Eats shoots and leaves

The SNP advert on Hebrides News seems to be advocating communal leasing.... 

Hopefully, the education policy is to a higher standard of literacy.

Election prophesies

"Forecasting is difficult, especially about the future", Mao Tse Tung

I'm having real difficulty in working out who might remain after the election, as it is a bit easier to identify those who look like being elected in their communities.

I look at the lists and despair at some of the candidates.  Truly despairs.  Especially, when I think that some of these will actually get their incompetent paws on the reins of power.  It is moderately comforting that they will be so out of their depth that any damage they do will be minimal.

The incoming Council will be worse than the last, despite the presence of some extremely able individuals, and it is clear to me that the gap between the best and worst Councillors is widening at every election.  But then we get who we vote for.

The easy prophesy first.  The only people who will be re-elected at the first round, for varying reasons, will be John MacKay, Charlie Nicolson and and Catherine MacDonald.

Most of the rest will be relying upon 3rd and 4th votes to get in. 

In Ness, Alasdair Dunlop should fill the vacancy, and Iain Morrison should be back.

In Stornoway North, Murdo Murray should get in, as should Iain "Sheep" MacAulay, but which of the sitting Councillors will go?

In Point I think that perhaps only 1 of the existing Councillors will survive, but I'm really torn as to who will replace them.  My head says Iain Don MacIver and Alasdair MacLeod.

In North Lochs and Uig, Norman Angus MacDonald will replace Norman Angus MacDonald - Puss to replace Docus.  I think Annie MacDonald might squeeze back in, but the rest is a lottery.

Poor, poor, residents of South Lochs and Harris.  Three of the four candidates don't even live in the ward, and one didn't seen to have realised the date of the elections when he booked his holidays in the Himalayas, where he will be advised by the voters that they come first.  DJ MacRae looks to be one of the very few bright spots for the Labour Party with his unique take on Council politics.  His presence will certainly be distinctive and he will have an inimitable approach to decision making.

South Uist and Barra is a crazy wide-open race.  I though Donald Manford was out, as the lightening rod for the abolition of RET, but now I'm not so sure.  He will not, however, under any circumstances, be Chair of Transportation after the elections.  Ronnie MacKinnon will be back.  As for the rest, given the history in this ward, I suspect the other sitting Councillors are in serious danger of all losing.

The rest of the wards are too crazy to call, although the fate of certain individual individuals is really clear.

This is not an election for the faint-hearted candidate, and I think that virtually all of them should be preparing two speeches.

I think I get an invitation to the count, but I'm not sure my stomach can take the sight of certain individuals saying vacuous crap they don't believe in.

Taxation neeedn't be taxing. But it is.

I've decided to move the accountancy practice offshore.

Nicolson Accountancy EU Sarl will be based in Luxembourg, and the Stornoway office will become an 'order fulfilment centre'.

I will employ literally a brace of people in Luxembourg, one to answer the phone and one to spend all day taking money to the banks, and as there is no tax to pay in the UK, I can cut prices by over 20%, driving the competition into the wall.

I'll then fill this gap, by getting a Scottish Government grant to expand the premises and bring employment to an unemployment blackspot; that I have helped create.

Alternatively, I'll mortgage everything I have.  Lend it all to a British Virgin Islands company, who lends it back to the UK company at double the interest rate I pay.  I'll get a tax deduction on all this interest on money I borrowed but don't actually need, whilst the BVI company will earn it all tax-free and pay of my mortgages and give me a very nice lifestyle.

Any spare cash will be lent back unnecessarily to the UK company in a tax-deductible/tax-free circle that continues until UK Corporation Tax becomes zero.  At this point, I'll trumpet my multi-million pound investment in Scotland, and be invited for tea at Bute House (which will appear on the official record).

The former, is of course, the Amazon style; and I didn't appreciate the full extent of their tax manipulation until this week, thinking that my spend was recycling in the UK.  It's not.

According to the Guardian, there are 2,265 employed by Amazon in the UK, and 164 in Luxembourg covering the entire EU.  But the UK seems bizarrely unprofitable, generating a mere £3m in taxable profits compared to an expected £100m.

The second is the News International structure, with debt used to move profits around.  It is surprisingly easy to do this, and has recently been enshrined in law as completely permissible - for large companies multi-nationals only.

So the correct and fair question that needs ananswer is: What will be the tax position of these two examples in an Independent Scotland?

Are we to become a "tax haven" as Francis Maude was rightly pilloried for aspiring to, or will we follow the Scandanavian model and insist on profits earned being tax here?

The SNP cannot remain silent on this, or try and deflect to the current taxation policies in the UK, for the very simple reason that we are supposed to be looking forward to a bright new future, not building a future based on past mistakes.

Political parties have to issue manifestos that address the real issues, or they will find themselves flailing about, in the same way that MacNeil did with a Shetland opt-out from Independence.

This is the biggest decision in many generations, and no-one seems prepared to try to come up with answers to some of the key questions and that, I am afraid, is just not good enough.  If 50 years of waiting, and 5 years in power are not long enough to find coherent answers then there is something far wrong.

Are the politicians too emotionally in hock to the multi-nationals to ever consider the impact on the wider economy of a grant-shopping, grant-hopping, local-economy destroying giant?

Are we to become a nation of over-taxed individuals, flipping burgers and packing books to pay the taxes for the social services, whilst the multi-nationals take the profits tax-free to Luxembourg and the Caribbean?

Or is the country going to take it's share of taxable income from the multi-nationals and build schools, Universities, roads and a sense of a viable future?

The absence of any kind of answer is - sadly - very telling, and will result in an eroded Scottish tax base, as the moderately wealthy emigrate in search of a better balance between taxation and standard of life; and the wealthiest emulate the multi-nationals.

Unblogged the Jedi has

My post makes no sense without the full impact of the article, so it has been hidden. Pending developments.

Council candidates

Some very interesting contests are in the offing, if the people who have told me they are standing are actually standing.

The SNP candidates look to be having a hard time against some ex-SNP independents, which is going to raise all sorts of interesting questions in the minds of the voters; and may explain why the SNP letter writers have been fulminating about (Labour) "Independents" and why you shouldn't vote for "Independents".

I understand that the Labour list will be formally announced later today, or tomorrow, as they are still not 100% certain of their numbers.  Better late than never, I suppose, but hardly the way to run a campaign.

Labour candidates are reported to number anything between 1 and 12, depending on who you speak to, put I think it is going to be in the range of 5-8, if my numbers add up.

As the likely "official opposition" in the new Council, it seems Labour's biggest enemy is Labour, and I foresee wonderfully eccentric policies being expounded, revised and disavowed as the two (three?) sides fight for control of the moribund beast. 

Interesting multi-cornered fights look likely in South Uist & Barra, Stornoway N&S, North Lochs, Point and Broadbay, where incumbency may be as much a problem as an advantage; and where Party candidates look likely to face still opposition from those who have left the Party.

To the victors, the spoils.  Which in this case means severe budget cuts, a centralising Government in Edinburgh, and a very limited set of options for enhanced service delivery.

Good luck one and all.

The SNP view on ferry fares

Which SNP Council candidate and MPs assistant gave the following memorable quote about today's rally:

We have a 4,500 majority, so what do we care?

I'm sure the people of Ness will bear that in mind when they come to vote.

Conspicuous by their absence

I attended the Outer Hebrides Transport Group march and rally in the town centre today.

There was an excellent turnout of 1,000 (?) marchers and 50+ lorries and vans.

I had a chat with, and spotted a lot of, candidates for the local Council elections and if I hadn't been shepherding three kids around I would have spoken with many more.  I wasn't being rude, just busy with kids and a flight to catch.

Absent from the entire march were any SNP Council candidates - although one activist was on the fringes, obviously to report back - which, as Angus Campbell says, tells you all you need to know about their position on RET.

Woody made an excellent point that has been missed in much of the debate, which is that there are incremental increases in the fares over the next three years adding £600 to the cost of an lorry across the Minch.

All that will come out of YOUR pocket, as food prices rises; as deliveries cost more; and, as the other businesses on the island have to pass on the costs.

I hope that the press coverage is good, as this is such a major issue for the islands.

Gail Robertson, the organiser of the campaign, deserves to be roundly congratulated for taking the bull by the horns.

Labour Council candidates

I have just been leaked the list of candidates standing for the Labour Party at the Council elections in May

I'm told that they are all held in the highest regard by the selection committee of Pugh, Pugh, Barney MacGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble and Grubb (Chair).

• Eric Joyce  (St Kilda North, excluding the Puff Inn until the leg tag comes off)
• Max Mosley (Point, but planning to get beaten)
• Craig Whyte (South Uist & Barra)
• Lord Lucan (Not disclosed)

.....More to follow

Missing, presumed very lost

A sad appeal for a missing family pet.

Until recently, it was a strong, upright animal, roaming it's wise-ranging territory and ensuring that all was well in the land.

Before

It looked after women and children and civil servants, and all it ever needed was a small amount of feeding and the occasional pat on the head from its owner.

Just a few years ago it suffered a sad accident, when the original owner was sectioned and the new owner released from his secure accommodation to cause serious harm to the unsuspecting beast.

A series of self-inflicted injuries followed as the once proud animal had a funny turn and started running into walls at full pelt.  Repeatedly.

Sightings of the dog ceased in January, although there are wild stories of a possible reappearance before May.

In desperation, the one-time owners would ask that if you see the animal, you take it to the vet to check for any signs of life.

After

The dog answers to the name: "Western Isles Labour Party".

The Comhairle view on RET and ferries

It is worth reading the Urgent report to Transportation Committee for today (sadly only available on the web 6 days after it was issued), in the name of the SNP Group Leader, which unequivocally states the position of the Comhairle.

It clearly explains why the Western Isles are being (and have been ) ill served by Government transport policies.

I don't know the outcome, but I sincerely hope it was supported without significant dispute and can be supported by everyone in the community.

(Unless I've missed something.)

Monkey see, moonkey do.....

Whilst the would be SNP Councillors berate the Comhairle for not awarding the schools contract locally - conveniently omitting to mention that it was wholly support by thre SNP Group and the one independant Councillor who has now joined the SNP - we see that fault actually lies with the Scottish Futures Trust, who directed exactly how the tenders were to be constructed, issued and then finance awarded.

The Scottish Futures Trust is - surprise, surprise - the brainchild of the SNP, and was triumphed as being able to deliver better, more efficient and cheaper capital projects.

But don't just take my word for it.  An economist who was lionised by the SNP in minority Government has said the same.

SCOTTISH firms could have bid for more work on the new Forth bridge if the contracts had been split into smaller parts, an economist has told MSPs.

So the local builders have been done down by none other than the party who now tries to disavow it's own core policy from the last but one election.

SHAMED are angry (and quite right too) - press release

Time to name and shame those who have conceded two marine Special Areas of Conservation (SAC's) in the Southern Hebrides

The recent announcement from Environment Minister, Stewart Stevenson, that the Government has approved a marine SAC at East Mingulay and that the site will be forwarded to the EU for approval, has prompted an angry reaction from SHAMED, a local campaign which is opposing plans to designate two marine SAC's in the sea east of Mingulay and in the Sound of Barra.

The Minister has also stated that proposals for the Sound of Barra will be going out to public consultation in the near future. SHAMED has noted the political statements simultaneously issued by the MP and MSP for the Western Isles alongside the Minister's announcement.

Reacting to these statements, Angus MacLeod, chairman of SHAMED and a crofter-fisherman from Barra, said :

"It is with utter disbelief that I read what Angus MacNeil MP has again been saying about EU requirements. He has been quoted as stating that once the EU 'have decided on a course of action, governments in either Edinburgh or London or their attendant civil servants are powerless to do much about it.'

Mr MacLeod explained : "Early in 2009, our MP issued a press release saying he was writing to the EU to demand that Brussels bureaucrats come to Barra to explain to us why the designations were needed. At the same time, our MSP went to Brussels to tell EU officials face-to-face that the designations were not wanted. Both were clearly told by the EU that the selection and designation of SAC's is up to the member states and regions within member states, a fact that was well known within the community. So, whatever spin politicians try to put on this, the decision to consult on East Mingulay and now the Sound of Barra is entirely a Scottish Government matter."

After almost three years of research and campaigning, SHAMED has gained an insight into how the SAC designation process works and, thanks to information received under Freedom of Information, it can be seen that it is SNH that drives the selection process in Scotland.

"Certainly it is true to say that the EEC Habitats Directive of 1992 compels Member States to set aside areas as SAC's but how this is handled within the UK and how UK policy affects Scotland is a local issue but one that has never been raised by our parliamentary representatives or, indeed, the Scottish Government," added Mr MacLeod.

Given that Richard Lochhead, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, has been prepared to speak out for Scottish fishermen and farmers at UK and EU level, SHAMED can only speculate as to why no-one in power is prepared to do the same over environmental issues.

"It is now apparent," continued Angus Macleod, " that the SNP government has bowed to pressure from environmental lobbies, with the local MP and MSP making empty promises in the run-up to elections. Clearly their policies are no different from any previous government. Thankfully at least our local SNP councillor, Donald Manford, has the backbone to stand up and publically voice his dissatisfaction; for this we applaud him and for giving us the proper representation that this community deserves."

As to what the group's next steps would be, Mr MacLeod reports that SHAMED has twice been refused a meeting with Richard Lochhead but that in the Cabinet Secretary's last response, he confirmed that the Environment Minister would meet with them and that a date was be set. One of the issues for discussion with the Minister and Marine Scotland officials would have been evidence previously submitted to them showing their data on vessel activity within the Mingulay site was inaccurate.

"We were under the impression that the Minister was to be supplied with the corrected data and that we would have had the opportunity to discuss the issues with him before he made his decision. We therefore feel betrayed by the Scottish Government for taking such a misinformed decision," added Mr MacLeod.

He confirmed that SHAMED was stepping up its fight and that no stone would be left unturned in order to expose what the campaign group feels are the irregularities within the designation process for the two SAC's.

Council finances

I think I speak for the vast, vast majority of people in the Western Isles when we applaud the Council for the single minded determination in pursuing their support for the Coastguard Station.  Just as we all supported and applauded the efforts of the Council over the Rocket Range.

Everyone in the islands believes that this is one of the key roles of the Council, and one at which we probably all think that has almost (almost!) a limitless budget and where public support and understanding of the role of the Council can best be focussed.

So let me say "Well done" to all concerned, before I highlight the problems going forward.

If anyone was in doubt about the financial problems facing the Council, then they should read the rather understated Finance Dept reports, where the stark truth is laid bare.  The 'strategy' document is a master of obfuscation in very few words (it's probably a trait of accountants).  The presentation to members on the other hand lays the options bare [including the issue of local election next year which will undoubtedly coulour the decision making process for some]

The Council faces massive cuts in Central Government support over the next few years, and the choices are hard but the impact will be deep.

I take no pleasure in pointing out that I suggested preparing for this a year ahead of the first round of cuts being implemented.  That might have stretched the pain a bit, but it certainly won't ease it.  The next three years will see major and fundamental cuts in the Council, and staff, unions, senior officers and Councillors better realise this.

The easy targets, such as Ceolas, will be the first to go as the various funders pull their funding - death by a dozen cuts -whilst compulsory redundancies will be absolutely necessary to streamline the Council. 

Indeed, fundamental reorganisation is essential.  I would believe that it might happen if the reorganisation started by the Chief Executive in 2006 had actually come to any sort of conclusion by now; rather than being brushed under the carpet, half-done (quarter-done?).

There is going to be the loss of some services too, but these could be mitigated of the Council actually tried to find best value solutions, rather than finding the 'most acceptable' solution.  I am aware of two recent decisions where a financially more expensive and less efficient solution has been implemented.  Both are unquestionably due to 'political' decisions, and one undoubtedly benefits a senior individual personally; although the way it was done with official support or purblindness makes it just inside the rules.

All of this is going to have to go, if for no other reason than it is going to become more transparent and more public, but we face major cuts across the board that will need to be properly implemented, if we are to have a living, working, smaller Council at the end of it.

The Political fall-out from the cuts is for another day.

An election hand grenade

The election campaign has really been as dull as ditchwater, with the two principal candidates rivalling each other in driving tedium to a new low.

So it's good to be able to report something that is hugely important, and which might enliven the campaign for at least a few minutes.

A client has received a worrying letter from the Government, which they believe will adversely affect the Western Isles. I think they are right, but because they don't want to go public, I will.

The new ADS cards come with these friendly words of warning:

"The Scottish Government has announced that business-related travel will not be reimbursed under the scheme.  Business-related claims are considered and journey where there is a business component, regardless of whether there is also a leisure-related component." (My emphasis)

As my client rightly points out, just who is to police and enforce this scheme, and just what is a "business component"?

My good lady and I left the island on Saturday, both carrying laptops.  We weren't away for work purposes, but will do some work whilst we were away; after stepping off the third plane.  Does that disqualify me; as the first journey was the only one that qualified for ADS, and I did not do any work between flight 1 and 2?

If I take a business phone call in Glasgow Airport after stepping off the Stornoway flight, does that disqualify me?  Do I have to turn myself in to the ADS Police?

If I take a business phone call in Stornoway Airport between checking in for an Edinburgh flight, for a client who has heard I'm coming to Edinburgh and wants to see me, do I have to go back and confess all to the FlyBe desk, and ask them to surcharge me?

Is this going to be a civil or criminal matter?  How do I appeal against a wrong decision?

My guesses: they'll look for a regular pattern of travel and the civil servants will then stop the card until you persuade them they are wrong, through some undefined and yet to be worked out method.

And who will be the easy first targets?  Step forward the offshore workers travelling every fortnight to Aberdeen, regular as clockwork.  You might as well hand the ADS cards back now.

But let's not forget the purpose of ADS, as it's website proudly and clearly announces:

• The primary objective is to facilitate greater social inclusion in the most peripheral areas of the Highland and Islands through affordable access to air services to the main economic areas administrative centres of Scotland.
• Other important benefits are potential improvements in capacity and frequency and greater economic growth as a result of improvements in accessibility.

And how does this fit in with stopping business people making a living - and continuing to live - in the Western Isles?  It so obviously doesn't.

It is all about the Government saving a few pounds here and there, and paying lip service to a policy that it doesn't want to implement properly.

As my client further points out, this might even be illegal, as the Western Isles has a higher percentage of female small business owners than the rest of the Scotland, and a statutory equality impact assessment should have been carried out before the policy was sneaked out.

Can I encourage everyone to think how they might be affected, and then to demand that both leading candidates pledge to reverse this move.  They might also want to know why our former MSP has never done anything to stop this massive economic damage to the islands.

The Government can spend huge sums issuing the Census in Gaelic, and celebrating this fact, whilst bringing in policies that will further undermine the viability of the Gaelic speaking areas.

Handbags at dawn....

As the politicians argue over who did what in Barra, and who didn't do what, MacIain closes their quarry and lays off 8 employees.

Whilst the name calling might be entertaining, it is the absence of anything substantive that is the problem.

Our sitting MSP might believe that letters to the Minister is a substitute for action, but unless he places these letters - and their responses - into the public domain, the impression of doing exactly what he is told by his political masters will continue.


Can either Labour or SNP come up with any practical solutions to the economic issues that are facing the islands?

The next Labour candidate

So the short list of three is in, and we are all wondering just who will be the Ed Milliband and who will be the Diane Abbott?

I've been in contact with all three candidates recently, one of whom denied he was on any list (like I believed him!), one of whom came in for a wonderfully amiable chat about everything and anything, including some very indiscreet observations that I will not be repeating, and one of whom regularly emails me his insights.

Actually, I have to say that it is the omissions from the list that are the most significant.  Two strongly touted potential candidates haven't put their names forward, and frankly I think that they were absolutely correct not to get involved at this time.

It is most certainly an interesting race, and my soundings indicate that Kevin Paterson seems to be the early leader.  Thankfully, they only have three weeks to bore the party electorate into submission before the end of the phony war turns into a most interesting contest.

As the local SNP have repeatedly said that national trends are more important than local issues, it will be interesting to see how they intend to defend, whilst seemingly on the back foot.

Copies of the candidates' manifestos gratefully received for wider dissemination.  Leaks from candidates of their own material will be given the anonymous treatment.

Be careful what you wish for

Let me surmise that the SNP thought that the best result for Scotland the SNP (perhaps not in that order) was a Tory Government.

You know the arguments - Tory Cuts, English MPs setting a policy for Scotland etc.

Is it really any surprise that one of the outcomes is a Boundary Commission review of constituencies to bring them into a more 'standard' size?

And, too late, it brings a realisation and a press release issued on behalf of our MP.

Does anyone in the Western Isles believe that the current Council boundaries recognise communities in any way shape or form? Lochs and Harris as one ward shows it for the nonsense it is.

The simple fact is that when the Boundary Commission are given a remit, then they have no discretion to modify that remit. If they are told to bring all the Parliamentary Constituencies inside boundaries of a voting population, then they have to do so in a ruthlessly mechanical way.

When the Council boundaries were being draw, we Councillors were presented with two option on how to split Stornoway between different wards. When I suggested making Stornoway one ward, we were told that that was not an option. The process seemed to involved counting voters from a starting point and drawing a line when you reached the requisite number. Hence you start in Tiumpan, Leverburgh, Ness and Uig and draw the first wards, and fill in the blanks from their. Natural communities don't matter; it is simply numbers.

Come the Parliamentary boundaries, the only criteria will be either (a) how many voters per seat, or (b) how many seats in total. Thereafter a simple number crunching exercise will take place to draw the outline seats, and the public will only be able to haggle at the margins. Unless you have a special dispensation like Orkney and Shetland written into the legislation.

As it is, we are on the back foot before the process has even started. There are now only three potential outcomes:

1. Obtain a dispensation (highly unlikely as the LibDems will be trying to maximise their future seats, and the Tories will be trying to stuff Labour by reducing the number of Scottish seats further)
2. Lobby for the best new boundaries for the seat (but I really cannot imagine what they would be)
3. Or, hope for multi-member pan-Highland seats to give us some influence over a number of members

That is also my order of preference at the moment, although I'm finding some merits in option 3 at various moments.

The potential irony is that the SNP have always described Westminster as a burden of Government we don't need, but it looks to me like Westminster might actually be the least intrusive (at least in terms of numbers of Parliamentarians) whilst the SNP Government in Edinburgh presides over a (comparatively) bloated Parliament and Council structure......

Tarting about = farting about

Dear Mr Clegg,

Just make your mind up and stop trying to play one party off against the other, before they both walk away and we have to suffer another election.......

Joe Public

It's simple really

Thanks to the BBC for this graphic which neatly sums up where we are.


I think that the Tories are at "Can any of the parties get together to form a coalition Government?", whilst Labour are at "Labour get first go....".

For the good of the party....

As Brown casts himself upon his sword, he does so to give the Labour Party a very slight chance of retaining power.

That is the nature of politics, that sometimes you have to sacrifice yourself for the greater good. Only trouble is, Brown should have worked this out a few days ago, and gained the moral high-ground then; not waited from the LibDem negotiators to put a gun to his head.

What is fascinating about this is what it tells us about the state of the negotiations and the absolute power being wielded by the LibDems over the other two parties.

It looks like the main negotiations are getting bogged down -perhaps in minutea, possibly in some of the bigger stuff - and the second team have decided to up the ante by appearing to offer to throw in their lot with Labour. Very smart negotiating stance, as Cameron probably needs Clegg more than Clegg needs Cameron, if he is to have any chance of getting the radical economic agenda through Parliament.

A pact centred around Labour can be done, but if you look at the arithmetic (and there is a great BBC graphic here) which shows how it could possibly be done. But trying to pull together such a disparate bunch is going to be such a challenge by itself as to make the game not worth the candle for Labour.

So what are the options if a Tory-Lib deal cannot be reached?

I quite fancy the likelihood of a Lab-Lib concordant running as a minority Government and challenging the Tories (and other to bring them down). Labour have nothing to lose and everything to gain, and given the informality of such an agreement it could be concluded quickly whilst allowing each to disavow the actions of the other partner. That will surely protect the LibDems from the worst political insults, whilst allowing Labour to push through its policies.

But, such a prospect will undoubtedly force the hand of the Tories, and propel the LibDems into the Cabinet and power. From whence they will crash at the next election, tarred with all the blame and not credited with any successes. PR will be the subject of a Royal Commission, new Parliamentary Boundary discussions and half a dozen tricks to delay it until the next Parliament where it could be abandoned.

Such a scenario could see the Libs quitting a coalition and a minority Tory Government struggling on to an early election. The question would again be "Who governs Britain?" and until we know who will replace Brown, we woun't be able to visualise an answer.

It is now all getting very interesting, and as a spectator sport it has much to commend, and little at present to condemn.

If the LibDems can remember the lessons learned by the FDP in West Germany, they could remain at the centre of politics for quite some time, but I fear that there innocence will be exploited. Which will be even more fun to watch.