More Scottish Government money comes to Glasgow!

I'm attending an update event on the Commonwealth Games tonight at Tollcross Leisure Centre (5pm, all welcome!), so I was particularly pleased to see in my news feed this morning that Glasgow will be getting even more money from the Scottish Government related to the Commonwealth Games. 

The Scottish Government are already providing 80% of the funding for the Games; this additional sum of over £1m will go towards the redevelopment of the Theatre Royal and the Glasgow Royal Concert Hall.

I've heard a few people in arts organisations mention that they were a bit concerned that the focus would be sport, sport, sport in the run up and legacy for Glasgow 2014, so it's good to hear that these important cultural venues will be getting investment too. 

From the Scottish Government press release:

"Culture and External Affairs Minister Fiona Hyslop confirmed the Scottish Government has allocated more than a million pounds from its 2011/12 budget for work on the Theatre Royal and Glasgow Royal Concert Hall.

Scottish Opera will receive £605,000 to progress plans to upgrade the Theatre Royal while the Royal Scottish National Orchestra (RSNO) will receive £413,000 towards the redevelopment of its new home at the Glasgow Royal Concert Hall.

Ms Hyslop said:

"Hosting the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow is a fantastic opportunity to create a lasting legacy for the people of Scotland.

"The Scottish Government's funding commitment will enable Scottish Opera and the RSNO to take the first steps with the redevelopment of these venues, enhancing the programme of cultural activities on offer in 2014 and beyond and supporting Glasgow's continued status as UNESCO City of Music.

"These projects form part of the major regeneration work going on in Glasgow in preparation for the Commonwealth Games, which includes more than £1 billion of infrastructure projects which are already helping generate significant economic benefits for Glasgow and the whole of Scotland.

"The Scottish Government is passionate about delivering a successful Games which is not only a spectacular sporting extravaganza but which also showcases Scotland's world-renowned culture and creativity. Our intention is to make a further substantial capital contribution to the overall construction costs of the Theatre Royal Redevelopment and the Glasgow Royal Concert Hall projects."

M74 visit

Yesterday afternoon, I joined my colleagues George Roberts and David Turner to visit works on the M74 extension.

I've been watching the progress as everyone else has so far, from a distance - it was nice to get the opportunity to see it up close and learn more about the challenges and technical aspects of this massive engineering project.

The project is at different stages of development along the route - some parts are actually having tarmac laid at the moment, some of the viaducts are still being launched on others. The scale is impressive; at Carmyle, the world's biggest crane is preparing to shift chunks of steel across the Clyde. At Rutherglen, the viaduct is inching it's way across the railway line. At Kingston, work is going on high above the ground, with sections rolling into place. The prefabricated parts have been slotted together perfect to the millimetre.

It's also worth noting that the project is worth £445m - with 87% of the cost being met by the Scottish Government. It has kept apprentices and workers in employment, and is a significant investment in Glasgow and the wider west of Scotland. I found out also that a lot of the rubble for the road is coming from demolitions around the country - materials which would normally have gone to landfill. So, while road building isn't usually great news for the environment, the M74 does involve some recycling.

I've posted a few pictures below to show the scale of the development.

European money for Bridgeton

I was really pleased to see this morning that £1,157,086.00 has been secured from the European Regional Development Fund for Clyde Gateway's SME Business HUB in Bridgeton.

This money will go a long way to sustain real jobs and businesses in the East End, and have a large part to play in the regeneration of the area. This is on top of other money from the Scottish Government from the Town Centre Regeneration fund.

The SNP know that to get through the recession, we need to continue to invest in our people and our communities. This particular money is coming from the EU, not the UK.

Commenting on the news, John Swinney said:

"While there are signs of a fragile recovery, this undoubtedly remains a very challenging economic climate. It is absolutely right that the Scottish Government uses all of the levers at its disposal, including European funding, to support projects which can maximise employment opportunities and support our economy through the downturn and towards sustainable economic growth.

"I am delighted by the variety of projects supported by this latest cash injection, from new business facilities to the renewable energy industry. The projects have the potential to support the creation of around 950 new jobs in Scotland.

"This builds on the Scottish Government's Economic Recovery Plan, which has already directly supported up to 15,000 jobs in the Scottish economy at this difficult time. This funding will provide a further and timely boost to our recovery prospects and be warmly welcomed in many Scottish communities."

Ravenscraig

As regular readers will know, my family are from Lanarkshire. My Gran and Papa Thewliss live in Motherwell, my Gran White in Wishaw.

Growing up, I saw the decline of these towns from busy, bustling hubs, to ghost towns.

The single biggest contributory factor to this was the closure of Ravenscraig Steel Works at the start of the 1990s. According to the Evening Times, Labour are launching their Scottish campaign from the site of the steel works today.

Jim Murphy is to visit the former Ravenscraig site in Motherwell alongside Labour’s leader in Holyrood, Iain Gray.

In a visit to the new Motherwell College building on the site, the Scottish Secretary will say it symbolises the difference between Labour and Tory policies to the area.

He will say: “The difference between Labour and the Tories’ approach to Scotland is symbolised here in Ravenscraig.

“The Tories left people to fend for themselves as the area was abandoned to decline.

“Labour invested in this area, built the new college and is still rebuilding in Ravenscraig.

“Labour’s plans will rebuild Scotland’s economy and renew Scotland’s public services and political landscape.”

The new College building at Ravenscraig is impressive (and construction work started under the SNP Government); other than that, there's precious little to show on the site for 13 years of Labour in Westminster, 8 years of Labour in Holyrood, and generations of Labour control in Lanarkshire local government.

Furthermore, plans for a shopping hub has drawn criticism from other shopping centres in the area. Since nearby Wishaw was described by it's Labour MSP as a 'pigsty', I'm fairly sure that local residents might prefer money (such as the town centre regeneration fund) to be invested in their areas first, before something shiny and new draws even more people away from their local shops.

My grandparents have fewer and fewer quality local shops to get their messages - my Gran White can't buy things like fresh fish or wool in Wishaw any more, yet there are plenty of bookies and off-sales.

I can see what Labour are trying to do with the whole harking back to the Tories line - but there's responsibility to be taken there too. Labour MPs in the '80s and '90s failed to stop the closure, and their inaction over the years has done little to repair the damage inflicted on Lanarkshire.

Labour need to think more carefully before they fall back on simply blaming the Tories for the woes of our communities.

Glasgow's Health

At today's Executive Committee we discussed (among other items) the Director of Public Health's report An Unequal Struggle for Health. There are a number of important observations and recommendations in the report for the health of our city. One of the most challenging is, of course, our relationship with alcohol.

For Labour, that relationship is even more uncomfortable. Back in December, at the last full meeting of Council of the year, Labour, for reasons best known to themselves, decided to reject the sensible, non partisan motion submitted by the SNP group:

"Council notes with concern the high and disproportionate impact the misuse of alcohol has on Glasgow's citizens and welcomes the commitment of national and local Governments to tackle this.

Whilst Council notes there is no one answer to tackle this problem it welcomes the principle of minimum pricing which has an important role to play in tackling the misuse of alcohol in Glasgow."

They decided to replace our motion with their own version:

“Council is concerned at the problems faced by many in this city as a result of alcohol misuse, recognises that there is no single solution to this problem and welcomes the commitment of local and national governments to tackle this issue.

Council is aware of the Scottish Government’s preferred option of minimum pricing but is concerned that these proposals are flawed and untested.”

Interestingly, the Director of Public Health's report states quite clearly and unequivocally:

"NHSGGC and its partners must support the government proposals on taking action to restrict promotions of alcohol beverages and introducing a minimum retail price for a UK unit of alcohol"

Whoops! Labour looked distinctly uncomfortable when we challenged them on this today, asking them to retract their previous position - a position most likely forced on them by Iain Gray. They would have known in December that this report was imminent, and that the views of health professionals supported the policy. It just goes to show how petty Labour are - they won't support a policy just because the SNP proposed it. Contrast this with the mature, cross-party support for the banning of smoking in indoor public places.

Sadly for Labour, and tragically for the cause of public health in our city, Council standing orders dictate that decisions taken by the Council can't be overturned for a period of six months, so Labour really have painted themselves into a corner on this one. I'm not certain that it's logical for Labour to back a report contrary to Council policy, but there's really not much else they could do!

The report was accepted unanimously by the Committee, and the work of the Director, Dr Linda De Caestecker, and her team roundly welcomed. I would encourage folk to have a peek at the report - it really is well-written and interesting.

SNP Government Budget passed

Great news to see the SNP Government's budget passed. Some may speak of concessions, but it's the necessity of a minority Government to skilfully manoeuvre a consensus and I think that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance has played the game expertly.


After last year's brinkmanship and shenanigans, things seemed to go very smoothly - although as Will succinctly points out, Labour are still far from being a responsible opposition. They sound less and less convincing every day. Their UK website gives no headline to indicate what they're up to in Holyrood, and it's really no surprise - there's nothing of note to report.


Their Scottish website fails to recognise that the SNP are actually bringing in the boiler scrappage scheme, so they really ought to get rid of this very misleading graphic. Labour also try to get stuck into the Tories for objecting to the further cut in prescription charges, while failing to acknowledge that they themselves voted against the cut by rejecting our budget!


Anyway, having got that off my chest, more positive stuff...

The further reduction in prescription charges is wonderful news. In April, the cost will fall to only £3, while in England, the cost of a prescription is at present an eye-watering £7.20. Lowering the cost helps those most at need, but it's also an important principle. Suffering from an illness that requires prescription medication is difficult enough - people shouldn't feel they have to go without, or decide which medicines to prioritise, through poverty or pride.

I'm very pleased to hear that the small business bonus scheme has been tweaked, increasing the threshold, to continue support to help companies through the recession. The significance of this scheme can be seen in shopping streets throughout Glasgow; on Duke Street, the Gallowgate and Bridgeton Cross, wee businesses have opened providing local people with a range of goods and services. These businesses make our communities viable, and it's great to know our government is doing what they can to help in these difficult times.

It reassuring to hear that an Independent Budget Review will be established to consider the implications of forecasts of reductions in public spending in Scotland. We need to be prepared, and realistic about the future; all parties should find a way to engage productively.




PS - I've also noticed this fairly unfortunate typo-strewn piece on the Labour website...

The independent Literacy Commission, set up by Scottish Labour, has reported. Iain Gray said: "We need a revolution in literacy teaching our schools and we will argue for that in opposition and once in office we will pursue this relentlessly. This report is huge wake-up call for Scotland."

Dearie me, bad things indeed are...

A dreich, Gray speech

There's a report on the BBC website today about the effectiveness of subliminal messaging. The Professor behind the study states:

"We have shown that people can perceive the emotional value of subliminal messages and have demonstrated conclusively that people are much more attuned to negative words."

I've just been reading Iain Gray's speech to the Labour party conference, and suspect he had an advance copy of the report...

David Cameron has come a long way. He isn’t hugging hoodies and huskies any more. He is embracing Europe’s extremists.

In Scotland we are not surprised at the company Tories keep. We have watched them nuzzling up to the nationalist government from day one.

Not so subtly conflating the left of centre, social democratic party I'm proud to be a member of in this way is wrong, misleading, and deeply dirty. It upsets me.

I'm more deeply disturbed though that the leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament would use the tragic death of a child as a stick to beat the Government with.

My Scotland would not be a country where two year-old Brandon Muir dies at the hands of his mother’s boyfriend and the First Minister says “everyone did all they could.” My Scotland would be a country where we would not give up on the 20,000 children living as Brandon Muir lived.

Other tragedies have occurred in England, but I don't believe that I heard anyone saying Gordon Brown or Tony Blair, or even previous governments were directly accountable for these. There has been an investigation, and responsibility taken. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that in Scotland we are 'giving up' on vulnerable children, and it's irresponsible for Iain Gray to suggest so.

Next, on to the spectre of Thatcher. Spooky stuff, especially for the 18 year-old first-time voters weren't even born when she was in office.

"The SNP believe that the unemployment, the social division, the fractured lives that the Tories would bring are all a price worth paying for their campaign for separation."

Utter rubbish. For one, we work for the betterment of Scotland's people and would never be so cynical and cruel. Secondly, there's no proof that this will actually happen. Thirdly, and most significantly, the widest gap between rich and poor in this country has opened up under a Labour Government. This following quote comes from the Guardian, and the figures are drawn from the Department of Work and Pensions own figures. I don't think I need say any more.

"The data shows that the second poorest 10% of households has also had to make do with less since 2005. Overall, the poorest 20% saw real income fall by 2.6% in the three years to 2007-08, while those in the top fifth of the income distribution enjoyed a rise of 3.3%. As a result, income inequality at the end of Labour's 11th year in power was higher than at any time during Margaret Thatcher's premiership."

What would Labour do differently?

"We began to heal the Tory legacy in places like Ravenscraig."

Oh really? My grandparents live in Motherwell and Wishaw, the place their MSP Jack McConnell described as a "pigsty". I don't see any evidence of healing on the part of the Labour Council in North Lanarkshire. I see my grandparents struggle to get their choice of food in towns with fewer and fewer quality shops - neither town now has a fishmonger, and Wishaw's post office is now at the back of the Spar. It used to have an additional one at the bottom of the town, but this was closed under the last round of Labour's cuts.

What have the SNP done? I don't have a complete list to hand, but Motherwell and Wishaw should see some benefit from the £2,745,000 awarded to North Lanarkshire Council under the Town Centre Regeneration Fund which certain Labour bloggers have claimed is a cynical ploy. Money has also gone to social housing, and to support local businesses.

Mr Gray then moves on to the politics of the playground. Oooooh, go on. I double dare you...

"Alex Salmond refused to debate with Jim Murphy – because, he said, he debates with me, every Thursday.

What’s so special about Thursdays Alex? How about St Andrews day? Clear your diary. Debate my vision of Scotland against yours. Tell us which side you are on. I dare you."

The First Minister is on Scotland's side; Mr Grey on Jim Murphy's.

The parting shot by Mr Grey is really something. Having given no evidence through his speech of what Labour are really for - what they would do differently, what their movement is about, he completes his speech thus:

"Last year conference, I said that Labour MSPs would stand shoulder to shoulder with MP colleagues, and with our Prime Minister in the Glenrothes by election and we would elect Lindsay Roy the new Labour MP.

We did.

And together we can do the same in Glasgow North East and make Willie Bain a Labour MP. And then we will make Gordon Brown Prime Minister again.

Together we will defeat those whose sole creed is self interest, whose sole purpose is division whose sole principle is expediency. Whether they are Tories, or Nationalists."

Nothing about what Mr Roy has achieved, nothing about why Willie Bain would do a better job in Glasgow North East than Michael Martin, and nothing about why Gordon Brown should be allowed to drag the UK further into the mire. It's for their own self interest, power for power's sake.

It's not for nothing that he has, peppered liberally through the speech the phrase:

"That is what happens when Labour loses power."

Iain Gray has seen it, and is at Labour conference to warn his colleagues how frustrating it is to be there.

Savings on a rainy day

I read with interest this article on the BBC website about David Cameron's plans to make savings by cutting back on MPs privileges. He has various proposals, including decentralisation, cutting quangos, increased transparency, reducing the number of MPs and cutting back on what it costs to run Westminster. This is all laudable stuff, and it should be done. I hope that the special interests who would oppose many of these can be defeated.

I would like to make clear at the beginning that I wouldn't mind at all (and apparently, neither would some of his own candidates) if David Cameron wanted to reduce the number of MPs by 59 and remove the unnecessary Westminster tier from Scotland altogether.

Anyway, what caught my eye in Cameron's speech is this:

There are currently 169 government ministerial posts and 3 opposition party posts that receive additional taxpayer funded salaries, on top of the standard MP salary.

These ministerial salaries range from £26,624 to £132,923.

It's only right, at a time when the country has to share in financial pain, that they make their sacrifice.

So we will cut all Ministerial salaries - that's the money they get on top of their MPs' salary - by an immediate five percent.

This means a pay cut of £6,500 for the Prime Minister and a £4 ,000 pay cut for Cabinet Ministers.

169 government ministerial posts is an eye watering number. What do they all do? Do we need them? Who are these people, because this clearly isn't all of them. Why not as well as cutting their top up, reduce the number of ministerial posts? If scrutiny is to be applied to the worth of all quangos, why not to ministers?

Forgive my if my calculations are off (percentages were never my thing), but I think that 169 out of 646 is an incredible 26% of the UK Parliament who have posts. Compare this to the Scottish Parliament, which has 16 Governmental posts, (18, if you include the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General). This is only 12% of the Scottish Parliamentarians.

Cameron also wants to cut the number of MPs - given the scale of the constituencies, I'm not convinced this is a great idea; he also wants to cut back on staff, which would make covering these huge areas properly far more challenging.


On another matter entirely, there's also a slightly odd comparison in his speech with the Electoral Commission and India's Election Commission which I'm not entirely convinced is fair. Cameron points out that India has "twice as many people to oversee sixteen times as many voters". For a start, the difference in salaries and the cost of doing business is somewhat lower in India. While I don't doubt the numbers quoted in the speech, I'm sure national officials will be working with many thousands of local officials in India to make sure the biggest democracy on earth can pull off fair and free elections.

Cameron also seems to conflate decreasing turnout with the work done by the Electoral Commission, rather than disillusionment with politicians... The Electoral Commission isn't perfect, but the work they do in trying to encourage voter turnout against rising apathy can be innovative and is definitely important.

While I find all this interesting from a theoretical viewpoint, I don't believe that the Westminster system has much to offer Scotland. Our devolved Parliament already has a better set up, and is surely evolving yet further. A real Parliament in Scotland with real powers to improve the lives of our people is a far better prospect for the future.


Update: I have found a better list of Ministers! http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page19564

SNP Government Funding for Bridgeton

I was delighted on Friday to hear the news that the Scottish Government has awarded Bridgeton £1.95 million to go towards redeveloping the town centre.

When the SNP Government introduced this scheme, I really hoped Bridgeton could benefit from it. Our Glasgow MSPs lobbied hard to make sure that the definition of "town centres" allowed those in cities to be included. As much as town centres in rural areas need assistance, urban town centres are often neglected for investment in the city centre. The Merchant City, International Financial Services District and the "golden z" are nice, but it's as important to invest in the places where people actually live.

Bridgeton Town Centre was chosen as one of the forty-eight town centres across Scotland to receive this funding, and has received the highest sum of money in Glasgow. This is a massive boost for the area, and shows the SNP Government’s commitment to regeneration in the East End.

I know that staff at Clyde Gateway are working hard to develop plans for the area alongside the wishes of local people, and this money will really add to what they can do. I fully support funds going towards the redevelopment of the former Olympia Cinema, which could become a huge asset for the East End.

There is £20 million in the town centre regeneration fund pot to be awarded later this year, and I am sure that Parkhead Cross, which missed out this time, will have a very good chance of getting selected next time. Parkhead has had some investment through the Townscape Heritage Initiative, but like so many of Glasgow's neglected town centres, it needs a bit extra to really make the difference for local people.

Prescription Charges

Delay in blogging for while, due to a busy week and Joe being sick. The small highlight in his week of sky high temperatures was a visit to the chemist to pick up his prescription. It's always nice to save £1.85 when you don't expect it, and in that particular minute, I felt like dancing round the chemists. Very tragic, I know.

The real kicker was when I was leaving - a guy had just been in Haddows across the road, and was complaining bitterly to his pal about how Gordon Brown had just cost him extra on a bottle of vodka.

What the SNP giveth, London Labour taketh away... no wonder support for independence is on the rise!

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - document of the looney left?

Since moving house I've been a bit lax at reading the Sunday papers - partly because I no longer live above a 24 hour newsagent, partly because I've been rushed off my feet and partly because Domino's on Ally Parade don't have newspapers to read while you wait... Yesterday, however, I did things a bit better by buying the Scotland on Sunday and reading the Sunday Herald and Sunday Times when I visited my parents.
I was struck in particular by the varying coverage of the story of our First Minister's stance on the Non-Proliferation Treaty; Alex Salmond believes that the Scottish Government should get observer status since the UK's nuclear arsenal is based in Scotland, and has written to signatories of the treaty to seek their support.

The Scotland on Sunday ran with the issue on it's front page, whereas the Sunday Herald had the story a bit further inside.

Reaction to the move from the Labour Government in Westminster was predictable, but worryingly, the Scotland Office appears to have either lost the plot or missed the point of the NPT:

Scotland Office Minister David Cairns said: "Another week, another conflict. Alex Salmond prefers posturing on the world stage to delivering on bread-and-butter issues. He should be funding 1,000 extra police officers and sorting out the mess over free personal care. Instead he seeks to cavort across the world stage with his discredited looney left policies."

A Scotland Office source added: "For Alex Salmond to seek an alliance with Iran and South Korea is an unpardonable folly"

Looney left policies? How is seeking to participate in the NPT "looney"? The text of the treaty is freely available, has stood since 1968 and has been accepted by the nuclear weapon holding permenant members of the UN Security Council. Wikipedia lists the nations who are members of the NPT, which as you can see includes not only the United Kingdom, the nations of the EU, but most of the nations of the world. And South Korea - are they suddenly on the "bad boy list", or did Mr Cairns mean North Korea, who have actually withdrawn from the NPT and wouldn't have been on the First Minister's mailing list as a result? A retraction on behalf of the people of South Korea should surely be issued by Mr Cairns!

Over on the BBC website, Eric Joyce MP singles out Iran and Zimbabwe - again, a political point which ignores the other 187 signatories.

The point of the NPT is clear, and while Alex Salmond's bid to get Scotland involved is a political move, it is not a rash or unreasonable one. Scotland is in an unusual position, where the Scottish Government opposes nuclear weapons, but the UK Government has the right to station them on Scottish soil and in Scottish waters. When Scotland becomes independent, that becomes a more pressing issue, one which last came up when the Soviet Union dissolved. Interestingly, the successor states were not keen to keep these weapons on their soil.

PS: The Sunday Herald mentions that the letter was sent to "the UK ambassadors of 122 countries party to the NPT". Scotland on Sunday claims that "First Minister has written to representatives of the 189 countries who have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty". Not quite sure who's right there, but I'm looking into it!

Executive no more!

Very chuffed to read in the Sunday Herald, the Scotland on Sunday, the BBC's website that the "Executive" will now be the Government. I know some people in the SNP who don't believe it should be changed until Scotland has the full powers of a Government, but I think it's a step in the right direction. It might sound like semantics, but I think it's important for a number of reasons.

Firstly, the term "Executive" means nothing to ordinary people. The only people I hear referring to the "Executive" are public sector and voluntary agencies. So many folk - even intelligent people who really should know better - seem to think that "Executive" "Government" and "Parliament" are synonymous. Oddly, their confusion doesn't extend to Westminster - they wouldn't blame the Parliament there for something the Government has or hasn't done. While you could always pin the blame on the public for not taking an interest in their political system, my view is that the lack of vision and personality of the previous "Executive" has pretty much bored people into submission. A change in name and, more importantly, in attitude ought to help turn things around.

Secondly, renaming is a big decision - one Labour in London wouldn't let Henry McLeish (remember him?!) take. I think it's telling that the SNP Government has done so, and that there - at least so far - seems to be no move from Westminster to stop the change. Does the Labour Government in Westminster believe that to intervene would be unpopular or play directly into the SNP's hands? Are they playing a longer game? I'm not sure it matters - once we are called a Government, act like a Government, people will begin to demand the powers of a Government.

Lastly, it's a change that the Unionist parties in Scotland will have to take heed of - and a change they'll find it hard to reverse. We're in a period where they have to react to the SNP's agenda, and this is something they're finding it hard to do. Labour, for example, have shifted already from saying the Scottish Parliament shouldn't have any more powers, to saying they'll reconsider. The Tories are dead on their feet in Scotland - could a distinctively Scottish Conservative party change their fortunes. And the Liberals... well, they're increasingly irrelevant under their current leaderships. These three need to decide within their own party membership what the direction should be. Playing constitutional musical statues isn't going to work.

As for the SNP - we need to be careful not to lull ourselves into a false sense of security - we may now be the Government, but we're not yet the Government of an Independent Scotland.