Deputy Leader of the Pack

I am assured that this is not an April fool. Indeed, it rather defies satire.

Talk is cheap

Someone in the Executive is having a laugh. Obviously, there is a competition going on to see who can cram a press release with an excessive number of management clichés. Normal people do not speak this way:

Mr McCabe said:
"The dialogue process confirmed there is a genuine appetite for reform of public services. It revealed widespread support for the Executive's principles of reform, especially our focus on service users. There is consensus that the status quo is not an option and we have to keep pace with a changing world and rising expectations.
"After we published our Transforming Public Services discussion paper last year, we embarked on a genuine bottom-up dialogue with the people who design, deliver and use public services. It was one of the most extensive consultations we have undertaken as we asked everyone with a stake in public services how we can deliver them more efficiently and effectively.
"This document summarises the views expressed in that process and underlines many excellent examples of reform activity already underway across Scotland.
"There is a consensus developing around the challenges we face and what should underpin our reform. Strong leadership will be needed to take any changes forward. I hope this report will provide the basis for considering the best way forward to ensure the delivery of world-class customer-focused public services in Scotland."

Does it mean anything? Search me - my degree was in English.

Another day, another opinion poll...

For the third day in succession, an opinion poll predicts disaster (perhaps even 'calamity') for Scottish Labour. This time, it's The Telegraph with the bad news:

The poll suggests the SNP would gain 46 seats in the 129-seat Parliament - an increase of 19 - while Labour would dip below the 40 mark, gaining just 39. The Liberal Democrats and Tories would be 18 each, the Greens five and independents three.

Alan Cochrane of The Telegraph, not naturally in sympathy with Labour, offers Mr McConnell what would appear to be dubious advice:

Yesterday, Jack McConnell delivered up what his critics say is his somewhat poisoned mantra - namely that if you vote SNP you get independence. Full stop. Or rather semi colon, because he goes on to claim that if you get independence you also get higher taxes.
Mr McConnell is getting a bit of a bashing for this line but the fact is that he's right. The second bit about taxes may be a bit problematical but to keep hammering on that the SNP's main objective is to smash the United Kingdom must be the way to go. Of course it's negative and of course it's desperate but it is also true.

In other words, keep on bashing your head against the brick wall. It may not have done any good up to now, but just keep on.

On the other hand, I was rather depressed by The Scotsman's somewhat poignant description of the launch of the Labour campaign:

Mr McConnell chose to forego a glitzy campaign launch, instead taking to the road with his "education express" battle bus and heading to Loanhead in Midlothian, to the muddy building site that will soon be the joint school campus of Loanhead and St Margaret's Primary School.
In a stark contrast to the SNP's packed news conference, Mr McConnell and Rhona Brankin, the deputy communities minister, stood in white hard hats on a building site with only one reporter and a handful of photographers present.

Out-thought and out-manoeuvred once again. Labour really must sharpen up their act.

Re-arranging the deckchairs

The Home Office re-organisation? The creation of a Ministry of Justice? I am reminded of the 200BC saying of Petronius Arbiter (which I use to keep pinned up on my office noticeboard):

"We trained hard, but it seemed that everytime we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization."

Roulette and craps

I never really understood why New Labour wanted to flood the country with casinos. But Ms Jowell would not appear to have covered herself in glory. The Times reports:

I found myself watching Tessa Jowell, the Secretary of State for Gambling. As ever, when facing serious opposition, she relied on impeccable logic. It had been recommended that the supercasino be in Manchester and not Blackpool and so in Manchester it must be. The reason for this was because it had been recommended. Eyes glazed. Tessa was ridiculously tetchy. She spoke endlessly about how supercasinos will save deprived areas and poor people. This is her new mission in life: cure poverty with gambling. How does that work? Only the croupier knows, I guess.

I doubt if the demise of the supercasino and its smaller brothers will be much lamented (except possibly in Blackpool and Stranraer). Nor will the inevitable (and imminent) demise of Ms Jowell as a member of the cabinet.

They'll be dancing in the streets of Vaduz tonight

Well, it's not often (actually almost never) that Liechtenstein wins a competitive football match.

Tough on Latvia (but then that young lady from Riga should never have gone near that tiger).

Fancy a bet?

Here are the revised odds (as per political betting) for First Minister following the publication of The Times poll.

Alex Salmond SNP 2/5

Jack McConnell Labour 11/10

Nicol Stephens [sic] Liberal [sic] 25/1

Annabel Goldie Conservitive [sic] 33/1

Robin Green [sic] Green Party 66/1

Colin Fox Socialist Party 100/1

Tommy Sheridan Solidarity 100/1

The perils of Pauline

I would not normally draw attention to the failings of another blogger but who could resist this outstanding example of bathos.

PS Never mind the idiosyncratic punctuation; this is an MSP who cannot spell the name of the Deputy First Minister.

Update - spelling now sorted!

Blogroll

I've updated the blogroll. (Why did no-one say it wasn't working properly?)

New additions include:

Shuggy (who should have been added before now); and

SNP Tactical Voting, Davie from North Leith and Tartan Hero (which does not mean that I have come over all nationalist but they all have interesting things to say - at least sometimes).

I have also restored Bondwoman in the hope that it will encourage her recent return.

Perhaps one day I will manage to get the thing in alphabetical order...

It's just not fair...

You really can't blame Mr McConnell. It was just bad timing. Unlucky really.

It all got overtaken by the news from Northern Ireland. As a result, neither the telly nor the broadsheets gave the No 10 deal the prominence it deserved; nor did the No 10 website. It was left to the faithful Daily Record to report:

McConnell and the PM teamed up to stress the benefits Labour can deliver with the party in power in Westminster and Holyrood.
They promised fresh action on skills, jobs, health, crime and cutting red tape in a document on "building Scotland not breaking up Britain".

Instead, the abiding memory of the First Minister's trip to London will be supplied by this report in The Herald:

Patricia Hewitt, Health Secretary, appeared not to know who Scotland's First Minister was yesterday, marring a Labour event intended to show how Westminster and Holyrood were working together.
On STV, she extolled the virtues of the smoking ban in Scotland but came unstuck when she repeatedly referred to the First Minister as "Jack McDonald".

See what I mean? Some days, you just can't win...


Update: Courtesy of TartanHero, you can watch Patsy here.

Who's trying hardest?

For those who take an arithmetically selective approach to political campaigning (or for those who equate activity with quality), it is worth noting that the SNP managed to put out 5 press releases over the weekend. The LibDems managed three (although none of them emanated from an MSP).

Apparently, neither the Labour Party nor the Conservative Party works during weekends.

Shorts

Wot, no pigeons or seagulls?

...

Don't expect this saga to end today. (It's a bit like Liz Hurley's wedding - it just goes on and on...)

...

This guy is a stirrer.

...

Do you fancy an isotope-enhanced steak? Nope, didn't think so.

Multiplication

This is becoming silly. The Scotsman makes up new constitutional rules:

HOW many referendums might it take for the SNP to secure an independent Scotland? One in Scotland might seem the obvious answer. But a change in the British constitution would require a UK-wide referendum, too. A third may be required to ratify the negotiated settlement, which could turn out to be significantly different from popular preconception. Assuming the answer to all of these is "Yes", a further referendum may then be required on whether an independent Scotland should apply for membership of the EU, from which most legislation now emanates anyway, taking the final tally to four.

Since when did constitutional change 'require' a referendum? It may be politically convenient to have one on certain types of changes, but in no sense is it 'required'.

The dog that doesn't bark

Once upon a time, a political party with an interest in gaining or retaining power would seek to manipulate the Sunday newspapers, with a view to ensuring that the story they wanted would secure prominence, thus 'setting the agenda'. The party would do this by selective briefing of particular journalists on the preceding Friday or Saturday.

That this still happens occasionally is shown by the main story in The Sunday Herald this morning, which is the result of a more or less blatant attempt by the SNP to highlight progress on the referendum question. Is this a real story? I have suggested here that it might not be. But at least the SNP is putting the effort in.

What do we get from Labour? The main political story in Scotland on Sunday is that Gordon Brown is to place himself 'at the heart of Labour's Holyrood election campaign' (while insisting - of course - that Mr McConnell remained 'the leader of the campaign'). Is this a real story? Does it mean anything? Probably not, it's just the Brown team going through the rather tired motions. But at least somebody put in some effort in getting the necessary quotations together.

Anything else on the Labour front? Well, it's risible to say the least but the Sunday Mail has this:

CRIMINALS could be ordered to do community work in telltale orange uniforms under Labour's plans for "pay-back punishments".
Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson wants to introduce community courts which would order offenders to sweep the streets or repair vandalism.

Dear, dear. Pathetic, you say? I have to admit that it's hardly agenda-setting.

But what of the esteemed First Minister? How has he set the headlines alight, a mere six weeks ahead of the election? Well, the only thing I could find was this headline in The Sunday Post:

JACK McCONNELL travels to London tomorrow to tell Tony Blair the smoking ban in Scotland is an unqualified success.

Newsworthy stuff, isn't it? Why not just give Tony a ring rather than adding to carbon emissions?

If the First Minister wants the Labour party to be re-elected, then he really has to start working harder.

Who's a fat boy then?

Me, I blame the parents. That and the television. Oh and the absence of diet Trill. The Independent reports:

Increasing numbers of budgerigars are becoming fat to the point of obesity, scientists say, because of high-energy diets, lack of exercise and their refusal to fly.
Researchers at the universities of Gröningen and Bern filmed large numbers of the caged birds and found that they were so lazy that they walked to their food rather than flying.

Hey, if you were stuck in a wee cage most of the day, you'd have trouble flying.

And, btw, have university researchers not got anything better to do?

Ah, the time-honoured practice of tweaking...

There you go. A quiet word with the civil servants, a tweaking of the referendum question and, hey presto, the difficulties just disappear. The Sunday Herald reports:

In recent talks with the SNP, civil service officials expressed concern that the wording of the referendum question might not be covered by the powers of the parliament.
The civil servants instead suggested a new version which made clear the question had to be explicit about being based on the contents of the white paper.
Salmond said he could "not comment" on discussions with the Executive, but confirmed that a "tweaked" question had been drafted.
"Any talks with the civil service are private, but the wording on the ballot will be, The Scottish parliament should negotiate a new settlement with the British government, based on the proposals set out in the white paper, so that Scotland becomes a sovereign and independent state'. The responses would be Yes I agree' or No I disagree'."
In other words, a "Yes" vote would give Holyrood the right to negotiate an independence settlement, rather than a straight endorsement of a separate state.

Can it be that simple? I rather doubt it. Let me remind you of the legal position taken earlier by the Executive (see here):

“Scottish parliament does not have the powers to pass legislation authorising expenditure on any referendum. [It] can only pass legislation in devolved areas, and since the UK constitution is a reserved area, it would be ultra vires [beyond its power] for the parliament to pass legislation to authorise a referendum on any aspect of the constitution.” The guidance adds: “Neither can Scottish ministers have any function in connection with the holding of such a referendum.”

But if Mr Salmond says that Sir John Elvidge and the Executive have changed their position, then who am I to disbelieve him?

It's complicated, all this interweb stuff...

I've been updating my RSS feeds. (For those not up with the techie stuff, these tell me when a website has been updated. Thus when something new appears on a blog or a political website, I am alerted.)

OK, it's a minor issue but, of the four main Scottish political parties, only the SNP has bothered with RSS feeds. I don't claim to be more than vaguely aware of technological progress, but the absence of RSS feeds must nowadays be regarded as amateurism.



Oh yes, I do have one. Go down to the bottom of the right hand column.

Maybe it's not his fault but...

... does Tommy never get tired of living a life in the movies?

Industrial relations - how to be a dictator

It seems that the private sector is also occasionally troubled by petty-minded bureaucrats. The Times reports:

Royal Bank of Scotland has sparked a fierce row with unions by threatening 14,000 staff with disciplinary action unless they open and have their salary paid into a current account with the group.
An RBS spokeswoman refused to rule out the possibility that employees could ultimately face the sack.
The bank, home to Direct Line, Churchill and NatWest, has written to thousands of employees warning them they will be in breach of group policy unless they act.

Regardless of the merits (if such exist) of the policy, why does RBS draw attention to it? Do they want to be seen as vindictive, tyrannical, pettifogging employers? Do they not think about the damage such reports will do to their reputation? Self-defeating or what...

What did we do to deserve this lot?

Something of a shouting match at First Minister's Questions today. I'll put up a link (here) when it is available (and when I have come back from watching the cricket at the pub).

It was inevitably all about local government taxation. I am sorry for those of you who find this boring because you are going to hear an awful lot about it over the next few weeks. Jack said the SNP were going to impose another poll tax on Scotland - which is rather stretching the point. Nicola asked him what his alternative policy was. Rather limply, Jack said that before the election he would announce proposals for making the council tax fairer.

I have already made clear (here) my less than complimentary opinion on the SNP proposals.

But the Labour Party is also in something of a bind. As far as we can gather, Jack's proposals are likely to follow yesterday's Lyons Report (here) by adding one or two bands to the existing council tax arrangements. But this could not be done without a property revaluation (the existing bands are based on valuations made in the early 1990s). A revaluation would horrify political parties because it would result in relatively large numbers of losers and winners (and the longer they leave it the worse it gets). Which is why in England the Lyons Report will be thrown into a cupboard and forgotten (and why it was released on budget day).

So what can our esteemed First Minister offer in the short term by way of reform of local government finance? Not a lot is likely to be the answer.

(By the way, would some civil servant take Mr McConnell aside and explain to him the difference between 'less' and 'fewer'? It would be so much nicer if the First Minister appeared to have had some education. Oh, and tell him to stop shouting when he runs out of proper answers.)