Saturday - a day to relax?

Today's been fairly productive - on the political side of things, I joined Glasgow YSI, Nicola Sturgeon MSP, and Councillor Allison Hunter for a litter pick on Walmer Crescent in Govan this morning, then headed with the YSI to the Burma rally in George Square (where, unexpectedly and excitingly, I got interviewed by the BBC news!).

After the all that entertainment, I headed off to be all domestic and go in pursuit of a settee for our new flat. As is the practice, I was listening to Off the Ball and the live football coverage all day, so didn't hear the news about Brown calling off the election til I got home and settled. The News of the World are claiming credit, but it's more likely just a case of cold feet (unless this is some stunning double bluff...).

I'm less bothered about the news personally than other bloggers will be - not least those who are selected candidates. Perhaps some in the media and Westminster village allowed themselves to get carried away by election fever, or it could be Brown's cunning plan to distract the rest of the political parties (note to self - must check for "buried" news...). However, I do think that this whole affair has really shown Brown to be weak and indecisive - particularly by allowing the election situation to snowball. The little old ladies (who I believe to be a reasonable disgruntlement indicator in society) interviewed by the BBC weren't impressed by Brown's apparent dithering, and I don't believe the anyone else will either.

Brown's indecision has also left David Cameron massive scope for attack - which he made a good stab at on his News 24 interview. This kind of thing will only help the Tories build up their support.

From the Scottish perspective, this debacle will reinforce the perception of Labour as tired and incompetent. I'm sure most activists up here will be glad not to be campaigning in the wilds of approaching winter, but I suspect that we've not yet heard the last of this election that never was.

Too poor to be the opposition

Hot on the heels of Pauline McNeill's pleas for some speech writing assistance, Wendy Alexander's Head of Research is the next Labour person to bleat publicly about the hardship of being in opposition. Tartan Hero also comments on this latest grumble from the Labour benches. The ongoing review of allowances has been interesting thus far, as it shows up how unprepared Labour are to cope with opposition.

According to the BBC article,

In a submission to the review Sarah Metcalfe, Labour's research and strategy director, said the party was required to hold to account an SNP government which had the entire civil service at its disposal.

For the past eight years, the SNP (and indeed the Conservatives, Greens, SSP and latterly Solidarity) have coped on this allowance and fought the might of the Civil Service. I don't think it's been easy, but it has been done. With an effective team a party can mount a challenge and win, as the SNP has proven. You can even be an effective opposition, picking your issues and playing to your strengths, as the Tories have done.

If Labour can't raise their game, employ better and more effective staffers, then they will flounder for years. It would be all too easy to sit back and watch their discomfort with glee, but I do believe you need to have an effective opposition to be a credible government.

It's also important to note that Labour were instrumental in setting up this system; I wonder if their arrogance allowed them to believe that they'd never have to use it themselves...

On staff wages, Ms Metcalfe also stated that

"The Scottish leader's allowance of £22,466 is insufficient to meet even the full costs to an employer of a private secretary - never mind the public expectations of a leader's office in terms of interest in the party's approach to parliamentary business and associated policy stances"

Wages are an important thing - but that's not why someone should get involved in politics. Getting paid is important, but it shouldn't be the incentive that tempts you in. That £22,466 is still seven thousand pounds more than a Councillor takes home. It's also much much more than I took home in my previous job as a MSP's Researcher.

I do my job because I'm committed to serving the people of my ward, and to winning Independence for Scotland. I feel extremely fortunate to be able to do this, and reflect upon those who have stood for the SNP many times in the past to no avail. Every time I walk up the stairs to the Councillor's Corridor in the City Chambers, I stroke the nose of the lion (which is supposed to bring good luck) but smile to myself and think how lucky I've been already to get here. I hope not to lose sight of that, whatever lies ahead.

Faslane 365

I spent this morning down at Faslane for the final day of the year-long 365 protest. I'd been before earlier in the 365 campaign, but never with so many people. It was a real carnival atmosphere, with people from all over Scotland, and even folk who had travelled further from other countries. One of my favourite moments was the huge Strip the Willow that I took part in, though I'm not sure that organised social dancing with anarchists will ever take off!

I was impressed by the huge mix of people, and how passionate and committed they all were. The people getting arrested were old, young, male, female, of clearly varying class and backgrounds; but they were all ready to step up and play their part. The police were numerous, but they seemed to be fair enough from what I saw. They lifted people like a leg and a wing, but there was no violence when I was there. I didn't really expect any to be honest, but you never know!

The SNP showing was ok - MSPs in the form of Sandra White, Jamie Hepburn, Bashir Ahmed and Gil Paterson, Councillors in the form of David McDonald, Colin Deans and I. A few had called off with appointments and illness, which was a shame, but I was glad to have been there. There were a fair few YSI and FSN members there too. Although Sandra was interviewed, advertising the SNP wasn't really the aim of the day for me.

One of the most interesting things was the statement of support from Alex Salmond - that would never have happened in the past, and it sends out a really strong message that Scotland is different, distinctive, and opposed to illegal weapons of mass destruction on our soil and in our waters.

More money, but for what?

It's taken me a while to get round to blogging on this - but I feel I must. I was in the pub on Friday night, and shouted out loud when I saw this article in the Evening Times. It's one of these stories that just makes you think "those politicians don't know they're born".

Kelvin MSP Pauline McNeill, who is paid £53,000 a year, told him: "Up until now I have written all my own speeches for Parliament, I have organised all my committee papers (filing and preparation) I attend meetings at night on my own as I cannot pay very much overtime to staff to attend with me."

As a former researcher to an MSP, I'm amazed on a number of fronts.

1) An elected MSP wants her staff to go along and hold her hand? Why? I believe I saw a member of Ms McNeill's staff with her at the Council's Botanic Gardens call in, where she and said staff member sat at the back of the room and did nothing for two hours (they were not permitted by the chair to participate in the proceedings). If she needed staff to come with her in the evening, why not arrange flexitime of some sort? Not exactly hard to arrange, and without the need for overtime at the public's expense.

2) What it is Ms McNeill's staff members are paid to do, if not carry out research, assist in speech preparation and do the filing? Recalling the nauseatingly sycophantic "reelect my boss" facebook page set up by Ms McNeill's staff prior to the election (which sadly has disappeared since May 3rd), perhaps they have too much free time on their hands... All MSPs employ staff, and the roles they carry out vary widely. Should particular tasks need done, that's up to the MSP to sort out.

3) Having been an MSP since the opening of the Parliament, Ms McNeill should surely be well able now to deal with the set up of her office, and her responsibilities as an MSP. Why start girning about it all now?

I personally believe there's a lot of room for refinement of the MSPs allowance system - for example in the staff wage structure and the accommodation allowances. Ms McNeill should perhaps focus on these more significant areas, rather than asking for more cash for a job she's already doing.

Does it matter what Borg thinks?

OK, so back to my thoughts on EU Commissioner Borg's thoughts on why Scotland would have to apply to join the EU.

To set this in context, this Commissioner is from the EU's smallest Member State, Malta. Malta has a population of 0.4 Million - roughly the size of Edinburgh and representing 0.1% of the EU's population. Mr Borg is a former Foreign Minister of Malta. Mr Borg is appointed by his Government to work in the interests of the EU as a Commissioner, and is responsible for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs, issues of vital importance to Scotland.

You would think, as someone who has come from the perspective of a very small nation in Europe which successfully acceeded to the EU, Mr Borg would be far less sceptical of the probability of Scotland's membership. It may have taken the accession countries some time to join, but many were coming from a very different position than that of Scotland for a number of historical reasons.

Scotland is already subject to EU laws and is a constituent part of an EU member state. There would not have any significant adjustments made to prepare for membership; we are in a sense already there. In addition, Scotland would is of significant value to the EU in terms of land mass, industry, oil and security. In reality, on what grounds could an independent Scotland see EU membership withheld or delayed?

Busy times

Apologies for the lack of updates - I've been incredibly busy with surgeries, meetings, turning 25 and packing to move house on Friday.

It feels like I've hardly spent any time in the office for the past couple of weeks, as I've been out and about in my ward. It's good for people in the ward to see their representative, but not so good when that creates a backlog of casework. I may need two of me!

Anyway - more later on why this article in the Scotsman has wound me up, and some of what I've been up to since I last blogged...

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.