SNP Nuclear Gymnastics = Fantasy Politics

The latest SNP policy gymnastics on NATO and nuclear weapons exposes another reality involved in breaking away from the UK.   See http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/snp-considers-trading-share-in-nuclear-arsenal.18193816

I have been a member of CND since the early ‘80s and have campaigned within the Labour Party for most of that time to see the UK give up its nuclear deterrent.  It’s been an uphill and not always very popular –in some party circles - struggle, but sometimes you need to drive change from within.

 Right now, we should be arguing the case against replacing or upgrading Trident.  Not only would that be a better moral position, but would save billions of pounds over the next few years that could be far better spent on investment in our economy, transport (we could have a motorway to Inverness!) as well as other national infrastructure.  

What Salmond and the SNP now seem to be suggesting is that they want to join Nato (for reasons which I suspect are very little to do with defence strategy and a lot to do with not losing support in advance of the independence referendum) but only if Trident and the nuclear facilities are “moved” to somewhere else in the UK.   The costs involved in re-locating Trident to another location will be enormous compared to de-commissioning, but the SNP seem quite happy to propose that UK pick up that bill.  Why on earth would taxpayers across the UK agree to that?  Fantasy politics.

It seems to me that those of us who believe in a nuclear free Scotland are far more likely to achieve that – hard work though it will be – with a UK wide campaign to stop the spending on Trident and argue the case for de-commissioning all our nuclear weapons long term.

An independent Scotland risks still having nuclear weapons on the Clyde but even less influence over what happens to them.

Read more...

Letter to the Courier...

Published in Inverness Courier, 3rd April 2012

Dear Sir

Coalition plans to break up national pay bargaining arrangements must surely mean that there will soon be pressure to cut public sector workers wages in the highland as in other areas deemed “lower cost than London”, however spuriously.

In his leaflets and speeches during the Westminster election campaign Danny Alexander promised to put the Highlands first. As the Labour candidate, I was accused of representing a party that had let the Highlands down with plans to put up VAT, raise student tuition fees and had “taken money from hard working families, pensioners and carers in the Highlands and given it to millionaires”.

In government, what is Mr Alexander’s actual record on standing up for the Highlands? Local military bases are under threat or closing, VAT is up and working tax credits down (both hitting low earners hardest) whilst mainland fuel costs continue to rise for most, despite all the promises about a rural fuel discount.

But this latest coalition plan to cut public sector wages - at the same time as cutting the 50p tax rate for the well off - goes too far. Does Mr Alexander have any principles left? Or is power at the heart of the government a price worth paying to inflict his coalition cuts on the Highlands?

And where are our local LibDem councillors on this? Will they speak out before the Highland Council elections in May to condemn what their MPs are doing in their name or will they just bow their heads and go along with them?

Yours sincerely

etc

Read more...

Scottish Labour Conference Speech

I spoke in the Local Government debate at conference in Dundee last weekend.  Here's what I said.

Conference.

We have talked a lot about trust in the last few days.

The council elections in May are an opportunity to re-build some of that trust with our voters.

People need to know that Labour is on their side in tough times.

Because the other parties aren’t.

The LibDems can’t stand up for local services whist they are imposing their Coalition Cuts.

And the SNP only want to win council seats as stepping stones to independence.

Labour must be the party that will make local government work.

Local government that sees protecting local jobs and getting our kids back to work as a priority.

We must be the party that will lead a four year campaign to ensure every teenager who wants to work in the Highlands has an apprenticeship or training programme leading to a real job, when they leave school or college.

Labour needs to deliver joined up services. Joined up services work for communities, get used and cost less to deliver.

Let me tell you about the woman and her son I met door-knocking in a wee village five miles north of Inverness last weekend. She is her son’s full time carer – he has severe learning challenges.

She had been pleased to hear that Highland council had ring-fenced the funds for the day centre he attends in Inverness.

Then she found out that a separate budget for the community bus had been cut, so she and her son can’t get to Inverness to use the service.

Small cuts can have a big impact.

Working out how to deal with the SNP’s cuts to council budgets will not be easy.

We need to listen hard to local communities and work out how to use limited budgets effectively.
We need to be bold and see the big picture.

A big part of that will be to get smart about buying.

The public sector in Scotland spends £9bn buying in goods and services. We need to start to using that power when we go out to tender.

We must build in community benefit clauses that keep jobs local and create apprenticeships and training opportunities for our young people.

And we need to send out a clear message to contractors.

If you want to provide goods and services to our councils, then you’ll pay your workers a Living Wage!

Joined up public transport matters. It’s key to both a strong economy and sustainable communities in rural areas like the Highlands.

And for all their talk, the SNP are showing by their actions that they care nothing for rural Scotland.
Ferry charges to the islands up and freight subsidies down.

The £50m promised to upgrade Sleeper Services to London diverted to other projects.

And we know we won’t see the regulation needed to make rural bus service run in the interests of their passengers whilst Brain Souter holds the SNP’s purse strings.

We need to be the party that delivers effective regulation to join up public transport across the Highlands. And maybe its time to think about ownership models that work in the interest of our communities, not bus and train operators.

But above all, Labour must be the party that will bring democracy home.

Whether it’s about community schools or local fire services, wind-farms or new supermarkets, local views should count. We need to be the party that listens.

We need to be the party that people trust to be on their side in tough times.

We need to be Labour.

Thank you, conference.

Read more...

The Question Question

Whether we like it or not, the independence referendum will dominate political debate in Scotland until the question is settled.

Just when we should be focussed on growing the economy, protecting jobs and creating opportunity for our young people, the SNP will ensure the next 24 months are all about the politics of conflict and separation.

So if we are going to have one (a referendum) we should make sure we get it right and settle the issue once and for all. What I want to see is a definitive mandate from the people of Scotland, which makes absolutely clear to the Scottish Government what they want.

There are all sorts of permutations of 2 or 3 questions which we can debate. The problem is agreeing the wording and then interpreting the outcomes. Based on current opinion polls, its likely that a 3-question referendum which posed the options of status quo, independence and “more devolution” would result in a majority for the last option. But that would allow the SNP to continue to pursue an independence agenda on the basis that the majority had not actually said “no”.

I’m pretty sure this is why Salmond keeps talking up the 3-question argument.

At the same time, a simple 2-question referendum, “status quo” or “independence” does not provide much of an option for the many people, like me, who want to see more economic and social levers brought under direct Scottish control. That vote – and it might be substantial – could split or abstain, with unpredictable results.

I was reminded last week, that the 1999 Devolution Referendum found a way round this kind of problem; the first question was about the principle of devolution (a straight yes or no) the second, which was only relevant if you answered “yes” to the first, asked whether you wanted additional powers to be devolved, in this case the 3p income tax variation.

So how about a two question referendum like this:

Question 1: do you want the Scottish Government to negotiate the separation of Scotland from the UK as an independent country (Yes or No)?

Question 2: if Scotland remains part of the UK, do you want the Scottish Government to negotiate the devolution of more economic and social powers to the Scottish Parliament (Yes or No)?

With this approach, we get a clear mandate for or against independence. No debate.

If there is a majority vote against independence, but for more powers – which is what I’ll campaign for - it gives the Scottish Government a mandate to negotiate that, but removes the option of independence as an eventual outcome. The political debate would then be about the economic, social and other policies which best suit Scotland without the emotional distraction of nationalism.

Such an outcome would nicely cook the SNP goose, just in time for the 2015 Westminster and 2016 Scottish Parliament elections. If you agree with me, how do we make it happen?

Read more...

Envisioning Scotland

The article below was originally posted on Labour Hame  www.labourhame.com 

Is it only me who is more and more frustrated by where we seem to be going?


The SNP won a huge vote of confidence from the Scottish electorate this year; confidence in their policies and confidence in their style of government. We are kidding ourselves if we think this was because Scottish Labour somehow “got it wrong” or that we lost just because we ran a poor campaign. We don’t have a natural right to represent the majority of Scottish voters. The sooner we start to recognise that the better.

That’s why I am frustrated by the current focus on leadership elections, organisation and party structures. Most of which means absolutely nothing to most Scots and, worst still, makes our grand but inward looking arguments seem ever more irrelevant to the lives and aspirations of ordinary people.

The SNP out spent, out organised and out campaigned us, and continue to do so. To deal with that, we need to do way more than just re-organise the constituency party deck chairs. We need a policy programme that enthuses people in Scotland about what Labour will do for them.

Whether we like it or not, we are heading towards an independence referendum. We need to work out what we want to achieve from that. Are we just about winning a majority “no” vote, or are we brave enough to use the coming debate to make the case for our own vision of a confident and self reliant 21st century Scotland? Do we think devolution has gone far enough or do we want to make a Labour case for more? If Scotland votes for independence, what will people want an Independent Scottish Labour Party to do for them?

For me, our current approach of coming up with ever more complex arguments of why independence won’t work is pointless. Finely put arguments about the costs of UK Defence, EU membership and who can best fund renewable energy investments will of course exercise the minds and blogs of the political classes. But they won’t change the mind of a single SNP supporter and risk coming across as endlessly negative to uncommitted voters who just want to see a positive future for themselves and their families. Ditto attacks on the personality and style of the SNP government.

Scottish Labour needs to develop its vision of a devolved, confident Scotland and make its case for a vote against independence with a positive alternative. An integrated part of the UK and Europe but with its own distinctive social and political culture which best reflects our mutual and cooperative traditions. Personally, I think we should be arguing the case for “devolution max” with left of centre policies that work in a Scottish context and are based on much more control of the economic levers. We need to recognise the strengths of being part of the UK, but not be afraid to argue for distinctive, Scottish politics. Politics that the rest of the UK might look at and say “can we have some of that too please”.

That’s all just a wee bit harder than agreeing to change CLP structures. But it’s what we need to do and it’s what I want to hear about from our leadership candidates.

Read more...

On Greek Democracy

My first reaction to George Papandreou’s call for a referendum in Greece on the EU “bailout” plan was “he’s lost it”. Waking up to the radio reports of chaos in the financial markets initially confirmed that view. But 24 hours later I’m starting to see where he is coming from.

Greece might just about be the first western democracy to put the decision about whether deficit cutting austerity programmes are the best strategy to lift us out of recession to a vote. To give ordinary people a chance to say what they think of policies that seem to more about bailing out reckless banks – who have caused most of the problems we are now encountering – at the expense of their jobs and living standards, instead of policies to stimulate real demand, growth and economic confidence.

Actually, how refreshing is that?

It might even start a trend. Who should be dictating how we live and prosper? The already financially secure  - who seem too be leading so many western governmenst right now - and the money makers at the global financial institutions, or democratically elected governments with a mandate from their own people?

Of course, it might all just a be a high stakes bit of realpolitik to gain a few last minute concessions or railroad opponents in Greece behind the plan....................  Time will tell.

Read more...

Transport Pricing & Payouts

According to yesterday's Guardian, Stagecoach is about to pay out some £340m in dividends and share buybacks to its shareholders.  Clearly a very profitable business, as are many of the other train and bus services providers.  Given this scale of profit, why are these firm then proposing to raise rail fares by between 8% and 13% from next January?  The government sets the pricing rules they will say.  Which is true.  And it is the government which gets the benefits of spending savings; it can reduce its subsidy to the same companies by an amount corresponding to the price rise.  In theory, this makes funds available for rail infrastructure investment..
But if the bus & train firms are so profitable anyway, shouldn't we make them spend more of that profit on investments in infrastructure and improving services before paying out to shareholders?

Read more...