A simple choice says Peter

"Flag-lowering, parade-stopping, gay marriage supporting, pro-water charging, holier than thou Alliance Party".

Was the recommendation that Peter Robinson made of the Alliance Party in his speech this afternoon, so let me take those epithets that raised raucous applause from the small minded, one directioned, homophobic, financially irresponsible, holier than God himself DUP delgates found so humourous and look at them one by one.

Flag lowering: Whilst this relates to Belfast City Council, for Derry City Council and many of the councils to the West of the Bann the Alliance Party policy on flying the Union Flag on designated days is actually a flag raising policy. Yes it is one that Sinn Féin and the SDLP need some work on to see it as being fair to the minority of unionists who live in the council areas that they live in. Some of those Unionists undoubtedly vote DUP but haven't seen the Union Flag fly from their civic buildings for years. Therefore where is the DUP call for the flag to fly on all public buildings to mark the Royal Birthdays, the Queen's Coronation Day etc? Of course designated days is what happens in most council areas in Great Britain, indeed some fly other flags Orkney flies the Norwegian Flag on Norway Day, and many the Rainbow flag for Pride.

So make that Flag Raising or Flag Equality

Parade stopping: No doubt refers to the Twadell Avenue stand off, but it was the Parade's Commission as voted for by 71% of the Northern Irish people in response to the Belfast Agreement who decided that one final part of their parade home on the Twelve in 2013 should not go past a parade of shops in a nationalist area. This was based on previous violence in the area from both sides over previous parades. The DUP of course are supporting the cost of policing the ongoing action there  in hundreds of thousands of pounds, while the PSNI this week announced some cuts to manning of police stations to try and meet budget constraints on top of suspending historical enquiry work.

So make that Police Supporting and People Respecting.

Gay Marriage Supporting: Of course marriage equality is not just about the gays (and lesbians), it also affects the bisexuals and those who are transgender and intersex. But then when you are used to attcking just the G of the LGBT+ spectrum you can't be expected to know the details of some of my potential partners I an marry but others I cannot, spousal vetoes and stolen years of "togetherness". Nor does it allow those faith groups that want to carry out same-sex marriages the same rights as their brethren in England, Wales and very soon Scotland. Of course when you defend the union and attack LGBT+ equality on a par with the rest of the Kingdom you make a certain section second class citizens in their own land.

So make that Equal Marriage Supporting or just Equality Supporting.

Pro-Water Charging: Water charging is just one possible way to increase government income. We do have a failing water and sewage provision infrastructure which needs a sizeable amount of work and replacement. One way this is funding in England, Wales and Scotland is through the water charge component in the council tax. So yeah while we have a financial crisis shouldn't we be looking at the various ways that we miss out on the revenue that the rest of the UK can call upon to actually do stuff with, but then doing stuff and the Assembly are two things that very rarely go together. Of course Peter Robinson is looking to get control of local corporation tax, but that is only so he can lower it to match the Republic of Ireland and therefore create more holes in budgets. Taxes and revenue need to meet expenditure not cause even more savings to be sought.

So make that Fiscally Responsible.

Holier than thou: Coming from a party that fails to take into account people of non-Christian, Roman Catholic Faith, or no faith into consideration this seems rather rich. When their definition of what is right is based on a rather narrow reading of the Bible which not even every Christian in Northern Ireland holds to 100%. When they cannot legislate for the state without reference to the bible it is clear who truly is Holier than thou, though I suspect that like the Pharisees and Sadducees before them are actually Holier than God creating extra laws and legislations to go on top of what Moses was given. This is why Jesus said that the greatest commandment was to love. For until you can live up to that one you cannot possibly start to consider the others and that is where the hate for certain sectors and failure to understand equality legislation leads to.

So finally I make that  Being a Good Samaritan for EVERYONE.

So in conclusion what Peter failed to see is that the Alliance Party is actually:

Flag Equality Everywhere, Police Supporting, People Respecting, Equality Supporting, Fiscally Responsible, Good Samaritan for EVERYONE

So yeah it is a simple choice for the people of East Belfast. If they want progress and normality that most of the Western World knows, loves and experiences then they can vote for Naomi Long. If they want to carry on with the bigotry, keeping others down and lurching from one financial crisis to another they can back Gavin Robinson.

Labour announce (a little bit of) Lib Dem Supporters Trust policy

I've just checked my pass for Conference and it certainly appears to be for the Liberal Democrats and not for Labour's. I'm sure if I'd been at the wrong one, my cousin a Labour PPC for next year's General Election would have put me right.

But I do recall speaking in the motion on Reclaiming the People's Game. In fact I have evidence that I did here:

 

Yeah, we were talking about the role of supporters trusts in the running of football clubs. Many of those in the debate had some experience of such trusts, myself included, being set up to save their clubs. In my case that has resulted in investment in the club by the supporters trust and a seat on the board for a representative of the supporters trust.

So you can imagine my shock when today Labour announce that they have a plan to for supporters' trusts to appoint members of the clubs' boards. Even more startling when a number of Labour activists and leaning journalists attacked Liberal Democrats for actually have the gall to discuss and debate this issue at our conference earlier this week.

It appears that the reason we were attacked is that this is a good idea, so much so that it has been stolen from under our noses.

But the Liberal Democrat policy that was discussed went further than just call on supporters' trusts to be recognised. It called for greater equality and diversity training and observance within football, greater clarity and robustness into the ownership and fitness of individuals to be directors and protection for individual stadiums and local identities of clubs.

So Labour are only concerned about one part of what is needed not the hard stuff that will actually have a greater effect and hopefully lead to less requirement of supporters' trust to actually have to come to the aid of their club. Labour failed to deal with the banks but are happy to appeal to the base level in appearing to do something about the result, they are up to same trick with the people's game, but they really must deal with prevention as much as they are sorting out the recovery after near death experiences of many fans.

Yet again the Lib Dems are leading the way, but leading the way by getting to the heart of the issues, not dealing only with the outcomes but seeing how they can prevent the symptoms in the future.

So Joan McAlpine on the issue of trust with finances

Whatever your views on the abusive husband comments in Joan McAlpine's comments in yesterday's Daily Record lets us bear in mind she also said using the analogy of Westminster as the husband and Scotland as the wife:

But the husband complains she can't be trusted to manage her own money.

and

We could do much better with power over the economy, taxes and benefits. Scotland is as capable of running her own finances as England.

Let us not forget something.

In 1998 in the referendum for devolution there was a second question about varying tax raising powers, the people of Scotland said yes. So surely a sign of trust in dealing with their own finances.

The Calman Commission of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats you so despise wanted to trust Scotland further with tax raising powers.

And the Lib Dems even have a policy of fiscal autonomy for Scotland.

However, it was the SNP Government who failed to keep up payments to HRMC to enable the tax varying powers option to be maintained in 2010 and there is now a three year suspension on those powers.

So just how capable have the SNP been at running financial options for Scotland thus far?

Student Loan Directors Quit

The heads of customer services (Martin Herbert) and information & communication technology (Wallace Gray) at the Student Loans Company (SLC) have resigned.

In a report published at the start of this month it was revealed that only 5% of calls to the company were answered at the peak of the delays in payments earlier this term. Some of the board members of the SLC were apparently only finding out the extent of the issues that students were facing due to the SLC's failures through news reports or the Facebook Groups set up by students facing financial difficulties when their loan payments were not forthcoming.

Earlier this month, before the report was published, Liberal Youth Scotland (LYS) staged a protest outside the offices of the SLC in Glasgow. They called on Ralph Seymour-Jackson, Chief Executive of the SLC and Michael Hipkins, Director of Student Finance strategy for the government. It appears that the two people whose departments are at the heart of the fiasco of student finances these past three months have fallen on their swords, whereas the overseers who should have taken action sooner to step in to correct these issues are to escape scot-free and to oversee the next appointees in these positions.

It is small matter as many students have had to drop out of University. Either because of a direct effect of not getting their student loan in time at the start of term, or later on when having still failed to recieve it, thier University hardship fund was already used up in paying for others before them to cover the absence.

The apology from the deputy chief executive doesn't even go far enough. He promises:

"We are determined to do whatever it takes to ensure processing and payments are faster next year, so that we can deliver the service that students and their parents have every right to expect."

Going faster is not much of a promise considering the effects of this year. Students deserve a promise for next year that the SLC will ensure that processing and payments are made ON TIME next year, not merely faster. They have 9 months to be able to ensure that, six of which will be checking the errors in the current system and three of which will then be the processing of the actual requests and claims that are required. Anything less after this year will not be acceptable to anyone

Dubai Crisis as a Spider

I had to say that when I opened the Times today I was impressed by their spider diagram (this is a link to a PDF) showing the interconnectiveness of businesses to the Dubai World difficulties. Unlike the previous map of islands that they showed, when reporting on the venture at the start up, there is less enthusiasm about the state of some of these islands.

Are Student's Education Worth the Plastic They Are Being Paid With?

Must of my adult life I've been fighting the onslaught of student debt, from the dying years of Thatcher who had taken our milk as kids, to our student days when she wanted to also take away our grants and loan us money to pay for our living whilst were studying. Since then of course it is not just the living expenses that students have paid for but tuition as well since.

We're suppose to be living under a Government that is going to end student debt but today's report from the National Union of Students Scotland shows that there is a long way yet to go. It shows that 56 percent are relying on expensive commercial debt to try and get through their studies supplementing their full uptake of their student loan. Indeed they are more likely than other groups to be indebted at commercial rates.

Also that over 70% are in paid employment for more than the recommended ten hours a week to make ends meet. Two thirds also rely on handouts from friends and families. In total 88 percent of our students are in some kind of indebtedness, many of them a mixture of student loan, commercial and family or friends.

The report points out that the current financial situation is greatly affecting students:

"The current economic recession has hit students in a big way.

"The fundamentally flawed assumptions our student support system is based on, namely that students will be able to secure part-time work during term time, a job during the summer vacation and will receive parental support throughout, will be seriously tested this academic year, and we are positive that no-one will like the results."

So what can be done? The NUS study have suggested some proposals.

In the short term they are looking for the minimum loan to be increased to all students and more cash to be made available to the poorest students in a mix of loans and grants to prevent them slipping into poverty or being forced to drop out.

In the longer term, NUS Scotland wants a minimum income of £7,000 and the loan to be gradually decreased as grants are increased to reduce student debt. The minimum income guarantee has already been backed by both the Lib Dems and Labour. Indeed LYS moved the motion that secured the Scottish Liberal Democrat's support at Autumn conference.

As Liam Burns , NUS Scotland president, points out the aim isn't to totally get to the stage I was at as a student at the end of the more fortunate 80s and early 90s (though my grant was never that big) when he said:

"Simply moving from loans to grants is not what is needed.

"Far worse is the social injustice that would be reinforced if commercial debt is not dealt with, as poorer students are more afraid of commercial debt than those of a luckier background."

The NUS are looking out for those less able to look out for themselves, over to Fiona Hyslop to see what action the SNP can and will take to help work this terrible problem out.

How to pay off million pound debts? Relegate them to the bottom.

Last week the SFL demanded a bond of £720,000 (the equivalent of 18 away games at the highest grossing club) from the, then prospective, new owners of Livingston FC in order to fulfill their Division 1 football fixture. Neil Rankine, Gordon MacDougall and Ged Nixon had presented a plan to repay the debts that Angelo Massone had greatly ramped up over the last season.

Yesterday the other 29 league clubs consigned that possible way out of the financial blackhole to history as they relegated the team to Division Three football. The odd visit of Dunfermline and Dundee (no matter how much both sets of fans hate each other) or Partick were some of the money spinning fixtures that would have helped clear the debt.

So what is happening with the bond, is that still being requested, surely if it is it can not be expected at the same level? Also while the SFL are saying that this is the best hope for the club to survive what is going to happen with the potential owners? One of the parties at least is the fans of the club but what about the other two. At least they haven't immediately ruled it out MacDougall on leaving Hampden last night said:

"We've got to consider all the options that are open to us. It makes it very, very difficult, but let's see and go back and discuss it with an open mind."

So one man in refusing to move when all hope was lost, when all the fans were crying out for him to sell up and move on before liquidation kicked in. May yet after all have confined my team to death, as well as 'misplacing' the leased company car. Because no matter what happens now with two days before the first round of league games we have players on First Division salaries, compared to the opposition we have a full team on salary. As Ged Nixon says in today's West Lothian Courier:

"The SFL last Thursday gave us a clear indication that we were to prepare to play in the First Division next season. We were asked on Friday to prepare and submit a business plan by noon on Monday which we did based upon competing in the First Division.

"The value of the bond is the equivalent figure of 18 awa games at the highest grossing First Division club and everything has been geared towards First Division football .

"Our plans have all been geared towards First Division revenue and turnover while our playing pool is also of First Division size and standard and if we are relegated our finances might not stack up."

The team have been working around the clock in an attempt to save the club and to meet the requests of the SFL management team. They have also stumped up the bond which instead of being 2 aways game grosses for each of the opposition teams is 18 of the highest. The league was less that 72 hours away when the latest moving of the goalposts came from the SFL clubs.

Maybe as the interim manager of the club Donald McGruther of administrator Mazars said the action yesterday really is a final "death knell" to the Livingston. The worrying precedent was set when Gretna were demoted last summer, and went out of existence soon after. I'm hoping the omens of glum are wrong but after the joy of last week once again the roller coaster of fate is taking Livingston to the depths and we've yet to play our first league fixture of the season.

The fact that a football authority sees the best way for a club to survive within days of the kick off of a new season, pay off debts, fulfill contracts and fixtures is to drop them like this is that really the way to help? Surely the revenue stream needs to be maintained to meet debts run up at the level they were run up at. Only in that way, possibly will backers see any hope of recouping their investment in the long haul.

Dunfermline Building Society: Need for Action

Last week Willie Rennie MP blogged about the disproportionate charge that a mutual building society such as the Dunfermline Building Society were facing as a result of the fall out over Northern Rock. The fact that Dunfermline have not shifted from their key business as a savings and loan mutual means that their current difficulties shows the systemic failure of the Government to act responsibly in this current economic crisis.

As Willie pointed out the government was treated everyone the same both high risk banks with heavy investment portfolio and low risk mutuals providing customers a safe mortgage system. The Building Society looks poised to post loses of a mere £26 million, mere that is in comparison to RBS, HBoS, Lloyds-TSB and Northern Rock all of which the government was quick to jump to the defence of and shore up their risky portfolios.

Willie is calling on the government to take action:

"I want to explore every avenue possible in order to secure the future for Dunfermline. We cannot let 150 years of heritage be swept way under Labour's first recession. The business can be a strong concern in the future, but it is incumbent on politicians to help ensure its future."

Tavish Scott also added:

"This is a clear case for government intervention to ensure we do not lose a solid part of Scotland's financial infrastructure.

"I would be very worried if ministers were not already fully involved in seeing what influence they can bring to bear to retain the Dunfermline's independence. If they are not already involved, then they certainly should be."

Then Alex Salmond after pointing out (surprise, surprise) that financial regulation was reserved to Westminster, which restricted the Scottish Government's ability to act said:

"Dunfermline Building Society is a very significant player indeed in relation to the provision of social housing.

"Certainly, we would want the Dunfermline Building Society to remain as an
independent financial institution. There would be general support for that right across Scotland and we certainly stand ready to do anything that we can do in order to assist with that."

How about getting to Westminster Alex, where I believe you still have a seat, and seeing what you can do? Something you have singularly failed to do in the past.

Alex Neil and the BOS Kirk

So Alex Neil is assembling the 'banking elders' to look at a possibly alternative to the Lloyds TSB takeover of the Bank of Scotland. Yet why is the SNP back bencher so determined to look at an alternative when the HBOS chairman is convinced last week's deal was the right thing to do.

For starters one of the things he's claiming as a stength is a very strong and diverse wealth of business knowledge. I'm sure Lehman's, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley can all have claimed the same as with much of the rest of the banking sector that is currently facing great uncertainty.

There are also claims from one of the supporters of Alex Neil's grand scheme, Jim Spowart founder of Intelligent Finance, that:

"We can't just sit back and watch the Bank of Scotland
disappear.

"We've all enjoyed successful careers in banking, which is one of the
jewels in Scotland's crown. It is vital that we do something."

However, the BoS didn't simply disappear when it merged with Halifax and kept an identity and the same seems to be enshrined in the takeover plans by Lloyds TSB. In fact with so much uncertainty at present surely economies of scale stand a more reasonable chance of survival than small independent banks.

So what else is really motivating this decision? Looking at some of the names behind this move being called to this Kirk session meeting Spowart, Sir Angus Grossart, Sir George Mathewson and Gavin Masterton have all at some point either tacidly or directly offered support to the SNP, only Sir Peter Burt stands out of the group called Neil to meet to discuss a £6bn bid for the nation's bank.

Therefore is it fulhardiness for the sake of standing alone? Is it really a wise move to think small when the prevading tide is to conglomorate to survive? Also is now the time to put in such a counter claim when for the moment at least survival has been assured? And if the need is so great to prevent the Bank of Scotland disappearing where were Neil and his cronies in 2001 when the Bank of Scotland and Halifax merged in the first place?

An independent buy out of the Bank of Scotland no matter how experienced the hands at the tiller may be, could end up as its death knell if the Banking sector goes the way of recent airline company furtunes. Small operators there have ceased to breathe and the same may be true of the financial world. Why take the baby out of the cot and put it into the fire for any other reason that single, bloody mindedness 'hands offs it's Scottish'-ness madness?

It would well be a sad day for the Bank of Scotland if this takeover were to suceed and then fail to acheive what it claims to want to acheive. Best to put it to bed now and work with trying to maintain what can for the moment.

It's Not Just Football Clubs that Overspend for Sucess

The clash of the big two, no not the old firm, the Nats and the Socialists Labour Party saw wodges of cash thrown at the Scottish Parliament campaign in 2007. The Nats outspent Labour by over a million pounds.

So what you may ask? That is until you hear that labour traditionally the big spenders only spent £638,014. The extra seat at Holyrood appear to have cost the Nats £1,676,223 on the campaign and left them with a deficit of £240,590. Now election years always take a knock out of party finances as they tend to be biggest expenditure years on Party resources, they also tend to be the biggest time for raising funds as members and supporters.

Across the UK the Labour slashed £6m off their debt bringing it down the £18.9m. Some football clubs, my own included, go into administration for less. The Conservatives reduced their debt from £9m to £7.75m leaving only the Lib Dems in the black to the tune of £1.3m. It means that even any little hiccup would still leave the Lib Dems as the most prudent party when it comes to its own finances. Maybe the country should start to trust us with theirs as well.

Nats Robin Hooding the Young and the Old

The latest effect of the SNP tightening of the bugetary purse strings may well the free bus travel for the over 60s.

It is another incentive that is currently facing a Governemnt review and like other policies under such review the spending will be cut while the review gets under way. The result is that the reimbursement to the bus companies will not cover their increased costs with the rising fuel prices if they keep it at being available to the over 60s and the age may increase to those over 65 as a result.

This comes the day after new drink laws were proposed which could further alienate young people by not allowing under 21s to buy drink from off licences, at the same time as many are trying to give those over 16 a vote. The much cited Armadale experiment did seem to lead to an increased number of young people and police presence in the streets of Bathgate over the trail period. Also many people have pointed out that the continent has actually lower drinking age which is true, they also forget that they have less of a binge drinking problem.

The problem with prohibiting young people from acquiring drink only makes it more attractive to try and get some. Also once acquired by surepticious means it is more likely to be consumed in a hurry causing further problems. Responsible drinking requires responsible drinking laws.

If both Nat policies take effect they could be facing a reaction from both the youngest and oldest voters.

Wobbly Wednesday for the Nats

Alex Salmond may well have been jealous of Gordon Brown yesterday. Sure the Tim'rous Beastie of Downing Street has had his trouble but they haven't hit three main policy threads on the same day to quite the same devastating effect.

Yesterday it was Alex's turn to miscalculate, face tax problems and be attack whilst on the U-Turn. The Nats have been quick to attack Labour on the illegality of donations and awards for donations, yet seem content to draw a fine line over what legally they themselves can do, under the powers vested in them.

The miscalculation comes in education, which must be an embarrassment, especially for a former Economist like Alex. The SNP had set aside £40 million to reduce class sizes in primary 1 through 3 to 18. It now appears that the figure they told us was undersold in Holyrood building size proportions as just over a year later we find it is actually going to cost £420 million.

Now where is this revenue going to come from? I did hint yesterday that the Finance Minister was looking for help from the Unionist Parties on that one. He'd better first of all sort out local government taxation. The SNP seem set to carry on regardless with their centrally set rate for Local Income Tax to replace the Council Tax. However, Alan Page a professor of public law at Dundee University has warned that because of the legality issues arising out of what is allowed under the Scotland act it could become another Poll Tax scenario. People may end up refusing to pay stating that the Scottish Parliament does not have the right to do what they are attempting.

Finally the whole PFI-lite, sorry Scottish Futures Trust debacle also reached the floor of Holyrood. The plans to remove the PFI funding mechanism and the £150 million a year that raises looks like being replaced by a plan that is awfully similar if less clear. John Swinney made a statement which failed to reassure MSPs when he said the SFT was of the 'PFI Family' and that he would be using the local councils as the borrowing mechanism to raise the Private investment in their projects, again something that the administration has no legal powers to do.

So while Wendy's House on the opposition benches does teeter, Alex's foundations also look far from secure.

The Swinney: Episode 1- Help Me Borrow

We have all heard the protestation from the SNP regarding the Calman Commission set up by Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in Scotland. How they will not get involved. How they would rather focus on their own one issue, one sided national conversation. Yes not since Shakespeare has a Scottish soliloquy had so much attention, only in this case it is the alternative dialogue that some people dare not name.

That is until the Nats Finance Minister John Swinney noticed a little something. You see local councils can issue bonds to borrow money and the Westminster Parliament can do the same thing. But Holyrood is unable to raise any additional revenue of it's own except through the Tax raises powers voted on in the devolution referendum's second question, and even that has limitations. While being asked about the Scottish Futures Trust, aka PFI-lite, yesterday Mr Swinney actually linked this list of words in one sentence:-

enhanced
powers
Parliament
sense

In fact what he did say was:

"There are legitimate areas where it would make sense for the powers of the parliament to be enhanced in a fashion which allows the parliament to be more effective; the government to be more effective in securing greater opportunities for taxpayers within Scotland.

"The ability to borrow would strike me as one example of how that might take place."

Now greater financial powers is one of the areas being looked at by the Calman Commission. But surely an independent Scotland would have all the powers it would need, one would assume. However, the Finance Minster is saying that there are legitimate areas where enhanced powers should be sought.

Does this mean that the Nats aren't that confident of winning a referendum on independence in 2010?

Are they secretly hoping that the Calman Commission does come up with some good proposals after all to strengthen Scotland's governance under devolution?

Apart from PFI, sorry Scottish Futures Trust investment where public borrowing could be finance at the council, why is there a need for the Scottish Government to borrow? Are the Nats admitting that their grand schemes are going to cost more than they let on leading up to last May's elections. something that some of us did realise and tried to point out.

Why if they need more money are they not using existing means to do so? They have the power to raise income tax by up to 3% over that set in the Westminster budget. But then we all saw how unpopular even taking a little bit more income tax from everyone put egg on Gordon Brown's face. So are the SNP Labour in disguise looking for stealthy ways to raise money which the Scottish taxpayer will eventually have to pay back rather than being up front about it?

Tune in next time (I'm sure there will be one) for another installment of The Swinney.