Referendums, legality and usurpation.

There is ongoing confusion for many over the legality of the upcoming independence referendum, who can hold it, when, what the questions should be and will it be binding or advisory. This confusion is perpetrated by widespread reporting in the mainstream media without full verification of all the underlying facts.

Most recently we have one Professor Tomkins, an expert on constitutional law at Glasgow University, who largely echoed Aiden O’Neil’s earlier comments by informing the Scottish affairs committee in Westminster that “any referendum should be run by the Electoral Commission and, for it to be acceptable, the questions and their meaning and effects should be "crystal clear".

Professor Tomkins is described as a leading academic in the field of constitutional law; therefore his views certainly deserve merit as does his warning that there is a "very strong" argument in constitutional law that the Scottish Government will be exceeding its statutory powers by staging an independence referendum.

The Scottish affairs committee at Westminster is certainly exceeding its remit, as it is limited to commenting and examining the affairs of the Scottish Office, not Holyrood, but is Holyrood also exceeding its remit as the good professor would infer and have us believe.

Alex Salmond has rejected this and all previous claims that the Scottish Government lacks the powers to hold an independence referendum. While David Cameron in referring to the referendum as being for Scotland to decide, apparently agrees with this stance.

Immediate indications are that the proposed poll is legal from the standpoint of both leaders and that what is proposed by the Scottish affairs committee and its quoted expert is without basis. Professor Tomkins does throw out the same credible arguments, similar to those used by others before him as they try to deny Scotland a voice.

In his paper as submitted to Westminster's Scottish affairs committee, Professor Adam Tomkins put forward the argument that there was a "strong constitutional case" for the UK Government, and not Holyrood, to legislate for the referendum. He stated "If the question is 'Should Scotland remain in the United Kingdom?' that is a question on a reserved matter and should therefore be asked (if at all) by HM Government under the authority of an Act of Parliament”.

His use of the wording, “if at all” gives an exceedingly strong indication as to Adam Tomkins personal leanings with regards to dependency or self determination.

The submission to the committee continued, "Were the Scottish ministers to seek to ask such a question in a referendum held under the authority of an Act of the Scottish Parliament (ASP), there is (at the least) a very strong argument the ASP would be outwith competence and, therefore, 'not law' under section 29 of the Scotland Act 1998, and that the Scottish ministers would be acting outwith their devolved competence if they sought to exercise powers in pursuit of such an ASP.

"If the question is 'Should the Scottish Government seek to renegotiate with HM Government the terms of the Union?', my view would be the same: this is a reserved matter, even if the referendum question somehow made clear that the renegotiation was not intended to end the Union and that the proposal was not that Scotland should leave the United Kingdom."

Professor Tomkins views are therefore crystal clear; Holyrood doesn’t have the power under the UK constitution to hold a referendum.
 
Offsetting the opinion of this constitutional law expert appears the previously mentioned views of both Alex Salmond and David Cameron with the Scottish government also firm in its commitment and belief that it both has the legal remit and authority to bring forward a referendum bill followed by a constitutional poll in the second half of the current Scottish Parliament.

Who’s correct and who’s obfuscating, is it Prof Tomkins who appears to know what he’s speaking about with respect to UK constitutional law, or is it Holyrood who have certainly set out their stall on this issue.

One aspect both sides agree upon, as voiced in Professor Tomkins’ submission is that "For a referendum to be constitutionally acceptable, the questions to be asked must be crystal clear as to their meaning and their effects. That is to say, the options must be clearly defined and it must be clear what the consequences are of voting in any particular way."

A spokesman for Alex Salmond said "Professor Tomkins needs to catch up", before adding: "Everyone else, including the Prime Minister, accepts the right of the Scottish Government and Parliament to hold the referendum - we are entirely confident of the legal position and will bring forward a Referendum Bill for the vote on Scotland's future to take place in the second half of this parliament."

Professor Tomkins apparently has the crux of the matter; under UK law Holyrood doesn’t have the legislative authority to legislate for a constitutional referendum. UK law is very clear on this in that “the constitution” is a reserved matter. This gives a notional meaning that if Holyrood wanted a referendum on prescription charges or university fees then such is within its competence, but on the constitution the parliament in Edinburgh would be exceeding its remit – per Westminster.

The professor therefore hangs his hat on a peg by stating “it would be preferable for the United Kingdom Parliament to legislate on the matter”.

Interestingly Professor Tomkins doesn’t say “Only Westminster can legislate on this subject”, simply that it would be “preferable”. The issue again is why the use of the word “preferable” and preferable for whom?

For whom it is preferable is indicated in his statement. As he calls for any referendum to be held as quickly as possible, his is another voice to the constant Union generated bedlam. The use of his word “preferable” is not so quickly explained, and as the trails are unravelled it’s clearly demonstrated that it is preferable from a Union perspective only.

Professor Tomkins is apparently viewing the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a single country, which it is not. The “UK” in its present form is a state, not a nation, and has only existed under its current name and verifiably compound status since 1926. Constitutional rights in Scotland are different from those in England; therefore that “constitutional argument” is on a shoogly peg indeed.

The original Treaty of Union of 1707 was between two independent nation states, setting aside the legality questions surrounding that agreement there is an indisputable fact that Scotland and England are not “one country” but two nations co-existing with a unified government under a potentially worthless treaty. Effectively under that treaty both Scotland and England devolved their government to Westminster. The Union treaty made no mention of suspending Scotland’s constitution or laws – in fact it promised to “forever uphold” Scotland’s laws. In effect it promised to uphold Scotland’s constitution.

This brings the Vienna Convention on Treaty law into play, with the UK being a signatory. Interestingly one country that Whitehall has authority to enter into treaties with is Scotland. Wales and N. Ireland are notable for their absence. Any bi-lateral treaty can be ended unilaterally with appropriate notification by either party. Scotland, in lacking a recognized parliament for some centuries, could arguably have been said to have been without the voice that allowed it make such a declaration.

That situation where Scotland lacked self government has now been rectified, and as Westminster is in agreement that international law trumps national law they are effectively bound by the Scottish Government’s decision in this matter. Had Scotland been taken by right of conquest and not entered into a treaty this fact might not hold true.

The second player in the referendum arena that Westminster must be mindful of is the United Nations. The UK is a principle member of the UN and signatory to almost every treaty of relevance within its sphere of influence at the UN. The UN position is clear.

The UN charter reads, quite specifically, and was reportedly re-affirmed on 10th November 2011 as:

“..the Assembly reaffirmed that the universal realisation of the right of all peoples — including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination — to self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee, observance, preservation and promotion of human rights.

The Assembly also declared its firm Opposition to acts of foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation, since those have resulted in the suppression of the right of peoples to self-determination and other human rights in certain parts of the world”.

In effect, if the Scottish government were to poll the Scottish people on independence they might contravene Westminster’s interpretation of what’s legal internal to the UK but they should anticipate the backing of the United Nations and the Vienna Convention, both of which the UK is signatory to and bound by under international law.

The best that London could hope for is a delaying tactic, which with incessant screams of “referendum now” would appear to go against current Westminster policy. Any legal delaying tactic by Westminster would also have a strong potential of driving a mass of undecided voters to the pro-independence side of the argument as the SNP would rightfully clamour deprivation of democracy.

Should Westminster choose it can ignore the referendum result as “advisory”, however “the mother of parliaments” would then be in a position of arguing before the UN that the democratic will of a people in its most basic sense, isn’t worth squat. Alex Salmond would also have an irrefutable mandate for UDI under such a scenario; the only question is will he use it?

At day’s end David Cameron will decide the path Westminster walks after the Scottish referendum, however he may yet choose to dictate the path that our nation will follow up to that point, but in so doing he must tread with great care of he is to avoid his personal Rhodesia moment. Although none in the Scots government at Holyrood openly talks UDI, it would be foolish to think there aren’t contingency plans for almost every foreseeable eventuality.

The CyberNat Song Video and Lyrics

CyberNat Song Lyrics. 

I'm a Nat, I'm a Nat, I'm a CyberNat that's the name ye gie’d tae me,
I'll speak fur masel an ma pals as well, aboot ma land that will be free.
I'm no’ the kind o' Nat that listens tae a Brat, sayin the union hus tae stay
Naw, I'm the kind o' Nat that’ll tell yon Brat, we will go our own sweet way.

 I roam aroon the old chat rooms, the forums and the threads,
The unionists are feart ae me, they all take tae their beds.
Fur they cannae convince us ony mair that the UK's the only way,
We've a’ seen the light, and it’s shining really bright, we're gonnae be free one day

Well one fine day no so long ago, they tried tae moderate
My comments on a newspaper site, all aboot the unionist debate
It simply went tae show them up, for the cowards we know they are
Ah tore them a’ tae shreds, on the forums and the threads, cuz I wullnae let them get too far

Noo, Labour hud been in power here, for fifty years or more
But Scotland never seemed tae thrive, like the great big country right next door
So why do we gie them aw oor dosh, oor oil an' oor whisky tae?
Cuz, they hivnae got a clue, an don’t ken whit tae do, wi the hunners o the money we pay.

Oh they spend a’ oor cash, in the far South East, for roads an' nice railways.

While we sit freezing tae death in the north, wae the bills we can’t afford tae pay

Despite the grafting that we’ve a’ done, they buggers have frittered it away

Aye their future's looking bleak an they’ve started tae feel seek, doon the London union way

Weel, you'll hear them say doon Shettleston way, "Whit’s happened tae the big union wigs?
We got them on the run an we had a bit of fun, wae them dancing tae oor highland jigs.
But noo we’re on the loose, I only hope that yous, can see the changes comin' ower me
I know it sounds absurd, but be sure n take my word, that Scotland IS gonnae be free.

Glossary:

Brat .... contraction of BritNat ... jist saying!

Who is Peter Atherton and why do we care?

Peter Atherton could be described as a prime mover at Citi-Bank in London, his portfolio includes energy investment.

Mainstream Scottish media and political opponents of the Scottish government pounced on his pronunciations that “Renewable investors risk seeing their assets stranded in a newly independent Scotland”.

Michael Moore jumped on the bandwagon calling for immediate referendum timetables, stating “It is vital that we maximise the potential of Scotland’s renewables sector by providing the stable environment in which that can happen.”

Tom Greatrex, Labour MP added: “This is an astounding warning and shows the grave flaws in the SNP’s energy policy.”

The background to this issue is that Scotland’s ministers have set a goal of 100% of Scotland’s energy needs to be met from renewables by 2020. That’s a goal, not a requirement and nothing was ever achieved by not trying. Not trying is what Unionism and Mr. Atherton appear to suggest, or at least that we shouldn’t try quite so hard.

Holyrood says the move to a green and re-industrialized economy would create investment and jobs and although ministers have described present targets as “ambitious” they believe them “achievable”.

Critics have described the target as impossible and questioned how many new positions would actually be created. Westminster has proven itself comprehensively anti-Scots and pro-nuclear when it comes to energy. The green generation “connection fees” in Scotland and London’s insistence on ongoing nuclear testify to that.

Citigroup analyst Peter Atherton has now warned that hitting the 100% target would cost around £46bn, because of the need to build more onshore and offshore wind turbines. His inference was obvious; funding might not be there – at least from Citibank. He and our mainstream media don’t seem to worry that this £46bn isn’t public money either – it’s a big scary number so “fit for use”, fit for propaganda.

Mr. Atherton based his statements on the fact that even beyond the size of the capitol investment, the green energy sector would still need another £4bn a year of public subsidy, probably by way of increased billing because he believes Scotland’s consumer base is “far too small” to support this industry. He’s ignoring exports.

Mr. Atherton’s stance is that England and Wales will have to subsidise Scotland’s green energy drive. “But Scotland seceding from the UK would clearly place this subsidy stream at grave risk,” he added. This seems another posturing on the “too poor, too wee, too stupid” stance often thrown up by the Union. It requires examination as to merit.

He also warned utilities and other investors, particularly Perth-based SSE and Scottish Power, to exercise extreme caution in committing further capital to Scotland with the bombshell statement that they “may already be over exposed to these risks.”

Mr Atherton concludes that Mr Salmond’s twin flagship policies, independence and providing 100% of energy from renewables by 2020 are incompatible. His perspective was validated for him because the referendum will create uncertainty during investment periods; therefore the potential for Scotland to hit its targets was “remote”. Independence – referendum – uncertainty, a trifecta of words that appear to be sounded too often from London to not require additional investigation. It almost sounds like a Union press release.

Professor Tony Mackay also described the 100% target as “impossible”, suggesting that 40% would be more achievable. We’re close to 40% already and there’s 8 plus years to go.

Looking to London’s Mr. Atherton we find he does not actually speak for Citibank, as he told a recent commons select committee “I am Peter Atherton from Citigroup. For the lawyers, my usual proviso is that I speak for myself and not for Citigroup”.

In examining the brief of Mr. Atherton’s day job, he’s there to maximize investment return for Citibank and its investors. His concern is only for their profit, that’s his job.

Mr. Atherton’s input on carbon capture and green energy proposals together with an energy mix and funding package were solicited by the UK government in February of this year, his response: “My answer is that I have no idea; it is way too early to tell. These are very big, complex reforms, interacting with a whole series of other, very big and complex policies”.

Citibank’s energy representative clearly stated recently that he “has no idea” how issues surrounding energy will work out on a UK basis, yet he feels qualified to comment on Scotland, based as he is in London.

Peter Atherton did go on to tell the UK government that things might be workable but what “investors have to be able to imagine is a situation where, in 2018 or 2019, the Secretary of State is standing up to the media and Parliament and saying, "It is a really good thing that your bills have just gone up by 15%, and will be going up 15% next year, the year after and the year after. And it’s a really good thing that SSE and the other utilities have just reported record profits, and will be reporting record profits for the next 10 years." He appears to then feel confident of energy funding.

Digging more deeply into Mr. Atherton’s history on issues indicates satisfaction with any situation that produces maximum returns for ideally no risk to his investors. Anything with guaranteed returns like PPI and PFI would appear to be an ideal situation for him.

In short, he wants guarantees his investors will profit and profit substantially.

Speaking on the energy mix, specifically referencing the “green deal” under consideration by the UK government, Mr. Atherton referenced “Scottish and Southern Energy last year did 105p of post-tax earnings, so I thought I’d run through my model how much profit they would be making by the end of the decade if they were to do their proportional amount of this investment-around £4 billion a year”.

“In 2015, their profits would have risen to 155p, but by 2020 they would be at 225p. Therefore, their profits are going up 15% or 20% a year at the end of the decade, just as bills are rising”.

Notably Mr. Atherton completed that section of his oratory with the statement that “The Green Deal is not a grant; it’s a loan. You are paying for the loan. Your overall energy bill may fall, but when you add the loan price back in, the cost doesn’t actually fall for the consumer”.

Based upon Peter Atherton’s figures above, the price of a green energy mix may not fall for the consumer, but the power companies more than double their profits.

The last noteworthy statement from Mr. Atherton to the committee was “The current systems struggle where you have big construction risk and big technological risk, such as with offshore wind and, even more so, with new nuclear. In our view, new nuclear is un-investable for private equity investors. Under the current mechanisms there is too much construction risk and too much power price risk. Offshore wind is in a borderline area, but onshore wind, for example, would be fine”.

Balancing Mr. Atherton’s comments about investment and viability, investments by major international corporations, such as Mitsubishi, Doosan and Repsol, as well as domestic firms, are providing jobs and growth for the future in Scotland’s world leading renewables industry. This process has not appreciably changed since the Scottish government confirmed plans for an independence referendum in the latter half of the parliamentary term. Four of the five world leading turbine manufacturers now have a significant presence in the country.

The Scottish government issued a statement saying “The analysis also fails to understand that much of the renewable energy which will be produced in Scotland will be for export.”

What does “generate 100% of Scotland’s energy from renewables” mean, when much of it will be “exported”. Scotland is energy rich, we already export energy. We will generate our basic needs from renewables if the goals are met, then export our excess capacity when available to England or other markets. If the goals are not met, we in an independent Scotland will simply have less to export, our lights will not “go out”. We will maintain a mix of renewable and fossil energy.

Scotland will phase out nuclear as those facilities age and reach the end of their life. Mr. Atherton agrees with this as he clearly states “new nuclear is un-investable”. Clearly something other than nuclear must replace our current nuclear plants. In or out of the UK/EU that simple fact doesn’t change.

Scotland is in energy surplus, England is in energy deficit. England imports energy from Scotland and forces Scotland to pay for the privilege of exporting it. Out of the Union we get market rates, inside the Union we get exploited. Ofgem has shown no eagerness to change therefore that looks like it will be an ongoing situation, absent independence.

Our nation has invested £750 million in renewable energy in the last year alone, our government at Holyrood realises that fossil fuel will continue to increase in price and pollute our planet. Wind and wave, solar and tidal energies with emerging green technology don’t increase their fuel costs over time. If we wish to prevent the children of our nation from living in perpetual fuel poverty there is only one viable way forward at present.

Our investment in renewables like our nations size in comparison to China is minute. Last year china promoted £37b investment in solar alone. In spite of Peter Atherton’s obvious fears, much of green energy is now largely mainstream and proven technology.

As stated in Wikki – Scotland’s future is truly bright on renewables “The natural resource base for renewables [in Scotland] is extraordinary by European and even global standards”.

With control of the Crown Estates much of the direct profit from these advances could go straight to our own communities rather than pad treasury coffers in London.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmenergy/c742-iv/c74201.htm

Is this Willie Rennie's "Subway" moment?

It would appear that the Scottish Libdems and Willie Rennie have shot themselves in the foot. With a very large canon.

Earlier this afternoon I was doing my normal rambling around the interwebs and blogisphere, when there began a few disgruntled stirrings about the "Scottish" Libdems Twitter account. Naturally, being a nosey wee besom at times, I had a look. And there for all to see was a "photo-shopped" poster of Alex Salmond.  He had apparently acquired a fine suntan and was bedecked in traditional Keffiyeh and thawb with an arm swung casually over a camel's neck. Not that shocking - until you read the text which accompanied the picture.

The "artist" had taken a quote made by Mr Salmond today, that Scotland and Qatar shared "remarkable similarities". However, the bullet points beside the picture severely contort the imagery into rather ugly and unedifying contortions. 

They read as follows:

• Absolute monarchy, controls all aspects of life.
• Gay rights suppressed and no legal recognition of same sex marriage.
• Death penalty used for crimes against the state.

With "Mr Salmond's "independent Scotland" emblazened across the bottom.

While each of these things on their own don't add up to much, when put together in this fashion, it all of a sudden becomes quite disturbing and shocking. It also elicited from me a bit of a gasp and a WTF?

Initially I thought, this was a set-up, you know, some group is trying to illicit a reaction from SNP supporters. I also thought that perhaps it was a result of account hacking. Therefore, I surfed around to see where the tweet had come from, and sure enough, it appears to be directly from the Scottish Libdems official Twitter account.

Well, as you can imagine, by this stage I was as incredulous as the next Tweeter as to the potential of this rather obscene tweet. Not only did it portray a narrow-minded Western ideal of an Arab in a rather stereotypical camel hugging fashion, it uttered three rather unambiguous lies about Scotland and her people, Scottish politics and Alex Salmond.

• The fact that the people of Scotland had DEMOCRATICALLY elected Mr Salmond into office in a landslide victory in May seemed to have escaped the poster-maker's memory. Perhaps they were still banging their head on the wall wondering how it happened in a system designed specifically to prevent this. However, that's not the point. This poster alleges that Mr Salmond has somehow rigged the electoral system to his own ends for the forseeable future. It also alleges the Scottish people were too dim-witted to have noticed this.

• It also claims that gay rights are in danger of being dismissed in Scotland, when it has been shown that this isn't the case. Especially as Mr Salmond has gone on the record in support of marriage equality. Furthermore, there was a recent poll in Scotland showing a majority of the public were also in support of legitimising gay marriage. This particular bullet point alone is one huge dirty lie, perpetrated by the Libdems to do no more than fear-monger among folks who feel vulnerable to start with. Nice one.

• As for the reference to the death penalty? Need I really comment? I am completely unable to wriggle into the psyche that set this to paper as being something which is connected to Scotland and/or Mr Salmond. I'm actually speechless, bereft of words, and as of right now unable to formulate an opinion on that particular part of the picture content. I'm sure I'll think of something... eventually.

 Then, this tweet appeared. Not only was the first one deliberate. They were proud of it. It was starting to look like "attention for attention's sake".

By mid- late afternoon I was tweeting and posting to Facebook and was deep in discussions with various folks online, all of whom were voicing their outrage and disgust and the dirty tactics, when someone mentioned Facebook. 

One of Willie Rennie's Facebook pages to be precise. He apparently has two. Again, my immediate thought was - naawwwww! So I toddled over and looked and... Ayyye... there it was.

Over and again I kept asking myself, "What" and "Why"? 

What makes the leader of a political party do such an incredibly stupid thing, such as this? 

 

Why does he think that using such negative imagery and blatant lies is something he can do without any sort of sanctions being brought against him. Or why and how does he think this will enhance his standing with the electorate in Scotland and the members of his own party?

What seam of angry, peurile hopelessness runs through the man's - or the party's - veins to allow this to happen on his watch? Where are the checks and balances on the side of common sense which would have screamed -THIS IS WRONG?

Why can't he and his party engine channel all this energy into consrtucting, positive  and effective opposition to the SNP, rather than dissolving into gutter diplomacy, the likes of which we see here.

As the afternoon passed into early evening, it had become increasingly obviously that he didn't disapprove of the picture and its content, because after hours and hours of speculation and questions asked, there was nothing eminating from the "Scottish" Libdems's camp. 

The Facebook page is unchanged nor has the tweet been withdrawn, and certainly no comments are forthcoming from Libdem central or Willie Rennie. Business as usual, nothing to see here, move along.

Even Libdems were disgusted.

However this is, in my opinion, one mega-sized shot in the foot. And may well be the final nail in the coffin which contains the decomposing remains of the Liberal Democratic representation in Scotland. 

On my last veiwing of a few minutes ago, there are 98 comments and 29 have "shared" the photo on Willie Rennie's page. Almost to the number, every one of them condemns the the publication and its content. There are one or two that have chosen not to see the nastiness therein.

Among those who commented, there are several Libdem supporters who are beyond angry. In fact they are rightly outraged and these include at least one who has now signed up and joined the SNP.

 It has been said on several occassion recently, the Unionist aligned parties in Scotland are in total disarray. They are contributing to the cause of independence day and daily. I say more power to them. However, it would be far preferable if they left their nasty, racist and narrow-minded ideas out of the Scottish political picture. This type of unseemly behaviour is really uncalled for.

UPDATE 1: Willie Rennie apologises on BBC Scotland

UPDATE 2: Despite the apology, I think Rennie's credibility is now in the gutter and will be very hard to ressurect to any position of respectibility. 

Sorry Willie, "Run wae the craws, get shot wae the craws". This is the best example in Scottish politics for quite sometime (well, April and a sandwich shop incident with some other guy) which reflects the axiom, it takes a lifetime to build a reputation and only seconds to destroy it. The worst of it being of course, by his own hand.  

UPDATE 3: There has been talk there are two Facebook pages for Mr Rennie. Indeed there are. The first one had reached its friend subscription limit and a second one was started. Both were his pages and both appear to be affiliated to the Libdems.

The announcement where Mr Rennie guides followers and friends to new page.

As you can see, it was the most recent FB page on which the picture appeared. 

Political party funding reform

Just emerging from the committee-enquiry stage after a 17 month deliberation, is a proposal for political party funding reform. The working committee which had representatives of the Lib-Dem, Tory and Labour parties as well as six independents was chaired by Sir Christopher Kelly.

 

Reform is long overdue as it has been the ability of single large donors to influence party policy that has been a fundamental flaw in the Westminster political system almost since its inception.

Democracy has many costs, the financial one must be borne from the public purse to ensure we limit as much as possible the destruction or subversion of democracy by vested interests or greed.

The proposal currently being mooted is worth about £100 million to the parties from the public purse and is being proposed as a method to make up a shortfall created by the donation cap system. £100 million over 5 years is less than £2 a person, or less than 1p per week – cheap democracy. 

The initial draft proposals had individual contributions limited to £10,000 until the Tories tabled an amendment to increase that fivefold, claiming discrimination.

Discrimination is a valid claim, but not in the way the Conservatives would have us believe by way of Lord Feldman of Elstree the Tory co-chairman.  £50,000 donations will still command substantial allegiance, especially as there is no organizational or familial cap apparent in the recommendations.

Without a familial or organizational cap there is nothing to prevent an individual such as Rupert Murdoch donating £50,000, then giving the same again to a dozen or more friends, family or colleagues to do likewise.

There also must be a proof of source of funds, this would ensure that frauds like that perpetrated when the Liberal-Democrats received some £2.4 million from rogue trader, Mr. Brown, who then fled to and is currently living in the Dominican Republic would not re-occur. The Lib-Dem’s have stubbornly refused to return the funds to the individuals defrauded.

The proposed original £10,000 or even a lesser cap could therefore be viewed as more appropriate with parties raising additional funds through individual party membership and allocated vote share.

The proposals call for the funding to be shared out on a per-vote basis with a suggested value of £3 a tick.

It would be better and fairer to allocate the funding to all registered political parties, minor parties must also obtain a share if they are to have an opportunity to establish and flourish. There should be perhaps some 20% of the pot set aside for equitable distribution between all registered political parties with the remainder going on vote share. Safeguards require to be built in to ensure funds are only spent on a limited range of political activities. Penalties must be severe.

The current recommendations are certainly drafted towards maintenance of the status quo.

One of the most substantial arguments for the “per vote” funding is it will encourage parties to get their voters out to the polls with parties now having a strong fiscal incentive.

The driving force behind these changes is the Liberal-Democrats who, basing figures on the 2010 GE would have reason to believe they stand to gain most from the proposals, however all parties are acknowledging the need for reform. That the Lib-Dems are in dire need of ongoing cash infusions is testified to by the layoffs at party HQ and the sale of their party headquarters. If current polls are an indication Nick Clegg’s party might end up worse off than before.

Interestingly, the Conservatives are pushing for an opt-in system for Labour’s union donations rather than the present opt-out, anticipate this to be just one area of acrimony as when this system was adopted in N. Ireland it saw the Labour party union contributions drop by over 60%. Any donation system should always be opt-in.

There’s also proposed modifications to the electoral spending caps at all levels.

The proposals don’t contain an obvious clear methodology for dealing with devolved parliaments, and highlighting the adequacies or inadequacies of those systems.

Electoral funding reform has been tried before at Westminster, each time it’s failed, primarily because privileged and vested interests have wished to retain a status quo that works for them rather than the electorate at large. Most recently Gordon Brown’s attempt sank without trace after accusations of bias and bad faith.

Speaking to the present commission’s findings Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude was of the opinion there was little public appetite for this type of reform at present, mainly due to the recriminations and perceptions lingering in the public consciousness from the expenses scandal.

Mr. Maude is entitled to his opinions, but nothing endangers true democracy more than purchased political privilege. The system as suggested for comment is an improvement on what presently exists but is woefully inadequate when compared to the simplest of public electoral funding systems.

A system is needed where each party raises its own membership donations with an indexed linked individual donation cap. That cap would perhaps be 5% of the median wage. It would apply annually. The only other donation source permitted should be public funding on an even basis for a set percentage of the total and a proportional basis for the remainder. Funded lobbying would be illegal.

If Westminster or Holyrood enacted such legislation it would truly be setting its feet on the path to real democracy, a democracy far less impacted by vested interest than what exists today.