm happy to accept it was not a direct vote for the break-up of the UK."

But one Scottish blogger, in relation to the stushie on the independence referendum, says: "A great and legitimate expectancy has been created by the mandate given to the nationalists on May 6th 2011". And in a slightly sinister tone talks about India, Kenya, Rhodesia and Ireland, and the more recent Middle East "revolution", in the context of Unionists "playing with fire" as regards "overplaying their hand" and being "deliberately provocative" in opposing independence.

Of course, this has to be seen in the light of only around 23% of Scots voting SNP for the devolved government, and it wouldn't be surprising if only two thirds of these actually support independence. Thus this "great and legitimate expectancy", seemingly justifying some sort of direct action if thwarted, is based on the support of perhaps 16% of the electorate. And of those, how many share the, er, passion on independence that perhaps explains (if not excuses) this decidedly radical perspective? Relative to the electorate as a whole, little more than a small coterie, I suspect.

Indeed, and apropos yesterday's post about the possibility of a 'third way' option on the ballot paper which would preserve the Union, Mr Kerevan says: "[The Unionist parties] will seek to keep the question limited to "For" or "Against", ruling out a confederal third option of fiscal autonomy within the Union. It will be the old, "imperial" default position of keeping power at the centre."

It seems to be this kind of Unionist spoiling tact that the good blogger thinks could lead to some kind of "Scots summer". Ironically, however, the possibility of the third option suggested by Mr Kerevan - which would very probably preserve the Union - could well tip our blogger over the edge.

Paradoxically, therefore, he could well prefer the kind of simple question on retaining the UK apparently being considered by David Cameron, rather than the triple-option that Mr Salmond and Mr Kerevan seem to be suggesting.

Salmond the Union's saviour?

One (baby) elephant in the room during the most recent days of discussion on that referendum was the omission of any mention of a third option on the ballot paper, since that alternative was included when the SNP Government published its Bill during the last parliament. The most recent debate has generally assumed a simple choice between the status quo and independence, with the big unknown being precisely what the latter would amount to.

But today's Scotsman lead story is highlighting the possibility/probability of a third option again, this based on comments made yesterday by Alex Salmond. Thus Scots could chose to lead the country towards either independence-lite or the full monty. And according to Tom Peterkin's article. the middle way would represent something a bit closer to the status quo than my understanding of what independence-lite amounted to:

However, most analysts agreed that independence-lite would be a settlement similar to what used to be known as Home Rule, with Scotland remaining in the Union yet having power over domestic affairs including the vast majority of tax-raising powers and benefits. Policies such as defence and foreign affairs would remain with Westminster.

Which seems closer to my perception of full fiscal autonomy or devo-max than independence-lite, but it's not clear from the article whether this interpretation is based on Mr Salmond's remarks, or merely what the analysts think it will amount to. On the other hand, if the third option is to be proffered as an alternative to full independence then presumably it would have to be demonstrably distinct from it, hence pushing the option towards FFA or devo-max.

Of course, rebranding these latter two options as independence-lite would allow Mr Salmond to continue to associate himself with the i-word. But while this third way would certainly make a referendum more winnable for the SNP (in view of the established desire of the Scottish electorate for more Holyrood powers), on the other hand it would probably be detrimental to support for the full independence option.

Which would be consistent with Mr Salmond's gradualist agenda, albeit that assuming it paved the road to full independence this presumably would only happen once the first minster had relinquished control of his party.

But this interpretation of independence-lite would see the Union remain intact, thus however Mr Salmond dressed it up there would be a considerable element of discontent within the Nationalist movement.

Thus his essential problem is a delicate balancing act between the public and the fundamentalists. He has to water down independence sufficiently to attract public support, while if he takes this too far then he could split the hardcore Nationalist movement, which would in turn not impress the electorate more generally. Hence in trying to win the public round in one way, he could end up alienating them in another.

Meanwhile, in this regard it's interesting that the Telegraph reports that David Cameron is considering the possibility of a more straightforward Westminster-organised referendum if Mr Salmond "tries to confuse voters with a complex series of choices", and the prime minister's move is presumably what the first minister refers to as an "imperial seizing of questions" in the Scotsman.

Which indeed might explain why Mr Salmond has highlighted the possibility of three options on the ballot paper: perhaps he thinks that if Mr Cameron was goaded into organising a referendum then that would play into pro-independence hands.

Of course, if the issue continues to dominate the agenda in the way it has in the last couple of weeks then the public could perhaps start to get a bit fed up with it all - after all, this wasn't really what the SNP's mandate was all about, despite what many Nationalists think - and the whole thing could backfire on Mr Salmond and his party.

This is all getting very messy, but at least things should become a bit clearer in, oh, five years time perhaps?

Maybes aye, maybes naw...

While the real world seems as usual to have largely carried on regardless, the Scottish body politic has been a bit exercised this week by the question of whether there should be one or two independence referendums.

Let's ignore the constitutional and legal niceties. If the "people of Scotland" want independence, independence it should be. But how to get there?

Well that's more about politics than law, and unfortunately this week's debate has been largely about each side jostling for political and strategic advantage as regards winning the referendum, as opposed to being straight with the voters, say. And as usual that's irrespective of whatever selfless motives they attempt to portray their stance as being about.

Oh aye, what was the question again? Yes, it was about whether there should be two referendums on Scottish independence. But that question depends on the question, the latter being the question in the first referendum.

Thus if it's clear, unambiguous and free from uncertainty, then perhaps there's no real need for a second question. But if it isn't, then for the sake of clarity, transparency and fairness, a second vote should be considered, whether via Holyrood or Westminster.

Thus this proposal in a draft referendum Bill seems to do a reasonable job of fitting the bill as regards clarity:

I AGREE/DISAGREE that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state.

Of course, some might argue that the word 'independent' is not value-free, and perhaps prefer instead something more neutral like 'tear the glorious United Kingdom asunder in an economically illiterate, culturally divisive and socially disastrous manner', but as a whole the question isn't bad.

However, the caveat is perhaps that, as recent debate demonstrates, what precisely is meant by independence isn't entirely clear, and even from the Nationalist perspective it can mean fundamentally different things, thus the efficacy of the question as a whole - and thus whether a second plebiscite would be required - would depend on the extent to which the concept of independence was adequately defined, and the degree to which this would be acceptable to the Westminster government in subsequent secession negotiations.

On the other hand, consider this other draft question from the published Bill:

The Scottish Government proposes that, in addition to the extension of the powers and responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament set out in Proposal 1 [either Calman or devo max], the Parliament's powers should also be extended to enable independence to be achieved.

And while I don't really like to self-quote lest it seems a bit too self-regarding, here I'll make an exception since I can't really be bothered rehashing the argument, which would be a bit pointless anyway:

[The draft question] could certainly be construed as asking whether additional power should be sought as some sort of stepping stone to independence rather than as a question about independence per se.

...the question also twice refers to the extension of powers to the Scottish Parliament, and could this repetition, combined with a conclusion to the question which seems to stop short of asking about full independence, be worded to exploit the established desire of the Scottish people for more powers short of separation?

Thus as a whole the question, which purports to be about independence, could in fact be intended to downplay the concept and to that extent encourage the more sceptical to vote for it?

Or, in extremis, could the word independence perhaps not appear on the ballot paper at all, as Michael Portillo suggested, hence exacerbating the ambiguity of the whole thing?

Either way, a question along the lines of the second draft above would at the very least suggest the necessity of a second referendum. For example, imagine the SNP win a first vote with the question of EU membership unclear (it's been suggested that new member states have to join the eurozone, but with the SNP's position on the euro uncertain, Scotland's status as a new member unclear and indeed the future of the whole single currency project questionable...), and Alex Salmond significantly dilutes the idea of independence and negotiates a settlement prima facie detrimental to Scotland (regarding share of oil reserves and the national debt, for example) merely to secure agreement and hence his legacy, then a second vote on a more certain future might just be a good idea.

That's it all cut and dried then, so could someone please wake me up once it's all over?

The independence question and a democratic deficit

One manifestation of the often lamentable state of our democracy is the attempts by the parties to manipulate the ballot paper, as argued here in relation to the SNP's 'Alex Salmond for First Minister' slogan.

Thus an article in this morning's Scotsman about the forthcoming [insert description as appropriate] referendum provides some indication as to the likely stushie surrounding what will be on the ballot paper. Of course, the point is that a depressingly significant amount of people will be influenced to vote one way or the other by what precisely they are presented with in the polling booth, never mind the substantive arguments that will be repeated almost ad infinitum and ad nauseum between now and [whenever].

Thus it's not only slightly concerning that many people will enter the polling booth not having made their mind up on the issue, but that they might be influenced merely by what's on the ballot paper is more worrying still. But of course it's this superficial approach to politics - often characterised by soundbites, manifesto gloss and photo opportunities, for example - which seemed to give the SNP the edge a month ago in the Holyrood poll. And it's not that the SNP are the only party to indulge in this kind of thing, it's just that they seemed to be better at it than the rest of them.

Anyway, the main focus of today's article is (apart from the selection of MP Angus Roberston to lead the SNP's campaign) who should get to ask the 'yes' question, the reasoning being that whichever side of the Unionist/Nationalist divide gets to ask the voters to answer the relevant question in the affirmative enjoys an inbuilt advantage; presumably it's similar psychology to the SNP's 'positivity' which was claimed to be instrumental to its decisive victory last month.

The Tories are suggesting the eminently sensible - and fair to both sides - option of allowing both sides to ask a 'yes' question, but in other respects they seem to be missing the point a bit. Thus the Scotsman reports:

Scottish Conservative leader Annabel Goldie is known to be sympathetic towards a question that could simply see Scots tick a box for "yes to remain in the union" or "yes to split from the UK".

A Conservative Party spokesman said yesterday: "We're floating the idea why can't you just put your cross against the box of the statement you support: Yes, I wish to remain part of Britain, or Yes, I wish to become independent of Britain."

Spot the contradiction? Ignoring the union/UK/Britain nuances, the, um, pro-independence 'yes' attributed to Annabel Goldie refers to a 'split from the UK', while her party's spokesman portrays the question as Scotland becoming 'independent of Britain'.

Of course, those who know about such things always seem to tell us that - and ignoring the yes/no aspect - a question referring to negative words such as 'split' (or 'separate') will always be looked upon more negatively by voters than one using more positive words like 'independent'.

Thus while the Tories are right to emphasise the need for a positive 'yes' question, their spokesman seems to have completely missed the point about other aspects of the positive/negative debate, something that I'm sure the likes of the Telegraph's Alan Cochrane would have picked up immediately, and indeed which Ms Goldie herself clearly appreciates.

Thus while it's a bit sad that the electorate will be sufficiently moved by these effectively subliminal messages that the wording of the ballot paper will cause much debate and division during the next couple of years, if the Tories are making such fundamental errors detrimental to their own case then this will only encourage Mr Robertson et al, not that they need much encouragement after May 5.

More generally, it'll be interesting to see how the Unionists organise themselves, because the independence agenda is SNP-driven and thus to a large extent the campaign machinery is ready made and ready to roll.

On the other hand, the Unionists are clearly a disparate and divided bunch who spend a lot of time fighting amongst themselves, thus putting an effective campaign together is clearly a different proposition altogether, and Unionist journalists like Cochers and David Maddox are equally clearly unimpressed with things thus far, and see no obvious solution.

Which perhaps brings to mind the likes of the 'multi-agency approach' so beloved of many arms of government, which often amounts to little more than buck-passing and hoping the others are actually doing something, but in reality no one is doing anything other than lauding their 'partner agencies', and by the time they wake up it's often too late!

New zeitgeist predictably falling apart?

"Scotland needs a strong First Minister and a strong government, and only the SNP under Mr Salmond has the potential to provide that."

So said the Scotsman in a slightly surprising endorsement of Alex Salmond and his party prior to last month's Holyrood poll.

However, the newspaper's tone seems to have changed somewhat in the intervening month, particularly since the case of Salmond, MacAskill and others v The UK's Supreme Court kicked off following the latter's ruling in the Nat Fraser case last week.

Thus yesterday a leader column thundered about an "anti-democratic authoritarianism within the SNP".

Similarly, in this morning's edition a piece by political correspondent Scott Macnab is entitled 'Vintage Alex Salmond, but who will stop him telling whoppers at Holyrood…?', and is portrayed as news rather than opinion (in the online edition at least), although admittedly the substance is unsubtle enough to avoid any confusion with objectivity!

Moreover, on the same track an unattributed piece uses the title 'First Minister's Questions: Claims and truths', while another has Mr Salmond in the role of Humpty Dumpty in Alice Through The Looking Glass: ""When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less". "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all.""

Of course, the big difference between May 4 and precisely a month later is the SNP's landslide victory and thumping majority in Holyrood. This has clearly emboldened the Nationalists while galvanising the likes of the Unionist Scotsman, whose endorsement of Mr Salmond was after all predicated on the assumption of another minority Scottish Government and the hope that the Tories would keep Nationalist excess in check.

Granted, there's more than a sniff of hypocrisy regarding the SNP fulminating about threats from London's Supreme Court to the independence of the Scottish judicial system while advocating the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg as preferable. And Kenny MacAskill's jibe about Supreme Court judges garnering their knowledge of Scots law during visits to the Edinburgh Festival is perhaps symptomatic of Nationalist hubris since May 5, not to mention his threat to withdraw funding from the court on the basis that "he who pays the piper calls the tune", which might perhaps be better employed regarding his party's relationship with Stagecoach mogul Brian Souter.

But all this merely ups the ante, and while the Telegraph's Alan Cochrane was never likely to follow the Scotsman by formally endorsing the SNP, his latest column takes the bait, comparing Mr MacAskill's point about the Supreme Court judges and the Edinburgh Festival to the time when the Justice Secretary was arrested for drunk and disorderly behaviour prior to an England v Scotland match at Wembley, and uses words and phrases such as "petulance", "insulting language" and "pig ignorant". And given the normal online Nationalist reaction to Cochers' pieces, it's hardly surprising that comments have been disabled for this latest offering.

But with the more sober of the pro-independence movement - like Lallands Peat Worrier, Jeff at Better Nation and Kenneth Roy of the Scottish Review - admirably proffering opinions critical of the SNP's reaction to recent events, it's obvious that Mr Salmond and Mr MacAskill in particular have served to divide rather than demonstrate the more humble and consensual approach that they seemed to proffer in the period between the election and the reconvening of parliament.

Thus those who portrayed last month's election as underlining a new 'spirit of the nation' arguably adopted this stance from a narrow, Nationalist perspective only. The problem with a de facto one-party state is that a significant body of opinion is completely frozen out.

The electorate has afforded Alex Salmond five years of untrammeled power in the Scottish Parliament. If this is used in an autocratic and absolutist fashion then it will ultimately divide and polarise. Thus for the SNP it's the poisoned chalice of the majority again, and while Salmond & Co will do their level best to shift the blame elsewhere for Scotland's and their own failings - as demonstrated regarding the Nat Fraser imbroglio - if they fail to demonstrate a degree of realism and humility then they whole thing could ultimately blow up in their faces.

Convergence contradictions

In a Courier letter SNP Holyrood candidate Alex Orr claims "there is little reason for Scotland to be denied the ability to set its own corporation tax", and makes a predictably good theoretical case.

However, the figures he cites regarding increased investment and jobs in Northern Ireland ignore the elephant in the room in relation to Scotland, that being the business uncertainty surrounding the independence issue.

As a prominent advocate of EU membership and the single European currency, Mr Orr will be well aware of the particular lack of clarity demonstrated by the SNP on these issues, thus not conducive to the kind of stable economic environment necessary for business investment.

Indeed, he will also be more than aware that the success of the single currency depended on economic convergence within the eurozone, but the lack of this is one reason for the euro's current difficulties.

And Mr Orr will also be aware that one aspect of the single European market is the need for uniformity of tax rates within the EU, which is why Brussels frowns upon the kind of thing he advocates regarding corporation tax rates.

Indeed, it was the Republic of Ireland's success in attracting inward investment due to a competitive tax rate that seems to provide the rationale for a lower rate in Northern Ireland, but subsequent events in the Republic perhaps demonstrate the dangers of fiscal divergence rather than the convergence necessary for a successful euro.

By the same token, Scottish Nationalists often cite the lack of UK economic convergence as the reason for interest rates set by the Bank of England as being inappropriate for Scotland, bizarrely advocating euro membership and the European Central Bank instead.

But as things stand a lower corporation tax rate in Scotland would clearly be detrimental to economic and fiscal uniformity in the UK , hence why Westminster is unlikely to be impressed by Mr Orr's "no good reason" argument.

He seems to want to have his convergence cake and eat it.

Similarly, in a pre-election Scotsman article economist George Kerevan - another SNP list candidate - claimed that a lower Scottish corporation tax rate would not "poach" investment from England, citing the need to attract "foreign investment specific to Scottish needs" and denying it's "about stealing jobs from Newcastle". Which may have merit in certain commercial sectors, but as regards the likes of Dell in the Republic of Ireland or Amazon in Dunfermline, such businesses could arguably be located anywhere in the British Isles, thus to that extent Mr Kerevan's argument is limited in application.

By the same token, he argues that different business tax rates in federal Canada haven't harmed that country's attractiveness as a location for inward investment, but this ignores the point he was trying to make as regards competition within the country - the merits of Canada as a whole regarding a location for foreign businesses tells us nothing about "poaching" as between its various provinces and territories.

On the other hand, Mr Kerevan does make the point that devolution of tax rates and competition on rates is required because "local economies within the UK vary tremendously, and so require tax regimes tailored to their needs".

Which is at first blush a compelling argument, but this runs completely counter to the EU's single economic market ethos and its consequent rules against state aid and significant competition law corpus generally, not to mention its encouragement of fiscal and monetary convergence, culminating in the European single currency.

Thus if the SNP wants to set its own tax rates while keeping Scotland under the EU umbrella then it too seems to want to have its convergence cake and eat it.