The dog that didn't whimper
Money, money, money.
During first minister's questions, we learned that interest rates have been cut again to their lowest level since the Bank of England was founded in 1694 - by a Scot, one William Paterson.
It was fitting, therefore, that the exchanges with the first minister were mostly concerned with cash or, more precisely, capital.
Both Iain Gray and Annabel Goldie voiced deep disquiet with the Scottish Government's handling of the proposal to fund a new Forth crossing.
Mr Gray was notably persistent. However, the best soundbite belonged to Miss Goldie who opined that Alex Salmond was more concerned with "burning bridges" with Westminster than building such structures in Scotland.
Mr Salmond initially appeared to struggle just a fraction - or, at least, in comparison with his customary sangfroid.
He very soon rallied, though, and offered rebuttal if not quite refutation to the opposition attacks.
Non-starter
You'll recall the background here. The Scottish Government wants the Treasury to release more money for capital investment in the next few years to build the bridge - on the understanding that Scotland would get less over a 20 year period.
No dice, says the Treasury. That's borrowing money now from budgets which don't yet exist.
Opposition leaders said Mr Salmond should have known his plan was a non-starter.
Further, they asserted that his government should not have announced this plan at Holyrood without establishing the Treasury view.
There began the Salmond fight-back. Firstly, he stressed that the bridge would be built by traditional procurement means.
What was in question was whether that cost could be spread - or whether it was all to be accounted for in a few years, thereby putting "substantial" pressure on other capital projects.
Secondly, he said PPP/PFI was now a non-starter because new accounting rules mean such projects count as public spending.
Confident performance
Mr Salmond said PPP/PFI would now mean that the whole cost of the bridge, some £2bn, would be accounted for in a single fiscal year: that is, more than half the annual Scottish capital budget of £3.5bn.
Scotland would then repay the PPP cost over decades.
Thirdly, he challenged his rivals to say how they would propose to pay for the bridge.
In particular, he tackled Labour over whether they would absolutely rule out toll charges.
It was, ultimately, a confident performance. However, it still leaves the question of the dog that didn't bark - or even whimper: the Scottish Futures Trust.
As Iain Gray pointed out, the SFT had played no role in the bridge scheme, despite advance billing.
Still with money, more re the controversy over the Scottish Budget for next year.
There were further talks behind the scenes today. For example, I understand the Greens have been sounded out again about their potential support for the Budget.
Doing a deal
Their price is quite specific - and rather substantial. They want a £100m project to enhance home insulation on an area basis: that is, universal rather than by individual applicant.
SNP plus Greens plus Tories would add up to a majority. If the Greens can be persuaded.
If and when the Tories advance a detailed shopping list of their own - and if and when a deal can be done with them.
They insist they're ready to vote "No" or "Yes". Don't think they'll abstain.
John Swinney, the finance secretary, only needs to cut these particular deals - if Labour and the Liberal Democrats vote No to the budget.
Last year, they ended up abstaining. Right now, it looks as if both those parties are talking themselves into a "No" vote.
The Lib Dems want income tax cuts (vetoed by Swinney, J.).
knowing grin
Labour wants its package on the economy adopted en masse by the SNP. John Swinney might well be up for deals on individual measures - but I suspect he would regard the wider Labour demand as being, in effect, a surrender of control.
Stand by for a game of political poker. The stakes? Nothing much: just £33bn of public spending and the future of the Scottish Government.
Still think the Budget will get through, though.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~52~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
So Iain Gray is thinking of calling the SNP's bluff. Is he really that confident? If the SNP quit en masse and another Holyrood election is called, at least the Fifers who vote Labour can be assured they'll get their reward in the shape of bridge tolls to finance the new bridge. After all, the treasury surely wouldn't suddenly agree with the SNP's finance plan just because there was a Labour government at Holyrood, now would they?
Complain about this comment
Labour's demands....well that isn't going to happen.
The Green demands are interesting, but only if everyone benefits. It is a good idea as it would help reduce energy bills and provide people with a little spare cash which might help the economy. Suprisingly a good policy from the Greens.
Good marks to Ms Goldie.
In a previous topic I questionned why Swinney announced the bridge project without securing funding.
I am frankly shocked to discover he made his proposal to the Treasury TWO WEEKS prior to making the public announcement.
Either Mr Swinney is naive about the workings of the Treasury (doubtful), or Alex made the decision to deliberately stir things up.
My personal view is that the money should be made available for the bridge as it is an exceptional project, but the approach of the Scottish Government has been all wrong.
I do agree with the rejection of PFI, but I do not agree with the tactics used.
Complain about this comment
Yet again Scotland's humiliation; having to go cap in hand to a moronic bunch of Quislings and losers that are the ranks of Nulab.
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147
Neil, why do you think Alex Salmond is egotistical?
Complain about this comment
SNP threatens to quit if budget is rejected
""I have made clear that John Swinney must change his budget in the face of the economic situation," Mr Gray said.
"This means more money for skills and retraining, and protection for vital public services."
I wonder if he knows what these skills are or has he got long distance swimming in mind.
Re new election I believe that the speaker speaks to Queen and an internal election takes place to elect replacement! Take your pick Gray.....
Complain about this comment
4. At 9:24pm on 08 Jan 2009, aye_write wrote:
Neil_Small147
Neil, why do you think Alex Salmond is egotistical?
------------
Because he comes across as arrogant at times and smug.
Don't get me wrong, I think he is an excellent politician, but at times he comes across as a rather demanding individual. The bridge issue for example, "I won't take no for an answer". I don't expect him to accept PFI, but he needs to show he can negotiate. And so far at least with opposition parties he does not appear to do that very often. (Yes, I know privately they do work together.)
On the other hand, to be fair, it is hard not to appear smug when you see the lack of substance in opposition, Ms Goldie excepted.
There is no point in sabre rattling here. Independence may be around the corner, but remember the world, and especially the EU, will be looking at how political behaviour. If he comes across as difficult to deal with, then it will be as hard as if he was the type to roll over to any demands. A fine balance is required.
That is one reason I feel Alex has peaked and needs to hand over to someone else within a couple of years. Despite Labour's policy and economic disasters, many people are still wary of full independence. They will respect Alex's refusal of PFI, but then some will ask why is a bridge project announced without any funding secured?
A strong opposition is urgently required. This will make the SNP raise their game. They are having a rather easy time at the moment, and that can encourage carelessness.
Complain about this comment
#5 correction "Presiding officer" not "speaker"
Complain about this comment
#6 Neil_Small147
Thanks. I'm giving it some thought.
I was just wondering what came first, your dislike of him or your dissaproval of the way he has operated.
I'm very used to him as he's been an MP for my general area for as long as I can cast my mind back. :-)
Complain about this comment
Brian
Just listened to Radio Scotland at Ten only one word to describe it "ABYSMAL". I thought I player was for repeats the Beeb can and must do better.
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147 says:
"The bridge issue for example, "I won't take no for an answer". I don't expect him to accept PFI, but he needs to show he can negotiate."
Stating you will not take no for an answer is the first step in negotiating. Both sides have puffed out their chests in a display of strength before the trade off begins.
As for a strong opposition, the de-facto opposition in Scotland is the media, Gray is merely a mouthpiece for London. That description isn't even meant as an insult, it's merely an accurate description of his role.
It is incumbent on Salmond and the SNP to point out the weaknesses in the Scotland act and by extension the Union. Scotland has no power to borrow and very little by way of economic leverage. This little episode so badly handled by Labour has focussed peoples minds spectacularly.
Politically, the SNP have played a blinder and the media know it, that's why we are seeing so many 'balancing' articles (There are more of them to come).
One last point, critics of the SNP have been shrieking that the SNP had no funding in place for this bridge. In fact the SNP have stated clearly that the funding is indeed in place, it will be payed for out of the budget for the next three years. The request to bring forward funding will allow other projects to carry on in this most testing of time.
Complain about this comment
Brian I can understand your focus on the farce that is the Scottish Futures Trust. The SNP have staked their political future on it , yet it has delivered precisely nothing.
However, where the 2nd Forth Road Bridge is concerned, there's a far bigger issue: why does both Government and opposition want to spend several billion of our money on a bridge that isn't needed?
The bridgemaster of the current Forth Road Bridge himself was quoted in August last year saying he was 'highly confident' that the corrosion in the main cable can be stopped (Sunday Herald, 10 August 2008). This is being done through drying out the cable, which has been successfully carried out on a dozen other bridges around the world. The cost is a fraction of the price of a new crossing - GBP 11 million.
So the real story is not 'how are they going to fund it' but 'why are they putting schools and hospitals at risk for a project that's unneccessary'?
PS I hear there's an SNP reshuffle imminent. You planning to blog on that soon?
Complain about this comment
Anglophone, are you out there...?
Being straightforward (not just forward), no front, I was wondering if you would do me a favour (a parting gift?) and answer me one last point? The bit in CAPS.
The others will listen when I tell them not to respond! ;->
And I promise I won't reply, reply and reply.
I know you are opposed to Scotland becoming independent because you do not see Scottish and English identity as different from each other or from British identity.
You see all problems therefore being worked out within the British set up.
You see an advantage internationally, from Britain through increased influence (and wealth?) from its status.
So, from that point of view, you see the entire nationalist agenda as an irrelevance and capable of irritating.
Then, you see nationalists as misled and unwise.
That is the part I'd love you to deconstruct.
Please. :-)
I mean in terms of their being mistaken people.
Naturally they did not plan to do it. They became like that and you didn't.
(So dealing in the psychological.)
Leaving aside all the practical, international and financial reasons etc. I can rationalise them.
HOW HAVE NATIONALISTS ENDED UP BELIEVING THEIR PERCEPTION AND WHY DO SOME HATE THEM SO VEHEMENTLY?
Perhaps there is a short answer that I have been missing. Some are so very opposed to nationalism that they consider nationalists in such a bad light. And I think it's more than just being on opposite sides.
Thank you very much - in advance.
I really liked reading your posts.
Regards,
My Name
PS If you'd rather not reply, would you mind posting something like "That's one for a long afternoon down the pub!" and I can put it to bed. Thanks.
----------------------------
Things I've considered so far:
Nationalism equals a dirty word i.e. an emotional and unrealistic response to the nationalist's own faults and feelings and not in the practical dimension. It says narrow minded self importance.
It is distasteful that nationalists bemoan being victims. They seem selfish and petty, and therefore non-rational and less credible as a result. Being too ready to react in a serious fashion, they seem silly.
Some people are comfortable with what they've always known and are in general resistant to change. They are unwilling to deliberately chance an unproven i.e. any new, situation.
Older people are averse to re-examining what they've long assumed, to avoid the risk of devaluing their own self image and having to address being left slightly less self assured.
Thank you.
Complain about this comment
10. At 10:42pm on 08 Jan 2009, greenockboy:
I'm sorry, but when the bridge project was publicly announced, there was no indication that funding was still in negotiation. Yvette Cooper made a mess of things by immediately suggesting PFI, rather than asking Swinney what he intended to do. So both sides deliberately made politics more important here.
As to negotiation, standing up and going "I will not take no for an answer" is not good negotiating tactics at all. The statement in itself tells the opponent that they will not give any ground. What does he have to trade off?
We are now in a situation where Darling certainly won't pay up as it will look like Alex has won. But if cuts are made to other projects then Darling will look like he has had a small victory to some people.
As you said, the media - not all of it - are biased against the SNP at times. This means they are prepared to pounce on Alex every time. The Arc of Prosperity is a prime example. Ignore the facts, look at the headlines. That is what the majority of the electorate do. So he needs to choose his comments carefully. That way it becomes difficult to criticise him.
Communication is still a problem for the SNP. Around Nov or Dec I posted a link direct from Alex Salmond's own campaign for the elections last year. It is still up and it quotes him directly talking about Iceland. A good media specialist would ensure all such material is out of the public domain. Journalists are experts are retrieving information.
A bit of polishing is required otherwise despite the problems of Labour it will be hard to convince sufficient numbers of voters to go for independence.
Complain about this comment
"Mr Salmond initially appeared to struggle just a fraction."
Really? No quote is provided, I see, to allow us to judge for ourselves. There's a good boy, Fido.
On the subject of the Scottish Futures Trust, how could this particular dog be expected to bark if it has been muzzled by the UK Treasury?
Complain about this comment
I'm really pleased that we don't have the usual vitriol here from both sides, so in the spiritof proper debating let me just make three points:
Firstly, Labour & the Lib Dems must rule out bridge tolls now - both for political and fairness reasons
Secondly, the SNP look pretty immature by saying effectively "we want a twenty year advance on money and if we don't get its all the fault of Westminster that we can't build a single new school in Fife".
Thirdly, there has to be a sensible debate rather than the megaphone diplomacy that Ministers (on both sides of the Border) are indulging in.
By the way Brian - I'm curious about whether anyone is suggesting that Swinney or Stevenson has misled the Parliament with their statements last year - not sure what to make of it and i was wondering if you had any thoughts?
Complain about this comment
#13 Neil_Small147
"But if cuts are made to other projects then Darling will look like he has had a small victory to some people."
Or, Darling will look bad as he left the SNP with no option but to cut back elsewhere?
----
"As you said, the media - not all of it - are biased against the SNP at times. This means they are prepared to pounce on Alex every time. The Arc of Prosperity is a prime example. Ignore the facts, look at the headlines. That is what the majority of the electorate do. So he needs to choose his comments carefully. That way it becomes difficult to criticise him.
Communication is still a problem for the SNP. Around Nov or Dec I posted a link direct from Alex Salmond's own campaign for the elections last year. It is still up and it quotes him directly talking about Iceland. A good media specialist would ensure all such material is out of the public domain. Journalists are experts are retrieving information."
----
I agree with your sentiments here. I wish the SNP website was less 'crap' as oldnat put it. (I hope he's not gone away for ever.)
I've been doing a bit of noseying and signed up to the SNP site. I still can't find a section, which just about every other website has, where I can contact them via e-mail. I can only phone or write to various offices as far as I can see. Maybe somebody knows better.
It seems obvious that they would've already heeded what you've said. Having nothing is almost less damaging than promoting something which is so obviously inadequate. The public can make their minds up on the strength of much less.
It was mentioned they have little money for it. But a 'cheap' sympathetic friend could whiz up a website. Same with PR - they must be able to talk to a friendly sympathiser. It's only advice, mostly time not materials.
If this has all already been considered I'll happily be wrong to have suggested it. They've got to be a few steps ahead of me?!
As for Alex, maybe he is so sure of 'standing up for Scotland' he thinks everyone else will see that is what he is doing in holding up a mirror to Westminster via this bridge funding thing. In that respect it seems extremely clever, but I can't say whether it was executed to perfection. You're right, ultra carefully is the way to go.
Plus, Alex has been used to successfully dealing with Westminster politicians for a long time, so he might well have expected his tactic to work here the same when viewed through (the closer scrutiny of) Holyrood.
I'd watch the fly on the wall documentary 'Holyrood: MSPs Uncovered'. ;-)
Complain about this comment
#13 - Neil,
"As to negotiation, standing up and going "I will not take no for an answer" is not good negotiating tactics at all. The statement in itself tells the opponent that they will not give any ground. What does he have to trade off?"
In a word, timescale. 20 years is obviously not realistic (and the SNP know this) but a compromise of something between 5 and 10 years is more realistic and would allow both sides to claim victory.
Complain about this comment
#9 - Abysmal probably isn't the word. Amaturish, certainly (did the presenter forget this goes out live? How many edits did he attempt?) but Campbell at least caught himself before decending into full rant mode. He's becoming surprisingly better at that, I wonder if someone on high has had a word with him.
Complain about this comment
A slightly different version of FMQ in the Scotsman.
Difficult to enter debate with you guys at the moment, as by the time grandson goes down, it's 1.30 am in Scotland (as well as in its southern appendages).
Complain about this comment
Brian:
Always an important subject [money] when there are financial crises and or when it is time to put together the budget....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
#17 fortjeanjo
5-10 years does sound good. However, you get the feeling neither side will accept this since both were stubborn from the start.
#16 aye-right
One of the pieces of communication that just might backfire come the next Scottish elections is the subject of the party name. I refer of course to every SNP candidate being listed on the ballot papers as "Alex Salmond for First Minister". This gave the impression to many that Alex was going to be their MSP.
If the SNP are short of cash, perhaps they could ask their pal that runs the buses for an advance (payable over 20 years perhaps?).
Latest news, and I honestly don't know the facts, but there is a rumour that the EU is about to take control of the North Sea gas supplies. If this is true, I'm guessing that once again Labour are to blame and it would not happen under an independent Scotland. But of course we want to be part of Europe.....
Has anyone got details whether this is a true story or not?
Complain about this comment
@ 10.04pm Neil Small wrote of Alex Salmond "That is one reason I feel Alex has peaked and needs to hand over to someone else within a couple of years. "
I felt a smile form at the sides of my mouth when I read this post. Is there an analogy for Mr. Small's obviously well intentioned suggestion?
I think it may be the Celtic fan who writes to the Ranger's manager the week before the Scottish Cup Final urging him to drop the team's Captain and star player before the match "for their own good".
Superb.
Complain about this comment
#15 "Firstly, Labour & the Lib Dems must rule out bridge tolls now - both for political and fairness reasons"
Labour were given the opportunity to do exactly that on Newsnight Scotland this week, and failed to take it. That's because they want to punt PFI for the project, and there's no way in a million years the bridge could be funded by PFI without tolls to produce the huge profits that their business friends would demand.
PFI means tolls. There's no way around it, which is why Labour refuse to rule tolls out.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#21 Neil_Small147
"One of the pieces of communication that just might backfire..."
Sorry, I'm a bit lost. I can't see them doing the exact same again because of the noise about it last time. Do you mean it will be one of many criticisms launched? (Some actually thought it was a great move - not everybody hates a smartAlec.)
"If the SNP are short of cash, perhaps they could ask their pal that runs the buses for an advance (payable over 20 years perhaps?)."
I thought you wanted politicians to be all respectable! Better to get a little amount of money from a lot of supporters, like Obama. People aren't going to wake up in the morning and think, "I must donate to the SNP." so a web campaign should recruit them.
"Latest news,..."
My instinct says there's more to this than your instant negative wonderings. I'd almost guarantee it isn't true as you've outlined it. But I'll leave that to oldnat. :-)
Complain about this comment
#19 oldnat
This is how I taught my little ones:
"Now you say it, In....de.....pen....dence"!
Only kidding.
(it was 'Suh'...'Nih'...'Puh').
:-)
Complain about this comment
#21 Neil, never heard of bartering, it's a key part of negotiating. SNP demand 20 years, in the knowledge the treasury won't agree to that (although, Salmond would have won a watch if they did). Treasury so the whole plan's a non-starter, knowing the SNP won't accept that. So, they have 'constructive talks', which wee Eck said had been scheduled at FMQs.
Now, if the treasury isn't willing the compromise, there can't be any talks at all, constructive or otherwise. The SNP can claim a win if they gain any ground at all. If a deal can be struck, both sides can claim a win and save face. Very few people can't see that - either through choice or something else.
Complain about this comment
#27 forteanjo.
I'm all for bartering. it's just that it should have been done BEFORE the project was announced.
As for tolls, I agree with the PFI comments. But you could also have minimal tolls to help the maintenance of a non-PFI bridge. And I'm talking about 50pence a trip etc. Depends on how many vehicles will use the bridge to justify the administration costs.
#24 bluelaw
I see you are back to tarring anyone who does not agree or dares to question President Salmond as a traitor. Time you grew up sunshine. I'm considering voting SNP, but do not see Alex as the person to take the party to the next level.
#25 ayeright
Re the cash, just a little bit of humour. But I must be careful as it will upset someone on here.
Complain about this comment
#12 aye_write
Anglophone's mum says he can't come out to play today, because the local children are too rough.
Apparently, he was once punched on the nose in Union Street, Aberdeen, probably for asserting the non-existence of Scottish nationality. This probably answers all your questions, I think.
Complain about this comment
#14
Lily_Hammer hits the nail on the head. Sorry, I couldn't resist it.
As for the FM allegedly stumbling initially at FMQs, this assertion, which is not substantiated by BT or anyone else, I think, would have more right to be taken seriously if it had been accompanied by some reference to the Lib Dem leader's little stumble.
Actually, Tavish Scott fell flat on his face, having chosen to question Mr Salmond about some funding problem concerning something called the Scottish Interfaith Council or some such thing only to find that the problem had been resolved. Astonished to find this to be the case, no Lib Dem checking having apparently taken place in advance of FMQs, Mr Scott was left spluttering and helplessly protesting that something still was not satisfactory so as not to seem to be severely underperforming. Now that is what I call stumbling, without a shadow of a doubt, and yet BT makes no mention of it.
Balanced journalism?
Complain about this comment
#28 Neil, never heard of brinkmanship? The ONLY reason the treasury is willing to hold "constructive talks" with the SNP over this is because Labour are terrified of being blamed for this stramash. Don't be fooled by the Unionist parties' posturing. Everybody knows that the SNP can fund the bridge. The Unionists are furious that they've managed to do this without holding out the begging bowl. Only those too blinkered to see beyond the likes of Gray's feeble attempts to make wee Eck look bad can see this.
Would extra treasury money be useful in all this? Yes, of course it would. Is this extra money essential? No, it isn't. That's the real reason the Unionists are furious. That's the real reason Scottish Labour won't agree to the SNP budget and are unwilling to compromise on any level. The SNP are doing things, they're working. Yes, they're not doing everything the promised but they're doing far better than any Unionist predicted. The world hasn't ended, Gordon Brown has had to back away from his "I won't work with the SNP" stance, Nicol Stephen made the Lib Dems so irrelevant that they're making do with Tavish Scott because they know they're irrelevant and the impotent Gray barks loudly but knows they risk going the way of the Lib Dems, or at the very least the Tories.
As for tolls, like prescription charges, you seem very keen on people paying for things that they've already paid for through general taxation. Yes, some people can more than afford prescriptions and tolls but that argument leads us on a slippery road. Some people can afford by-pass surgery, so should there be a flat charge for that too? Why just toll bridges? The M74 is ideal for tolls, especially to help pay for the extension. Where, logically, do you draw a line? Justify tolling a bridge and not the M74. Justify paying for medicine but not a consultation.
Complain about this comment
Lot's of bridge blogging, but who's going to evetually build it and where will all the materials be sourced from? Local skilled workforces getting smaller meaning foriegn nationals (Not Scottish)! And the majority of the materials will be imported from abroad!!
What or whose benefit!!!
Complain about this comment
#31 forteanjo
Fair point on prescription charges. But a small toll on the bridge means the money could be collected by the Scottish Government rather than the Terasury. Although I suppose you could argue that the Scottish block grant would be reduced!
As to negotiations, I'm well aware that both sides are posturing. Labour are scared of losing face, but I'm concerned that the SNP at times feels it cannot do wrong.
To try an explain this, Alex Salmond regularly goes hardball when dealing with Westminster. That is fine with some areas. But with the bridge, it was the Scottish Government who made the announcement only to be rebuffed by the Treasury.
As I said earlier, most of the electorate read the headlines. And while on one hand you have Darling apparently rejecting the proposal for legitimate reasons, he's cut off at the knees by Yvette Cooper mentioning PFI.
On the other hand, Swinney can appear that he has not thought out the funding or arranged it properly.
If, as some people believe, the entire media industry is anti-SNP, then the SNP marketing specialists should have planned this better to make it look as though it is entirely the Treasury's fault.
The SNP must sharpen up their communication and marketing.
Complain about this comment
Re the earlier post about do we need a new Forth Bridge?
I think that a quick trip to The American Bridge company website, and then look at what they did to the suspension bridge in Lisbon will answer that question.
The Lisbon bridge is about the same age as the Forth bridge. American bridge have, in stages increased the bridge from four lanes to six lanes. They have built a railway line under the bridge and it now carries trains as well as six lanes of traffic.
Even more interesting is their claim that they completely re wired the bridge, replacing the old corroded cables, with new cables capable of carrying the extra weight, and that they completed the rewiring without interfering with the traffic flow.
Maybe someone from the Scottish Government should be on the phone to American Bridge.
Complain about this comment
ForteanJo
#31
Excellent post.
Those who are describes as able to afford to pay for this and that, be it prescriptions, tolls etc (as indicated by the weasel words of political opportunists), generally are those who have, by paying tax on their comfortable earnings, already paid for most of our tax funded social provision.
There is no way they should excluded from free access to the services they have already paid for.
There is no way they should pay again. Why would they pay their taxes if they are asked to pay for everything again.
This is a typically absurd and confused Tory position which in fact operates against the interest of most of their supporters.
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147 re your 33
The SNP have no need to sharpen up their communication and marketing.
You only need that (ie spin) when you have nothing worthwhile to sell. Just about sums up Labour.
Complain about this comment
#29 Anglosaxophone
Fair enough. I was chancing my arm anyway!
(Though no rebuttals of comments were coming, or anything except the following.)
I always tell my children (when reminding them not to talk to strangers...), if they go to Aberdeen* to kick in the crotch - more effective and hides the bruises.
:-)
*close
Please tell Anglophone (not without contentment), we're not all that scary, some are far worse!
And pass on, "So you've made a good impression.
(Can't take that away from your kit bag!)
It is with a non-begrudging smile that I say,
So long and fare-thee-well!
All the best,
aye_write
(You could also spell my name.)"
From one Mum to another,
"He's really a good boy..." ;-)
Coffee...!! :-\
Complain about this comment
Re #37
Woops, that meant to read, "And to sum up about the bridge funding, SNP marketing and Alex's manner, and while we're here Brian's talented style...."
More coffee...
Complain about this comment
It was interesting to read that the Scottish parliament have adopted a position on the Gaza conflict and I am glad that Salmond has sent a letter articulating people in Scotland's concerns. I remember when the Parliament debated the Iraq invasion and, though I can't remember the outcome, this aspect of para-diplomacy by the Scottish Government makes for fascinating observation. Foreign policy being reserved and so beyond Scotland's remit, I suppose we could count Labour's establishment of relations with Malawi in this category, and the subsequent SNP position of broadening relations with other countries.
Without wishing to make a partisan point on this issue, I always find it worthy of comment when Labour in Holyrood make worthy, or otherwise, claims about various world positions, over which Scotland has no remit, and over which they, as members of the Labour party in Holyrood, should restrict themselves from becoming part of the limited Scottish political dialogue, at least in the Parliament itself. That's not to say Labour politicians in Holyrood should not have opinions about world events but the logical position for them would be to defer to Westminster competence in terms of a foreign policy dialectic.
I think this reveals an interesting feature of the debate about Scotland's constitution. Personally, I believe in an independent Scotland because, following the basic tenet of institutionalism, 'institutions matter'. I tend to think this is the underlying rationale to the movement for independence and boils down to a belief that a) Westminster is not the best institution with which to create a good politics and, b) in an age with a better understanding of democracy, Scotland should democratise fully. Thus, to get a good politics, good relations with all our neighbours, become a part of Europe, and the rest of the world, then Scotland must institutionalise itself, which is, become independent. This is in contrast to the Labour position in which the political position we find ourselves is in is the political position we find ourselves in and we should work only within that position. Alas, to make a partisan point, this has a lot to do with party politics ie. getting more seats than that lot, next time.
Nevertheless, it's an interesting contrast.
Complain about this comment
#36 dubbieside
I'm not talking about spin. I'm talking about getting hard facts out and removing old information from websites.
Hard facts is easy: tell the truth. Show evidence. The media cannot turn the spin around that easily.
Old information as on Alex's campaign website has to be removed. Information which can be challenged - regardless of whether correct or not - can be very damaging politically to a party.
I posted the link to Alex's website before Christmas. On the website he states in a video and with text how strong economically iceland is. Without getting into the hard facts etc, a journalist could get hold of that information, pass it to a Labour-friendly newspaper and they could splash the link on their front pages. The damage is therefore done and the SNP is forced to react rather than being proactive.
I don't want spin from any party. What I am trying to point out is that the SNP are, at times, less than professional with communicating their policies. True, they have less resources to call upon (ie cash) so they must be smart.
I am no Labour supporter. I sit neutral (despite allegations from some posters on here). I understand Labour spin; many do not.
In war, the primary target is the communications network of the enemy. The same rules apply to politics.
Complain about this comment
#33 Neil, I can appreciate that, from a certain view point, it can appear as if this was a tactical error on the SNP's behalf but there really is no other way this could be played out. The treasury would simply not have entertained any negotiation over funding unless the whole issue was aired in public. As I said, only those swayed by Unionist posturing buy into the idea that the SNP didn't think out the funding properly. Not one Unionist party, even when directly challenged, have any real idea how to fund this bridge so they try to tarnish the SNP with usual negative and unfounded accusations.
You assert that the SNP should have played this better, for the sake of the media. Yet the media have hardly covered the row, other than some predicable commetary from the usual suspects, for the simple reason the Unionists can't appear as working for Scotland's interests here, no matter how many spin doctors work 24/7 trying to make them appear so. They will always appear as a blockade to something the majority of Scots accept is vitally necessary. The SNP can't possibly create better media coverage than that. Far from the SNP needing to "sharpen up their communication and marketing", it is the Unionist parties that need to come up with a credible way of opposing the SNP without appearing to oppose Scotland, to denigrate the SNP without appearing to denigrate Scotland. Labour are too bitter to have managed this so far and the Lib Dems are still too tied to Labour's apron strings. Auntie Annie is normally not too bad at this but lately she's preferred chasing the sound bite than really holding the SNP to account. She might assert that wee Eck prefers burning bridges than building them but no one, not even her, really believes that claim holds any real substance or does any kind of damage to the SNP.
Complain about this comment
#28 Neil_Small147
"#25 ayeright
Re the cash, just a little bit of humour. But I must be careful as it will upset someone on here."
Yep, humour - absolutely essential! (What does this coffee need...?)
And you stirred up some interesting posts.
My view, your PR etc. cannot be ignored, even if the SNP always displays the utmost integrity, it isn't a substitute.
Complain about this comment
Well, it sems that Neil_Small147 believes that the SNP handled this bridge funding issue all wrong.
I only hope that they get a lot more 'wrong', as from my point of view they have put Labour on the back foot and skillfully brought Holyrood's lack of power over the economy and funding to the attention of the Scottish electorate.
This story was covered from Westminster perspective when it first broke, i.e. 'SNP proposal rejected by Westminster' or some such headline.
However, Labour had misread how this would be received in Scotland when placed alongside Brown's announcement that "10 billion brought forward in England to build roads, bridges etc".
That is why we have, as I predicted, seen the story shift from a Westminster perspective to Holyrood, it allows the press to headline the utterances of Gray and Kerr.
That is how Labour now operate, the Labour MSP's are merely rabble rousers who basically do nothing more than fire bullets prepared by Westminster, the press simply headline each 'attack'.
You really have to laugh when someone suggests that this story is a demonstration of the SNP's communication problem.
Neil also suggested that Salmond shouldn't have said he wouldn't take no for an answer and that it is not good negotiating tactics.
Neil went on:
"The statement in itself tells the opponent that they will not give any ground. What does he have to trade off?"
Neil, we know you don't like Salmond, you think him arrogant, smug etc - but this is EXACTLY how to conduct negotiations. Especially when you have the other side by the balls, and believe me, Labour's eyes are watering right now.
Just like LIT, Labour have set a trap for themselves and with PFI coming onto the balance sheet in April the decision to refuse to bring forward funding, using the SNP's suggestion, for the biggest infrastructure project in Scotland will not look good - especially when the London Olympics starts hoovering up more and more cash and jobs start to be lost through Brown's mishandling of the economy.
Complain about this comment
Once again, Labour has been shown up as the most childish party in the parliament and complete unfit to govern.
Complain about this comment
One of the reasons why so many people are turned off politics is because of the childish yah-boo sucks nature of the debate. I wholeheartedly believe that nuliebour are more than guilty in this respect. When watching Holyrood live they're like a braying mob and it's sickening. If they themselves are sickened by the SNP's masterly handling of the bridge funding argument then I'm delighted by this.
Iceland's example does not detract from the SNP's case for independence. They'll recover and still be much richer per head than the UK. And if you're frightened off independence because of Iceland's banking collapse then I pity you I really do. Such faint hearts...
Complain about this comment
#45 bluelaw
"One of the reasons why so many people are turned off politics is because of the childish yah-boo sucks nature of the debate."
It is strange how politicians don't seem to regret looking like childish users. (The end justifies the means?)
Most other people do as soon as they figure it out. :-(
Swig...
Complain about this comment
#43 greenockboy
Once again you just will not read what I have written, rather assume that I am some Labour-loving unionist fanatic.
I never stated that the SNP got it "all wrong". I said that both sides got it wrong and the approach could have been handled better.
One of my colleagues in work is a rampant nationalist who votes SNP without fail. Yet she agrees that the bridge issue could have been handled better.
Labour screwed up by allowing Yvette Cooper to open her mouth about PFI. Had they left it at Darling's inital response it would have look a little bit better.
Bluelaw, about Iceland, once again you are not reading the subject matter. The link is to Alex Salmond's electoral campaign. What I was pointing out that the website, professionally laid out I must add, quotes and has the FM showing Iceland to be a good example for Scotland etc. Then Iceland goes bankrupt. Please ignore the reasons and issues and recovery plans. Look at what the media will do: Alex says we want to be Iceland and then they go bust. The media pounce on it and some of the public wonder if this could happen here. So the SNP should have pulled that website, and anyway it is way out of date.
And if you think arrogance and smugness is the correct way to negotiate, God help us when if he ever gets the chance to deal with Europe directly.
What I have posted is about the SNP needing to improve their communications. However, both bluelaw and greenockboy immediately consider it a criticism of independence etc. It is not. It is criticism, but constructive about a totally different subject.
Reading your posts, the SNP have never, ever put a foot wrong and never will.
Maybe you should become the spin doctors for the SNP.
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147 writes:
"I never stated that the SNP got it "all wrong". I said that both sides got it wrong and the approach could have been handled better."
Here's what I wrote Neil:
"Well, it sems that Neil_Small147 believes that the SNP handled this bridge funding issue all wrong."
Neil, I hate to break it to you, but admitting that Labour also made a mistake doesn't detract from the fact that you have insisted that the SNP have got it all wrong on this issue. If you are saying that the SNP in fact got it right on one or more aspects then let's hear where.
Neil continues:
"One of my colleagues in work is a rampant nationalist ..."
What is a rampant nationalist Neil?
Neil adds:
"What I have posted is about the SNP needing to improve their communications. However, both bluelaw and greenockboy immediately consider it a criticism of independence"
You are falling into a bad habit Neil, you are attributing remarks and accusations that I have not made!!
Here's what I wrote:
"You really have to laugh when someone suggests that this story is a demonstration of the SNP's communication problem."
It was in response to this:
"If, as some people believe, the entire media industry is anti-SNP, then the SNP marketing specialists should have planned this better to make it (Bridge Funding Row)look as though it is entirely the Treasury's fault. The SNP must sharpen up their communication and marketing."
You see Neil, no mention of independence.
Neil then adds:
"... rather assume that I am some Labour-loving unionist fanatic."
I haven't accused you of any such thing, will you stop defending yourself against imaginary accusations. Inventing accusations and then defending yourself against them does your credibility no good.
I am disappointed that a poster has sought to use fabrication in order to defend his earlier posts. I have never, repeat never, suggested that Neil_Small147 is a Labour-loving unionist fanatic.
I have also never suggested that criticism of the SNP's communication methods is an attack on independence.
Neil_Small147 may or may not be a Nationalist or a Unionist or even in the middle, I don't know and I don't care.
However, I would ask him to please refrain from attributing to me, remarks that I do not make. I address his comments as they appear, that's it.
Complain about this comment
Boys,
What about the spirit of homecoming? You seem to be getting further apart!
greenockboy's more impassioned approach is valuable. As is Neil_Small147's more dispassionate one.
There seems to be a cycle of reacting to one another here. Are the readers to be denied your usually sensible debating of the issues?
And are you both not good Scottish boys? I'm sure you can see the other's point of view.
(Nag, nag, nag...)
Complain about this comment
Or alternatively Neil, the SNP remove the blurb about Iceland and nuliebour attack them over not having the courage of their convictions etc etc ad nauseum.
Iceland is a sound example, still. Nuliebour and Murphy in particular with their talk of "not wanting to be like those countries" played to what they believe and hope is a deep-seated xenophobia within Scottish people - which is in itself both wrong and loathsome.
The SNP are effective communicators. They'd be even more effective if they got a decent and fair hearing in the Scottish and UK media.
Have a look at this, just after the crunch and amidst much talk of 'arc of insolvency'; a BBC "interview" with or rather at Salmond. It's up there with the Wark one in terms of how disgusting it is:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=556FEKoVd-w&feature=related
Complain about this comment
Neil of topic I found that link in The New Scientist (April 2008) rather frightening more so for young families.
Let's take cancer clusters seriously this time
"The main findings were a 60 per cent increase in solid cancers and a 117 per cent increase in leukaemia among young children living near all 16 large German nuclear facilities between 1980 and 2003."
Complain about this comment
I think you will find this sort of figure in the Hunterston/Saltcoats area, in the Dunoon/Holy Loch area and in the Coulport area.
I was reliably informed that the incidence of non Hodgkins Lymphoma and thraat cancers were running at about eight times the national incidence in the Cowal area when the US nuclear base was on the Holy Loch
Complain about this comment
I'm constantly wondering what land half the people on this blog live in. It must be Magicland, where everybody walks on their hands and hamburgers eat people, Alex Salmond (who incidentally, bears a striking resemblance to Mr Waternoose from Monsters, inc. Honestly. Go look - it's uncanny) is an excellent first minister and the SNP are doing a sterling job of running the country. Where the nasty, mean journalists are nasty and mean to him at every turn. Nasty, mean, mean journalists. Boo hiss...
Good grief.
Oh, and please stop mixing your metaphors. It's really annoying.
Complain about this comment
The SNP are doing a good job and are slowly but surely showing Scotland and Scots the need for real and total control of our country.
Complain about this comment
#53 linds556
Intelligent readers scrutinize all journalism for signs of lack of balance and lack of objectivity. If they find that, it is their prerogative to consider whether they should take it into account.
Whose mixed metaphors had you in mind and which ones?
What is Monsters, Inc.? And how does your apparent familiarity with it commend your opinion to anyone?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#55 Percy_Flage
"Intelligent readers scrutinize all journalism for signs of lack of balance and lack of objectivity."
Oh, if that were the dominant trend... Can I come and live there? Sounds good. :-) :-)
Complain about this comment
#57 aye_write
Alas, by definition this cannot be the dominant trend in the population as a whole, can it?
Such a population would indeed be living in "Magicland". Discuss.
Complain about this comment
58 Percy_Flage
"Discuss."
No, too painful! Alas indeed.
I only mentioned it as, rightly, it's not just the well-informed smarties who can vote.
Complain about this comment
Monsters inc is a disney film, where Mr Waternoose is the head of a power company who steals screams from children in order to power the monster city. Before you get all humpty, I'm not saying Alex Salmond is an eight foot tall monster with four eyes and eight legs, who is implementing a corrupt plan to steal children's screams, just that the two look quite similar.
I'm not going to go through all the blogs and point out every tortured metaphor, that way madness lies. I do have a life, you know. I will however say that Scotland is not a dog called Fido. Woof, woof, indeed.
It's odd how every time Brian Taylor criticizes the SNP in any way, he is part of the national, nay global, conspiracy of mean and horrible journalists to bring down the SNP, yet as soon as he mentions anything in support of them, he seems to be lauded as the only island of unbalanced and fair reporting in the country. Hmm...
Complain about this comment
Incidentally, Magic Land is not a real place. I thought this was obvious from the fact that a) people tend not to walk on their hands, and hamburgers do not often dine on people, and b) Homer from the Simpsons made it up.
Complain about this comment
To No. 57, who wanted to move to MagicLand:
Alas, Magic land no longer exists. The mean and nasty journalists decided to stop being mean and nasty, and resolved to only write nice things about Mr Waternoose, who then felt free to make as many promises as his little heart desired, but forgot to keep any of them. Some say he spent the contents of Magic Land's treasury on pies, and so didn't have enough left to do any of the thing's he'd promised, but that's just a vicious rumour. Unfortunately this led to the shutting down of Magic Land's upside down schools, and the closing of it's hospitals for the tragic victims of Hamburger related injuries. Sadly, the inhabitants of Magic land got fed up with Mr Waternoose's policy of makebelieve and buggered off next door to the much more sensible NonMagicLand, leaving only Mr Waternoose and his friend, Miss Fish-that-lays-inexplicably-expensive-eggs, who were promptly gobbled up by a ravenous quarterpounder with cheese.
The carniverous hamburgers are still there, though they're pretty hungry with no people to munch on. I wouldn't risk it, if I were you.
Complain about this comment
#62. linds556
Have you tried posting in here it might give them something to talk about.
Complain about this comment
#62 linds556
Thank you!
I now sound forever sane and rational. (And feel a little hungry.)
;-)
Complain about this comment
In the midst of another outbreak of silliness it is worth pondering the following points.
Most people do not yet understand the financial abyss we are looking into and some (even on this blog site) believe that the UK economy is a tip-top guarantor for a comfortable Scottish future.
Think on this. The US is debt is now worth more than all the money in the world put together. (Remember, Bush inherited a fiscal surplus).
China holds several TRILLION US dollars and is the only organisation that can come to the US rescure if the worst comes to the worst. China would have to do so as a collapse of the dollar would take China down as well.
The US is in deep sh*t in servicing its debt. Many think it can no longer service its debt and others believe it already is not servicing its debt but this is presenty being concealed. The minute it becomes obvious that the US cannot service its debt the dollar could become virtually worthless.
The UK economy is very closely connected to the US economy and is arguably in just as bad a condition but on a smaller scale.
We are all a ba' hair away from the total collapse of our ecomomic system.
Both the US and the UK are committed to solutions which in fact are no more than inventing more money which is why we are in the sh*t in the first place and which continues the devaluation of our currency. We are borrowing basically from China.
The Americans may wake up sometime soon and find themselves looking at 2 cents for every dollar they think they have.
We might be next.
The new world order will probably be dominated by China, Russia, India and Saudi Arabia.
Happy New Year.
Complain about this comment
Even GB feeling the pinch Crisis-hit businessmen asked for £20 to meet Gordon Brown is there no level the Nulab will stoop to, any of their grandmothers will need to watch out.
Complain about this comment
# 60 linds556
Having looked up Fido, I can tell you that Lily_Hammer referred to the UK media as a faithful dog, which she christened Fido, in the previous thread (#24 of Opening the Government's Purse). She carried this reference over to the present one (at #14)in addressing Brian Taylor when querying an aspect of his item on the most recent FMQs. The term was not used to refer to Scotland, as a reasonably diligent reading of the two posts would reveal to you.
Incidentally, her further reference to a dog, in #14, follows BT's reference to the Scottish Futures Trust as "the dog that didn't bark".
As for those who are not prepared to accept at face value everything that the UK media place before them, they are simply reading critically as well as carefully and responsibly, which you might care to consider doing yourself. Look at #30 by sensible_chap. Must he be considered to be alleging a conspiracy simply because he takes the trouble to draw attention to what would appear to be imbalance in the item on FMQs, explaining what, in his view, the imbalance consists of?
We are not here to be unquestioning. We are entitled to question anything and everything, even that which is written by Brian Taylor, whom God preserve.
Complain about this comment
#67
I confirm that I have not sought to refer to Scotland in the manner alleged by linds556. His or her interpretation of the canine reference in question (at #14), is, however, understandable in view of the fact that he or she was evidently unaware of the previous post.
As even non-unionists have lives of their own, one endeavours to write with as much brevity as possible. Nevertheless, I shall try to spell things out more clearly in future for those who are not regular readers and indeed for those who are given to jumping to conclusions.
As for Brian Taylor's canine reference, which followed hard upon my one in my #24 of Opening the Government's Purse, I can hardly be held responsible for that.
Complain about this comment
All posts are pre-moderated. What does this mean?
I guess it means scrutinising journalists isn't really allowed. ( see 56)
Give that dog a bone.
Complain about this comment
#60 linds556
Lily has been too kind to you in her response. I would have said: if the cap fits, wear it. Lily_Hammer does indeed hit the nail on the head.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS