Parliament: January 2009 Archives

The issue was that the Nats were too sensible to go for their last idea, an £800m cut in public services (unspecified) to fund a 2p tax cut, a wheeze so right-wing and impractical that even the Tories mocked them, which must have hurt.

However, David Maddox has their number (if the Steamie could link to pages, I'd link to it). Q: When is a principle a non-principle? A: When it's a Lib Dem principle.

In the latest example of this absolute rule of politics, their 2p tax cut has now been dropped. In its place the Liberals now simply want Alex Salmond to restate his long-standing policy commitment to borrowing powers for the Scottish Parliament, in writing, both to Gordon Brown and to Sir Kenneth Calman. I wonder if Alex Salmond managed to keep a straight face when this was suggested. I wonder if he tried to haggle, or if he said he'd let them know later. I wonder, above all, what on earth they were thinking.

If he does send these two letters, the Liberals will apparently vote for the Budget without other preconditions. Only the Telegraph seems to have the story at this stage, but others in the pack have been confirming it to me. Simon Johnson describes it as "a humiliating u-turn" to now be asking for a single second-class stamp. I make that two stamps, for a total cost of 48p.

If his dire performance on Newsnight is a guide, where he refused to answer any questions about his "proposals", Tavish Scott may be having second thoughts. I can see why: he's now about to commit himself to voting for a Budget which could be entirely unchanged from one his finance spokesman described just yesterday as "woefully inadequate". 

If he does show signs of losing his nerve, the First Minister should consider offering him a book of twelve stamps instead and see if that seals the deal.

Some of the analysis blames us - the Scotsman tomorrow apparently think only the SNP and the Greens voted, and their headline is curious to say the least. 

Alan Cochrane thinks no-one ever voted for a Green MSP, which is odd, because I distinctly remember voting for Robin Harper three times. One time I even got Mark Ballard as a bonus, because enough other people did the same thing. 

The Herald take a more measured approach, while Magnus Linklater argues that ".. the SNP leadership made the mistake of taking Mr Harvie for granted. They left the last-minute dealing to the last minute, and presumed too much." 

Turning to the blogs, cybernat opinion roasts us, while the more reasonable end of the Nat blogosphere takes the opposite view, with some reservations. The Liberals are blaming the Nats, with some support for our position, while Labour also remain focused on the SNP.

It's pretty extraordinary, given that almost four months ago we approached them with seriously affordable and sensible proposals on insulation and home energy, enough to get Robin and Patrick to overlook the actively undesirable aspects of their proposals. I can only assume Alex Salmond, John Swinney & Bruce Crawford like a white-knuckle ride.

Still, making complex and dubiously-timed property moves might prove unpopular with your employers, in this case the public in the North East, not to mention with your colleagues. 

Now the use of anti-terror legislation was clearly over the top, but that's just how New Labour rolls. Protests about climate change? Let's use anti-terrorism legislation. Someone didn't pick up some street chocolate? Parents pretending they live in the right catchment area? Get the anti-terrorism legislation out.

But a whole country complaining about it? Brown didn't send Iceland to Guantanamo, after all. It looks more like Iceland joined the Arc of Blaming Westminster instead. 

More seriously, the idea that Iceland is in a better position than us is rather undermined by the burgeoning "fleece revolution", backed by the local Left Green Party, demanding the resignation of Geir Haarde, the amusingly named Icelandic Prime Minister (Huffington Post, Guardian, Flickr). 

The old Icelandic model is over, just as the Brown model is over. The difficulty for the Nats is that they also took the exact same policy positions, enthusiastically supporting casino capitalism and offering to bend over backwards for the financial services industry however irresponsibly they behaved. 

If we'd been "Free in '93", in a Salmond-led Scotland, does anyone seriously doubt that a "kilt revolution" would have been gathering outside Bute House right now?

Here's the pic the SNP bloggers are afraid to print:

What's a worse waste of money than a white elephant? Three white elephants!

We are basing our plan on the successful experience in Kirklees, where Green Councillors ensured that loft and cavity wall insulation is delivered area-by-area for free: more expensive measures are repaid by householders when the property is sold.

Although a copy is online, this brief but fascinating work confirms that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth and the Presiding Officer share the view that the SNP's second Budget is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. 

A note at the end confirms the bargain price: just 30p. I will watch the Amazon bestsellers list keenly, although resale value may depend on how the Budget votes go.

In many cases, schemes we'd been told were vital to support booming economic growth were rebranded as vital to get us out of recession. The Fourth Forth Crossing is one such.

Reading these two articles next to one another, the numbers for Wednesday's vote are starting to resolve themselves. As always, 64 is the magic number, with 65 a more comfortable position to be in  - there's more exciting detail on that below. 

For the SNP's budget to pass, just like last year, the main options are either a) for Labour not to vote against or b) for any two of the three smaller parties to vote for it. 

There are also other permutations involving abstentions: for instance, it also would pass if Labour vote against and everyone else abstains. Equally, party discipline might not hold, but I wouldn't bet on that. So how will they break? 

The Liberals are the easiest to call. They were so opposed to any kind of constructive discussion that they sent Mike Rumbles to meet the Cabinet Secretary. He's as emollient and as easy to get on with as a hungry bear with a thorn in its paw. It's like putting BA Baracus up for negotiations, but without the charm, good looks and jewelry.

They want a £800m tax cut, and I can show you Jeremy Purvis utterly failing to answer where the cuts would come from on Newsnight tonight if you're interested. The best he had was the part-privatisation of Scottish Water. That's 16 dead cert votes against.

The Tories are the next easiest. They don't know what they want, but Derek Brownlee took to Newsnight to argue for masterly inactivity and to explain that last year set the three year comprehensive spending review (keep awake at the back!), so no urgent action is required. This is code for almost certainly supporting the SNP, provided they get to take credit for something Ministers want to do anyway. Score that as 16 votes the other way.

Labour have played their cards a lot closer to their chest. Some have wondered whether there were even cards there at all, but David Maddox's report confirms that they're prepared to press the nuclear button and try to bring about the fall of the SNP government. Presumably they think Glenrothes was a sign of good things to come, or they don't care any more. Either way, today at last we know more, and it looks like a pretty clear vote against.

As Maddox writes, Labour's demands "would be to increase health and transport spending, drop plans for a local income tax, and scrap the £23.5 million Scottish Futures Trust. The list was delivered in the knowledge that it would be rejected."

If that's really their ask, they've put themselves in the same position as the Liberals, whereby voting against is the only consistent position. In particular, Angus Macleod is right to say that Labour are "keen to avoid the humiliation and ridicule they suffered last year", where they built up to a vote against before collapsing into abstention. It was so inept an approach that it inspired me to start blogging almost a year ago. They can't do it again, not if they want to retain any credibility with the media, making another 46 votes against now the most likely outcome.

That would leave the numbers at 63 in favour and 62 against, with only four votes still to consider: the two Green MSPs, Margo and the Presiding Officer.

At 64 votes all, i.e. if the SNP bring Margo round by leaving sacks of cash in the streets of the capital, but do not persuade us, then the PO has to use his casting vote. That's not at his discretion: he's required to use it to support the status quo, which is technically defined as the last thing Parliament supported. At Stage 1, that's last year's Budget, not this one, so he'd have to vote against. If we saw the same numbers at Stage 3, however, it'd be a vote for, given that Parliament would have had to have backed it at Stage 1 to have got that far. I checked this last year.

This means that, in order to be sure the budget will pass, again to quote David Maddox, "Mr Swinney will probably have to find £100 million to pay for the Greens' demand for free insulation to be provided for households across Scotland."

I do want to believe that. It's a great project, one the Nats should be backing irrespective of the budget: it would help tackle fuel poverty and climate change, improve health, boost jobs, and cut people's bills. I want to believe we're going to get this through, but that relies on Labour being consistent.

Last time, when they got it wrong, Iain Gray wasn't the mighty LOLITSP - he was the incompetent shadow finance minister, shredded by the Sun in the montage above (click it for a larger image). They've made their move now, and surely to goodness he doesn't want to be put through the mincer again?

It's the classic poacher-turned-gamekeeper manœuvre, or vice versa if you prefer. He's always been hard to read, politically, unlike his colleague David Torrance. If pressed, though, I'd say he's probably rightish on crime but more leftish on civil liberties and economics.