How Green is Your Salmond?

While I'm more that glad to hear Alex Salmond say that Scotland should be fully supplied by renewable energy by 2025. But it flies in the face of his demands just last month to benefit from the £242bn of tax revenue from the North Sea over the next 30 years, by devolving that tax raising power.

You see it is all well and good wanting to be 100% renewable in fifteen years Mr Salmond, but you are looking at benefiting from a carbon-burning economy for twice that length of time. The problem is of course that since the 1970s part of the SNP cry for Independence is that it is Scotland's oil. The revenue from that oil will fund their independent Scotland. Therefore the SNP are not the green party they are making out to be.

The Liberal Democrats had set target of 2050 for 100% renewables in our last Scottish election manifesto, a figure that we also pledged across the UK in our 2010 manifesto. It was a target we had set with intermediary steps along the way as part of a detailed roadmap to getting there. The pledge from Salmond today cuts 62.5% further off what other parties have said is even an ambitious target, ironically even the Greens only talk about a low-carbon Scotland on their website and have no aim for 100% renewables.

I have to ask myself has Salmond enquired what figures the other parties have and then decided to halve the most ambitious (although through bad maths that should have been 2030)? He has also increase the 2020 target from 50% to 80%. I've yet to see a breakdown of his objectives, conversion and payment plan to achieve this. Figure indicate that renewable energy in Scotland contributed 22% of the total in 2008 (up from 20.2% the year before) with an interim target of 31% for next year.

These are aggressive targets but I'm wondering are they attainable of are these just a promise ready for next May, like the many promises that the SNP have already failed to keep from May 2007?

Reason Why the Fifth of May is Wrong Date for Referendum

It is just over 24 hours from when the announcement for a date of a referendum on AV for Westminster was decided to be up against next May's Scottish Election but already we can see how the SNP are going to use it. The SNP are talking about the lack of respect to the Scottish people, Fiona Hyslop going further cutting to the chase when she said:

"It's important that we see action and not just warm words on respect.

"And in terms of what this is saying in terms of how the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Government and the Scottish people are being treated, I think this is an example of the British Government just not working for Scotland.

"I think this announcement shows a bit of coalition chaos, where the parties in London seem quite prepared to have a referendum on a voting system that they don't really support but not have a referendum on independence to decide the powers that the Scottish people could have."

That last part is the bit that is going to be concentrated on not respect as that will be shoved out the window by the SNP at the earliest convenient opportunity. No there will be the name calling over why one referendum is good and proper and another is not. There will be no respect for the fact that the Lib Dem MSPs were elected to Holyrood Parliament in 2007 on the promise that they wouldn't hold a referendum on independence in the next four years.

That was a stance I disagreed with on the stand alone principle of it from my stance as a democrat. It has been exasperated now by our own leader the Deputy Prime Minister making two announcements of Westminster to piggy back the next two Scottish elections. In 2015 we already have the concurrent elections of a 5-year fixed term Westminster and the 4-year fixed term Scottish Parliaments, now there are plans to ride over next years Scottish elections too.

For a party that believes in devolution we are being perceived of going a strange way about it, strangling the distinct Scottish message of all parties our own included for the elections for the next eight years of Scottish life with two UK-wide debates simultaneously.

SNP Active Transport Cuts

The SNP have been going on about a greener Scotland and about the threat of other parties having to make cuts in order for our country not to collapse under a mountain of debt. You'd therefore expect the SNP to have done all they can in every area to protect budgets for environmental concerns.

Don't you believe it.

As Alison McInnes MSP, Lib Dem Transport Spokesperson, points out ahead of a debate in the Scottish Parliament on the Transport Committee’s Active Travel report:

"Active travel is good for the environment, good for communities and good for the people of Scotland.

"Unfortunately the Transport Minister is not going far enough in supporting active travel.

"Under the SNP the cycling budget has fallen each year, whereas it rose under the Liberal Democrat-Labour Executive.

"This Government are serial offenders- they promise much but fail to match aspiration with investment.

"The Transport Minister is not going to meet his ambitious cycling target unless he puts his money where his mouth is and allocates a greater proportion of Scotland's transport budget to active travel."

Cycle path provision is getting a raw deal under the SNP. Encouraging people out of their cars and unto their bikes. There is a network of cycle paths across Edinburgh and the Lothians but there is always room for improvement to encourage more people to take up the option. For example to cycle from Bathgate to Linlithgow you have to take you life in your hands on some of the blind corners when motorists think they own the road and because they don't see or hear a car as they approach forget the option of a cyclist the other side of the bend and hedge as they cut the corner to maintain speed.

Cycling is a nice way to get out and about and get fresh air and exercise. The more cycle routes that are taken away from shared bus/taxi lanes the more user friendly it will become for nervous cyclists. Especially ones who unlike me took on London traffic on a bike for 8 years largely unscathed.

Eight Days to Take Action on Dungavel Child Detainees #LibConWin

A week may be a long time in politics but surely eight days into an new Government which only say for the first time yesterday and hasn't even been sworn in yet must be pretty instantaneous.

Instead of being held behind the prison fencing at Dungavel but moved to Yarls Wood, Bedfordshire with specialist family and child facilities and support services as an interim measure before totally removing from detention only eight days into a new government. As Damian Green the immigration minister said:

"This is something which many groups in Scotland have been calling for, and we are now delivering this positive outcome.

"We are committed to ending the detention of all children for immigration purposes. I hope that we can have plans agreed within the next few months."

You would have thought this might have been met as being a fast moving step to improve things before getting right of the draconian measure altogether. Not so the SNP who are still attempting to point score rather than offering alternatives locally and aiding the effort as I asked yesterday. Indeed Christine McKelvie is already saying:

"The Lib Dems claims on asylum and detention have been badly exposed and the Conservative’s chaotic Home Office appears once again to be unfit for purpose."

Hang on we're only allowed eight days to announce, come up with a solution and act upon it? Does that seem fair?

Nobody has said it is the final solution, merely that it is a better one than is currently available.Anne 'Indygal' McLaughlin MSP is also getting in on the act of jumping the gun and leaping on the condemnation bandwagon:

"By removing children immediately to Yarls Wood they are being taken away from the support networks and services they have built up in Scotland.

"There must be guarantees from the new Government that children are only being detained as an absolute last resort and that no one will lose access to the law, or the ability to challenge the Home Office’s decision as a result of this move."

Look at the statement Anne! Look at the commitment! Look at the time scale. We're are looking at doing away with detention of children within months. As Green also said:

"I have already announced the launch of a comprehensive review of alternatives to child detention, including opening a dialogue with relevant stakeholders, organisations and experts.

"This work has now started, because it is in all our interests, including those children currently in detention, to do it quickly, but to also do it well and safely."

It will be done. It will be done well. It will be done safely for all the children involved.

One does have to ask though if this step has been taken in 8 days, with another step to be taken in months, just what the SNP government have been doing to try and get the children held in detention in Scotland released or into better surroundings that Dungavel in the THREE years that they have been in charge.

Image of the Day

Well here's something I've always dreamed off. Seeing a Liberal Democrat sitting on the Government front bench.

Well as Parliament reconvened earlier and got on with the job of re-elected John Bercow as speaker there was the Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the Liberal Democrats sitting behind the dispatch box not over the aisle on the opposition side of the House.

We are truly in a period of new politics.

Unfortunately that message doesn't seem to have stretched north of the border. The SNP are using the news that the promise to get children out of the detention centre hasn't been acted upon yet at Dungavel after just 7 days of the new Government.

Here's an idea Christina McKelvie and the rest of the SNP at Holyrood how about working with us to provide somewhere for them to be housed safely and properly immediately while the review into the alternatives is actually taken.

Quote of the Day - on SNP Policies

"the SNP strategy fails to impress. The idea that we send a bunch of Scottish MPs to Westminster purely to turn the screw, so that we do better at the expense of other parts of the UK, smacks of the churlish small-mindedness we must avoid."

For today's Scotland on Sunday where they back the Liberal Democrats as a "real vote for change".

On Labour they summarise:

"putting aside the obvious pitfalls of failing to learn the lessons of history, it falls on the matter of trust. Brown has become a tragic figure who can do no right, but even if he is jettisoned by his colleagues, we can no longer trust Labour to govern."

Of the Tories

"For them there is also the matter of trust: do we trust David Cameron in his message that the party has changed and left behind its more divisive social attitudes*; or do we suspect that underneath it remains the same old Tory party? And then there is the practical issue of a vote in Scotland: how many seats are the Tories actually able to win here?"

Speaking of the Lib Dems they say:

"Make no mistake that this time around a vote for the Liberal Democrats is not a protest vote, one that can be cast casually because it will have little impact on the eventual outcome, but is a vote that could have extremely far-reaching consequences. It could increase the chances of a hung parliament, and there have been dire warnings about what that would mean for the economy. But those warnings have been exposed as barely credible.

"The highly respected Institute for Fiscal Studies, in its analysis of the parties' financial plans, said the Lib Dems had the smallest black hole of the main three in their funding schemes, and that there were no hidden tax rises on top.

"Another consequence of a vote for the Lib Dems is the potential for bringing in the greatest constitutional reform this country has seen in a century."

* Check out here or here to see what some selected Tory candidates social attitudes have been fond to be.

Tam Smith Plagarises Me and Fails on Facts #LEF

My SNP opponent Tam Smith has just posted a very familiar image on his blog.



Familiar because it is my image used on my blog on 12 April. Also wrong as Tam himself admitted in the radio debate on Thursday, which airs next week on Central FM, that three of us in our contest are opposed to wasting £100bn on replacing trident. So he is trying to gain political capital out of a deliberate distortion of the facts which he's even admitted in public.

As for Michael Connarty's letter to me yesterday, as I blogged yesterday he wrote to me that:

"As someone who has had cause to visit me at one of my regular constituent consultations or contact me by telephone within the past five years, I hope you will agree that I have done my very best to resolve the complaints or problems that you have contacted me with."

On further investigation I've checked that personal details given to the MPs on casework is not allowed to be used for political purposes unless there is some sort of disclaimer to allow their use. As a hoarder of emails going back to the last millennium I have checked that I have never signed such a disclaimer for Michael, or any other MP for that matter.

I've also just noticed that one two occasions the MP who said "I never give up until all avenues have been pursued on your behalf" failed to even acknowledge my concerns on tightening of our libel laws in 2008 or recognising Montgomery Scott Linlithgow's most famous future son. Also on prohibitive parking regulations for Livingston fans at Stirling Albion he failed to take action. As for his agreement with me when he said "I agree" he went through the wrong lobby for me and many other local voters.

SNP Hypocricy Over Being a Voice About Fuel Prices

I have been nice about it, I have told him on at least two occasions that he is wrong to admit that his is the only party that is saying anyhing about it. However, this evening I notice that the SNP candidate for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, Tam Smith has again said on his blog:

"The failure of the London parties to act on fuel prices shows how little they understand of the key issues across Scotland.

"In Scotland, the SNP is the clear alternative to the Westminster machine and the only party with a real alternative that will prevent massive fuel hikes."

It wouldn't be too bad if the last time I raised the issue with him was less than 10 hours ago. If you actually look at page 80 of the Liberal Democrat manifesto you will find the following.

• Introduce a rural fuel discount scheme which will allow a reduced rate of fuel duty to be paid in remote rural areas, as is allowed under EU law.

Now I don't know about you but that is doing something. George Lyon has been pursuing it in Europe and Alistair Carmichael actually secured a deabte on the issue of rural fuel prices on the 20 February this year.

In light of the fact that every single SNP politician seems to be appearing filling up a car at the moment. Claiming that they want a strong voice of local champions. But there wasn't a peep from any of the six* indeed not one of them even bothered to turn up to discuss an issue on which they appear to be pegging their campaign.

If we can't expect the SNP to speak up for their pet subjects in Westminister, what is the point of sending even more of them there?

* Salmond not included.

The Scots Are Canny Even With Public Money

They often say that the Scots are a canny lot with money, according to John Curtice in today's Scottish Edition of the Times* it seems that stretches to Government money too.

He looks at the two YouGov Scottish opinion polls the first of which during the first week of the campaign had the SNP down at 21% the other taken from Wednesday to Friday last week had them at 20% only just ahead of the Lib Dems. In his conclusions he points out that the SNP malaise is not so much because of the Lib Dem surge nationally nor because of the exclusion from the debates as they were already down before the debate and only sank slightly.

What he does point out is another finding from that second sampling. The Nats slogan of "More Nats less tax" isn't cutting the mustard with economically savvy Scots. Only 25% agreed with the proposition while and overwhelming 52% disagreed. Just like their claim that they are listening to Scots on independence it appears that they have not listened to Scots about how to deal with the structural deficit.

The Scots know that without pruning of Government services we cannot hope to emerge strong from this recession.

* Cannot find an online copy yet.

SNP Dishonesty Over Structural Deficit

Ok in my last post I did allude to the opinion polls that have been flying all over the place with one common thread, the Lib Dems are up. In fact a bigger up than I can remember in one election campaign let alone 48 hours, so we cannot assume it is rogue polls, they are all saying the same thing.

So I'm not going to concentrate on the headline figures, if you're reading this you probably know that however in this morning's Harris poll for the Mail. It showed Nick Clegg as polling 81% for a strong leader and 90% for honesty, which are astronomical polling for a politician.

One of the key areas that the honesty lies in is how to deal with the structural deficit. There is as Nick said at the manifesto launch on Wednesday 4 pages of figures* from the Lib Dems on how everything will be afforded going forward over 5 years.

Now seeing as Nick pointed on the leaders' debate on Thursday night that Brown and Cameron are both not coming clean on how they will deal with it, let's look at Alex Salmond. He seems to deny there is any problem whatsoever, is not prepared prune back deadwood to bring about life to our economy. On the honesty stakes one wonders just where Alex and his SNP would actually come.

Ask any gardener about what is needed to bring about fresh growth and they will tell you it is a good hard look at what is before them, cutting back the redundant parts and letting the fresh shoots come through with all the resources that it can be provided with. This is what Alex Salmond and the SNP are denying the people of Scotland by stubbornly refusing to budge.

* Pages 100-103

Horrendous Quote of the Day - Richard Thomson SNP PPC

"We all know how the SNP Government picks endless fights with London - it's all the party exists for."

So says Richard Thomson the SNP PPC for Gordon, if that is all the party exists for then they really are not a political party but a prize boxer.

Update Richard then went on to justify that this was not the position of the SNP by looking at The Scottish Affairs Select Committee report on co-operation and communication. The following unchaged is what I wrote to look at the above statement more closely, i.e. is there not some element of truth in that statement. (Bear in mind that from 1999 I was working in a newly devolved Northern Irish Department and therefore experienced communication with Whitehall first hand). End

I entered politics to make a positive change for the people around me. I entered politics to bring fairness to all. I believe in proportional voting systems which means that you cannot fight all the time but you would most often have to work together with others to achieve your goals.

The fact that the SNP candidate against Liberal Democrat Malcolm Bruce has been so candid shows that the SNP just do not get it. They are ignoring the economic hole that we all find ourselves in and instead of looking at how we all need to pull together to get out of it, are refusing to make any concessions.

Malcolm Bruce along with myself and all the Liberal Democrat candidates are standing on a manifesto that does not set aside out principles. It is still putting fairness front and centre, still putting sustainability and our environment at its heart. But we've admitted that some aspirations cannot be met while we are crippled by Labour's debt. Meanwhile in Bute House Alex Salmond is prepared to fiddle while the economy of Scotland burns, as he attempts to hold Westminster to ransom.

That is why the people of Gordon deserve Malcolm Bruce as their MP once again. He has served their best interests for 27 years. He stands up for them when he has to but also know when he needs to work with other parties to get things done. That is the art of politics, it more that just picking endless fights, it's also the way you occasionally win.

In Which I Disagree With Nick Clegg (and Jeff)

It probably isn't good for a PPC to disagree with their leader this close to an election, but as Jeff brought it up I thought I'd better put the record straight.

As Jeff pointed out Nick Clegg said on his trip to Scotland today:

"The truth is the SNP is as irrelevant in London as the Conservatives are in Edinburgh."

Now I know Nick studied Archaeology and Anthropology at University so unlike myself or Jeff may not be as conversant in the numerate arts. But Jeff uses the mathematical argument to point out that at 16 seats to the Tories, the Lib Dems must be a bigger irrelevance at Holyrood. There are however a couple of ways to look at the above statement.

As Jeff saw it purely in terms of numbers I'll take the mathematical argument first. The SNP with 7 currently have 1.1% of MPs even with Alex's target of 20 MPs they would have 3.08% of MPs. That is opposed to the Conservative parties 13.2% and Lib Dems 12.4% of MSPs. So if Jeff is arguing from a mathematical stand point he is unto a loser as Nick is wrong and the SNP are actually more irrelevant in London than the Tories are in Edinburgh.

The second thing that needs to be looked at is political influence rather than just sheer numbers. Again here Nick is actually wrong the Conservatives have been propping up numerous SNP policies in Edinburgh while the SNP have not been doing the same in Westminster. So once again the Tories are having more influence than the SNP, sorry Nick you've got that wrong again.

Jeff then argues that the Conservatives must have more influence than the Lib Dems have in Edinburgh. Maybe at present but over the last 11 years while the Tories have eaten the odd crumb off the SNP table, because neither are willing to formalise their arrangement, the Lib Dems did over eight years of coalition manage to make a more liberal, fairer Scotland than the rest of the UK. As the old adage goes it isn't so much size that matters put knowing what to do with it.

Looking at what the SNP are looking for along with their Plaid colleagues in the event of a hung Parliament they are looking for a fairness that ends at Hadrian's Wall and Offa's dyke. As I blogged yesterday they wanted assurances that all the areas of devolved responsibility are either protected or invested in. For a UK wide election that is not a fair way to deal people, the electorate and I suspect that whoever forms the Government will bring in some reform that will allow Sinn Féin to take their seats without swearing to the Queen if they will support them rather than kow tow to the fiscally blinded and irresponsible nationalists. We need to be as fair as we can be whilst building our way out of the mess that Labour have got us into.

Nick Clegg actually bigged up the SNP by saying they were as influential in London as the Conservatives in Edinburgh.

What is the SNP and Plaid Cymru's 'Fairer Funding'?

I've been reading that the SNP and Plaid Cymru are saying they want fair funding. Ieuan Wyn Jones Plaid's leader has said of demands of the other parties in the event of a hung parliament:

"We would demand fairer funding for Wales and Scotland to protect jobs, our schools, our hospitals and the most vulnerable in society.

"At the heart of our platform there would also need to be a real commitment to grow our economies through fast transport links and additional support to create thousands of high-quality jobs in the green and creative industry sectors."

So looking at the departments they want:

• Enterprise - protected/increased


• Education - protected


• Health - protected


• Business - increased


• Transport - increased


• Environment - job creation - increased

By my reckoning that is every single Scottish Department that they either want to see no cuts or increased investment in.

Now watching the Ask the Chancellor's debate I know that what the nationalist parties are asking for above seems to be beyond the reckoning of the UK economy. While yes the most vulnerable in our society should and ought to be protected (I know under the Lib Dems they will be) there is issues in the others. Creating jobs in green and creative industries is something that the Lib Dems promise and the Labour budget has actually gone some way to help with. The Lib Dems are also promising a pupil premium for the most disadvantaged children. Guess what? As a result of the Barnett formula this will mean additional money for Education coming to Scotland and Wales through the calculator.

But let's not beat about the bush while both Alistair Darling and George Osborne failed to answer the question of what cuts they would bring, Vince Cable was honest to say 'None of us can guarantee no cuts in any department'. However, it is how you make those cuts that is significant and how you fund them. There are some things that the SNP would agree with Vince scrapping of Trident, doing away with the ID card database, all projects that will release billions to be used elsewhere meaning less cuts. But the SNP have failed yet to look closer to home. they have failed to look at what they can do to make savings to allow the very goals they expect from others to be as well funded as they want.

Look at the fact that we are now on our third consultation regarding Independence. We have a Scotland Futures Trust that has yet to deliver. These are just two headline issues there are others in the quagmire or quangoism that the SNP have control over. Only a few weeks ago the SNP were saying they were opposed to any cuts in Scotland's budget, reality may have settled in slightly, though not from my reading of the above, now they are saying "More Nats, less cuts". May I ask after this launch, where? Where are they planning the lesser cuts for Scotland if all the devolved areas that they and Plaid Cymru in coalition in Wales have control over are to be protected or enhanced.

I know the song says 'you gotta have a gimmick' but I don't think wearing blinkers and not taking ANY responsible actions in this crisis is a very good look for either Alex Salmond or Ieuan Wyn Jones.

Cider House Rules Maybe

I think the operator of the Official SNP Twitter account has been quaffing too much cider before the tax increase at midnight.

First all seemed normal and a policy I actually agree with.


I mean the differential in fuel pricing between those with good public transport provision and those that don't, and therefore need to use their own vehicle, most notably in rural Scotland is grotesque.

But then soon after the SNP seemed to want to have their cake and eat it too.

So it appears that Darling can raise the 3p extra on fuel if he wants to as long as he gives it to Scotland!!! Yeah I think if I'm following that train of thought correctly the SNP fuel policy is:

Fair fuel is want we want but if we can't get it, it's Scotland oil so give us the money.

But the cider drinking continued with the result of secondary school elections (not sure if these are mock election of SYP ones [not clear in the press release]) in Aberdeenshire earning the headline and tweet.


Reading the actual story it turns out to be ab epic fail. On the day of the UK budget this is your first story after the event! They later actually look at a real benefit for Scotand's computer games industry but to release this as your response when everyone else is looking at the budget and the fall out is an epic fail.

The headline is a question "Jim Murphy on Facebook?" So you would expect that the object of the question being on the subject would be in question and therefore the epic fail of the hashtag. But no it is poor grammar, something that the winners of the elections in Aberdeenshire I expect would like to put right. Although I do love one quote in the piece which I have taken and changed to make a true statement (my changes in red)

"It is the Lib Dems which trust Scotland's young people to have their say - that's why we've consistently supported giving the vote to 16 and 17 year olds.

"It is the Lib Dems which is introduc promising record more apprenticeships and paid internships, more college places, guaranteed training or education after 3 months unemployed and more investment in youth-services. It is the Lib Dems who care about young people, and it is only with Lib Dems MPs that we can block cuts ensure further investment to the services young people cherish."

The SNP will block cuts in investment in youth the Lib Dems though the Barnett formula differential will be providing more for that end. I believe it is protected for that purpose and might well be in agreement with a Scottish government.

So there you have it, either a cider induced afternoon in the SNP media centre of a somewhat epic fail. I'll let you decide.

When Less is More for Alex

Speaking to COSLA's annual conference last week Alex Salmond said:

"This Government will not sit idly by and accept cuts imposed from Westminster."

Looks to me like the no cuts message the SNP have been spouting for months.

Yet on Saturday at his party's General Election launch he said:

"Because at this election the message is simple.

"MORE NATS MEANS LESS CUTS"

It may be simple but it is not clear.

He's been accusing the other parties and even in this speech of having the "axe sharpened and poised" yet for all his rhetoric he has just announced that even voting SNP there will be cuts. Where was the clarion cry of "U-Turn"?

I'll be fair earlier on he did also say:

"The London parties talk about cuts as though it was all about numbers on a balance sheet. But we know different. Behind those cuts will be real people, real services, real jobs.

Thing is the Liberal Democrats are aware that having to make cuts to make up for Labour and the bankers folly can make an impact on people lives. That is why we are balancing cuts with holding back on some of our objectives. Balancing taxes so that the lowest paid don't suffer while we find ways to pay for things fairly. We've also promised to balance cuts with investment in employment and education opportunities so that those that have been suffering will have a way to make things better both for themselves and for our economy.

Salmond says "we as a community know the value of looking out for each other; the value of investing in education, in housing and in health." Dare I ask where is the new investment in school infrastructure since the SNP came to power, the investment they they promised to match brick for brick has not been forthcoming.

Nicola - I Made a Mistake Over 'Mistake'

"I regret the use of the word 'mistake' to describe Mr Rauf's offence.

"As I hope will become clear from other parts of the letter, I did not intend to downplay the seriousness of the crime that had been committed.

"However, I accept the use of the word mistake was open to that interpretation."

So said Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon yesterday in her ministerial statement about her letter to the court regarding Abdul Rauf. She also went further to say that her appeal to the sheriff to consider an alternative to a custodial sentence was more in keeping with her former occupation as a solicitor than as an MSP.

The other week the First Minister saying he supported his deputy's letter 110%. Saying she was duty bound to write everything that she did. As Annabel Goldie pointed out admitting that she did not do everything right showed her candour, humility and courage. She contrasted this with the last First Minister's Questions before the recess saying:

"We got the usual Alex Salmond decibel delivery of rhetoric and arrogance.

"Where there should have been humility and reflection all we got was bluster. Where there should have been an apology, all we got was defiance."

The problem of delaying a statement from Nicola until now, and not having a plan to deal with this on Thursday 11 February when it broke was now that the First Minister has shown his knee-jerkedness once again. Instead of being a head of reason looking at the full picture, he jumped immediately to the defensive. If Ms Sturgeon had indeed been prepared a similar statement to Parliament she should have been allowed to make it then. As it was the First Minister was prepared to let this boil fester.

Sadly this is the head of the Government that is meant to be dealing with Westminster on a number of issues regarding Scotland's future. How can we trust a calm approach from him to such sworn enemies. We already know the mantra he shouts at Westminster, they are cutting Scotland's budget he proclaims, while at the same time he is arguing that Scotland can stand on its own two feet as he heads onwards with his desire for independence.

Maybe all the calls for resignation after that particular Thursday were for the wrong head. Maybe the First Minister should resign making way for the candour, humility and courage of his deputy, then maybe things can get done a little easier around here.

Zero Tolerate as I Say Not as I Do

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

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

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

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

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

Fresh Start Between Tories and SNP: Really?

David Cameron has laid out where he sees the relationship with Scotland going while speaking in Perth for the Scottish Conservative conference. According to the BBC he will say:

"We must repair the relationship between the British government and the Scottish government," he will say.

"It's a disgrace that during one of the worst economic crises in our modern history, when the foundations of the Scottish economy were rocked, Gordon Brown didn't meet Alex Salmond for almost a year.

"And it's shameful that during one of the most emotionally-charged moments in our recent history, when the Lockerbie bomber was released from jail to return home to Libya where he still is today, the Scottish government and British government refused to cooperate.

"That would not happen on my watch."

So how do the SNP respond? Well Stewart Hosie on the SNP website says:

"Warm words from the Tory high command cannot mask their stated intention to impose a triple whammy of cuts to Scotland's budget.

"The Tories are backing massive cuts to Scotland's budget next year - the first real terms cut since devolution, they want to go further and faster in the years thereafter, and earlier this week, David Cameron let it slip that he plans a new spending formula that will further reduce Scottish cash.

"The Tories so-called real change means short change for Scotland.

"If this is the Tory Leader's message to Scotland, it will be the Tories sole seat north of the Border that will be getting cut.

"The phoney war between Labour and the Tories has nothing to offer Scotland. Both are committed to making swingeing cuts to Scotland's budget while frittering away billions of pounds on a the Trident nuclear weapons system - an obscene vanity project the people of Scotland do not want.

"To get through these tough times, the people of Scotland need local champions who will stand up for their interests. Only the SNP will speak up for Scotland's services as the London parties race to slash funding."

So not so much fresh as quite ripe I'd say.

This Wimmen Tis Fa Turning

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

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

What would Baroness Thatcher make of this?

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

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

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

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

Further on the Nicola Sturgeon Situtation

As one would have guessed the story of the morning on Scottish blogs revolves around Nicola Sturgeon. One thing you can trust about the internet, bloggers and their commentators is that is some knowledge, sane opinions and comments amongst all the detritus.

Jeff at SNP Tactical Voting launches into a defence of the SNP Deputy First Minister ignoring one key fact, this is not the man's first offence. Yes he is now willing to sell the property that for 5 years he forgot he owned to pay any fine and pay back the amount he had defrauded. But he'd been fraudulent before and after serving a four year term the Judge may not deem that a non-custodial sentence would be enough for the man, as used by the MSP for Glasgow Govan requested.

It is his comments that show some knowledge comes to the fore which I think is worthy of consideration. DougtheDug points out the MSP's code of conduct parenthesis his:

SECTION 8: ENGAGEMENT AND LIAISON WITH CONSTITUENTS

8.1 Dealing with individual constituents' cases

8.1.1 Every constituent is represented by one constituency MSP and seven regional MSPs. It is expected that each member will take on a case when approached although it is recognised that there may be legitimate reasons for a member to decline a constituent's case in certain circumstances, for example, where a constituent requests an MSP to take inappropriate action, or if that case seeks action which would represent a conflict of interest with existing casework or is contrary to the member's political beliefs. If so, the member would ordinarily be expected to inform the constituent that the member is not taking up the case

Also Scott at Love and Garbage adds:

I spoke to a friend that's a Procurator Fiscal (PF) last night and read a locked blog post from another. Their combined experience is around 45 years of prosecuting. Neither is aware of a letter from a serving government minister having been used in mitigation throughout their careers (although MSPs or MPS do write to the PF as matters progress for information or to raise issues which can be taken in the decision to prosecute). Neither has seen a letter from an MSP or MP where there are previous convictions in relation to the same general matter, and the matter has this level of seriousness (and £80,000 fraud is not trivial).

This highlights the point made by Donald Findlay, the Queen's Counsel, who was defending Rauf at Glasgow Sheriff Court, said it was the first time in his long legal career he had handed the court a letter from someone of such importance.


The letter has now been made public (see above) in which Ms Sturgeon writes:

"For a number of years Mr Rauf has suffered from poor health mainly associated with his heart; he has a family, including young children aged under ten; and he is heavily involved in the community. All of these aspects of his life have been impacted upon by the mistake he has made."

No where in this letter does Ms Sturgeon seem to mention as I wrote earlier that she was aware of the previous conviction, indeed she says:

"I have been aware of Mr Rauf's case since July 2008 when he sought assistance from me after a search warrant was executed at his home by the Department of Work and Pension and officers of the Strathclyde Police."

The only mitigating circumstance she puts forward that might be taken into consideration is a heart issue, she does not specify what. As many people survive quite happily with minor heart conditions. That missing factor of the severity, on a casual reading, suggests it is mild but has been worsened because of the pressures maybe of being found out again etc.

As Tory justice spokesman Bill Aitken points out:

"It is extraordinary to describe a second conviction for fraud as a mistake. Either Ms Sturgeon didn't care about his previous fraud conviction or she didn't check. Either would be unbelievable and a grave lapse of judgment. His previous conviction was a matter of public record as recently as four weeks ago. To call these crimes a mistake is simply wrong."

The more that unearths about this issue, the lack of propriety that Ms Sturgeon has shown on this issue comes to the fore. As pointed out above there is no 'obligation', nor is there 'precedent' for this level of intervention on a second, more serious, conviction for the same crime.

Whether that is a resigning issue or not is something for Ms Sturgeon and her party colleagues to decide. However, we must not lose sight of the reasons they have called for the resignation or removal of others themselves in the past when we consider the eventual outcome.

UPDATE: As you can see from the top left hand corner this blog got a mention the following day in The Scotsman article on the Blogopshere's take on this story:

Stephen's Linlithgow Blog, put together by a Lib Dem party member, was less damning but still critical:"There is no 'obligation', nor is there 'precedent' for this level of intervention," it said.

Ok they got the name of the blog wrong but still I like the comment.