What the Party manifestos said on Same Sex Marriage

Before we get into too big a brouhaha about the consultation on equal marriage by the Scottish Parliament let's take a look at what the different parties actually said in their manifestos.

The big two were quite similar both only saying they would start a consultation.

The SNP page 17 under the header A more equal Scotland

"We recognise the range of views on the questions of same-sex marriage and registration of civil partnership. We will therefore begin a process of consultation and discussion on these issues."

Labour page 67 under the heading Championing equality, celebrating diversity

"Scottish Labour wants to end the unjust situation that has seen gay men, who were previously prosecuted for consensual acts, continue to suffer the prejudice caused by these convictions - long after the offences themselves have been decriminalised. We will investigate the best way to implement the 'Alli Amendment' in Scotland, to give religious organisations that want to, the freedom to hold civil partnerships in their buildings for the first time. We also believe that the time is now right to consult on options to provide genuine equality for same-sex couples and their families, by addressing the different status of civil partnership and marriage. We are clear – Scotland shouldn’t be left behind on these issues."

Two of the others also had policies that were very similar, both saying they would actually take action.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats page 82 under the heading Freedom and Liberty Action Plan based on the policy motion which I reported on here.

"Extend legal marriage to gay couples and civil partnerships to heterosexual couples."

Scottish Green Party page 19 under the heading Diversity, tolerance and creativity

"We'll introduce legislation for equal partnership – opening marriage and civil partnership up to mixed-sex and same sex couples, and allowing religious celebrants to conduct civil partnership. We'll begin a dialogue with the UK Government about the need for cross-border recognition of relationships on the basis of equality."

In fact looking at what Patrick Harvie of the Green's said back in January this year, the Greens are similarly to the Liberal Democrats position of not forcing churches to do anything. I particularly like his phrasing in the last line.

"The idea that same sex couples are second class citizens is deeply offensive and on the wane, but it still needs to be challenged. The Equal Marriage campaign is an attempt to remove one of the last elements of discrimination in law, and deserves our support. The antiquated notion that same sex couples are in some way morally inferior needs to be put to rest once and for all.

"The progress made toward equality over recent decades has been dramatic, but prejudice and discrimination are still very real in our society. It's important that the law should recognise that love is love, that family is family, and that a "separate but equal" system of family law is still giving cover for prejudice.

"It would be relatively simple for Scotland to open civil marriage up to same sex couples and civil partnership to mixed sex couples, so that people can make their own choice on their own terms. The churches would also be free to reach their own view, instead of being banned by law from recognising all relationships equally."

Then there was the Conservatives 

"



"

Yeah a distinct lack of anything there.

So you have two parties that were committed to bringing in equal marriage, neither of which were going to force churches to carry it out, but allow them to be "free to reach their own view, instead of being banned by law from recognising all relationships equally". Plus two parties who consultation would have lead them to realise there are gay Christians who want the option, religious groups that want the option and those that don't want to be forced in to anything.

All three can be accommodated in the one motion and it won't affect the sanctity of marriage any more that the current divorce rate amongst heterosexual marriages, that is something that both the Greens and Lib Dems already have come to a consensus on..

Who do you think you are kidding Mr Walker?

The above sign off  or something similar on a email was what was described by Bill Walker MSP (who had already caused a furore over his comments) as "as quite intimidating actually because ... it reminded me of the pre-war Nazi-type stuff banning things." It is a comment that he has since withdrawn saying it was "intemperate".

However the fact that looking to end homophobia, which is what a cross through the word homophobia would clearly convey as anything akin to Nazism is a sign of an out of touch person, sadly this one is sitting in Holyrood. Surely looking at ending a negative and hateful human attitude cannot be same as promoting one? Yet that is what his original statement would have implied.

The problem that the MSP for Dunfermline had in his original comments was that he went on to say:

"It sort of reminded me, I've seen the old films of people, you know, having marks painted on them and all sort of symbols. I just think it is pretty awful."

 I agree with Mr Walker that the marks and symbols painted on people and their homes by the Nazis was not just pretty awful but a damn disgrace. These were later used in the concentration camps to designate the types of prisoner the Yellow Star on the Jews, the Purple Triangle for Jehovah's Witnesses, the Brown Triangle for Romany travellers and of course the Pink Triangle for homosexuals.

It seems a pity that Mr Walker should associate a campaign to end one type of such prejudice with the people who most notoriously prosecuted that prejudice to the point of putting into concentration camps.There were 100,000 who at times from 1933 wore the pink triangle. 10,000 of these were interred in concentration camps of whom 6,000 perished. Maybe Mr Walker should read about that rather that just garnering information from old films, Heinz Heger's The Men with the Pink Triangle would be a good place to start.

The problem did not end there though. After the liberation of the camps many of those marked with a pink triangle were still imprisoned as the Nazi change in the law from a minor offence to a felony still stood on the statute books of the liberated Federal Republic of Germany for some time. Not until 1969 where these laws repelled in the FDR, it wasn't until 1988 they were revoked in the DDR.

Mr Walker is quite correct that such a comment in 'intemperate' especially in light of the history of those who were marked with the pink triangle. However, Germany managed to change their laws, at least for those over 21, in 1969. While England and Wales benefited from the Sexual Offences Act (1967), the gay community in Scotland had to wait until the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 to get the same rights*. Therefore the Germans managed to decriminalise homosexual acts long before the Scots did.

As for the debate on equal marriage Walker has said:

"It is important that this debate is conducted in measured terms, and I have therefore withdrawn the intemperate comment made by me. I will be commenting dispassionately from now on."

I couldn't agree more. I hope he does some reading up on the matter so that he is well informed before it comes into the chamber. Maybe he can meet some of those groups that are campaigning for equal marriage and hear their views and maybe even engage with some of the LGB Christian Groups to hear their views. 

* Two years before Northern Ireland.

Is it not bigotted to disallow freedom of religion to all Mr Walker?

Of course I was sad when Jim Tolson was one of the Liberal Democrat MSPs to lose their seat in the elections today. I was even more saddened this morning when I saw that his replacement the SNP's Bill Walker appears to not believe in equality.

He has signed John Mason's amendment to the Scottish Parliament's Equal Marriage motion, which in itself failed to see the equality of all and freedom of religious groups to decide if they wish to offer same-sex marriage that was enshrined in the motion itself. He claims that he has received some "highly abusive messages" saying he is being intimidated and almost threatened. While I doubt that such behaviour may have been taken from concerned citizens writing to their MSP I would ask any that have done anything other that state a clear point to desist. What I suspect that the MSP has encountered though is a sheer volume of correspondence on the issue, seeking him to change his mind, possibly more than on any other issue that he has faced before. If he finds that intimidating that the public write to him then he is clearly in the wrong jobs as neither Jim Tolson nor Willie Rennie as the MP who was unseated in 2010 found correspondence from their constituents intimidating but a challenge to be seized.


What has saddened me is Mr Walker's response as published in the Dunfermline Press.

"I'm very upset about it. I feel I’ve been intimidated and almost threatened.


"I have been called a bigot and all sorts of names, saying I live in the dark ages.

"The irony is I got married a few weeks ago. Needless to say it was to a woman!

"There are things called civil partnerships, which I accept, but I'm really concerned about the use of the term 'gay marriage' because to me it’s a contradiction in terms and anything that puts homosexual relationships as any way equal to male-female marriages is just not right."

Tim Hopkins, of the Equality Network, told PinkNews:

"By saying that same-sex relationships are not in any way equal to male/female ones, Bill Walker is expressing homophobic prejudice. 

"His remarks are an affront to many of his constituents, and not just the LGBT ones. He is free to express his opinions, but must expect those opinions to be criticised if they are prejudiced and offensive.

"Bill Walker claims to have received 'highly abusive and bullying' emails from 'gay rights organisations'. However, the national LGBT organisations in Scotland – ourselves, Stonewall and LGBT Youth – invariably engage debate with anyone without abuse or exaggeration – unlike Bill Walker, it seems."

There is an arrogance about some of these in religious groups, Mr Walker is a member of the Church of Scotland but claims this does not affect his decision, that only the stance of their religious group is the right one. There are religious groups the Quakers, Unitarian and some liberal Synagogues plus the Humanists that wish to carry out marriage for all, whether mixed-gender or same-gender. They do not have the issue over the word.

Even calling it 'gay marriage' shows an element of separation in Messrs Walker and Mason's minds. I don't want to have a gay marriage that is separate from a 'straight marriage' I just want the option of a marriage. I'd also like it not to be separated into a civil partnership section and then a religious element (as has been proposes by David Cameron at Westminster to try and get around objectors) if 'we'* choose to have it in a church building, but fully integrated as all current church weddings are conducted.

There are religious groups that are prepared to offer not just their building to same-gender partnerships, but to fully integrate same-gender marriage to all into their ethos. These are welcoming people of faith, yet their beliefs and desires for religious freedom are being blocked by a few who disagree with their interpretation of the word marriage. The only people being forced to do anything are those open religious groups from turning away same-gender couples from the marriages they wish to perform. That surely is bigotry that we cannot condone.

* There is no other half of that we statement yet, but obviously the choice of service will be down to two of us in the end. So you can all stop thinking of buying a hat for the wedding just now.

We have a mountain to reclimb

My friend Craig Harrow was being philospohical this morning and remembered this quote from the great Libearal and Lib Dem, Russell Johnson.

"You can stand at the bottom of a mountain, look up and say: "This is so high and precipitous, so rugged and intimidating that I can never dare to challange it." Or, you can begin to climb. And, if you do, one day you may see the summit. And if you do not, its peak will be forever hidden in the mists of vanished opportunity. Today we can begin to climb..."

Last May as Liberal Democrats we appeared to have reached that summit. But as any mountaineer will tell you occassionally you reach a false peak. The edge of what is a plateau and when you scale that you realise that there is still a further propably more difficult and steeper summit to climb.

We as Liberal Democrats may well have climbed that false peak. It was a hard climb and making that last step unto that peak was a hard decision. We were looking for a foothold, and maybe we slipped in finding it a few times. However we are roped together as a party. We are an experience set of climbers, none of us have reached a summit easily and we all know the hard work that is needed. It mean going door to door persuading people that we do share their values as well as their fears. That we have the solutions and the ways forward.

What we have taken on in the last year has been a  very precarious part of the climb. We are still the same climbers as we were 12 months ago. Some admitted have left the summit party, some of the support team have felt let down and fled. We know the goal we have in sight. We know we still have a way to go to get to a truly liberal UK.

But as we press on, like Hilary and Tensing to scale Everest the first time, we can look to the fact that once conquered once others will want to come and take a look. Much of what we have done in the last 12 months is lay a number of belays on the slope. Things we have put in place to that the UK doesn't fall back into illiberal ways. We have also searched out a different route from the one David Cameron the current expedition leader did set out. Our route is easier on pensioners, it lifts many out of taxation, it frees up many people from bureaucracy.

We have failed the student members of our moutaineering party, by letting them fall into the greedy hands of the University Chancellers down below, who all think they are worthy of £9,000 a year to start the expedition of life. Somehow our education system is all exceptional!!! But we still promise them that once we scale this nasty crag of national debt covered in dying red roses we will sort that out for them, we stand by that.

I for one am ready to carry on climbing, my legs may hurt, my heart is heavy and my lungs are gasping because there is still so much to achieve.

Who's with me?

Nicol Stephen Stepping Down from Holyrood

The one headline for literature I always had up my sleeve following the election of the Aberdeen South MSP to be Scottish Lib Dem leader was:

Stephen Backs Stephen

Nicol Stephen was the person I had backed in that particular leadership election to replace Jim Wallace in 2005. He was young, vibrant, environmentally aware and prepared I thought to lead our party in Scotland for a long time.

In the end it proved to be only for 3 years before pressures, and we all assume outside pressures, led to his stepping down from his role of leadership. That I felt was a shame and as I blogged at the time was a great regret. He had done a lot to move the party on in those far too few short years and I do regret somehow losing that internal momentum a little when he chose to step down, just at the kick off of the Glasgow East by election.

During the 2005 by election in Livingston when I was missing my usual birthday politics at conference with birthday politics on the doorstep he ended up being present at what ended up being dinned on my Birthday. Which is one of those moments that occasionally makes campaigning worthwhile.

However, as he is stepping down next May I wish him, Caris and the four children all the best as they will see more of their father and husband now and he more of them. Also after 12 years as their MSP I hope that the people of Aberdeen South have an equally competent Liberal Democrat MSP after the elections in May to take their interests forward.

It's Friday...so Edwin Morgan

It's not often I start your Friday with a static image but here you are.

Christ of St John of the Cross is the paiting by Salvidor Dali that inspired this poem by Edwin Morgan (which I cannot embed. It is an excuse to combine my favourite artist with The Scots Makar the national poet of Scotland who died last week.

He also wrote the poem read out by Liz Lochhead at the opening of the Scottish Parliament on 9 October 2004. Here it is:

Open the doors! Light of the day, shine in; light of the mind, shine out!

We have a building which is more than a building.
There is a commerce between inner and outer,
between brightness and shadow, between the world and those who think about the world.

Is it not a mystery? The parts cohere, they come together
like petals of a flower, yet they also send their tongues
outward to feel and taste the teeming earth.
Did you want classic columns and predictable pediments? A
growl of old Gothic grandeur? A blissfully boring box?
Not here, no thanks! No icon, no IKEA, no iceberg, but
curves and caverns, nooks and niches, huddles and
heavens syncopations and surprises. Leave symmetry to
the cemetery.
But bring together slate and stainless steel, black granite
and grey granite, seasoned oak and sycamore, concrete
blond and smooth as silk – the mix is almost alive – it
breathes and beckons – imperial marble it is not!

Come down the Mile, into the heart of the city, past the kirk
of St Giles and the closes and wynds of the noted ghosts of
history who drank their claret and fell down the steep
tenements stairs into the arms of link-boys but who wrote
and talked the starry Enlightenment of their days –
And before them the auld makars who tickled a Scottish king’s
ear with melody and ribaldry and frank advice –
And when you are there, down there, in the midst of things,
not set upon an hill with your nose in the air,
This is where you know your parliament should be
And this is where it is, just here.

What do the people want of the place? They want it to be
filled with thinking persons as open and adventurous as its
architecture.
A nest of fearties is what they do not want.
A symposium of procrastinators is what they do not want.
A phalanx of forelock-tuggers is what they do not want.
And perhaps above all the droopy mantra of ‘it wizny me’ is
what they do not want.
Dear friends, dear lawgivers, dear parliamentarians, you are
picking up a thread of pride and self-esteem that has been
almost but not quite, oh no not quite, not ever broken or
forgotten.
When you convene you will be reconvening, with a sense of not
wholly the power, not yet wholly the power, but a good
sense of what was once in the honour of your grasp.
All right. Forget, or don’t forget, the past. Trumpets and
robes are fine, but in the present and the future you will
need something more.
What is it? We, the people, cannot tell you yet, but you will know about it when we do tell you.
We give you our consent to govern, don’t pocket it and ride away.
We give you our deepest dearest wish to govern well, don’t say we
have no mandate to be so bold.
We give you this great building, don’t let your work and hope be other than great when you enter and begin.
So now begin. Open the doors and begin.

So not my usual all singing all dancing Friday mix but as someone who sought to get selected for the seat that houses the building enshrined in the above a poignant one.

Reason Why the Fifth of May is Wrong Date for Referendum

It is just over 24 hours from when the announcement for a date of a referendum on AV for Westminster was decided to be up against next May's Scottish Election but already we can see how the SNP are going to use it. The SNP are talking about the lack of respect to the Scottish people, Fiona Hyslop going further cutting to the chase when she said:

"It's important that we see action and not just warm words on respect.

"And in terms of what this is saying in terms of how the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Government and the Scottish people are being treated, I think this is an example of the British Government just not working for Scotland.

"I think this announcement shows a bit of coalition chaos, where the parties in London seem quite prepared to have a referendum on a voting system that they don't really support but not have a referendum on independence to decide the powers that the Scottish people could have."

That last part is the bit that is going to be concentrated on not respect as that will be shoved out the window by the SNP at the earliest convenient opportunity. No there will be the name calling over why one referendum is good and proper and another is not. There will be no respect for the fact that the Lib Dem MSPs were elected to Holyrood Parliament in 2007 on the promise that they wouldn't hold a referendum on independence in the next four years.

That was a stance I disagreed with on the stand alone principle of it from my stance as a democrat. It has been exasperated now by our own leader the Deputy Prime Minister making two announcements of Westminster to piggy back the next two Scottish elections. In 2015 we already have the concurrent elections of a 5-year fixed term Westminster and the 4-year fixed term Scottish Parliaments, now there are plans to ride over next years Scottish elections too.

For a party that believes in devolution we are being perceived of going a strange way about it, strangling the distinct Scottish message of all parties our own included for the elections for the next eight years of Scottish life with two UK-wide debates simultaneously.

Crowded Fifth of May Next Year !?!

Anybody who's anybody in Scottish politics or with an interest in it will remember the last time Scotland went to vote for its own Parliament. Many recall it like a nightmare only we were in an upright position and awake all night living through horrendous images with no net result. One thing that was clear was that people did seem to want to give preferential votes to candidates however they wanted to do it on the wrong ballot papers, or indeed on only one side or the duel purpose Parliamentary ballot paper.

However, there is news that a referendum on AV for Westminster will take place on the first Thursday of May next year. A date which has long been in my diary as the next Scottish Parliamentary Elections. On Wednesday night at the Edinburgh Central hustings a question about the clash of an AV referendum and the fact that one of the four of us would be fighting for the seat did come from the floor, and what impact would it have on the campaign.

Personally I know first hand that voters expect their MPs or MSPs or candidates to be well versed on all areas of political influence, even if with devolved governance to Holyrood or Council level they may not necessarily have responsibility for that area of policy directly for the person they seek to represent. The number of times you have to say this is devolved, Westminster or council issue before giving an answer shows this.

My plans for the next year are to secure more Liberal Democrat representation in Holyrood. It is why I've put myself forward into the fray is the way I have for Edinburgh Central. In the Lothians it will be a bellweather indicator of how well the Liberal Democrat message is radiated with people. We'll be fighting to get across the message of what Liberal Democrats can do and in fact have been doing in the other levels of governance that represent the people. First and foremost next May will be about the governance of Scotland, I doubt any of the parties in either Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland will be concentrating on the referendum they'll be focusing on the more pressing issue of winning seats in constituencies and votes across the regions.

Also personally I'm not really geed up by AV. Is it really a step towards more proportionality or is it a road block in the way to more? An appeasement to lure in Lib Dems to give the Conservatives more than many of us wanted? I don't think it is radical enough, it doesn't give the people a say over who really represents them, merely which party representative does. It maintains party politics above the ability to vote for party but reject objectionable individuals.

In Linlithgow and East Falkirk where I stood in May AV wouldn't have changed the result, Michael Connarty won with 49.8% which with none transfers from other candidates would mean that he would have been secure even if he didn't pick up the remaining 0.2%. However, lets assume STV had happened across the West Lothian and Falkirk Council area.

The vote was*

• Labour 74,056 49.0%
  
• SNP 40,869 27.1%
• Conservative 17,162 11.4%
• Lib Dem 17,130 11.3%
• Others 1,794 (1.2%)

Now it would have given Labour 2 secure seats, however the third may well have gone, indeed a real propability, to the party that 27% of people who had voted for the second biggest party in all three seats; the SNP. Who because of the votes in excess of 45% for Labour in the three seats would not under AV had the change of winning their proportional share for over half of Labour's vote.

* This of course assumes no tactical voting had gone on under the restrictions of First Past the Post

The Race is On

As I said yesterday I've been neglecting this blog a little bit in recent days. The reason for that is that on Monday night I was attending a shortlisting interview for the Edinburgh Central seat at next May's elections.

Well things went well and I was named as one of the five who the Lib Dems living in Edinburgh Central will be voting on to be their candidate. So the next few weeks will be a busy time, as the last few months have also been.

Next years election is going to be an interesting one for Lib Dems standing in Scotland and especially in Edinburgh. We'll be defending a record of working with one party in Westminster and another in City Chambers. Across the city where we are challenging or defending our main challenge is coming from the other party. So we will have a challenge of defending a record in other places while challenging for Edinburgh Central.

There are five able candidates that the good Burghers who agree with Nick will have choose from, so I know that I have a lot of work to do to show people why I think I am best for the job. It is the reason that yesterday I made some subtle changes to the look of the blog which by the way you can also point your servers towards as http://stephenglenn.org.uk it was a domain I set up in advance of the Westminster Election but never got the time to develop as I intended then, but things may well change in the near future.

I do intend to keep blogging on the issues as I have always when the opportunity arises, but for the next couple of weeks in particular my time may be tight.

However, I do promise to tell you more later.

In Which I Disagree With Nick Clegg (and Jeff)

It probably isn't good for a PPC to disagree with their leader this close to an election, but as Jeff brought it up I thought I'd better put the record straight.

As Jeff pointed out Nick Clegg said on his trip to Scotland today:

"The truth is the SNP is as irrelevant in London as the Conservatives are in Edinburgh."

Now I know Nick studied Archaeology and Anthropology at University so unlike myself or Jeff may not be as conversant in the numerate arts. But Jeff uses the mathematical argument to point out that at 16 seats to the Tories, the Lib Dems must be a bigger irrelevance at Holyrood. There are however a couple of ways to look at the above statement.

As Jeff saw it purely in terms of numbers I'll take the mathematical argument first. The SNP with 7 currently have 1.1% of MPs even with Alex's target of 20 MPs they would have 3.08% of MPs. That is opposed to the Conservative parties 13.2% and Lib Dems 12.4% of MSPs. So if Jeff is arguing from a mathematical stand point he is unto a loser as Nick is wrong and the SNP are actually more irrelevant in London than the Tories are in Edinburgh.

The second thing that needs to be looked at is political influence rather than just sheer numbers. Again here Nick is actually wrong the Conservatives have been propping up numerous SNP policies in Edinburgh while the SNP have not been doing the same in Westminster. So once again the Tories are having more influence than the SNP, sorry Nick you've got that wrong again.

Jeff then argues that the Conservatives must have more influence than the Lib Dems have in Edinburgh. Maybe at present but over the last 11 years while the Tories have eaten the odd crumb off the SNP table, because neither are willing to formalise their arrangement, the Lib Dems did over eight years of coalition manage to make a more liberal, fairer Scotland than the rest of the UK. As the old adage goes it isn't so much size that matters put knowing what to do with it.

Looking at what the SNP are looking for along with their Plaid colleagues in the event of a hung Parliament they are looking for a fairness that ends at Hadrian's Wall and Offa's dyke. As I blogged yesterday they wanted assurances that all the areas of devolved responsibility are either protected or invested in. For a UK wide election that is not a fair way to deal people, the electorate and I suspect that whoever forms the Government will bring in some reform that will allow Sinn Féin to take their seats without swearing to the Queen if they will support them rather than kow tow to the fiscally blinded and irresponsible nationalists. We need to be as fair as we can be whilst building our way out of the mess that Labour have got us into.

Nick Clegg actually bigged up the SNP by saying they were as influential in London as the Conservatives in Edinburgh.

Nicola - I Made a Mistake Over 'Mistake'

"I regret the use of the word 'mistake' to describe Mr Rauf's offence.

"As I hope will become clear from other parts of the letter, I did not intend to downplay the seriousness of the crime that had been committed.

"However, I accept the use of the word mistake was open to that interpretation."

So said Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon yesterday in her ministerial statement about her letter to the court regarding Abdul Rauf. She also went further to say that her appeal to the sheriff to consider an alternative to a custodial sentence was more in keeping with her former occupation as a solicitor than as an MSP.

The other week the First Minister saying he supported his deputy's letter 110%. Saying she was duty bound to write everything that she did. As Annabel Goldie pointed out admitting that she did not do everything right showed her candour, humility and courage. She contrasted this with the last First Minister's Questions before the recess saying:

"We got the usual Alex Salmond decibel delivery of rhetoric and arrogance.

"Where there should have been humility and reflection all we got was bluster. Where there should have been an apology, all we got was defiance."

The problem of delaying a statement from Nicola until now, and not having a plan to deal with this on Thursday 11 February when it broke was now that the First Minister has shown his knee-jerkedness once again. Instead of being a head of reason looking at the full picture, he jumped immediately to the defensive. If Ms Sturgeon had indeed been prepared a similar statement to Parliament she should have been allowed to make it then. As it was the First Minister was prepared to let this boil fester.

Sadly this is the head of the Government that is meant to be dealing with Westminster on a number of issues regarding Scotland's future. How can we trust a calm approach from him to such sworn enemies. We already know the mantra he shouts at Westminster, they are cutting Scotland's budget he proclaims, while at the same time he is arguing that Scotland can stand on its own two feet as he heads onwards with his desire for independence.

Maybe all the calls for resignation after that particular Thursday were for the wrong head. Maybe the First Minister should resign making way for the candour, humility and courage of his deputy, then maybe things can get done a little easier around here.

Further on the Nicola Sturgeon Situtation

As one would have guessed the story of the morning on Scottish blogs revolves around Nicola Sturgeon. One thing you can trust about the internet, bloggers and their commentators is that is some knowledge, sane opinions and comments amongst all the detritus.

Jeff at SNP Tactical Voting launches into a defence of the SNP Deputy First Minister ignoring one key fact, this is not the man's first offence. Yes he is now willing to sell the property that for 5 years he forgot he owned to pay any fine and pay back the amount he had defrauded. But he'd been fraudulent before and after serving a four year term the Judge may not deem that a non-custodial sentence would be enough for the man, as used by the MSP for Glasgow Govan requested.

It is his comments that show some knowledge comes to the fore which I think is worthy of consideration. DougtheDug points out the MSP's code of conduct parenthesis his:

SECTION 8: ENGAGEMENT AND LIAISON WITH CONSTITUENTS

8.1 Dealing with individual constituents' cases

8.1.1 Every constituent is represented by one constituency MSP and seven regional MSPs. It is expected that each member will take on a case when approached although it is recognised that there may be legitimate reasons for a member to decline a constituent's case in certain circumstances, for example, where a constituent requests an MSP to take inappropriate action, or if that case seeks action which would represent a conflict of interest with existing casework or is contrary to the member's political beliefs. If so, the member would ordinarily be expected to inform the constituent that the member is not taking up the case

Also Scott at Love and Garbage adds:

I spoke to a friend that's a Procurator Fiscal (PF) last night and read a locked blog post from another. Their combined experience is around 45 years of prosecuting. Neither is aware of a letter from a serving government minister having been used in mitigation throughout their careers (although MSPs or MPS do write to the PF as matters progress for information or to raise issues which can be taken in the decision to prosecute). Neither has seen a letter from an MSP or MP where there are previous convictions in relation to the same general matter, and the matter has this level of seriousness (and £80,000 fraud is not trivial).

This highlights the point made by Donald Findlay, the Queen's Counsel, who was defending Rauf at Glasgow Sheriff Court, said it was the first time in his long legal career he had handed the court a letter from someone of such importance.


The letter has now been made public (see above) in which Ms Sturgeon writes:

"For a number of years Mr Rauf has suffered from poor health mainly associated with his heart; he has a family, including young children aged under ten; and he is heavily involved in the community. All of these aspects of his life have been impacted upon by the mistake he has made."

No where in this letter does Ms Sturgeon seem to mention as I wrote earlier that she was aware of the previous conviction, indeed she says:

"I have been aware of Mr Rauf's case since July 2008 when he sought assistance from me after a search warrant was executed at his home by the Department of Work and Pension and officers of the Strathclyde Police."

The only mitigating circumstance she puts forward that might be taken into consideration is a heart issue, she does not specify what. As many people survive quite happily with minor heart conditions. That missing factor of the severity, on a casual reading, suggests it is mild but has been worsened because of the pressures maybe of being found out again etc.

As Tory justice spokesman Bill Aitken points out:

"It is extraordinary to describe a second conviction for fraud as a mistake. Either Ms Sturgeon didn't care about his previous fraud conviction or she didn't check. Either would be unbelievable and a grave lapse of judgment. His previous conviction was a matter of public record as recently as four weeks ago. To call these crimes a mistake is simply wrong."

The more that unearths about this issue, the lack of propriety that Ms Sturgeon has shown on this issue comes to the fore. As pointed out above there is no 'obligation', nor is there 'precedent' for this level of intervention on a second, more serious, conviction for the same crime.

Whether that is a resigning issue or not is something for Ms Sturgeon and her party colleagues to decide. However, we must not lose sight of the reasons they have called for the resignation or removal of others themselves in the past when we consider the eventual outcome.

UPDATE: As you can see from the top left hand corner this blog got a mention the following day in The Scotsman article on the Blogopshere's take on this story:

Stephen's Linlithgow Blog, put together by a Lib Dem party member, was less damning but still critical:"There is no 'obligation', nor is there 'precedent' for this level of intervention," it said.

Ok they got the name of the blog wrong but still I like the comment.

Are Labour Parliamentarians Like Rats?

They say if you want to know the fate of a ship keep an eye on the rats. They'll be the first to desert a sinking ship.

Well about a quarter of Labour's Scottish MPs have now decided that enough is enough and they are getting out.

• Rosemary McKenna Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (turning 69 in May announced retirement some time ago)
• Mohammed Sarwar Glasgow Central (only 57 first elected in 1997 announced he would step down in 2007)
• Gavin Strang Edinburgh East (also late sixties flip-flopped twice on retirement before settling on the option after 40 years as MP)
• Adam Ingram East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (turned 63 yesterday announced retirement last March)
• John Reid Airdrie and Shotts
• Jim Devine Livingston (forced to step down)
• Des Browne Kilmarnock and Loudoun (announced retirement in November)
• Anne Moffat East Lothian (Deselected in November by local party in hands of NEC)
• John McFall West Dumbartonshire (announced retirement at 65 last week)
• Nigel Griffiths Edinburgh South (heading into education job rather than defend his 405 vote majority)

So what does that mean about the good ship Labour and Captain Brown, it sounds like Titanic proportions as he Darling and Murphy play on as the happy band. There are a couple of Select Committee Chairs and quite a wealth of ministerial experience in some of those. Not to mention Griffiths one of Gordon's closest friends. But look at the speculation and actual names of some of those that are seeking to replace them.

Cathie Jamieson has already been selected to replace Browne, but there is speculation that former leader of the Labour MSPs Wendy Alexander is going to seek to stand in John McFall's seat and Sandra Boyack MSP for Edinburgh Central is being rumoured to be after Edinburgh South's selection. The latter two make interesting reading as under boundary changes their Scottish Parliament seats are not as safe 12 months after the Westminster election as they were in 2007. This could be seen as an attempt to take flight before they lose at the ballot or have to look for a safer Holyrood option.

So as well as having lost a quarter of his Scottish MPs voluntarily and most likely some more at the hands of electors, there could also be the case of three high profile female MSPs having sought a dual mandate either having to serve both for a year, call a Holyrood by-election or return to Holyrood defeated. There really is a shuffling of the decks going on which indicates that the bravado and confidence that they are giving to the electorate may only be a mask.

It must be worrying times in Scottish Labour so maybe it was no wonder that they rejoiced in getting a defection from a first term councillor even if there are allegations that all is not that good in his record thus far.

Goldie Fingers

She wants public sector workers who earn over £18,000 to have their pay frozen.

She wants government agencies to cut back on "non-essential" spending.

Yet she has been claiming £10,000 in first class travel between Edinburgh and Bishopton in Renfrewshire

Of course she doesn't really care what you think saying that David Cameron can get by without support in Scotland.

Step forward Annabel Goldfingers.

Cross Posting; Haggis, Neeps and Liberalism #7 - The Megrahi Documents

Just before Gmail took an hours nap last night I managed to send this off to Lib Dem Voice and it was posted during the debate at Holyrood earlier.

"The Megrahi case has ripped apart the peace of the Scottish Parliamentary recess, with even some former Lib Dem leaders taking a differing view to our leader in Holyrood. Today the UK Government and Scottish Parliament have released papers relating to the discussions that have gone one over the last two years. It ranges from correspondence between Westminster and Holyrood, to memos of meetings with Libyan officials, to the compassionate release request listing medical conditions.

"These start chronologically with the first letter from then-Lord Chancellor Lord (Charles) Falconer to Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond outlining the Memorandum of Understanding that Westminster had set up with Libya regarding a number of judicial issues. The Memorandum was drawn up to look at increasing bilateral co-operation covering, amongst other things, commercial and criminal issues. The legal issues were not exclusively about Mr Al Megrahi, but looking at the bigger picture of co-operation between the two nations at large. However, Lord Falconer did say that nothing could be ruled in or out, but that co-operation and consultation between Westminster and Holyrood would be carried forward.

"However, it the path of the UK’s justice secretary Jack Straw’s correspondence that sheds a lot of light on the situation....."

Read the full thing here.

The Cost of Three Jobs Salmond

The Scottish edition of the Times carries the true cost of ALex Salmond's true cost to the taxpayer.

Since he was elected to Holyrood in 2007 he has been entitled to his full MPs salary, despite only attending on 15 occasions, one third of his MSPs salary, which he donates to charity and his First Minister's salary. An annual income of £144,990. If he had stood down as the MP for Banff and Buchan in 2007, he would have be able to claim the full MSPs salary as well as his First Ministers salary. However, including his charitable donation by not doing so he has cost the tax payer an additional £81,398 in salary so far. Taking away his donations the First Minster he still pocketed £24,292 more than he would have got.

As he intends to step down at the General Election he will be entitled to his resettlement grant, how much more resettling does he have to do. This is a full years MP salary or £64,766. Whilst he is also getting his pension contributions as MSP and First Minster he will also accrue £56,000 extra for his three years as an MP from 2007. Net effect from salary and pension contributions is £146,000.

Problem with the SNP's Trump Card

I read this morning that the SNP are to use school closures in Glasgow as their 'trump' card to attempt to win the Glasgow North East seat of the outgoing speaker Michael Martin.

As pointed out by Labour the Lib Dem/SNP coalition councils in Aberdeen and Edinburgh are also being forced to closed schools. Not because they want to but because of the shackles that have been imposed by the concordat laid down from the SNP government. Therefore in bridge playing terms if that is the SNPs trump I think it has just been doubled.

Of course the SNP other Trump card may just be to bring in their good friend Donald in and get him to promise to build new schools. In the run up to the election which will never actually take place but he owes them a favour.

Watch this space.

First Minster to Stop Double Jobbing

Sadly not the one in Holyrood but the one in Stormont.

Yes, there has been a valid reason until it was shown the the DUP/Sinn Fein executive could work. As Mick Fealty over on Slugger O'Toole points out the announcement that the MPs will not carry on hold Ministerial or Committee chairs in the Assembly came in my home town of Bangor. It effectively means he is also about to remove his wife from the chair of the Health Committee.

So if the DUP can do away with dual mandates after merely a year after resuming a stable and workable agreement with their tersest rivals for the past number of decades what excuse does the MP for Banff and Buchan and MSP for Gordon have left for holding down two jobs over two years after assuming power and maintaining good ratings in the polls ever since?

Livingston No More

Before you ask why I'm invoking the line from the Proclaimers song Letter From America about the town I live in. It is not to do with the football team but the new Boundary Commission for Scotland and how they affect West Lothian.

First off there will as be only two unlike mentioned earlier at the time of the initial review three constituencies representing the council area a reshaped Linlithgow, and Livingston largely reshaped and renamed as Almond Valley. Slightly more confusing is that after 12 years of being totally in the Lothian Region the Linlithgow seat will now be in the newly renamed East Central Scotland Region. This may sort out the anomoly of the Westminster seat Linlithgow and Falkirk East straddling two Holyrood regions but leaves this small corner of the Region in a different health, police and education authority.

This has all short of ramifications. Fiona Hyslop has been the SNP candidate for Linlithgow for the last two elections but sits as a Lothian List MSP. The West Lothian Lib Dems now straddle two regions so there may be some internal realignment to reflect the new regions.

Personally it is highly possible that I could yet end up serving on two regional Lib Dem execs without moving constituency. However, as my international status for playing bowls moves with which country I live in I'm not too put out my that having been eligible for England, Ireland and Scotland thus far.

Let's Get Out of the Edinburgh Property Game Too

Nick Clegg has already stated that the Lib Dem MPs are not going to make any personal gain from the Westminster second homes allowance and has been widely applauded for doing so.

However, yesterday as he approached the Holyrood hacks all Tavish Scott would have had to say was that neither he not any Lib Dem MSP would benefit from the Holyrood scheme which is being run down anyway and all would have been fine under the bird of Liberty. I feel that Tavish made a error when being asked about MSP's home to answer merely by pointing the situation back at the Westminster mob.

While the Holyrood scheme is more transparent with the receipts for expenses claims being published. Also MSPs cannot claim back Capital Gains Tax or Stamp Duty on their sellings and purchases. Indeed after 2011 and new MSPs will not be allowed to benefit from the scheme at all. The benefit for those incumbents therefore from expenses should merely be to allow MSPs to carry out the essential business of government they should not be allowed to benefit from the housing boom in Morningside, Leith or anywhere else in Scotland's capital personally. This is what the public are now crying out for, quite rightly and it doesn't take a big effort really. All they want is that their elected representatives get what they need to carry out their duties and not luxuriate in things that most of us, even in a business with an expenses culture, would have to pay for out of our own expenses. At the end of their period as an MSP when they have to leave they merely return any net increase to the Parliament and therefore they will not have gained financially.

Come on Tavish just say the words, "No Lib Dem MSP will make personal financial gain from there accommodation allowance." See it doesn't hurt.