Not a compulsive blogger

Anyone who attended the social media dinner last week can vouch for at least one admission I made - that I’m far from being a compulsive blogger. While Tom Harris spoke of finding it almost impossible to go through a day with a bloppost or three, my own updates are few and far between.

In fact I’m so unreliable that despite having been determined to write something about the dinner straight away, I now find myself getting round to it a week later.

Which is not to imply that it wasn’t a highly enjoyable evening. As well as the slightly odd experience of being on the same side of a winning argument as Tom (in this case on the casting options for Doctor Who) we had an excellent curry and some good chat from right around the table about the interaction of politics and social media.

Aside from my general gadget-friendliness and my enthusiasm for open debate, I think I have two concerns.

Firstly that politicians, political parties and institutions think they need to “use” social media. I think it would be a shame if these exciting forms of communication were co-opted simply to serve the old familiar objectives of narrow self-interest. Rather I want to see a rich environment in which MPs, MSPs and others involved in politics can engage in the discussion without thinking we have to try and dominate it.

Secondly, that the speed of electronic media could further coarsen and cheapen public debate. The 24-hour rolling news media has been with us for a while now, but its development has been accompanied by a steady loss of the sort of deliberative analysis and thoughtful or investigative journalism which are so valuable in a democracy. Plenty of the people I know who work in the media, especially in print media, desperately want to be involved in high quality “capital-J” journalism, but don’t feel able to. If the rise of the new social media were to continue that trend, there might come a day when we forget what we were missing in the first place.

In theory the fact-checking power of the net should give rise to a greater degree of scrutiny and deliberation. Feedback too can be an important democratic control, as we’ve seen with the responses to issues like #janmoir and #trafigura on Twitter. But when online debate becomes news in its own right it’s all too often about a hastily written insult or ill-considered and inflammatory comments.

It’s still early days in the development of the technology, but a rapidly growing proportion of the public already have access to instant social media almost wherever they go, and it’s possible to see news stories evolve over the course of hours and even minutes based on widespread public participation. This is in many way a Good Thing. Yet we still don’t know what the consequences will be. I’ll hazard one guess though - if we all end up behaving in the mode of our worst perception of politicians, we’ll live to regret it. This revolution in communication can enrich our society, but only if we’re willing to a bit more grown up than we think our opponents are.

One more point on the dinner - it made me aware again that I need to get round to having a proper comments policy on this site. I want to welcome debate here, and of course that means comments from people I don’t agree with. But I’ve no intention of letting it become just another place to post vacuous non-argument, meaningless conspiracy drivel or personal insults against people not here to defend themselves. So I’ll try to turn that into something clear, and add it to the site as soon as I can.

Thanks again go to Craig at Contently Managed, and everyone else who made the dinner fun. And no Jacq, you still can’t have Helen Mirren playing the Doctor, though I’d love to see her as the successor to Chancellor Flavia.

NEWS RELEASE - Climate committee must not subvert will of Parliament

The advice to Scottish Ministers published today by the UK Climate Change Committee (1) was rejected by the Scottish Green Party as a flawed and misguided effort which risks undermining the 42% climate target approved by the Scottish Parliament last year. (2)

Patrick Harvie MSP said:

“Parliament was unanimous last year - Scotland needs to make significant emissions reductions by 2020, both so we can meet our international obligations and start to see the benefits of a low carbon economy. The UK Climate Change Committee is there to advise on how to do it, not to unpick the clear democratic decision which Parliament reached. It now seems to be on the verge of encouraging the Scottish Government to backtrack on its commitments, and has made the absurd argument that Ministers are not responsible for emissions from energy generation.

“Their advice to wait for international action will be read by many as an attempt to subvert the will of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people, and Ministers must not use this paper as an excuse for a cop-out. Wider global action is vital, of course, but it will be made less likely, not more, if countries like Scotland start to falter. Greens will work with the tens of thousands of people who campaigned for this legislation in order to oppose any attempt to weaken it.

“The Committee is right to point out the need for a step change in Scottish Government policy - we have been saying so for years. Ministers could choose to block new coal-fired power stations rather than forcing them through. They could use the planning system to influence other parts of the economy. Above all, Scottish Ministers must now reverse the worst of their transport policies, which show no understanding of the needs of the travelling public or the environment, and which appear to have been designed to make climate change worse.”

Notes

1. The Committee’s report is available here

2. As set out in the 2009 Climate Change Act.

NEWS RELEASE - Greens warn against bypass plan

The Scottish Green Party today warned that the Scottish Parliament should not approve the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route (AWPR) until complaints against the proposed new road relating to the Aarhus Convention and European Habitats Directive have been resolved.

This afternoon’s meeting of the Scottish Parliament’s Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee (1) is set to discuss and approve a series of affirmative orders relating to the AWPR project.

Local community campaigners have lodged complaints to Europe relating to the Scottish Government’s failure to follow due process in progressing the AWPR project, its failure to allow access to information relating to the project, and the project’s impacts on the River Dee Special Area of Conservation and European-protected species. Both of these complaints are currently being progressed by the relevant bodies in Europe.

Patrick Harvie MSP said:

“With complaints relating to the Aarhus Convention and European Habitats Directive currently under investigation, it would be premature for the Scottish Parliament to approve the AWPR until these have been resolved. Parliament should not be asked to approve any project that still has formal complaints against it being investigated.

“The AWPR is an extraordinary scheme for Ministers to be pushing through during a period of economic and environmental crisis, presumably because they think there are local votes to be bought with it. The Scottish Government should, at the very least, wait for the outcome of the European complaints before committing to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on a road that may do a great deal more harm than good.”

Local community campaigners are currently seeking legal advice on taking the AWPR project to Judicial Review. Sheona Warnock from Road Sense (2) added:

“The AWPR as planned breaches the terms of the European Habitats Directive, and the process followed by Scottish Ministers is in contravention of the Aarhus Convention. Our complaints to Europe are progressing, and are being taken very seriously by everyone except Scottish Ministers. We are currently seeking legal advice, and are likely to take the AWPR project to Judicial Review in the near future.

“Scottish Ministers have admitted that they will not know the total cost of the AWPR project until contracts have been signed with suppliers. The price for the project is currently uncapped, open-ended and surely rising by the day, and Aberdeen City and Shire Councils are committed to paying 9.5% of the total uncapped cost, whatever it turns out to be. I am deeply concerned that many tens of millions of pounds of local taxpayers’ money will be spent on this new road to the detriment of other vital public services or projects.

“Building the AWPR is not the solution to the traffic problems of Aberdeen and the north east, and the money being spent on it could be better spent elsewhere, supporting public transport initiatives and existing road upgrades that would do more to keep Aberdeen and the north east moving.?

Notes

1. Today’s TICC agenda

2. Contact details for Sheona Warnock from Road Sense can be provided on request.

Shenanigans

In a tightly balanced parliament, it’s normal that many minor details of our weekly business divide opinion. In the usual course of events these little differences of opinion don’t attract much comment and rarely impinge on the public consciousness.

This week, two issues of procedure were decided which are worth noting. One creates a potential precedent with long term implications; the other relates to short term gossip but could presage a change of tone in Holyrood village politics.

The decision to send Margo Macdonald’s End of Life Assistance Bill (assisted suicide to you and me) to a special ad-hoc committee created for this purpose, instead of to the health committee, was an extraordinary departure from our normal working practices, as I argued in the Chamber. It was done, at least on the face of it, because the bill requires a degree of moral argument and is therefore unlike other legislation.

This seems to imply that our normal committees are incapable of using or scrutinising moral argument, or even that they should be expected not to.

There are of course strong moral arguments on both sides of this issue, as there are on criminal justice, family law, equality policy and more. Indeed I’d say that there are moral arguments on economic policy, social justice, regulation of industry, property law and so on. And that’s before we think about Trident, the arms trade, or invading other people’s countries.

Every one of our committees should be able and willing to consider aspects of morality as they arise. Sadly, it now appears that every time an issue arises which is seen in explicitly moral terms, we’ll see one side or other try to turn it into this kind of political football instead of simply getting on with the job of hearing and scrutinising the arguments on both sides.

The second question of procedure got rather more attention - how we should respond to the revelation about Nicola Sturgeon’s intervention on behalf of a convicted fraudster.

I’d don’t intend to comment here on the merits of her suggestion that a non-custodial sentence should be considered, because I frankly don’t know the details of the case in the way the court does. Nicola may well have access to those details, but I doubt very much that those who are weighing in on one side or the other share that access.

The political consequences for Nicola (a very able Minister who has earned a good deal of personal respect) and for the SNP may be lasting, regardless of how they handle the situation. But I have to say that they really weren’t helping themselves much yesterday. In the first instance Salmond gave his usual performance at Question Time - overly aggressive, dissembling and arrogant. Often it pays off for him, especially when his opponents are already on weak ground. But he struck utterly the wrong tone for this occasion, and I’ve rarely heard the Chamber in an angrier mood.

Then something odd happened. Forcing an emergency meeting of the Business Bureau to demand an immediate statement from the DFM, the opposition parties seemed to be offering the Government the chance to bring the issue to a conclusion there and then. And the Government said no. Instead we will have a statement on the 24th of February, and it looks likely that not a day will pass between now and then without further news coverage of the story. Doorsteps will be camped on. Friends and enemies of the offender will be leant upon for more details. Anything even hinting at the most tenuous connection between Mr Rauf and the SNP will turn this from one bad day for the DFM to a tipping point in the SNP’s long term prospects.

We’re already seeing a string of issues which tarnish the SNP administration. It seems bizarre that they didn’t jump at the chance of closing this one down yesterday. The SNP may well come to regret giving this story another twelve days to ripen.

Blackbird, blackbird

While trying to snap the very talented blackbird who sings outside our window most evenings, I took this picture. Our blackbird is only just visible if you can zoom in, but regardless I found it a pleasing image of the Holyrood building as the sun went down.

Robin Hood Tax

OK, so I’ll blog on this week’s gossip a little later, but for now here’s the motion I’ve put down in support of the very marvellous Robin Hood Tax - a cracking good campaign backed by a huge number of organisations who good umpteen other flavours of good stuff in the UK and around the world.

Oh, and if you want the twibbon for this, it’s here!

S3M-5746 Robin Hood Tax

That the Parliament commends the campaigners behind the Robin Hood Tax, a proposal to levy an average 0.05% tax on speculative banking transactions and spend the many billions of pounds raised on protecting vital public services and on fighting poverty and climate change; notes that there is support for the Robin Hood Tax from organisations including Oxfam, the New Economics Foundation, People & Planet, Barnardo’s and a host of others; believes that, after the crisis in banking and the huge public bailout that followed, this proposal is not only necessary but also an entirely desirable way of moving toward a fairer and more sustainable economy, and urges the Scottish Government to lend its support to the campaign, which can be found at http://robinhoodtax.org.uk

NEWS RELEASE - Greens back moves on insulation and boiler scrappage

Greens welcomed today’s concessions by SNP Ministers over a boiler scrappage scheme for Scotland and the start of a new home insulation programme. The party has pressed Ministers to improve coordination between the various funds already available, including funding to replace old and inefficient boilers, and to offer free loft and cavity wall insulation as part of a new area-based home energy programme.

The Cabinet Secretary has today responded positively to these Green proposals and announced £12m of new money for these programmes. With these changes, plus the £10m the Greens secured for investment in marine energy development during Stage One of the Budget process, the party believes enough improvements have been made to the draft Budget for the Green MSPs to vote in support of the Budget at 5pm today.

This year’s Budget will now contain £54.3m of spending changes made following representations made to Ministers by the Green MSPs, including £9.3m towards the continued operation of the Climate Challenge Fund. (1)

Patrick Harvie MSP said:

“Householders across Scotland have faced another cold winter and rising energy costs. Too many people live in draughty and expensive accommodation, and too many rely on inefficient and out-dated central heating schemes. Last year we argued Ministers needed to strip out the bureaucracy and make loft and cavity insulation free for everyone. This year we urged them to go beyond that and adopt a boiler scrappage scheme: the same approach as the car scrappage scheme, but designed to help people to bring down their energy bills and reduce their emissions.

“We’re very pleased to have persuaded the Scottish Government to do the right thing on all these issues, even if the pace of work will still be too slow. Alongside the £10m investment in wave and tidal power we secured two weeks ago, we are satisfied that this Budget is now worth supporting, despite our remaining reservations over transport and energy issues. Ministers have serious questions to answer on economic and environmental issues, and as future Budgets get tighter these decisions will not get any easier. The priority will be to find imaginative ways to build a successful low carbon economy, identifying measures that promote jobs while also cutting bills and reducing emissions. Today we have made a small but significant step in that direction.”

Greens will also vote against Labour’s amendment on the Glasgow Airport Rail Link, which contains no proposals on how the project could be funded. Patrick Harvie MSP added:

“The Glasgow Airport Rail Link has never been a top priority for the Greens, and Crossrail would have far wider benefits for rail commuters without the risk of fuelling aviation growth, but nor would it have been the first project we would have cancelled. If Labour are serious about finding the funding for it there is one very obvious way of doing so - scrapping, or at least postponing, the additional Forth Road Bridge.

“It’s absurd that both Labour and the SNP seem determined to push ahead with one vast multi-billion pound project at the very time we’re facing cuts, before we even know if it’s needed. The engineering report on the existing bridge will be available next year. Let’s wait till then, and make the decision in full possession of the facts. Otherwise I’m quite sure that GARL won’t be the last project which is squeezed out - in fact we may see several more public transport projects shelved over the next three or four years.”

Notes

1. This figure comprises funding for the following schemes:
£21m - insulation measures introduced last year (note: this remains means-tested)
£10m - additional free insulation measures agreed this year
£10m - a revived Wave And Tidal Energy Scheme agreed this year
£9.3m - continued funding for the Climate Challenge Fund
£4m - loans and boiler scrappage scheme
£54.3m - total