What's happening in Scotland, all my Westminster lobby colleagues are asking me as the polls show the SNP pulling ahead of Labour for Holyrood.
These days Scottish politics only ignites interest in Westminster when it looks like independence is back on the agenda.
The latest poll of polls put through the Weber Shandwick www.scotlandvotes.com calculator, shows that is just what could happen.
The poll calculator puts the SNP on 60 MSPs, 13 more than in 2007. Labour would take 43 (- 3), Conservatives 12 (- 5), Lib Dems 8 (-8), the Greens 5 (+3) and Margo Macdonald would also retain her seat.
If these results were replicated on election day the SNP with the pro-independence Green and Margo Macdonald would have a majority, 66 MSPs, in favour of independence, allowing a referendum to take place in the next five years.
The usual riders apply to this poll as any other. Labour are still confident that their vote is holding solid and that they have the advantage in the all the battleground seats they have targeted.
But the SNP see a trend of Lib Dem votes splitting two to one in their favour with the remainder going Green.
That pattern of voting would take Alex Salmond back into Bute House, the First Minister's Edinburgh residence, in just over a week's time.
A independence referendum with a Tory government in Westminster and the wind in the SNP's sails is as good as it could get for Salmond, even though polls consistently show a majority of Scots against the idea of independence.
An early referendum bill would be a dream come true for the SNP. It would also help distract from the squeeze on public services that the Holyrood government, of whatever hue, is going to have to enact.
Wednesday, 27 April 2011
Monday, 18 April 2011
John Reid held hostage by opposition forces
He invoked the spirit of Churchill, he claimed common cause with the voters of Britain, but no matter how much John Reid tried to dress up his support for David Cameron this morning he ended up looking like the Prime Minister's stooge, temporarily taking Nick Clegg's role as the bulletproof vest while the Coalition partners stake their differences on AV.
This was beyond Stockholm Syndrome or the hapless parade of downed US spyplane pilots by the North Vietnamse, Dr Reid actually enjoyed the applause of the Tory audience.
Reid insists his support for the No to AV campaign is above party politics but he is one of the sharpest Scottish political minds - he knows that the immediate consequence of a No win in the AV referendum is deeply political.
A No vote means a victory for David Cameron, whom Reid stood shoulder to shoulder with this morning, and a humiliation for the Labour leader Ed Miliband.
I wanted to ask if that is what Reid wanted, and how the people of Motherwell looking at morning television images could only think that their former MP has switched sides.
If his appearance was to prove himself as capable a statesman as the current Prime Minister, it fell down on that too. He looked a diminished figure, the "attack dog" joke at his own expenses, lapped up by a room full of Tory party workers.
The former Home Secretary argued that there was more at stake than mere party politics. Cameron, who was delighted to have another senior party cadre hostage, knows there is more at stake too.
His premiership is at stake, and so are the chances of the Tories being in power for a long time. Cameron looked very happy leaving the stage. I return to the question - why does Reid want the Labour leadership to lose this one?
This was beyond Stockholm Syndrome or the hapless parade of downed US spyplane pilots by the North Vietnamse, Dr Reid actually enjoyed the applause of the Tory audience.
Reid insists his support for the No to AV campaign is above party politics but he is one of the sharpest Scottish political minds - he knows that the immediate consequence of a No win in the AV referendum is deeply political.
A No vote means a victory for David Cameron, whom Reid stood shoulder to shoulder with this morning, and a humiliation for the Labour leader Ed Miliband.
I wanted to ask if that is what Reid wanted, and how the people of Motherwell looking at morning television images could only think that their former MP has switched sides.
If his appearance was to prove himself as capable a statesman as the current Prime Minister, it fell down on that too. He looked a diminished figure, the "attack dog" joke at his own expenses, lapped up by a room full of Tory party workers.
The former Home Secretary argued that there was more at stake than mere party politics. Cameron, who was delighted to have another senior party cadre hostage, knows there is more at stake too.
His premiership is at stake, and so are the chances of the Tories being in power for a long time. Cameron looked very happy leaving the stage. I return to the question - why does Reid want the Labour leadership to lose this one?
Tuesday, 29 March 2011
Tartan Army not racist, but some Scots are
Mixed news for Scotland's reputation as a tolerant nation this afternoon.
First, the good news, the Tartan Army has been cleared of any suggestion of racist behaviour following the banana-throwing incident during Sunday's friendly match against Brazil.
The good old Daily Record reports that a German teenager was responsible for throwing the offending fruit when Brazil was awarded a penalty (dive!) during the game at the Emirates Stadium on Sunday, Arsenal has said.
Brazil forward Neymar, who scored both goals in his side's 2-0 win, complained after the match that he had been the victim of racist abuse, a claim strenuously denied by the Scottish Football Association and the Tartan Army fans' organisation.
The banana was retrieved from the pitch by team-mate Lucas Leiva during the game.
An Arsenal statement today read: "After consultation with the Metropolitan Police, Arsenal Football Club can confirm that a German teenage tourist has admitted throwing a banana onto the pitch during the Brazil v Scotland international friendly at the Emirates Stadium on Sunday."
And the bad news...Racist incidents in Scotland have increased by 10% in a six-year period, new figures show.
Statistics released by the Scottish Government showed there were 4,952 racist incidents recorded by the country's eight police forces in 2009/10, compared to 4,519for the 2004/05 period.
Race hate victims were most likely to be of Pakistani origin, with 48% of all those targeted in 2009/10 classed as Asian. The vast majority of race hate perpetrators - 96% - were classed as white British.
The majority of victims, 75%, were men. Men and women aged 26 to 35 were most likely to be targeted. Most incidents, 32%, took place on the street but they were also likely to take place in a private house, 19%, or in shops, 18%.
Of the perpetrators, most were men aged 16-20 followed by men under the age of 16. Girls aged under 16 were most likely to commit racist acts, followed by those aged 16to 20. About 47% of all perpetrators in 2009-10 were aged 20 or under and around 23% were under the age of 16.
First, the good news, the Tartan Army has been cleared of any suggestion of racist behaviour following the banana-throwing incident during Sunday's friendly match against Brazil.
The good old Daily Record reports that a German teenager was responsible for throwing the offending fruit when Brazil was awarded a penalty (dive!) during the game at the Emirates Stadium on Sunday, Arsenal has said.
Brazil forward Neymar, who scored both goals in his side's 2-0 win, complained after the match that he had been the victim of racist abuse, a claim strenuously denied by the Scottish Football Association and the Tartan Army fans' organisation.
The banana was retrieved from the pitch by team-mate Lucas Leiva during the game.
An Arsenal statement today read: "After consultation with the Metropolitan Police, Arsenal Football Club can confirm that a German teenage tourist has admitted throwing a banana onto the pitch during the Brazil v Scotland international friendly at the Emirates Stadium on Sunday."
And the bad news...Racist incidents in Scotland have increased by 10% in a six-year period, new figures show.
Statistics released by the Scottish Government showed there were 4,952 racist incidents recorded by the country's eight police forces in 2009/10, compared to 4,519for the 2004/05 period.
Race hate victims were most likely to be of Pakistani origin, with 48% of all those targeted in 2009/10 classed as Asian. The vast majority of race hate perpetrators - 96% - were classed as white British.
The majority of victims, 75%, were men. Men and women aged 26 to 35 were most likely to be targeted. Most incidents, 32%, took place on the street but they were also likely to take place in a private house, 19%, or in shops, 18%.
Of the perpetrators, most were men aged 16-20 followed by men under the age of 16. Girls aged under 16 were most likely to commit racist acts, followed by those aged 16to 20. About 47% of all perpetrators in 2009-10 were aged 20 or under and around 23% were under the age of 16.
Semi in Swansea looks like Nazi dictator
Can you imagine being the picture editor walking into the Daily Mail news conference with this little story tucked under your arm?
Who are we bombing Libya for?
Big day in Westminster with up to 40 governments attending the London conference on Libya.
The Prime Minister is greeting US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton about now but,just as importantly, he is due to meet Mahmud Jibril, who handles foreign affairs for Libya's rebel National Transitional Council.
Earlier Foreign Secretary William Hague also met with Jibril, whom he invited to London but not to the conference.
Jibril is the de-facto Prime Minister of the National Transitional Council in Libya, already recognised by French President Sarkozy as the legitimate government of the country.
He was a Gaddafi government minister until recently, and as head of Nedb (National Economic Development Board) he promoted privatization and liberalization of Libyan econony and looked after US and UK investments in the country. He is, in that respect, a man we have already done business with.
While the question of what will happen to Gaddafi, and whether he will be offered an exit route, is dominating the morning agenda less is being asked about would replace him.
There was a sobering piece in the Guardian yesterday by Simon Tisdall which raised some awkward questions about the transitional council and the ragtag army that is racing down the road towards Tripoli.
He quotes various experts on the tribal and religious make-up of the Gaddafi opposition. Here's one of the key passages:
Eastern Libya also has a different religious tradition from the rest of the country and this was reflected in the rebels' transitional council, argued Andy Stone, a columnist on the Nolan Chart website. "This is no Solidarnosc movement," he said (referring to the Polish trade union-led anti-communist movement).
"The [Libyan] revolt was started on February 15-17 by the group called the National Conference of the Libyan Opposition [an umbrella organisation founded in London in 2005]. The protests had a clear fundamentalist religious motivation and were convened to commemorate the 2006 Danish cartoons protests which had been particularly violent in Benghazi." (The 2006 protests had turned into an anti-Gaddafi demonstration).
Stone went on to claim that much of the eastern Libyan opposition to Gaddafi was rooted in the region's strong Islamist tradition which resulted, for example, in a large numbers of eastern Libyan jihadis taking part in the Iraq war (second in number only to Saudis) and support for the al-Qaida-affiliated, anti-Gaddafi Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, many of whose members had fought in Afghanistan.
"It is these same religiously and ideologically trained east Libyans who are now armed and arrayed against Gaddafi. Gaddafi's claim that all his opponents are members of al-Qaida is overblown, but also not very far off in regard to their sympathies. Anyone claiming the eastern Libyans are standing for secular, liberal values needs to overcome a huge burden of proof," Stone wrote.
British diplomats, Tisdall notes, counter that it is overblown to claim that the rebel movement is dominated by Islamists. Most Libyans, like most people all over the world, are secular and tolerant says a former British diplomat quoted by Tisdall.
Let's hope he's right. It would be bad news to be bombing the road to Tripoli on behalf of al Qaida.
The Prime Minister is greeting US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton about now but,just as importantly, he is due to meet Mahmud Jibril, who handles foreign affairs for Libya's rebel National Transitional Council.
Earlier Foreign Secretary William Hague also met with Jibril, whom he invited to London but not to the conference.
Jibril is the de-facto Prime Minister of the National Transitional Council in Libya, already recognised by French President Sarkozy as the legitimate government of the country.
He was a Gaddafi government minister until recently, and as head of Nedb (National Economic Development Board) he promoted privatization and liberalization of Libyan econony and looked after US and UK investments in the country. He is, in that respect, a man we have already done business with.
While the question of what will happen to Gaddafi, and whether he will be offered an exit route, is dominating the morning agenda less is being asked about would replace him.
There was a sobering piece in the Guardian yesterday by Simon Tisdall which raised some awkward questions about the transitional council and the ragtag army that is racing down the road towards Tripoli.
He quotes various experts on the tribal and religious make-up of the Gaddafi opposition. Here's one of the key passages:
Eastern Libya also has a different religious tradition from the rest of the country and this was reflected in the rebels' transitional council, argued Andy Stone, a columnist on the Nolan Chart website. "This is no Solidarnosc movement," he said (referring to the Polish trade union-led anti-communist movement).
"The [Libyan] revolt was started on February 15-17 by the group called the National Conference of the Libyan Opposition [an umbrella organisation founded in London in 2005]. The protests had a clear fundamentalist religious motivation and were convened to commemorate the 2006 Danish cartoons protests which had been particularly violent in Benghazi." (The 2006 protests had turned into an anti-Gaddafi demonstration).
Stone went on to claim that much of the eastern Libyan opposition to Gaddafi was rooted in the region's strong Islamist tradition which resulted, for example, in a large numbers of eastern Libyan jihadis taking part in the Iraq war (second in number only to Saudis) and support for the al-Qaida-affiliated, anti-Gaddafi Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, many of whose members had fought in Afghanistan.
"It is these same religiously and ideologically trained east Libyans who are now armed and arrayed against Gaddafi. Gaddafi's claim that all his opponents are members of al-Qaida is overblown, but also not very far off in regard to their sympathies. Anyone claiming the eastern Libyans are standing for secular, liberal values needs to overcome a huge burden of proof," Stone wrote.
British diplomats, Tisdall notes, counter that it is overblown to claim that the rebel movement is dominated by Islamists. Most Libyans, like most people all over the world, are secular and tolerant says a former British diplomat quoted by Tisdall.
Let's hope he's right. It would be bad news to be bombing the road to Tripoli on behalf of al Qaida.
Yes to AV will wipe away Cameron's smile
It's an old trick, if you're throwing a party always hire a small room and invite double the number of people it can hold.
As a result it was so packed at the launch of the Yes to AV campaign in the Methodist Central Hall in Westminster this morning that the audience had to practice synchronised breathing.
I stayed long enough to confirm the platform line up - Ed Miliband for Labour and Charles Kennedy for the Lib Dems, who now regains his proper mantle as a Lib Dem that the public recognise and, more importantly, like.
Caroline Lucas for the Greens was there, Shirley Williams and other leading Lib Dems also attended. But cross-party unity on the issue was somewhat undermined by the absence of Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg.
Miliband has refused to share a platform with Clegg, advising him to lie low during the campaign so as not drive voters away. That doesn't help one of Miliband's core messages - not to turn the AV vote into a referendum on Nick Clegg.
It first instinct of many Labour voters is to use the AV referendum to kick Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems for joining the Tory cuts.
AV is the price Nick Clegg demanded for joining David Cameron. Opponents say a Yes vote would help the Lib Dems rebound back from their current low polling.
The Lib Dems might recover somewhat but their leader is already beaten by the betrayal of so many promises. Clegg is political husk looking at single figure support in UK and Scottish opinion polls.
Apart from agreeing that Elvis is the King, you would rarely find Iain Martin, Daily Mail's new columnist, and I reading from the same political script
However, his column is spot on in identifying the danger for David Cameron in a Yes vote in the referendum.
As Iain explains, Cameron is against a fairer voting system and every No vote makes his PR grin even wider.
But a Yes vote means the Tory party wakes up on the morning after the referendum realising they have changed the British constitution - just to please Lib Dem coalition partners they regard as political toe rags.
Tories will take out their anger on David Cameron who, if there is a yes majority, will become a serial loser.(He didn’t win them the general election either).
A Yes result would make life uncomfortable for the Tory leader. Having "sold out" on the voting system Cameron will find it harder to keep the lid on simmering right-wing discontent in his own party. The plotting will begin, the coalition will creak, Cameron will be looking over his shoulder for the knife in the back.
More importantly the Prime Minister will be on the wrong side of history.
Ed Miliband, who backs a yes vote, will look at the Lib Dems and ask them just why they are in bed with the Tories when really Labour represents progressive politics.
A Yes vote is a winner for Labour, and exposes the divisions in the Conservative LibDem coalition.
As a result it was so packed at the launch of the Yes to AV campaign in the Methodist Central Hall in Westminster this morning that the audience had to practice synchronised breathing.
I stayed long enough to confirm the platform line up - Ed Miliband for Labour and Charles Kennedy for the Lib Dems, who now regains his proper mantle as a Lib Dem that the public recognise and, more importantly, like.
Caroline Lucas for the Greens was there, Shirley Williams and other leading Lib Dems also attended. But cross-party unity on the issue was somewhat undermined by the absence of Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg.
Miliband has refused to share a platform with Clegg, advising him to lie low during the campaign so as not drive voters away. That doesn't help one of Miliband's core messages - not to turn the AV vote into a referendum on Nick Clegg.
It first instinct of many Labour voters is to use the AV referendum to kick Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems for joining the Tory cuts.
AV is the price Nick Clegg demanded for joining David Cameron. Opponents say a Yes vote would help the Lib Dems rebound back from their current low polling.
The Lib Dems might recover somewhat but their leader is already beaten by the betrayal of so many promises. Clegg is political husk looking at single figure support in UK and Scottish opinion polls.
Apart from agreeing that Elvis is the King, you would rarely find Iain Martin, Daily Mail's new columnist, and I reading from the same political script
However, his column is spot on in identifying the danger for David Cameron in a Yes vote in the referendum.
As Iain explains, Cameron is against a fairer voting system and every No vote makes his PR grin even wider.
But a Yes vote means the Tory party wakes up on the morning after the referendum realising they have changed the British constitution - just to please Lib Dem coalition partners they regard as political toe rags.
Tories will take out their anger on David Cameron who, if there is a yes majority, will become a serial loser.(He didn’t win them the general election either).
A Yes result would make life uncomfortable for the Tory leader. Having "sold out" on the voting system Cameron will find it harder to keep the lid on simmering right-wing discontent in his own party. The plotting will begin, the coalition will creak, Cameron will be looking over his shoulder for the knife in the back.
More importantly the Prime Minister will be on the wrong side of history.
Ed Miliband, who backs a yes vote, will look at the Lib Dems and ask them just why they are in bed with the Tories when really Labour represents progressive politics.
A Yes vote is a winner for Labour, and exposes the divisions in the Conservative LibDem coalition.
Friday, 25 March 2011
The fisherman's wife and the cruel sea
The highlight of yesterday's Westminster Hall debate on the coastguard station closure plans was undoubtedly a speech by Sheryll Murray, the Conservative MP for Cornwall South East.
The wife of a Cornish fisherman, she made an impassioned plea against the closures, drawing on her personal experience of living in fear of the ocean for 25 years.
Then, with terrible irony, came the news this morning that her husband, Neil Murray, has died in an accident aboard his trawler.
Murray, an experienced fisherman, was apparently drowned while fishing alone on "Our Boy Andrew", 24 miles off the Cornish coast.
His wife's words in the Westminster debate, uttered while he was on his last voyage, stand as heartbreaking testament to the danger of the sea and her own bereavement.
She concluded her speech:"The sea can be the most beautiful place in which anybody can spend their time, but it can change quickly-believe me, I know after living for 25 years in fear of seeing the sea change overnight or within hours. One thing my experience has taught me is that we must have respect for the sea at all times. If we lose that respect and believe that we can beat the sea, we are finished.
"While I welcome the extension to the consultation period, when the Minister looks at the responses, I urge him to ensure that he does not lose respect for one of the most dangerous but beautiful elements in the world. If he does, not only will he let down fishermen's wives such as myself, the wives of sailors and other users of the sea, such as our young people, but he will let down the whole nation."
The wife of a Cornish fisherman, she made an impassioned plea against the closures, drawing on her personal experience of living in fear of the ocean for 25 years.
Then, with terrible irony, came the news this morning that her husband, Neil Murray, has died in an accident aboard his trawler.
Murray, an experienced fisherman, was apparently drowned while fishing alone on "Our Boy Andrew", 24 miles off the Cornish coast.
His wife's words in the Westminster debate, uttered while he was on his last voyage, stand as heartbreaking testament to the danger of the sea and her own bereavement.
She concluded her speech:"The sea can be the most beautiful place in which anybody can spend their time, but it can change quickly-believe me, I know after living for 25 years in fear of seeing the sea change overnight or within hours. One thing my experience has taught me is that we must have respect for the sea at all times. If we lose that respect and believe that we can beat the sea, we are finished.
"While I welcome the extension to the consultation period, when the Minister looks at the responses, I urge him to ensure that he does not lose respect for one of the most dangerous but beautiful elements in the world. If he does, not only will he let down fishermen's wives such as myself, the wives of sailors and other users of the sea, such as our young people, but he will let down the whole nation."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
