Back
to SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage
Thoughts on whom to vote for in the
Scottish elections 3rd May, 07
Editorial
02 May 07
©www.land-care.org.uk
Voting, that will determine the form of the third
Scottish Parliament since devolution in 1999, takes place tomorrow,
Thursday 3rd May. But how best to vote? Land-Care makes the following
comments from the perspective of a rural enterprise (farming) and
from that of an urban small business (publishing) in Edinburgh.
Labour and Liberal Democrats
What is first of all clear is that the situation,
whereby a Labour/Liberal Democrat Coalition has been in power since
the beginning of the devolved Parliament, must change. Their prolonged
spell in power has led to severe damage to the farming sector. While
some may say that the situation in Scotland is not as bad as that
in England, in many ways it is much worse. England does not have
the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, nor the Agricultural Holdings
(Scotland) Act 2003. Both of these Acts were poorly conceived and
poorly drafted, with a sea of problems now coming to the fore as
a result (1). Access for recreation
by the public to land in Scotland was never a serious problem in
the first place. Bad legislation has led to the leasing of agricultural
land virtually drying up, making it even more difficult for young
people to get started in farming. The anti fox hunting Bill, introduced
by the subsequently jailed Lord Watson (2),
is another example of the manner in which the Scottish Parliament
has spent an enormous amount of time and money creating legislation
that should have had much lower priority, but was driven by an over
riding prejudice against landowners. Why this convicted arsonist
ever came to be appointed to the Lords is difficult to understand:
it simply adds to the serious sleaze that surrounds Labour.
From the point of view of running a small business
in Edinburgh, the Labour/Liberal Democrat Coalition has not been
friendly. Their image has not been helped by a Westminster Labour
Chancellor (of Scottish origin) who claimed to be reducing corporation
tax, while increasing the corporation tax to be paid by small businesses.
Likewise, the deviousness in claiming in his latest budget, that
he was reducing income tax while quietly removing the basic rate
of tax of 10% (thereby making the poorest pay more tax) was less
than impressive. It makes one even more guarded in believing what
Labour says, be they south or north of the border.
Westminster Labour have created mayhem in the
NHS, in education and in foreign policy. Vast quantities of monies
have been spent, but its effectiveness is not apparent. The Westminster
Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has
been an unspeakable disaster.
Westminster Labour have been far too slow in arriving
at any comprehensible energy policy. Yet we are lead to believe
that the brightest of Labour politicians of Scottish origin are
at Westminster rather than Holyrood.
But this time round the Liberal Democrats in Scotland
want to dissociate themselves from Labour. But their policies in
important areas do not make much sense, although aimed at what they
perceive to be the popular vote. Their aim, so states their leader
Nicol Stephen, is to achieve 100% of energy from renewable ("green")
sources. But leaders in the energy industry, and academics, say
that this is impossible, and that a diversity of sources of energy
is a must. An emphatic refusal to consider nuclear energy is a key
part of the Liberal Democrat manifesto. That might be marketed by
them as being popular but in reality is hardly wise. The ambition
of the Scottish Liberal Democrats to lead the world in the development
of green energy - by creating an example to others - is hardly what
is required to keep the Scottish economy afloat. Besides, if the
truth be told, other countries such as Denmark, Finland and Norway
are already far in advance of us in terms of the technology of renewable
energy.
Anyway, how could one possibly vote for a party
who wows to have a compulsory one hour physical activity for all
school children every day as a key issue in their manifesto. Having
survived such a regime many decades ago, it seemed to me the fatties
remained as fat as ever, while those who were not gifted in physical
sports were made to feel inferior.
The Labour/Liberal Democrat Coalition during the
past 8 years has presided over a spend economy, rather than one
aimed at creating wealth in order to have the money to spend on
social benefits. Thus, the proportion of people employed by the
public sector in Scotland far exceeds that in England, and at rates
and conditions that the private sector can often ill-afford. Quangos,
such a Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), Scottish Environment Protection
Agency (SEPA), Historic Scotland - to mention but a few - have developed
into massive organisations that have become too autocratic. Essentially,
they are out of control.
There must surely also be concern over the manner
in which the Labour/Liberal Democrat Coalition at Holyrood has handled
the funding of the Arts and Science. Funding is now largely according
to political policy, rather than what the artists or the scientists
may want to do.
Scottish National Party (SNP)
As shown repeatedly by the polls, there is little
appetite in Scotland for a separate, totally independent Scotland.
Yet that is the main objective for the SNP. The political scene
in Scotland is now so dire that many people seem to think that this
core objective could perhaps be forgotten, provided their other
policies made better sense. Rather many of Scotland's leading economists
have great doubts whether the SNP manifesto makes economic sense.
They talk about a big black hole in SNP's balance sheet. Scotland's
leading researchers have warned against the consequences of voting
for the SNP in terms of university funding, etc. Yet we are told
that Scotland's future depends on it ability to innovate: to use
its brains rather than depend on brawn.
The SNP claim that an independent Scotland would
do better within Europe. But that must be questioned, even if the
EU was thought of as a well run organisation - which it manifestly
is not. They point to a prosperous Ireland, without mentioning that
Ireland's situation is very different to that of Scotland.
This week's Scottish Farmer gives much coverage
to the support for the SNP expressed by two previous presidents
of NFU Scotland and of a leader of Scottish Tenant Farmers. These
gentlemen highlight the pro-farming aspects of the SNP manifesto.
The Scottish Farmer editorial proclaims
"help get a pro-farming MSP elected, irrespective
of the party he or she represents".
But the trouble is, if the party in question has
got other major aspects of its manifesto so radically wrong, how
are they going to manage to deliver what the farmers want?
There must also be the serious question as to
whether the SNP has the calibre of candidates, who, if successful
could form a competent government. The situation is perhaps best
summed up by their description as a one and a half man band, with
the main character being a street-wise real chancer, whose superb
communication skills could argue the hind leg off a donkey.
The Green Party
In the view of the Green Party, climate change
is the major issue of the election. But is it? Even if one did believe
that climate change was all down to man's evil ways, which it may
not be (3), is it really Scotland's
overriding need to
"lead the world in saving the planet"?
In fact any contribution Scotland can make is
mighty small. Yes, it is important that Scotland plays its part,
but it emphatically is not the key issue - above all others - facing
Scotland. Besides, all the parties are parading green agendas, so
there is no longer any need to look to a party that confesses that
it has little interest in anything else.
Besides, many voters are getting a bit fed up
with the endless unscientific hype promoted by the Greens over "organic"
this and "organic" that.
As with the SNP, the Greens clearly do not have
candidates of a calibre that could take on serious political responsibility.
Scottish Conservatives
While it has been fashionable to scoff at the
Scottish Conservatives, they do in fact come out tops in the economic
experts' assessment of their manifesto. While supporting devolution
for Scotland, they are clearly committed to keeping the UK together
as a union. They recognise that Scotland's energy supplies must
in the future come from a diversity of sources, including renewables,
nuclear and clean coal. They are committed to review the abominable
quangos - SNH, SEPA and the like with all their red tape and officialdom,
coupled with a spectacular lack of relevant knowledge and expertise.
They undertake to review the worst of the legislation that the Scottish
Parliament has introduced in relation to the management of land.
They profess to want to achieve a better balance between how the
land is managed and the current over-emphasis on the terrestrial
environment.
They talk better sense about Council Tax and pensions.
They talk better sense about education and the NHS, rather than
just spending money on buildings and conditions of service.
Perhaps to the surprise of many, their leader
- Annabelle Goldie - will have made a favourable impression during
a recent key TV debate, which included the front runners of all
the main parties - Jack McConnell, Alec Salmond, Nicol Steven as
well as herself. She came across as a safe pair of hands, which
may be just what is needed.
The Conservatives, both north and south of the
border, need to be clearer about the vexed question of the European
Union. We surely want to be part of it, but not to be so dominated
by it.
They are getting rid of their past image as the
"blue rinse" brigade.
Perhaps, if the Conservatives south of the border
gain greater credence and continue to perform better at Westminster,
the Scots may well come to view the Scottish Conservatives in a
more realistic and favourable light. And better candidates may come
forward to stand for their party.
The Scottish Conservatives would appear to be
putting forward the best all-round policies. With their knowledge
of business they are likely to achieve the much needed improvement
in the balance between earning and spending. It should also be remembered
that the Scottish Conservatives have considerable latitude from
the Westminster Conservatives in what they do north of the border.
Even so, the advance of the Conservatives south of the border may
well influence how thinking Scots may cast their vote.
So who to vote for?
If you want better fiscal management with better
use of the vast amounts of money that is being poured into public
services, the Scottish Conservatives are away in front with the
right ideas. And that goes for the NHS, law and order, and education
and for rural issues. But it has to be said that their performance
in opposition has not been spectacular to date. They also seem to
be ambivalent about their enthusiasm for the EU.
Whilst one would like to encourage them, the likelihood
of them gaining most votes in Scotland is remote. But with some
degree of proportional representation being the method of election
in Scotland, the Scottish Conservatives could get enough MSPs to
influence the balance of power along more rational lines than Scotland
has seen over the past 8 years.
This election is going to be of major importance
to Scotland. Are things going to go from bad to even worse? Or are
there going to be the glimmerings of hope that Scotland may get
onto a more rational course?
©www.land-care.org.uk
References
1. Irvine, James (2007). Eight
years of Ross Finnie as Scottish Minister for Environment and Rural
Affairs: what did he have to say for himself at NFUS agm , Dunblane,
February 2007?
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITIAL Homepage, filed 02 Mar 07,
www,land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
2. Editorial (2005). The architect
of the anti-foxhunting (Scotland) Bill pleads guilty of being a
drunken wilful fire raiser, endangering the lives of others as they
slept in a prestigious Edinburgh hotel.
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITIAL Homepage, filed 07 Sep 05,
www,land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
3. Irvine, James (2007). Is global
warming due to the sun: not industrial CO2?
See ENVIRONMENT Homepage, filed 15Mar07, www.land-care.org.uk
Click
Here to View
Finis
|
