Inquiry needed into Trump claims

Following the letter sent by Donald Trump to the First Minister, in which he claims that he was “repeatedly promised” that a wind development near Trumpton-On-Sea would not go ahead, I have called for an inquiry into the implied misuse of the planning system.

You might think of course that misuse of the planning system in relation to this development would be nothing new. You would be right. But if promises of this nature were made, effectively trading off a renewable energy development against Trump’s private interests, this must be made public. If one the other hand Trump is demonstrating… how shall we say… a creative relationship with the truth, then this also should be publicly acknowledged.

So here’s the letter I’ve sent to the First Minister today:

————————————————-
Alex Salmond MSP, First Minister
Scottish Government
St Andrews House
Edinburgh

22nd September 2011

Dear First Minister,

I refer to a letter, dated September 14th, which you have received from Mr Donald Trump. This letter makes a claim that promises were repeatedly given to Mr Trump, as an incentive for him to proceed with his golf resort development in Aberdeenshire, that a proposal for offshore wind turbines in Aberdeen bay would not go ahead.

Leaving aside other matters which Mr Trump’s letter raises, and our own disagreement about his development, the suggestion that such promises were made represents a serious allegation of misconduct in the planning system. Regardless of whether such promises are alleged to have been made before or after your administration came to power, I would make the case that the veracity of this allegation must be determined and publicly acknowledged.

In short, if Mr Trump is telling the truth then the source of such promises must be identified. I am of course prepared to accept the possibility that Mr Trump may not be telling the truth, however if this is the case he is certainly taking the office of First Minister for granted in using his correspondence with you to propagate his claim in this manner.

Yours sincerely,

Patrick Harvie MSP

Five more glorious years?

Tuesday was quite a day. My first back at Holyrood since the election, and an atmosphere like nothing we’ve seen.

Disappointment of course within the Green group – we had hopes of gaining a few seats and I’d have been delighted to be able to share the workload with a bigger team. But in the face of the SNP tidal wave we remain the only opposition party to have increased our vote, holding our two seats, and in this context mere survival is an achievement.

There has been quite natural jubilation among the SNP ranks, and a degree of confusion among those who have lost colleagues. Across the political spectrum congratulations have been offered to the SNP on what is undeniably an astonishing result. In a system which mitigates against majority government, they have broken new ground. The positivity of their campaign is surely a large part of the reason, and has not gone unnoticed.

I’m proud of the Green campaign, which I think was honest, ambitious and distinctive. But while it helped increase our vote it left us short of the breakthrough we sought in most regions.

While returned MSPs offer each other polite congratulations, Labour increasingly seem to be recognising that they are facing not simply a poor election result but an existential crisis. When Motherwell and Wishaw becomes a marginal seat, it’s hard not to wonder what Labour is even for in Scotland.

And of course we’ve seen a string of resignations from leadership roles. Annabel Goldie’s announcement earlier this week completed the set of resignations from the three political parties who lost votes and seats in this year’s election.

I’d like to wish Annabel, Iain and Tavish well. At a personal level know from experience how painful it can be to lose so many friends and colleagues in a bad election result, and in the face of the SNP surge last week I’m grateful to everyone who voted Green for keeping us in Parliament.

But it’s time to move on and focus on the five years to come. Even before the election, there was a growing consensus that Holyrood’s procedures were in need of reform, and that we would need to change the way we work. The election of the first ever single-party majority government underlines that. Parliament will need to find ways of holding the Government to account, ways which don’t depend on votes at 5pm, but perhaps focus more on information and intelligence.

It appears that this task will fall largely to a new generation of front bench politicians and Parliamentary figures, and it’s vital that they don’t revert to type or stand in the way of new ideas. The candidates for the roles of Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officer have been making themselves known, and the key issue for me is whether they will take a stronger attitude to the authority of the chair, in light of the stronger position of Ministers. It won’t be good enough for the PO to hold up their hands and say that Ministerial answers or “veracity” is not a matter for the chair. We will need a PO who will protect our ability to hold ministers to account, or what’s a parliament for?

Later today we swear in, and start getting down to the work of another term. While the balance of votes in the chamber will be in little doubt each Decision Time I suspect that we will still find several issues taken in fascinating and creative new directions in this session, directions which nobody has yet charted.

A Manifesto for Public Services

You may already have noticed this, but there’s an election coming. On May 5th Scotland will choose its next group of 129 people to send to Holyrood, and we think it’s the most important election since devolution began.

Those 129 people will decide how Scotland responds to the UK Government’s cuts to public services. Should we do as George Osborne and Danny Alexander have done, slashing the services people most depend on and turning health and education over to the market? We don’t think so.

This week we launched a manifesto which shows how Scotland can stand up to the LibDem/Tory cuts, and take our economy in a new and better direction. The domination of right wing ideas is what has brought the country into the mess that we’re in today, and we cannot trust those same ideas to get us out of it. Instead, let’s invest together in the future we want to see. Let’s close the gap between rich and poor. Let’s make economic recovery really mean something.

When I voted ‘Yes Yes’ back in 1998 to create a Scottish Parliament with tax-varying powers, I wasn’t a member of a political party. I did so because I knew there could one day be another Tory government, determined to attack public services and the welfare state, with no mandate in Scotland. I wanted a political institution with the power and the will to protect Scotland from that agenda.

It’s not theoretical any more. It’s happening right now. If we’re not going to live up to those aspirations now, then what really was the point? It’s time to act creatively with the powers we have, and I’m very proud to offer a manifesto which does just that.

Robin Hood comes to Glasgow

Campaigners have been out in force for all the political parties this weekend, doorknocking, leafleting, and generally trying to get noticed. But I stopped off in the city centre earlier to chat with another campaign group – the Robin Hood Tax is a hugely important idea for raising revenue to protect public services, moving the economy away from the buccaneer capitalist’s dream which the other parties love so much, and helping to make the phrase “we’re all in this together” actually mean something.

The RHT campaigners have been touring the country and getting a great response. Like the recent March for the Alternative, along with UK Uncut, the STUC’s Better Way campaign, and others who are drawing attention to the failings of the current deregulated free market system, they are putting positive and creative ideas on the table and challenging the politicians to act.

It’s dismal to see how little there is in the way of a coherent left of centre response to the economic crisis from the political parties which like to call themselves “mainstream”. They were all over the likes of Fred Goodwin like a rash, before he became a pariah. Now they seem to think that the same economic model can simply be refloated.

In the Scottish Parliament it’s only been the Greens who have seemed interested in developing new economic ideas as a response to the events of the last few years. Our proposal for a Land Value Tax is one way of starting to build an economy that’s based on something real instead of the obscure and abstract “products” of the finance fetishists.

But even though with existing devolved powers we can’t introduce a Robin Hood Tax of our own in Scotland, it would be interested to find our which of the other parties would do it if we could.

Tonight I’ll be taking part in the latest TV election debate, focusing on the economy. I’ll be aiming to move beyond the bland managerialism of the others (I’ll see your x thousand jobs in renewables and raise you a small business bonus…) and start talking about the ideas which could underpin a real economic recovery – and remember that recovery does not mean the reanimation of a corpse.

If we get this right, we could build a more equal society, a cleaner greener economy, and a better quality of life. If we fail it will be the low paid and the vulnerable, not the bankers and hedge fund managers, who pay the price for the financial irresponsibility of government after government.

Looking good for May

The YouGov poll published today gives us good reason to face the coming election with a spring in our step. Showing us increasing to six MSPs and still holding an influential place on the political landscape, it suggests a return to a position almost as good as our historic high point in 2003 when we returned a Parliamentary group of seven.

The LibDems, still dealing with the anger many people feel at their role in the Tory-led UK Government, are severely down and the gap between us is now just a fraction of a percent. This is of course only an opinion poll, and we’ve got a lot to do between now and the election to put our case for protection of public services and investment in a low-carbon future. But as an indication of where things stand it’s a clear message that every single Green vote in Scotland can make a huge difference to Scottish politics.

If a future minority government – of whichever party – was able to reach a majority with the support of Green MSPs, we would of course sit down and talk with them. We’ve always tried to be constructive with both sides of that divide. But it’s such a hostile relationship between Labour and the SNP that each party’s supporters sometimes find it hard to understand why we don’t share the same feeling of hostility.

We’ve got common ground with both. We’ve got major differences with them too. On the crucial issues for Green politics, like the economy, oil addiction, climate change, and investment in public services, there’s little to choose between them. But Green influence on either party would let Scotland build on the initiatives we’ve launched in recent years, like the Climate Challenge Fund, home insulation to cut people’s bills, and investment in public transport. It would also deny them the chance to press on with building 1960s carbon-hungry projects, or to slash higher education funding and social housing.

In short, wherever your constituency vote is going, you can make the biggest difference for a better Scotland if you Second Vote Green!

What the SNP cuts budget means

So the Scottish budget for 2011/12 has been passed. Every budget is important, but this one stands out for several reasons.

It’s the last big vote at Holyrood before we end this session and begin the campaign for May’s election. Now that the budget is out of the way the political temperature can be expected to rise, as Gray and Salmond in particular indulge in the sort of aggressive clash of egos which generally takes place between prospective First Ministers.

It’s not just the last budget in the session though. It’s the fourth SNP budget to have been passed by Parliament, and that’s something which few people predicted back in the first days of minority government. With most of the SNP’s flagship policies scuppered by the opposition, there’s a strong case for saying that minority government isn’t the best option for Scotland. But the last four years have demonstrated that it is at least viable, stable, tolerable. It can function. That will likely prove to be a hugely important lesson for the future, and owes far more to John Swinney’s abilities than to those of his bombastic leader.

But far more significantly, this budget will stand out because of what it tells us about the new political alignment in an era of cuts. This is not an SNP budget. It is an SNP/LibDem/Tory budget.

On paper, the SNP oppose the UK Government’s cuts agenda. They use the same core argument as Labour – “too far, too fast”. On paper, the SNP looks like a centre-left party with a commitment to collective values. But in practice they have chosen to work with the UK coalition parties to pass a budget which cuts just as deeply as the coalition dictates. They have not been forced to do so. They have chosen this partnership simply because of the tribal hostility which still marks their relationship with the other large, supposedly centre-left party which claims a commitment to collective values. If the relationship between the SNP and Labour had been remotely functional (civilised at least; I don’t expect anything closer) we’d be looking at a very different budget, one which protected public services not just for their social value but as an important part of the economy. For months I have been offering constructive ideas for achieving this, from changes to non-domestic rates to different capital spending priorities. It can be done.

In reality, there is little truth in either party’s attempt to claim left of centre ground. Both were enthusiastically chanting the mantra of deregulated free markets before the crash, and now seem to think that the old failed economic model can simply be propped up again. The SNP has capitulated to a Tory economic agenda just as quickly as they capitulated to Donald Trump, and I have no reason to think that Labour would have done much different.

All this will seem pretty depressing to many people. What on earth has happened to Scottish politics? But it does offer a real opportunity for the Greens to offer a clear, distinctive and radical message in the forthcoming election. We will be the only party untainted by the economic policies which led to the crash, opposing the cuts which have followed, and with a credible track record of electoral success and policy achievements.

Everyone knows I’m not in the running to be the next First Minister. Quite frankly that ego-driven battle between Salmond and Gray just wouldn’t be my style anyway. But a large group of Green MSPs in the next parliament would have the opportunity, the mandate and the influence to bring radical politics back to life in this country.

To anyone who shares my excitement at that prospect, the message is simple: join us today, and help make it happen!

Transport & Climate Change minister resigns

One thing has been settled by Stewart Stevenson’s resignation today; over recent months there has been constant disagreement in political circles (well, the ones which involve sarcastic comments on Twitter) over which Minister most deserved the nickname Beaker. With Stewart gone, the title now rests unambiguously with Danny Alexander.

What isn’t resolved is the actual work he should have been doing to prepare Scotland for winter, and I’m now unsure whether anyone from the Scottish Government will actually turn up in front of my committee on Tuesday as planned, so that we can find out what went wrong last week and ensure that we won’t see a repeat of the chaos over the coming months. It seems pretty clear that warnings were missed or ignored, that roads which should have been closed stayed open, and that there was extremely poor communication with the public about the need to avoid travelling.

But of course there’s another hugely important half of the position which Stevenson has just given up – he’s been the Minister responsible for climate change policy too. There are legally defined timescales for much of the work in this area, including the Government’s report on the measures it will take to cut emissions and a public engagement strategy, the draft of which has left those who’ve seen it very unimpressed.

As a Minister, Stewart Stevenson thought that flatline carbon targets were acceptable, that technofixes will solve the problem of transport emissions, and that a multi-billion pound roadbuilding programme is compatible with all that “low carbon Scotland” rhetoric. I won’t miss him from that role.

But the Minister who takes on that responsibility will need to get moving very quickly indeed if the Government isn’t going to break its own climate change laws again; they spent months in breach earlier this year, and if they don’t meet the impending deadlines for the current work they’ll be leaving a legacy of spin but no substance on this vital issue.

Swinney hands back Scotland’s only tax power

Yesterday’s revelation that John Swinney has failed to renew the computer system which allows use of Scotland’s only national taxation power took my breath away.

Ask almost anyone who the most able, competent, respected performers are in the SNP administration and you will see John’s name at the top of the list. I don’t always agree with his policies of course, but he’s usually a star performer and a genuinely likeable man.

But his decision to unilaterally and completely quietly allow Holyrood’s only tax power to lapse is unforgivable.
He doesn’t want to use the power to vary the basic rate of income tax – he prefers to hand on the Tory cuts to Scotland. He is completely entitled to that view. It’s shared by most politicians in Scotland at the moment; so far only the Greens are talking about raising revenue to defend public services – and even we prefer to empower councils to raise taxes locally first, with income tax used only if we can’t fill the gap.

But the political parties, all busy writing manifestos for May’s election, have now had their hands tied. We have all been told that the power has been effectively surrendered, and the electorate can no longer choose to endorse the use of a fundamental feature of the devolution deal which they voted for by around 2/3, back in 1997.

John Swinney constantly puts the case for more financial powers – a case I support. What would happen to a Chancellor who had to admit to Parliament, after someone else exposed the facts, that he had allowed HMRC to forget how to change the rate of income tax? I can’t think of much that would result in a quicker sacking.

John Swinney is, as I say, someone who I have respected even when disagreeing with him. But this disgraceful act of negligence cannot be overlooked. Coming so close to an election, I know that there is little chance that this will be seen as a resignation matter, but he will end his period in office as the SNP minister who handed back to London a fundamental part of the devolution settlement, and left the Scottish public less able to defend the country against the vandalism of a Tory Government we didn’t vote for. This is shameful.

How should Scotland face the Liberal/Tory cuts?

The UK coalition government’s spending cuts are an assault on the poorest and most vulnerable in society and pose a huge challenge to anyone who wants to see a progressive agenda for the people of Scotland.

The Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) announced by Chancellor George Osborne included £18bn slashed from the welfare budget and will see at least 500,000 public sector workers consigned to the dole queue, with as many more job losses in the rest of the economy as a result.

This is absolutely the last thing the economy needs and will make recovery less likely. More than that, it will cause untold amounts of harm to individuals, communities, and to our whole society. They’ve attacked higher education, child benefit, housing benefit, social housing, and more. The Tory/Liberal programme is a more savage attack on social justice and the foundations of the welfare state than anything Margaret Thatcher attempted.

And it’s unnecessary! A host of other options exist, including slowing down the deficit reduction, or raising revenue in progressive ways, from those most able to pay. A financial transaction tax, or Robin Hood Tax, would ensure that the banks paid their share for the damage they’ve done. Progressive income tax or a one-off wealth tax on the richest 10% would mean that those with the broadest shoulders took more of the burden. George Osborne could be shutting down the tax City’s avoidance machine, rather than wiping out massive tax bills for his friends in big business.

Listening to the spending review was a nauseating experience – the LibDem/Tory coalition is clearly determined to exploit the deficit to justify the most fundamental attack on the welfare state since its creation. For many right wingers this is a dream come true but it is ordinary people across Scotland and the UK who will be living with the nightmare consequences for generations.

Cameron’s claims that the coalition government would be “the greenest government ever” also proved to be hollow. Chris Huhne has pointed out that the UK needed £200 billion to rebuild its energy infrastructure however George Osborne announced today that the much trumpeted Green Investment Bank will have a paltry £1bn allocated to it, while the huge publicly owned banks like RBS continue to pour our money into some of the most polluting and unethical industries in the world.

The challenge for Scotland – and a key test of devolution – is to maintain a progressive agenda in the face of this radical right wing ideology. It’s vital that the SNP doesn’t just hand on these cuts to Scottish public services, but instead sets out how we in Scotland can raise revenue too. Greens have put forward our ideas, by proposing to empower councils to raise a range of taxes locally. As long as Council Tax continues in its current form, additional higher bands would ensure that the wealthiest pay more. Land Value Tax could do even more to raise revenue and reduce people’s housing costs at the same time. Other options should be explored, such as a hotel tax, a sales tax, and some use of environmental taxes. Finally, it’s time for a full debate on the national tax-varying power, which could help protect vital public services. If the other political parties are unwilling to contemplate raising revenue, then all they have left is to hand on the cuts.

Whatever the SNP propose in their budget, Parliament as a whole must ensure that public services are maintained and the people hardest hit by the Liberals and Tories are given some protection. Like most Scots I want a society which uses its wealth to attack poverty, but right now it’s being used to punish people who’re living in poverty.

The evidence from around the world has never been clearer – equality is better for everyone. It makes society healthier, happier, safer and greener. And the values which have created the inequality we can see around us were values of selfishness and greed – the same values which led to the financial crisis and shaped the political environment which allowed it. So Greens are not only opposing the UK Government’s cuts; we’re not only trying to shape an alternative Scottish budget which will protect public services; we’re also speaking up for the values of a better society which will put the emphasis on health, wellbeing and quality of life.

Pow-wow with GOW

Yesterday I had the pleasure of visiting the ‘GOW Community’ – so called because their tenement building is formed from Gibson St, Otago Street and Westbank Quadrant in Glasgow’s West End. Before I tell you a bit about the transformation they’ve achieved, I just want to point out how important that distinction is. Most people who live in tenements (there are lots of us in Glasgow!) are most aware of the street we live on, but we don’t often think about our relationship with the rest of the building. Tenements could provide the opportunity for a community to look inward and see shared space, shared resouces, and the chance to meet and learn from one another. Even GOW’s logo suggests this perception of a tenement…

Like many people in Glasgow, residents of the streets which make up GOW once looked out onto a backcourt which was filthy, neglected and unsafe…

Through their persistent efforts to clean up that backcourt they’ve succeeded not only in creating a delightful and welcoming shared space, but also in creating a community which is stronger and more creative. They’ve developed services for themselves like better recycling, and they’ve got ideas for the future which lots of us in Glasgow could learn from.

Some people would no doubt say that this is the trendy West End, and that they have advantages not shared elsewhere in the city. But the reality is that this is a really challenging place to build up community links – there are lots of commercial units on Gibson Street, and the needs of residents and businesses don’t always coincide; there’s also a very high percentage of short term tenancies here since it’s so close to the University. That means a rapid turnover of residents, but also some HMO landlords have been really hard to engage with constructively. It’s sad to say, but some private sector landlords to treat their properties simply as cash machines, and have little interest in looking after them as homes or as part of a community.

So the GOW residents have done something quite remarkable. Even just looking at the bin stores, which are covered to keep them dry and cleverly designed to be relatively hidden, you can see what a transformation could be achieved in tenements across the city with the right commitment and imagination.

It could be the most transformational experience for Glasgow if all our tenements offered a view not of a smelly, dirty, walled-off bin store for each close, taking up all of the space within the building, but instead a well designed shared facility like this, with room left over for lots of shared green space to relax, to play, to grow, and to meet one another. In many places we could even see shared energy systems like micro-CHP, heat pumps or solar thermal panels providing lower monthly bills as well as income to keep up the maintenance on the shared areas.

Tenements were once a model of community living. Few of us would want to go back to shared wash-houses in the 21st century, but by sharing the green space and perhaps the energy which can be generated locally, tenements could help to rebuild the community relationships which were once central to tenement life and could be again.