Scottish Anti-nuclear Alliance

SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY & SCOTTISH GREEN PARTY COOPERATION AGREEMENT

1. The Scottish National Party and the Scottish Green Party have reached agreement
on how a new Government in Scotland will be established that pursues a progressive
programme and which places addressing climate change at the heart of its agenda.

2. The two parties agree on the following core issues and commit to working together
on them. Both parties:

i) oppose the building of new nuclear power stations;

ii) agree to early legislation to reduce climate-change pollution each year;
and

iii) have long believed that Scotland can be more successful with
independence and will work to extend the responsibilities of the Scottish
Parliament, always trusting the people to decide their constitutional
future.

3. Therefore, the Scottish Green Party is committed to supporting the Scottish National
Party in the votes for First Minister and Ministerial appointments. For their part, the
Scottish National Party agrees to consult Scottish Green Party MSPs in advance
regarding the broad shape of each year’s legislative and policy programme (together
with any key measures announced in-year), and in relation to the substance of the
budget process. The Scottish National Party also agrees to nominate a Green Party
MSP as Convenor of a subject committee for which the SNP is the nominating Party.

4. In the context of the wider Parliamentary consultation and engagement involving all
parties which the SNP wants to see develop, they also agree to give sympathetic
consideration to issues raised by the Green Party in Parliament, including via Motions
and Members Bills.

5. The SNP and the Scottish Green Party believe this agreement sets an example for
the new Parliament of parties working constructively together, seeking consensus and
agreement, to deliver a progressive agenda for Scotland. Both Parties will consider
further opportunities to work together co-operatively, as other policy issues arise.

Signed:
Alex Salmond Robin Harper
SNP Leader Scottish Green Party Co-convener
Shiona Baird
Scottish Green Party Co-convener

Unionists to suffocate SNP?

After writing my 'history essay ' - see blog below - found a rather bleak analysis of current Scottish Parliament situation by Neal Ascherson. Have pasted final section below.


Neal Ascherson’s view
http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-institutions_government/scotland_election_4602.jsp

But winning campaigns, even winning elections by a whisker, does not always add up to winning power. The SNP now finds itself in a trap. It has no overall parliamentary majority at Holyrood. And its chances of finding enough coalition partners or allies to allow an SNP government to govern suddenly look remote. Alex Salmond is reduced to the prospect of a minority government, living from day to day, at the mercy of its enemies.

In the two previous Scottish parliaments (1999-2003 and 2003-07), the Liberal Democrats were junior partners in coalition governments with the Labour Party. Now that Labour has been defeated, the Lib-Dems are the only plausible partners for the SNP. And yet they have flatly refused all Salmond's approaches. Their leader Nicol Stephen insists that negotiations are pointless until the SNP gives up its intention to hold a referendum on Scottish independence by 2010.

There is something very odd about this. At first, people thought Nicol Stephen was bluffing, trying to raise the price for his support. But he is not. And yet none of the reasons for his refusal make sense.
It's worth looking at the Lib-Dem case in detail:

1. "We are a Unionist party, and can have no part in any independence project".

This is ridiculous for two reasons.

Firstly, because the Lib-Dems are actually a federalist party, not really a unionist one dedicated to the preservation of a centralising British state governed from London. They demand sweeping increases in Holyrood's power over finance, which under the British system would almost inevitably lead towards full independence.

Secondly, the grounds for opposing a referendum don't hold water. If the Scots do want Scotland to become an independent state, then blocking their opportunity to say so is a violation of democracy. If they don't want independence (and at present most do not) then a "unionist" party has nothing to fear from a referendum.

2. "The only referendum that counts is the vote on May 3rd - and by voting mainly for Unionist parties, the Scots have already rejected independence".

This is a quite childish view of politics. "Independence" was not on the ballot-paper, and constitutional matters hardly ever direct people's choice between parties at elections. In Scotland, every politician knows that party loyalty doesn't tell you about a voter's views on the union. For many years, the biggest single block of pro-independence Scots was composed of committed Labour voters - although their party was rigidly unionist.

3. "The SNP won't compromise on their referendum; it's their only policy".

Nobody believes this. Salmond, who originally wanted a one-question, yes-or-no ballot, now repeats that he would accept a multi-option referendum (making an absolute majority for independence almost impossible). He makes clear that the poll could be delayed for years. Finally, he would consent to parking the whole independence / referendum question with a cross-party constitutional convention, leaving the parliament free to get on with normal business.

The convention idea was also in the Lib-Dems' manifesto. Neither is the "one policy" gibe true. The SNP does in fact have a detailed programme of reforms - many of which are close to the Lib-Dems' own. As well as the constitutional convention, the SNP shares the Lib-Dem demands for expanded powers for Holyrood and a local income tax. Labour and the Tories would not touch either notion.

4. "The suspense of an independence referendum would overshadow the whole parliament, making coherent reforms impossible".

There is no evidence whatever for this, especially since it's common knowledge how unlikely a "yes" majority for independence is at the moment. In any case, a referendum has to be decreed by Holyrood, and the SNP - even if it did form a coalition - would probably lose that vote.

The power of suffocation
It follows that, given the feebleness of Nicol Stephen's arguments, there must be some other reason for his stubborn refusal to seek a deal. In Scotland, a rather convincing conspiracy theory is gaining ground. This reports that an ambitious bargain has been struck between the two "big beast" Scots at Westminster: Menzies Campbell, leader of the British Liberal Democrats, and Gordon Brown, soon to become Labour prime minister in succession to Tony Blair.

The terms would run like this. In Scotland, the Scottish Lib-Dems will boycott all contacts with Alex Salmond and instead join an unofficial "unionist bloc" of Labour, Tories and Lib-Dems at Holyrood. The bloc (already nicknamed "the unholy alliance") would treat the SNP ministers as outlaws, despite their democratic mandate. It would oppose and frustrate every attempt they made to govern until the SNP-led Scottish executive collapsed and the minority government resigned.

In return, Gordon Brown would look kindly on the Liberal Democrats if - as seems possible - the next United Kingdom elections in 2009 destroy Labour's absolute majority and produce a hung parliament at Westminster. Then there could be a Lib-Lab coalition at the British level; and - if Brown is feeling especially grateful - some assurance that proportional representation would be introduced for Westminster elections.

And in Scotland, a third Lib-Lab coalition executive would be constructed. The Nats would be shown, once and for all, that they were aliens and intruders with no right to govern Scotland. No referendum would be allowed, and the independence idea would be discredited for ever. End of story, with everyone happy...
Could this frightful scenario really be taken seriously by anyone? It seems that it could. And yet it is not only a democratic disgrace. It is a script for uncontrollable political upheaval at some point in the future. The desire for change in Scotland is authentic. A steady current of opinion is moving towards wider self-government for Scotland, including fiscal autonomy - extensions of devolution which the UK framework and Prime Minister Gordon Brown may be unable to tolerate.

Pretending that all this isn't happening by suffocating its messenger - the SNP majority in the elections - is suicidally daft. The implication is that devolution amounts to a sham, and that the important decisions about Scotland - not just policy decisions but even the choice of which party governs in Edinburgh - are still taken behind closed doors in London. What conclusions are Scottish voters supposed to draw from that?

So Alex Salmond is left with no alternative. It's minority government or nothing. Westminster tradition sees this as un-British. In fact, there were two minority British governments as recently as the 1970s, both Labour. Harold Wilson ran one in the immediate aftermath of the February 1974 elections. After Wilson resigned in March 1976, the narrow parliamentary majority of his successor James Callaghan became ever tinier thanks to a series of by-election defeats over the next three years. To keep the wheels of government turning he had to rely on "arrangements" with the Liberals and - as it happens - the then sizeable SNP contingent to get its laws through. It has to be said that neither was a success story. Wilson gave up after a few months, and called fresh elections in November 1974 which gave him a working majority. Callaghan struggled on, until his failure to ratify Scottish devolution in 1979 moved the SNP MPs to bring him down.
But minority governments can survive, even get things done. All depends on the tolerance and responsibility of the opposition parties. And those who planned the Scottish parliament in the 1990s had a vision of a new sort of democratic assembly, far removed from obsolete Westminster patterns, whose watchword would be cooperation rather than confrontation. Party boundaries would be relaxed and party whips would not dragoon their flocks.

Some of that - although far from all - has become reality at Holyrood. But will the opposition parties remember those cooperative dreams as they close in on the helpless SNP? Alex Salmond's hope, even more urgent than holding that referendum, is to show the Scots that the SNP can govern sensibly, effectively and constructively. It does not look as if he will be allowed that chance.

State of the Union: IPPR North Project

To step back from the immediate politics, here are details of an interesting research project. It connects with the themes of this book>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The State of the Union: Anglo-Scottish Relations in 2007
http://www.ippr.org.uk/ipprnorth/


The Union between England and Scotland is often considered one of the most successful the world has known. Yet paradoxically, few seem set to celebrate it as it approaches its 300th birthday. The devolution settlement, designed to preserve the Union, has thrown up a number of anomalies and tensions that look set to test the strength of Anglo-Scottish relations, while recent trends in public attitudes also raise serious questions about the health of the Union in 2007.

Public debate about the Union in the media and beyond often seems ill-informed and conducted in crude terms. Whether one is pro- or anti- Union, some of the recent tensions in the relationship should cause concern, and all sides share an interest in an informed debate. This project will set the terms of debate about the future of the Union in both England and Scotland.

Often wrongly regarded as a ‘Scottish issue’ this project will place the state of the Union into its proper UK-wide context. It will take a thorough and objective look at what is often an unhelpfully polarised and politicised debate, and highlight the challenges that both Unionists and Nationalists must answer. The project will also seek to move the debate forward by looking at different types of Union – economic, political, social and cultural and public attitudes towards the Union.

Key Questions and Themes

The Union in Perspective
It is generally accepted that the Union was a marriage of convenience for economic (Scotland) and security (England) interests. However, these motivations have lost their purchase and changed over time. The context for the Union has changed substantially, particularly as a result of European integration and globalisation, which have changed the nature of statehood and challenged identities. Within a UK context, the resurgence of Scottish nationalism in the 1960s and the creation of the Scottish Parliament in the late 1990s have also challenged the Union in different ways.

Key questions
What was the original purpose of Union and the aims and ambitions of the authors of the 1707 Acts?
Have attitudes towards the Union changed over time and who supports the Union today?
What is the new social, economic and global context for the Union?
What does the Union stand for today? How has it evolved over the past 300 years? Why do we need it?
What forces hold the Union together and what challenges it, and why?

The Union in a Post-Devolution UK
A key rationale for devolution for Unionists was that it would undermine the arguments for Scottish independence. However recent opinion polls in Scotland have indicated that public support for independence is certainly no weaker, and if anything stronger, than it was before devolution. Furthermore the so-called ‘anomalies’ of the devolution settlement – particularly the West Lothian Question and the Barnett Formula – are gaining increased coverage in England. Polls seem to suggest that English opinion may be shifting from one of contentment with the devolution settlement to one of concern. While the ‘English Question’ remains unanswered the prospect for tension grows. Meanwhile in Scotland debate about greater powers for the Scottish Parliament and greater fiscal autonomy are ongoing.

Key questions
Has devolution strengthened the Union, or opened the door to the separation of the two nations?
What has been the impact of devolution on national identities and public attitudes towards the Union?
Does policy variation in different parts of the UK, enhanced since devolution, undermine common standards and a sense of UK-wide solidarity?
How serious are the challenges of the West Lothian Question and the Barnett Formula? What can be done?
Has devolution saved the Union but undermined Britishness?

The Union in 2007
The political and constitutional aspects of the Union are often debated at length, but there are other factors that bind Scotland and England. States are not simply held together by legal agreements but by a sense of identity, social, cultural and economic ties. New research will bring together a range of indicators to identify the most important factors shaping and challenging the Union in 2007. Furthermore, new research, using focus groups, will assess the relationship between the English and the Scots, and their attitudes to the Union in 2007.

Key questions
What are the most important demographic, sociological, economic, cultural and political factors shaping the Union?
Is Great Britain moving apart or closer together?

The Economic Union
Prosperity was one of the key rationales for the establishment of the Union, and economic relationships form an important aspect of the ‘glue’ that holds states together. Flows of trade, migration and capital increase interdependence, they also increase the need for coordination of economic policies. But how economically interdependent are Scotland and England?

Key questions
How important has the Union been for economic success?
Is there a business case for the Union, or indeed for separation?
How interdependent are Scotland and England in terms of goods, services, capital and labour?
Are England and Scotland any more interdependent than other neighbouring European countries?
What are the implications of the European Union for the economic relationship between England and Scotland?
What is the case for and against greater fiscal autonomy? What might the implications be for the Union?

The Social Union
Both Gordon Brown and David Cameron have emphasised the social ties between England and Scotland recently, in order to make the case for the Union and Britain. But what does the social union between England and Scotland look like, and how important is it?

Key questions
What impact has increased mobility had? What do the migration flows between England and Scotland look like? How often do people from one country visit the other?
What level of inter-marriage is there between the English and the Scots?
How interconnected is the Union? Has this changed over time?

The Cultural Union
Cultural factors are very important in terms developing and maintaining a sense of shared values, identity and solidarity. Factors like popular history and how the Union is perceived in the popular consciousness, how this is reflected in the media and taught in schools are all likely to have an impact on how the Union is viewed. Scotland and England have always maintained separate identities and institutions to one degree or another – in terms of politics, the arts, media and sport –but what impact does this have on the Union?

Key questions
How is the Union popularly viewed? Do the Scottish and English education systems treat it differently through history and citizenship lessons?
What is the role of the media? Is it fuelling a sense of separateness in the way devolution and politics are covered? Do English people know or care what happens in Scotland and vice versa? Does this matter?
What is the role of sport in reinforcing or challenging the Union?
What are the values and institutions that reinforce the Union and those that challenge it?
So far, has devolution had the effect of focusing on the differences between Scotland and England rather than what binds the two nations?

Public Attitudes to the Union
Both sides of the Union debate rely on public opinion to put their case, however surprisingly little detailed work has been conducted on how the public view the Union and the relationship between the English and the Scots. While there are a number of polls available, and more will conducted in the run up to the anniversary, we propose to use the expertise of ippr’s People and Policy team to gather richer data through focus groups. Four focus groups would be held in Scotland and four in England to find out how people respond to the idea of the Union and the relationship between the English and the Scots. What are the factors that people see as being in common and what do they think divides the two nations? Furthermore the groups would test opinion in different parts of England and Scotland to see if, for example, people in the North of England have a different view to those in the South East; or if opinion in the central belt of Scotland differs to that of the Highlands. We would also aim to explore whether people’s view of the Union is affected by their age or socio-economic background. Eight focus groups would be the minimum with which we would be able to draw reasonably robust conclusions.

While we do expect a number of polls to be conducted during this period, bespoke polling would also add breadth to this work and inform the areas where it would be most interesting to drill down for more detail. Ideally we would like to conduct both polling and focus groups, although our ability to do this will be dependent on fundraising.

Key questions
What do the English think of the Scots and the Scots think of the English in a post-devolution UK?
What are public attitudes to the Union? Do people think it has a purpose in 2007?
What are the implications of public attitudes for the future of the Union?

Is Britain Facing an Identity Crisis?
Historians cite the growth and evolution of Britishness and Britons as integral to the development of the British state. So strong was this in the late 18th century that the Edinburgh elite referred to themselves as ‘North Britons’. Yet the key forces identified with Britishness have either disappeared, as in the case of Empire, or declined substantially, as in the case of Protestantism. Contemporary concern with the meaning and state of British identity seems to be reflected at the highest levels of British politics, in both government and opposition.

Key questions
What is the state of Britishness today? Is it in crisis?
Can a growth in Scottishness and Englishness be reconciled? What is the relationship with English and Scottish identities?
Is a Union without a shared identity or Britishness workable?

Prospects for the Union: Moving forward
The project will conclude with an overview of the key influences pushing the Union together and pulling it apart, and an assessment of the health of the Union in 2007. Furthermore it will set the terms of debate in both England and Scotland about the future of the Union, and highlight the challenging questions that both sides – Unionist and Nationalist – must answer.

Conservative Divorce - Groundhog Day?

This story is from 22 May 2005 - although some names have changed, Francis Maude 's name crops up again. I wonder how close Francis Maude is to David Cameron? Found this in Independent following Cameron's election as new leader:

FRANCIS MAUDE, 52.

Party chairman. Former shadow chancellor and shadow foreign secretary, who became an arch-moderniser, managing Michael Portillo's bid to win the Conservative leadership. He will be central to Mr Cameron's hopes to make the party look and think differently and is charged with driving through the new leader's plans to shake up candidate selection to encourage more women to become candidates and MPs.

Also found that at recent Scottish Conservative Party Conference Francis Maude had to urge the delegates to accept the reality of the Scottish Parliament :

Internal critics claim the fundamental problem is a lack of direction in the party. Even accepting the reality of devolution remains a problem for many: last Friday, party chairman Francis Maude felt it necessary to urge party delegates to accept the reality of the Scottish Parliament. This is a little like the Pope telling his Catholic flock that they really had better start getting used to the Reformation. The referendum on devolution was 10 long years ago, but still - it seems - the Conservatives are torn over whether or not to live with it. It is a measure of their lack of progress.

Scottish Tories split over calls for break from UK party

Sunday Herald 22 May 2005

Paul Hutcheon Scottish Political Editor

THE Scottish Tories were immersed in a bitter cross-border row last night after one of their leading MSPs said they should declare their independence from the UK party and its leader Michael Howard.

Murdo Fraser believes the creation of a "separate party, separately funded, with separate responsibility for policy" is one way of changing the perception that his colleagues belong to a branch of an English-based organisation.

The idea was immediately dismissed by Scottish leader David McLetchie and frontbencher Sir Malcolm Rifkind MP, who said it was against the principles of the party.

But in another twist, Francis Maude, the newly installed Conservative chairman and key party moderniser, backed Fraser and insisted that his plan ought to be "considered".

Fraser's controversial idea was a response to the resignation last week of shadow Scottish secretary James Gray, who was forced to quit on Thursday after suggesting that MSPs should be abolished.

The North Wiltshire MP's eight-day spell as shadow Scottish secretary proved hugely embarrassing for McLetchie because the Pentlands MSP has spent the past six years turning the Scottish Tories into a prodevolution force.

Fraser, who is widely tipped to be the next leader of the Scottish Conservatives, said the episode demonstrated that a discussion on the party's relationship with Howard and his colleagues was long overdue.

"The events of last week show that a debate on the links between the Scottish Tories and the UK party is required, " he said. "We don't have anything to fear from looking at ways that would give us greater autonomy from central office." The Tory MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife said cutting the link would allow McLetchie's party to reassert their Scottish credentials and distance themselves from the excesses of the UK Conservatives.

"I think there is a problem with perception, in that we are seen as a party that are not sufficiently Scottish. Greater autonomy would be one way of changing that perception, " he said.

The Tory enterprise spokesman wants to import the "German conservative model", in which Bavaria's Christian Social Union (CSU) co-exists with the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), which fights elections throughout the rest of the country.

While the parties are ideologically similar, the CSU are a distinct organisation with their own symbols, policies and constitution, an arrangement Fraser backs.

"It is a model that is sometimes suggested and I think it is worthy of consideration. It would entail a separate party, separately funded, with separate responsibility for policy.

There would be two parties united by conservatism, " he said.

"It seems to work in Germany and I would be relaxed about a similar structure over here." But an angry Rifkind, recently appointed by Howard as shadow secretary of state for work and pensions, hit out at the idea.

"Murdo and anyone who feels like him should remember that we are not only Conservative, but also a unionist party. Any ideas should be framed around that principle, " he said.

Rifkind was backed up by a spokesman for McLetchie, who reiterated the leader's total opposition.

"I think David's thoughts on that have been stated a few times. As he said, we are the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party. That is what we are, " he said.

McLetchie and Rifkind were contradicted, however, by Maude, who told the Sunday Herald he was relaxed about the Scottish Tories becoming an independent party: "Things have changed since devolution, " he said. "We want a revival in Scotland, and if that means making the Scottish party more independent, then it is something we are going to have to talk about." Unprompted, the chairman of the Conservative Party said the German model promoted by Fraser should be considered. "There is the idea of the Scottish Tories becoming completely independent, similar to the relationship the CSU has with the CDU. It's not an absurd idea, " he said.

Asked about Maude's view, McLetchie's spokesman said: "Well, there you go. I am not going to sit and argue about what Francis Maude has said." The "independence" question is a touchy subject for the Scottish Tories, because it would involve an embarrassing public divorce from the UK Conservatives.

Although the party in Scotland have operational autonomy and control devolved policy-making, the UK central office provides funds and has much influence in appointing the Scottish chairman.

Fraser believes there is a "strong case" for his colleagues appointing their own chairman, as does fellow Tory MSP Brian Monteith. McLetchie, however, has said: "It defies belief that a party that regards itself as the prime unionist party would sue for divorce from its partner."

Senatores boni viri, senatus autem mala bestia

WWF Hustings Castle Douglas Thursday 5th April

Phew, that was a relief. The audience did outnumber the candidates - but only just . There were 12 of us …

Chaired by Richard Dixon , we had Chris Ballance for the Green Party, Alasdair Morgan for the SNP, Alastair Cooper for the Lib Dems, Alex Ferguson for the Conservatives and Stephen Hodgson for Labour.

Observations

All the candidates had two minutes to give their ’environmental’ (not ’green’) pitch and every one agreed that climate change is a reality and all agreed ‘something must be done’, quoting from relevant party policies.

Climate change and environmental problems sorted then?

Not quite, the devil was in the details of their answers to questions from the floor. Apart from Chris, who was playing to a home crowd as it were, the problem of ‘how do we get there from here’ still remains. For example, John Schofield (D and G Green Party) asked a road transport question and the consensus was ‘ we still need to build more roads/ bypasses / extend the M 74’. On the M 74 extension both Alasdair Morgan and Stephen Hodgson made similar points - practically we can’t just leave it as it is.

Yes there was support for improving public transport, including rail, supporting rural bus services [a good and detailed point from Alex Fergusson] but…

But… gap between rhetoric and reality. The rhetoric is ‘green’, the reality is ‘business as usual’. The difficulty is that if the politicians get too far ahead of the voters - on the car/ road transport issue for example - they worry the voters will say ‘No’.

Realistically, Chris Ballance was and (I hope) will be elected on the regional list vote, but a Green constituency candidate would not. Although, since there was unanimity about how lucky we are that Galloway (and Upper Nithsdale) is such a green and pleasant land, a campaign which applied Green theory to local practice might work.

With my question, I tried to shift the focus from the global to the local - I asked what would be the most effective arguments to get funding for converting a section of disused railway [ CD to Dalbeattie] into a cycle route to connect up with the 7 Stanes mountain bike circuits in Dalbeattie Forest. Unfortunately, it was not quite as concise as it should have been and got lumped in with a ‘nuclear power -yes please or no thanks?’ one.

Stephen Hodgson was a bit vague , but suggested I should highlight the need for a cycle path network to help the niche marketing of Galloway , but said he goes on cycling holidays.

Alex Fergusson reckoned I would be pushing at an open door, but should emphasise that transport policy should take the need for non-motorised transport into account . A useful technical point to make and one I will bear in mind.

Alastair Cooper felt this was not an MSP/ Scottish Executive issue, but one which local government needed to decide on re funding. I should have challenged him on this - from experience such a project needs support from MSPs and local government spending is constrained by Scottish Executive priorities.

Alasdair Morgan said we need to be much more determined on cycle routes - that local advocates have to push harder to get them taken seriously. He also made pertinent and practical points based on his local knowledge - that parts of route were lost to the CD Dalbeattie road, land had been sold off to farmers and that bridges were missing.

Chris Ballance suggested that arguments based on health and tourism benefits would be strongest, but that reduction of pollution and related arguments are not yet useful/ accepted .


Conclusion : Senatores boni viri, senatus autem mala bestia
(The senators are all good men, but the senate is a beast)


Green issues are now motherhood and apple pie issues - in theory.

In practice… we are not yet at the tipping point. Which is worrying. What ever the ‘big’ outcome on May 3rd, the next Scottish Parliament and next Scottish Executive is likely to pursue a set of ‘business as usual/ carry on regardless ‘ policies which prioritise economy over environment. But the economy is the superstructure and the environment is the base. If the environment fails, there will be no economy …

Spectator source English/ Scottish Conservative split

Found the source of the ‘Conservative Party to Split’ story - main/ cover story in this week’s Spectator. But note : Annabel Goldie has denied it.

However, the Spectator is an important Conservative magazine and to have given the story such prominence must be a bit more than ‘idle speculation’.

No sign yet on of any speculation about impact on D and G Tory vote at http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/index.php which has speculated on D and G situation e.g.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seat-profiles/dumfriesandgalloway

Any analysis of these 2 seats should take account of the very different character of their rural areas. Much of Dumfriesshire - particularly the south - consists of large mixed farming units, while in general Galloway has hill farms in the east and dairying in Wigtownshire. While prosperity has declined to very low levels in Scottish farming, Dumfries has always been a much more prosperous county. Also, the influence of Hector Monro was enormous.

The town of Dumfries - the Labour stronghold - is in the D&G Westminster seat. The rural parts of the Dumfries Holyrood seat are in Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale. David Mundell ran Labour a close second in the 2003 elections in Dumfries - Labour holding on because they managed to increase their share of the vote at the expense of the SNP. WHich is what they did in Dumfries and Galloway in 2005. Doubt this will happen this year which is why the Tories might well take it.


As well as Scotsman article, also pieces in Guardian

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,,2050475,00.html

And Telegraph, but lost the link.

Also on a few blogs

http://mreugenides.blogspot.com/2007/04/fraser-nelson-in-tomorrows-spectator.html

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2007/04/scottish_tories.html

http://mikepower.net/mrpower2/2007/4/5/tory-split-planned.html




Revealed: the Tories’ plan to separate Scotland from England and Wales
Fraser Nelson

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/28946/revealed-the-tories-plan-to-separate.thtml

For the son of an Aberdonian stockbroker, David Cameron has had an uneasy relationship with Scotland. It is a land of massacred Conservatives, even less hospitable to his party today than it was during the great Tory wipe-out ten years ago. In his visits north of the border, the Tory leader has not so much tried to lead the remaining Scottish Tories to victory, but to check their pulse. In London, there is serious concern that the patient is not responding.

No clear protocols exist for declaring a political party dead, but the Scottish Tories offer a few clues. Some of its candidates, for example, have been campaigning for the Scottish Parliament elections on 3 May using only their own names, knowing that the word ‘Conservative’ is a liability. With only four weeks to go to voting day, the Conservatives have dropped to a mere 11 per cent in the polls. Strip out staff members and their blood relatives, and this is as close as a supposedly national party gets to rock bottom.

It is never difficult to distinguish between Francis Maude and a ray of sunshine, and the party chairman — as ever — is warning against false optimism in Scotland (not much of that about, it must be said). But, I can reveal, he has gone one further. Mr Maude’s officials have been secretly drawing up the outline of a ‘velvet divorce’ with the Scottish Conservatives, which would give the Scottish Tories a new name, a distinct identity, and make the Conservatives officially as well as in practice a party exclusively devoted to seeking power in England and Wales. However benignly it was presented, such a split would, in effect, mean the final Tory retreat from Scotland, a historic fissure in British Conservatism, and the death of a party defined in many minds by its One Nation Unionism.

But the harder one examines the situation, the clearer it is that there is little left to salvage and little face left to save. As Sir Malcolm Rifkind puts it, being Conservative in his motherland is now seen as ‘something done by consenting adults in private’. The party is no longer hated, as it was in 1997 (when its share of the vote was 18 per cent), nor even pitied, but simply ignored. Voting Tory is seen as a harmless perversion, like Morris dancing or cricket. A despised party could at least repent. But there is no hope for a forgotten party.

Those involved in the secret break-up plan describe it as a win–win situation for Mr Cameron. Should the new Scottish party slide into extinction, then he would not be blamed. In the event that the new movement triggered a centre-right revival in Scotland, and started sending MPs to Westminster, they would sit and vote with the Tories. And — in strict historical fact — the proposal is not, in fact, a betrayal of Conservative heritage at all, but implies a return to the pre-1965 arrangement when the Scottish division of the party was independent and …


Article continues - 2034 words….

Voter profile Dumfries Galloway

I have been looking here

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seat-profiles/dumfriesandgalloway

And on same site for other mentions of Galloway and Dumfries on the same website. It is a ‘to see oursels as ithers see us’ experience. For example

Any analysis of these 2 seats should take account of the very different character of their rural areas. Much of Dumfriesshire - particularly the south - consists of large mixed farming units, while in general Galloway has hill farms in the east and dairying in Wigtownshire.
While prosperity has declined to very low levels in Scottish farming, Dumfries has always been a much more prosperous county.
Also, the influence of Hector Monro was enormous.

The town of Dumfries - the Labour stronghold - is in the D&G Westminster seat. The rural parts of the Dumfries Holyrood seat are in Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale.
David Mundell ran Labour a close second in the 2003 elections in Dumfries - Labour holding on because they managed to increase their share of the vote at the expense of the SNP. WHich is what they did in Dumfries and Galloway in 2005. Doubt this will happen this year which is why the Tories might well take it.

So how will votes go on May 3rd?

Assuming the Spectator 'Scottish and English Tories to separate' story is a storm in a Westminster tea cup... here are some incomplete thoughts...

Well, if I was to adopt a UK Polling Report approach, I would look most closely at the 2003 voting patterns at council ward level. However this is a bit confusing - how should one allocate the votes for Independent candidates? Can they be thought of as Conservative votes? Not necessarily.

But I am not in a number crunching mood, so lets try a different approach. When I was doing the Tesco campaign, I was told by a usually reliable source that Tesco had picked on Castle Douglas after doing a bit of socio-economic research which pointed to CD as at the centre of an area of high disposable income which Tesco wanted to tap into. From memory the data came from http://www.mosaic.com/ and took the form of a whole set of different regional ‘consumer profiles’- still have the hard copy buried in my files somewhere.

I am not sure how useful such an approach is, but it does suggest that rather than seeing voters as existing as uniform ‘blocs’ (which is the problem with analysis based on voting figures) , they are made up of smaller sub-groups. So here is a bit of political social anthropology.

Labour - Old and New

Old Labour voters can be found in our ‘urban centres’ - Stranraer and Dumfries plus the old mining area around Sanquhar (the ‘Upper Nithsdale’ that got added to Galloway to dilute the anti-Conservative vote in the bad old days) and where there were/ are pockets of unionised workers e.g. Chapelcross nuclear power station. Also , but more spread out, in NHS and D and G Council - the region’s largest employers.

New Labour - not so sure on this, but likely to be employed in more managerial positions in various ‘agencies’. I’m thinking here of someone like Norma Hart, who was a Labour candidate and had been head of local EU Partnership Agency and then DG Tourist Board. So most likely to be employed by SNH, Scottish Enterprise, DG Council, SEPA etc - part of Scotland’s Labour voting middle class. That in Scotland, Labour are ‘the establishment’. This group more likely to be incomers rather than the Old labour group. Also critical in tipping balance for Labour post 1997. Old Labour never strong enough on its own to threaten Conservative hegemony.

However, more likely to be annoyed by New Labour shift to right - e.g. Iraq, Trident etc. And - maybe - by failure of Jack McConnell / Scottish Executive to back Crichton Campaign. Therefore more likely to vote SNP as protest vote than Old Labour supporters? Perhaps.

Conservative.

Interesting. Were D and G Conservatives ever Thatcherites? I suspect not. They were and are , no less than our Old Labour voters, traditionalists. D and G Conservatives as equivalent to the English ‘shire Tories‘. A mix of almost Edwardian style ‘old money’ landowners with merchant banking links , farmers and small businesses men and woman (Of which there are many - region has very high level of self- employment). Possibly, probably, added to by many of the regions’ English retirees.

On the whole, comfortable with traditional (see previous blogs) ‘Scottish as British’ identity and very nervous of Scottish nationalism.

This is a difficult one to analyse - D and G was described to me by a Labour voting incomer/ retiree as ‘still feudal’. I disagreed on ‘feudal’ as a technical term, but it is in many ways still a ‘pre-industrial’ rural society and is therefore socially conservative. The social cohesion this creates is highly valued. Voting Conservative is seen as the best way to ‘conserve’ social cohesion, as a defence against ‘everything solid melting to air’ - as Marx and Engels put it in the Communist Manifesto.

Ideally, I suspect, most of the regions’ Conservative voters would like to see devolution undone. They see the Scottish Parliament as run by urban, central belt socialists who know nothing of rural life and do their best to ignore its existence. .

I wonder - am I exaggerating here? I don’t know.

Scottish National Party

The recent history here is of the SNP as being focus for opposition to the Conservatives. SNP victories in 1974 and again in 1997 (in Galloway, never Dumfriesshire) have always come as ‘surprise wins’, requiring tactical voting by Labour and Liberal /Lib Dem supporters.

Traditional SNP voters mostly drawn from rural ’working class’ mixed with a few of the self-employed middle class and including (unfortunately) an element of ’anti- wealthy English incomers’ sentiment. Has devolution changed this?

Possibly to the extent that the rhetoric of ‘independence ‘ as a personal and economic aspiration fits with the motivation of the regions self-employed and small business. There could be a shift here towards the SNP and away from the Conservatives (whose rhetoric involves a similar idea of ‘independence’, ‘standing on our own feet‘ etc).

There is an element of confusion here. The farming community are strongly Conservative, but are seen by the small-business/ self-employed as having been feathered bedded by the state for generations. Indeed, viewed from this perspective, Dumfries and Galloway’s economy is highly reliant on the state - for example through the Forestry Commission (largest landowner in Galloway) the NHS and Council plus government agencies as well as support for farming.

WWF Hustings Castle Douglas 5th April 2007

Only just spotted this in today's D and G Standard.

Hope it gets a mention in tomorrow's Galloway News!

Castle Douglas
Castle Douglas, Lesser Town Hall - 5th April - 7 - 9pm

Chair: Richard Dixon, Director, WWF Scotland

The panel:

• Chris Ballance, Scottish Green Party,
• Scottish Labour Party, To be confirmed
• Alex Fergusson, Scottish Conservatives
• Alastair Cooper, Scottish Lib Dems
• Alasdair Morgan, Scottish National Party

Labour/ Conservative Unionist Alliance?

I thought it was an April Fool joke when I read somewhere on Sunday that the Conservatives had offered to help Labour keep the Scottish National Party at bay.

But according to Ian Bell, writing in today's (not April 1st) Herald, Annabel Goldie is working towards this outcome.

We already have one here in Dumfries and Galloway - a minority Labour Executive propped up in power by Conservative votes.

Here is relevant bit of Ian's piece...

From http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/featuresopinon/display.var.1305888.0.0.php

My former colleague Michael Fry, distinguished historian and recent convert to the bright side, used to like to take arguments for a promenade. Before the Tories frustrated his ambitions - such is the fate of smart in the stupid party - Fry used to observe that European conservatives tend invariably towards nationalism. He used to wonder, too loudly for his own good, whether Scots Tories were missing the point.

In those days, I launched a bobbing cliché of my own. "It isn't actually compulsory to have a Tory party," I would write, through the dark years. I suggested that Scottish Conservatives were an accident of history and land-ownership. I forgot about stupidity. I hadn't bargained for Annabel Goldie.

She knows that we know. In the era of the David Cameron quiff, the deputising Murdo Fraser is the next hairstyle in town. Equally, in the intellectually problematic world of modern Conservatism, the sten-torian Fraser will have to sort out what, if anything, the Scottish Tories are for. Ms Goldie says they are not for coalition because coalitions - you know that I paraphrase - are the last resort of very bad lots. First, is she kidding? Our hybrid system demands pacts and deals if government is not to become unstable, and if - a detail worth noting when electoral rumps hope to wag dogs - old political tails need to avoid docking. Everyone makes an arrangement.

Secondly, Ms Goldie has expended a lot of Holyrood time explaining that devolution isn't "working". Scotland's Tories have gritted their teeth, swallowed hard and accepted that their chums in the cutty sark press were wrong: the people do not want to be rid of a parliament. That was a myth. Bury the headlines and stop all the clocks: home rule and democracy are the same. So what follows?

If anything, the people wish to see democracy expand to occupy the available political space. "More powers," in the paraphrase. How is that to be reconciled with a Unionist party declining all responsibility for government just at the moment when Unionism, albeit of a Labour sort, most needs help? Thirdly, how does this abstentionism make devolution, in the Tory styling, work "better"?

Those of us who observe Holyrood, now and then, know what Goldie is about. Here's a minor party, failing steadily, hoping to tease and cajole Labour - dread word - into a marriage of inconvenience and duvet-theft. She hopes that her party will be able to pick and choose, demand legislation, cosset Labour while denouncing Labour and escape all blame.

That sounds like a plan. That sounds, equally, like the sort of plan capable of allowing a minor (very minor) Scottish party to throw Scotland into upheaval for four years, with power sans responsibility, while making home rule work "better".

Only a pair of wholeheartedly Unionist parties survive in this country. They are being picked off, one by one.

The historical interest lies, meanwhile, in the fact that each of these stalwarts has fallen in the self-same, self-determination ditch. The immediate relevance has to do with dim, Poujadist Scottish Tories, and their ineffable impertinence.

Ms Goldie will suck-and-see at legislation, given the chance, thanks to 13% of bothered-to-vote? I don't think so. Ms Goldie will adopt political clients as whim, Cameron, expediency and circumstances demand?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but how does that make devolution "work better"? How does that make devolution work at all?

Seriously: is this the best the Union has got? In my lifetime, the eradication of Scottish Conservatism was the first and greatest straw in the wind. It turns out that Labour now needs ancient enemies merely to shore up the ruins. Yet the old enemies don't, can't, won't see the obvious. Care? I come from another country.
today
By IAN BELL