Who I'm voting for tomorrow ...

I was going to do a longer, more considered post on the UK General Election tomorrow, as I think it's going to be a fairly key one, almost certainly marking the end of 13 years of fairly unfettered Labour power.

However, a quick splash of wine onto my MacBook last weekend means I must rush my contribution to the debate.

I doubt this will really sway anyone's views, and I doubt my decision is going to be a huge surprise, so I'll begin by saying who I'm not going for.

I did a recent 'who you should vote for' survey and it marked me as a natural Green supporter (somewhat more accurate than the Telegraph's VoteMatch which declared I was SNP!) - indeed, I have gone for Green as my second vote in the Holyrood Elections, and will probably do again next year. However, in a UK election still fought on First Past the Post and where there appears to be no less than three different Green Parties standing it's a no-no. Especially as no Green candidate has bothered to stand in my constituency.

UKIP and BNP - largely English predilections - I imagine they only stand outside England to make up numbers of some sort. Scotland particularly is much more comfortable with , if not actively pro-Europe and pro-immigration, so those two are on a hiding to nothing here. Again though, none standing in my seat.

The Conservatives are also in an odd place in Scotland, mainly because of the factors I outlined above which also play well with natural Tory voters but show why they only have one seat to defend up here and aren't certain of even keeping that. No Cameronian swing has been detected here. In the 2006 by-election here in Dunfermline & West Fife, the newly crowned Conservative leader visiting didn't stop their candidate losing her deposit. So a Tory vote is a pretty wasted one here, not that I was ever likely to be tempted.

SNP - suffering the 'incumbent' curse in Scotland after 3 years of minority administration in which they've actually managed to make their central independence aspiration less popular and squeezed lately by a surge to the Lib Dems which has transferred north of the border, I do see a vote for SNP as particularly irrelevant in a UK election - your MP of any colour is meant to be your local champion and I don't see why SNP and Welsh-only bedfellows can ignore that and pretend they're more local than anyone else (they're just centralised in different places). Plus, surely, the SNP really shouldn't be wasting its time and money on a Westminster Parliament they don't believe in - at least Sinn Fein don't bother turning up!

Labour - I think 2001 was the last time I could have brought myself to vote Labour. The Iraq issue made it out of the question in 2005. I had hopes that the removal of Tony Blair with someone with less style and more substance (and someone who immediately removed the 'New' suffix from all Labour logos) was worth a try. By ducking a General Election he'd have won in autumn 2007, Gordon Brown let the Tories creep up the polls and has frankly stumbled in ways he really should know better on from the 10p tax row to bigging up Simon Cowell and his works (that really worked didn't it). So if Brown can't even be trusted to keep the Tories out, but also praises their supporters and largely follows their political instincts, it's not going to be Gordon. Sorry.

Now here, at least I can claim here that I haven't suddenly warmed to the Liberal Democrats because of the 'Cleggmania' following the first of the three debates, and which has only slightly abated since. In fact, he's no Charles Kennedy and their policies have, if anything, drifted away from me slightly - in fact one policy actually targets my job rather specifically!

The real reason for my voting Lib Dem tomorrow is to bring about a hung parliament and (I hope) subsequent voting reform, ideally to a PR system. Really I'm with the 'hung parliament' party I suppose, as I think that progressive change and co-operation are best borne from that in the short to medium term, with another General Election under PR in the longer term.

Anyway, said my bit now - feel free to get back to the porn...

The Three Attitude Covers (March 2010 issue)

Attitude's covers get more confusing next issue - not only do you get another 'flipped' cover for 'Active' on the back, it seems there's a choice of two main covers. Woe betide the newsagent that only has the David Cameron one in stock!

Holyrood Elections - the inevitable post

As the last days of campaigning dawn I reckoned it was time to reveal where my crosses for the Scottish Parliament are going on Thursday. It's undoubtedly the most important and newsworthy of this week's elections (sorry England and Wales but it is) so a post is deserved.

I watched the 4 main party leaders debate on TV last night. Strangely, the leader who most dismayed me and had me slapping my forehead going "No, no no! Answer the bloody question!" was the one whose party I'm primarily voting for - the Lib Dems' Nicol Stephen. He might be the only party leader I'd shag but he hasn't impressed me on the campaign trail and was pathetic last night. We could really use Charlie Kennedy right now! First Minister Jack McConnell was little better - the man has surely had a charisma bypass. Alex Salmond swept the floor with them - oratory is his forte, but I just don't trust him and I'm independence-sceptic. Interestingly it's not as good a bet that Alex will actually win his list seat on Thursday, so we could actually get sour-faced Nicola Sturgeon instead! Annabel Goldie has been the dark horse this year - she has stood her policy ground and generally eschewed the hysterical "Save the Union" tactics employed by Labour. One of my mates is even voting for them on Thursday, albeit in what seems a tactical move. I'd even say the Tories don't deserve to do badly at the polls but they probably will despite the leader.

My reasoning for voting Lib Dem isn't as perverse as the last paragraph might hint. I abandoned Labour in both UK and Scottish flavours in time for the 2001 General Elections, though I can see that they are (at heart) quite different parties if only Jack wasn't so keen to be Blair's poodle. But I've been voting Lib Dem in all the elections of this decade as they currently best suit my political beliefs. It's not that I agree 100% with everything they come up with - their recent pledge to introduce an hour a day's physical exercise in schools was a soundbite that would have alarmed my schoolboy self - but the party I disagree least with.

I'm also not moved by accusations that the Scottish Lib Dems are mercenary, dropping or bending manifesto promises once in coalition power. As the very junior partner since 1999 there's no chance they'd get everything they wanted but they have still wrested some significant concessions from an unwilling Scottish Labour Party - notably the controversial introduction of PR for council elections, which will commence on Thursday and result in many Labour scalps. Besides, I respect pragmatism over dogma.

Even if I were voting tactically just to oust my Labour MSP (quite possibly the ugliest politician going, not that it's relevant) the sensible choice is Lib Dem in Dunfermline given their shock gain of the Westminster seat last year.

Again this is not to say I dislike all of the other parties' policies either, indeed the Lib Dems and the SNP share quite a few, hence why everyone expects an SNP/Lib Dem coalition develop in some form. Plus my second vote in recent years has always been for the Greens, as I feel there needs to be a principled environmental voice at Parliament, even if some of their aims are a tad unrealistic. They are also, coincedentally, the most vocally pro-gay of the parties.

And I may well be staying up into Friday morning to see the results roll in. I'm not as alarmed as I was about the SNP becoming the largest party and getting into power here as I feel the electorate's appetite for independence really isn't there and I don't feel that will change enough in time for any referendum in 2010. I think the SNP have also realised that over the course of the campaign. It will be an interesting challenge for the devolution settlement though and it may well hinge on who's in power in Westminster at the time of the referendum - the thinking goes that the SNP are hoping the Cameron Tories will be in charge so as to encourage a decoupling by a hugely antipathetic Scotland but it may be a coalition headed by 2 Scots.

So there it is. I'm not particularly trying to sway anyone, but wanted to explain my own reasons for sticking with the Lib Dems again.

SNP embrace the dark side ...

It's not as if the SNP have just lost my vote because they never had it to lose. But this is the latest in a recent line of developments which has confirmed my fears that the SNP has finally renounced its radical agenda and is courting the red-top reading, God-bothering, footy-fucked-up and conservative (with a small c) elements of the electorate and establishment. Ironically this is the former constituency of Very Old Labour in the central belt. First Fergus Ewing sided with the Cowcaddens firemen disciplined for throwing their toys out of the cot over a Gay Pride event, then Nicola Sturgeon vocally sides with the Catholic Church over gay adoption and now Alex accepts half a million quid from Scotland's foremost homophobe and anti-competitive businessman. Anyone see a pattern there?

In the 90s (independence issue aside) the SNP was a party I could have voted for and supported and I very much respected Alex Salmond as a pragmatic, statesmanlike and honourable politician. Neither holds true now as Salmond uses his oratory to rabble rouse and go for cheap shots while failing to answer why an independent Scotland is keeping the pound and the monarchy while ditching the BBC (but not Sky and the rest).

Looks like the Greens will be steering well clear at least. I'd urge any gay or gay-friendly voters out there to think twice about ousting Labour by voting SNP. Don't sleepwalk into realising what sort of party with what sort of bedfellows this is. What payback are the Catholic Church and Soapy Souter after post-election? Anyone who saw the latter on "Question Time" during his "Keep the Clause" campaign know how sophisticated and enlightened his views are over a range of things. Note also he supports the SNP only half as much as he supported the Clause - he spent the full million on that escapade. They are obviously a cheap date.

I'm just waiting for the SNP to start making noises about immigration and reconsidering their EU affinity, then we'll realise quite how alike the SNP and UKIP have become.

A comment following "Scotland on Sunday"'s report put it best for me:

"I understand the zeal with which many SNP supporters approach this election. It is a zeal born of years of frustration and denial. But it is a zeal which is in genuine danger of sending us down a dreadful path. Is is no secret that one of the major planks of the SNP's growth strategy over the last two years has been to court the churches. The SNP used to be a staunch supporter of LGBT rights, but all that changed with the new engagement with church hierarchies, and now it is genuinely impossible to get even a hearing with their representatives on issues like hate crime, thought leadership and suchlike. They have made a political calculation, which it is their right to do, but they cannot be allowed to obscure this calculation from the voters. At the moment they want to appear sympathetic to the churches while not alienated the gay vote. They want to have their cake and eat it.

The bottom line is that, for gay people who lived through his campaign, Brian Souter will forever embody the hate that is hidden in the church pews of this country. The bald fact is that anyone who allies themselves with that figurehead of hate allies themselves with the hate itself. If the SNP is going to accept this money, it needs to make a clear, unequivocal statement of opposition to the views that Souter represents. And it won't do that, because the political calculation has already been made.

I feel sorry for the decent, hardworking folk who worked on and cherish the SNP's equality policies. They truly were inspiring. Now they ring hollow, and show the SNP up as being no better than the rest of them.

I have sat, in years gone by, with Roseanna Cunningham and others while we planned and inspired each other to fight for the inalienable human rights of gay people. Now she won't even return our calls. I feel horrifically let down."

19 Mar postscript: this blog post includes an enlightening summary of Alex Salmond's own committment to equality issues via Westminster voting record. Guess what ...?

“That’s except for viewers in Scotland, who have their own programmes”

Above: BBC Scotland's new HQ

Dear Sir,

Three recent news items have spurred me to finally write to someone about an intolerable situation which is getting worse.

This week ex-Scottish Rugby Captain Gavin Hastings and others complained to a Holyrood committee of the dominance of football on television in Scotland, to the detriment of other sports.

Gordon Strachan, the Glasgow Celtic manger complained there was too much football on TV and thus it was no longer ‘special’.

BBC Scotland also had to shelve showing one of the CIS Cup Semi-Final matches as they’d run out of quota, having screened too many earlier matches.

Further to this, the constant scheduling of 150-minute-long soccer matches (often at short notice, often 2 nights running) here is causing unprecedented chaos with the proper schedules.

Here’s BBC Scotland’s response to a recent complainant.

In light of the three links I quoted above the initial defence appears rather hollow, especially as it was for one specific transgression. It was not an exception – it’s the rule.

So far this month, for example, BBC Scotland have chosen to give us “Life On Mars” 95 minutes late (13 March) and “Party Animals” 145 minutes late (14 March), we regularly have “Waterloo Road” and “Holby City” on the wrong days, and we are a matter of weeks out on both “Hotel Babylon” and “New Street Law”. Last year we never received “Mayo” or “The Innocent Project” at all, and “Hustle” started its run here after it finished in the rest of the UK. Now they also plan to pull out of “The Politics Show” altogether.

Aren’t the BBC supposed to be promoting Freeview rather than creating a situation where we have to get a satellite dish on top of our licence fee for the ‘luxury’ of opting out of our region? The irony is sports fans are probably more likely to have been lured to invest in Sky packages.

Are there no red button solutions that someone with half a brain could work out? I’d suggest showing the UK network programmes on the BBC Freeview channels with the football matches on analogue and via the red button option on BBC Freeview (I’m led to believe this is especially suited to sports programming). This would suit everyone surely and compete with the flexibility of the satellite option.

Better still would be to follow the model of radio where a Scottish alternative runs parallel rather than randomly in place of the network offering (Radio Scotland and Radio Four). In fact I support this more long-term solution by Pat Kane as a far more worthwhile and fair solution to the “Scottish Six” issue.

BBC Scotland are not just shockingly partial to a specific strand of sport but they are incompetent at managing the schedules around their executives’ pet viewing. And don’t start me on the woeful Gaelic takeovers of BBC2 on Thursdays…

I’m no football fan as you’d guess, but agree it has its place on terrestrial TV and that a part of my licence fee pays for that to happen. I grew up with weekends virtually awash with sports coverage and never particularly resented it. Even now I wouldn’t, as most people have more flexibility, incentive and opportunity to get out of the house on Saturday or Sunday. Now, ironically when terrestrial broadcasters moan they have few sports rights, I am bombarded on precious weekday nights with football. It’s not as if I can go to the pub to avoid it!

Remember we also get English International friendlies and FA Cup matches which are of questionable interest here, but apparently are contractually obliged to be on BBC One across the UK. It’s a pity then that a few of our dramas couldn’t insist on such a clause.

I’m taking up my grievance with my MP while Westminster still retains responsibility for broadcasting here. Perhaps you can air the issue more widely?

Broadcasting in Scotland is really going to remain a hot topic even without half-baked SNP plans for an independent “Scottish Broadcasting Company” and licence fee to replace the BBC. But to me the BBC in Glasgow appear to have declared UDI early!

Yours,
Graeme Robertson, Dunfermline

Yes, that is a letter to my MP (Willie Rennie), as the steam was coming out of my ears just too often lately. It's being copied to MediaGuardian, The Scotsman, The Herald, BBC Scotland, the BBC Trust and Ofcom.

Obviously I don't expect much from the latter.

Anyway, if you feel the same, feel free to use this as a template to your MP.

On the State of the Union

Yesterday marked the 300th anniversary of the signing of the document which brought the Union into being. The Union itself officially followed on 1 May 1707.

The unavoidable timing of the anniversaries is cruelly ironic. Our elections to Holyrood are on 3 May 2007, and the electioneering is well underway.

Thus, on the one hand we have the ostensibly unionist administrations at Westminster and Holyrood playing up the benefits the last 3 centuries have brought to all parts of the Union, while simultaneously frightened of a high profile (and no doubt expensive) commemoration because it would align them too closely with the largely discredited bunch of Scottish aristos who signed us up. Equally the more the likes of Brown, Blair and Douglas Alexander come up with convoluted pro-union speeches and soundbites the more embarrassing they are to that very cause. Strangely, as the polls cool in enthusiasm for independence the SNP have slightly distanced themselves from the I-word preferring the c-word (choice, in the context of a referendum) as the stress in a poster campaign revealed yesterday. It's a subtle but cynical shift in order to maximise votes at this May's Holyrood elections where they currently seem to face being the largest party but hogtied in a 3-party coalition. As the official opposition at Holyrood even they must know that a vote for the SNP is just as likely an anti-Labour protest and not an endorsement of independence - they don't equate. Of course independence is not the only SNP policy and indeed they recently hawked a questionnaire which basically boiled down to "if you agree with a majority of these policies then you you should be voting SNP". Reasonable at face value, but many of these same policies are shared by the smaller parties and often even by Labour and Lib-Dems. Basically unless you were some sort of twinset Tory or a UKIP supporter it would have been difficult not to qualify as one of these obvious 'SNP voters'. And of course even within the SNP there's a confusion over which political philosophy they follow. There's a huge potential split always going to be chipping away at any SNP government. Could MSPs from the same party have initiated the smoking ban AND supported the firefighters who refused to leaflet a gay pride event? The SNP managed. If you believe in that amorphous concept of political correctness (I don't) then these seem to be taking diametrically opposed positions. This is the result of a party whose roots are basically still in uniting elements from left and right who basically hate the English and strive for the purely romantic goal of independence. The fact that they're sticking the same two fingers up at the Welsh and Irish (off radar when you're so wedded to bipolar 'us and them' of course) never seems to dawn. Unless of course Independence actually means 'expelling' England alone and setting up a commune with our celtic cousins ...

I watched the special "Newsnight" programme last night and was no more convinced to change my independence-sceptic opinion.

In the 90s during his first stint as SNP leader I did regard Alex Salmond as statesmanlike and pragmatic. He appears neither nowadays and last night, under a Paxo grill, matched Douglas Alexander for blather. Most clumsy was the revelation that an 'independent' Scotland would keep currency as pounds sterling until such a time it was deemed wise to join the Euro - not that it's been confirmed we'd automically stay within the EU without re-applying seperately, but that's another story. This pounds sterling controlled by the already independent Bank of England would not be obliged to take heed of any specifically Scottish circumstances any more than now. It would be a complete liability.

The SNP are not known for working things through and attending to those pesky details though - why should they when they are consumed by the sheer romance of it all and the whiff of power? They make David Cameron look thorough.

Now I'm not going to bang on about the old 'could we support ourselves without the disproportionate rebate from the Barnett Formula?' versus 'it's Scotland's oil and we wuz robbed' arguements. Frankly economics is not my forte and I've heard persuasive arguements on both sides.

But I work for a government department that hasn't been devolved and isn't likely to be as long as the Union stands. But if it doesn't what happens to my colleagues and I (there's a fair number of us by the way) ? Is it like an amicable divorce and we're neatly parcelled up by location to the ex-partner - the ex-partner who incedentally doesn't really know what to do with us? Or are we all recalled to head office and the SNP administration have to make their own mirror department from scratch? I think the latter is more likely, more logical but hugely scary. There's no obligation for us to be gifted to a technically 'foreign' country.

Then there's broadcasting - curiously always brought up as some sort of 'killer punch' in favour of independence a la "The Scottish Six" arguement. Actually it's no such thing on closer examination - there's no correlation for starters. BBC Scotland and the other Scottish broadcasting brands did not emerge as a result of any political devolution, but rather as strategic constructs at various times, not knee-jerk huffs, referenda or parliamentary decree at yet another report on the England cricket team. If anything the balance at the moment means that terrestrial viewers (analogue or digital) are getting sold short by BBC TV Scotland by their imposition of huge opt-outs for Scottish football matches, gaelic programming, Newsnight Scotland etc without providing us the network alternative, unlike the more sensible radio set-up. Unless the BBC is going to be paying my Sky or cable subscription that's not good enough as we're still paying for the programmes we miss out on. Anyway, the licence fee settlement is a minefield now but can you imagine some sort of imposed break-up of the BBC and sunsequent re-accounting of what fee will need to be levied even to sustain current Scottish programming? Hey, that's goodbye football at least! Meanwhile Sky and cable and any new fangled internet or mobile based broadcasting is just completely beyond most boundaries other than the technical (that's how it should be) and will surely carry more clout than any Scottish government that tries to lecture them. Their genie just does not go back in the bottle. Someone on DigitalSpy this week put it very well.