News that there seems unanimous agreement amongst the parties that the elections for the Scottish Parliament and Local Government should be decoupled is most welcome. On three occasions we have had elections for both on the same day, in 1999; 2003; and most recently this year.
It is fair to say that on the previous two occasions where this occurred did not result in the fiasco that took place on 3rd May 2007.
Much has been said and written about the fact that over 100,000 votes were lost as spoilt ballots. And this should rightly form part of the consideration when coming to a decision as to whether or not the polls should be held on separate days.
However, I have believed that this should be the case since well before 3rd May 2007.
For me it is justified that the polls are held apart from one another for the far more straight forward reason that the local government ballot is a hugely important one, but always gets lost amongst the equally important Scottish Parliament campaign. It is right that elections to our local authorities are allowed to hold the limelight on their own, so that people are well informed of the issues affecting local government as opposed to those affecting our country as a whole. For that simple reason a decision to decouple the two different elections will most likely win my support.
Friday, 31 August 2007
Tuesday, 28 August 2007
PFI Madness Costs Taxpayer £22.3billion
First blog in a wee while, but managed to make the front page of the Herald today. You can see the article at http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1646070.0.0.php
Basically, I got an answer to a written question that I lodged with the Scottish government which indicates that the combined cost of Private Finance Initiative (PFI)/Public Private Partnerships (PPP) over the course of their contractual life is a quite astonishing £22.3billion.
This is a staggering amount of money to have lavished on the private sector at public expense; and the evidence indicates that it isn't the most cost effective mechanism. The National Audit Office studied the PFI-PPP tendering process earlier this year and stated that the long tendering process involved with PFI-PPP could have been avoided or mitigated in the public sector. Furthermore a 2002 Audit Scotland report into PFI-PPP contracts for renewing schools found that the cost of the scheme was generally 2.5% to 4.0% higher than a local authority might have paid if it had borrowed the money on its own account, resulting in roughly £200,000 to £300,000 a year for each £10million invested.
And Allyson Pollock established that in the NHS PFI-PPP led to a diversion of resources from clinical services, staff and supplies. In other words, money being syphoned from front line services into private pockets.
Thankfully the new SNP administration is working away to come up with a not for profit model of financing infrastructure projects, which will result in greater financial efficiency for the public purse and an end to the private profiteering at the hands of public services. Indeed, Kenny MacAskill, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice served notice of SNP intentions when he announced that the proposed new prison at Low Moss will not be privately run.
Ensuring that public services are maintained by the public sector was a priority for the voters during the Scottish Parliament election campaign - as determined in a BBC opinion poll. It is a priority for the SNP too.
If you want to see details of the answer to the question I lodged that sparked today's Herald article then have a look below:
S3W-2233 - Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP) (Date Lodged 18 July 2007) : To ask the Scottish Executive what the total cost to the taxpayer will be of all existing PFI/PPP projects over the course of their contractual life.
Answered by John Swinney (2 August 2007): The total estimated unitary charges for all existing PPP projects over their contractual life is £22.3 billion. This covers 102 PPP projects and spans the years 1999-2000 to 2040-41, a period of 42 years.
Basically, I got an answer to a written question that I lodged with the Scottish government which indicates that the combined cost of Private Finance Initiative (PFI)/Public Private Partnerships (PPP) over the course of their contractual life is a quite astonishing £22.3billion.
This is a staggering amount of money to have lavished on the private sector at public expense; and the evidence indicates that it isn't the most cost effective mechanism. The National Audit Office studied the PFI-PPP tendering process earlier this year and stated that the long tendering process involved with PFI-PPP could have been avoided or mitigated in the public sector. Furthermore a 2002 Audit Scotland report into PFI-PPP contracts for renewing schools found that the cost of the scheme was generally 2.5% to 4.0% higher than a local authority might have paid if it had borrowed the money on its own account, resulting in roughly £200,000 to £300,000 a year for each £10million invested.
And Allyson Pollock established that in the NHS PFI-PPP led to a diversion of resources from clinical services, staff and supplies. In other words, money being syphoned from front line services into private pockets.
Thankfully the new SNP administration is working away to come up with a not for profit model of financing infrastructure projects, which will result in greater financial efficiency for the public purse and an end to the private profiteering at the hands of public services. Indeed, Kenny MacAskill, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice served notice of SNP intentions when he announced that the proposed new prison at Low Moss will not be privately run.
Ensuring that public services are maintained by the public sector was a priority for the voters during the Scottish Parliament election campaign - as determined in a BBC opinion poll. It is a priority for the SNP too.
If you want to see details of the answer to the question I lodged that sparked today's Herald article then have a look below:
S3W-2233 - Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP) (Date Lodged 18 July 2007) : To ask the Scottish Executive what the total cost to the taxpayer will be of all existing PFI/PPP projects over the course of their contractual life.
Answered by John Swinney (2 August 2007): The total estimated unitary charges for all existing PPP projects over their contractual life is £22.3 billion. This covers 102 PPP projects and spans the years 1999-2000 to 2040-41, a period of 42 years.
Saturday, 4 August 2007
SNP Plan for Refugee Amnesty Denied by Labour
I have been involved with the SNP for a long time. I first got involved as a fresh faced teenager at university and quickly learnt that one of the jibes that would be thrown at me by Labour student opponents would be that somehow as a member of the SNP, seeking independence for Scotland I was narrow minded. Some would even use the spectre of racism against me and my fellow SNP activists in Glasgow University Scottish Nationalist Association.
Of course this was something I never accepted then or is it something I accept now.
It is plainly a nonsense to characterise the SNP in such light, and news out today demonstrates that far from the SNP being narrow, perhaps those Labourites who make such accusations should look a bit closer to home.
This story in the Scotsman (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1219312007) indicates that the Labour Immigration Minister in London has point blank refused to accept the case of the SNP government that those 1,400 refugee families who have been based in Scotland since March 2006 or before should have been granted an amnesty.
This would make a lot of sense, and follows hard on the announcement that the SNP government will treat those refugee children who have been in the Scottish education system for three years or more as if they were Scottish domiciled students for the purposes of entering higher education (more evidence for the narrow viewpoint of the SNP no doubt for those Labour students I was at university with). Having 1,400 families tangled up in the asylum seeker process is a nonsense when they have been based in Scotland for so long.
It cannot make any sense to deny families that are bedded into Scottish communities the chance to play a full part in those communities. It is more costly to the state to maintain them in that asylum seeker system rather than allowing these families to get work and pay taxes and play a normal role in day to day life.
The SNP government can see this (surely defying the allegations of a narrow world view) yet the Labour government cannot. The SNP recognises that there are those in the world who have no option other than to flee their homeland for their safety and that of their families. The greatest tragedy about these people is that they would give anything to be home, yet they cannot return for fear of their own physical safety being compromised. So it is right that we offer them a chance to build a new home somewhere they can live in safety.
It is a shame that the Labour government seems too narrow to accept that.
Of course this was something I never accepted then or is it something I accept now.
It is plainly a nonsense to characterise the SNP in such light, and news out today demonstrates that far from the SNP being narrow, perhaps those Labourites who make such accusations should look a bit closer to home.
This story in the Scotsman (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1219312007) indicates that the Labour Immigration Minister in London has point blank refused to accept the case of the SNP government that those 1,400 refugee families who have been based in Scotland since March 2006 or before should have been granted an amnesty.
This would make a lot of sense, and follows hard on the announcement that the SNP government will treat those refugee children who have been in the Scottish education system for three years or more as if they were Scottish domiciled students for the purposes of entering higher education (more evidence for the narrow viewpoint of the SNP no doubt for those Labour students I was at university with). Having 1,400 families tangled up in the asylum seeker process is a nonsense when they have been based in Scotland for so long.
It cannot make any sense to deny families that are bedded into Scottish communities the chance to play a full part in those communities. It is more costly to the state to maintain them in that asylum seeker system rather than allowing these families to get work and pay taxes and play a normal role in day to day life.
The SNP government can see this (surely defying the allegations of a narrow world view) yet the Labour government cannot. The SNP recognises that there are those in the world who have no option other than to flee their homeland for their safety and that of their families. The greatest tragedy about these people is that they would give anything to be home, yet they cannot return for fear of their own physical safety being compromised. So it is right that we offer them a chance to build a new home somewhere they can live in safety.
It is a shame that the Labour government seems too narrow to accept that.
Friday, 3 August 2007
Unionists Fail to Learn the Obvious in European Parliament Debacle
It has been a while since my last blog. Indeed my blogging efforts for the month of July were rather pathetic, with a solitary entry being all I could muster the energy to write.
Anyway, a few folk, though mainly my wife Julie, have been on at me to start again, so here we go.
And for my first entry following my period of self imposed exile I thought I would concentrate on an issue that has come to the fore in the last few days; that is the reduced representation that Scotland will have in the European Parliament in future.
There have been some unionist politicians who have expressed their opposition to this reduction in numbers, from seven to six. Struan Stevenson MEP recently had a letter in the Herald newspaper (you can see it at http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/letters/display.var.1589522.0.0.php) in which he bemoans the fact that Finland, with the same population as Scotland will retain 14 representatives in the European Parliament - more than double Scotland's representation. He was particularly scathing of the fact that Luxembourg (with a population the size of Edinburgh) will have the same representation as Scotland.
Similarly, David Martin MEP was expressing his disappointment that the UK electoral commission didn't take into account Scotland's distinctive nature when making recommendations as to what parts of the UK lost Members of the European Parliament. And Patricia Ferguson MSP also presented a motion before the Scottish Parliament in the lead up to the Electoral Commission making a final decision which said "that Scotland’s particular geographical circumstances and its devolved system of government suggest that Scottish representation [in the European Parliament] should not be reduced as suggested".
Surely even these unionist representatives realise that it is Scotland's continued non-presence as a full member state of the European Union that leaves us open to this reduction in representation? Scotland's status in the EU at present is that of a mere region of a member state (the UK). This means that we will always be vulnerable to decisions such as this one which seeks to cut our numbers in the European Parliament by one.
Struan Stevenson cited not only Finland and Luxembourg as examples of countries of a comparable or smaller size than Scotland within the EU but with greater representation in the European Parliament. He also mentioned the Republic of Ireland with some 4million people and 13 representatives in the European Parliament and Malta with only 400,000 citizens and 5 representatives, leaving them with a far lower number of citizens per MEP than Scotland. He could have cited other examples as well. Lithuania, with 3.5million people has 13 MEPs; Latvia, with 3million people has 9 MEPs; Estonia, with 1.3million people has 6 MEPs.
Of course, what Struan or most unionist politicians fail to do is draw attention to the fact that each of these examples are those of fully independent full member states of the EU. Maybe they are just worried that the Scottish people might actually understand the full implications of what these examples they band about should actually mean for our country. Perhaps they might even understand it fully themselves one day.
Anyway, a few folk, though mainly my wife Julie, have been on at me to start again, so here we go.
And for my first entry following my period of self imposed exile I thought I would concentrate on an issue that has come to the fore in the last few days; that is the reduced representation that Scotland will have in the European Parliament in future.
There have been some unionist politicians who have expressed their opposition to this reduction in numbers, from seven to six. Struan Stevenson MEP recently had a letter in the Herald newspaper (you can see it at http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/letters/display.var.1589522.0.0.php) in which he bemoans the fact that Finland, with the same population as Scotland will retain 14 representatives in the European Parliament - more than double Scotland's representation. He was particularly scathing of the fact that Luxembourg (with a population the size of Edinburgh) will have the same representation as Scotland.
Similarly, David Martin MEP was expressing his disappointment that the UK electoral commission didn't take into account Scotland's distinctive nature when making recommendations as to what parts of the UK lost Members of the European Parliament. And Patricia Ferguson MSP also presented a motion before the Scottish Parliament in the lead up to the Electoral Commission making a final decision which said "that Scotland’s particular geographical circumstances and its devolved system of government suggest that Scottish representation [in the European Parliament] should not be reduced as suggested".
Surely even these unionist representatives realise that it is Scotland's continued non-presence as a full member state of the European Union that leaves us open to this reduction in representation? Scotland's status in the EU at present is that of a mere region of a member state (the UK). This means that we will always be vulnerable to decisions such as this one which seeks to cut our numbers in the European Parliament by one.
Struan Stevenson cited not only Finland and Luxembourg as examples of countries of a comparable or smaller size than Scotland within the EU but with greater representation in the European Parliament. He also mentioned the Republic of Ireland with some 4million people and 13 representatives in the European Parliament and Malta with only 400,000 citizens and 5 representatives, leaving them with a far lower number of citizens per MEP than Scotland. He could have cited other examples as well. Lithuania, with 3.5million people has 13 MEPs; Latvia, with 3million people has 9 MEPs; Estonia, with 1.3million people has 6 MEPs.
Of course, what Struan or most unionist politicians fail to do is draw attention to the fact that each of these examples are those of fully independent full member states of the EU. Maybe they are just worried that the Scottish people might actually understand the full implications of what these examples they band about should actually mean for our country. Perhaps they might even understand it fully themselves one day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
