Scottish Lib Dem Campaign is Lauched

Speaking before today's official launch of the Scottish Liberal Democrat election campaign, UK Party Leader Nick Clegg said that the Liberal Democrats are offering real change for Scotland on the 6th May.

Nick Clegg said:

"In this election, the choice for Scots is clear.

"Vote for Liberal Democrats who will bring about real change and build a fairer Scotland.

"Or stick by a failing Labour Party that long since abandoned you.

"The SNP cannot make a difference at Westminster, and in Scotland the Tories aren't in the game.

"But the Liberal Democrats are set to make gains across Scotland.

"We start this election second only to Labour and we have them in our sights.

"Fairer taxes, political reform, a sustainable economy. This is the change we offer Scotland."

As for me I'll be through at the launch now (Yes this blog post has been post dated) look out for me on the news coverage.

Quizzical Recompense

You know it is nice to know that Drumlanrig peruses this blog on a regular basis to fill his diary column in the Scotland on Sunday. I see that he took the "and finally" piece from my blog post after Nick Clegg's speech to get a few laughs this weekend. The question was asked very much tongue in cheek and taken in that way. I did in fact have a different tongue in cheek question if I had have had the opportunity to interview Nick as originally planned. I'm so glad our leaders are able to laugh at themselves and show their human side.

Tavish Scott had in fact seemed genuinely shocked that he hadn't paid a donation to LYS's quiz last year. It is a fundraiser for the youth wing but being a party leader he was merely doing the rounds of events, but he has supported the organisation at other times through the year.

This year I'm pleased to report that Tavish not only turned up again and paid, but got involved in reading out the questions and scores for one of the rounds. Even better although Nick Clegg was unable to attend he did sign the prizes pictured (acquired at no great expense from a pound shop) that were given out on the night.

***Exclusive*** Tavish Scott Reaction to Nick Clegg's Speech #sldconf

I had been hoping to bring you an interview with Nick Clegg in a short while after he had dealt with some press commitment. But conferences being conferences not to mention the press taking more of Nick's time, something about a Fifer appearing before Chilcott, that was not to be.

Instead at very short notice I had to direct my questions to the leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats Tavish Scott.

Stephen: What were your highlights of the speech Nick has just given?

Tavish: I think his utter commitment to the Scottish and UK values of fairness. The need to change our country to reflect that in the four ways he highlighted, fairer taxes, a fair start in life for our children, a fairer, green sustainable economy and a fairer politics.

Under the Lib Dems it has to be better and fairer future than what Brown and Blair before him have done. All that David Cameron offers is a different slick manager, but no real change.

Also on this day when Brown is facing Chilcott, it is good that Nick is here. To emphasise once again how our party offered a clear and absolute opposition to the illegal war on Iraq.

We now are going to have the Prime Ministerial debate's including Nick what could Alex Salmond possibly have to tell the rest of the UK? (Nick had mentioned in his speech that Salmond had "elevated independence to a one man fetish")

Well it is not just a one man man fetish, it is a one idea fetish. It is all that the SNP truly have left on the table. They have failed to deliver on so much of what they promised just 3 years ago.

They are out of ideas and out out of time, a lot like what has also happened with the Labour party. The only thing they have over Labour is that Alex is a better salesman.

Salesman? Wasn't that Cameron's phrase?

Quite. But Alex is only out to try and manage the decline in the economy. Nick in his speech has outlined ways to bring about the recovery. Admitting it is going to be tough, but bringing fresh ideas to table to turn us around.

One of those was the idea of utilising the ship yards of the Leith and the Clyde to produce off shore wind turbines. How can we take this further ever more?

It is a very positive message. It shows we're taking our commitment to a greener economy beyond the theoretical, into economic reality for job creation for people. In real ways, that make a real change and have a real impact.

Something that even the Greens fail often to do?

Indeed. But not only is it a commitment to our long term goals of sustainability, but showing ways that by achieving our aims we can also help the country out of the mess that Brown has got us into.

One of the areas that Nick commented on was a fairer education. Obviously that is a devolved issue and we have just had our own debate on "A fair start for all our children?". What does this mean for the future of Scotland?

Well again it is a positive message and one I will be touching on more in my own speech tomorrow. But again it highlights the unfairness of the mess we have got ourselves into. The other parties are not promising to protect key services making things worse. There is a danger they will even take away some of the little choice that they have now.

The Lib Dems will give them a real boost. There are hard choices in public expenditure, but the Lib Dems are committed to give a real choice for these people.

As time is running out I have one final question on a lighter note. It is rumoured in Liberal Youth Scotland circles that you didn't pay the entrance fee for you attendance at their quiz and debate night last year. Are going to be attending tonight and will you be paying double?

(laughs) I'm not aware that I didn't but I shall certainly be attending again tonight. But whether I did or I didn't I shall certainly be making a donation to this very worthwhile organisation.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you Stephen and good luck.

A Positive, Serious Contribution Deserves a Serious Answer

No my ears were not deceiving me. That is what Alex Salmond replied to Tavish Scott's question regarding colleges admission (or not) findings and youth unemployment in Scotland.

Basically Tavish pointed out that 85% of colleges in Scotland have had to turn away applicants this year, many for the first time ever with some having seen a 800% increase in applications. In West Lothian the number of applicants has increased by 41% over last year, Oatridge college who have never had to turn away applications before saw a 74% increase in applications and turned away 300. These findings came from a Liberal Democrat survey of the the 43 colleges in Scotland looking at the numbers of applicants each has had to turn away over the last 3 years, the first of its kind to be published. On top of this the number of our young people claiming Job Seekers allowance over the past year has risen by 35%.

Jeremy Purvis the Finance Spokesperson has said about the findings in the report:

"Too many young people have been hit twice. They can’t get a job and now they can’t get a college place. What government can do is give them the opportunity to gain the skills and experiences that will help them get the most from economic recovery when it comes. Scotland as a whole will benefit from having more people ready and active for the workplace."

An increase in college places and training opportunities is one of the issues that the Lib Dems have been applying pressure on the SNP Government to provide for to help in this recession.

Alex Salmond's response to the actual question "Will the First Minister agree that action taken by his Government in this Budget must increase college places across Scotland?" is encouraging as is his acknowledgement that a recession inevitably increases the demand on college places.

Jeff has already pointed out that he thinks the answer "dropping the jousting" he gave Iain Gray and Annabel Goldie is a "clear signal that the budget would reflect Tavish's concerns" I would tend to agree, it seems that lessons have been learnt over the last 12 months on both sides.

Are SNP Considering a Budget to Do Some Good?

On the first day of debate in the Scottish budget both Nick Clegg in Westminster and Tavish Scott in Holyrood highlighted in different ways the failure of our banks to lend. While Nick asked in the Commons how a bank we bailed out, which is not lending to domestic businesses to protect jobs, is leading to an American takeover of a UK company that will lead to losses, Tavish tried to deal with the SNP budget.

Writing to all members he says:

"The economic background is serious. Unemployment continues to rise in Scotland, when it is falling in the rest of Britain. The gap in economic growth between Scotland and the UK is now widening to Scotland’s disadvantage.

"Liberal Democrats have taken up the challenge to work with the SNP Government to persuade them to take forward our proposals that will build a fairer society and a sustainable economy.

"We are discussing practical plans. We can do more to give Scottish business a fighting chance of getting through the recession. Many businesses still can't get the lending they need from their banks. Scottish manufacturing – including the Borders textiles industry that I highlighted in Parliament last week – needs help. The Scottish Budget needs to help strengthen these businesses, putting them in a good place to reap the rewards of economic recovery."

He went on to point out that the total salary bill for those earning more that £100,000 is £413million and is £651million for those over £80,000. And that is just 5,300 people out of half a million in the public sector. Pointing out that ordinary people cannot understand how the highest earners in the NHS are also able to nominate themselves for bonuses worth up to £75,000 a year on top of such salaries.

As well as the pay of the top civil servants he also urges the SNP Government to have a hard look at the quangos, including the Scottish Futures Trust continues to consume millions of tax pounds but builds absolutely nothing.

At the time he wrote that email he said:

"It is disappointing that the SNP Government has not moved to change its Budget yet. That is why we couldn't vote for the Budget today. We have given them the benefit of three more weeks to respond to our positive and constructive approach."

Within hours though the BBC reported that John Swinney is looking to freeze the pay of top civil servants and is also considering Lib Dem demands to cut the pay of the highest public sector earners.

Deeper Cuts of the PBR

I'd thought that local SNP candidate Tam Smith would have learnt his lesson and stopped taking attributed quotes to other SNP spokespeople as his own. Sadly I see I've been proved wrong this time he is Michael Matheson MSP on the health committee.

However, the point that Tam raised about how the National Insurance hike will affect the NHS is valid one. As I blogged during and after last week's pre-budget report the pre-budget was full of regressive rather than progressive tax measures. Both the return of VAT to 17.5% and the increase of National insurance are leading to a high proportion of our poorer people paying a considerable amount in tax.

Obviously the rise in National Insurance will have an impact on all employers as their increase is payments is more than that which comes directly out of the employees pay. Those that are public employees obviously are taxing Peter to pay Paul. The SNP are saying that Darling National Insurance proposals equate to £44m out of the NHS Scotland budget. I'm not going to dispute that. Tam breaks that down to £5.99 million and £2.33 million in NHS Lothian and NHS Forth Valley respectively.

That is a considerable part out of the budget of services that Labour say they will be protecting as front line services in England. But of course in the devolved powers that is budgeting that is done by the devolved powers. There are less other departments from which they can draw on resources, because not all areas have a devolved equivalent.

Darling can put a freeze on the top earners in public services to help with that deficit, but elsewhere a cut in top salaries is the step beyond that. Indeed that is the point that Tavish Scott has been making in order to protect our key front line services.

Labour are clearly not thinking of all the implications of their taxing proposals. They are trying to avoid the headline tax issue of doing something with direct taxation, i.e. Income Tax because they are still trying to win the General Election but not hitting that too hard. But their stealth is starting to hit people hard. 32% of taxable income is now paid in income tax and national insurance by us all. If you were to spend all that you have left on VATable items you would actually pay 42% in tax (and that is only if you do not drive, drink or smoke). Labour are already taxing us heavily and doing it stealthily. As the SNP point out they are also taxing devolved powers in other ways as the sectors that are devolved have a high proportion of wages that have to come out of the budget.

Time For Alex to Wake Up and Cut the Big Bosses Pay

Alex Salmond keeps telling us he has the right to govern Scotland and to an extent he is right, he party does have the largest block in Holyrood. But his decision in 2007 to form a minority Government means that he has to work with others to get things done. If Aaron Sorkin were to really want to top The West Wing in behind the scenes dealing he should really look at the foot of the Royal Mile.

When Labour announced the Pre-Budget Report the SNP immediate reaction was to snipe about the cuts that would end up being made to the Scottish budget. That is the reaction of opposition not Government, and here comes the rub. We are in a recession, not just in the UK but also in Scotland. Therefore the ability to raise taxes, whilst stimulating the economy and keeping up levels of spending is difficult. If Salmond doubts that he should ask any person trying to make ends meet on a tight budget.

Today Tavish Scot has offered a hand to ensure the 2010-11 budget passes. Many across the country have taken pay cuts either in actual terms or real terms over the last year just to survive. Many of these have been on the lower pay levels and took the cut to ensure that their bills would continue to be paid, after all a job is better than no job. Yet at the top end of the scale the people who have some responsibility for the budgets, the policies the initiatives that we have gotten into are insistent on maintaining the level of pay increase they have become accustomed to.

The proposal is simple, cut the pay for the top earners working for quangos, health boards, councils, universities and government agencies by 5%. By doing so it protests the pay of those working in the front line and frees up some money to maintain other budgets. As Tavish said:

"We need to see the highest paid across Scotland in the public sector taking their fair share of the financial pain that we are all in.

"And we want to make sure that we protect people on the lowest incomes working in the public sector by taking something out of the top level."

As I blogged earlier it was the question that Tavish raised with the First Minister on Thursday. There are 1,200 in NHS Scotland alone earning over £100,000.

Alex Still Swerving Tough Questions

Yesterday Tavish Scott asked the First Minister Alex Salmond about the top end of health service pay in Scotland. Here are his reasons why.



Here is the transcript of the exchange:

3. Tavish Scott (Shetland) (LD): To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet.

The First Minister (Alex Salmond): The next meeting of Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Tavish Scott: The sum of £11 billion in the chancellor's pre-budget report is marked down as "efficiency savings". It shows the depths of crisis brought upon this country by Labour that there is £1.5 trillion of consumer debt, banks are not regulated properly and public sector spending is based on a property price bubble that Labour claimed would never end.

An Audit Scotland report on NHS boards, which was published this morning, makes sober reading. On efficiency, the report says that it will be difficult for some boards

"to achieve the required level of savings without any negative impact on the services they provide."

Does the First Minister agree with Audit Scotland?

The First Minister: I agree with Audit Scotland when it praises the financial performance of the NHS in Scotland and says that most of the key targets were met. We should congratulate the national health service and its staff throughout Scotland on achieving that.

No one pretends that, given the financial clouds emanating from Westminster, budget decisions will be anything other than extremely difficult. That is why I hope that the Liberal Democrats will get behind John Swinney's financial proposals, which, of course, protect the NHS in Scotland.

Tavish Scott: It would be much easier to get behind those proposals if Mr Salmond would answer the specific question that Audit Scotland put to him this morning.

With tough times in the health service, the priority must surely be for nurses and doctors to be in post and for services to be kept open. However, health boards themselves have released new figures under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, which show that more than 2,100 people in the Scottish health service get paid more than £100,000 per year—they make a total of more than £300 million every year, £30 million of which is in bonuses. Will the First Minister guarantee that those very well-paid people—not the nurses, carers and cleaners, who earn a fraction of that money—will shoulder the burden? Would that not be a fair way to protect front-line services?

The First Minister: To protect workers in the health service we had better not follow the proposals from the Liberal Democrats in London, which, of course, would hit the pay of key workers across the national health service.

Let us look at the Audit Scotland report, which found that the national health service in Scotland has a good record on efficiency savings. It exceeded its target last year and achieved savings of £300 million against a target of £215 million. The big difference in terms of the efficiency targets of this Government, whether in the national health service or across the public services, is that every single penny of those efficiency savings achieved by the national health service is reinvested in front-line care in Scotland. That is the key difference and that is why we should have the support of Tavish Scott.

So once again Alex Salmond is ignoring the tough questions facing Scotland in efficiency savings, much in the same way that Gordon Brown seems prone to do in Westminster. He is ignoring the crux of the matter that administrators and the like are taking bonuses that is affecting the efficiency and ability of front-line services. The issue that the Lib Dems are raising on this and Banker's pay is that the important workers are those that provide the customer service.

Indeed the report Alex is praising at one hand is pointing out difficulties at the same time. He is clearly using selective reading to find the portions that praise his Government's record on health, much as he is distorting details on education to make his party look good.

Was She Removed Before She Lost Confidence

Just what has led to SNP Education Minister being removed from the Education brief in cabinet, after all she has been the SNP education Spokesperson/Minister for quite a number of years now.

There was obviously the shift in blame over teacher numbers. Only last week Hyslop was about to encourage Local Authorities to borrow money to pension off older teachers. This despite them being unable to meet their lower class sizes policy for primaries 1,2 and 3.

Then at the weekend the blame for the falling teacher numbers fell to the local authorities. But surely only a few days before the Education Minister was actively encouraging them to actually cut numbers further, or rather not employ extra. The fact is that there are 1,300 less teachers this year than last. The SNP promised that even with reducing class sizes they would not reduce teacher numbers, the idea was to provide better support for our children. A noble aim but one that has clearly failed.

She threatened to take control of education out of the hands of our local authorities, and control it centrally. She was threatening to nationalise the education of our children. Numerous time I have filled in a null return to my local authority when they ask about the number of children I have and the age they are. Even, indeed especially, because of my civil service background and my parents education background I cannot see how any authority looking after the children of over 5 million citizens is going to improve educational standards. Even in London this was and is devolved down to a local level.

The new Curriculum for Excellence is due to launch next August, affecting 54,000 children across Scotland in P7. Being the son of teachers, one who whom was also a examination marker I know that these things are in place at least a year in advance to allow teachers time to adjust what and how they teach and also so they can see the future marking scheme to assess such a change. Teachers currently are not aware of any of this, therefore one wonders just what level of excellence these teachers are going to be able to provide in a few short months, some of which will be taken up getting their current charges ready.

On Saturday the Lib Dems announced to the other parties in Holyrood that they were going to bring a vote of No Confidence in the Education Minister on Thursday of this week, at today's business meeting. Today before that can happen we learn that she is being removed of that responsibility.

Tavish Scott has made a statement to that effect, but also points out that a change in Education Minister, to Mike Russell, is not going to be enough, the SNP need a change in Education policy. The children of Scotland deserve no less, they do not deserve to be treated as a political football, or an after thought. They deserve the funding they had been getting, going to the local authorities to enable it to be spent as best suits the needs of their children. If the SNP continue to pull the carpet from under our local authorities feet as far as education provision are concerned four years after taking control will be four years lost out of some of our childrens' education that cannot be replaced.

Heading Over the River for Failed Rebellion....Apparently

According to the Times some senior members of my own party view me as being in a minority of 'referendum rebels'. They are saying in the press that to change the party stance on a Referendum for Independence is a 'betrayal of those who voted for the party in the 2007 Scottish election'. Interesting choice of words ahead of events in Dunfermline later.

Strange that on the day that we are discussing the party's constitution and making line by line changes to parts of it one phrase from the preamble sticks out that the 2007 election pledge is actually a betrayal to our constitution.

"We [the Scottish Liberal Democrats] believe that sovereignty rests with the people and that authority in a democracy derives from them. We therefore acknowledge their right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs."

Of course the next line goes on to say that:

"We commit ourselves to the promotion of these aims and beliefs in the Scottish and UK Parliaments."

As Alistair Carmichael says:

"These discussions are not abstract or academic. They are a hard political choice for the party. Do we support Alex Salmond’s rigged referendum or do we keep faith with those voters to whom we gave a very clear commitment at the 2007 Scottish elections?"

Of course and this is the point I argued back in 2006. If we had taken courage in our convictions that Scotland is better with a stronger parliament but within the UK we should have made sure that was asked of the people, either before 2007 or by getting involved with the SNP working on what we agree with and forming the words of their referendum White Paper so that it was not rigged. Giving the people the right to determine their own future is what we stand for.

In my opinion, and sadly many who may vote for us, what 2007 was a betrayal of was our party's constitution and the name Democrat that exists in our title. Calling those of this view a minority of rebels may prove dangerous, it often is a sign that the leadership is actually quite scared that they are losing the argument.

In Response to Calum Cashley

Much as I love the image of Nats texting Calum Cashley with breaking news from my blog, I wonder if the last time I saw Tavish reach in his pocket to read a message it was because somebody, or my RSS fed had alerted his Blackberry, I feel his latest post needs a more thorough response than I could provide in his comments.

The crux of the matter is that the conversation that is being started under the watchful eye and listening ear of Ross Finnie is to kick off in a members only session at conference. He's highlighted the fact that I blogged during conference about how open discussion of policy takes place on the floor of our conferences and not behind closed doors and says it is hypocritical to do otherwise on this issue.

For starters this discussion is not debating a substantive policy motion it is a review of the stance that the party holds. Such a review could well have been carried out by policy committee, or any of the local parties in closed session and then brought to conference, but instead of taking a small sounding of opinion it is looking at the broad church of opinion. By doing so forthright views will no doubt be expressed, something that even if it was a policy debate wouldn't be that toned down, but within the confines of fellow party members. Yes it may prove less embarrassing to senior members of the party than certain interventions during the Bournemouth debate but that is not the reason for it being a closed session. It is a party business session at this stage, along with party governance and finances these sessions are members only sessions. Hardly any dark sorcery, although such comments from SNP sources does not really help those of us who want to back a referendum on the issue of independence get that message across to our party colleagues.

Indeed the fact that Ross is leading this reappraisal is good it is actually the fulfilment of one of his leadership election pledges to look into what the party thinking was on this issue. I genuinely do not know how this conversation within the Scottish Lib Dems will turn out. There are points that I have made in public on this blog in the past that I will re-emphasise, there are others that I have only raised in private with fellow party members, I think such a session and process is the ideal environment for others to do likewise. After all not every party member is going to be so bold as to say in a blog post or from the conference platform that the leader may be wrong, if outsiders then pick it up as a split rather than a disagreement of ideas.

We shall have to see just what comes out of the process which Tavish himself called for.

Now I wonder how long before SNP or Lib Dem's have their small boxes in their pockets vibrate and light up with a strange ringing noise after I press publish?

PS In response to Calum Cashley's comment that I will soon be voting SNP, I'd love to be able to do so in Westminster and Holyrood election under a fair STV system. I'm glad to see he is wanting the same, I'll admit it's unlikely that they will get my first preference they are far too illiberal on a number of issues and far to centrist for my liking. But it is hardly breaking news or worth holding his breathe for, indeed I have already done the deed in 2007, just didn't vote for them with my first preference. I do believe that part of my vote will have counted for a SNP councillor mind.

Who's Debating You? Salmond has Turned One Down

It has been a hot topic of conversation in Scotland over recent months that Alex Salmond has been saying he wants to be involved in debates in Scotland ahead of the general election. He has even threatened legal action if he is not allowed into the Prime Ministerial debates.

Well if looks like he has refused to answer a challenge from the Scottish leaders Labour's Iain Gray, Lib Dem Tavish Scott and Tory Annabel Goldie to a debate. Indeed let's also invite Patrick Harvie of the Greens and if Alex doesn't show empty seat him. I've since the first ramifications said there should be a Scottish wide debate instead or as well as one of the proposed debates. It is not a compromise but a recognition of the devolved nature of politics here in Scotland, an answer to the West Lothian Question as far as the debates issue is concerned. I'm sure a similar thing will occur in Northern Ireland and I'd wish it also happens in Wales. But Alex is letting his ego get the better of him.

He has stated his ambition of getting 20 seats in the General Election, but his super-ego is getting the better of him. He thinks as First Minister of a devolved Parliament he deserves equal billing with the Prime Ministerial contenders and at the same time thinks he above the opposition leaders in that devolved power. He is in the no mans land, not on the same stage as the others and with his one extra seat considers himself better than Grey and the rest.

Turning down this offer of a Scotland debate on terms of parity while seeking to set, control and bully the UK wide agenda (without consideration to other more nationwide parties) for his own self shows that the ego is what is ruling the SNP decisions on the debates issue.

Time to Review Stance on Referendum

Way back in 2006 I first blogged that the Lib Dems should call a referendum on independence to call the SNP's bluff. Last year in March I questioned whether my party had an approved policy on the issue that the MSPs and leadership decided we shouldn't enter in talks with them over after the 2007 election.

Well following the debate in Bournemouth where our MEP in Scotland and a leading PPC said it was time to have that referendum, the party is going to look at the situation. Yeah at the Scottish conference on October 30 there will be a closed session at which this issue will be discussed. Having been of the same opinion for over 3 years on the public record I'm sure it will come as no surprise to my readers to hear that I am happy that the party are going to discuss this issue.

Alex Salmond has scathingly said our 'position on a referendum is built on shifting sands', not so Alex we merely having officially revisited our position for quite some time. Many of us who are in the party are trying to remember when the matter was last discussed, either formally or informally at Scottish Party level. This discussion later this month is just a step on the way to opening that debate and answer that question within the party. The leader Tavish Scott has requested the consultation of the members, possibly in light of some soundings he has already received, and Ross Finnie will be carrying out this review.

If we do consider the referendum is the way forward to get on with politics as normal, the Nats can be assured we'll come out fighting, so their smiles may be only short lived. Of course if we back the referendum motion us plus the Nats comes to 63 two short of the majority they require, add in the two Greens and Margo MacDonald and there may be a vote in favour.

Oh dear, then the SNP would have to stop playing the victim and actually enact one of their key pledges and have to do something.

UPDATE: I notice that Richard Thomson is accusing us of being 'all over the place on tax, all over the place on spending, and now, all over the place on Scotland’s future'.

For starters we have been consistently seeking a fairer tax system when those that can afford it pay more. The resultant spending from that shift was also to help those who are worse off. What did happened is while there agreement in principle over a Local Income Tax there was a disagreement on implementation which the largest party unilaterally felt had to be set centrally, not making it a local tax but a Scottish Income Tax and then took any possibility of a deal off the table, again unilaterally.

As for being all over the place on Scotland's future, as I stated above we have not discussed it in well over a decade as people who have been in the Scottish party longer than my 8 years do not recall such a debate. We also know what we want for Scotland's future as Richard pointed out that is a Federalism within the UK. How we move towards that and more powers may well have been changed, but our goal is still the same as many in the party wanted back in the time of Gladstone before there even was an SNP. I'd hardly call a consistant stance of over a century on home rule a stance on Scotland that is all over the place.

Time to Stop This Political Fitba Match

"I think most opinion in Scotland is in favour of the decision to release him [Megrahi] on compassionate grounds."

Now that is the sort of considered, public listened to response I would expect from a Liberal Democrat leader. Unfortunately they were the words of Lord David Steel our former leader and not those of Tavish Scott who asked in the chamber:

"Doesn't Kenny MacAskill's comment on the need for Scottish compassion mean that no prisoner - however bad their crime - will ever have a request turned down?"

Although Kenny MacAskill's response to cite Jim Wallace's situation which was due to a loophole in The Mental Health Act (Scotland) 1984 which Labour and the Lib Dems since closed down was the wrong way to deal with it.

The answer to Tavish's question is of course no, each case should continue to be looked at on a case by case basis. Although it the severity of the situation that is to be considered, it should not be clouded by the response the prisoner received on his release. Some have asked how can a man with prostate cancer manage to climb the steps of a plane. Seeing as my father walking into hospital one Monday for a check up on his and was dead the following evening I'd say easily and horribly that is no indication.

The compassion being shown is not so much to Megrahi is as has been pointed out not so much to the man himself but his family. Some have pointed out that his wife and children have had access to him in Glasgow, but one other issue that the man himself made to journalists on the flight to Libya was his elderly mother. He urged the press not to let her know just how ill he was.

America with their more punitive justice system, if Megrahi had of be tried there, would most likely depending on state have been sitting on death row. But that doesn't give their comparative upstart of a youthful legal system the right to intervene in others. Of course they have the right to consultation and I understand that this did indeed occur. But just because you have been listened to and consulted with doesn't suddenly give you the right to have a say over another nations rule of law. That is lesson that the USA seem to be forgetting as they seem more and more to be turning the whole world into some lawless 'wild west' with them alone wearing the sheriff's badge.

While we are right from all sides to condemn the reception laid on for Megrahi on arrival at Tripoli, it is wrong to outrightly condemn the decision. It would have been easy for Kenny MacAskill to take the easy option and bow to international pressure. How anyone can see it, in light of the foreseeable reaction, as point scoring is beyond me. He made a tough decision, and bar visiting the prisoner personally, it would seem a considered one on factual criteria.

The fact that the three main* opposition parties didn't force a vote yesterday either indicates they are worried of a different public reaction against them, or aren't sure they'd carry their own votes. I don't necessarily think that Scotland's place in this world is in "tatters" not from the Americans I've seen around Edinburgh over the weekend. But the more we play political football with a legal football the more we will appear so.

*Sorry, James corrected as promised.

Let's Get Out of the Edinburgh Property Game Too

Nick Clegg has already stated that the Lib Dem MPs are not going to make any personal gain from the Westminster second homes allowance and has been widely applauded for doing so.

However, yesterday as he approached the Holyrood hacks all Tavish Scott would have had to say was that neither he not any Lib Dem MSP would benefit from the Holyrood scheme which is being run down anyway and all would have been fine under the bird of Liberty. I feel that Tavish made a error when being asked about MSP's home to answer merely by pointing the situation back at the Westminster mob.

While the Holyrood scheme is more transparent with the receipts for expenses claims being published. Also MSPs cannot claim back Capital Gains Tax or Stamp Duty on their sellings and purchases. Indeed after 2011 and new MSPs will not be allowed to benefit from the scheme at all. The benefit for those incumbents therefore from expenses should merely be to allow MSPs to carry out the essential business of government they should not be allowed to benefit from the housing boom in Morningside, Leith or anywhere else in Scotland's capital personally. This is what the public are now crying out for, quite rightly and it doesn't take a big effort really. All they want is that their elected representatives get what they need to carry out their duties and not luxuriate in things that most of us, even in a business with an expenses culture, would have to pay for out of our own expenses. At the end of their period as an MSP when they have to leave they merely return any net increase to the Parliament and therefore they will not have gained financially.

Come on Tavish just say the words, "No Lib Dem MSP will make personal financial gain from there accommodation allowance." See it doesn't hurt.

Dunfermline Building Society: Need for Action

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

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

Willie is calling on the government to take action:

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

Tavish Scott also added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scottish Lib Dem Conference Day 3

And so the end is near. Last day of the Scottish Lib Dem Conference for this Spring. So one last time here is the live feed of the #sldconf hashtag.

Highlights

10:oo To Invetigate the 'blood ban'

10:45 Policies for the Future

11:45 Organ Donation

12:30 Emergency Motion

13:10 Speech by Tavish Scott MPS

Scottish Lib Dem Conference Day 2 Live Feed

Well if Day 1 worked you will have seen the feed of the #sldconf hashtag. Welcome to Saturday's live feed of the Scottish Lib Dem Conference.

Highlights

10:00 Minimum Income Guarantee
10:30 Financial Inclusion for Low Income Borrowers
11:30 Speech by Vince Cable MP
14:50 Emergency Motion
15:20 Leader Q&A
15:40 More Powers for the Scottish Parliament

Power for a Purpose

It's not all negative, Tavish Scott tells it as it is, Lib Dem proposes are about tacking the tough issues facing us all. More power to enable Scotland to face difficult financial times.

The latest from Tavish TV.

No Tory Helping Hand to Nats

The SNP may well have thought the hand of friendship was going to be offered to them, especially in light of the favourable agreement that the Ulster Conservatives and Unionists seem to have struck for Northern Ireland. However, George Osbourne has spelled out to Alex Salmond and John Swinney that they will have to make efficiency savings even when a Tory government is elected. Osbourne said on yesterday's BBC Politics Show:

"Gordon Brown has left the UK in a complete mess and some of the burden of restraint has to be borne by Scotland as a whole."

adding:

"There needs to be restraint. Britain, Scotland needs to live within its means, the party's over."

So the SNP should stop their whinging as it will appear to fall on deaf ears from both the Labour and Tory camps and get on with doing things, and doing them more efficiently. Osbourne has also echoed the call of Tavish Scott the Lib Dem leader to get over the idea of independence just now and focus on the economy saying, "the SNP's obsession with independence needs to be put on one side while we all deal with Gordon Brown's recession".



Seeing as how interdependent all the global economies are right now on each other this is not the time to go messing with the status quo. Throwing in further uncertainty to the mix at the moment will only have one effect, that would an accelerated negative effect on the Scottish economy. Alex Salmond is obsessing about the rather precise number of 8,664 jobs (heaven knows how he came up with that detailed a number) rather than looking at the bigger picture. It is a time for macroeconomics not microeconomics. Especially at Government level who should get too bogged down in that sort of minutiae in the first place.