Changing fortunes: 'Satire One' versus the people carrier

What greater display of changing fortunes do you need? FM Alex Salmond flies around the country in his new helicopter Christened 'Saltire One', and poor wee Iain 'who?' Gray has to drive in his people carrier from Edinburgh ...
.
Funding gaps
.
It is surprising the current situation. The SNP seem better focused, superbly funded and targeting even Iain 'Who?' Gray's own FPTP seat in East Lothian. Meanwhile, as the FM looks like a FM in his helicopter (go on, admit it, it does make him look like a class act) Mr Gray is frantically driving around in a people carrier. Suddenly, despite Labour's support in the media; it doesn't look like the people are bothering to listen anymore.

Stagecoach has bankrolled the SNP to the tune of an additional £500,000 (they're funding Saltire One then). This surely more than makes up for the SNPs mistreatment by the established media presses. But then again, who even bothers to read the Scotsman , Herald, or  Daily Record? The Scotsman readership is barely over 45,000 in recent days. If given the choice, you would surely have to admit, better have access to a big donor like the Stagecoach owner than the support of yesterdays men.
.
Yesterdays men
.
And that is precisely what these media newspapers are. They have collapsing revenues, and a future so bleak it makes Qing China 1911 look bright and rosy! (not sure what 'Qing is and the importance of '1911'? Read Chinese royal history folks!).

But if we examine the last four years, one major reason for Labour failure is not just its complete lack of ambitious, bold leadership; it runs deeper. It is entwined with its relationship with the Scottish media. They have had a frankly easy ride in opposition, the media has been toe-curling fawning toward them, and universally hostile to the SNP 'threat'. This served to make team-Labour complacent, not realising the extend that they were completely out of touch in Scotland.

Being out of touch on its own isn't terminal, but what is is the complete failure to appreciate it after four+ years in the opposition wilderness. And they really don't 'get it'. If you talk to the Labour MSPs, they honestly do believe that they only lost by 1 MSP because of the spoilt ballots. They small fact that in places where there was a recount, like Glasgow NE (by-election for Westminster granted) they actually found that they had even less than originally counted. So my point is simple: Labour don't understand why they are in opposition, they fail to appreciate the dilemma voters are faced with at the doorsteps when they simply play 'me too' politics with the SNP.

Think about it, if you were a voter (and almost all of you readers will be I think):

Option A: The incumbents, still fresh-faced, with strongly centre-left politics which is their own.
Option B: Tired opposition, which seems to think so highly of the incumbents policies that they have now copied them.

Are you really not just going to stick to what you voted for in 2007? Why change to Labour, when they are just offering the SNP platform in so many key policy areas?

Goodbye Labour, it has been nice knowing you, feel free to come back and visit your old Scottish heartlands ... welcome to our Scottish Tory world. It is a cold place, full of nostalgia for a once-glorious past ... but past is all you have now Labour. And honestly? That makes me gleeful. 

The community church, family, individual charity really is the beating heart of our 'Big Society'

In this era of cuts it is important to realise that nothing is beyond the pale. If cuts are to be made, they will be felt not just by civil servants, government employees or politicians at the polls. Rather, each individual, near-enough all families shall be in some way shape or form impacted. But if we Conservative minded voters are to ensure we do not repeat the mistakes of causing social breakdown via harsh medicine; as has happened in the past; we must realise what matters most.

'Big Society' - some say merely a gimmick thought up with one eye on a focus group. Yet it is actually touching on the very bones of what British Society is. With its emphasis on individuals, families and local communities, what it is seeking to reverse is actually the woolly centre-left concept of what 'society' is. Labour, New Labour, Old Labour (doesn't matter which type of Labour) holds a vision of society which has all too often been taken as a ready truth. They place emphasis on social democratic principles of redistribution. And the 1945 Atlee golden-years represents their tenet of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", resonating through their very bones. One must point out just how out of touch this concept of society really is. It commits the cardinal error of saying 'society is the state', and its redistributive power (usually centralising) is somehow society. What utter rot!

This is where the 'Big Society' steps in. It emphasises key facts like the small church, family volunteerism and family at the beating heart of the community. Sound more nostalgic than real to you? Then what about the fact that 4 million still attend church on a daily basis; and on high days and holidays regular attendance is actually rising? What about the fact that 1.6 million people admit they also go to church daily to spend time getting involved with 'local volunteerism'? (A number on the rise incidentally, despite New Labour's over regulation). Or even more so, what about the fact that the Anglican Church alone brings in £1bn for local social services each year as the state facilities slowly disappear up and down local and inner city communities? Still sound like the notion that volunteerism, church, family and individual initiative is out of touch with British society? No, thought not.  It is actually more in touch with the real facts that Labour's 'state=society' concept ever will.

As neighbourhood facilities like post offices, rural primary schools or village libraries close down in this era of cuts (though this is a process well in advance thanks to New Labour), suddenly the 'Big Society' concepts become more valid and relevant. More long lasting and enduring. As all of these state provided services disappear and we slowly begin to cut taxation as the debt becomes manageable; are we really going to wake up and find that 'society' is disappeared? The Labourite would have to say 'yes', as to them the fruits of redistributive provision is society. Of course the rest of us can realise that no, what really makes up society is actually strengthened.

Face it, society is charity, and the spirit of volunteerism. It is the continued presence of the local churches and those family networks surrounding these things.

So let us not continue this nonsense about there being no discernible difference between the two major parties. They are inherently different - differing at their very interpretation of what constitutes 'society'. And only one vision can win out for the next general election - and I rather think it shall indeed be the 'Big Society', as this is the era of the shrinking state; shrinking out of necessity of the scale of Labour's structural deficit which has never been higher in peacetime history.

#all statistics from the Guardian Friday 15/04/2011

So much for the republican menace

Her story is all of our stories

As media, individual and communities across the United Kingdom catch Royal wedding fever, suddenly all the republican politicos engage in a mutual conspiracy of silence. Could it be that even they recognise that to question the Royals is to risk political oblivion?
.
To the republican commentariat the picture of the hereditary monarchy is an anachronistic embarrassment. Major journalists such as Steve Richards desperately question; howling almost to the wind; what is the obsession with this monarchical institution?

And staunch mega-royalist as I admittedly am, even I do wonder at the dearth of so-called republican critique of approaching events. Where, pray, are the republican MPs, MSPs, councillors and MEPs? They do exist, I promise you, there is no end to petty middle class comfortably fuzzy leftwing intellectuals in parliament and local government. But even I do question where they are all hiding, or perhaps more importantly why they are nowhere to be found.

Next week's wedding shall see the latest bold event in the royalist calendar, and surely Messrs Clegg and Miliband do not share in this proudly patriotic piece of political orthodoxy? But do not doubt it, both men shall be there with their wives (or in Clegg's case, admittedly wife-to-be). In the full tops and tails, a splendidly attractive image for the occasion of spontaneous patriotism and pride.

Now, I can guess; probably accurately; that neither of these two men are royalists. Indeed I bet if they had the completely politically-fallout-free choice they would each opt for abolition. In short, I reckon both men are republican by instinct or political heritage. The Whig and the Socialist surely cannot revel in this royalist display? It would count against their great political histories.

But here is the answer to this riddle, and let me quote that great commentating republican Steve Richards of the Independent directly:

"No public figure that hopes to govern can go near the issue [of abolitionism]. It would be the end of their careers" 

So is this an unfair result of a right-wing media conspiracy and all-too powerful palace? No, don't be daft (though surely some will). The real reason is quite simple: Britain is a royalist country. Monarchy is what we do, it is part of not just our history but our very future. Today turns Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II (& I) 85. But her story is all our stories, as long as I or both my parents have been alive on this earthly plain; she has been there - a constant sign of continuity and strength. It is hard to imagine the country without the hugely popular and respected sovereign. Few republican's dare doubt this, and in Australia the Labour Party; official republican themselves; have abandoned plans to move again for abolition "till after her death". So much for a growing hostility or apathy to the figure-representative of the institution.

But is isn't just this one individual who inspires beautiful loyalty to the royalist creed and heritage, it is what she and her wider family represents to the average folk like me and you. She and her family are a comfort blanket at moments of crisis for most people. Need convincing of this? Lets take Diana's death.
The outrage and anger that erupted wasn't a cry for 'get the Queen out' or 'republic or nothing'. No, the huddled and crying masses in Trafalgar square and across the country were demanding their Queen be with them. They were calling for their royal family to comfort them, to show up on televisions and in speeches to explain how everything is going to be okay in the end. Hardly a charge of republicanism or apathy, more a sudden and unexpected (even inexplicable) outburst of ultra-royalist populist sentiment.

Even that great bastion of anti-establishment, anti-royalist anti-conservative (and Conservative), anti-free market institutions that is the BBC is forced to comply to the will of a royalist people. For years before the late Queen Mother passed on, they regularly rehearsed the BBC radio broadcasts because the people demanded they get it right on the night.

Time to face facts, the majority of Brits love and respect their royal family. This royal wedding, while getting on some peoples nerves (even, if truth be told, mine occasionally), is still a moment of national pride.

Republicans can howl their ranting disapproval all they like, but for the day, can they please keep their bile and disapproval to a minimum while the majority of us celebrate in the loving happiness of two newly weds?

My guest post

Just a brief heads up that I've got a draft post up on the 'Better Nation' blog discussing the impact for localism following the May elections and the frankly hard-to-deliver policies of all four major political parties.

If you want to read it click here. 

Naturally this does mean that today's blog update might be significantly later in appearing given that I spend last night working on this other piece. But as I always maintain, its nice to be asked!

Cheers,
Deanthe-One Nation-tory (slight modification to my regular call-sign, not sure it works frankly.)

Our poll is in!!

I've held a month long poll and the results are in - and before anyone comments, I don't think the result is scientific ... mind you, Labour are doing just that badly right now ...
.
Results:
.
Labour -                                              10 Votes - 9%
Scottish Conservative & Unionist          30 Votes - 27%
Scottish National Party                         63 Votes - 58%
Liberal Democrat Party                        2 Votes   - 1%
Other                                                   3 Votes  - 2%

Overall Votes Cast: 108

So, that is a clear indication that the majority of my readers are either Tories or SNP ... not sure how I feel about the sheer scale of the SNP vote share here. I mean 58% jeeze - that is decisive!

If this happened at Holyrood (just for funnies) on both regional and constituencies the number of seat shares would be this*:

Labour          - 11 MSPs
Conservative - 36 MSPs
SNP             - 81 MSPs
LibDem        - 1 MSP (yep, even with just 1% thats enough for Orkney to still vote them in!!)
other            - 0 MSPs

* calculation made using ScotlandVotes

Policy Breakdown: Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party

My local candidate who will be securing my votes

Having scanned through the manifestos for Holyrood 2011, I'm launching a series of blogs introducing the main 'flagship' policies of interest for each of the main political Parties
.
Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party
.
1. Merging health and social care budgets

This may not sound dramatic, but it really seems like it is. Indeed, given the radical nature of this proposal I'm surprised that its buried on page 22 of the manifesto. And there has been virtually no media discussion about it either; which again is surprising.

Basically the proposal aims to merge social care budgets with health, ringfencing both budgets from any cuts. Thus all savings generated from the merger would be re-directed into the frontline services. The manifesto says that doing this structural reform would "leave us better placed to meet future demand for social care".
Interestingly however there is no mention of the fact that such a reform; good idea as it seems; would require major legislation. Such legislation would be needed to remove social care from local authority control - and I'd bet that COSLA would have something to say about that.

2. Re-introducing a "modernized" right-to-buy

My first thought was 'what does the modernized part of that actually mean?' Very cynical of me, right? But no, it seems that this proposal actually concedes how right-to-buy if reintroduced in its former style would devastate social rentals. That may not seem like much to you or me, but it represents a major change in Tory attitudes on the issue, and the manifesto proposes how to couple a right to buy with the need to preserve social housing.

The manifesto reads: "We would use Right to Buy receipts, stock transfer and institutional investment to fund construction of social houses". So presumably the 'modern' represents the successful combination of both right to buy and the urgent need for new social houses for rental. This is a sound policy to my mind, and as a young student, I'd love to have some way of getting onto the housing ladder, and without right to buy and new social houses I fail to see how I'll manage it.

3. Reforming business rates

The basics of this proposal is to bring into legislation a new rule that states that business rates in Scotland cannot "by poundage" be higher than in England. And if we think back to pre-2007, under the LibDem-Labour administration Scottish business rates were uncompetitively higher. This has changed since the Scottish Conservatives secured a business rates cut in the last parliament, and this proposal is sound. After all, it is the legions of small to medium sized businesses that actually do the employing for many people.

4. Turning Scottish Water into a publically owned Public Interest company

I personally strongly support this idea. I oppose privatisation, given the failure of privatisation in England - but this proposal would enable Scottish Water to gain some independence of politicians. Additionally it would enable it to spend profits however it wishes, as a public interest, public owned company. Right now, any SW surpluses are automatically taken by the finance minister; often times the surpluses aren't spent in the manner SW would like it spent. This reform should ensure SW remains public owned and public interest, while also enabling it to become much more viable in the longer term.

5. Referendum on elected mayors

The manifesto explains the Party desire to create local referendums in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Dundee about creating local elected mayors. Again, this seems like a solid policy idea, given that all too often provosts tend to represent the nepotistic wishes of unrepresentative local councillors. By having directly elected mayors, we might just be able to spice up local democracy a tad more, and make the position of city leadership more accountable than it currently is.

6. Education reform

Finally, it is worth highlighting the manifesto ideas about educational change. The reforms proposed would allow schools to have the option of becoming state schools independent of local authorities. They would remain non-selective and unable to charge fees; but they would enable them to be run by the teachers, and experts in the needs of the schools themselves rather than a bunch of self-serving incompetent local councillors.

Additionally, the manifesto proposes to enable educational charities, philanthropists, not-for-profit trusts and groups of parents to set up new schools. Again, this is something long overdue, given that Scottish education is in clear stagnation. Perhaps changes like these might inject the flexibility into the Scottish system of education in ways which can lead to better practice, and stronger attainment.

There you have it, these are my top 6 reasons for voting Scottish Conservative. I bet may readers will take issue with some (or all) of them, but they are honest, radical and bold policy suggestions which do seem deliverable and long overdue. Click here to see the full manifesto. 

Councils in revolt

The Council Tax debate seems set to continue past May 5th

All of the four major political Parties are facing a major Council rebellion ahead of the Holyrood elections regarding the proposed council-tax freeze

In the Herald today, Rory Mair (Chief Exec of COSLA), said "I don't believe council leaders would sign up to  another council tax freeze. They would defy it. A council tax freeze requires negotiation, or legislation". The interesting thing about this is how the future Parties respond at a national level. After all, effectively Mr Mair is correct - in essence - any freeze requires local government cooperation.

So whoever ends up in power after May 5th, the question becomes where they choose to place the emphasis: the stick or the carrot.

For the SNP, with their four-year track record, they would most likely combine a mixture of the two. Incentives for cooperation on the one hand, and less money on the other for those who refuse. Whether this is represents a fair invasion of local government independence and autonomy however is another matter.

Labour? I have no doubt that Mr Gray would use such opposition after May 5th to drop the pledge to freeze council tax. He has never been anything other than a reluctant convert anyway.

That leaves how the third and fourth Parties of Scottish politics react? After all, no matter who becomes the larger Party, odds are on that it shall be a minority government. In this light, suddenly Holyrood may come to a rather difficult stand-off with non-compliant local governments. If the Scottish Conservatives and Liberal Democrats refused to agree to any bill in Holyrood until a council tax freeze was written in; then suddenly the options become much more blurry for the two larger Parties. Then, their immediate actions could be prevented by the very nature of parliamentary arithmetic.

So, what is to be done if Mr Mair is honest to his COSLA word, and the vast majority of local councils refuse to introduce a freeze? Should central, Edinburgh government seek to force compliance? Or should localism stand, and these councils have the right to opt-out? For this blogger, I have to very reluctantly come down squarely on the side of localist principle - so lets just hope it doesn't come to this after May 5th!

Royal successon reforms in the air: but never trust a bloody Whig!!

Francis II by legitmate Royal succession

There are hints at royal succession reform in the air, as Nick Clegg flails about for something ... anything ... to restore his discredited reputation

Reform?

Does the UK rules of succession (de facto) as per the Act of Settlement need urgent reform? Yes, totally and absolutely. But do I trust a Liberal Democrat to do it? No, no, no.

At the heart of constitutional reform regarding de facto succession rules to the throne is the barrier set against Roman Catholics. In the 21st Century it is hard to really credibly argue that ones personal choice of religion should stand as a barrier to succession; but it isn't as simple as an equality & fairness debate. This issue rests at the very heart of the British monarchy, and involves its very legitimacy.

Currently the de facto laws ban Roman Catholics from succeeding to the throne, purely as a device to maintain the current regime. The House of Windsor has absolutely no royalist legitimacy, none at all. And any programme of reforming the rules of succession would need to acknowledge this, as they did away with the absurd ban on Roman Catholics.

Think about it, on what basis does the House of Windsor hold legitimate claim to be 'the royal family'? They are the eldest successors by lineage? Nope, the current rump lot don't enjoy this! According to eldest decent, the 'Queen' as she is known right now is NOT the eldest member of the UK royal family; as the Duke of Bavaria is technically more senior. He is descended from Charles I daughter Henrietta Ann, his youngest daughter. Thus, we cannot defend the Windsor-lots legitimacy on the basis of royal decent; as by that score, 'Queen Elizabeth II' is not of eldest royal decent.

Ah! What about parliamentary supremacy? Does this not enable the Windsors to hold office as 'royal'? Well, again, no. Given the illegal revolution in 1688 removed the King; no act of parliament as since then ever technically been given the legitimate 'royal signature'. Thus the 1701 Act of Union of Parliaments was illegitimate, as was the Act of Settlement itself. There is absolutely no succession law which legitimately is in force which justifies the current Windsor regime. Parliamentary supremacy only exists as a convention of politics, and its a convention which still requires a royal signature on any piece of legislation for it to be legitimate. And since King James VII & II never signed an act of abdication or Act of Settlement ... parliamentary supremacy cannot be said to come into it.

So, what reforms should happen then?

Quite simply the current 'royal' regime should be removed, and the crown handed to the legitimate heirs of King James VII & II. That means any reform of succession must:

a) Restore Francis, Duke in Bavaria
b) Enable Roman Catholics equal rights to succession
c) ban the House of Windsor from setting foot on British soil, home or abroad, and all dominions and overseas territories
d) maintain the male preference in all matters succession

These are the true reforms that need to happen, and given Nick Clegg is nothing better than a typical, filthy Whig of old - he isn't a man to be trusted with reform. Nor ironically is the so-called 'Tory' Party. They have long since ceased to be the true heirs of the great and good Tory tradition from the 17th-19th Centuries.

For anyone interested in the Geneological tree of the true British monarchy, please see here.

Iain Gray and the Stalinist job plan

Red Ed  launch the socialist plans in the peoples republic of Glasgovski

Iain Gray has been hitching his electoral hopes on what can only be described as hard-left job creation program
.
Lost in translation: Gray's battle with reality
.
Alex Salmond accused Gray and 'Scottish' Labour of wishing to restore growth and jobs via "diktat", and he isn't far off. According to Labour they believe that if they get into Bute House they can issue a diktat to the public sector ordering the creation of more jobs, and it will happen. 
.
Only problems are that; a) there isn't the public sector money, thanks to Labour's economic crisis at a national level, b) such a policy would only worsen Scottish economic imbalance between private and public sectors. But such problems, real as they are, don't worry wee Iain or his deputy dog Andy Kerr in the shadow finance role.
.
Annabel joined the SNP in the attack on the; frankly surreal; Labour jobs and economic plan. She, in wonderfully colourful language, said vote Iain Gray and get "nightmare Stalinist five-year plans". Over the top, but it does capture the tone of Labours jobs message. They just don't get what Scottish Conservatives mean when we talk of more business rates cuts. They think its because Tory and SNP are in bet with 'bad' business, whereas such policies actually would do a lot more than Labour's war on private sector jobs. And that is exactly what they are proposing! Increase the business rates, inject borrowed money (I assume borrowed, as Labour haven't said where this money is coming from) and ignore the fact that most youngsters and employed people are employed by small-scale private businesses. Vote Labour, if you think that a state-run planned economy is the solution to Scotland's over-reliance on the state. Only with Labour could you get such shoddy, inefficient, misguided nonsense!
.
Mr Salmond told an audience on Tuesday night: “Governments don’t create jobs by diktat – you don’t set a figure for jobs and say ‘we’re going to create these jobs’. They [governments] identify the sectors and the marketplaces which will allow businesses to generate these jobs.”
.
I have to say; depending on where you are; vote tactically to keep Labour out. This means vote SNP if only they can beat the Labour danger, or vote Tory to keep Labour out. Iain Gray and Andy Kerr cannot be allowed to win, and ruin the Scottish economy.

Burka ban will be unenforceable: just you watch

In the Observer this week a telling story of a French housewife illustrates just why show-stopping legislation like banning the burka, nisab will become simply unenforceable

Personal choice

The legislation in coming into force in France today does not directly legislate against Muslims; though that is overtly the intention. If you are in public in France as of today, you are legally prevented from covering your face. So in winter, no more balaclavas, if your a French woman of the Islamic faith - you no longer have the fundamental right to choose how to dress yourself.

But wait? Wasn't this ban liberating French Muslim women?

How can it possibly? All that has happened in the extreme minority of cases where Muslim women are forced to cover up, is that you have replaced a domestic paternalist autocracy with a state paternalism. Such progress! Such liberation! But we also really need to appreciate that the vast majority of women in France who choose to where it, it is just that, a choice. How can the French supporters of this ban claim to liberate those women from their own right of choice? Is the French 21st C claim really that women can only be free and equal if a male dominated government and state issues them with dress codes? Doesn't that strike anyone else as ... frankly stupid?

But given that this law will only affect a minority of women, your hardly likely to have mass-dissent

This claim is also nonsense. Any British subject knows all too well from the North Ireland hunger strikes that it really only takes a few to fundamentally erode legitimacy surrounding such arbitrary laws. In France the few thousand Islamic women who do choose to cover themselves up - in whatever clothing they wish to wear - will not accept this law. What will the French police do to them? Each and every time a female goes out into the street, the police pick her up? Issue her with mass-fines for daring to dress herself? When put in this way, it sounds very much like France is becoming the Saudi-Arabia in reverse for Muslim women. And in both countries the freedom to dress oneself, to hold personal faith, to enjoy pretty basic human rights is lost.

What a sad day for France when oppressive legislation like this comes into force, the rightwing may be proud but I know for a fact that Waldeck-Rousseau is spinning in his grave to see the principles of 1789 & 1830 lost. Liberty? Equality? Fraternity? How can they still exist beyond mere words if the Sarkozy brigade are appeasing every National Front idea?

The real inside story

The current Labour shadow-chancellor spends much time boasting about the major schools-building programme conducted under him and the previous Labour government, but just how successful was it really?
.
"Billions wasted"
.
I accept that in 1997 the national schools network needed a significant cash injection from central government for structural and restorative works. And it is equally worth mentioning at the outset that Labour were right in 1997 to seek to increase the national budgets or education. However the inside story revealed today highlights a plethora of serial incompetence, and complacency with taxpayers cash during the boom years they said would 'never end'.
.
According to a major independent report, potentially as much as £2.6bn was wasted under Labour's 'Building Schools for the Future Programme'. This is surely, even if only an exaggeration figure, still shocking. It reveals to be true exactly the Conservative criticism in the opposition years, that you cannot trust 'tax and spend' Labour to change its spots. One incompetent with taxpayers money, permanently incompetent with taxpayers money.
.
And the review itself wasn't  conducted by a politician with an agenda or a civil servant claiming special knowledge. No, the review was conducted by the director of Dixons Retail, someone who knows how to manage mass-capital expenditure on building networks. The review, carried out by Sebastian James, the director of Dixons Retail, said the system of allocating money resulted in “poor use of resources, a bureaucratic system for… local authorities and a mixed – and at times poor – outcome for both parents and children.” It said as much as 30 per cent of the total money spent under the scheme could have been saved. Some £8.65bn was invested by Labour in the programme before the General Election, the study said, suggesting almost £2.6bn was wasted.
The report also told of lavish spending on advisors and bureaucracy.

Each council spent an average of £4m before building work started, with most money going on consultants, lawyers and design support. Some £11.1m was spent on consultants by the former Department for Children, School and Families and its quango Partnerships for Schools up to March 2008, the report found.

One individual consultant received £1m and two architectural practices received a total of £1.1m for acting as design advisors to Birmingham council.

On average, councils took between 18 and 20 months between bidding for cash and starting work on building programmes, it was claimed.

It is clear now, that you just can't trust Labour to spend or manage taxpayers money.

Helping Portugal would help ourselves

George Osborne may be in discussions with his fellow European counterparts, but already we hear the shrill noises of the Westminster eurosceptics howling. It is time to realise just how interdependent we actually are with 'the continent'
.
An Odyssey
.
For the eurosceptics, ever since Maastricht, it must feel like every British cabinet has been like Odysseus - trapped in the island of Calypso.
You just ask any eurosceptics, Tory, Labour or even SNP, they all have that same feeling; of detachment. A silent intuition that; really; 'the continent' is actually a far away land. All too different, all too ready to become a prison for the innocent British and its concept of 'freedom'. But if I can suggest, this euroscepticism is baseless; but fundamentally harmless enough when times are good. Now however their ignorance, suspicion and misguided attitudes toward Europe (and the ideal predominant on the continent) they become a serious risk.

The risk, to whom? No, I do not mean to suggest the EU (though they certainly are a risk to that ideal), I mean to Britain. Without realising it their posturing and suspicions of 'the continent' risk our very British way of life. The way of life which depends on an EU-based consumers purchasing our exports, providing us with our imports and of course manning the corridors of London & Edinburgh's financial centres. To be plain, every eurosceptics threatens the entire edifice of UK economic health (projected or real).
.
The facts
.
Just stop and look and the facts for a moment. It is EU investment keeping legions of British farmers afloat, it is EU money which is injecting money into rural highlands and islands Scotland (not, notice the UK bothering much). But more than the EU being central to rural life, it is eurozone consumers who are funding our recovery, by purchasing our manufactured goods for exports. And remember, if we wish to rebalance our economy we will need to actually ensure our consumers can afford to buy our products!

It is plain, obvious and simple for anyone who is patriotic about these islands (British, Welsh, Scottish, English patriotism all included) that we need a safe and secure eurozone. Being aware of this reality is why France and Germany agreed to create the bailout fund in the first place. The failing eurozone countries aren't just getting bailed out due to a Europeanist sense of obligation, it is happening because we need them. And they need us.

So when I read that Osborne is participating in Portugal bailout talks, I think 'good'. But the key test to see if he is the statesman he claims to be; or the chancellor he wants to be; his next actions shall determine. If he does not contribute to the Portugal bailout, then he is putting short-term popularity with the red-top rags (and the general wider populace) before placing the UK, Scottish, English, Welsh - Northern Irish national interest first.

His next step must be to contribute to the EU bailout of Portugal. It may be unpopular, but it is the right thing to do.

Why ringence health but not the armed services?

Protecting the NHS from spending cuts is something I agree with. Well, protecting anything from swinging cuts is naturally something I agree with. However, at a time when our armed forces are already complaining about being overstretched, surely a question of priority must be raised?

Forces under fire

According to the latest figures the armed forces will be facing huge cuts, precisely at a time when they are expecting to be active in Afghanistan and Libya.

The total RAF personnel to leave over the next 5 years is 5,000; of which 2,700 are mandatory redundancy. 5,000 Navy personnel are also to be shown the door, of which 3,300 are mandatory redundancy. The total army cuts stand at a staggering 7,000; of which 5,000 are mandatory. It should also be noted that 150 Gurkha's are being shown the door too. This is despite Clegg's 'spirited' defence of them while in opposition.

However far more damaging still; for the communities up and down Scotland & the wider UK who depend on MoD institutional presence for mass-employment; 25,000 civilian MoD staff and operations are to be axed. Note that this could cripple communities like Moray if the RAF base there is closed as part of this civilian axing.

Isn't it time for the coalition to start thinking about priorities?

Economic Growth

And the priorities ought to be obvious. Every time swinging cuts more more people into unemployment you  are working against stronger economic growth.

By ringfencing more public services, and military services, from cuts this has the impact of limiting the major economic damage these cuts are undoubtedly doing to the central priority of restoring growth.

So, if you are a fiscal conservative readying a reply to this blog with something along the lines of; "restoring growth is our main priority" perhaps you should stop and consider. Consider the fact that every time a major cut comes in it slows economic growth, rather than speeding it up. It is surely basic common sense to conclude that keeping those 25,000 civilian MoD staff in employment is economically better than pushing them into state-dependency via unemployment benefits?

As I said at the beginning, time to start thinking about our priorities. And in this case, securing economic growth and protecting the MoD from these huge cuts is one and the same.

*p.s. All statistics are from the Independent

Scottish Elections Update

The main political parties are focusing on different themes as they continue their election drive over the weekend.   

The Scottish Tory party is tackling the issue of student funding, while Scottish Labour is out campaigning on jobs.

Scottish Liberal Democrats are concentrating on cutting the salaries of top earners in the public sector.

And the SNP's main theme of the day is making the most of earnings from the oil and gas sector in the North Sea.

Scottish Tory leader Annabel Goldie is arguing that the Conservatives stand alone in "telling it like it is" on funding for further education.

Ms Goldie says 13,000 student places could be lost, unless the other parties face up to the financial crisis and insist on some form of graduate contribution.

Party pledges

Scottish Labour, meanwhile, is concentrating on the ability to earn money as it campaigns on jobs.

The party is highlighting its plans to encourage local authorities to create employment opportunities.

The Lib Dems want to save Scotland £35m by cutting the pay bill for top earners in the public sector.

Party leader Tavish Scott says cutting pay for the big earners will be one of the measures included in the Lib Dem manifesto when it is launched on Tuesday.

The SNP are concentrating on the potential earnings from the oil and gas sector in the North Sea.

Leader Alex Salmond has said the bill for the chancellor's recent tax changes could ultimately run into tens of billions of pounds.

He is promising a better deal for Scotland from the sector through incentives and development.

#my thanks goes out to BBC Scotland#