Nicola Sturgeon's Second Referendum

I may only have been in from work less than half an hour, but I already know that what I say is going to upset some of my good friends within the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

Nicola Sturgeon is right to call for a second Scottish Referendum after the deal is known and before the UK pulls out. What follows is the reasons why?

Firstly the dynamic of what it means to be part of the UK has changed. Many of those, including myself, while part of the last No campaign said that one of the uncertainties for Scottish Independence was their future having to renegotiate with Europe. That is no longer part of the issue because Theresa May is taking the UK out of Europe while Scotland voted to remain.

That other lady of politics Theresa May today is talking about the tunnel vision of Nicola Sturgeon. But since the Brexit vote and her taking control has failed to acknowledge that the people of Scotland and indeed Northern Ireland whose interaction with Europe is different from a lot of England took a different view from the Brexit result.

Scotland is pro-Europe, but Theresa May is taking us away from Europe, yet somehow she talks of tunnel vision while all her talk of taking the UK out of every aspect of Europe and heading for a hard Brexit is just that.

I myself did say after the last Scottish referendum that Nicola Sturgeon should have stuck to her pledge that this was a once in a generation opportunity. I have however changed my mind, the seismic plates have shifted in UK politics. While I would have vote No last time, I personally would be voting yes next time (if the rumours of what Theresa May is heading for turn out to be true).

Post Salmond

So this afternoon Alex Salmond has announced that he stepping down as leader of the Scottish National Party and First Minister of Scotland. So as well as asking what next for the UK nation as a whole we are now asking what next for the SNP?

Firstly as has long been muted Salmond himself has already been grooming his successor, it was she who had a major role in planning the referendum agenda and steering the Yes Campaign. Nicola Sturgeon the MSP for Glasgow Southside has been the Deputy First Minister since 2007 and been the Depute Leader of the SNP for the last 10 years. If she were to fulfill what many see as her destiny, if a little earlier than they expected she would be the first women to lead any devolved power in the UK.

But the question is would there be a coronation or would there be a challenger? If the latter who might the competition come from.

One possibility is like Alex Salmond an alumni of Linlithgow Academy and with his was also expelled from the party for being part of the 79 Group his long term friend Kenny MacAskill. While Alex has mellowed on the demand for a republican socialist stance, MacAskill has said that once Scotland voted for Independence there would be a referendum on whether to keep the monarchy. He stepped down from standing with Sturgeon on a joint ticket to be her Depute when Salmond decided to restand for the leadership himself on a ticket with her instead. It is possible that that loyalty may be repaid with him become her deputy ten years on so that may be one reason why he wouldn't want to upset the apple cart.

Another alternative might be John Swinney who had been leader between Alex Salmond and Alex Salmond from 2000-2004. Since 2007 he has been the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth a job which many within the party would say he has be great at. Especially in his first four years when he had to get through his budget as a minority administration. He is closely associated with the gradualist wing of the party, which in light of the failure to secure independence might come to the fore of people's thinking as something that is needed to make the most of the negotiations that will ensue for more powers for Scotland. The down side to a Swinney bid is that in his previous term in charge, unlike Salmond  who had been successful first time, he saw the parties fortunes slump.

The only other person with potential serious intent to lead the party is the man who challenged Swinney back in 2000. Alex Neil had the backing of the fundamentalist wing of the party. Instead of looking for a gradulaist approach it may be that some within the party are seeking a figure head to keep up the fundamentalist approach, if so Neil would be the natural figurehead for such feelings. Some may well feel that Salmond wasn't seeking to separate enough from the rest of the UK and was really fighting on a ticket of keeping the best bits of being in the UK and therefore the voters knew it wasn't real independence. Only if that is the case would Neil stand a serious chance of taking the leadership but it is the mood of the party that is important.

Nicola is in pole position, but as she also was heavily involved in the referendum campaign it is unlikely that she will go totally unchallenged from within. It depends which wing of the party is most angry with the way the referendum campaign was built up to be a success only to fall 10% short that may well decide who will take her on, and such a challenge may even come from both wings.

One thing though is certain. We live in interesting times.

A no vote is not always vacuous

Nicola Sturgeon in this morning's Scotland on Sunday says that a no vote in next year's referendum on Scottish Independence is a vote for nothing. This is rather big seeing as the SNP have yet to secure an Independent Scotland's future within Europe and to answer some leading questions on military, support for the arts, culture and leisure (currently covered by the national lottery) and other issues that severance with the rest of the UK would bring about.

Of course she pulls the line of toeing the line to Westminster Austerity cuts, has she forgotten that Scotland two banks and largest Building Society received bail outs from that same Westminster? Has she ever wondered what state Scotland would have been in had they not had the support of Westminster at that time? Maybe she should look at Greece and what is required there. Part of the reason that some of these cuts are required is because of the state that the Scottish financial institutions got us into, not all, but a sizable chunk. 

Of course there are many who believe that a vote to stay within the UK is in the best interests of Scots, there is the economy of scales questions of trans-British industry, there is security in a economy that despite the recession is still recognised world wide as a leader, there is certainty in freedom of trade and movement within Europe (yes even though David is promising a referendum on that in 2016).

You see what Nicola is forgetting to factor in is that the people of Scotland voted for a devolved Scottish Parliament within the UK. They also voted for tax raising powers with flexibility within parameters from the UK, powers that have yet to be exercised by any party in power in Scotland. So with the ability to do certain things differently that have not been exercised and others that have being taken, just what is this nothing that Nicola is talking about. Student fees, care for the elderly, prescription charges etc are all different in Scotland than in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is hardly a nothing decision.

The other three main parties in Scotland all promised in the past to look at increasing powers for Holyrood, some may have taken a step back from that. However, the reason that this is on the back burner is because of the SNP insistence of taking this to a referendum and the decision to make it a single issue question of being part of the Union or not. The fact that parties like the Scottish Liberal Democrats do not want to muddy the waters does not mean that there will not be any further powers handed to Holyrood it is just that this is not something that the executive Government in Scotland are pursuing. You see it is Nicola and her SNP colleagues who are playing high stakes poker. They have gone all in on one hand, for them it is independence or bust. There is no get out, indeed there is no detail in what an independent Scotland will be, although Alex Salmond seems more that content to be dictator in chief, referee and player in his own referendum to anoint himself and his heirs and kings of Scotland thereafter.

Voting for the status quo is not always a vote for nothing, it can be a vote for stability as opposed to calamity. It can be a vote for prosperity as opposed to doom. Just because people do not want change does not mean that change is good or better. Until you can convince people that change is better for people they will vote for what they know.

The fact that the SNP are trying to scare people into saying a vote to stay in the UK is vacuous only goes to show that they have no real plan for the future. They have yet to convince me that Scotland is better apart from the UK, which is why I say we are Better Together, if I were to have a vote in the referendum I would be voting "No".

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.

Zero Tolerate as I Say Not as I Do

"Anyone contemplating fraud against the NHS should be aware that they will be caught, and if they are caught, they will have to face the consequences of their fraudulent actions.

"Let me be clear today about what is a zero-tolerance approach to fraud and to fraudsters. Fraud perpetrated against the NHS is, in my view, a fraud perpetrated against each and every one of us and that is why it is so important to combat it. So it does make sense for all of us, in our own ways and in our own roles, to act as counter-fraud champions."

So spoke the SNP's Scottish Health Secretary to more than 100 delegates at a conference aimed at combating NHS fraud. Of course that role is one that is filled by the MSP for Glasgow Govan, the other being Deputy First Minister, for all three hats belong to Nicola Sturgeon.

This was 4 months after she first became away of the case of her constituent Abdul Rauf, but before she wrote that letter. In the letter she asked that even if the consequences of his fraudulent actions against the Department of Work and Pensions merited a custodial sentence that alternatives should be considered.

It adds another question to the list that she will have to answer after the current Scottish Parliament recess. Why is zero tolerance OK against fraud in the NHS but not against the DWP? Is it not also a fraud perpetrated against each and every one of us? Should we not also act as "counter-fraud champions"?

This Wimmen Tis Fa Turning

Once upon a time, not so long ago, a grey haired leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party said:

"You turn if you want to. The Lady's not for turning."

What would Baroness Thatcher make of this?

Before 12:30 during First Minister's questions Annabel Goldie told the First Minister:

"Many questions need to be answered and must be answered if Miss Sturgeon is to retain the confidence of this Parliament."

Yet within a couple of hours when an emergency meeting of the Bureau met to discuss the possibility of an emergency statement, the SNP said no and when it went to the vote the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Nationalist Party as they have done so often voted with the SNP so those questions will not be answered swiftly.

Annabel is not so much the iron lady, as the ironing lady, dashing away with the smoothing iron, to smooth the path for a increasingly trouble Alex Salmond and the SNP who have also announced that their plans to introduce the Referendum Bill plans were now shifting to after the general election.

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.

A Mistake the Second Time Around? Come on Nicola

It is one thing for the Scottish Justice Minister to visit in jail an terminally ill man who is seeking parole from his sentence, it is quite another when the Deputy First Minister writes to a Sheriff and suggests what sentencing he should carry out on the case of a convicted fraudster.

Of course Nicola Sturgeon is entitled to write a letter of support for her constituents. She is quite entitled to write laying out any circumstances she feels the judge should take into consideration when making his judgement of sentence. However, she should really rely on research she is a trained solicitor after all.

Abdul Rauf had been convicted of defrauding the taxpayer of £80,000. She claims that he made a "mistake" and urged the judge to "consider alternatives to a custodial sentence". Sadly if it was a mistake or not, and the judge had ruled that it was not, her constituent had a prior conviction of four years for stealing £58,624 of pension and benefit payments in 1996.

As Mike Rumbles the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip says:

"It beggars belief that the deputy first minister of Scotland could think it appropriate to write in support of a convicted fraudster who is now facing another conviction."

Sturgeon admitted last night that she knew of the previous conviction before writing this letter, claiming it was a mistake the second time around. Rauf was convicted this time claiming £650 per month income support from 2001-2006 while living in one property in Glasgow, while owning a second in Edinburgh. His previous offence occurred when he was sub-postmaster at Tollcross Post Office in Edinburgh. Between June 1993 and July 1994, he stole £58,624 in pension and benefit payments. He was sentenced at the High Court in Edinburgh after a sheriff-court jury heard he had forged signatures on 779 Department of Social Security payment orders and kept the cash for himself.

When asked in court why he had not declared the property in Edinburgh he said, "It slipped my mind."

As the DWP campaign to catch benefit fraud says, no ifs, no buts. This is not a few pounds but several thousand. This is not one mistake but a constant claiming on Income Support month on month and signing a declaration that the details are correct.

No ifs, no buts Nicola.

UPDATE: To be fair I'm giving two alternate views one from new blogger Marion Steel, the other from Caron (because so rarely do we take differing views).

Abusive Conversation

First Witch: All hail, Salmond! Hail to thee, Thane of Banff and
Buchan!
Second Witch: All hail, Salmond! Hail to thee, Thane of
Gordon!
Third Witch: All hail, Salmond! That shalt be King thereafter?!?

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II recently moved the timing of an event in Norwich so as not to make it appear political in nature. Not so much by her turning up, but no doubt to stop many of the candidates looking for a photo opportunity with her.

However, there are no such qualms with the man who would want to be the next King of Scotland. On September 1 there has now been arranged a new leg of the National 'Conversation' roadshow in Molendinar Community Centre.

So what you may ask? Well the location is slap bang in Glasgow North East, the scene of the next Westminster by election. So a taxpayer funded event highlighting one of the key policy differences of one of the parties is to take place during the period between the MP standing down and the writ being moved for the by election.

The National Conversation has been a soliloquy in the best Shakespearean traditions, all of Scotland's a stage and all the men and women merely listen to what the Nats have to say. The initial website was a hive for cybernats who quickly quashed out any overtly pro-union voice swiftly by diversionary posting. The currently tour taking the message out to the people is very much pro-independence and has cost the tax payer almost £500,000 last year, £341,356 on staff and Civil Service costs and £55,000 on publishing publicity materials.

The SNP are claiming that this decision to hold this here was made before Mr Martin took the decision to stand down. Yet there no advanced publicity of any kind, not even through National Conversation sources to point this upcoming event, which has only appeared recently on timetables.

Nats are also claiming that the timing and location of such meetings were made by officials. Officials had advised against moving a ministerial announcement to Glenrothes during last years by election, but the SNP Government went ahead anyway.

So already there is some doubt to be cast over the cover up that the party of Government in Scotland is making that they are not abusing taxpayers money in the run up to a by election.

You can almost imagine the Lady Sturgeon in the Ladies' bathroom at Holyrood wringing her hands:

Out, damned plot. Out I say!

Footnote: Of course as ever at the Edinburgh Fringe that is great deal of Shakespeare, or homages, on show including the Scottish play.

The Swinney Flu

The art of Governance is often defined by the ability to Govern in a crisis.

Love them or loathe them although they got the UK into the fine mess they gotten us into over the Banks collapsing Labour did at least find a way to do something about it. While it may not be the right thing in the long term they did something.

However, with the swine flu issue the SNP are failing to display the art of Governance. The £33bn budget for the current year was only passed in February but already John Swinney is running cap in hand to the Treasury in Westminster asking for more money. Instead of looking for where the funds may be available for repatriation to the vaccination of Scottish citizenry the first reaction in the crisis is the SNP default position blame it on Westminster.

Yes there is a £11.2m health budget surely somewhere in the whole Scottish budget £100m that Nicola Sturgeon the Health Minister claims is 'owed' to deal with swine flu can be found. Having worked in the Civil Service I'm aware that while budgets have been allocated to projects for the 12 months not all of these are going to be on time, therefore there is bound to be a little surplus in some departments budgets. I also know that even if there is this will find some way of getting spent at the end of the budget cycle.

Put another way John Swinney claims that out of all the department budgets under the SNP control it is impossible for him to find 0.0003% of savings from his budget*, with half the year still to come to be able to find the £100,000 required for the inoculation of Scotland against Swine flu. That sounds like lousy, slipshod and poor financial management to me.

*You can tell I work with stats can't you?

Swine Flu Fears In Scotland

Just out of sight in fact just a few miles over the next ridge from here lies Airdrie. In an isolation ward at Monklands hospital two Scots recently returned from Mexico who took ill on their return are under observation for the possibility of swine flu. Friends and family of the couple are also under observation and will be isolated if they show any flu like symptoms. There is a similar case of man in Stanwick, Northamptonshire who is also currently in isolation.



Medical experts are saying that it could be several months before an effective vaccine is available for this strain of flu. But the rapid spread of this flu which the World Heath Organisation says has 'pandemic possibility' shows one major difference from the 1918 Spanish Flu outbreak. In 2009 we are a much more global society, we travel far more widely in far greater numbers. The fact that it may already have travelled from Mexico, to the USA and to the UK is evidence of the speed with which such things can these days migrate.



Both the Scottish Cabinet and Westminster have had emergency meetings to discuss the situation. Scottish Health Minister Nicola Sturgeon saying:

"The Scottish Government, in conjunction with other administrations in the UK, is closely monitoring the situation and assessing the implications, if any, of this situation for Scotland."

A spokesperson for Westminster added:

"Cobra has met today. It involved people from different departments who are involved in planning for flu outbreaks, including people from devolved administrations.

"There will be an ongoing discussions and meetings while the threat of flu is there. The situation is also being monitored closely and assessed by the international organisations dealing with the prevention and control of infectious diseases."

The underlying message is that at present 3 isolated cases is not a cause for panic. However, the situation is under review and as ever when such things hit the headlines any worrying symptoms or even just normal flu-like symptoms should be taken a little more seriously than is normally the case.

Come On Prezza Try Harder

So John Prescott allegedly flicked the V sign at SNP activists at Glasgow Central. That's small fry.

On Saturday evening the car in which a rather dour looking Nicola Sturgeon was leaving the SNP headquarters in Markinch almost came straight out into the path of an oncoming vehicle. The reason I know this is that I was in that vehicle also making my damp retreat from a day on the stomp. Fortunately the driver of Nicola's car did pull to a halt before heading straight out into Markinch High Street.

Where is the Grin Control on Nicola Sturgeon?

Yes I'll admit it and go and collect my anorak now, I was there to the bitter end last night. That was when Newsnight Scotland finally deemed it time to show highlights of the campaign to round off conference and take the camera of Nicola's increasingly smug "I know something you don't" face. All through the coverage all the politicians in the studio Nicola, Douglas 'I'll defend my sister' Alexander, Murdo Fraser and Jo Swinson were checking for updates on their Blackberries. At times in wide shots we saw Nicola, Douglas and Jo actually looking at theirs. They were seemingly better informed than the reporter at the count on many occasions judging by their facial expressions and comments to questioning. Nicola smile grew in smugness to almost John Mason-esque proportions (you had to see the literature) as the night progressed.

I'll also admit I wasn't there at the start as me and some work colleagues were entertaining one of our South african colleagues to a meal down at Khubla Khan's in Leith. Although on my way home I checked into facebook to find that my one time near a TV camera all campaign had managed to make the national Newsnight coverage of the campaign. That's the last four Westminster Election nights in Scotland I've been spoted on telly, should I run and hide now.

However, the man who a few hours later entered the count to a guard of honour of Nat supporters, I thought I did spot ASWAS in the line, then entered the hall almost Rocky-esque hands raised aloft. Back in the Studio Nicola was trying her best to keep stoom after all the result had yet to be made official.

I think this is a great result to run this close as it appears to be from where we started. John Mason has run a good campaign etc.

But you could tell she was secretly waiting to have the part alluded to by a text messenger who later encouraged them to chill, kick back have a beer and cigarette. She quickly regained her sence that she was Health Minister when caught laughing a bit much though.

However, the dreaded r-word as it was referred to was mentioned by the BBC just as the candidates and agents were being called to the returning officers desk. This soon became not a euphermism but the actually word recount as while watching pictures of Margaret Curran, who couldn't really hide in bright red, an announcement on the stage used the word in full for the first time, quickly followed by about 7 uses in the studio in the next minute. Now Nicola said in good football speak:

"If you'd offered us to be in recount territority at the start we'd have been happy. But we'd have been expecting us to call it from behind."

Oh how the grin grew and grew. But we still had to wait for the official confirmation that Frances Curran pile of 555 votes didn't contain 366 of Margaret's in error. Nicola had by now returned to "siesmic" talk the word long banned by SNP after Alex promised a quake hitting Glasgow East before Labour chose Curran, M.

So Gordon had responsibilty for the Dunfermline and West Fife Campiagn and lost that, he was Prime Minister for the Glasgow East Campaign and lost that. I can still the looks of anguish on the Labour members at the Livingston as they entered the hall at the start of that by election, but that has been the only Westminster by election north of the border this Parliament that they have ended up leaving with even a smile of relief.

Labour are in turmoil and facing a crisis from whoever is best placed to dislodge them, the Nats last night, the Tories in Crewe of the Lib Dems in Dunfermline, it looking a lot like the lead up to 1997. Gordon can not be sleeping well in the few small hours his pencils in for such activities.

The Buckie Stops Here

Well...err...actually probably not.

What is more likely may well be booze drives in 4x4s to Cumbria or Northumberland. Teenagers laughing outside supermarkets as they drink their illegally gained Buckfast Tonic wine incredulous as the middle classes have to queue twice to get their more expensive Chardonnay or Whisky to enjoy with or after their meal.

Yesterday Nicola Sturgeon laid out the SNP plans which they feel will tackle Scotland's drink problem a "social responsibility fee". The only thing the SNP would appear to have learned, from recent errors, is that said tax, sorry fee, will be set by local authorities, however they will have to fund a way of collecting this. The SNP haven't said they will provide the funding to allow for that: no real surprise there then.

They think that introducing a second supermarket alcohol only counter will prevent 'impulse' buying of alcohol by shaming people into not buying it. Shame may not be the problem, inconvenience maybe. On Monday while I was in Tesco I heard three calls for all staff to go man the tills while I was shopping, a separate booze till may well have meant the shelves would never have been replenished.

A closer look at the SNP's minimum pricing rule say 35p per unit shows that while McEwans Export premium would go from £2.08 to £2.80 per liter, Whisky and Wine would be up but just under 25%, supermarket own brand lager would go up by 32%. However the drink of preference of on-street, teenage drinkers, the bottles that litter the streets every morning through the weekend and school holidays, Buckfast, would remain unchanged. Sure the SNP plan to stop them getting their alcohol for 3 more years until they turn 21 but the ones who already break the law by getting some before their 18th are hardly likely to be put off by that law change.

In essence the SNP will be increasing exports of Scottish Whisky, especially to Carlisle and Berwick being the first stops of the booze drives to England. After all Whisky is not an impulse buy for most enjoyers of the odd dram so they will happily stock up on trips to England. So shipping costs of Whisky will increase, pollution to transport it once to England to sell then back to Scotland to drink will increase our carbon footprint.

Also agitated shoppers hoping to have a nice bottle of wine with their meal will have to queue twice in busy supermarkets, adding to trolley rage and car park rage. Only the ardent young drinker it seems will remain relatively non-plussed by the whole experience, either having to create fake ID with an earlier date of birth, or more worryingly befriending some over 21 rather than over 18 to buy them some drink.

Wow it looks like the Nats are doing everybody else's jobs for them in how to win back Nat votes. Keep up the good work.

Ladies Take to Your Corners Please

And Prepare to Come out Fighting

Well after Wendy Alexander threw the first punch in the latest round of the Independence referendum fight at the weekend. Which she, backed by her cabinet member brother Douglas, hastily followed up with a call that the SNP were running scared by holding it in 2010. You may be forgiven for thinking that the Nats may have been reeling.

Well they sent out Alex, nope my mistake, the First Minister is not the big hitter on this one, it's Nicola Sturgeon that's been sent out to take this on. She said echoing the chant of Big Daddy in the wrestling ring that the Nats shall not be moved, not even it would appear to bring forward their primary aim to take Scotland forward to independence that bit quicker. They still want to have it in 2010, which looks most likely to be an election year. So the issue may still be buried behind other issues and not given the clear light of day that it needs and deserves to be debated fully.

Nicola accuses Wendy of being desperate. Wendy accuses Nicola of running scared. Looks like the WWE big event may bale beside the build up to this fight at Holyrood.

Make Way for the Cowboy Builders of Independence

The white van pulled up outside Holyrood yesterday the words Salmond and Co covered by layers of dirt that have been being picked up recently. Out hopped Nicola Sturgeon to size up the job at hand. With a pencil firmly wedged behind her ear she eyed the place up. From the Borders to Shetland, from the Hebrides to the North Sea, she saw a juicy job that her contracted firm could carry off.

It needs fixing up and we’ll have to take down the connecting walls to the neighbours. But don’t panic you’ll still be living in a nice European community. All we need is you mark on this piece of paper and leave the details to us.

Now I know designer make-over shows are all the rage, and I know that these are done with very little consultation as to what that will entail. However, comparing the move to independence, or the move to devolution, to one is not the same. For a start with devolution there was a whole consultation period, but the SNP would like to gloss over this due to their non-participation in the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which met from 1989 to produce its final report in 1995. So when people came to vote on devolution they weren’t totally in the dark as to what it entailed, just as the Good Friday Agreement was but to referendum in Northern Ireland for the establishment of devolved power there.

Yet on the front page of the Scottish Edition of the Time today the SNP are not prepared to lay out in advance what Independence is going to mean, merely ask the Scottish public to vote yea or nae and leave the details of what all is going to be involved until later, in negotiations between the Scottish and Westminster Governments.

Well I’m sorry but that is a case of we don’t want to people to know what we’ll be doing but expecting them to vote for it anyway. Now we know the truth SNP don’t trust us with the detail of independence to make up our minds. In which case people of Scotland should all vote no 100%, until we can be trusted to vote on detail and can make an educated judgement.