300 Years of the Union is quite enough and this blog has so done its time

Right that’s it the end of the 1st of May, I’ve blown out the candles, nobody sent any presents, the 300th anniversary of the Act of Union is over and so is this Blog – farewell.

Well, the subtitle was the countdown to the 1st of May, and I’ve counted down. This will be post number 60 since January 13th. It’s been a lot of fun and I’ve learned a lot. I hope you’ve enjoyed it too. In my wildest dreams I’d hoped that we might be further down the road to independence than we are in this tercentenary year, but hey I suppose I shouldn’t be churlish…

So, until next time…and there will be one – somewhere on a blog out there.

Happy Birthday to the Union – I raise a glass to its longevity, I raise two more to its demise.

Love McGellie x

McLeish gets the McXcuses in first – Labour put the spin on defeat

Henry McLeish – failed Scottish First Minister – is quoted in the Sunday Times today blaming Labour defeat on Tony Blair and the problems in Westminster.

Well, please! I was actually surprised at the way Iraq, Trident, The (newly renamed) Defence against Terror, Cash for Honours, Olympics etc were kept off the Scottish Election agenda. If McLeish is just complaining that Brown and Blair visited Scotland too often, then what does that say about Jack McConnell. If he can’t even tell them to f*** off and mind their own business, he’s not fit to be the First Minister – just like McLeish.

The reason Scots are going to vote SNP this election is because there is an air of self-confidence about Scotland. We are fed up being junkies for London subsidy. We are tired of being unable to make our own decisions. We contribute£2,800 million for a defence budget that fight’s wars we don’t want, buys weapons systems we don’t need against terrorists that don’t threaten us. We Scots fiddle rents and taxis not honours (collective responsibility?!?!) and we know the London Olympics are about London not sport.

The Scottish election victory is not about kicking Tony Blair, he’s yesterday’s man and history will kick him at its leisure. This election victory is about Scotland, for Scotland and by Scotland and…er….expressing our disagreement on Iraq, Trident, Terror, Corruption, and the Olympics…!

Bring it on.

Love McGellie x

The Integrity of Data – the days of truth are numbered

As the Scottish election campaign grinds to its bitter end or (depending on perspective) rises to a triumphant crescendo, the thing that have stood out for me are the numbers.

So much of the campaigning has been based on competitive presentation of numbers. My council tax is better than your local income tax, blah blah, based on irreconcilable and very much alternative assumptions. Or take what the Guardian described as the arcane debates about the alleged Scottih Deficit which contains things like £2.9 billion of depreciation and accounting adjustments which would fall out in an independence settlement or the assumption that every person, rich or poor, adult or child pays the same amount towards the defence budget and the war in Iraq. Or, take the new Adam Smith Institute report which says Scotland would be £6,000 better off under independence but only on the assumption that growth goes from present rates of 2.1% to 7% – aye right!

All of these numbers and I’m afraid that I don’t believe that our education system equips us to take them on and make sense of them. Proof? Last week in the Scotsman an opinion piece stated that Scotland could get by on a defence budget of £500 billion. Since the whole of the UK GDP is only twice that number you have to blink. But the subs didn’t. If the people who put together our great national newspaper (snigger) can’t even spot that one, how the hell are mere mortals supposed to process all of the complex data that’s thrown at us?  

The integrity of data allows for all of this – state your assumptions and let the answer generate itself. Or, more likely tweak the assumptions until you get the answer you want.

Here in central Edinburgh, Shirley-Anne Somerville bends the integrity by showing a Scottish opinion poll result as if it applies to central Edinburgh. Over at the Liberal however, Siobhan Mathers has taken the data from last time and then lopped a slice off the Labour total to make it looke like it is a “two horse race” (her words). What’s the difference between these two approaches. Well, neither of them are true. But Siobhan abuses the integrity of data. It’s the difference between bending a ruler and breaking it.

I had a word with the electoral commission and they told me that there was nothing they could do about it as they had no power over the veracity of candidates statements. The application of the rule of law was all they were concerned with. I must say I was a bit dissappointed as it means that the lies of our future political leaders are sanctioned by the law itself.

The integrity of data can sustain any number of clearly stated assumptions, but when wannabe politicians blatantly abuse numbers to get elected, they are beneath contempt.

Love, McGellie x

Sunday Herald comes out for the SNP

Well, good god, at last someone has. 

Way back in this blog I suggested that the Murdoch papers, the Times and the Sun, should come out for the SNP. They didn’t take my advice (I was most surprised) and they along with the main Scottish titles have remained staunchly Unionist in content and character.

 This was always pretty stupid. It’s been obvious for a long time that the SNP were on a roll – you can’t have that many opinion polls without realising something must be going on. And, the role of the newspapers in this world is not to maintain or safeguard any particular version of the status quo – the role is to make as much money as possible through the symbiotic relationship of reality, readers and advertisers. Everyone knows this.

The only exception is where a paper goes on an ideological bender like the Scotsman under Neil and the Barclays which went from being a fine centre left paper to a torrid right wing rag in spite of its natural market and readership.

Murdoch isn’t inspired by such kamikaze ideology, the switch to new labour was a marketing strategy not a change in politics.

The Sunday Herald’s coming out for the SNP can only be greeted with one response from most commentators – WHAT TOOK YOU SO LONG? Was it the need to get it through owners Newsquest and in turn Gannet in America – American’s are remarkably relaxed about independence as they did it themselves some years ago. Was it the financial projections of having lots of Nationalist readers returning to the title that clinched the deal? Certainly Scotland on Sunday has much to fear by this break in the ranks.

Whatever, the haughty and rather pretentious tone of the editorial got my back up. Oh, good for you Richard Walker and your team of unelected cronies, managing your way through the latest round of cuts. Glad you could join the new world of Scotland where there is hope after Labour. But wait, this was not a conversion. Repeatedly the editorial stresses that the Sunday Herald hasn’t made its mind up about Independence. So it’s back to the half baked cautious same old.

Well, I welcome a crack in the Unionist press. I welcome the fact that a newspaper has had the courage to come out for the Nationalists, whatever my reservations about their pomposity. I look forward to Murdoch finally responding to my advice and taking the Sun over to the Nationalist side in order to kick the shit out of the Daily Record’s circulation for ever. The Scottish media have been slow to respond to the signs, they have been slow to take their opportunity and they have been slow to realise that their absence of critical analysis will not stop Scots making up their own free, independent minds.

Love, McGellie x

Celebrity VIP lists and the Scottish Parliamentary Election

No. 1 magazine – Scotland’s great (no honestly) celebrity magazine surely missed a trick by not bringing out a special Vote Scotland edition. They could have got every Scottih celeb in their contact book to ‘fess up to who they are voting for. No. 1 magazine likes to mix up Scottish celebs with their bigger Holywood cousins, So, Paris Hilton might be for the Union but Angelina Jolie, she’d be for Independence. With the views of the celebrities duly weighed and counted we could save all the time on the campaigning and just followed the lead of our favourite celebs – each to their own. It’s the new political system the media age has been crying out for – Celebracy

The latest list of “high profile” supporters list today is 650 scientests in favour of the Union. They’ve tested it objectively and found that in a peer assessed review the Union has a beneficial molecular structure. There’s some dispute about the methodology because scientists may don’t have any expertise in political economy or constitutional law, but hey, neither did the footballers nor the businessmen, so what’s a little bit of prejudice and self-interest between experts.

The two bits that worry me the most on the top boffs poll is their assumption that Scotland going independent is going to close down communication with England and the rest of the world in some isolationist reaction. Where did they get this?

Secondly, that they seem to be worried about funds being cut. Why? They get such a paltry amount at the moment that surely they should welcome the opportunity of independence and lobby the SNP to give them a better deal. Apparently Science in Scotland gets £55 per head from Westiminster – THAT’S RUBBISH. Currently Defence spending in Scotland is £2,800 million (on the GERS methodology) which is £560 per head run through Westminster. Surely an independent Scotland could up the former and reduce the latter. The problem with Unionists in Scotland is that they only ever look for the downside.

With only five days of campaigning left, I’m looking forward to 1,000 Nurses for the Union, 3,000 teachers for the Union, 25,000 civil servants for the Union, 25,000 soldiers for the Union and 59 Scottish MP’s for the Union. Just a shame that so few of them can actually stand to vote Labour.

Bring it on.

 Love McGellie x

Ha Ha as celebrity political lists compete to save Scotland in the Scottish press

Celebrity endorsement has come to a newspaper near you in the forms of lists of footballers (tabloids) or business people (“broadsheets” – that term surely needs replaced – “pretendy serious” perhaps). Who’se got the best names on their list…depends on your perspective. Whose got the most names…surely it will only ever be the tip of the iceberg – surely. Whose got the biggest circulation (Severin Carrell in the Guardian seemed to think this was important) obviously depends what paper(s) you pay to run the advert. 

The only thing that is actually important is: What the hell are these people are signing up to? It seems that the Nationalists nailed their supporters into actually supporting the SNP explicity. Transpires that whoever was behind the other adverts could only get its people to support the Union, not Labour – the Union.

The way I see it is there are probably a lot of people in Scotland who want an Independent Scotland but don’t support the SNP’s policy lines. These people are to be found in all of the Unionist political parties. So it would have been EASIER for the SNP to have an Independence “motion” to sign up to and so attract people who will not support the SNP as a party. But they didn’t do this – and their position is strategic and logical – put the focus on the party, not on the policy. 

But, if the Unionist aren’t even brave enough to come out for the Labour party then they’re engaging in some complex messaging. Presumably the idea is to focus on the risk to the Union, but this is an election for the next Scottish parliament and (unfortunately, from my point of view, it’s not about the Union this year) doesn’t accord with the way our party system works.

Unfortunately, the downside is many will see those footballers and business people who support the Union as delivering a vote of no confidence in the Labour party. Out enough to support the Union, but too shy to support Labour – bit sad really. Or, maybe they just couldn’t find enough Labour supporters (of any calibre) who were brave enough to pop their heads over the parapet and sign on the Labour line.

The only other, other question is: did they pay or were they paid. I don’t suppose appearing in an advert justifies a peerage but it could be a step along the way…

Love

McGellie x

Taking Liberalities with Central Edinburgh truth – another good reason to vote SNP or Conservative.

Siobhan Mathers (Lib Dem candidate for Edinburgh Central) annoys me, judging by her latest election letter. Her last one was bad enough with the same story about cycle parks (killer issue) appearing in bits on both sides of the leaflet. But she’s gone beyond incompetence into the world of deceit this time.

At the bottom right of the letter there’s a bar chart showing central Edinburgh results last time for Labour 32%, Liberal 23%, SNP 18% and Conservatives 17% except she’s fudged it. Her argument is that “only the lib dems or labour can win Edinburgh Central”. And this message is reinforced by distorting the chart so it shows the lib dems much closer to the labour total than it should be. So the gap between Labour and Liberal should actually be nearly twice the gap between the Liberals and the SNP. Instead, she has the Libs closer to Labour than they are to the SNP. 

 

This matters because ecletion data is one of the few objective things going in politics and a child could make up the chart correctly (at least my child could) so there is deliberate, conscious deception involved here. An election leaflet may be a trivial matter, but there’s a principle at stake. 

There should be a law against this sort of misrepresentation – oh there is!

Love

McGellie x

Update: Shirley-Anne Somerville’s election offering dropped through the letter box this morning. She too makes a similar claime: “Only the SNP can beat LabourinEdinburgh Central” and she has a chart too – but it’s from an opinion poll in the Times. Now I day say SNP headquarters have laid out all the opinion polls they’ve got and chosen the most favourable for Shirley-Anne. So are the SNP any more hones than the Lib Dems. In my book yes, what do you think?

The Politics of the Picture Desks

The snapper stands like an ornothologist – still, silent, patient waiting for the moment, waiting, waiting. The politician scratches his nose Trr, Trr, Trr, Trr the camera shutter flutters. Job done. Next day’s papers we, the public, get a photo of Gordon Brown or whoever picking his nose next to the report about pension fiddles etc. Since it is impossible to sit on a stage for an hour without scratching your ear, nose, head – especially under lights – the snappers know they’re going to get the shot sooner or later – it just requires patience.

Clearly all of this began in the tabloids and the women’s magazines – the getting out of the car up the skirt shot is a peculiar British speciality (I’m told), but the principle has now permeated into what was once known as the serious press.

Now if every shot was like this it would give the game away – so who makes the decision to dish out the embarrassing picture treatment? Well, ultimately the editor, but it’s the picture desk who see the range of available pics and whittles them down. And, when you’re looking to choose a single pic from a big pile, then the “party” shot is always going to make it into the final selection.

Any PR will tell you they’d rather have a pic to go with the copy, which reflects the fact a readers eye is drawn to the picture, then the headline, then the body of the copy. With pictures in full colour on every page the role of the picture is in the ascendancy, which makes the subliminal politics of the picture desk critical. It doesn’t matter if the text says that Gordon Brown was having a good day if the picture shows him slapping his forhead in despair (even though he was only smoothing his hair)

Love

McGelliex

In these last days before the elections I’m offering a fiver for the most twisted published pictures of a politician.

Mrs England wants rid of Scots now.

The 7pm Edinburgh train was crowded when it pulled out of Kings Cross on Friday. But the dining car wasn’t, so dinner became the only elegant solution. I like dinner on the train because the company of strangers usually generates some interesting chat and the food’s remarkably good.

My dinner companion for the evening worked his way through the FT and the Wall Street Journal before the food came and the conversation commenced. I’m always interested in the views of English about the Scottish question, so when it came up over coffee I was suprised by the alacrity with which the woman at the other table jumped in – “We English subsidise you Scots. You’ve got free personal care and your students don’t have to pay – it’s our money that makes this possible. etc etc.”

Unexpectedly my dinner companion jumps in and points out that for very many years Scotland has been subsidising England through oil revenues. It transpires he worked in the oil industry. And I’m always happy to point out the rubbish in GERS like the regressive nature of the defence poll tax which means that defence (and other non geographically specific UK expenditure) are allocated on a pro-rata basis. This means a highland granny pays the same as a stockbroker in Surbiton. Non specific UK expenditure should be allocated on the basis of income tax receipts – SURELY.  Oh and let’s not forget the £2.9 billion of depreciation and “accounting adjustments” that we get stuck for even though they have nothing to do with how a Scotland would thrive going forwards.

But let’s not get bogged down with the detail. Mrs. England has been sold the lie that Scots are a bunch of subsidy junkies who are draining the English exchequer. And, of course she’s right. So I agree vociferously and point out that Scots have no control over the constitutional arrangement so if she want to get rid of the Scots she needs to take it up at Westminster. And, of course that I’d welcome any support that she can give as we share a common desire for Scotland and England to be Independent.

Independence – common ground for everyone! – The oil executive was Irish.

Love

McGellie x 

Starved of Good Ideas – Crimes and Misconceptions?

I’m no expert on crime and prision policy but…STOP right there. Don’t need to go any further to realise that today’s jaunt into this territory by the political parties can only go in one of two directions – rehearsing well tried prejudice or conjouring up eye-catching initiatives. Either way, one suspects that Tony Cameron’s (retired Scottish Prison Service’s chief executive) intervention about prison numbers wasn’t going to interfere with the party political hooplah. Certainly the birch rod (for beating their own back) approach of the Conservatives is unlikely to impress.

But, I hear the refrain: Surely an instant ASBO will solve anti-social behaviour, keep the youth out of the court system and relieve pressure on the prison population. Oh yes. Oh yes – if only it was that simple. 

The problem is not just in creating the ASBO, it’s also in enforcing it. If you create an exclusion zone or a curfew based on the instruction of a couple of coppers, how do you make it stick? Tagging? How do you demontrate the legitimacy of the order. Part of the due process of the court system is that at the end of the day everyone gets their day and there’s always an appeal process. If instant ASBOS (community protection orders) are to be like getting a ticket from a parking warden, then will there be a) enough enforcement officers – it’s the Liberal who want the extra 1,000 local community officers and b) enough imagination for them to know how to handle their new acronyms.

Small example from the world of traffic wardens: I put my car in for a service and got a courtesy car which then got three traffic tickets in three days parked in my usual permit holders parking space, in spite of the explanatory note on the windscreen. I asked a warden why, as she printed the ticket, she explained: Procedure! If “community” police officers, looking younger ever day, don’t have the imagination or confidence to know when to apply discretion then we’re all doomed I tell you.

Today’s  Sun carries a piece about Billy Connolly’s support for a new National Service. I don’t go with that because teaching people a polarised “us and them” approach is too simplistic and then adding guns, knives and fear management as standard sounds like courting disater. Never-the-less I take the Big Yin’s argument that you need to do something with YOUTH not something to them. Instant ASBOs are about as close to resolving the causes of crime as…well…as the UK winning the war on terror (thanks Hilary!). If, as we’re told, people are bogged down in lives of hopelessness, poverty, unemployment, drugs etc.  then no wonder THEY don’t buy into the heavily subsidised goodies the middle classes enjoy. Or less abrasively, no wonder they don’t buy into the law abiding creative adventure that will make Scotland it’s best.

Yup, it’s easy to criticise.

My best partial solution is not national service but International Development Service. I’m not putting this in my manifesto because I don’t have one and because at least I know I’m not an expert. But being put in a very foreign context helps you to think. With a broader horizon – maybe filled with the much greater misery and poverty of others – who knows what can happen. If Tony Cameron reckons it costs £40k a year to keep someone in prison, then take that money (as a voucher??!!) to fund an “Internship” in Malawi or Darfur or Somalia. Oh no doubt the worthies at the aid agencies would squeal, and right enough, if I was suggesting that they do the babysitting. But if the SPS/Police etc managed a programme that supplemented and complemented the work of DfID and the Aid Agencies then surely something good could come of it.

Love

McGellie x

This Scottish election campaign’s really taxing me and it is boring me stupid!

Ok, let’s get down and dirty with tax. Since tax is all the media and the parties really appear to get off on. God I’m so bored with Jack and Nicol and Alex parading their alternative tax policies. Do they think anyone knows whether they’ll be better off with the snake of the council tax or the ladder of a local income tax – they can’t even agree it’s that way round! Oh I dare say that, as in the budget specials printed the day after a Westminster budget, little case studies can show that Mr & Mrs X and their wains will get this or that. But surely the debate should really about the (fiscal) direction of the country as a whole, (as opposed to a bribery bidding war) or at least don’t you think it should be? At the moment this is not even horse trading, which has a slightly romantic ring about it, this is just grown men talking taxation – how boring is that.

Do you really think the electorate want to vote on taxation policies which only Arthur Midwinter professes to understand? Taxation may fire up the accountants and the tax consultants, but it’s pissing me off. I thought we might get to talk about the future of Scotland as a country, a people, an adventure. If you’ve got any ambition in this life, I recommend you don’t give up first because you can’t figure out how to fund it.

But if you do want to talk tax, well, I’ve already shown in previous posts that Labour’s obsession with their £5,000 per family is GARBAGE and economically illiterate (see Growling at Gers below). Instead, let’s take the BBC’s Glenn Campbell argument that the Inland Revenue won’t collect the SNP’s 3p because it’s Scottish and quickly we get back to the fact that Fiscal and Economic policy are reserved to Westminster. The Devolution settlement allowed a 3p variation in Income Tax but it seems they may have forgotten to get agreement for the Inland Revenue to collect it on behalf of the Parliament. Pitiable but not my point.

My point is that we’re back talking like Income Tax and Council Tax are the only tricks in town. It’s like a re-run of Thatcher’s obsession with income tax rates or Tony thinking that slapping a penny on regressive national insurance was somehow acceptable, or Gordon cutting 2p but abolishing the 10p rate. Do politicians think we’re thick. Actually, yes. Which is why reducing an election campaign to a question of competing tax methodologies is fucking idiotic and serves no one.

If they want to get down and dirty on tax then read this table – my favourite GERS Appendix B: Go on, but try not to fall asleep.

	UK	Scotland
	Revenue, £ million	Revenue £ million	as a share of total revenue	as a share of UK revenue
Income tax (after tax credits)	122,920	8,914	24.5%	7.3%
Corporation tax (excl North Sea)	29,730	2,422	6.6%	8.1%
VAT	73,026	5,949	16.3%	8.1%
Social security contributions	78,098	6,461	17.7%	8.3%
Non-domestic rates	18,975	1,813	5.0%	9.6%
Council Tax	19,966	1,615	4.4%	8.1%
Capital gains tax	2,278	186	0.5%	8.2%
Inheritance tax	2,924	171	0.5%	5.9%
Stamp duties	8,966	720	2.0%	8.0%
Fuel duties	23,313	1,313	3.6%	5.6%
Tobacco duties	8,100	984	2.7%	12.1%
Alcohol duties	7,876	703	1.9%	8.9%
Betting and gaming duties	1,421	122	0.3%	8.6%
Customs duties and agricultural levies	2,195	179	0.5%	8.2%
Air passenger duty	864	73	0.2%	8.5%
Insurance premium tax	2,359	200	0.5%	8.5%
Climate change levy	764	75	0.2%	9.8%
Aggregates levy	334	45	0.1%	13.6%
Landfill tax	672	57	0.2%	8.5%
Vehicle excise duties	4,737	348	1.0%	7.3%
Other taxes and royalties	11,741	978	2.7%	8.3%
Interest and dividends	5,639	460	1.3%	8.2%
Gross trading surplus, rents & misc transfers	22,668	2,826	7.8%	12.5%
Other revenue 1	-2,135	-177	-0.5%	8.2%
Total	447,431	36,439	100.0%	8.1%

That’s right, there’s 24 different taxes liste. TWENTY FOUR. And how many does the Scottish Parliament control – council tax and 3p on income tax. Go on have a look at just how little that is.

It get worse. I’ve previously protested at the sloppy nature of the GERS methodology, in spite of all of Labour’s experts who I’m just going to have to assume are being misquoted. Try this for VAT:

“VAT Scotland’s share of UKVAT revenue was estimated on the basis of Scotland’s share of household expenditure on those goods and services subject to VAT, as estimated from the Expenditure & Food Survey ( EFS). The results should be treated with caution since they are based only on household expenditure estimates and not the share relating to the amount of VAT received from businesses registered with Scottish VAT offices or received from businesses trading within Scotland.”

That is disgraceful. Worse when you realise that the EFS might involve a sample of less than 667 Scots!!

So, if you’ve got this far, then perhaps you should consider a career in accountancy – I hear it can be lucrative. But for God’s sake let’s not bog the future of Scotland down in bickering over alternative models of how to pay the bills.

Please.

Love

McGellie x

Reservations about Scottish energy policy

If a party political manifesto doesn’t mention Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) in the context of their proposals for energy, does that mean:

A.) They don’t know what they’re talking about?

B.) They understand but patronisingly don’t want to make their manifesto too technical?

C.) They understand, but are shy about pointing out that energy is a reserved matter and there is nothing they can do about the pseudo market ROCs solution that’s currently in place and which priveliges onshore wind because it’s here now.  Even though the resultant wind rush will trash Scotland with 8,000 mega turbines and the associated pylons, turning Scotland into an industrial energy generating plant for the benefit of the English? (woops did I let the curtain drop).

If you know the answer to this question dial 0990 8570 999 to win a really irritating microgenerating personal wind turbine that will look worse than a SKY satellite dish. Calls cost 50 quid each.

Love

McGellie x

What’s the World Bank got to do with Scotland – and why Sunday 15th of April is Development Day

More like: What’s Scotland got to do with the World Bank? Well, there’s £25 million of Scottish money gets pumped into the World Bank and The International Monetary Fund every year. That’s five times as much as the total Jack McConnell spends on his Malawi adventure. And what does that money buy? Well I couldn’t say, but apparently Paul Wolfowitz’s girlfriend was getting paid $132,000 a year as a communications officer. Excuse me, but if the World Bank pays their communications officers that much, it’s quite amazing what a poor return they get for their money. Do you know what the World Bank does (clue, they don’t issue banknote or take deposits)?

But the tradgedy is that, like Clinton and Lewinski, Wolfowitz has managed to become the story and drag the news agenda away from the work he’s supposed to be doing. Instead of focusing on a review of key strategy in Africa that was to be undertaken this weekend, the media get to prey on something they can understand – sleaze. Watch everyone from the Washington Post to the Sunday Times let this tabloid story dominate their coverage.

Should we carry on giving funds to the World Bank? – well that’s the kind of question you never get to vote on. Firstly because all £377 million that Scots pay towards the department of international development goes to London where we don’t control it. And, secondly because even if it is part of the Westminster parties manifestos, nobody ever takes it seriously.

Which is why I applaud the major aid agencies in Scotland for calling Sunday 15th of April “Development Day”. They’re holding a hustings at 2pm at St. Augustines church on George 4th Bridge, Edinburgh and all of the political parties have signed up to take part. Go there and ask difficult questions like: Why is international development a reserved matter? Why do we only invest in Malawi? Why do we spend so little? Why can we afford an upgrade to Trident without any bother but can’t meet the commitment we made at the UN 37 years ago to give 0.7% of our income in development aid?

I don’t expect anyone’s going to cast either of their votes on the basis of a party’s international aid programme, but it’s the sign of a civilised country that we’ve got one (even if it is titchy). And the sign of a confident country that we want to look beyond the limitations of the existing devolution structures and think our way into being a responsible citizen of the planet. The sooner our £377 million is repatriated from London so we can set our own grown up development agenda the better. Then we can decide if we want to carry on funding Paul Wolfowitz’s pecadillos.

Love,

McGellie x

It’s time for Beltane to Be Scottish!

When Beltane was revived as a May the 1st shindig on Calton hill in the 90’s, I was delighted. But as spontaneity can be strangled by the most unlikely hands, so it comes that far from developing into an authentic communal festival, the organising committee have imported all kinds of foreign practices into it.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not exactly bovvered, but I’d like to share my fear that this most Scottish of traditions might miss a trick and overlook the fact that this year Beltane coincides with the 300th anniversary of the day the Act of Union came into force.

Wouldn’t it be great if May 1st this year was a massive spontaneous popular festival elided with Beltane and focused on Calton Hill. Not only a liminal time but a popular protest against Scotland still being held back by the centrifugal dominance of England. Whilst the Scottish parliament voted itself out of existence, the people, the crowds, the masses across Scotland opposed it. What better way to echo that objection now, when Independence seems possible again, than to throw a great big meaningful party.

Unfortunately, I expect the Beltane organisers will find themselves unable to deviate from their usual ritualised performance. At the very moment when they could be part of history they’ll just carry on recreating their fantasy of the past. What a shame.

Love

McGellie x

The New Scottish Entrepreneurs – it’s a manifesto promise?

The dragon’s den and that ilk of programme are a disaster for entrepreunerialism. They teach investors to act like masters whith the entrepreuneurs as the servants prostituting themselves for cashy. The real message is that capital is boss, ideas are cheap.

Of course we all know that money is cheap. There’s bags of it around, just a shame that too many greedy “so called capitalists” understand nothing about risk and want all the reward.

So I looked for interest to the political manifestos to find out what the parties are going to do to kindle new enterprise. They all want successful businesses (sorry didn’t check the SSP and Solidarity) but do they have any matches to light the fire?

Labour sound promising. They’re going to create a new loan scheme. I give this a thumbs up. What we need is not greedy business angels who are just devils in disguise it’s moderately priced loans. But oh, what about the detail? People keep going on about manifesto promises being costed. So how much is this fund worth? No mention. What are the criteria, terms, condition, assumptions, objects…oh you get the idea there aren’t any details.

The Conservatives don’t promise anything for new Scottish start ups

The SNP – hey they’re going to establish an investment fund for business start-ups. But read into the manifesto and it turns out that “we will make better use of underspends in the Scottish budget to establish a Scottish Investment Fund.” That means not just an uncosted promise, but a promise that depends on an unlikely contingent outcome. What a bunch of tossers. Throw us the crumbs that might fall off your plateful of promises.

The Liberals – Well Nicol, because it is he who will do everything in his first person manifesto  – “will work with the Scottish Banks and financial institutions to increase access to venture capital.” Yes, but over what timescale, to what end? As anyone else who talks to the banks will know, they will lend you money if you can demonstrate that your business already exists, has revenues and will succeed. So thanks Nicol, but you’re not filling me with confidence. The banks are so risk averse they see the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme as providing no mitigation against their risk.

The Greens may be the answer as long as you’re starting a business in the country and it’s a social enterprise.

So there we go. They all speak the language of enterprise and entrepreneurs. Business is the new rock and roll etc., etc. etc. In reality this is all just so much posturing. No one’s got a practical, costed policy that will give a new business what it needs – not training and education – we’ve got that – what new businesses need is money, spondoolies, cash, funding – on reasonable terms. Government used to plough millions into brining firm from the far east over here – a policy that failed miserably. If you took a hundred million out of Scottih Enterprises bloated £550 million budget and made it available to Scottish start ups in the £100k bracket, you would reap back many times what you sowed in VAT, PAYE, NI, Rates, etc. Employment would go up and Scotland would truly flourish.

Love

McGellie x

Do you believe in Scotland?

I was in a bank vault today taking pictures of piles of money (don’t ask) and having a conversation about the nature of belief in money. Belief in money is a particularly wierd phenonmenon. It’s not like believing in gravity or evolution which take place irrespective of you. It’s not even like believing in God who either exists independently of our belief or exists because of our belief. Money exists independently of our belief but only works because of it. If we all stopped believing in the financial system, we’d have a run on the bank and the system would collapse. This is fundamental to how money works – the promise to pay the bearer will be broken if everyone cashes in their chips.

 And yet we take it all for granted – all those numbers on all of those computers – and you believe in them. 

Now, think about belief in the context of Scotland. Do you believe in an independent Scotland?  Does Scotland exist independently of your belief? Well actually, not. The land is just a lump of rock. It’s the built environment, the history, the culture that creates Scottishness. That Scotland has not existed for three hundred years – does that mean it can never exist again?

Would it take a budgetary argument to win you over – is it really all about the money?

 Love

 McGellie x

Stuff Domestic Issues – Think Big, Think Scottish

I’ll keep this short. If this election is decided on domestic issues it will be a disaster. Faced with a series of wish lists, how do you decide. Even the experts don’t agree. Who doesn’t want better education, health service etc. Which is the part that I can vote for that wants to make things worse?

No the urge to vote domestic is a political play.

 Labour want you to vote on domestic issues because it cuts out Iraq, Trident, Independence. The Conservatives similarly want to keep to bread and butter issues in the hope that Labour and SNP will slug it out over independence. Ditto Liberals.

I say don’t vote domestic vote for Scotland.

What constitutes a reserved matter is all nicely set out in the Scotland act but why should we be restrained to devolved issues? I expect the English council elections will be a referendum on Tony Blair’s goverment and from London’s point of view we are just another local election (believe it). So come on Scotland, use this opportunity to make our popular voice heard in Scotland and in London.

Don’t believe you have to wait until the next Westminster election to punish the Government for Iraq, Trident, a supine pro-US foreign policy, and an international development commitment that is still more than £2 billion short on the 0.7% target we made 37 year ago etc. etc. If the terrorist threat is the biggest issue, then it’s not intrisically a Scottish issue at all, so let England fear for the consequences of their own ideological forrays.

And don’t believe that in this three hundredth anniversary of the loss of Scottish independence we should just passively keep on the domestic blinkers. Wake up, now is the time to address any issue we like when voting for our government.  Get a life. Get a Scottish life, freed from the ignorant careless hand of a London that sees Scotland as some problem at the end of the A1. Voting is a crude tool and domestic politics are complicated, so complicated that you can’t believe the parties. There’s so much propaganda, so much child hugging, so many egos to feed. Nah, vote for what you believe in and the council tax will take care of itself – or not as the case may be.

Love

McGellie x

If you want a divorce, you’d better count the cost

The reason people use the language of divorce to characterise the ending of the Act of Union is because divorce is a negative concept associated with the breakdown of a loving relationship, the breach of vows freely given and regretable consequences.

But Scottish Independence can be seen in entirely positive light – an opportunity for a de-merger to create a more nimble operation capable increasing the economic, social and political capital of a medium sized island (as a whole) off the coast of mainland Europe. As a business opportunity in a globalised economy, where the internet abolishes geography, an Independent Scotland makes a lot of sense.

And yet Gordon Brown and Wendy Alexander trot out the numbers to impoverish Scottish ambition. Scotland is an economic basket case, they say, England earns the money and subsidises you. On your own you will fail, lose, be a disaster. Now I know that the figures they use are crap because they’re based on incompetent assumptions. For example, the UK defence budget is allocated on a pro-rata basis. Which means that in totally regressive manner, the pensioner in a tenament in Scotland pays the same for the war in Iraq or Trident as the broker in Hampshire. Yeah, right – that make sense for a Labour government.

But, if they want to threaten the consequences of separation dressed up in the language of divorce, let’s just remember how divorce works these days. The UK wouldn’t be what it is today without the flow of Scottih soldiers into the imperial armies or the flow of Scottish brainpower down to London. So, if there’s going to be a divorce – we’ll be having half the assets. OK!

Love,

McGellie x

Everything shines brighter with the Liberal Democrats

Oh yes,

With a giant yellow toothbrush Nicol Stephen backs dentistry. It would have been more powerful imagery if he’d had a great big drill. Oh, there’s nothing wrong with another promise of another £40 million and 200 dentists and it fills the gaping cavity as to what shiny new iniative to fill the papers with today. But scrape away the tarnish and I’m always a bit irritated by the smugness of the liberals. They don’t have to scrap for power. So they take the highground of moral superiority because the electoral arithmetic guarantees them a share of power. And from their highground they can piss on everyone else and accuse them of lowering the tone of the election etc. But, If you could see inside the Liberal mouth, you would smell the rot of decay.

“In seven months we will have set the foundation for a bright future for Scotland.” Bland as you like, but crap as well. They’re going to have the same amount of power (roughly) after the electionas they had before. If they can do something so fantastic as to build a whole new set of foundations for Scotland – you have to wonder why they didn’t do that in the last eight years.

Love

McGellie x

Why I feel sorry for Gordon Brown (and Jack McConnell).

The stage was set – Gleneagles 2007 – Gordon Brown was to parade his stature on the International stage – in Glory – at the scene of his 2005 triumph. Kofi Annan was in tow and the Moderator and Cardinal had been drafted in as the opening acts. Oh, and Hilary Benn and Jack McConnell brought up the rear to make up the numbers (in both senses).

The sun shone in the sky, the bussed in protestors were polite, even if their ‘Trade not Trident’ t-shirts must have been a mite irritating. The snappers who feed the London press were out in force (Reuters, Bloombergs the lot). It was a moment to savour – especially with a £150 million rabbit pulled out of the Chancellor’s magic hat and announced the day before (to get two bites at the media cherry). £20 million of this to fund Unicef to educate children in war zones (that will be four emote buttons in one phrase).

So what happened, why wasn’t this front page news? Well there were the lost boys and Wendy coming back from Iran, and four more Brits blown up in Basra, (why were they all out there – remind me?) but has International Development really become a non-issue in the public’s mind. I don’t think so. In fact the SCIAF poll I’ve referred to before shows that Scots still give a shit about the rest of the world and the chronic state of poverty that persists. The Make Poverty History campaign was a big deal and remains a big deal. What happened, was that much of the media saw through Gordon’s bid to play party politics with the agenda. The BBC boycotted the whole event. No radio, no television in Scotland nor in England. Today BBC Scotland online has news from both the SNP and the Liberals that they’re each planning to double the Scottish international aid budge – and these paltry proposals makes news. Bizarre. Or reassuring – you decide.

Brown didn’t make it because it all seemed just a little bit too cynically stage managed. And it was. We are in the midst of an election campaign in Scotland, wrapping yourself in the legacy of Gleneagles in order to project your own Prime Ministerial and Labour Party agenda is just too sad. Come back on the 6th of July, Gordon, if you want to mark a moment.

I feel sorry for Gordon, because it must have seemed like such a good idea when his Treasury chums presented it. But the tiny rewards in media terms must have been very disappointing.

I feel sorry for Jack because he wasted an afternoon sitting on a stage and by the time he got up to speak all the snappers had gone. 

 Love

McGellie x

ps, The bit I liked the most was when first the Moderator and then the Cardinal spoke clearly about the ease with which funds were found for the Trident replacement when the UK government is still a couple of billion short of its International aid commitments.

Welcome to the new Scottish Conservative Reality!

The problem with the SNP is they have identified themselves as the natural place for Scottish Nationalists to go – by nicking the words and building a party round them. So if you don’t support the SNP policy direction but you do want independece, who do you vote for? Well, Hurrah for the Scottish Independent Conservatives (s.i.c.!).

In an independent Scotland I expect that all of the existing parties will get used to the new reality. Just as the Conservatives took their seat in the Scottish parliament, so they will pursue their policy agenda in the brave new world of independence. And why not? In a post union world being a unionist party will be pretty pointless. It’s kind of how democracy works.

The fact that the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party now appears ready to be cast adrift by Cameron and cronies (as floated in The Spectator) only accelerates the thought process. Playing against Gordon Brown’s Scottishness by presenting an exclusively English and Welsh Tory party is a low cost option for Central Office – David Mundell.

By sacrificing his single seat, Cameron can exploit the West Lothian question, attack the disproportionate list of powerful Scottish Labour MP’s – John Reid, Des Browne, Alistair Darling, Douglas Alexander, Michael Martin, Adam Ingram and Gavan Strang (not forgetting Liberal’s Menzies Campbell, Charles Kennedy) and most of all undermine the position of arch opponent Gordon Brown.  Currently playing the Scottish card against Gordon just seems a bit like cheap racism, overlooking the years in which the Tories inflicted their policies on Scotland with complete disdain and disregard for Scottish opinion. But a Conservative party which came to it’s senses, remembered the Union in it’s title referred to Ireland not Scotland and came out for Scottish Independence could create a new political Hadrian’s wall and send the Scots home to think again.

The arithmetic is compelling – for the cost of one Conservative MP you get rid of 58 MPs who will generally vote against a renewed Conservative Government come the next Westminster election. Go on Annabel do the right thing and secure your parties future – on both sides of the border. Scots are never going to vote for that smarmy git you call your leader, but could you persuade them to vote for a S.I.C. solution? You may have to once you’ve been abandoned by your chums down South.

Love

McGellie X 

Break up Britain – End up Broke. Wake up Labour – What a Joke

Politicians bandy huge headline numbers about because they can get away with it. SNP policy will cost every family £5,000 in Union Dividend. This is hogwash, but will the political commentators ever bother to do the maths and unmask the shoddy accounting and perverse spin that makes a subsidy into a dividend. Actually, they probably won’t because it would require them to actually get their calculators out and go back to first principles in economic and financial modelling. No doubt the chaps/chapesses who write the business pages can and are doing this, but the big boss editors either have their own unionist agendas or are just too lazy to publish the truth in the pages that people actually read (like the front page!?!)

Labour’s biggest problem in it’s document is that it muddles up methodologies.I’m no supporter of the SNP, but when Labour take £0.8 billion as the cost of the SNP cut in corporation tax and treat it as a cost without benefit, they just prove themselves to be economically illiterate. The reason for cutting taxes, as any Tory will tell you, is to incentivise business. The Irish economic success is something Labour can’t just shoo to one side. A cut in corporation tax will result in an increase in income tax, national insurance and VAT. Where are these in the calculation? Just because these numbers are hard to forecast, taking account only of the cost side is incompetent. 

The bulk, £11.2 billion, of the Union Dividend (such perverse phraseology) is based on historic cost principles. As I’ve already shown in ‘Growling at GERS – Calculators at Dawn’ there are massive sums allocated on completely rubbish bases. So, the pensioner in Easterhouse pays the same for the Iraq war as the city trader in London. Yeah, right, that makes sense! And, the £3 billion of depreciation in GERS would have no place in a business plan going forward.

Or how about the VAT, according to GERS and I quote “Scotland’s share of UKVAT revenue was estimated on the basis of Scotland’s share of household expenditure on those goods and services subject to VAT, as estimated from the Expenditure & Food Survey (EFS). The results should be treated with caution since they are based only on household expenditure estimates and not the share relating to the amount of VAT received from businesses registered with Scottish VAT offices or received from businesses trading within Scotland.” – Does that sound like the GERS people even believe in their own method – I don’t think so! Especially when you realise that the EFS Scottish sample might only be 667 households – or less. I kid you not.

Working over historical data and allocating it on questionable bases may give you a number – but it won’t be the right one. When a corporate banker looks over the business plan of a de-merger, the historics might be of interest, but it’s the business plan and associated risk analysis along with an assessment of the underlaying human and physical assets that’s going to make the case for or against independence. Labour have got the wrong figures for the wrong job.

What Labour have done is to create the worst case scenario. By taking fully absorbed historic costs, based on dubious methodologies, then adding all the possible costs with none of the possible benefits, the only auditor who’d be likely to sign off on their numbers are Arthur Andersens. If Labour will mount an election campaign on these numbers, they will come to regret it – if our media chums ever bother their arses to expose the sham.

Love

McGellie x 

Scottish Independence – Get Enlightened.

Why do I want Independence for Scotland – I hear you ask?

Is it because we will be richer, or have more clout internationally, or what?

Nah, although I don’t find Labour’s scaremongering persuasive on the financial front. And, Anabel Goldie’s line that Scotland has more influence in the UN/NATO/EU because we’re part of England (sorry, the UK) is simply barking, (at least an Independent Scotland would have it’s own chair rather than having to sit on Westminster’s knee).

My reasons for wanting Independence are psychological and cultural. When Scotland win at football I rejoice, when Scotland lose, I don’t despair – because obviously Scotland isn’t 11 men on a football pitch….! Scotland is a bigger, a huge concept, rich in history, culture, identity, success, failure, promise. When an author like Ian Rankin (he’s so vain he’s bound to Google himself and find this) says that Scotland wouldn’t gain anything by Independence – he’s worrying about whether he’d still be eligible for the Man Booker. He’s not thinking about Scotland or about Scots.

What Scotland would gain from Independence is not being dependent on England. In a world where people refer to the UK as England, we’re playing a crap hand by condescending to put up with that degree of invisibility. An underperforming asset. If we play Independence right, with due regard to the global PR opportunity it presents, Scotland and Scottish culture (including, but not only, the Loch Ness Monster) will come out of the shadow of England. That’s what we gain from Inedependence.

And now is the time. The consequences of the internet revolution are still being worked out. But it blindingly obvious that you can build a much bigger presence on the web than your relative population size. The internet is a great equaliser, it abolishes the need for trading borders – why not think global.

The SNP aren’t responsible for the economic success of Ireland, Norway, Iceland. Nearly half of the members of the EU have populations smaller than Scotland.  So, clearly the fearty assumption that it’s better to be big are now shown to be hollow. Being nifty is better than being big. Being sharp and clever are the premiums in a world where just about everything you touch or do could have been made on the other side of the world. Let’s stop rehearsing how it was Scots who invented everything and get on with doing it all over again (but this time applying for all of the patents).

Our biggest asset is our people – Scottish people. Scottish people who’ve gone to London at every opportunity just to prove they can. Funny how the benefit of that Scottish capital to England and the London tax take is never included in Labour’s Union overdraft calculations. Independence won’t curtail the ambition of Scots to emigrate and test themselves against unknown challenges, but an Independent Scotland will have a better chance of encouraging some of our diaspora to return (starting with the 59 Scottish MPs who’ll be kicked out of Westminster – those who really did want to serve could sharpen up Holyrood no end).

Being culturally at ease can only really be achieved in your own culture, otherwise you’re always a foreigner, an outsider. The very many Scots who live outside of Scotland or who leave because it’s the thing to do might well be persuaded that an Indpendent Scotland is worth giving a go. With opportunity no longer limited by geography, the internet makes Scotland a land in which to have a go go.

But this is the weird bit. Independence is no big deal. You still get your food from Tesco or the farmer’s market. You’ll still get your insurance from Italy, your power from Scottish Power’s new Spanish owners, buy your clothes from an Icelandic company and settle any number of transactions with a lovely call centre in India and let’s not forget the Chinese in the mix. When you vote for Independence, the Sky won’t fall in and you’ll still get Sky plus. It’s simply a constitutional rewiring. The substance will stay, but the intellectual content will be reconfigured. Being Scottish, being Scotland won’t look like a dangerous risk when looking back. In fact those gainsayers who think the Scots are too chippy(?) to be a real country will hang their head in shame.

Love

McGellie x 

Bread and Butter Tory Pudding – the Conservatives address to the Union.

David Cameron is Gordon Brown’s nightmare – we know this. But there’s worse. His visit yesterday shows a distinct lack of passion for the Union – and we know where that leads. Forget the cold showers – it’ll be an outburst of pragmatism.

 The Union is in the Tory DNA – is it hell. DNA takes millions of years to evolve. History may link the Tories and the 1707 Act of Union with Scotland – pragmatically. Tory policy can and does change on the whim of a boy wonder. When Goldie smugly says that the ‘Conservatives and Unionists are pro-union – it’s in the name’, she betrays her ignorance of the roots of her own ‘Conservative and Unionist Party’. The Liberal Unionists who broke away over Irish Home Rule in 1886 in reaction to Gladstone’s conversion to the Irish cause, later merged with the Conservatives. Goldie generalises from the specifics of the Irish question to include the Scottish question. It may work for her but Scotland is not Ireland. And, if she does want to bring Ireland into it, maybe their success as an independent state with far more influence in international forums than Scotland ever achieves in it’s role as North Britain, might undermine her own ‘objective’ position.

Meanwhile, the underlying electoral logic remains overwhelming. If the Tories ‘respect’ the ‘yes’ vote of Scots in a referendum for Indpenedence, as Cameron proposes, they will conveniently dispose of 40 Scottish Labour MPs for the cost of one Tory – and look at the quality/threat of some of those MPs – Handy! You also get to resolve the West Lothian question and you get to laugh as Gordon has to choose to further his commitment to ‘serve’ in the Scottish Parliament or find a seat in England (oh the humiliation!) so he can still play with the big boys.

For now, being your voice in the Scottish Parliament is perfect. Keep your head down and let the Nats and Labour trash each other – it’s a win/win game. The time for grand magmanamous gestures will come soon enough, in the meantime, just sit back and keep on the pragmatic espousal of domestic policy, keep on eating the bread and butter pudding. 

Love,

McGellie x

The SNP deferment of an Independence referendum is a tactical mistake

The SNP are wrong to defer the independence referendum.

Why? I’ll give you three rocking reasons, starting with the weakest first:

1) The SNP idea of “gaining credibility” is not just a ticking tax bomb as Andy Kerr says, it’s gifting Westminster and the Unionists up here with a prolonged opportunity to give them a kicking.

2) Deferring the referendum puts it on the other side of the nextUK Westminster election. Since it is Westminster, rather than Holyrood, that will take the Independence decision, an immediate referendum would put the Independence question firmly on the next election agenda. Going into a Westminster election with a large majority of Scots in favour of Independence would sharpen the minds of not only the 56 Scottish MPs but all of the parties. The English will only accede to granting us independence if they can be bothered attending to the issue. It’s the sort of thing that can be dragged out indefinitely. In an election when there is a Unionist Scot seeking to be voted in as PM it is the best opportunity we will get for a generation. Independence is the most elegant solution to the West Lothian question, and the English will never vote a Scot into power. If the English can be persuaded that it’s in their self interest to let those moaning Scots get on their way, they will vote accordingly. A David Cameron led Conservative Party proposing Scottish Independence is a lot more likely than the SNP think!

3) Who gives a toss about the SNP?It is an appalling conceit by the SNP to think they can prove Scotland’s ability to be Independent. Tactically, this SNP agenda of deferment will alientate the very very large number of Labour, Liberal, Tory and NON VOTERS who want to vote for Scottish Independence (but not the SNP) in May. By wrapping themselves in the Saltire, the SNP confuse their own limited ability with a thousand years (and more) of Scottish history. They are the vessel, not the drink. Depriving me of an immediate vote on an Independence referendum, so they can prove themselves smacks, paradoxically, of a lack of self-confidence and a dubious abrogation of the independence question – as if they owned it.

Love

McGellie x

Are the SNP boring? – their website says it all.

Since the last post, I’ve had the joy of catching up with the SNPs website. The front page stories are:

Council Tax, Student Loans, Local Healthcare and Signing up to the SNP. 

Oh, aye, that’ll be me inspired.

 Love

McGelliex

The SNP are boring and slack

How long is Scotland prepared to continue hanging around at the margins of the UK?

 Rattling over to Edinburgh on the peak time “Waverly-Queen”, the land of the Metro, the two senior managers I was sat next to spent the journey in crisis talks over a media strategy document for their nationwide PLC. Quoth man #1, “Should the decisions be made by the people on the ground who know the facts or by someone in London?” Who cares what man #2 said, man #1 had nailed it.

I’ve worked with a bunch of organisations with “head offices” in London. Always the Scottish end just gets told what to do. Oh yeah, ‘a representative’ gets to the London meetings, but that’s just to ensure ‘buy-in’ for decisions that don’t reflect the Scottish facts because they are always marginal.

This is the fate of Scotland in the Union. This is why its time for independence.

But what do the SNP want to talk about – taxation!?! Oh Pleeease. Clearly the donks who make up strategy are all terribly excited about Mathewson and Souter, but when they’re not unveiling a high profile supporter all their lines on independence are fearty ones, scared in case they frighten off the cowerin timerous beasties that read the Unionist press. It is risible that the SNP have to actually come out to assure us they really will have a referendum in the next parliament – because they’ve down played the issue so much.

The SNP want to talk about tax, they want to talk about normal boring domestic ‘grown up’ politics, they want to present themselves as the credible party ready for power. But this is 2007, the 300th anniversary of the Act of Union, when at last Scotland has a shot at being the nation again. Oh come on, we’ve sung the song, worn the T shirt, and flown the flag – for so long. The symbolism matters.

No doubt the SNP think its a tactical game (it is), they think they can take my vote for granted because I want an Independent Scotland. So best keep the Independence question pushed out of sight, stop Labour getting more chances to espouse their ‘black hole’ theory.

But it ain’t that simple. By failing to fly the flag of independence proudly in this tercentenary year, the many who want Independence, but see the SNP only as a means to that end, might just not bother to vote. If Alex and Nicola are more interested in their own power, than delivering the end of the Union, a whole bunch of people like me might lose confidence. There’s an much much bigger number of people who will not vote at all if the election is fought on the ‘normal’ domestic agenda. Tax is so boring and ALL politicians are liars when they present complex data (heard a good budget speech recently?). The numbers may be true, but the messaging is twisted and mashed up – wholesome food becomes vomit.

If the SNP content themselves with playing a boring campaign it makes them look like they’ve got something to hide. Better to make the case. Just relying on Labour blowing it isn’t good enough. Complacency breeds contempt.

Love

McGellie x

ps. Why have the SNP not settled the question of the status of an Independent Scotland in the EU or at least lined up an unassailable raft of legal, constitutional and European opinion? And why have they allowed the GERS ‘black hole’ report to go unchallenged when it’s so easy to take apart (see below: Calculators at Dawn). It’s pretty slack.

Happy Anniversary England – 19th March 2007 – I didn’t forget even if you did!.

Why Scotland signed up to the Act of Union is a hot debate. Different historians draw different conclusions from the same facts – depends where they start from. But what about the English, why did they drive this incorporating act in the first place? Well, it seems it was a pretty straightforward case of geopolitical insecurity. Fighting the war of the Spanish succession was challenging enough without a bunch of tossers in the Scottish parliament taking the piss (the act of security, the act of peace and war, the wine act, the wool act). Resolving the Scottish question was the act of a mature and responsible government seeking to preserve the united monarchy and get on with taking a leading role in Europe (sic). So far so historical.

When the English signed the Act of Union on the 19th of March 1707 they got what they wanted. But this merger (that’s the polite term businesses use for a takeover when there are sensibilities that have to be preserved) wasn’t motivated by increasing sharholder returns through anticipated synergies. It was about shutting up the Scots. Making sure that the French stayed over the channel and the Catholics stayed off the throne. The Union was a job done.

But roll forwards 300 years and ask yourself now: What do the English get out of the Union? The French are their allies not their enemies, and having a Catholic monarch doesn’t seem to be much of an issue – if they want to have a monarch at all. The Scots are still a moaning bunch of gits, hogging a disproportionate number of places in the cabinet, a Scottish prime minister to boot (maybe). They vote on English domestic matters and England subsidises every Scottish family by £5,000 according to that notable statistician Wendy Alexander and…and…and they just whine all the bloody time. Why do the English put up with this? Mostly because they’ve yet to realise they’ve got a choice! Inertia isn’t the only way to do politics.

Happy Anniversary England 

 Love

McGellie x

Tony Blair – Wendy Alexander is numerically illiterate. Schhhhhhh-Scotland’s got the fizz

Cadbury Schweppes are going to demerge because it makes business sense. Any parallel with ending the Union? I should say so. The most practical one is that whatever Tony/Wendy/Jack say about the Scottish fiscal situation provides more rather than less reason for independence.

On the one hand the bigger the deficit, the greater the measure of failure of the UK as an economic unit.

On the other, all the figures they come up with are based on questionable assumptions and methodologies (see ‘calculators at dawn’ below) using historical costs which are therefore…er…historical. Going forward we will cut our cloth and our defence budget, olympics commitment etc, to fit our new circumstances. Sure there’s a challenge, but dependency is an appalling business model to build a future on.

Do you really think that Cadbury and Schweppes made the decision to demerge based on historical results? Well actually yes – because they recognise the merged business has been  dysfunctional. Will their management teams just carve up the historic costs and revenues and project them forwards? Not a chance, the business prospect of demerger is the opportunity to release the suppressed energy of the constituent parts.

Love

McGellie x

New Labour, New Trident, New Viagra

The Labour party wants to renew trident because it’s scared that not doing so will make it look weak. This is a political not a military argument and it stinks of Michael Foot’s duffel coat. Trying too hard to distance yourself from past PR disasters is just as likely to create…a new PR disaster!

One day Labour wants to set a unilateral example to the world over carbon emissions policy, the next it has to prove it’s virility by supporting a crazy whacked out anachronistic weapons system from a cold war that’s been overtaken by global warming.

What’s the point of cutting carbon emissions if you’re still prepared to invoke a nuclear winter – lights on, nobody home.

Love,

 McGellie x