Election Launch Site?

Whatever you think about the party, its policies or it's personalities, hardly anyone can disagree that the SNP is the winner of the battle to make a manifesto launch in the most stunning location.

The Edinburgh International Climbing Arena, has had millions of pounds worth of free publicity by the world's media gathering there to report on what's included in the SNP Manifesto. That makes me wonder why the Welsh parties didn't have a similar vision?

Think of the impact that Leanne could have had by publishing her policies at 100 MPH in Zip World, imagine Carwyn bouncing Labour policies in Bounce Below, or Andrew RT publishing his policies in the fitting setting of the Dinosaurs of Tan yr Ogof, or Nick Clegg launching his party's manifesto in an iconic Welsh venue that might be big enough to hold next year's LibDem conference:

Vote Labour - Vote England

I have had an interest in electoral politics since the 1970s. I can't believe that was 45 years ago! Doesn't time fly when you are enjoying your elections?

During the whole of that time I cannot remember a single general election (or other election) where the Labour party hasn't tried to blackmail the electors with the same old mantra Vote Liberal get Tory, Vote SDP get Tory, Vote SNP get Tory, Vote Plaid get Tory etc.

Electoral statistics show that to get a majority Labour needs to win in England, it doesn't depend on the Welsh and Scottish vote. In 1951, 1955, 1959, 1970, 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992 Wales gave massive support to the Labour Party, but still got a Tory government. If Wales had voted for 40 Monster Raving Loony MP's in 1997, 2001 and 2005 we would still have suffered Tony Blair's Labour Government.

If you are a Labour supporter don't waste your time canvassing in Wales, English marginals are more important to your cause / gravy train.

The sad thing about the Vote SNP get Tory, Vote Plaid get Tory crap, isn't the historical inaccuracy or the slogan, but the full stop! Plaid and the SNP stand to get the best for Scotland and Wales. If Labour went further than the full stop and explained how Scotland and Wales would benefit from voting Labour they would lose votes in England and absolutely scupper their ability to form a government – voting Labour is not in Wales' or Scotland's best interest.

The Labour deal seems to be please vote Labour so we can win in England -for England's beneft. Labour offers nothing for Wales!

NATO - A breath of Fresh Air!

Some might agree with Syniadau that the SNP's vote for Scotland to be part of NATO was right; others might agree with Glyn Beddau that it was wrong.

Having listened to broadcasts from other party conferences, where nothing was debated, where no policy was decided, where the party hierarchy was not held to account, I thought that the NATO debate at the SNP conference was a breath of fresh air.

A party conference where delegates were allowed to argue passionately for and against what they believe to be the best policy followed by a knife edge vote, where the arguments presented to conference made the difference to the outcome of the vote - that is what party conferences use to be for should be for!

How many other Governing parties, in the so called Democratic West, would allow such a debate and such a vote? Very few!

Agree or disagree with Conference's decision (I disagree) it was fantastic to have such an open, honest and hard hitting debate – decided by ordinary party members.

The fact that UK Party Conferences have become nothing more than staged managed rallies rather than a place to argue policy and that Scotland still has a party where debate is open and free - should, in-itself, be an argument for independence and a reason to vote YES in 2014!

Mebyon Kernow Conference

Mebyon Kernow held their Annual Conference in Bodmin last weekend here are a selection of contributions;

First MK's leader Cllr Dick Cole:



And a contribution from Plaid Cymru's Jonathan Edwards MP



and a speech from the SNP's Kenneth Gibson MSP

Sleepwalking into complacency about OUR future!

One of the opposition arguments made, not so much against the SNP, but against the people of Scotland is that they may sleepwalk into independence!

The argument is that the people of Scotland are so star struck by Alex Salmond, that they might vote YES in a referendum because of what they feel in their bellies, rather than what they know in their heads; Mr Salmond's charisma might mesmerise them into voting for independence against their better judgement!

Or, to put it in other words, the people of Scotland may support independence in a referendum because they are too stupid to know better! A good unionist vote winning strategy!!!!

At the moment the Unionist supporters seem to be banking on the fact that the vote will go their way. They might be right, they might be wrong, who knows until the votes are counted?

Supposing that Scotland votes YES and becomes independent, where does that leave Wales, where does it leave England?

The term used in the Scottish blogosphere is rUK (remainder United Kingdom), which is fair enough from a Scottish prospective – but where does it leave those of us who continue to live in the remainder?

I have heard of no plans from the Conservatives, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats nor even Plaid and MK about what happens next IF Scotland votes for Independence.

Which raises the question Who are the Sleepwalkers?. What are the people of England, Wales, Cornwall and the north of Ireland going to do, going to be, if Scotland becomes independent?

Surely all parties need to plan for the inevitability of Scottish Independence and its ramifications for the rest of us! Sleepwalking into post Scottish Independence must not be an option!

Are Lib-Lab-Con parking their tank on Plaid's grass again?

There is rather pathetic post on Wales Home in which David Torrance tries to fry Scottish First minister Alex Salmond for a lack of commitment to proper independence for Scotland!

Indeed, over the past 15 years the SNP leader has gone out of his way to emphasis an almost Burkean continuity with the United Kingdom, preserving whichever features of the ,ancien regime he judges Scots voters, however patriotic, are reluctant to sacrifice.

From the election of Gwynfor in 1966 up to the devolution referenda of 1979, the Unionists (to use Mr Torrance's all inclusive phrase) built up an independence straw man: If Scotland or Wales were to become independent they would be like Albania or Cambodia, cut off from the rest of the world economically, socially, culturally and in every other respect.

The nationalist response was always that such a claim was complete and utter tosh; an independent Scotland or Wales would become individuals in the family of nations and would retain strong links with all the nations with whom they had bonds prior to independence, including England, and that some of those bonds would be strengthened through independence.

Nothing has changed in the nationalist camp. We were saying forty years ago that many countries had shared currencies, the Irish Punt and the US dollar being typical examples at that time. We were saying forty years ago that many countries allowed foreign forces to have bases in their territory for the sake of mutual protection (like Greenham common!) We were also saying forty years ago that after independence Scotland and Wales had the option of being part of the Commonwealth of Nations and retaining the Queen as our titular head, as many other independent countries do. Alex Salmond is singing from the same old hymn sheet as his predecessors sang from in the 60's and 70's!

What has changed is the Unionist attack. Salmond is now derided for only wanting Devo Max or Independence lite, rather than the full blooded Albanian isolationism that he and his party were wrongly accused of supporting in the 60's and 70's.

The funny thing is that Plaid has had a squeaky bum period of being frightened of mentioning the I word preferring to talk about full national identity, the evolution of devolution and such like; terms that are not dissimilar to the Scottish Unionists Devo Max and Independence Lite!

Another example of the British Parties parking their tanks on Plaid's grass?

We should we prepare for having independence thrust upon us!

The response to the SNP's outstanding victory in this month's Scottish Parliament Election from unionists within Scotland and British Nationalists outside Scotland has been interesting. The general opinion seems to be that Alex Salmond will bottle out of a referendum on independence, because he knows that it will fail to deliver a Yes vote. They base this on polling results that suggest that "only" 33% or so of Scottish voters poll as supporting independence; a rather blinkered view, in my opinion.

The last two referenda on the Scottish constitution managed a 60% and a 62% turnout. If one makes the fair assumption that those who support independence are likely to be more motivated to vote than those who are ambiguous or disinterested on the No side then the current polling already suggests that the Yes side COULD gain a simple majority of votes cast if the referendum was held today. (I'm not good at maths but I think that if 33% of the electorate vote yes in a 60% turn out it gives something like a 55% Yes 45% no vote.)

Whatever our opinion about how desirable Scottish Independence is, we should all accept that it is a possibility that Scotland might become independent within the next few years and recognise that if Scotland does become independent that it will have an effect on all of us that remain in the rest of the UK.

Northern Ireland's Unionist link to the UK is very much a link with Scotland. Where does Scottish Independence leave the NI unionists? Would they want to remain a member of the remainder UK linked to England but not to their Scottish heritage?

Polling support for English Independence is much higher than support for Scottish independence, but independence has a lower priority on the political scale in England than it has in Scotland. A campaign for Scottish independence, especially a successful campaign could raise the issue of English self determination on the English agenda.

So where does this leave Wales, where polls suggest that a miserly 10 to 15% of us support independence for our country? We could have independence thrust upon us without having made any preparations for it.

Perhaps even those dinosaurs who oppose any form of Welsh self-determination should wake up and smell the coffee and prepare for the possibility that we may have to take care of our own destiny whether we like it or not!

This Asda be the funniest campaign report this year!

I can't stop laughing at this hilarious report from STV News about Iain Gray popping into an Asda store where Alex Salmond was doing a meet and greet.

Iain Gray and Alex Salmond have accused each other of hiding and running away during a visit to an Ardrossan supermarket.

Scottish Labour claimed that Mr Salmond "hid" from Iain Gray when the two leaders found themselves in the same supermarket on Tuesday night.
However, the SNP said that Labour’s claims were "desperate" and that the situation unfolded very differently. An SNP candidate said that Mr Gray "turned tail" rather than face the First Minister.

Classic!

Deus Samolidi ex Machina?

This is the first PPB offered by the SNP for the May 5th elections:




I am not impresed, it reminds me of the Deus ex Machina of ancient Greek and Latin drama, a good story with a bad ending, where a god in the machine comes down to say it all ended happily ever after! Ych a fi. I hope that the SNP has better to offer than Salmond as the god in the Machine of Scots politics!

Having said that, where are the Welsh PPB's from all parties?

Time is short. There are votes to be won. But with only a few weeks to go the election campaign seems to be a non starter at the moment.

Time to pull the finger out?

Lib Dem Gerrymandering for a Fair Vote is an Oxymoron

I have always been a bit of an agnostic about PR, I can see its advantages and its disadvantages.

Even under first past the post Plaid Cymru with a very small vote (in UK terms) claims to have had major achievements and to have punched far and above its weight in Westminster. If this is true there is no need for PR. Why should a party that claims that it has punched far above its democratic mandate under FPTP get even more power under PR?

On the other hand I can see the democratic deficit in the fact that the Conservatives in Scotland got 17% of the vote but fewer than 1% of the seats earlier this year! This is an example of a democratic deficit that has disenfranchised the voice of Scottish Tories that PR might equalise!

I understand the arguments for and the arguments against, but for the arguments to be realistic they must be based on a true belief in fairness.

The fact that the AV referendum is to be held on the same day as the Scottish, Welsh and NI General Elections is an exercise in unfairness.

Firstly because a proportion of the population who have more than average experience of alternative voting will have a disproportionate turnout!

Secondly because the Lib Dems froze out the SNP and Plaid Cymru in the Westminster elections, because they had much more coverage than the Nationalist parties did on an UK level. Holding the referendum on the same day is a despicable attempt to ensure that Nick Clegg gets as much, if not much more, coverage on the widest TV networks during the Scottish and Welsh General elections as Alex Salmond and Ieuan Wyn get!

As I said, I am an agnostic about alternative voting systems, but I will be voting NO in the AV referendum, because there is one thing that I do know about fair voting – you don't get a fair vote through Gerrymandering!

Nationalist Should Let the Tories Govern England

A number of bloggers and commentators have suggested that Labour should try to form a grand alliance with the Lib Dems, the Ulster parties and the Nationalists. I think that such an idea is absolutely stupid, unsustainable and reeks of desperation to hold / gain power for power's sake. Such a deal would be heavily punished in the ballot box in the next election.

As I noted a few days ago the only really sustainable deal that the Celtic Block could offer would be a supply and confidence agreement to a Conservative minority Government based on abstaining from English only issues with an agreement that the knock on effects of such issues would not impinge on Welsh/Scottish/NI consequentials.

The maths is there for such an agreement, and it wouldn't involve jumping into bed with the Hairy Arsed Tory Monster, just agreeing not to disagree on English Votes for English Issues, if they contained a Celtic caveat.

Of course such an agreement would allow some policies on Education or Health etc that we find objectionable to be passed for England – but England voted Tory so So What?!

England voted Conservative by a fair majority, the best option for the Celtic Block is to agree to enable the Conservatives to govern England, in exchange for a deal that is beneficial to Wales, Scotland and NI!

If I was one of the big guns in Plaid the DUP or the SNP I would be on the phone offering such a deal to Cameron, before a Lib /Con deal was brokered!

SNP & Plaid to take BBC to Court?

Elfyn Llwyd has just announced on the S4C Programme Pawb a'i Farn that Plaid and the SNP are going to take the BBC to court over its decision to exclude the parties from the TV debates following the Trust's decision to reject their complaint about their exclusion.

I haven't seen any official anouncement about this, but I doubt if Elfyn would have said that legal action is to be taken, unless an official decision to go to court had been made by the parties.

Ask the Prime Ministers "Why are you frightened of Plaid / SNP?"

Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg will appear  head to head in telly debates on April 15th, 22nd and 29th. I'm SO excited I can't wait!

The first chinwag will be under the auspices of ITV when Alastair Stewart will be the referee. The debate will deal with domestic issues.

Sky will host the second debate, international affairs will be the curriculum and Adam Boulton will be the invigilator

The final debate will be hosted by good old Aunty BBC with David Dimbleby in the chair presiding over a debate on economic issues

Any member of the voting public can send a question into the programmes, the theory is that the most asked questions will be put to the three great leaders, but the questions will be dismissed unless they are relevant to the themes of the debate.

If you would like to suggest a question you can do so through the following links:

http://www.itv.com/electiondebate/

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Election/debatequestion

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8589502.stm

I doubt if it would be asked, even if it was the most popular question, but what I would ask on the ITV programme is Why are the three representatives of the London Parties frightened of debating domestic issues with representatives of Plaid Cymru and the SNP?

I would ask Sky: Why are the three representatives of the London Parties frightened of debating international issues with representatives of Plaid Cymru and the SNP?

I would ask the BBC: Why are the three representatives of the London Parties frightened of debating economic issues with representatives of Plaid Cymru and the SNP??

I would encourage every Welsh and Scottish Nationalist to post the same questions, and after posting them to announce the fact on their blogs, and their Facebook, Twitter etc accounts.

A two minute protest, that will make a pertinent point if many of us take up the challenge!

Labour don't get Facebook

I am not one of those who believe the internet will have a huge impact on the Westminster election, but if it does have an affect it doesn't look like Labour is going to be one of the beneficiaries, the poor Labour party just doesn't seem to get how the internet works.

In the middle of March Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy made the claim that Labour represented the Facebook generation. Nothing wrong with that as far as it gos, all parties have to try and appear to be the best representatives of younger voters. However if Mr Murphy actually understood anything about Facebook he should know that such a comment would immediately spawn a Facebook group denying his claim.

So it happened The Jim Murphy Doesn't  Speak for me group was set up. However it appears that Labour didn't know enough about Facebook to foresee the inevitability of such a group being formed. They are now calling foul in the Scottish press. This is from the Scotsman:

The Scottish Secretary said: "Politics is a rough old game, but this goes way too far. I wouldn't like my kids reading this online about their dad.
"I'm sure Alex Salmond didn't personally sanction this, but it's time for him to stop it."
Labour MSP Cathy Jamieson said: "This kind of vitriol and hatred is shocking … The SNP have done nothing to close down their cybernats – and now we know why."

Comments which give even further proof of how little Labour understands Facebook. Before these articles appeared in the press the Murphy group had under 200 members, within hours of the story appearing on the online copies of the papers it had gained another 60 members - how many will it have when the papers hit the news stands?

Alex Salmond does not and cannot have any censorship control over Facebook, the idea that people would only join groups personally approved of by the leader of the SNP is quite ludicrous - and the "CyberNats" who are group members include Conservatives, Lib Dems and non alligned people who just don't like the audacity of any politician claiming to "speak" for them.

And if Labour did have a clue about Facebook they would also know that the Murphy group is quite tame compared to some of the groups that Labour supporters are members of such as:

I Hate Alex Salmond 
Alex Salmond can bite my shiny metal Unionist ass 
Alex Salmond can jump hoops as far as I'm concerned...
I would never tire of slapping Alex Salmond  etc.

By condemning the SNP whilst Labour supporters are just as bad if not worse the Labour party isn't just showing itself to be totally out of touch with the "Facebook generation", it is showing itself up as stupid and hypercritical too.

Salmond to be part of the big debate

SNP Tactical Voting reports that Sky has agreed to let Alex Salmond take part in its Leaders Hustings debate for the Westminster elections. If this is true it is a huge coup for the SNP. But where does it leave Plaid's case to be part of the debate? Will Plaid be happy for Salmond to represent the nationalist cause, or will it strengthen Plaid's argument to have parity with the other parties?

Hang the bastards!

Since the 1960's Plaid Cymru has proved itself to be the second choice of disgruntled Labour voters. From the 1960's to the 1990's Plaid has managed to get 15%, 20% even 39% swings from Labour in by-elections but without winning a seat because of the weight of the Labour vote.

The days of Labour winning a seat despite a 39% swing against it in Wales have been over for some years.

Apart from perhaps Alyn and Deeside and Monmouth Plaid would be in a strong position to win any Welsh by-election called today. Bloody hell, Plaid even won Islwyn in 1999, despite the fact that many people in the constituency claim that Islwyn, Monmouthshire, is a part of England!

The clear problems for Plaid is that today's pissed off voter doesn't switch party, he / she just doesn't vote! That is why the Tories topped the poll in Wales for the first time in 150 years in the Euro Elections !

If Plaid can persuade the peeved to vote Plaid rather than not to vote at all, Plaid could gain, 11, 12, 15 or even more constituencies in the next Westminster election. With 20-to 30 SNP members and an outside possibility of an MK member, the national group could prove pivotal to the next parliament. Being pivotal is good for Wales, good for Cornwall and good for Scotland – Vote Plaid - Vote SNP – and Vote MK to make it happen!

The best option for Wales isn't a continuation of the present Labour government, nor swapping it with a Tory Government but a hung government where the voice of Wales counts. Lets hang the bastards by voting Plaid!

The Shame of Annabel Goldie

As I have said before, if it was my call, based on personal prejudice rather than the need to look at things like precedence, the rule of law etc, I would have let al-Megrahi rot in gaol if he is guilty of the murder of 270 innocent people.

Because the rule of law is above personal prejudice, however, I suspect that the justice secretary of any makeup of a Scottish Parliament would have come to the same conclusion as that made by Mr MacAskill, so the political posturing on the issue is rather sick.

The sickest posture that I heard in the debate today came from Tory leader Annabel Goldie.

Ms Goldie suggested that Mr al-Megrahi could have been released on bail to serve his dying sentence out in a Scottish hospice.

Hospices provide a haven in which people with terminal illnesses can die in peace. They tend to have no "visiting policies" they keep "rules" to a minimum, they are relaxed and allow terminally ill people the space in which to die in a loving and caring environment.

If one of my loved ones happened to be passing his or her last days in a hospice, I just wouldn't want him or her to share that last dwelling place in life with a notorious terrorist. Full Stop!

The thought that I might have to go through a cordon of policemen, to be stopped and searched; even to be refused entry because of youthful misdemeanours, whilst my granny, my parent, my spouse or my child lay dying there is absolutely sickening!

Did Ms Goldie think this posture through before she proposed it in the Scottish parliament? Or is she just a heartless bitch who couldn't give a damn about the others who might have had to share the hospice with Mr al-Megrahi? Or is she more interested in political one upmanship than the care of those living out their last days in the bosom of the Scottish Hospice community?

The Laws of Compassion

Whoever was responsible for the Lockerbie air atrocity showed no compassion for the 270 people who died as a result of the action. The bombers didn't give a dam about the family circumstances, the children, the parents or friends of those who perished as a result of their actions.

If Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi was one of those responsible then I don't see why he should be shown any more compassion, because of the fact that he is dying, than the compassion that he showed to those who he was responsible for killing. He wants to be with his family and loved ones when he dies, his family and loved ones want the comfort of being with him too – a comfort which was viciously denied to the victims of Lockerbie.

However there seemed to be a possibility that he was not guilty, that he was a scapegoat and that he had a chance of a reprieve based on the strength of his case for appeal. But it appears that he will not live long enough to see the outcome of that appeal, so the appeal has been dropped in order to enable the Scottish Justice authorities to expedite either his release on compassionate ground or his return to his homeland to serve his sentence there on compassionate grounds.

This totally confuses me and confirms the law is an ass theory.

By dropping his appeal he accepts his guilt. If he is guilty he deserves no compassion.

By continuing with his appeal he maintains his innocence and leaves open the possibility of doubt about his guilt. I can accept, given his poor health, that where doubt remains he might be given the benefit of that doubt and be shown compassion. I could understand if he was released on bail or sent to serve his sentence in Libya, prior to returning to Scotland (should he live) for the appeal.

The fact that he can only be shown compassion by admitting his guilt (even if he is really innocent) makes an ass of the law and a complete bollocks of the concept of true compassion!

Bring it On?

There has been much blogging comment* on Plaid and the SNP's use of their opposition day motion to call for an immediate dissolution of parliament. Most of it has been supportive.

If the Tories and the Lib Dems stick to their principals and support the motion, and if enough peeved Labour MPs either support it or abstain then there is a very slight chance that the move might be successful.

There is no doubt that by pushing for an election in a practical way that the national parties are capturing the mood of the country (as the pundits say). They will be supported by the vast majority of the good people of these islands on this occasion. If successful they might have a big publicity boost that may benefit them in a forthcoming General election. But, there are dangers in their posturing too.

In 1979 it was support from the SNP that was the decisive factor in passing a vote of no confidence in the Callaghan government. The election that followed was the beginning of Thatcherism and 18 years of Tory government.

Thatcherism was not particularly welcome in Wales or Scotland, and Labour made hay out of the fact that it was the nationalists who paved Mrs T's way to Downing Street by virtue of the SNP voting yea in the no confidence vote.

A silly argument, of course. If the vote had been won by Jim he could have limped on for a few more months and Labour would still have been decimated in the polling booths. Mrs T would still have become PM, Tory history would not have been different. However the charge of letting Thatcher in did harm the advances of both Plaid and the SNP.

If the national parties win the vote next Wednesday there is little doubt that it will be the first step towards another long period of Tory government in Westminster. A government that will not be popular in either Scotland or Wales, and a government that Labour will, yet again, be able to blame the nationalists for.

Bring it on? Perhaps not!



*Some blogs on the SNP/Plaid debate:
SNP Tactical Voting
Penri James
Che Grav-ara
Politics Cymru
Plaid Monmouth
Andrew Nutt

Aye We Can - A song for Europe

This is Scottish blogger Aye We Can's song for the European election. I enjoyed it I hope that you do too!