The internet provides us with information on demand.  We want to know everything and we want to know it yesterday.  Nowhere is this thirst for information better observed that in politics.  Today, for example, all across America the final votes are being counted; the winners revered as leaders of a bright new future and the losers condemned as failures.  As predicted President Obama has taken a bit of a hammering and the Democrats have lost the House of Representatives.  Because of the internet I could’ve – had I been so inclined – watched seat-by-seat results come through via The Guardian website.

This led me to think where and how did we get our political news prior to the World Wide Web.  I’m guessing that it was left mainly to the 6 and 10 o’clock news on TV or even the wireless (the radio, not an internet reference kids).  To hear our politicians speak we would’ve actually had to go out and see them live.  How crazy is that?  Just over an hour ago I watched Prime Minister’s Questions on the Number 10 website.  Then the internet went down and I was left in limbo without any knowledge of what was going on in the world. 

Therefore as we enter into the campaign for the Holyrood elections it’s heartening to see that the SNP are going to take to the ‘phones and streets to contact one million voters’ so we get their message and Labour are going to go ‘door-to-door’ to tell us theirs.  We will be a well informed electorate should we answer the door or phone. 

So you see people we don’t need the internet.  We can get our news from the newspapers, see our politicians on the 6 o’clock news, do our research in the library and read our blogs on… oh wait…

[The views expressed by Morhamburn people in their blogs are theirs and theirs alone. they do not represent the thoughts of the company as a whole or our clients. If you have a comment to make on any blog, please email info@morhamburn.com and we’ll put the printable ones up on the website]

The Chancellor George Osborne is due to announce his Comprehensive Spending Review on 20^th October.  In Scotland, we have been told to expect cuts to the budget of around £1.7 billion next year and a drop of around £3.7 billion by 2015.  As would be expected there is much debate about where spending cuts should fall in Scotland.  Healthcare is a favoured for ring-fencing, free university education is also a popular choice but some things will have to give.  Almost comically however, when any potential cuts are proposed someone says ‘you can’t possibly cut that’.  When this is cried, it’s also usually followed by how many nurses it would provide.  As my one person I spoke to put it children could be forgiven for thinking that everything is paid for today in a new currency: “Nurses”.

Undoubtedly not everything can be saved so the steps being taken by the Scottish Policing Board to explore the option of merging the forces show a practicality that many could benefit from.  Furthermore, by taking steps to identify potential efficiencies that can be made they are avoiding savings being imposed upon them.  I’d imagine the Government are also appreciative of a body (???) that are willing to tell them where they can make savings within their budget.

The big benefit is savings, savings, savings.  The streamlining of eight forces, even down to three, would mean a huge reduction in infrastructure and of course, more unpopularily, in jobs.  With only three higher commands, three central premises and three sets of back room staff costs would be massively reduced.

In 2008, there were 2.54 million people aged 16 or above in employment.  In 2010, there were 502,200 employed in public bodies devolved to Scotland and a total of 606,400 employed in the public sector in Scotland as a whole.  Allowing for any discrepancy in the figures in between the times they were taken, this amounts to around 1 in 4.  A reduction in the numbers employed by the public sector in Scotland, it could be argued, would be beneficial to the growth of the Scottish economy.  Therefore, should these talks that are taking place amongst the police forces not be encouraged?

Of course, there are detractors from this move.  A newspaper article in yesterday’s Scotsman reports that the Northern and Grampian constabularies are against such a move.  They argue that they will lose out to a Central Belt bias and that the public in the north-east of Scotland will be put at greater risk.  However, should a centralisation of the brightest and best that the Scottish police have to offer not lead to a better use of resources meaning areas, irrespective of location, getting exactly what they need to target crime? 

Moreover, the move has already attracted political opposition with the Liberal Democrat’s Justice spokesperson stating in the above cited Scotsman article that they “will resist this every step of the way”.  I believe I’ve stated this in another blog but surely our Parliament was set up to promote a more open debate of what’s best for Scotland – Scottish solutions for Scottish problems an’ all that.  A failure to consider all options surely doesn’t do this justice (no pun intended)?

We’re only at the beginning of this debate but is there potential for it to be extended to the NHS?  There are fourteen regional health boards in Scotland and seven special boards.  For a country of five million, could this not be considered slightly excessive?  One thing at a time though I know, I know.

[The views expressed by Morhamburn people in their blogs are theirs and theirs alone. they do not represent the thoughts of the company as a whole or our clients. If you have a comment to make on any blog, please email info@morhamburn.com and we’ll put the printable ones up on the website]

As I have written before in a blog, The Scottish Conservatives have been called ‘marginalised’ by Lord Forsyth and there were calls to ‘wind up’ the party north of the border and replace it with one under the previously used title the Scottish Unionist Party.  Apparently, the Scottish Tory hierarchy have taken this on board and consider it to be a good start.  However, as my colleague Keith has pointed out on more than one occasion, there is a certain irony to the Scottish Conservatives desire for independence from their UK brothers at the same time as re-naming themselves a ‘unionist’ party.  Also, for people in Scotland to vote for them under this new moniker people can’t be told they used to be the Tories surely?  If this is the case I apologise to the Old Tory/New Unionist party for letting the cat out of the bag.

Taking the second point into consideration in not having an Alex Salmond-type to lead the party, why the wait to change it?  It seems that the party has all but written itself off from doing anything in the next election so, logically, why not change now?  The election campaign is yet to properly get under way, why wasn’t Annabel Goldie approached in the summer and asked to go?  It is widely expected that she will stand down after the May election anyway, so it’s unclear why no one is pushing for change now? 

I like Annabel Goldie but I’d hazard a guess that when people look at her, particularly those who lived through the last UK Conservative government, they see a bit of the steeliness of Margaret Thatcher. 

It’s unlikely, but what if heir apparent Murdo Fraser was to lose his seat?  Or Derek Brownlee or Gavin Brown?  If the Tories are serious about changing their image these three are arguably going to be at its heart in Scotland so there would be a case for putting them front and centre now, and give them the weight and exposure that comes with being a main actor in the party and trust them to lay the foundations for long term success in Scotland.

These points aside, the call for reform ignores the fact that the Tories are a credible force in Holyrood.  They currently occupy 16 seats in the Chamber and for the last three years have gained concessions from the minority SNP government to enable them to pass the budget.  If you couple this with the fact that the SNP and Labour can rarely agree on what day it is and the Lib Dems natural inclination (up until now anyway) to side with Labour this puts the Tories in a powerful position in the Parliament. 

It seems they know this too.  Whilst Labour and the Lib Dems are preparing to take the Government to task over where spending cuts will come from, the Tories are going into the budget negotiations with a list of proposals they’d like in exchange for their support.  These proposals include an end to free prescriptions perhaps in favour of a means tested system, a public sector recruitment freeze except on frontline services something which would seem easy for the SNP to agree to and the mutualisation of Scottish Water.  How this will go down with the SNP is anyone’s guess, it could be a sticking point but if it is the difference between passing the budget and not passing the budget the SNP have to weigh up if it’s really worth the fight.

I suppose what I’m getting at is that it isn’t really the Scottish Tories that are the problem per se.  Their support and numbers in the Scottish Parliament have remained relatively stable since devolution and despite what opinion polls suggest it will likely be roughly the same again.  The problem seems to be the UK Conservatives perception in Scotland.  The UK Conservatives still elicit negative connotations of the Thatcher/Major governments of old as was demonstrated by Scotland turning out for Labour in large numbers at the May General Election.

This kind of suggests that a split from the UK party, or at least greater independence from it, would remedy the situation.  Also, David Cameron not being leader of the Conservatives in Scotland would maybe help.  But is a name change really necessary?  Do they think people will turn up at the ballot box in 2015 and think ‘at last no Tories on the list to vote for, but look, the Scottish Unionists look good?  A Tory by any other name is still a Tory.

In the meantime I look forward to the ensuing weeks, months and years as the Tories attempt to ‘Scotify’ themselves.  A right-centre view is essential for balance in a Parliament dominated by the centre-left.  ‘Scotify’…say it out loud, can’t you almost feel yourself warming to the Scottish Unionist Party?  Now, how do I get involved in this ‘Big Society’ thing that’s going on?

[The views expressed by Morhamburn people in their blogs are theirs and theirs alone. they do not represent the thoughts of the company as a whole or our clients. If you have a comment to make on any blog, please email info@morhamburn.com and we’ll put the printable ones up on the website]

Let’s start by running through some points of the debate though.  If this was undertaken it could mean the clocks go forward by two hours in the summertime creating a ‘double summertime’ which admittedly does sound good.  Like a buy-one-get-one-free offer.  Suntan lotion providers must be rubbing their hands together.  Or, it could mean that time is permanently brought forward in both winter and summer which would put Britain on roughly the same time zone as Europe.  Does this mean that we’ll still have one year where both times go forward?  Anyway, the long and the short of it would mean that there would be longer nights in the summer and the mornings would be darker, especially for us Scots.

Having been presented with these ‘benefits’, Mr Cameron has said that his Government is willing to consider the proposal.  However, before we criticise him for letting the UK Government make Scotland darker in the mornings we should bear in mind that he was giving a speech to British tourism industry leaders.  Therefore I’d pop this alongside Alex Salmond’s off the cuff comment to a golfing magazine that the reason the Scottish Cabinet is going to Dornoch is so he can have a fly 18-holes. 

Moreover, the PM said that it was up to those who wanted it changed to convince the doubters.  Again, I’d say that this is a sign that he wants no real part in it but is willing to let people talk about it.  Rather like everything he allowed Nick Clegg to put in the coalition agreement.

Aside from how much would this ‘cross-departmental analysis’ cost and is there any real point – I should point out that the Lighter Later suggest that it could create 60-80,000 new jobs and generate £2.5-3.5 billion for the economy – what I find the most interesting is: can the UK government legislate on time for the whole of the UK?  Can they change the time in Scotland?  Where exactly does this fall on the reserved/devolved spectrum?

Let’s take the impact that it would have on tourism for example.  Tourism is, as you know, a devolved matter.  The figures above I have provided from Lighter Later are based around the positive impact the change would have on the tourist industry.  However, as is also argued the impact of time change in Scotland would mean darker mornings.  Therefore, if the decision was taken on the basis of it being a benefit to the tourist industry does that mean that it would not impact on Scotland as our Government at St Andrews house is responsible for that?  Conversely, if it was a benefit to trade and industry as a whole that falls under reserved powers in which case Westminster could in fact legislate for Scotland. 

The thing is, under The Scotland Act anything that is not explicitly listed as a reserved power can be legislated on by the Scottish Government.  Someone forgot “Time” when putting together the list.  Therefore, the Scottish Government could legislate on the matter without care for the impact it would have on England.  Alternatively, the Government at Westminster could legislate and if it is felt to be a good idea by the Scottish Parliament the legislation could take affect in Scotland too under a ‘Sewel Motion’.

It wouldn’t be surprising if you haven’t heard of this campaign prior to reading this blog.  However, for a bit of background information this has been tried before.  Between 1968 and 1971 the UK government ran an experiment.  Lighter Later points out that the consequence of this was an 8.6% reduction in road deaths in Scotland.  All sounds positive right?  Well, not quite.  In the same paragraph they go onto say that road deaths during the darker mornings increased slightly.  That seems to me like they cancel each other out?

So what’s a likely outcome of this debate then?  I’d hazard a guess that it’s not going anywhere fast.  If you work all day it does sound appealing to have an extra hour of the daylight in the evening when you get home.  But if that extra hour is between 10 and 11 o’clock and you’re working the next day is it really worth staying for?  Equally, as has been pointed out, it would be darker for longer in the morning particularly in the North of the country.  For people who have children I’m sure it is not desirable to have them walking along darkened roads on their way to school.

In recent days the media has been reflecting on the Governments first 100 days in office.  Generally the feedback has been positive.  However, there are commentators who cite a growing division between the North and South of the UK politically and socially.  It would appear that a debate surrounding changing the GMT only serves to further highlight this apparent divide.

[The views expressed by Morhamburn people in their blogs are theirs and theirs alone. they do not represent the thoughts of the company as a whole or our clients. If you have a comment to make on any blog, please email info@morhamburn.com and we’ll put the printable ones up on the website]

It cannot be argued that there is no alcohol problem in Scotland.  It was reported earlier this year that alcohol misuse cost Scotland £3.56 billion each year or £900 for every adult.  Healthcare costs were over £230 million of this, crime accounted for more than £720 million, the cost to the productivity of the Scottish economy was £865 million and the human cost in terms of suffering caused by premature deaths was £1.4 billion.  With Scotland’s budget forecast to shrink by £3.7 billion in real terms over the next 3 years, this is a problem that needs to be put front and centre.

The outset of Wednesday’s summit was that the Government have proposed the introduction of minimum pricing and are fully committed to implementing this with the figure mooted to be set at 40p.  In support they have the BMA, the police, alcohol support groups: generally quite a strong lobby.  In opposition they have, well, The Opposition: Labour, Lib Dems and the Tories. 

Realising this strong opposition to minimum pricing – when the Bill was put to a stage 1 vote in June minimum pricing was defeated 54-49 – Scottish Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon has offered to introduce a ‘sunset clause’.  This ‘sunset clause’ allows minimum pricing to be introduced for a set period of time to view its impact on excessive drinking and at a set review date, should the Parliament remain unconvinced of its merits, minimum pricing would cease to be.  If Ms Sturgeon felt this to be a fair compromise, her opponents did not agree.

The Opposition have used this opportunity to attack the Government.  Jackie Baillie and Murdo Fraser (Labour and Tory Health Spokespersons respectively) have suggested that this is an admission by the Cabinet Secretary that there is no evidence to support the introduction of minimum pricing. 

It is perfectly acceptable that The Opposition do not think minimum pricing is the best way to tackle Scotland’s alcohol scourge, yet their rejection of the new offer seemed all too premeditated.  Almost immediately following the summit Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems read out a joint statement echoing their individual views and proposing instead a ‘floor price’ on alcohol whereby alcohol price rises with duty. 

Devolution and the Scottish Parliament were supposed to lead the way into a new era of political cooperation and consensus building.  However, in this instance – and perhaps rather a lot of others – there appears to be a distinct lack of either.  Almost before the Government suggests that grass is green The Opposition are arguing that it is in fact blue and there is no evidence to support the Governments claims.  From this point on, parties (all of them) leave themselves with no room for manoeuvre.  They dare not change a previous stance as it would inevitably be described as a “humiliating climb down”.  Is this really how our Parliament was envisaged to work?

Maybe minimum pricing isn’t the answer that Scotland is looking for to cure its alcohol ills.  Maybe the answer isn’t a ‘floor price’ either.  However, in the absence of stronger suggestions why not take advantage of inserting a ‘sunset clause’?  No one is going to win or lose the next election by agreeing to it so why not give it a try?  This issue is one in which our MSPs must look beyond party politics and enact something that might go some way to aiding the health of our country.  If it doesn’t work then fine we start again but in the mean time what else have we got?

Throughout the rest of this year and the run up to the election in May all discussions are going to be dominated by talk of cuts, where they should happen and by how much they’re going to impact on frontline services.  These debates will in time dwarf the debate surrounding minimum pricing and it would surely be to the benefit of the country if all parties put partisanship to one side and focused on minimising the impact of the cuts.

[The views expressed by Morhamburn people in their blogs are theirs and theirs alone. they do not represent the thoughts of the company as a whole or our clients. If you have a comment to make on any blog, please email info@morhamburn.com and we’ll put the printable ones up on the website]

The PM kicked off his first official visit to the US by writing an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal.  In this article he spoke of the ‘special relationship’ that encountered more attention and scrutiny than any other like it in the world.  He stated it was a relationship that served both national interests.  He acknowledged the UK’s role as the junior partner in the relationship but stated that the UK was a “self-confident country clear in our views and values, and we should behave that way.”  A bit of a puff piece really with a few personal comments aimed at demonstrating his “unapologetically” pro-American views.

But why is there such a furore surrounding the release of Abdelbaset al Megrahi?  The man was released almost a year ago by the Scottish Government.  What does President Obama and the Senators calling for an inquiry have to gain from dragging Mr Cameron across the coals?  The PM wasn’t the PM when the decision was made; he spoke out against the decision at the time, a point he reiterated in today’s WSJ article (“I never saw the case for releasing him, and I think it was a very bad decision.”); and finally it was a Scottish, not a UK decision as justice is a devolved power.

The argument goes that UK oil interests were at the heart of this and that the then PM Tony Blair came to an agreement over oil and a prisoner transfer agreement involving al Megrahi.  Firstly, the Scottish Government unequivocally opposed this agreement.  Secondly, why would the Scottish Government agree to help the UK Government gain oil interests?  Politically the release of al Megrahi does nothing for the SNP in seeking reelection so why would they go out of their way to help the UK Government control more oil when the UK Government doesn’t allow the SNP a say in how Scotland’s oil is managed?

But that’s when the penny drops.  What global company has been in the news a bit lately and has somewhat annoyed America as a whole, not just its politicians?  BP of course!  In the last few days BP have managed to finally shore up the leaking pipeline in the Gulf of Mexico and although the problem is a million miles from being resolved, at least some sort of progress is being made.

However, just as recently things haven’t been looking so well for the US economy.  New mortgages have fallen to an eight month low and retail sales have also fallen and given that consumer spending accounts for around 70% of the US economy President Obama is having a tough time convincing people that his economic stimulus is the right thing to do.

So what does a politician do when they are faced with trouble? They divert attention.  Despite BP plugging the leak for the time being the US Government can maintain their attacks on the company following up on allegations that they lobbied the UK Government for the release of al Megrahi.  This allows Obama to maintain BP as public enemy number one and also bring back up their disgust about the al Megrahi decision all the while diverting attention away from troubles at home.

In their joint press conference Cameron and Obama both reiterated their feeling that the decision to release al Megrahi was a very wrong, very poor decision.  However, Cameron went to great lengths to explain that it was a decision made by the Scottish Government without UK intervention.  He continued that he did not need a formal investigation into a decision he knew to be wrong.  He has since been asked by US senators to pursue a formal investigation into the release of al Megrahi.

However, the Prime Minister is not going to do this.  This Prime Minister has vowed to treat the Scottish Government with a Respect Agenda.  This Respect Agenda has faltered slightly in the eyes on some with Nick Clegg’s proposed referendum on voting reform falling on the same day as the 2011 Scottish election.  For Mr Cameron’s UK Government to order an investigation into a devolved matter would not be good politics. 

For President Obama on the other hand it is good politics to be seen holding the UK Prime Minister to account over BP and the release of al Megrahi.  The last thing Obama wants is for the US economy to be centre stage going into the mid-tern elections.  This is an international alliance that both leaders will use as a domestic political tool when necessary.  So it would seem even in the international arena when forging ‘special relationships’, all politics are local.

[The views expressed by Morhamburn people in their blogs are theirs and theirs alone. they do not represent the thoughts of the company as a whole or our clients. If you have a comment to make on any blog, please email info@morhamburn.com and we’ll put the printable ones up on the website]

Let me say that I am not against this idea, there are many merits to holding a referendum on our electoral system on the same day as the devolved elections.  Firstly, it will save the taxpayer money.  According to Mr Clegg’s speech today it will save an estimated £17 million.  This fits in nicely with our new austerity age.  Secondly, there is a good chance that voter turnout will be increased or at least not ridiculously low and a high turnout is needed to give the outcome more legitimacy.  Thirdly, such plebiscites being tagged onto elections are a relatively common event throughout Europe and the US. 

Finally, I don’t think the argument that people won’t understand what to do stands up to scrutiny.  I don’t think that it is the case that the public won’t understand what they are voting for or how to do it, rather it is politically expedient for some parties to claim that it will be too difficult for the public to understand.  I have faith that those who vote are more than capable of following simple instructions.

My issues with this relate to the UK government’s Respect agenda and fairness.  Thus far David Cameron and his merry men have stuck to their promise to treat, not just Scotland, but all the devolved administrations with respect.  However, this is now the second time that they have hi-jacked an election date from the devolved administrations.  The first time was the announcement of fixed term parliaments which will result in the next Westminster elections falling on the same day as the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish elections in 2015. Both of these decisions have been taken without consideration or consultation with the devolved governments.  This hardly exudes respect from Westminster to their devolved counterparts.

Furthermore, I think – although I suppose we won’t know for sure – that it will result in nationalist parties being drowned out on the campaign trail for their own parliaments as they claim they were throughout the general election campaign.  Come next spring we will see Clegg et al (if there still is a et al by then) on their yellow fun bus touring the country promoting the merits of AV.  This offers them the chance to also slip in the merits of the Scottish Lib Dems in Scotland etc.  I don’t think that the nationalist parties can match this kind of spending or will be afforded similar media coverage and as in the general election this could marginalise them.

So what’s the outcome?  Well the referendum on voting reform is going to go ahead on the same day as the devolved elections.  Voting reform might I add that isn’t the STV that the Lib Dems campaigned on, why isn’t there a choice of more than one voting system?  Why isn’t the question in two parts – one asking if voting reform is wanted and the other a list of the potential electoral systems for us to mark our preference?  Apologies I digress. 

The lack of consultation or even a heads up to the devolved governments just doesn’t strike me as being respectful.  Let’s face it, if the issue has formed a united front between the SNP and Scottish Labour then the new government has to wonder just how far they’ve strayed from their ‘Respect Agenda’…

[The views expressed by Morhamburn people in their blogs are theirs and theirs alone. they do not represent the thoughts of the company as a whole or our clients. If you have a comment to make on any blog, please email info@morhamburn.com and we’ll put the printable ones up on the website]

These stories are going to provide opposition parties with ample material with which to attack the SNP and Alex Salmond.  Secondly, it could leave Mr Salmond fighting a battle to keep his own party onside.  These are hardly appealing prospects for a party running for re-election.

Firstly, the opposition.  Scottish Labour et al hardly need an invitation to attack the SNP or their leader, however this is like Christmas come early.  It’s been labelled an admission of defeat by Alex Salmond, the final nail in the coffin for independence and an ignominious end to an administration.  On Thursday I predict that we will hear (from Iain Gray most likely) that the SNP are an independence party without the independence.  Or something to those lines, I can’t think of the pun just now but I have no doubt there will be one.

Despite these attacks from the other parties in Scotland, I doubt that these comments were made flippantly.  The General Election wasn’t a successful one for the SNP they didn’t lose anything but didn’t get close to the more than slightly ambitious target of 20 seats.  Out of fear of a Tory government at Westminster, Scotland voted big for Labour and there was a slight swing from SNP to Labour.  Furthermore, in a recently published poll for The Herald the stat men put the SNP on 29% for the constituency vote and 28% for the regional vote against Labour’s 45% and 41% respectively.  This pretty much leads to the conclusion that there will likely be a Labour government in Scotland from next May, and one not too short of a majority. The above figures put Labour on about 60 seats.

So a change of tact is necessary for the SNP if they want to hold onto power.  Alex Salmond seems to have realised this and acted accordingly.  After all, he didn’t say that independence was being shelved.  He said that gaining more fiscal powers for Scotland was a more realistic prospect and that the duty to campaign for what is good for Scotland as well as campaigning for independence.  In this he is attempting to show the electorate that the SNP are not only a one policy party and his parties belief in independence does not come at the expense of what is in the interests of Scotland.  It seems to me that it’s not a case of losing the independence debate, the SNP see it as not having taken place…yet.

Secondly, Alex Salmond may face some resistance to his comments from within his own party.  What do they want?  Independence (obviously), when do they want it?  Well, it depends on who you ask.  Some within the party favour independence right now some prefer to continue along the current path of devolution, more fiscal powers which, they believe, will lead Scotland to independence.

For this reason, Alex Salmond’s apparent backing away from a focused agenda on independence will be disconcerting.  It may be viewed that if he’s not the leader to push for independence then naturally they will want someone who will.  This course of action is very unlikely for the foreseeable future but those who disagree will not stay quiet if this strategy doesn’t work.

My guess is that recess can’t come quick enough for Alex Salmond.  He’ll want to get through this week, re-group over the summer and come out fighting in the autumn.  After all, if they don’t win this election then independence gets further away, not closer.

[The views expressed by Morhamburn people in their blogs are theirs and theirs alone. they do not represent the thoughts of the company as a whole or our clients. If you have a comment to make on any blog, please email info@morhamburn.com and we’ll put the printable ones up on the website]