The day the Union died.

It's the 9th of May 2011, exactly one day short of a year the day the Union died - May 10th 2010. I hear you asking, why this particular day over any other in the last three centuries and counting?

The eighty year rise of the Scottish Nationalists, Devolution, and increasing political awareness all contributed to that day. Many who are fondly remembered, but are no longer with us contributed to that day, and to May 5th 2011.
Several significant events over decades contributed to that day as being a defining day in the death throes of a Union. More than anything else in recent history New-Labour and Gordon Brown, that consummate Unionist, contributed to the day the Union died. 

In retrospect he never could have avoided it, neither could Labour. That day was inbuilt to the party psyche. “Stop the Tories” had been a multi-generational mantra. That, and not the betterment  of working man, had become its raison- d’être. Combined with Labour selling its soul to the City of London.

Conservative principles, philosophy and policy had been dead for years in Scotland. Like the “vote for me and accomplish nothing for Scotland Lib-Dems”, their principle function north of the border was as a vote-splitter. To remove every vote possible from the Nationalists was the Union parties’ goal. Labour had been effectively dead for a generation, they hadn’t yet woken up to the fact. Death throes sometimes give the imitation of life.

Scots voters had for years been increasingly turning towards the SNP as their best form of government. The rise of the Nationalists had been like an inexorable tide, slowly rising every few years to yet another high water mark. For many Scots it appeared about as fast as glacial movement – but, it was as inevitable.

Another high water mark was reached in 2007, as Gordon Brown was looking to entrench himself in number 10, the Nationalists were elected as a minority government in Scotland. Safe in the knowledge there would never be a majority government in Scotland. He [Brown] believing that Holyrood would always be subject to Union control, or at the very least to Union veto, quietly sent forth orders to obstruct, obfuscate, and denigrate the efforts of the SNP in government. It failed.

Four years later Scotland is fast becoming the type of nation that the average English resident desires for themselves. In the face of Union obstructionism this is nothing short of a major seismic event.

The General Election of 2010 came upon us swiftly, more swiftly in the wake of a global credit crisis than many were apparently prepared for. Yet for those of us who looked deeper it wasn’t really a global credit crisis. Many nations escaped relatively to completely unscathed. The nations that didn’t escape were those who followed the Bush/Blair/Brown chant of light touch self regulation for the financial industry.

Although it wasn’t Scotland’s credit crisis – it was propaganda manna from heaven for the Union. From that perspective Westminster might well have willingly paid double for the bailout and considered it a bargain. All it bought in that respect was time, and as events would show, not much of it at that.

Scots were dealt a propaganda body blow by the Unionist media. They were daily thrashed with the fact they were “too wee, too poor” to support “Scotland’s” failed banking industry.

Propaganda was all it was, as these banks were operating under Westminster’s rules and regulations, they were reporting the vast majority of their profits and losses through English companies, and all that remained in Scotland was a stump. In some ways it resembled the Lib-Dems in Scotland, May 2011, propaganda value but not much else.

Using this “too wee, too poor” argument and the Tory threat in Westminster, adding in the promise of Labour protection if “Scotland went Red” we entered the UK 2010 election.

Scotland duly “went Red”, we decimated our own national party vote share in an attempt to secure what many in Scotland believed would be a Labour majority at Westminster. We sent 40 plus labour MP’s South and just one Tory. We gave Labour and Gordon Brown what he needed to form a coalition.

Labour under Mr. Browns’ leadership declared, quite forcefully by their actions, that they would rather do a deal with the devil than work with the nationalist parties. Labour voluntarily consigned themselves to the wilderness on May 10th 2010. A great many Scots were stunned, if not downright shocked, by this stance. Labour had been given their trust to stop a Conservative government in the UK, these proud Scots had put their trust and faith in Labour and had managed to put them in a position, just, to maintain government.

Scots voters watched in astonishment as Gordon Brown, the consummate Unionist, betrayed them.

Labour and the UK truly went under the collective Scottish microscope. Light was shone under rocks, and although no party emerged completely unscathed, the Nationalists certainly looked better than any other. It took several months for the enormity of what they had just witnessed to sink in with a lot of Scots.

For many it resembled a grieving process, as they finally pierced the veil of what Labour had transformed itself into. Political grief, like any grief, takes time. When it does translate to votes they can be hard votes indeed.

Less than one year later the elections at Holyrood came up. Scottish voters had long since proven they have more than enough intellectual capacity to vote in their best interest rather than directly along party lines, and for many the grieving process caused by Labour betrayal was over.

Scots also have long and accurate memories, better by far than most in the media give them credit for. As their daily focus swung to Holyrood and the election became imminent, the Scots ire at being Gordon Browns “voting fodder” added to Labour’s lack of leadership in Scotland, the credit crunch and the Tory Westminster government imposing “Austerity” cuts to a solvent nation boiled over into a quietly Scottish rebellion filled with the golden yellow of early spring sunshine.

Holyrood was designed to prevent an SNP majority ever happening. As that golden colour swept the electoral map and the opposition fell from both solid and shoogly pegs, the unthinkable happened. Scots chose to put their own nation first, rather than meekly submit to London control. What’s more is this was no protest vote, but a steady groundswell – as can be seen in the political maps below..

When Holyrood was re-convened what Westminster also did not count upon was that by 2011, every Scots voter under the age of 30 would have known nothing other than Holyrood government for their entire adult voting life.

Some may ask “why waste time and print on what is done”? Well, basically it is not done. This Union has many aspects, from the original Treaty to the present UK government; from its major crutch this last half century and more [Labour in Scotland] to the individual supporter.

As this Union at last gives up the ghost the grieving process will involve significant portions of our population and media for a plethora of different reasons. Any who doubts this need only look back to the BBC coverage of election night.

Each will be valid in its own way, to both the individual and the organization.

The grief over the death of the Union went largely unnoticed, for as is the way of peaceful revolution, few noticed the actual event. In today’s Scotland it has been brought forcibly home. On many levels. That the Union is forever changed is a given, this means the Union we knew is dead. That loss for many has yet to sink in.

There will be grief for that, certainly not universally. It will exist, although a year late. That the labour party in Scotland is diminished and in its death throes, there is grief by many for that also. That the Liberal democrats are all but utterly destroyed will cause grief to some. That the BBC and our mainstream media must adapt to a new existence is fact. Expect the current denial there to last rather longer, but the grief process is already self evident although presently entrenched at the rejection and denial stage.

As we walk our bright new path, let us not forget the past we have come from, and be considerate of the stages of grief others among us are enduring as we enjoy our present victory. Let us help them past the rejection of circumstance, the anger, the denial, and get them to accept walking the path we have been on for many, many years.

Most of all, let us all work towards getting that acceptance from them before the referendum. This is why we need time, time for all who can to complete the grieving and embrace the acceptance of our new enhanced and expanded lot in life. In his acceptance speech Alex Salmond led the way; we should all be mature enough to walk alongside.


With the reconvening of our Parliament in 1999 and Winnie Ewing’s opening remarks, the Union entered a deathwatch. May 10th 2010, Gordon Brown effectively administered the coup de grace. On the 5th of May 2011 the Scottish voter declared the corpse dead and called for an autopsy.

The only outstanding issue is when the funeral is to be held – it appears the Scots will set that date as well.

Meantime some must grieve, and that process will affect us all.

Holyrood 2011 – The International Impact. May 14th 2011

May 5^th 2011 has come and gone, we Scots have had our say, and what an emphatic statement we made. Where we go now is largely up to Alec Salmond and the executive committee of the SNP, for we as a nation have given them a mandate unlike any other in our history.

The domestic side is already unfolding, with the early reprieve of the air bases at Lossiemouth and Leuchars. Whitehall may save some political face by claiming Lossiemouth was never “confirmed for closure” and that Leuchars is to cease operations as a RAF base. We will allow them that, for now. Knowing as the army will be taking over Leuchars there should be little net difference to the local economy. The fight for corporation tax is about to begin, we should see victory there also.

London is realizing that after three centuries Scotland again sets her own agenda. That realization will be incremental, ongoing and in stages, as it battles to overcome centuries of inertia. Cameron has tacitly acknowledged that as an independent nation Scotland sets her own course. It is only in the aftermath of the decision by the Scottish voter to elect a majority government in the SNP that the rest of the world is beginning to wake up to the constitutional implications.

Globally, nations are slowly beginning to realize that under the treaty of 1707 Scotland is already an Independent nation, she always has been such. They themselves have also been hoodwinked by UK propaganda.

They are slowly beginning to realize that Scotland is under a cooperative treaty with England, and as such can end it at any time. Scotland can also choose to amend, re-ratify or eliminate individual clauses or sections. The community of Nations is beginning to fully understand that the Scots have just positioned themselves once again to punch their own ticket, and the rest of the world had better adjust.

There is one verifiable exception to that statement, one case where Scotland has already been “courted” in anticipation of this day. Hilary Clinton, US Secretary of State met with Alec Salmond in February 2009. Clinton doesn’t waste her time, but even the American analysts could read the trending in Scottish polls. They knew, barring a catastrophe, a “May 5^th 2011” would come – the final date was the only question.

Scotland is such a small nation, it might seem incredible to most of us that after centuries of “being put in our place” within the UK that we should warrant this kind of attention. The kind that Clinton was the first to give but which we are now finding acknowledged in news media from France to China. All have questioned the repercussions of May 5^th in Scotland, within their varying degrees of understanding.

The reason for Scotland’s prominence is understandable. One is the simple nature of Governments, when anything of significance takes place in the world socio-political structure they all take note. Generally, this is for reasons of self interest; e.g.  “Could it happen here?”, “will it affect me?” and “will it change the world dynamic?”

These questions are why Belgium breaking apart has relatively little newsworthiness, even within the EU which is headquartered there. However, if the US were announce the Federal system was disintegrating  and each state was going to be 100% autonomous, effectively creating fifty countries it would be politically world shaping event.

In many ways the world is taking a hard second look at the UK post May 5^th. Europe is seriously re-evaluating the situation, and the EU has quietly evolved into a state of downright panic, all behind closed doors of course. The question they must first exhaust asking before they can move forward with dealing with the issues is “how did it happen”?

All of these entities have a vested interest in the Status Quo, they prefer to see Scotland as part of a political construct known as the UK, and none will come to Scotland’s aid as she walks the path of treaty nullification with England unless they suddenly see it in their vested interest.

After the process is pronounced irreversible they will of course welcome her with open arms back into the global community. In the meantime hostile neutrality is the best we should expect. We should anticipate many nations displaying the open hand of friendship publically, with the dagger wielding hand held ready.

Our tiny nation of five million souls holds many things that others need and desire, not least Westminster and her minions, which is why it will fight so hard to hold it. Why Whitehall and her tame media will use negative language like “separatism” and “tearing apart” to frame the upcoming debate and obfuscate the real issues. Panic and fear will be wielded indiscriminately as mighty and potent weapons.

The real issues are simple, they [UK Proponents]are fighting for control of an economy worth in the region of £ 104,447,200,000, [multiplication of per capita GDP by population] the loss of which would firmly and forever put the rump of Westminster behind even debt ridden and near bankrupt Spain in the EU pecking order. It could be argued some nations might privately enjoy this scenario.

The other major scare tactic would be UK debt. UK debt, Westminster will argue is also Scotland’s debt. This is arguably the biggest propaganda lie of them all. No UK debt should devolve to Scotland. Scotland has been fiscally solvent for almost the entire duration of her treaty with England. Scotland came into the treaty without debt, Scotland should leave it the same way.

UK Propaganda has it Scotland was bankrupt in 1707. It was not. The only financial strain in Scotland was being felt by the landed gentry who backed the Darien Scheme. The burghs and towns were uniquely solvent. The merchant classes were extremely prosperous; trading with France, the low-countries and Scandinavia was strong. The Scots were, and remain wealthy.

To suggest that Scotland be responsible for a significant portion of UK debt is like having a lodger who always pays the rent and tips heavily, but the landlord is extravagant and spends beyond his means. A direct analogy would have the Landlord expecting the tenant to continue to pay the Landlord’s debts for years after the tenant moves out.

Scotland entered a treaty with England; in 1707 we effectively became tenants in common. Having significantly paid her way our spendthrift co-tenant expects us to clear their debts after the [treaty] lease is voided?

Scotland contains over 60% of the known EU oil reserves, with the EU currently agreeing to support the US strategic need for oil, this puts the Scots in a very high profile position. It also substantially diminishes the international diplomatic relevance of the soon to be realigned United Kingdom. Scots dying in global wars of ideology could soon stop, yet the USA needs the pet poodle that is the UK.

Basically the US requires EU oil for its strategic capability, the EU requires Scottish oil fields in order to supply it. This is why for many years the EU has been trying to wrest control of Scottish Oil from Westminster. It is why the EU will probably align itself with Westminster in a backroom deal to try to prevent Scottish nullification of the Union treaty, that part is consistent, it would remain “all about the oil”. Scotland is by far the largest petroleum producer in the EU.

It is also why it is inconceivable the EU would wish to see an Independent Scotland walk away from the EU. It would significantly destabilize the EU. In many ways the loss of Scotland’s resources to the EU would trigger a bigger catastrophe than the banking crisis.

Scotland, within certain limits could literally write its own ticket for entry to the EU, if she and her people should decide that is what they want. The EU would have to agree, and this is a position the EU would much prefer not to find itself in. The EU should therefore be expected to support the twitching corpse that is the UK until all apparent movement ceases.

The other stance the EU could take would be a public deal with the Scots to ensure uninterrupted energy supplies, which would be a progressive move, not a regressive one. The inertias within the EU also make it an unlikely move.

Scotland has a diversified and strong economy; England has centered its economy around finance for decades. In the real world that means while Scotland has been more focused in producing “stuff” in recent years, with another impending refocus on manufacturing for the “green revolution”, England has concentrated on shuffling paper. Both nations are getting the privilege of bailing out the paper shufflers [banks].

Working into the green energy field, as Oil production dips and revenues slowly follow suit, we will be discussing a pan-European super-grid. The grid is to be in place by 2050 with major corporations such as Siemens already committing to it.

The question follows with the super-grid becoming a reality in many of our lifetimes, where does that energy come from to power it. Depending upon how we choose to develop our resources Scotland should have anywhere between 30% and 70% of the EU green energy capacity in the years ahead.

The energy dynamic of the EU appears unlikely to change. Scotland now and in the future should be a major player. Energy in our modern world is the ultimate source of power. The impending rump of the UK has somewhat turned its back on green energy. The UK rump has little in the way of resources  there anyway. The rump of the UK is about to see its influence drop off the edge of a cliff after centuries of strutting the world stage.

Fishing and offshore mineral rights are another concern within the EU. Scotland has more meters of coastline per capita than the vast majority of EU nations and much of the EU future in coal reserves contained within her territorial waters. Scotland’s fishing reserves have for decades been a Westminster trading chip within the EU. A trading chip that’s been used by Westminster to benefit the South East of England rather than the nation to which it belongs by right.

Scotland, through her people and their history of invention and innovation, her academia funding and supporting dramatic research and development, and her incredible wealth of natural resources is poised again to punch far above her size in the global community.

The Global community is aware of this, and many quietly think the diminution of the UK on the world stage to be no bad thing at all. They can’t publicly declare it as such, yet.

We, the Scots, have many friends in the global community. We must finish walking the path of reaching out to them. We must put their governments into the position of reaching out to us.

The global community needs Scotland’s resources more than England’s often back handed friendship.

England’s green and disenfranchised land. June 7th 2011

It is appropriate to refer to our poor cousins, the English, as almost completely disenfranchised. At least they should be considered disenfranchised with respect to the Scots in 2011, and  arguably with many nations. The mother of Parliaments has quietly transposed into the Mother of Dictatorships, or at least gives every appearance of marching along that weary road.

This was brought forcibly home when reading about Barak Obama’s visit to London recently. Many news outlets in England’s mainstream, both in print and broadcast form spent much of their available time espousing in various forms that “special” relationship that had now become an “essential” relationship between the UK and the USA.

The respective leaders coined the phraseology; the respective media’s duly set about propagandizing it for their respective consumer audiences. In Scotland the general air was indifference, at least in my extended circles which do cover a broad spectrum of the population.

In England that propaganda was expounded upon, setting both countries in some reports on parallel paths since the inception of democracy in Europe with the Magna Carta, and reporting that this is where the US constitution drew its roots. That the US constitution had its own beginnings in the Magna Carta and that laws and customs between the nations were so broadly similar for these historical reasons.

It would be harder to be farther from the truth.

Then we had Michael Moore twittering on about the need for two referendums.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. The UN legal stance and the recent separate international court ruling on the Kosovo case are but two present day precedents – one vote and one vote only is needed.

All Scotland would be doing is annulling a treaty it entered into three hundred and some years ago.

Surprisingly there were no questioning comments or any repudiation of these “facts” in any English journals comment sections, acknowledging these may have been overlooked, but they were certainly searched for.

The US system draws its strength from the rights of the individual, the citizen in whom all power is based: “We, the people” and “No taxation without representation” being two prime examples codified across the Atlantic.

The Magna Carta was founded in the curtailment of rights of the monarch by the barons. Nothing more, nothing less. The Magna Carta was based upon protecting the barons from having their property rights infringed. To the feudal barons in England at least, people [peasantry] were also property.

In Scotland we have a system emanating from the dark ages and potentially earlier, where the power was vested in the people. The monarch was originally an elected position, albeit from amongst an elite company.

This principle was expounded in the Declaration of Arbroath [1320] and reaffirmed on many occasions since.

Many Scots were among the “founding fathers” of the United States, it is acknowledged that they drew upon the 1320 declaration for inspiration, modified, expanded, clarified and created what is known today as the Declaration Of Independence.

Yet the English public accepted the propaganda fed to them almost without question. This is a propaganda outcome Goebbels could only have dreamed of.

In America if the governments wish to increase or reduce taxation it has to be in line with the constitution. In most instances the individual citizen gets to vote on it [there are some federal exceptions]. The individual must approve of the use to which taxes are put. This goes on the ballot at election time.

In between elections the US citizen votes for schools, roads, rubbish, hospitals and local health levies, all types and manner of issues can come before the electorate. There have been smoking bans and library fees, mental health support to building permits balloted there.

Compare that to England’s green and disenfranchised land: They get a couple of votes every decade, each for local and Westminster elections. What happens in between they have no say in.

In England they have a choice of three primary parties, all are vanilla. It’s  choice, vanilla with a hint of raspberry, a hint of banana, or a hint of blueberry, primarily it’s vanilla. It’s much more subtle than the old soviet communist system where there was only one party. The reality in today’s England is there is really only one set of core policies on offer – one basic choice. This gives Scot’s an equally basic choice of a two party system, Independence first or Union first.

Between elections the English are so indoctrinated into Queen and Country that they have forgotten what the word “protest” means. Putting 250,000 people into London for one day on a single march is not protest – it’s nothing more than a gentle “oi”. It doesn’t even rate a capital “O”.

Putting 50,000 or even 5,000 outside the houses of Parliament for a year is a protest, except protests outside Westminster have actually been outlawed, and without any protest either.

Arguably then a significant extended protest is blatantly beyond the capacity of the English, and the Scots with their own parliament and different level of enfranchisement are demonstrably relatively uncaring about Westminster in this present day.

Most Scots, it could be said, would be rid of the Commons and Lords altogether, based upon the fact that substantially less than 50% of 2011 votes cast actually went to one of the main Union parties.

In England the chosen political party does what it’s elected to do. Between elections there is little voice or impact the common Citizen of England has, and what they care to use is most often ignored by Westminster. Westminster can do this for many reasons.

Westminster is sovereign over the people of England, unlike Holyrood which owes its sovereignty to the people of Scotland. Scotland has a reconvened parliament. When the parliament was placed in session in 1999 it was stated clearly by Winnie Ewing in her opening remarks that it was “Reconvened”.

It was not a new parliament under new rules, it was the original Scots parliament under its original rules. These rules can be modified or changed by the Scots, but not by Westminster without Scots consent.

England remained voiceless. The English parliament suspended in 1707 was not reconvened. A new substitute was not offered to the English. The English therefore have no independent voice. The English and to some extent Welsh must suffer what the UK dictates.

The UK has dictated foundation hospitals. The UK has dictated rising university fees. The UK has dictated end of life care fees. The UK has dictated prescription fees. The UK has cleared increased council fees. The English must simply put up with this. England has no parliament; the English have no independent voice.

Westminster could not reconvene the English parliament without making clear to all citizens of the UK and the global community that the United Kingdom was simply a political construct of the 1707 treaty. The ramifications internal and external to the United Kingdom did not bear contemplation.

The Scots would largely realise they had been living under a lie, it [the UK] is and was not a single nation. The English could clamour for their own parliament, realizing they were almost utterly disenfranchised. At best a “federal UK” would climb from the ashes, for it was exceedingly unlikely the Scots would vote for the ridiculous terms of the 1707 treaty again, even with the BBC promoting it.

With the knowledge that the Scots would be unlikely ever again to devolve their administration to Westminster as they did in 1707 the house of cards would collapse.

The global banking community would re-assess the UK, quickly understanding its debts are not quite as solid as it had believed. The UK has no oil to back these debts. If the constituent nations so choose, the UK can quickly become a penniless, worthless, deceased political construct.

It is not beyond credence that rather than pay the debt shares of the old “UK”, England realizing its position was untenable would default. Scotland may opt to the take the view that as she was a net contributor, the debts should not devolve onto her resources. The creditors would call in their marks. The sham of a “single” United Kingdom being one nation would again be fatally exposed.

The only possibility for Westminster then was to call what was happening in Scotland “Devolution”, not “Resumption” or “Restoration” which in actuality it is. As long as the “Devolution” lie could be propagandised and expounded, the English would never realise that they remained disenfranchised. A tame media is often a prime asset.

The “West Lothian Question” must also stay on the back burner as it is a thorny issue, but was incorporated de-facto into the treaty of Union. The simple way to address the “West Lothian Question” is with a federal UK, but that would require a separate English parliament, resuming its original or a limited version of its powers, with both nations at some point voting on the powers they would devolve to Westminster.

We’re back again to the Scots re-affirming the 1707 treaty, not likely to happen.

The only other way to resolve “The West Lothian Question” is to ban Scots MP’s from voting on English only issues, and vice versa. With two completely separate legal systems and separate laws required (in most cases) to be enacted for each the “disunity” of the United Kingdom would again be highlighted.

English MP’s voting on purely English laws and Scots MP’s voting on purely Scots laws – very quickly one nation or the other would question, and question very seriously “Why the extra layer of government?”.

This question has no logical answer excepting “Why indeed”.

In the future of any “United Kingdom” it is therefore exceptionally unlikely that any variant of “The West Lothian Question” will be answered, as to do so would in all likelihood lead to the rapid demise of UK – plc itself.

While the vested interest at Westminster states it must survive, the individual citizens of Scotland/England/Wales and Northern Ireland would probably declare otherwise in a fair, free and open debate. Westminster cannot allow a fair free and open debate to challenge its authority.

The English it appears will therefore remain disenfranchised until the Scots choose otherwise.

SNP Building momentum in Holyrood race. (Written 04/04/2011)

As Labour’s Iain Grey faces an increasingly uphill struggle amongst progressively more questions about both leadership and policy the voting public appears to be steadily turning its back on the red rose.

With the most recent polls showing the SNP overtaking Labour and a report in the Mail on Sunday showing that another Lib-Dem candidate has quit the race, the SNP have published further polling evidence showing that the they have the big momentum, Labour’s lead is wiped out, and former Lib-Dem voters are displaying a tendency to switch in favour of the SNP

The Mail on Sunday reports that Eddie McDaid has dropped out of the Central Scotland list for the Lib-Dems, while core data from the ICM poll of 14-15 March gives the first indication that LibDem voters are breaking in favour of voting SNP

This in spite of the fact Labour entered the campaign with poll leads that could only be described as devastating for the nationalists, many in the media proclaiming the keys to Bute House were already as good as in London’s hands once again. In some cases the poll gap was predicted to be as much as 15 points clear, however as the campaign has progressed and issues have clarified this chasm has steadily been filled.

In terms of those who voted LibDem at last year’s General Election, only 25% were sticking with the brand of the yellow rose at the time of polling, though even that number may be lower now, while 40% remained undecided. Those who declared an intention split as follows:

SNP: 16%

Lab: 9%

Green: 2%

Con: 1%

The SNP’s reported canvass information on the ground backs these numbers up. And as the Lib-Dem vote is melting away, the SNP are focusing on a number of seats where they believe gains are possible, such as the two Highlands seats where Jamie Stone and John Farquhar Munro are standing down, and Midlothian South, Tweeddale & Lauderdale.

Commenting, SNP Campaign Director Angus Robertson said: “The SNP have the big momentum in this campaign, and we believe that we can win the trust of voters”.

Certainly by the way the polls are trending so far the Nationalists positive message of their record in office [over 80% of manifesto pledges kept], strength of team, and their vision for the future is going down well on the doorstep.

An SNP source stated “Iain Gray’s negative approach has definitely registered with people, and we are finding that former Lib Dem voters who are looking for something better are switching to the SNP rather than Labour by a factor of two to one – which is a very encouraging feature of the early stages of the campaign. We are taking nothing for granted, and will continue to work hard to earn every vote.”

Additionally with the Lib-Dem campaign falling apart Iain Gray also found his own problems compounding into in a leadership crisis, as Labour MPs built on criticising his performance on the first televised leaders’ debate on STV.

Commenting on today’s Panelbase poll for The Sunday Times John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde University, said the poll highlighted the key weakness of Labour's campaign as "the lack of a

personality capable of reaching out to voters". He further stated: "Iain Gray is little known and not much liked, even amongst those who actually voted for the party last time.”

The divisions opening so swiftly within the labour ranks have been precipitated by Iain Gray flunking his first televised debate as an STV survey concluded: Of the 991 people polled by ScotPulse – STV’s online polling system - 87% thought Alex Salmond won the debate with only 5% siding with Iain Gray.

This devastating critique of the Labour leader’s performance was followed by 74% of respondents saying their perception of the Labour leader changed negatively after watching the debate whilst 53% of respondents went on record acknowledging that they had a more positive view of Alex Salmond following the debate.

In the days following the televised Labour debacle, the Scotsman reported several Labour MPs have admitted they are "very worried" about the party's campaign referring to Iain Gray's lacklustre performance(s). Yesterday's poll which saw the SNP overtake Labour on the constituency vote is compounding Grays’ issues.

This has been enhanced by the mainstream Scottish Media who despite a reputation in some quarters for regurgitating Labour press releases are going on record with policy and performance issues for Labour, specifically on three key areas – Council Tax, Tuition Fees and Funding Public Projects

Reflecting the fact Labour increased Council Tax by 60% when they were last in office, on the STV debate Iain Gray said it was likely that the Council Tax would have increased under Labour if they had been in office since 2007.

As the Evening Times of 30th March 2011 reported: “Gray caught out over council tax .. Labour leader Iain Gray has admitted his party may have put up council tax had it been in power..."

Also in the STV debate he let slip that free tuition may not be a firm pledge for Labour after all. As Iain Macwhirter wrote in the Herald of 31st March 2011: "Iain Gray added the weasel words “if we can find a way” to his promise to keep higher education fee-free, which allows him a get-out if Labour wins in May. Students take note."

Interviewed on BBC’s Good Morning Scotland on 29th March Iain Gray said he would scrap the Scottish Futures Trust funding scheme on "day one" which is currently building 43 schools, 3 Colleges, 2 major hospitals, 9 major transport projects as well as millions of pounds worth of other investments and working with 12 councils to build affordable homes.

Such an action would at least delay those projects and at worst could see them cancelled if it was taken. Delays would also put at risk the jobs being created in construction from this scheme.

Scotland’s majestic beauty to be England’s nuclear midden? (Written 4/3/2011)

In recent months much has been said and written about the Scotland Bill, AKA Calman “lite”. It gives little and presumes to take much. There are two aspects in this subversive legislation that should truly create cause for alarm. One is the presumption of “UK Law” and the other is the “resumption” of planning permission.

Two fists in one glove.

Planning permission opens a plethora of issues that appear not to have been fully considered when the original devolution agreement was settled upon more than a decade ago, however it was settled. The first and most obvious being refusal of the “new” Scottish government to accede to requests for new Nuclear power stations.

The press and media came out for and against, the nation was mildly or not so mildly divided and yet another formal policy was born in Scotland. Nuclear free - SNP. Only time will tell if it will be maintained, though of a certainty Scotland herself does not need new nuclear power plants.

One thing was obvious in their reaction to this, the mandarins in Whitehall now realized their error on the planning permission issue and would rectify it at the first opportunity. Ditto the Megrahi affair and Scots’ Law, irrespective of guarantees written into the 1707 treaty.

For almost every aspect of a “Scotland Bill” power claw-back there is a corresponding incident post devolution. Each claw-back is overtly designed to teach us Scots to “know our place”. The saddest aspect of the whole “claw-back” affair is that many of these “amendments” are being proposed by those who may once have been acknowledged by all their fellows as Scots.

The planing permission aspect is important, vitally so in fact, and it’s all about Nuclear. However it’s also all about smoke and mirrors.

What seems to have been forgotten, or is deliberately being overlooked, is not where to put the new reactors (allowing they can afford to be built). That’s already been decided with the possible exception of two in Wales which may now have a question mark hanging over them, with the Welsh Assembly largely following the Scots nuclear stance.

The proposed new reactor sites are

• Bradwell in Essex

• Braystones

• Kirksanton

• Sellafield in Cumbria

• Hartlepool

• Heysham in Lancashire

• Hinkley Point in Somerset

• Oldbury in Gloucestershire

• Sizewell in Suffolk

• Wylfa in North Wales

Only two of these are completely new sites. None are in Scotland.

So why the worry about new nuclear plants in Scotland, we’re obviously not scheduled to be getting any.

The planning permission grab apparently isn’t about putting new nuclear generation facilities in Scotland, although Westminster would probably much prefer to keep us focused on that aspect.

Logically why would any nation spend £4.8 Billion per facility (E’ON’s Wolf Bernotat to the UK Government) for perhaps three new facilities of the most advanced design in the world to then potentially watch the ties with that nation dissolve and fade like the last spring snow.

Especially when that stated price is before cost overruns and inflation.

With dissolution of the Union being a foremost planning concern in aspects relating to Scotland, at least on a “what if” basis for decisions made in London, why “give us” these reactors just to be forced to pay for the electricity produced in ten or twenty years time. Better by far to build new reactors in England where they will always serve English needs. This stance fully explains the proposed sites above.

But what about the waste?

Where to put all that mid and high level radioactive waste that’s built up over the last half century and more?

The plans at UK level appear “on hold” until they [Westminster] at least get planning permission back from Holyrood, possibly because in 2007, the UK government committee on radioactive waste management recommended the use of a deep geological repository policy – Scotland is the ideal location for these sites. Then the SNP were elected in 2007 under a “no nuclear” platform.

No planning permission is now available in Scotland for these “repositories”

New nuclear plants are now under a government “policy hold” until a long term storage solution is determined.

Then if the Scots eventually go their own way, they keep the UK’s biggest environmental problem, and if they don’t, well it’s still “out of the way”.

With the theft of planning permission by London from Edinburgh, Westminster has the power to achieve a permanent solution to its longest term, and possibly most pressing environmental problem. It can also release the “policy hold” against building new nuclear plants.

For the SE of England it’s a rather elegant solution to a very complex problem indeed.

Scotland’s majestic beauty becomes England’s forgotten midden.

At a minimum Scotland requires guarantees from England that no nuclear waste sites or generating facilities will be opened in Scotland without the permission of the Scottish people. Either we’ll get these undertakings and the planning permission demand will fade, or we won’t and it won’t.

Iain Gray. More wobbles than a Weeble.

Ian Gray continues to come under heavy fire, with a dismal performance in the first televised leadership debate. The general perception of his position as probably the poorest Labour leader in living memory was thrust firmly into the public psyche during the first live televised debate. It could only be described, at best, as remaining unchanged through the Johnson Press stage managed affair.
And that he had finished last or close to last in that event was upheld by polling results taken on behalf of STV after the debate which had 87% of respondents stating Alex Salmond had won the debate, against only 5% for Ian Gray who trailed even the Tories. There was a second question which asked respondents if their perceptions of the leaders were better or worse after the event, again the news could only be described as dire for the labour leader with some 74% who had altered their opinions negatively towards him.

The Scotsman had a similar online poll, largely reflecting the same data, while the outcome of the debate was so dire for Labour and its leader that the BBC refused even to acknowledge an item of such national significance with so much as a mention.

These issues may be what led to yesterdays report of a severe grumblings in the Labour ranks with the following remarks attributed to Westminster MP’s, as they raised concerns over Iain Gray's leadership and questioned the direction of the party's election campaign strategy. The grumblings appear to be getting louder by the day following the exceedingly poor start that has seen Alex Salmond's team eliminate the Labour lead in the polls.

Multiple Labour MPs are reported to have [significant concerns] and be “very worried” about the direction of the party's campaign. Mr Gray's bland performance in the first televised leaders' debate this week coupled to yesterday's Scotsman poll that saw the SNP overtake Labour on the constituency vote have no doubt exacerbated this situation. Westminster’s’ Labour MPs are also understood to have been rather critical of his first live hustings, acknowledging he looked less accomplished than Alex Salmond.

"Iain Gray looked very poor in the TV debate," one MP went so far as to tell The Scotsman, while other comments included remarks like "He's coming over as angry and I'm not sure if that's the right thing. Salmond is coming over as reasonable, saying 'I'll work with anyone for the benefit of Scotland'. That's hard to tackle and Iain Gray doesn't seem to have approached it in the right way. He (Gray] is not a big hitter and whatever you think of Salmond, he is."

The seriousness of the situation as viewed by London is evidenced by comments in message boards of London based Laborites already being parachuted in, three reported as arriving in the Kilmarnock area alone today.

The message from London presently seems to be summed up by one MP’s reported comment: "I'm not sure if we have got the strategy right. We're struggling to get the message over." Meantime the polls, twitter [where Ian Gray trended for all the wrong reasons], comment boards and large sections of Facebook are being less than kind.

It might appear that this entire drop in satisfaction levels has been building for some time. A starting point could reasonably be highlighted as the most recent Holyrood Budget, during which we saw Mr. Gray’s Labour vote against everything they’d requested and been granted under the accusation of the party leader being led by “immature elements” within the Holyrood branch of the Labour Party. This largely tied in time wise with the surprise resignation of Wendy Alexander from the party, ostensibly to focus on more “family time” although rumors of other reasons have been rife.

Mr. Gray meanwhile dismisses the fact there might be any difficulty with the labour campaign, going so far as to remark "The story is absolute nonsense. This campaign is being fought in constituencies the length and breadth of Scotland, and Labour is out there fighting harder than anyone else”. An odd statement indeed unless Labour are shipping in activists from England as the Nationalists are acknowledged to have by far the largest membership and broadest activist base in present day Scotland.

Mr. Gray was further quoted yesterday stating "Our message is the message that Scotland needs to hear. At this moment, Scotland needs a First Minister who will be focused on the things which really matter - above all on jobs, growing the economy and opportunities for our young. And that is the message which is resonating with the voters." Apparently he’s correct, as by reading the wires and message boards the general voter is happy with the nationalist record here.

Unionists leaders acknowledge Scotland is financially sound (Written 3/31/11 NNS)

The Holyrood campaign has been underway at full steam for less than ten days after the official kick-off point of the dissolution of Parliament. There are about 34 days remaining, so we’re about 20% of the way into campaiging.


We’ve now had some live leaders’ debates. There was the STV prime time exhibition that some could call an SNP/Tory draw, but most gave the edge to Alex Salmond by a nose. This was followed within 48 hours by the Scotsman’s debate with a hand-picked audience. The apparent political bias of the Johnson Press group is well advertised through its reporting; therefore Iain Gray should have had a much better outing. Sadly it was evidently not the case, although Iain Gray again avoided a major meltdown.

Being kind to Mr. Gray the most credit that could be given him for the last 24 hours would be state that he apparently managed to limit any additional harm to his party’s cause. These live debates are being marked by multiple photo ops each day with the leaders and their most significant lieutenants being paraded for the media. Visibility is increasing, for some not a good thing perhaps.
The highlights of the Scotsman debate were relatively simple, kicking off referencing housing in the opening remarks and returning later in depth, Auntie Annabel stated she believes in social housing but wants to introduce a modified right to buy scheme – something of an apparent contradiction. Tavish wants shared housing amongst other options. Certainly there’s a few who would enjoy his back room, but will he give up his privacy? Alex and Ian are apparently relatively quiet on the subject, only acknowledging something’s required, but without giving specifics.

Iain’s opening remarks made an attempt to paint Labour as the party of small business, choosing to neglect the tax breaks initiated by the SNP. Alex was up next and set a different tone referring to Scotland as a “lucky country” through her abundance of natural resources and continued positively by stating how those resources could be best used by Scots. If we had the appropriate powers of course.

The debate continued on this theme, with the pledges and assertions largely following the party lines previously laid out. The next point made by Bella is lack of banking expertise in Scotland without Westminster support, ignoring the fact that it was that Westminster support and lack of oversight (de-regulation) that precipitated the crisis.

With everyone except the Tories now apparently following the SNP lead on the free education bandwagon, the only differences are Lib Dem’s largely copying the SNP, and Labour inferring that it might only apply to certain courses. The SNP are the main group who appear to have data backing their position on this firm commitment. The Tories are still proposing a graduate contribution that’s earning’s based, apparently not realizing that’s already paid. It's commonly called income tax.

Bella and Iain are both supporting nuclear, Tavish is wobbling around the middle ground trying to find something acceptable to the voting public, while Alex is throwing hard numbers stating Scotland can soon have ten times its energy needs provided by from green sources, so why bother with nuclear. Gray wobbled again in closing by trying a middle tack without promising anything.

Surprisingly as the debate winds down Bella acknowledges Scotland “isn’t being subsidized” but wants Calman to be the framework for more fiscal powers, which she supports. Alex agreed with her simply asking, “Why else do they want to hang on to us?” Neither Iain or Tavish disagree with the fact that Scotland needs no subsidy, but are both of a like mind: “We all need to share [Scotland’s resources] inside the union”.

In the closing statements Gray tried a few, failed, final shots at Salmond. But the highlight was the question of an SNP-LAB coalition. Alex saying, “although he wouldn’t rule it out it wasn’t likely”, but Iain just simply “wouldn’t bet the mortgage on it”. Again an inference that one will do what is best for Scotland, while the other will most likely do what they are told.

The Scotsman debate was worthless in many ways as it was so stage managed and limited. In my opinion it was significantly more of a publicity stunt for Johnson Press than a worthwhile informative exercise for the nation. That said we do now know this vital item of information, the Tories are pro-nuclear, as is Labour, and a Union vote will put new English nuclear plants in Scotland. This is why Westminster wants to claw back planning permission.

Certainly there was nothing in this stage managed damage limitation exercise to provide a Labour upsurge.

So where does this leave Ian Gray and the Labour Party in Scotland in general, or could they simply be preparing to lose a general?

Through a purely Labour perspective, from the viewpoint of Gray’s London overlords, the campaign here in Scotland is progressing woefully. When the campaign started, his party were odds on favourites to form the next government. The bookies are now in the process of reversing the bias in the odds. Parachutes from London are already reported to be opening over Scotland.

In the weeks leading up to the dissolution of Parliament the worst poll showing for Labour was a report of the SNP “closing the gap”, the best had them nearly fifteen points ahead – an absolute landslide in the political world. A clear ten percent margin seemed about par for the course. At this level, London was content, weddings could be planned in Scotland and celebrations ensue to show we’re all just one big happy family. The latest count in Scotland was dire on two fronts – only a handful of street parties are planned to celebrate “the Royles” and Labour is now showing to be trailing in the polls.

This is Scotland sending a very unequivocal message to London, firstly a royal wedding isn’t a big deal here, though many will enjoy the day and most won’t wish the couple any ill will. Secondly that in politics Scotland is very different from the UK. The major worry for Whitehall is that Holyrood voting trends will cross to UK voting trends or that if polling trends continue we’ll end up with a majority of our MSPs who will favour renegotiation of the Union Treaty at a minimum.

Weighing these aspects, what does the Union in general and Labour in particular do about Iain Gray? Stick with him, or just cut their losses and parachute in a heavyweight? It should be safe to say that discussion has taken place several times over the last few months at Labour HQ. Unfortunately Labour in particular and the Union parties in general have several conundrums.
Alex Salmond is certainly continuing to demonstrate he’s in a league apart from Iain Gray. Sadly for Labour he’s also operating in a different stratosphere to anyone else in the Labour Party in Scotland, and at least a head in front of almost any MP in Westminster. That fact alone, more than any other, should allow Iain Gray to keep his job, until at least May 6th.
In the event that May 5th produces a Labour victory of any kind, Gray will then likely retain his position until just before the next election. Barring gross stupidity, which can’t be discounted. Gray is exactly what the real body politic within the party need – a yes man in Scotland. It’s not that Labour don’t want to replace Iain Gray, they simply don’t have a sacrificial lamb pre-groomed and ready for the task. If Labour do win in May, look for a new Labour Leader before the next Scottish election, with Gray probably resigning at the end of his term to take up a position in the Lords.

It’s a reasonable chain of events as it wasn’t so long ago that Ms. Goldie was reported to be in trouble with her London lot. The media abounded with tales of leadership elections in the Tory camp. But who would they choose, as Bella is probably their most capable. Certainly based on her demonstrated debating skills and simply being able to say “I’m just telling you how I see it”, while actually managing to sound sincere, Auntie Annabel can be said to have survived for the same reason that Gray should make it through the campaign. The difference is she’ll likely be around after May 5th.