And yet, a word like representative would generally be greeted by the politician upon which it was bestowed as a compliment; that he or she had done their job properly and with due regard to their electorate.

What then is the difference? Or perhaps more importantly, when does a politician move from one to the other?

Hitler was of course a populist, and as history shows a remarkably good one. In this context the word can be placed firmly in the negative.

Many a political commentator spoke of Tony Blair’s ‘popular appeal’ in the positive, perhaps as one of the main factors behind New Labour’s success. Of course others, particularly on the left of Labour would use the same thing as an insult, one that defined (to them) the sparse ideology of New Labour.

What about Barrack Obama; populist, or just popularly appealing? Is there even a difference?

The question may well be one of semantics, but there is also an important substantive point here; when is it right to be ‘populist’ or ‘representative’ and when is it not?

On Thursday Margo MacDonald’s End of Life Assistance Bill will almost certainly be defeated at Stage 1. In reality, it was supported be very few MSPs and was always likely to fail

And yet a poll out yesterday reveals that 77% of Scots support the principles of the Bill, with only 12% against it. It will be interesting to tale up those percentages with the way that Holyrood votes.

Now of course an instant answer to a quick yes/no question does not equate to careful consideration – but it does show that there is almost certainly more appetite in the public at large than there is amongst our MSPs. So who is right?

Is parliament in this instance ameliorating the worst type of un-informed knee-jerk (dare I say populist) reaction, or are they failing to represent their electorate and their society properly when they vote against the Bill, by displaying a ‘we know best’ elitism?

It is not a clear-cut issue. For many years, public appetite for the re-introduction of the death penalty regularly ran into the majority, and yet Westminster politicians remained aloof of that particular public groundswell – was that wrong of them?

The BNP have made big electoral strides in recent times, their critics would say by appealing to ill-informed populism, while they would no-doubt retort that they are being representative.

Semantics it may be, but such debates go to the very core of what we expect from our political classes; representation of the people or for the people, populism or elitism? Whichever you prefer, the decisions that result this week will have very real affects on the lives, and deaths, of many Scots.

[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]

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the actual Bill and of minimum alcohol pricing, the debates have thrown-up some issues that we should all consider.

Firstly, given the impassioned pleas of a group of learned experts such as the BMA, might it not be an idea for recognised groups of experts to be allowed to have a greater input into legislation that looks at their specialist areas of expertise, such as health or around specific technologies?

Would such a move, possibly in the form of some kind of grand committee (which could act as a de-facto second chamber or advisory board) strengthen the scrutiny process that parliament puts Bills though, or would it undermine the democratic process and the people’s representation?

The second question which arises is that of the system of whips at Holyrood. What does the fact that we have yet to see any significant ‘backbench rebellion’ at Holyrood in its entire existence tell us about the system we currently have?

Given that the UK coalition government is facing its first significant backbench unrest after only a few months of its tenure, do we need to address this at Holyrood? Do we need to weaken the strength of the parties, or perhaps encourage greater cross-party working so that sides don’t become so entrenched in the first place?  Or is fierce backbench loyalty just a natural result of having a list system? 

I don’t know who is right or wrong in this particular debate, and with regard the questions I have posed, it doesn’t much matter. The parliamentary system we have has rightly been lauded as innovative, modern and transparent. But we shouldn’t let those virtues get in the way of further improvements if they are needed.

[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 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]

Tuition fees in Scotland were abolished in 2000. This was followed by the removal of the ‘graduate endowment scheme’ in 2008. However, Sir Andrew Cubie, the man whose investigation a decade ago led to the abolition of fees, has now admitted that the present system of funding in Scotland is unsustainable.

The tightening of the public purse strings has led to the growing concession that greater contribution from those who benefit most may be required.  

An independent review of student finance in England and Wales recommended scrapping the cap on tuition fees, something that Sir Andrew Cubie says could open up a “funding gap” that would disadvantage Scots institutions.

We are rightly proud of the accessibility of our higher education system. But maintaining this, while protecting our top universities from falling adrift of wealthier institutions, is a huge challenge for a government, or indeed its opposition, in the run-up to an election.

This is, perhaps, the reason why politicians have been relatively quiet thus far in setting out their agendas on higher education. But at some point, a decision will have to be made on the best way forward. Do we protect our educational philosophy centred on free higher education? Or would we rather preserve the international reputation of our top universities? Doing both no longer appears feasible.

Ministers are due to launch a green paper on higher education funding in December, which will be followed by a 12-month discussion of the issue. However, with the elections in May, voters will look to manifestos to show how parties intend to tackle the issue.

In his Scotsman article, Sir Andrew Cubie suggests a “higher level of contribution for graduates on a high income”. With the SNP ruling out a return of tuition fees or the graduate endowment system, momentum appears to be moving in the direction of asking those who earn more to pay more.

Charging graduates rather than students will still attract opposition, high earners already have their incomes significantly taxed. But it may well avoid the type of negative headlines seen in the wake of the coalition government’s acceptance of Lord Browne’s recommendations, which could see tuition fees rise to £12,000 per year in England.

The recent survey of UK higher education showed only four Scottish universities in the top 40 institutions in the UK, and prompted university principals and other senior figures to voice their backing for new powers to raise money.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. MSPs have the future of our universities in their hands.

[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]

However this strong position does not diminish the fascinating nature of this coming Holyrood election – far from it. In what is shaping-up to be a drawn-out election campaign, the starting pistol for which will be sounded at the respective party conferences over the next few weeks, there is still much water to pass under the bridge before May, and often the party with the big lead is the one that suffers most in long campaigns; it was after all the Tories who went into the last campaign with a big poll lead, only for Labour and the Lib Dems to shrink it quite significantly.

We now have a new Labour leader at UK level who was far from an unanimous choice. We have the Comprehensive Spending Review being published at UK level, followed by the Scottish Government’s response. We have a Tory/Lib Dem coalition government, the prospect of a national referendum the same day as the Scottish elections, and no doubt a plethora of as yet unforeseen circumstances, scandals, gaffes, and memorable performances. We need only look back to the ‘bigot-gate’ scandal and the PM debates to see how fast a star can rise and fall in this media-age.

For possibly the first time ever in Holyrood elections, we the electorate are going to be faced with major, possibly life-changing and certainly stark choices about what we expect of our government. Do we want to pay more tax, or have fewer services? Can Scotland afford universal benefits like the bus pass?

Student funding is shaping-up as a major issue. With the UK considering removing tuition-fee caps, Scotland’s higher education sector would be forced to act to stop Scottish universities being left behind by its English competitors.

Issues that have so far failed to flare-up (despite the SNP’s best efforts) such as the fossil fuel levy might gain importance as every penny is counted. And of course we have Calman and the SNP’s aborted referendum – ten years on from ‘settling’ the constitutional issues of Scotland, we find ourselves facing similar questions.

And what of personalities? Much is made of Iain Gray’s understated style and, given the impact that the debates had in the UK elections, the likelihood of FM debates in Scotland has to be factored in, especially given the First Minister’s skill in such circumstances.

And then the last great factor is of course the possible different outcomes of coalition talks post-election. With the Tories supposedly throwing their hat into the ring, we have the intriguing prospect of any number of potential deals – or of no deal at all.

The beauty for the electorate is that, we should have proper political debate – no more managerialism, it simply won’t cut it in times of real decisions, real politics and real ideology.

Labour are definitely the favourites, but they are not so far in front as to make the contest uninteresting. As the maxim goes, ‘events, dear boy’ are what makes politics difficult. And there are likely to be plenty of events emerging over the next seven months.

[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]

This election campaign promises to be significantly different to any we’ve seen since the Parliament’s re-introduction in 1999. Manifestos will be based around spending cuts and how best to save, rather than the usual promises of increased investment in our services. A case of who can make the best of what little we have? Or perhaps more a case of whose planned cuts will offend the public the least.

We constantly demand there should be ‘no sacred cows’ in deciding what we can and cannot live without. Yet the murmur of a controversial money saving measure causes an almost hypocritical media and political outcry. Therefore, just how brave can the Scottish government, or indeed its opposition, afford to be in the run-up to an election? Realists will hope significantly more so than their Westminster counterparts, where politicians continue to be plagued by a fear of media backlash.

The UK government’s u-turn on scrapping free milk to nursery children illustrated that an obsession with short-term headline management remains in politics. Public discontent, it seems, is not a price worth paying in tackling our financial deficit. But as Iain MacWhirter so rightly asks in his Sunday Herald column: “How on earth is this government going to achieve cuts of between 25% and 40% without negative headlines?”

It is counter-productive to ask MPs to identify potential money saving measures – and then set upon them when they do. The precedent set by the condemnation of Anne Milton’s proposal is a worrying one.

Yet what is inevitable is that we will a see similar determination to avoid negative press in the run-up to the Holyrood election. We have already seen the Scottish government scramble to defend devolution’s flagship policies in light of the recommendations of the Independent Budget Review Panel. Many will see this as commendable. Universal care provides huge benefit to a great number of people. Critics will argue the SNP simply want to avoid the Labour counter: “We brought in free care, the SNP took it away.” The truth most probably lies somewhere in the middle. Expect more of this as belts begin to tighten.

It may be idealistic to suggest that the Scottish electorate would respond better to openness in considering controversial cuts, and I do not expect for a second that party politics will be absent when cuts are discussed. But surely it is not unrealistic to expect our politicians to have the courage of their convictions and accept some public dissatisfaction along the way. That is, indeed, why they are elected. Their challenge should be to take on the criticism, and convince us of the strengths of their argument and the benefit it will bring. Old fashioned perhaps, but desirable nonetheless.

What we must not lose sight of in amongst the jostling for popularity is that striking a balance between avoiding overly negative press and being honest when revealing potential squeezes in spending is an unenviable task. Cuts have to be made. An election has to be won.

Don’t bet on anything being safe from the axe, no matter how good the disguise is in election campaigning. Who will come out on top in May? Hopefully the party who treats the electorate with enough respect to acknowledge the realities that lie ahead in their campaign, and the one with enough courage to stand their ground and fight for what they believe is best for all our futures. No matter how hard a sell it is. They say fortune favours the brave.

[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]