The Hepburn Herald

DestiNation - January update

2009-01-12T16:44:00.003Z

My blogging has - if you are observant - become ever more sparse...although this is my second posting this month...so a definite improvement there. However, I have been regularly contributing to DestiNation, the online magazine that Julie started last year.

The January issue is now up and I have offered an article on taxation if anyone is interested.

Forth Bridge Funding

2009-01-05T18:01:00.003Z

Apologies to anyone who has been checking in to read my musings, but the mood to blog seemed to escape me over the last wee while.

However, I feel inspired to write about what seems to be the hypocrisy inherent in the UK government position in relation to the financing of the new Forth Road Bridge. Apparently they refuse to consider the Scottish Government's proposal to advance funding for the bridge over a twenty year period. Given the current constitutional settlement doesn't endow the Scottish Government with powers over prudential borrowing, currently they have to ask the permission of the UK government. Permission that has been denied on the grounds that you can't "bring forward spending 15 or 20 years out, in budgets that haven't been allocated".

But isn't that exactly what the New Labour inspired PPP scheme has done? Over the next twenty or so years, the combined UK PPP debt is over £200billion. This was money that was committed to by previous administrations out of budgets yet to be allocated. Soon the Scottish Government's PPP liabilities will be £1billion per annum.

Furthermore, unlike the reasonable SNP proposal, this is money that is committed years in advance to line the pockets of private companies. Yet PPP is the very system that the UK government now proposes is utilised for the construction of the bridge.

Seems that their reluctance to consider the proposal of the Scottish Government has a lot more to do with politicking than what is in the best interests of Scotland.

Baillieston By-election

2008-09-13T20:50:00.000Z

Spent a bit of time yesterday in the late summer (or early autumn) sunshine helping the SNP campaign to elect David Turner as the new councillor for the Baillieston ward in Glasgow. The vacancy arose, of course, following the sensational victory of the former incumbent, John Mason, in the Glasgow East Westminster by-election.

There's an enthusastic team of activists working hard to make sure this ward continues to have two SNP councillors - the only one, so far, in the city. Polling day is this Thursday.

Is that seat taken?

2008-08-27T18:57:00.002Z

Was I the only one slightly perplexed by the Liberal Democrats choice of Murrayfield to unveil Tavish Scott as their new leader? Given that the BBC reports all three Lib-Dem leadership candidates polled a grand total of 2,457 votes between them, surely the irony of holding an event at a stadium designed to hold over 67,000 spectators isn't lost on others too?

This seems to have escaped the notice of the press generally, but I shall enjoy pointing out this lovely irony to those Lib-Dems I know!

Post Office Closure Programme Hypocrisy

2008-08-22T15:17:00.000Z

Good on Edinburgh city council for voting to admonish the Labour government for their post offic closure programme.

I am presently fighting a number of closures in the area I represent, and each and every time have come up against Labour politician strutting about saying that they are campaigning to do likewise. The hypocrisy of these individuals is galling.

These are the self same individuals who actually voted for the programme of 2,500 closures of local post office branches across the UK, and then have the brazen audacity to speak out against them. You have to admire them if nothing else for their sheer brass neck.

One such Labour politician was addressing a public meeting organised by a local community council last week that I was also attending to state that they had voted for the continued UK government subsidy to the Post Office. Aye, well that may be true up to a point, but the same individual failed to mention that they also simultaneously supported the government's closure programme that now threatens the particular local branch in question being discussed at the public meeting.

Thankfully people don't - much as New Labour likes to think they do at times - zip up the back of their heid. People weren't buying any of it and that particular individual Labour MP got a hard time of it at the meeting.

What is striking though is that this level of "subsidy" (or what we could equally term public investment in a public service) is some 175million pounds annually. This pales into insignificance by comparison with the billions lavished on the war in Iraq by Blair then Brown, or the 100billion pounds that a new generation of nuclear weapons may cost the taxpayer.

It seems that the UK government can find all the money it wants to maintain nuclear arms, but heaven forfend that they might have to contribute to the maintenance of a Post Office, that they still own on our behalf.

That leads me on to the other galling part of the presentation of this closure programme. That the Post Office is somehow being presented as a failing business. It is of course nonsense to define it as such. It is a government owned public service, just the way the NHS is. Do we talk about the failure of the NHS because it isn't an income generator? No, and it would be nonsense to do so.

I believe the same is true of the Post Office network as well. It is more than just a business. It is a public service that all people are able to use.

Even if one was to accept that it is a business and should make money like any other, then it is also galling to remember that it was in the black when New Labour came to power. However a deliberate campaign of willful neglect and running it down has been employed by them in government, stripping service after service away from the so called "People's Post Office". Is it any wonder that it fails to make the profit it once did?

One final thought...if the Post Office is a business, then why, when it is apparently failing, does their Chief Executive reportedly earn 1million pounds annually through his wage, pension and bonuses? And why is it their customers who are being punished through this closure programme? They are the last people who bear the blame for the "failure" of this "business".

Questions Over Olympic Saltire Ban

2008-08-05T10:25:00.000Z

Will athletes and supporters from Scotland be banned from flying the Saltire at this year's Olympics?

The ‘House Rules’ for visitors on the Official Website of the Beijing Olympics state:
“2. To avoid delays at security and to maintain an orderly flow, please DO NOT bring the following articles to any venue:… flags of non-members of the Olympics or Paralympics; flags or banners larger than 2 m x 1 m; flagpoles; any banners, slogans, fliers, brochures or samples.”

As the United Kingdom, rather than its constituent nations, is a member country of the Olympics, the rule would appear to ban the Saltire, as well as the flags of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, from being brought into Olympic venues. The rule would also have the effect of preventing the Tibetan flag from being displayed at events.

Athletes from across Scotland and the rest of the UK will be taking part in the Beijing Olympics, and fans should be allowed to show their support by waving the national flag of their choice.

With participants like Andy Murray often wearing Saltires on their kit as a symbol of national pride it will be a shame if fans are not able to echo that by waving Saltires from the stands.

I will be writing to the British Olympic Association and the International Olympic Committee and urging them to challenge this ruling.

I will also be calling on them to clarify the implications for athletes. On previous occasions Scottish athletes have been prevented from sporting a saltire – it would be unfortunate where any athlete to find themselves in that position again.

The Olympics should be a global celebration of different cultures and nationalities with this meeting in Beijing offering an opportunity for dialogue over the future of Tibet.

China’s crack-down on any show of support for Tibet – including the flying of flags – is out of keeping with the Olympic spirit and will raise many ongoing concerns as to China’s commitment to improve free speech and expression in the run up to the Games.

That it will have this unfortunate side-effect for anyone wanting to fly a Saltire or the English, Welsh or Northern Irish flag may focus people’s minds on the need for further dialogue between China and Tibet.

The Earthquake has Arrived

2008-07-25T19:46:00.001Z

Much has been written across the blogs about yesterday's (or technically this morning's I suppose) SNP victory in Glasgow East. Not a lot to add other than to say how delighted I am for John Mason, who is a thoroughly decent man, and how delighted I am for all those of us who worked to get him elected. The ramifications of this victory will be felt for a long time.

Anyway, just wanted to post a few photos from yesterday, which are all below. You can also see a lot of pics from the SNP campaign here.

Julie and Gareth

The Cumbernauld and Kilsyth crew, Julie, myself and Stuart McDonald

Outside the SNP campaign rooms on Baillieston Road as the campaign begins to wind down at close of poll

Myself and Patrick at the after poll party hospitably hosted by the Barrachnie Inn

Julie and Patrick fly the flag
Willie, Kenny and Gordon watch the by-election coverage

Mark, Grant and Malcolm

Elaine is excited!

Willie with Ian and Lily Hudghton

John Mason MP arrives back at the Barrachnie Inn to speak to the team

Adventures in Glasgow East

2008-07-09T21:12:00.000Z

Nominations are now closed for the Glasgow East by-election and apparently there are nine candidates in all. I'm not going to list them all, after all why would I offer publicity to anyone other than the excellent SNP candidate John Mason (pictured), but it is pretty clear that this contest is all about the SNP and the Labour Party which has represented the area since the 1920s. None of the others have a look in.

This by-election has generated much comment in the blogosphere, some of which has suggested that we shouldn't write off the other parties, the Liberal Democrats in particular. However, having been in Glasgow East quite a bit since the by-election was announced, I am able to say fairly confidently that the Liberals shouldn't be expending too much effort on this contest. I have found little evidence to suggest that they are going to attract very much support, and to be frank have identified more Tories in my canvassing efforts than I have Liberal Democrat supporters. I don't imagine I need to state the obvious about Tories themselves being thin on the ground in Glasgow East, so this tells a story in itself about what the Lib-Dem vote is likely to be on 24th July.

It has been a pleasure to campaign for John Mason in this campaign. I have known John for many years and he is a thoroughly decent individual. This has been often remarked upon by many people in the constituency, particularly in that part that John has represented for a decade on Glasgow City Council. That speaks for itself as to John's character.

I have found plenty of people who are going to come out and support the SNP for the first time in this by-election. The reasons have been a combination of three things. Firstly, they like John Mason for the reasons I outlined above, combined with the fact that he has a track record of standing up for people in the east end. Secondly, they are thoroughly scunnered with Labour, with many people having invested their political hopes in that party for their lifetimes, to see this loyalty rewarded with nothing in return. Thirdly, and most crucially, they have been impressed by the SNP in government. They have seen that the worst predictions of the unionists and their standard bearers in certain segments of the media that the sky would fall in if the SNP should ever come to power are utter nonsense. And more than that, they have seen an SNP government freeze the council tax and move to replace it with a fairer form of local taxation; lower prescription charges and move to abolish them; retain the accident and emergency department at Monklands Hospital; and move to get 1000 more police officers on the streets of Scotland.

In short they see an SNP government doing the types of things that they thought the Labour Party might, were they not a pale imitation of the force for social justice that they were founded to be.

This all adds up to making this the most interesting and exciting by-election I have ever campaigned in, and I am increasingly confident that John Mason and the SNP activists working for him and our party can deliver a historic victory on 24th July.

By the way, for those who are interested I am pictured with my pal Anne McLaughlin outside John's campaign headquarters on Baillieston Road after a shift campaigning in Glasgow East!

By-election(s) and Resignations

2008-06-28T08:31:00.000Z

Hmm...my promise that I would be back blogging soon in April didn't really come true. Anyway, I feel inspired to do so today by having been awakened this morning by a text from David Linden and an e-mail to my Blackberry from Anne McLaughlin to inform me that David Marshall is resigning as the Labour MP for Glasgow East.

Most unexpected and quite exciting news. Of course, this has still to be definitely confirmed but if and when it is, we can look forward to a summer of campaiging in Glasgow's east end. The result in the constituency last time was a fairly overwhelming Labour victory, but in the current climate I am confident that the SNP can poll very well in any by-election there.

However, expect there to be two by-elections on the same day should this contest in Glasgow East come to pass. I would imagine that the Labour Party will take advantage of this to sort a by-election for Motherwell and Wishaw to run concurrently with any Glasgow East poll and to allow Jack McConnell to head off for his new job in Malawi.

Anyway, as exciting as this all is, if the news being reported on the BBC this morning that Wendy is for the off, then expect the Glasgow East by-election to not quite dominate tomorrow's headlines as it might otherwise.

Sorry for the Unintended Interlude

2008-04-22T17:20:00.004Z

Well, my New Years resolution to blog more regularly was going so well until I noticed that it had been over a month since I last posted anything here.

In between times I have launched a new website at http://www.jamiehepburn.org

I have been busy trying to upload a huge backlog of my activites in Parliament so it has meant the blog here has been a tad neglected.

I have also written an article for an exciting new web project that Julie has organised. Have a look at http://www.destination.sco.eu/

Anyway, I will undertake to get back blogging a bit more regularly soon. Just wanted to post here today to prove I hadn't forgot all about the blog site.

Marine Environment

2008-03-21T12:54:00.002Z

Debate on Marine Environment - 20th March 2008

Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): Members will need to forgive me if my voice crackles a little today. It comes from urging Partick Thistle on to its well-deserved draw at Ibrox last night. That is nothing to do with the debate, but it is well worth mentioning. I am sure that Karen Gillon, especially, will agree.

The Central Scotland region, which I represent, is not known for its rugged coastline or the views of the ocean that are afforded by its islands and peninsulas, although I heartily recommend to all members a visit to Broadwood loch in Cumbernauld. I leave the more poetic descriptions of our maritime heritage and coastal environments to my colleagues who have the privilege of representing such areas in the Parliament. However, being a member for a land-locked region does not mean that I have no interest in Scotland's marine environment, nor is it the case that the careful management of our maritime resources does not concern my constituents. The motion talks of our "stewardship of the seas", and that responsibility is shared by us all, no matter where in the country we are from.

In last week's debate about national parks, I spoke of the importance of preserving our natural environments for the benefit of future generations. That is clearly as true of our marine environment as it is of our environments on land, and our decisions in the Parliament today will leave a legacy for all those who depend on the seas in years to come. I was interested to hear members touch on the idea of a marine national park. I agree that the concept needs continued and careful consideration.

A well-managed marine environment benefits not only coastal communities and those who work at sea, but others as well. The ripples of successful maritime policy can be felt well inland and around the world—from the manufacturing company that supplies renewable energy technology to the seafood restaurant in a city centre; and from tourists building a coastal stop into their itinerary to parents on a school run filling up the car with petrol from the North Sea. The Scottish coastal forum estimated that, in 2000, the annual income from marine activities in the area between 1km offshore and 1km inland was £4.5 billion. Scotland's oil provides at least £23 billion annually to the UK economy.

It is worth dwelling for a moment on the significance of the North Sea oil resource. Scotland's oil was described in 1975 as being the "future of Britain" by the then Secretary of State for Energy, one Anthony Wedgwood Benn, who was being fêted by some MSPs yesterday. Scotland's oil now regularly comes in at more than $100 a barrel, despite predictions in 1999 by the late Donald Dewar that the price would remain at $10 to $12 for the foreseeable future.
We now know that Professor Gavin McCrone, in his secret report to the UK Government in 1974, argued that an independent Scotland with control of its own oil resource would produce a "chronic surplus to a quite embarrassing degree".

Of course, the Government of the day, including Tony Benn, suppressed that report and argued the contrary—that the oil revenue was insignificant for Scotland's future.

However, over the past 30 years, some $200 billion-worth of oil has been extracted from the North Sea, yet Scotland—and indeed the whole of the UK—is yet to match the prosperity and quality of life of our Scandinavian neighbours, who have managed their maritime and natural resources so effectively. The debate on Scotland's oil will continue, no doubt, as part of the national conversation on Scotland's constitutional future, so I will leave my contribution on the subject at that—for now.

That leads me to the wider substantive issue of the debate: the appropriate place for decisions about and implementation of maritime policy in Scotland. I welcome the Government's commitment to engagement with the communities and interests that depend on the seas, and its determination to ensure that the policy framework for managing the marine environment is fit for purpose in the 21st century.

The Scotland Act 1998 bequeathed to the Scottish Government and its predecessors a complex and conflicting range of jurisdictions and responsibilities over the marine environment. As was mentioned earlier, Scotland is defined in the 1998 act as the land and territorial waters to a distance of 12 nautical miles, but Scottish ministers have responsibility for regulating fisheries and renewable energy beyond those limits to 200 miles. Even within the 12-mile limit, activities including shipping and navigation and issues such as safety at sea are reserved to the UK Government. I fully support the Scottish Government's call for powers over maritime policy to be fully devolved—along, of course, with all the matters that are reserved in schedule 5 to the 1998 act. Until that day comes, however, I am happy to continue to support the Government's initiatives to make the most of the powers that it has to ensure the best possible approach to marine policy.

The impact of climate change brings a particular urgency to the debate. The coastal environment will change, and sea levels are predicted to rise. As a member of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, which is undertaking an inquiry into flooding, I have heard that Scotland could be better placed to avoid some of the effects of that phenomenon, but we must still consider the impact that flooding will have on our coastal communities. I am sure that that will form part of the Government's thinking on the flooding bill that it will introduce in due course.

Our seas have the potential to contribute so much to life, even in the land-locked parts of Central Scotland, and in a way that meets the Government's ambitious aims for our country. For example, the seas can help us to become greener—Scotland has been left too far behind in marine renewable energy. We can become healthier—careful use of our fish stocks should contribute to improving Scotland's diet. Our country can become richer, smarter and fairer as we invest in new technologies for and new understandings of our marine environment.

Today's debate has allowed us to reflect on those matters, and I know that the Scottish Government will consider them as it prepares its forthcoming legislation. I commend the Government motion.

No End In Sight to the War in Iraq

2008-03-14T10:14:00.001Z

Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): I thank my friend and colleague Aileen Campbell for securing this debate, which, as she said, is timely. It is important and right that the Parliament should have a chance to discuss what is happening in Iraq today and how we arrived at this position over the past five years. My only concern is that tonight's debate may not be long enough to do those matters justice.

Although the debate is timely, I imagine that many are surprised that we are in a situation that makes it necessary. The fact that there has been a US and UK military presence in Iraq for five years and that there is no sign that that presence will end any time soon is testament to the lack of forward planning and thinking through of the consequences by those who took us into conflict during the headlong rush to war in 2003.

The consequences of the decision have been severe. According to CNN, there have been 4,279 coalition deaths in Iraq since 2003, and approaching 30,000 American troops have been wounded in action. Those deaths and woundings have scarred a generation of young servicemen and women, mostly of my generation, for no considerable good. Nor must we forget the tens of thousands of violent deaths of innocent Iraqi men, women and children since the invasion in 2003. I offer no more specific number because it is impossible to do so, as no official count of the Iraqi dead is made. That is significant, because it sends out the dangerous message that their dead—the dead men, women and children of Iraq—are worth less than our dead. Estimates of Iraqi casualties vary from the fairly conservative 50,000 to more than 1 million, but what are 900,000 or so dead individuals when no one is really counting?

We do well to remind ourselves that many of those who have died in Iraq have died as a result of terrorism that was unleashed in the internecine chaos that followed the invasion. One of the great ironies of the invasion is that its main protagonist, the United States Government, invaded on the dubious basis that Iraq was involved in the promotion of fundamentalist, Islamic-sponsored terrorism. The fact that Osama bin Laden was no friend of the Baathist regime and called Saddam Hussein an infidel was conveniently overlooked by, or unknown to, George Bush.

As repressive as the Saddam regime was, terrorism was not a domestic problem in Iraq before the invasion of 2003. The lack of forward planning and the dismantling of the state infrastructure of Iraq following the Pyrrhic victory of the coalition of the willing contributed directly to the unleashing of terrorism on the Iraqi people.

I have mentioned that the war on terror formed part of the rationale for going to war, but the basis for the war was formed above all by the idea that Iraq was attempting to build a weapons capacity that could strike at our shores within 45 minutes.

The fact that Iraq has been laid waste to for five years and not one scrap of evidence for the existence of such weapons has turned up gives the lie to the idea that they ever existed.

We all now know that the war in Iraq was about regime change and the desire to control that country's resources. I had no desire to support the maintenance of the Saddam regime, which was undeniably a barbaric form of government, but Saddam was equally barbaric when he was an ally of the United States and Britain against Iran; he perpetrated some of his worst crimes against the Iraqi people at that time. Where was the moral outrage from the American and British Governments then? There was none—Saddam Hussein was feted as an ally and Donald Rumsfeld was sent to meet and greet him. The old maxim "my enemy's enemy is my friend" held true in relation to Saddam Hussein—until such time as it did not suit.

I agree with the sentiments that Aileen Campbell has expressed in her motion. I hope that the legality of the war will, one day, be tested in the courts and that, when it is, those war criminals who are responsible—including George Bush and Tony Blair—are made to pay for their crimes.

National Parks - 13th March 2008

2008-03-14T10:04:00.001Z

Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): I welcome today's debate. Scotland's two national parks are one of the Parliament's most significant achievements. The legislation that created them could only have been passed under some form of home rule. The Westminster Parliament would never have found the time, let alone had the will, for such reform. Of course, perhaps an independent Parliament would have allowed us to go further and faster in the establishment of our national parks—I mention that as a mere aside.

As David Stewart said, the existence of the national park concept is a tribute to John Muir, a Scot from Dunbar who emigrated to the United States of America. His campaigns led to the protection first of the Yosemite valley and then of other great wildernesses in the US. It is a testament to the Scottish Parliament that the ideas of John Muir in establishing national parks have been enshrined in his country of birth.

We have two national parks in comparison with the 12—soon to be 13—parks across England and Wales and the many areas of outstanding natural beauty that have been designated south of the border and which are afforded the same protection. It is perhaps ironic that Scotland, which has some of the oldest, wildest and most impressive landscapes in Europe, has had to wait so long for a protection regime that matches European and global standards.

When we appreciate those landscapes, we cannot express our feelings more clearly than with the old maxim that we do no inherit the earth from our ancestors, but borrow it from our children. That is why protecting the land within our national parks is so important. Our landscapes and wildernesses have a value in their own right. Even if nobody ever visited them, our national parks would still be important as our country's lungs, filtering our water and purifying our air. That they act in that manner as well as being visited by so many people hammers home their importance to our country. It is right therefore that we should bestow on them a level of protection and management. Doing so will ensure that short-term gain does not mean long-term overexploitation.

As the motion before us correctly states, we should commend the contribution of national parks

"to the greener Scotland agenda."

However, the contribution of the parks is much wider than that. They make a valuable contribution to the Government's aims for a fairer and healthier Scotland.

Our national parks can make Scotland fairer, because land is protected for future generations and is understood as being held for the common good. That is in keeping with the traditional understanding of land use and ownership in Scotland. The elected element of the national park boards is a commendable example of participatory democracy. It is a way of ensuring that the voice of ordinary people is heard at the heart of decision making. I am glad that there seems to be such uniform agreement on the issue across the chamber.

Our national parks can also make Scotland healthier, because of the opportunities that they afford for recreation, especially walking, which is one of the cheapest, easiest and most effective forms of exercise. There also provide a wide range of outdoor pursuits from skiing and snowboarding on the Cairngorms to windsurfing on Loch Lomond, in which I am sure Jackie Baillie affords herself the opportunity to participate at every chance.

Jackie Baillie: Absolutely.

Jamie Hepburn: I assure members that I do not engage in those activities very regularly. However, for those who do, national park status means that the potentials can be maximised at the same time as the activities' impact on the landscape and environment is carefully managed.

Our national parks contribute

"to the greener Scotland agenda."

because they act as exemplars of the changes that we need to introduce in wider society if we are to tackle the causes and mitigate the effects of climate change.

National park authorities should be ambitious in promoting the Government's green targets. They should make their parks as accessible as possible to public transport; they should demand the highest standards of energy efficiency in their buildings; and they should minimise and manage waste. In that context, I welcome the Government's commitment to a strategic review of the operation of and future for our national parks. I hope that some of the points that I have made will be considered in the review.

After five years of designation, the time is right to ensure that our national parks serve the purposes for which they were established. Discussions have taken place on the effectiveness of the national park boards. It is right that all aspects of their operation should be considered in the review, but the elected element of those structures is of the utmost importance. In that regard, I welcome the minister's conformation that he shares those principles. Given the questions to the minister on the subject, some members appear to have missed that confirmation. As I said, I welcome it.

Five years after establishing the national parks, the time is also right to consider their size. I welcome Mike Russell's announcement that the Cairngorms national park will include highland Perthshire. The people of highland Perthshire should be congratulated, not only on voting for the SNP, which won with 60 per cent of the vote in a recent by-election, but on the campaign that they have run to be included in the Cairngorms national park. I also pay tribute to John Swinney for the campaign that he has run.

I welcome the fact that the Government review will consider other areas that may be included in the existing national parks. I hope that the review will also consider other areas throughout Scotland that may be endowed with national park status. For instance, the regional parks that were established long ago could be considered for promotion to full national park status. I ask the cabinet secretary to consider that possibility in summing up the debate.

Scotland's national parks are part of a European and worldwide family of designated and protected landscapes. The European Landscape Convention of 2000, which the United Kingdom finally ratified in 2006, reinforces the global dimension. That means that we have a duty not only to Scotland's future generations, but to people throughout the world who benefit from our national parks as tourists, consumers of produce and suppliers of the technology and tools that are used in the parks.

We have a duty to preserve and enhance the natural beauty and resources of our national parks and all Scotland's designated scenic areas. Scotland's national parks are a major achievement of devolution and a major responsibility of the Parliament. I hope that the debate takes us some way towards exercising that responsibility. We must realise that, through the careful and strategic management of our finest resources, we are building a legacy that will outlast us all.

A Bad ID-ea

2008-03-07T21:43:00.005Z

On Wednesday night I had the pleasure of speaking at the Edinburgh branch of the NO2ID organisation who are campaigning against the introduction of identity cards by the UK government. I am sure it is entirely coincidental, but the very next day we saw Jacqui Smith make an announcement about how the government intends to step up its bid to introduce these cards.

We are told that they will offer us greater protection against terrorism and identity fraud.

In what way will a little bit of paper with our names on it act as a shield against these threats?

Let's not forget that Spain operates an ID card scheme, yet this did not stop bombs going off on Madrid trains.

People who are so determined to put lives at jeopardy, including their own for whatever extreme ends they wish to pursue will hardly be put off at the prospect of ID cards in the UK. Anyone who believes they will is delusional.

The case for ID cards is extremely weak, and I don't buy for a second the talk from the UK government that they will make life easier for us all. Nor do I buy the talk that there will be no compulsion upon us to carry these cards. Certainly that may be the case in the short term, but surely that would be liable to change. After all, what would be the point of introducing a card that we would be compelled to have if we are not to be compelled to carry it?

This is to say nothing of the outrage that we are expected to have to pay for the 'privilege' of these cards, possibly as much as £90 or more.

Anyway, I am delighted that the Scottish Government is resolute in opposition to these cards and they shall certainly have my support in that opposition.

Bye Bye the Iniquitous Tuition Fee

2008-02-28T22:24:00.006Z

I was delighted that today the Scottish Parliament voted in favour of abolishing the graduate endowment and finally removed the nonsense of tuition fees for university students. The SNP Government move was supported by 67 votes to 61, with the Labour Party (with one exception, well done Elaine Smith) and the Tories voting against.

There are some who would have it that tuition fees were abolished some time ago, but the graduate endowment was tuition fees by any other name. After all, a tuition fee could be defined as a mandatory charge, contingent upon a person having undertaken a period of education at one of our higher education institutions. The graduate endowment was just that, a mandatory charge, contingent upon a person having undertaken a period of education at one of our higher education institutions. So that will be a tuition fee then in my book, and I think in the eyes of most students in Scotland.

So the principle of free education has returned to Scotland. This is something that I have long been involved in campaigning for.

I happened to have been amongst the last generation of students not to have paid either the former tuition fee or the neo-tuition fee in the guise of the graduate endowment. I campaigned against the introduction of both, so naturally I consider it a privilege to have been able to actually vote for the death of university tuition fees today.

The graduate endowment was supposed to be a form of generating income to fund student bursaries on a self financing basis. It never managed to become that, and instead served as a millstone around graduates necks. In 1999, the average level of graduate debt was £2,500. By 2007 this had grown to an average of £11,000. That is an inordinate amount of debt to lumber mainly young graduates with as they seek to begin their working lives, and in my opinion, acted as a huge disincentive to entering higher education.

The old maxim, neither a borrower nor a lender be runs strong amongst many of our communities, particularly amongst many of our most alienated and impoverished. The threat of graduate debt acted as a bar for entry to university amongst many people from these communities, and that is just one reason I am glad that the fees are gone.

But I am also glad because it reinforces the idea that where society benefits, we pay together as a society. The more educated a society, the more productive it can become. And where do people imagine we get our teachers, nurses, doctors and so many vital public servants from? They have to be educated, and as we all benefit by them, I think it is right that we all contribute to that education.

I agree that where a person benefits financially through higher education they should pay more - and the statistics do indeed indicate that those who go to university do indeed on average earn more than those who didn't.

However, what I can't accept is that this should take the form of a graduate tax, which was essentially what the graduate endowment was. If a person earns more they pay more in income taxation, a far more progressive and fair form of taxation than a flat rate form of fee that people became liable for even when they earn far less than the median earnings in our country.

So today is a good day for all those who adhere to the ideal of not just free education, but the idea that we all benefit by having an educated population.

Abolishing fees is not all we have to do for Scotland's students and graduates. So too do we have to tackle the problem of indebtedness, but as Fiona Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Education said today, this move today is the SNP Government's "down payment" towards that aim. I am sure that the number of students who came to Parliament today to call for the Graduate Endowment Abolition (Scotland) Bill to be voted through Parliament, and all those who care about free education will concur.

Accident and Emergency Units Statement - 27th February 2008

2008-02-28T19:20:00.001Z

Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): Will the cabinet secretary inform members how health board consultations on proposed changes to A and E and other services that boards provide will be improved in the future, and how the improvements will avoid any sham consultations, such as the one in Lanarkshire that led to the initial proposal to close Monklands A and E?

Nicola Sturgeon: My answer will be simlar to the one that I have just given to Jim Hume. I cannot overstate the point that the independent scrutiny process greatly enhances decision making. I repeat my thanks to Andrew Walker and his team, who have done an absolutely outstanding job in the cases of Ayr and Monklands.

Independent scrutiny builds confidence in the decision-making process. It is not for an independent scrutiny panel to take the decisions; rather, its job is to help to build confidence in the evidence base that underpins them. That, coupled with the other reforms that we detail in "Better Health, Better Care: Action Plan" to strengthen existing public consultation mechanisms, plus the possibility of elected health board members, will radically reform and improve the process of consultation and public engagement. The NHS will be stronger and better for it.

Debate on Rail Improvements (Central Scotland) - 21st February 2008

2008-02-22T14:02:00.002Z

Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): I thank those members who have supported my motion, enabling it to be debated tonight. I would also like to thank the various transport authorities and rail companies that have met me or written to me before the debate. I also thank TRANSform Scotland for its interest tonight and for preparing a briefing for members.

I put on record my thanks to the members who have stayed behind to contribute to the debate. In particular, I look forward to any contribution from my colleague Chris Harvie. I always feel as if I should be taking study notes whenever he speaks.

My motion has two purposes. They are clear from the text, but I am happy to be up front and clear about them. This is an opportunity to welcome and discuss the improvements to the central Scotland rail network that are being funded by the Government, but it is also an opportunity to open for discussion the idea of a national rail card for Scotland.

The rail network has played a significant role in Scotland's history and it has an even more important role to play in our country's future. Rail travel contributes positively to a range of economic, social and environmental ambitions that the Government and the Parliament have for Scotland. The Government's stated purpose of sustainable economic growth will absolutely depend on our having an efficient and environmentally friendly transport infrastructure for moving people and goods around the country. Above all, a modal shift from private car to public transport is a necessity if targets in the economic strategy and in our efforts to tackle climate change are to be met. Accessible public transport is also important for improving social interaction, which links to the Government's targets on inequality. Indeed, the motion notes that 32 per cent of Scottish households do not have access to a car. For those people, travel of any kind means dependence on public transport.

Those challenges and targets help to explain why the Government's plans for improving rail services across central Scotland are vital. I was recently informed by a Scottish National Party councillor from Cumbernauld that the SNP was campaigning for the electrification of the Glasgow to Edinburgh main line in the 1930s. It appears that the SNP's persistence on the matter will finally pay off.

I welcome the Government's ambition to achieve a 35-minute journey time between Edinburgh and Glasgow. The electrification of the route will benefit the population in both cities and in the towns of central Scotland, many of which are in the area that I represent. The eventual electrification of lines to Cumbernauld will also be extremely welcome. Users of those services need and deserve a speedy, reliable service that links to other key routes. That our rail network is largely unelectrified—which is remarkable in the 21st century—works against any ambition for a speedy, reliable service.

I am sure that members agree that Scotland must not be left behind with regard to developments in the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe. Another motion that I recently lodged noted the launch of France's latest, all-new super-high-speed train, at a time when the UK has only just completed a small stretch of high speed 1 from St Pancras. Scotland lags even further behind the network serving much of the rest of the UK.

That is why I warmly welcome the Scottish Government's commitments to rail improvements in central Scotland. The Government recognises that that investment is a priority for the people of the region and knows the impact that it will have.

Once the infrastructure is in place, the challenge will be to ensure that it is well used. Many of the improvements will benefit and encourage the commuter market, which will help to attain the economic targets that I mentioned. I am keen, however, to find ways to ensure that Scotland's people get the most from investments in central Scotland's rail network. One major disincentive to rail travel is the fares that are charged—both the cost and the structure of the prices. There are savers, super-savers, apex, super-apex, cheap day returns, weekend upgrades—the list of options and alternatives seems to go on and on and presents a cluttered and confusing landscape. At present, some groups benefit from the simplifying effect of a rail card discount. There is a young person's rail card, which I remember from my recent past, a senior rail card, which other members might be able to comment on, and a rail card for young family groups. However, people who do not fall into those groups are left out and might be put off making a train journey by the cost and by the complicated ticket restrictions.

Only three respondents to the previous Scottish Executive's 2006 consultation on the rail strategy believed that the fare structure should not be changed. Research on behalf of the Strategic Rail Authority into a national rail card proposal found that, for seven in 10 potential rail trips—that is, those journeys that a person considers making by rail—the main barrier to choosing rail as the mode of transport was price. That is why the motion suggests that we should consider making a discount rail card more widely available in Scotland. If we make train travel more affordable, more people will be encouraged to take advantage of the rail improvements that the Government is bringing about. In turn, that would help to meet the various goals that a modern, efficient rail network can contribute to. It would be a social leveller and an environmentally friendly way of improving rail travel across the country.

Research that was carried out in 2003 and 2004 for Railfuture and the Strategic Rail Authority showed that a number of different combinations of up-front price and percentage discounts could be profitable. It is important to state that that proposal could be profitable for rail companies. Railfuture found that a UK-wide scheme could attract 2.7 million users of such a card and achieve an 11 per cent increase in passenger miles, with industry profits of £50 million.

Another possible model, featuring a card that would be priced at £30 and offer a 50 per cent discount, forecast a 25 per cent increase in passenger miles. We need look no further than the south-east of England to see a positive example of a rail card in action. The network rail card that is in use there turns a profit for the rail industry while encouraging greater use of the network that connects with central London.

In the course of preparing for the debate, I met various transport operators and rail companies. They indicated a certain amount of interest in the scheme and there was certainly no outright opposition. They all agree that we need to simplify fare structures and encourage more use of the rail network. I have talked about a rail card scheme in the context of possible profitability for the rail operators but, to be clear, I do not believe that that is in itself an argument for introducing such a scheme. The social and environmental purposes of a railway are the most important factors for us to consider in encouraging greater use of the network. Indeed, the treatment of the railway as a profit-oriented business rather than a national public service has in many ways led to years of underinvestment and decline. That decline is only now beginning to be addressed by the kind of improvements to which the title of the motion refers.

I have run out of time, so I conclude by saying that we should aspire to excellence for our rail network. The improvements that the Government is making play a huge part in realising that aspiration to excellence and a national rail card has a huge role to play in that regard.

America Admits Rendition Flights Used British Territory

2008-02-21T22:16:00.003Z

Today saw a parliamentary statement at Westminster by David Miliband the UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs where it was admitted that US government agencies did use UK territory to render individuals to a foreign location for interrogation. It was announced that contrary to previous announcements and all prior assurances which stated that there was no evidence of flights undertaking extraordinary rendition procedures, the United States government admitted on 15th February that in 2002 two such flights landed on Diego Garcia.

I have previously written to Kenny MacAskill, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the Lord Advocate to indicate my concerns about the ongoing allegations that Scottish airports have been used to facilitate extraordinary rendition, and I was informed that the Lord Advocate has passed on details of allegations given to the government to Strathclyde Police. The admission today by David Miliband undermines any assurances previously given by the UK government that Scottish airports have not been used for extraordinary rendition, and I believe it is incumbent upon all relevant authorities to reinvestigate these matters.

Extraordinary rendition is a piece of jargon that has passed into the modern lexicon, and I have used it throughout this blog. However it is as well to remind ourselves that when we use that term we are actually talking about the abduction and torture of individual human beings. These are of course crimes under Scots law and there are many international articles prohibiting the use of torture.

David Miliband has given an assurance that previous flights that were suspected of involvement in this practice will be looked at again, but it seems that this process will involve asking the United States to say whether or not they too were involved in rendition flights. It is clear to me that we cannot just rely on asking America confirming or denying whether these flights were involved in extraordinary rendition.

That is why we need the most thorough and proper investigation of these allegations. That has not happened yet, but today’s announcement necessitates such an investigation.

Fifty Years of CND

2008-02-17T15:00:00.004Z

So, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is fifty years old. That is fifty too many years in my opinion, but sadly the madness of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction continues to this day, so CND are to be congratulated for their tenacity and continuing to fight against nuclear weapons.

It is bizarre to me that in a day and age where we are told that supranational terrorist networks are the gravest threat that we face as a society today, that the UK government is prepared to splash out some £75billion-£100billion on a new generation of nukes, which could of course never be deployed against a terrorist.

Wouldn't it make more sense spending this money on the great battles we face in the world today? First up, there is the terrorist threat, which I accept is all too sadly a very real danger. But there is more. We have to try and turn round the damage that human activity has made to our planet's environment, just as we have to try and tackle the problem of poverty, with too many human beings living on less than a dollar a day and struggling to feed themselves and their children.

We have so many problems facing us at home and abroad that it is obscene that the UK government is even considering for an instant that such largesse can be wasted on futile nuclear weapons.

An American President was heard to remark in his inaugural address some 47 years ago that "man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life". These words are as true today as they were when JFK spoke them on 20th January 1961, yet we are still waiting for our leaders to realise that they would be better off investing resources to abolishing all forms of human poverty rather than in technology which may abolish all forms of human life.

That is why I am so proud that the SNP government has stood up against the notion that nuclear weapons are necessary to be harboured in Scotland's waters and are actively campaigning against them. It is also why I am glad that we have organisations such as CND and other anti-nuclear groupings working to the same end.

Kosovo to Declare Independence

2008-02-17T14:40:00.004Z

It looks like Kosovo stands on the brink of declaring independence. Reports suggest that Kosovar Prime Minister Hashim Tachi was set to make the declaration on Friday but was persuaded to delay any announcement by the United States authorities. This follows Tachi agreeing to delay the independence process till after the Serbian Presidential elections, so as to not allow Tomislav Nikolic of the Radical Party a big stick with which to beat Boris Tadic. Those elections are now of course out of the way, with Tadic having been successfully reelected.

Whilst Tadic does not want to see Kosovo leave Serbia and he and the Serbian authorities will seek to stop the moves to Kosovar independence, nor will they really be in a position to prevent the country from doing so. Sure, Russia and a few other states will make noises about this, but if the people and government of Kosovo are determined to move to independence how can this practically be stopped?

This leaves the way clear for Kosovo to move forwards to independence. We all of course hope that this will be a smooth process, and there are signs that it will be. An interesting article in today's Sunday Herald suggests that it has every chance of being just such a smooth process, and it looks likely that we are now seeing the remaining parts of the old Yugoslavian state falling apart.

So, the world will have its newest nation state in Kosovo this week. This will be a nation state of 2.2million less than 15% the size of Scotland. They are moving forward to independence with confidence. I look forward to our own country joining them soon.

Bounding into the Future with New Boundaries

2008-02-14T23:17:00.005Z

A few fellow bloggers (step forward Marco at "Adam Smith Was a Socialist") have been getting excited by the review of Scottish Parliamentary constituencies that is being undertaken at the moment. The Boundary Commission for Scotland today published their initial proposals.

This gets those of us involved in politics quite exercised as we pour over the potential new boundaries and imagine how they might affect the political landscape.

Many of the new proposed constituencies strike me as a little bizarre. Many straddle local authority boundaries with little regard to historic community links, and surely when the final boundaries are settled upon the suggested Clydebank and North Renfrewshire seat which is bisected by the Clyde will be reshuffled off the map. However, the difficulty facing the Boundary Commission is trying to ensure a degree of equal apportioning of electorate to the constituencies for the Scottish Parliament (Orkney and Shetland excepted by statute, and the Western Isles by practical necessity) and I suppose we will just have to get our heads round the newly named seats and say goodbye to some long established names (although again, I am sure that come the final recommendations they will be more imaginative in Glasgow rather than just using compass points to name the seats).

The effect of the redrawn boundaries on the political landscape has drawn much comment, as I have mentioned. Less commented upon though has been the impact of the years between now and 2011, when the new boundaries come into effect.

Regardless of the boundaries we face it is what we do on the ground and how we try to affect change that truly matters. In that regard I have to say it is with some confidence that the SNP will be able to go into the 2011 election - no matter the boundaries presented.

David Cairns, the McChattering Buffoon

2008-02-12T21:56:00.000Z

Just on Sunday I posted a blog on this site about Gordon Brown further undermining the unionist devolution commission. The following day articles appeared in the press with Brown stressing how he didn't want to take charge of the whole process and he was quite comfortable with the approach Wendy Alexander was taking.

Then today, in the Herald newspaper David Cairns firmly ruled out any suggestion that taxation powers might be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. This follows the same person previously ruling out devolution of broadcasting and Des Browne stating that control over their own elections was just not on for the Parliament either.

As I wrote back in January with so many powers being ruled out for devolution before the commission has even met, it is increasingly clear that there is little point to it.

What has particularly irked me has been the way that Cairns has dismissed demands for constitutional change as the preserve of the "McChattering classes". Firstly, the idea that demand for constitutional change is confined to just a section of the population is a nonsense. The drive for change comes from the Scottish people as a whole.

The way he appended the "Mc" to the terminology shows Cairns as the epitome of self loathing Scot. It illustrates what a London centric politician he is. Of course what you won't hear from Cairns is the level of self interest he has in this whole debate. He is presently a Minister in the Scottish Office.

Already it is clear that the Scottish Office is a fairly toothless entity. Devolve more powers to Scotland and people will really begin to ask what its point is and then Cairns might just be out of a job.

However, Scotland cannot just sit still because of the career interests of a few Scottish Labour politicians.

We have to have the appropriate powers here in Scotland to make the changes needed here in Scotland. That for me will always necessitate independence.

But then I am just part of the "McChattering Classes", aren't I?

Gordon Tears Down the Wendy Hoose

2008-02-10T20:45:00.000Z

The Sunday Herald reports that Gordon Brown has stamped his authority over matters constitutional for Scotland over that of Wendy Alexander.

The article (which blogger won't let me link to for some annoying reason) perfectly encapsulates the eternal problem for any leader of the Scottish branch of the British Labour Party. Just as John Balliol had to pay homage to Edward I, so too must by necessity Wendy Alexander appear penitent before her superior Gordon Brown.

Any politician who operates in a UK wide party will have a UK leader who will attempt to stamp their authority over their Scottish junior equivalent.

That Brown wants to have the much venerated Constitutional Commission proposed by Labour, Tory and Liberal alike to be reduced in status to a "working party" further undermines the future of this body. Previously I have stated that such has been the number of policy areas that various UK ministers refused to countenance being devolved this Commission would barely be worthwhile meeting in any meaningful fashion. Today's news further reinforces that impression.

What is truly astonishing though is Brown's reported views that Whitehall (i.e. him) should decide on Scotland's future.

No one person has any right to set the boundaries on the onward march of a nation. Whether Broon likes it or not (and he doesn't) it will be the Scottish people that rightly decide the future direction of their country.

Debate on Commercial Forestry - 7th February 2008

2008-02-10T20:43:00.000Z

Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): I welcome the chance to debate the position and significance of commercial forestry in Scotland. Many people throughout the country will not realise the significance of the industry, but the minister and others have set out its importance.

Forestry and wood processing provide thousands of jobs and are worth hundreds of millions of pounds to the Scottish economy. The industry currently produces some 6.8 million tonnes of softwood round timber a year, which is forecast to rise to more than 8 million tonnes a year over the coming two decades. We are currently pretty good at sourcing material from indigenous sources: it is important that we maintain that, given the forecast rise in production. That is one of the reasons why I welcome the Government's commitment to increasing forest and woodland cover within 25 years. There are other reasons to welcome that commitment, to which I will return. As the industry grows and production increases, it is vital that we ensure that more raw materials for the forestry industry are secured by way of greater forest cover.

We should also note that more than 70 per cent of the softwood round timber that is sourced in Scotland is processed in Scotland. Although I welcome the fact that the remainder finds ready markets elsewhere, we should take pride in the large degree of self-sufficiency that exists in the Scottish industry. The fact that the vast majority of timber that is sourced in Scotland is processed in Scotland is good news for the Scottish economy and jobs. The fact that most of the timber stays within our borders to be processed here ensures environmental effectiveness by reducing transport emissions.

The environmental angle is important. Our forests and woodlands are important tools in mitigating the effects of climate change. Crucially, the industry itself recognises the importance of that. The Confederation of Forest Industries estimates that tree planting is now offsetting around 8 per cent of Scotland's carbon emissions. I accept that carbon-emissions offset is not in itself going to win the climate change battle, but it has an important part to play, so the Scottish Government's commitment to increasing forest cover within 20 years or so is important in that regard. The more trees that are planted, the greater will be the carbon-emissions offset. Increasing forest cover is good news not just for the industry but for the environment.

Increased forest cover is good for the physical environment and combating climate change, but it is also good for our aesthetic environment. Scottish Environment LINK has recently contacted members to set out the importance of Scotland's landscapes. It states that the value of good landscapes to local economies is shown in tourism surveys, which consistently reveal that scenery and landscape are a key reason for visiting Scotland. Ensuring better forest cover can go some way towards ensuring more attractive landscapes.

According to the Confederation of Forest Industries, Scotland has 17 per cent forest cover, which compares favourably with the UK figure of 11 per cent, but lags significantly behind the EU25 average of 36 per cent. At one stage, Scotland was almost entirely covered by forest. I am not suggesting that we will be able to roll back thousands of years of human activity, but the Government's important commitment to increasing forest cover will help to create more attractive landscapes in our country and therefore to assist tourism, which is an important part of the national economy in which, of course, forestry also plays a part.

I have not yet mentioned forestry's importance to biodiversity. Only two weeks ago in the debate on the biodiversity strategy, Parliament broadly agreed on the need to maintain Scotland's biodiversity. I think that, this morning, we broadly agree that our forests—and our forestry industry—can also play a role in that respect. As a result, I welcome the Labour amendment. My only hope is that, if and when the amendment is successful, Labour members will, unlike yesterday, not go into hiding when it comes to the vote on the substantive motion.

I congratulate the Government on securing this debate. Our forestry industry is pretty strong at the moment, but there is scope for growth. After all, the UK currently imports 90 per cent of its paper and much wood-based produce, and the value and cost of those imports amounts to £6 billion. There is no reason why, with continued growth, the Scottish industry cannot replace some of those imports and provide the necessary materials to make many of those products. I am sure that commercial forestry will continue to flourish in Scotland and that the Government's policy of increasing forest cover, which will bring us closer to the European Union average, will play a huge role.

I commend the motion to Parliament.

Ponderings on Post Super Duper Tuesday Landscape

2008-02-06T20:57:00.001Z

About a month ago I was making bold predictions about the interesting race for the nomination of both Democratic and Republican Party this American primary season.

http://520votes.blogspot.com/2008/01/electoral-ponderings-on-land-of-brave.html

Well, interesting the race remains but it looks as though my predictions have gone to pot! At that time I was envisioning a fairly competitive but straightforward race for the Democratic nomination, and a hugely complex and anything but straightforward Republican nomination.

Well, since then John Edwards has dropped out of the running for the Democrats and leaves it as a straight two way fight between Clinton and Obama. This one is hugely tight following yesterday's mammoth number of Primary contests (so called Super Tuesday, or Super-duper Tuesday if the fancy takes you). Currently Hillary Clinton has secured 760 of the 2025 required delegates for the Democratic National Convention to win the nomination. Barack Obama is not far behind though with 692.

I would imagine that it will be a bit clearer as to who the nominee will be as we enter the actual convention but it looks very likely that the race will go to the wire.

A month ago, I predicted that the Republican contest would be even more fascinating than that of the Democrats'. My thinking then was that the four main contenders at the time would appeal to such different constituencies (in a geographical; ideological and social context) that none may secure the requisite number of delegates to automatically secure their party's nomination. However, exit stage left (or right I suppose given that this is the Republicans I refer to) Rudolph Giuliani with a big endorsement of John McCain, and McCain has won New York and New Jersey along with California and Illinois. He now has 570 delegates of the 1191 needed to win the nomination.

My predictions of an old style smoke filled room convention for the Grand Old Party have themselves gone up in smoke. Shows what I know.

Anyway, many other bloggers have declared their preference of candidate. At this stage I err towards Barack Obama given what he has said about engagement with the rest of the world, if he stays true to his word and wins the Presidency then I would imagine that we would see a far more progressive foreign policy. His domestic policy seems much of a muchness as far as I can make out, and I do wonder when all his fairly embryonic and vague talk of being for "change" (although no bad thing in the context of the current incumbent's track record) might start to provoke a more rigorous analysis of what he is all about, but he just about gets my endorsement out of the likely front runners. It must be said though that I am not really convinced of the progressive nature of any of the likely candidates, and do feel that the American two party system is a bit of a Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee situation.

Shame that there isn't a latter day RFK in the running. That might just have secured a bit more fulsome praise from these quarters.

Labour Duck Out of Budget Vote

2008-02-06T20:04:00.000Z

Today saw an important milestone successfully passed for the SNP. We have managed to get our first budget in government through the Stage Three process, meaning that it has been fully steered through and sanctioned by the Scottish Parliament.

More power to John Swinney's elbow for managing this triumph, but the events of today have proven more than a little bit bizarre.

The final vote for the budget saw 64 in favour with a paltry 1 against. 60 other members abstained. The Liberal Democrats abstained on every vote tabled today in the process. There were six amendments presented to the budget early afternoon, and one amendment to the motion that saw the budget successfully through, all of which the Liberal Democrats saw fit to abstain on, as well as the final vote on the budget motion itself. This strikes me as a fairly stunning example of political cowardice, but at least it was consistent.

What really gets me though is that the Labour Party presented the amendment to the motion, which sought to secure a commitment from the government to invest more in training and apprenticeships as resources allowed. The SNP supported this amendment. Indeed, it attracted support from all across the chamber (minus the abstaining Lib Dems of course) and was resoundingly passed by 110 votes to just one against (14 abstained). Nothing in that that should have "got to me" I hear you say.

What got to me though was that after securing this massive success, the Labour Party, when push came to shove, joined their former coalition colleagues in a fit of political cowardice and abstained on the final vote. Why, if they could only find fault with 1% of the value of the allocated budget did they do this? Why, when they secured cross-party consensus for investment in training did they do this?

I wish I had the answer to that one, because I genuinely fail to see the logic or the political worth of taking such a position. It will be interesting reading in tomorrow's papers.

The Conway Case

2008-02-01T23:54:00.000Z

So the talk of the steamie seems to be Derek Conway employing (or under employing as the case may be) his two student sons on his allocated parliamentary allowances.

Many of my colleagues employ members of their family at the Scottish Parliament. Let me state for clarity that I do not. However I am not going to criticise those who do.

Some segments of the press, egged on by the seemingly ever more quoted Taxpayers' Alliance (who are these guys anyway, they seem to be a bunch of discontented neoliberals as far as I can make out) are calling for an end to Parliamentarians being able to employ family members.

This misses the point somewhat. I don't think there is any problem with such a practice provided the person employed is actually doing a days work for the money they receive. The nub of the case with Mr Conway is not that he chose to take on relatives as members of staff. Rather it seems that he assigned them to his payroll at the public expense but they undertook no actual work in return for payment.

That is clearly wrong and is what Mr Conway should rightly brought to task for.

Debate on Passenger Transport - 31st January 2008

2008-02-01T12:58:00.000Z

Debate on Passenger Transport - 31st January 2008

Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): The Labour motion suggests that ministers should review the national concessionary travel scheme with a view to extending eligibility to people who are in receipt of the lower rate of disability living allowance, and that they should do so as a matter of urgency.

Like Shirley-Anne Somerville, I find it amazing that the issue is a matter of urgency for Labour only now that it is in opposition—despite what Jackie Baillie said. After all, it was when the national scheme was introduced by the Labour Party, when it was in a coalition Government with the Liberal Democrats, that many disabled people lost the entitlement to concessionary fares that they had enjoyed under local authority-run schemes. When those schemes were replaced by the national scheme, people on the low rate of mobility disability living allowance were excluded. That happened under a Labour Government, but it is only now that Labour is in opposition that it considers the issue to be a matter of urgency.

Jackie Baillie suggests that the issue is not a budget matter, but surely it is, given that it seems to be about money. Where were the Labour amendments to the budget that sought to provide additional funds for the concessionary fares budget? It is only now that we are in the middle of the budget process that Labour's concern about additional revenue for this area has emerged. Some people who are less charitable than I am might suggest that that is more an exercise in grandstanding than an expression of genuine concern.

No regard seems to have been paid to the fact that the SNP Government has already moved funds from the underutilised younger persons scheme to fund parts of the concessionary fares scheme that have a high uptake. Is that not to be welcomed? Does the Labour Party prefer baseline figures that bear no relation to need or demand on the ground? Would it prefer moneys to be transferred to end-year flexibility, instead of being utilised to help many of the people for whom its motion expresses concern?

That is to say nothing of the increased funding that the SNP Government will provide in the coming year for the smart card programme to allow the delivery of improved ticketing machinery, which will enable efficiency savings to be made in future as a result of improved validation of bus operator claims. Those areas of investment are welcome and show that the SNP Government wants to improve disabled people's access to public transport. It is right that it demonstrates such concern.

Inclusion Scotland suggests that a "lack of accessible and affordable transport is a major barrier preventing disabled people living independent lives with access to all the opportunities most non-disabled people take for granted."

Help the Aged says that a lack of access to public transport for older people can lead to "isolation, social exclusion and a lower quality of life."

It is clear that much has been achieved. Let us remember that a million Scots — a fifth of our population — qualify for free travel. I congratulate the previous Executive on the role that it played in that achievement.

However, much remains to be done. The minister mentioned that the SNP Government is to review the national concessionary scheme in due course, when proper consideration can be given to including those people who became disqualified when the national scheme was first introduced. I welcome Stewart Stevenson's announcement that additional support will be provided to bus operators. Those measures, combined with the transfer of moneys to deal with the areas of highest demand for concessionary fares and the investment in our rail and roads infrastructure, show that transport is safe in the hands of the SNP Government.

Devolution Commission Damp Squib

2008-01-26T18:12:00.000Z

After David Cairns recently setting his face against the devolution of broadcasting to Scotland, we now have Des Browne refusing to accept the notion of the Scottish Parliament having legislative competence over its own elections.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1993120.0.Ministers_set_to_clash_over_running_elections.php

It seems to me that this whole unionist commission to discuss the devolution of extra powers may turn out to be a bit of a damp squib.

Looks like the UK cabinet will rule out every conceivable area that might be devolved before it even has its first meeting!

Debate on Organ Donation - 24th January 2008

2008-01-25T11:38:00.000Z

Debate on Organ Donation - 24th January 2008

Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): I thank the Presiding Officer for accepting the motion without notice to extend the debate so that more members could participate in the debate. I am sure that I am not alone in being grateful for that.

Like others, I congratulate George Foulkes on tonight's motion. There is much on which George Foulkes and I will disagree, but on this issue we find ourselves agreeing. I feel strongly about this issue. I have a friend who suffers from cystic fibrosis. He is presently in pretty good health and in pretty good shape, but it is quite conceivable that, some day, he will need a lung transplant. At my friend's prompting, I was happy to host an event in Parliament last year on behalf of the live life then give life campaign. Many members attended that event, and some of them are here tonight. Just as we have heard moving testimony from members in this debate, people at the event were able to hear moving testimony from a young woman whose life has been absolutely transformed by a lung transplant. Perhaps even more moving was what we heard from a young woman who was desperately ill and needed a lung transplant. No one at the event could have failed to have the need for change to our organ donation system impressed upon them. I hope that we are all agreed on at least that much.

I appreciate that this is an emotive subject. In the debate, and in the run-up to it, I heard the views of those opposed to a system of presumed consent, including members of my party. As sincerely held as those views are, none sway my opinion that the time is right to move to a system of presumed consent. Mary Scanlon and Mike Rumbles suggested that we cannot presume consent. I understand where they are coming from and I accept that, in the short term, presumed consent offers some problems, primarily in the confusion that would arise in the move from the present system to the new one. However, in the long term, a system of presumed consent will be accepted and readily understood.

Christine Grahame and Malcolm Chisholm suggested that a system should be adopted that allows for people to opt in and opt out. That is an interesting idea, but I am not sure that it would work. Members of a certain vintage, including George Foulkes, will recall the 1979 devolution referendum, in which those who did not vote effectively voted no. The statistics show that even though the vast majority of people are happy to donate their organs, they never add their name to the register. In an opt-in and opt-out system, those who do neither effectively opt out. That would be little or no improvement on the current situation.

In the run-up to the debate, I heard concerns expressed that doctors would allow certain patients to die in order to use their organs for a patient waiting for transplant. I cannot conceive of a situation in which a doctor would do that; it runs counter to the Hippocratic oath. Why would a doctor, concerned to save the life of one patient, not be concerned to save the life of another?

I understand Roseanna Cunningham's point about the incentive to publicise the opt-out. However, it is not beyond our collective wit, as legislators, to devise a system that necessitates such publicity. Indeed, it is the only way in which presumed consent will work with legitimacy. Equally, it is not beyond us to design a system sensitively, taking the interests of the donor family into account. When it is all thrown up in the air, I do not see the strength of the argument against presumed consent. All I see are hundreds of patients slowly dying on the transplant waiting list. We have it in our hands to help save their lives. I hope that when the time comes we will move towards a system of presumed consent and help those people.

Debate on Biodiversity Strategy - 24th January 2008

2008-01-25T11:35:00.000Z

Debate on Biodiversity Strategy - 24th January 2008

Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): Mike Russell said at the beginning of the debate that he was concerned that he might hear a lot of scientific terms and complicated words. I suspect that his comments were directed at colleagues such as Dr Bill Wilson, given his expertise and understanding of those matters, rather than at me, but I give Mike Russell an undertaking that I will keep such references to a bare minimum — for my sake, if not for his.

Biodiversity is important, and our Government has certain obligations to meet in respect of it. Those obligations, as set out in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and the EU target to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010, as well as domestic initiatives, are reflected in Scottish policy and legislation.

It is important that the Parliament has a chance to scrutinise how well we are doing in ensuring that biodiversity in Scotland is maintained, so I welcome today's debate. It is clear from the minister's opening speech that much has been achieved in the past three years, since the adoption of the Scottish biodiversity strategy. Those involved in that work deserve our thanks.

The Scottish biodiversity forum is a clever approach to the maintenance of Scotland's biodiversity, combining as it does the Government and its agencies, representatives of those who work our land and seas, local government and, vitally, the well-established bodies in the third sector that have an interest in biodiversity. Those who invest their efforts in ensuring the maintenance of Scotland's biodiversity are to be congratulated.

However, while congratulations on the work thus far undertaken are due, much remains to be done. Members will have received the briefing for the debate from Scottish Environment LINK, which rightly points out that

"The loss of wildlife is not just of importance to scientists and enthusiasts. The loss of genetic diversity, species, and damage to habitats and ecosystems affects us all, in many ways we are only beginning to understand".

The first thing that must be done is to build on the good work that the minister has mentioned and ensure the continued rich diversity of our land and waters. I understand that the Scottish biodiversity forum is due to consult on the next three years of the biodiversity strategy. I look forward to seeing what emerges from the consultation, and trust that it will seek to build on what has gone before.

The minister set out some of the many challenges that exist for the future. He rightly pointed out that climate change is prime among them. Earlier today, I spoke in Patrick Harvie's members' business debate on the subject. I welcome the Scottish Government's hugely ambitious aim to cut carbon emissions by 80 per cent by midway through the century.

I look forward to any marine bill that emerges from the Government. I am interested in how it may play a part in protecting biodiversity.

It is clear to me that the task of maintaining biodiversity is taken seriously by our Government, and that, as the minister mentioned, it is building on the work that began under the previous Administration, which also deserves congratulations.

I commend the activities that are being undertaken in Scotland to protect biodiversity and I commend the Government motion and the two amendments.

Waste Announcement - 24th January 2008

2008-01-25T11:33:00.000Z

Waste Announcement - 24th January 2008

Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): Does the cabinet secretary agree that taxation can be about more than just the economy and that, if it is used properly, it can boost environmental initiatives? He spoke about landfill. Does he believe that control over the landfill tax should be the preserve of the Scottish Government and this Parliament? Does he believe that the unionist parties should consider that issue as part of their tripartite commission that is investigating the devolution of more powers to the Scottish Parliament?

Richard Lochhead: Of course I believe that if this Parliament had greater options to work up eco-taxes—if we had the fiscal powers to do so—that would greatly help our environmental and waste strategies. Unfortunately, for the time being, we do not have those powers. Perhaps that is something that the other parties in this chamber can reflect on. The environment is far more important than the unionist parties' obsession with the constitution.

Control of the landfill tax should be devolved to this Parliament. It is estimated that, of the roughly £1 billion that the United Kingdom raises from landfill tax, perhaps—I say "perhaps" because Scottish figures are not published—up to £100 million is generated in Scotland. That will not be reflected in our Barnett consequentials, so we are paying a net fund to the UK Treasury under the landfill tax. Of course, we should be able to retain that resource in Scotland in order to invest it in the future of Scotland's environment.

Debate on Educational Institutions (Environmental Performance) - 24th January 2008

2008-01-25T11:19:00.000Z

Debate on Educational Institutions (Environmental Performance) - 24th January 2008

Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): I congratulate Patrick Harvie on bringing the motion to the chamber and facilitating the debate. I was happy to lend my support to the motion.
People & Planet has been active since my time at university, although my experience is rather more recent than that of many members in the chamber. That said, one notable exception is Richard Baker, who was the president of the National Union of Students in Scotland when I was the senior vice-president of the University of Glasgow student representative council.

Those involved in People & Planet are to be congratulated on their activism. In a day and age when cynicism seems to run rampant, those involved in People & Planet scotch the myth that the young, including students, lack the social concerns of their forebears. I challenge anyone to turn up at an event that it has organised and go on to assert that student activism is dead.

The young may identify less with traditional party politics, but the big issues of our time—whether the drive for environmental change or the anti-war movement—continue to attract support. It is important for those of us who went down the traditional party-political route to engage with and support such extra-parliamentary activity. Today's debate is an important part of that process.

This Government and previous Administrations have stated their desire to use universities as a driving force for economic development. I have no problem with that—indeed, I support it. However, as much as being drivers for economic growth, our universities must be exemplars when it comes to environmental management. They must make the best use of the resources that are available to them.

Therefore, it is with some disappointment that I note the relatively poor performance of Scottish higher education institutions in the People & Planet green league for environmental performance, which is the league table to which Patrick Harvie referred. The league table is a clever idea: it ranks the performance of universities by traditional university grade.

Congratulations are due to the two Scottish universities that achieved a first: the University of Edinburgh and the University of St Andrews. Given the commonplace suggestion that almost all students come away from university with a 2:1—and before any member asks the question, I include myself in that category—it was with some surprise that I noted that no Scottish university achieved that grade. It was also with some disappointment that I noted that my alma mater, the University of Glasgow, achieved only a 2:2, although I take solace from the fact that we finished just ahead of the University of Strathclyde. That should just about see us through.

Joking aside, we have to think about why Scotland ranks so badly among United Kingdom universities. Are our sights as a nation lifted high enough? In the past, did our universities not receive the support that they needed? Would it not be better for our university principals to direct some of the thousands that they awarded themselves in the recent pay increase towards ensuring best environmental practice?

I look forward to hearing what the cabinet secretary has to say on these matters. Climate change is the great challenge of our time. Nowadays, students may be the ones who rise to meet the challenge. Today, we need to encourage them. I congratulate People & Planet on the positive role that it plays.

A Hain in the Backside for Wendy

2008-01-24T23:10:00.001Z

The talk of the steamie is the resignation of Peter Hain as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Secretary of State for Wales due to the Electoral Commission referring the issue of the undeclared financial contributions to his (unsuccessful) Labour Party deputy leadership campaign.

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jR2l2427vLfvIsTaC48dBkIl8LNg

The big question now is will this affect Wendy Alexander and the investigation into the illegal donation she admits receiving during her (successful, but then she was the only candidate) Scottish Labour Party leadership campaign.

Well, I suppose time will provide the answer to that question, and I have no idea whether it has any implications for Wendy. I have successfully managed to avoid personal speculation on this matter on this blog thus far, and you won't hear any bold predictions from me about likely outcomes.

Certainly though, the news of Peter Hain's resignation caused a bit of a media scrum (or a stramash as Arthur Montford might have had it) around Wendy Alexander at the Parliament today, and as you might expect there is much speculation amongst the press on this matter.

I must say though, it would be odd if the Electoral Commission referred only Mr Hain's situation to the police and not any others. But then it is a strange old world we live in.

The Soup Incident

2008-01-23T22:17:00.001Z

I am not going to make a habit of blogging about this woman, but after having a bit of fun talking about my pal Aileen Campbell's fan club on my blog recently (http://520votes.blogspot.com/2008/01/aileen-campbell-fan-club.html) I should point out that today she had a nasty accident with some soup in the Parliament canteen.

Here I should make some obligatory gag about "Campbell's Soup", but I shall resist (or did that count as me having made it), but I can put her fan's worried minds at rest. After a wee trip to hospital to get her wound bandaged she was back within a couple of hours to play her part in seeing the SNP budget through stage one of its process at Parliament.

She has even managed to get some press coverage out of the whole incident:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7205502.stm

The lengths some people will go to get a bit of publicity, eh? Maybe I should go jam my hand in the nearest door and see if I can get some of this coverage too!

Then again, maybe not.

In all seriousness though, glad the accident wasn't too nasty and Aileen is on the mend.

BBC News Shows SNP Success

2008-01-23T22:05:00.000Z

The two headline stories on the BBC Ten O'clock News this evening made for interesting viewing.

First up we had news that Council Tax bills in England are set to rise by around 4% in the coming year. This news was of course reported whilst simultaneously pointing out that in Scotland a freeze in the level of Council Tax is very much on the table.

This was followed by news of disgruntled cops have taken to the streets of London to protest the failure of the London Labour government to fully see through their independently agreed pay rise. And this news was also supplemented by pointing out that the pay rise has been fully awarded in Scotland.

Aside from meaning that people in England may soon be asking if the SNP can form their next government, this news will probably have the Daily Mail screaming about how we in Scotland live in a land that is a type of paradise at the expense of all those who live within the area bounded by the M25.

This avoids pointing out some hard truths such as Gordon Brown having relied on Scottish oil revenue to plug the gap in his government's budget over the last number of years, and whilst things are definitely improving in Scotland under the SNP government, I think it would be stretching it to say that we live in a Caledonian paradise.

What the pieces run on the news indicate though is how great a job the SNP is doing, particularly in comparison to the Labour government in London. It is appropriate to point out on the day that the SNP saw through its first ever budget bill at stage one in the Scottish Parliament that this was achieved against the backdrop of the tightest financial settlement ever received by a devolved administration in Scotland.

Just imagine what we could achieve in Scotland if we had full control over all government expenditure and were able to draw upon all of Scotland's resources rather than having to throw a huge slice of this at the illegal war in Iraq, new nuclear weapons or a pointless phony ID card scheme.

Independence is Straightforward, Devolution is a Muddle

2008-01-22T22:41:00.000Z

I was interested to read in the Herald earlier today that Scotland Office minister David Cairns has set his face against the devolution of broadcasting powers, believing that this would be luddite.

Afraid I can't find a link folks, but there is a bit at the end of the following Scotsman piece about this (scroll past the bit about Nature programmes to find it):

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Nature-programmes---an.3695652.jp

In itself this is interesting enough. It is a pretty clear statement from a UK government minister that he doesn't believe Scots are competent enough to manage their own media adequately, despite numerous countries across the globe similar in size or smaller than Scotland proving themselves quite capable of doing so. His use of the term "luddite" is thrown in to try and indicate how backwards anyone who believes otherwise is.

All perfect nonsense of course. We could quite capably manage our own media, and in doing so we might even get our fair share of TV license revenues raised in Scotland.

However, this was interesting in a wider way too.

Much is being made by the three unionist parties of their tripartite approach to establishing a commission to determine what extra powers should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I would have thought that control over broadcasting would have been an obvious option. After all it hardly seems likely that the UK government are about to suggest devolution of foreign affairs or defence to Holyrood, and I would have thought broadcasting would be more likely than any major devolution over taxation and benefits. After all, Gordon Brown has already ruled out devolution over corporation tax. So, you might, like I, have considered that something like broadcasting might be on the cards.

Not so it seems after this latest broadside from David Cairns.

What then might be offered by this Commission? What is up for discussion?

The first problem they face is that the three different parties involved will all have different ideas about what should be devolved. This will involve to-ing and fro-ing and horsetrading between them I would imagine. But it is clear that there is no concise unified approach to further devolution.

The second problem that any devolutionist faces in wrenching greater powers from the British state is that control over these matters is the preserve of the Westminster Parliament. It will take legislation from London to devolve further powers. Given Mr Cairns' outburst regarding broadcasting there are no guarantees that such legislation will be willingly brought forward to comply with an initiative from the unionist parties in the Scottish Parliament.

That is why I believe it is actually a far easier process to move to independence than it is to secure further devolution. If a devolved government with the backing of the Scottish people can move us towards independence then it is much smoother than a drip by drip process of accumulating additional powers.

Sure, it is right that strictly speaking the Scotland Act reserves such matters to Westminster in the same way it does the devolution of powers in a piecemeal fashion. However, the realpolitik of a scenario in which a devolved government with the full backing of the Scottish people has moved the country to independence transcends any such reservation of powers.

That is not so much the case with the devolution of this power here and that power there. In such a scenario you are still very much beholden upon Westminster granting such powers.

This is why I believe the process of moving to independence, far from being the huge difficulty unionists make it out to be, is actually far simpler than the acquisition of extra powers to the Scottish Parliament in the context of devolution.

This is to say nothing of the fact it is more logical.

I can never understand why someone would say that they believe we should control this or that thing here in Scotland but not have control over foreign affairs and defence. If we can adequately take care of any extra powers the unionist Commission proposes, then we are more than capable enough of adequately administering an independent state.

But logic has never been high on the unionist agenda. Even though they won't admit it, this Commission is born out of fear of the SNP forming the government in Scotland and moving us towards independence.

The unionists will just have to get used to that though!

Richard Littlejohn: One of Lifes Great Idiots

2008-01-21T23:55:00.001Z

I was reading the blog of Bethan Jenkins, Plaid Cymru member of the Welsh Assembly, when I read her latest posting:

http://bethanjenkins.blogspot.com/2008/01/murder-of-ipswich-women-daily-mail.html

As Bethan writes about, it seems that Richard Littlejohn has been spewing forth more of the venomous bile for which he is so handsomely rewarded. Some will recall that he was the imbecile who took great delight in denigrating Scotland on Question Time. However, that is not what I am so worked up about. His latest piece is by far more disgraceful.

The latest brunt of his attack has been the victims of murder in Ipswich. These victims happened to have been prostitutes. For some reason this has led Mr Littlejohn to believe it is acceptable to write the following article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=423549&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=322

However, whilst these women happened to be prostitutes, they were above all human beings. They were somebodies daughter.

That is why I cannot fathom why any decent minded individual would think it acceptable to write the following of their murder, "in the scheme of things the deaths of these five women is no great loss". But that is exactly what Richard Littlejohn has written folks.

I suppose the crux of the issue is that I said I cannot fathom why any decent minded individual. Richard Littlejohn can be described as many things, but decent minded is not uppermost among them.

Mr Littlejohn suggests that the death of the women is no great loss because "they weren't going to discover a cure for cancer or embark on missionary work in Darfur". Neither is he likely to do so any time soon either. What is his point then? That only certain human lives are valuable, or some are more valuable than others?

His logic in this article is appalling. He dehumanises the victims to the point where their deaths are meaningless. It is this kind of thinking that leads to the writing off of innocent victims of war as acceptable "collateral damage". I don't think it is stretching the point to say it is this kind of thinking that allowed a band of murderous zealots in the mid twentieth century to try an exterminate an entire people as "Untermensch".

Anyway, I have probably spent too much time writing about this idiot, but had to vent my spleen somehow!

Scotland vs Sweden

2008-01-20T11:32:00.000Z

Apparently John McTernan, senior aide to Des Browne, who some of you may be aware fulfils a role apparently designated Secretary of State for Scotland (whilst he can find the time between running the Ministry of Defence at the same time), considers our country to be "narrow, Presbyterian and racist". Seemingly he made this comment in an e-mail to Labour MSP Karen Gillon five years ago. He wrote the whilst an employee of the Scottish Arts Council, who have released the documents. This is written about in an article in the Scotland on Sunday:

http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Des-Browne-aide-Scotland-is.3691744.jp

He made the comment in light of Karen Gillon apparently preparing to visit Sweden on holiday, when he said, "If you've not been to Sweden before I think you'll really like it. It's the country Scotland would be if it was not narrow, Presbyterian, racist, etc, etc. Social democracy in action."

First, it is fair to say that of course Presbyterianism and racism exist in Scotland, and there are people with narrow viewpoints as well.

I am not quite sure why Presbyterianism should bear the brunt of such hostility from Mr McTernan, any more than any other branch of Christianity and I imagine there will be many members of the Church of Scotland pretty insulted by the suggestion that it falls neatly alongside racism and a narrow viewpoint. Indeed, wouldn't it be interesting to know what Prime Minister Gordon Brown - who makes great play of the fact that his moral compass is derived from his Presbyterian upbringing - thinks of John McTernan's outburst?

Equally racism and other forms of bigotry do exist in Scotland, but I think to characterise it as a national characteristic for Scotland is somewhat ludicrous to say the least.

I have been to Sweden, and Mr McTernan is right to praise it. I agree that it is a viable demonstration of "social democracy in action". I want our country to emulate the experience of Sweden and the other Nordic countries. These countries have amongst the highest standards of living in the world.

However, I am sure that racism exists in Sweden and the Nordic countries. Indeed, Sweden and Denmark have had more problems of the far right than we have in Scotland. Furthermore, I am sure that there are those who are "narrow" in Sweden too. And even though Sweden is Lutheran and not Calvinist like the Church of Scotland, I am sure you might find the odd Presbyterian located here or there in Stockholm, Gothenburg or Malmo.

It is a nonsense then to characterise Scotland as any more narrow or racist (maybe Presbyterian in fairness to Mr McTernan, but I still don't get the insult) than any other country on the planet.

It is true that we have greater levels of deprivation, a poorer quality of life, lower life expectancy and lower wages than Sweden, but Mr McTernan's own party - in government for coming on eleven years in Scotland - might want to look in to themselves for some of the blame there.

As I said, I have been to Sweden, just as John McTernan seems to have been. If I were to tell anyone of it I would say this, "If you've not been to Sweden before I think you'll really like it. It's the country Scotland could be if it was independent. Social democracy in action."

Wonder why John McTernan didn't say that?

Questions (Rail Services and Older People) - 17th January 2008

2008-01-18T13:08:00.000Z

General Questions - 17th January 2008

Rail Services

Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): Does the minister agree that decisions by John Prescott and the Labour Government have thus far prevented direct links from Scotland to Europe via the Channel tunnel? Will the Scottish Government continue to ensure that its welcome upgrades to the railway system in Scotland always take into account the potential for links to the wider European network and not just the UK network?

Stewart Stevenson: The member highlights the significant investments that we are making to improve the railway system in Scotland, thus addressing many of the difficulties that we have inherited. It is a shame that Charlie Gordon was not sufficiently persuasive when he talked to John Prescott, but I am certainly not going to overly criticise him for that.

Health and Wellbeing Questions - 17th January 2008

Older People (Lifestyles)

Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Government what measures it is taking to promote active and healthy lifestyles among older people. (S3O-1946)

The Minister for Public Health (Shona Robison): "All Our Futures: Planning for a Scotland with an Ageing Population" sets out a framework for supporting older people to live life to the full. A healthy and active life is central to that. A range of measures are in place to promote good physical and mental health and active lifestyles among older people, including community walking initiatives for older people, such as the paths to health walking programme.

Jamie Hepburn: Does the minister agree that older people are a vulnerable group in our society? Of late, we have heard much from certain quarters about a concern for vulnerable groups. Although publicly run leisure facilities are primarily a matter for local government, does he share my concern about the removal of discounted swimming for pensioners by Labour-run North Lanarkshire Council? Does that not undermine the health and well-being of vulnerable older people in North Lanarkshire?

Shona Robison: The Government would never want to undermine older people's health and well-being. Although that matter is for the local authority, we expect local authorities and health boards to take account of the recommendations of "All Our Futures" when they develop leisure and other services for older people, and to ensure that those services are accessible and affordable.

Fisheries Statement

2008-01-17T22:41:00.000Z

I am aware that some of my fellow blogging MSPs post excerpts from their contributions in the Scottish Parliament chamber. Whether this is an exercise in vanity or not, I thought I would give it a go. It provides easy material after all and allows me to maintain my new year's resolution to blog more often.

We will see how long this new endeavour lasts!

----------------

Fisheries Statement - 16th January 2008

Question by Jamie Hepburn MSP to Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, Richard Lochhead MSP

Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): The Government announced last year that it will set up a Scottish fisheries convention and a Scottish fisheries council. In light of the fisheries talks and the associated agreement, will the minister tell Parliament what those bodies will do and when they will meet?

Richard Lochhead: The Scottish sea fisheries council meets for the first time next week, and the convention on the future of Scotland's fishing communities will meet in two or three months' time. We feel that the community dimension of fisheries policy in Scotland needs more attention. I am sure that the Parliament agrees that fisheries policy is about not simply TACs and quotas but the impact that it has on real, living, working communities on our shores. That is why it is important to recognise the community impact, as well as the cultural and social impacts, of decisions that are taken in Brussels. The purpose of the convention on the future of Scotland's fishing communities is to bring together local authority representatives with organisations around Scotland that might not be directly related to fisheries management issues but which have a clear interest in the future of our fishing communities.

No Nuclear Power Please

2008-01-17T22:14:00.000Z

An important debate took place in the Parliament today on the future of how we will source Scotland's energy.

During the debate my colleague Joe Fitzpatrick was able to inform the Parliament of the potential for renewable energy in his own city of Dundee. According to Joe, Dundee is the sunniest of all Scotland's cities, making it a likely candidate for harnessing the power of the sun. Mr Fitzpatrick also was able to tell us about the potential for the creation of ethanol from the seaweed in the Firth of Tay on which his home town in nestled.

Mike Russell suggested that this begot the potential slogan "It's Scotland's Seaweed". I actually thought it was more likely that Joe was trying to supplant the traditional "three J's" of Dundee (Jute, Jam and Journalism) with a new "three S" motif, "Sun, Seaweed and the Sunday Post" (the last a nod to the fact that journalism is the one remaining "J" alive and kicking in the city).

Anyway, aside from these nonsensical observations, Joe and many other MSPs were able to point out the huge potential for renewables in Scotland. Unfortunately there were some who were making the case for the continued reliance on nuclear power.

The justification for this varied from the need to maintain a baseload to the need to ensure energy supply beyond the lifetime of more finite sources of energy.

There is no denying that we of course need to maintain a baseload to ensure adequate supply of energy to meet all our domestic requirements. However, the fact of the matter is that nuclear is supplying less of that energy today than it has in the past. Nuclear power stations in Scotland actually generate less energy than the combined amount of renewables generated energy. I do not believe it is beyond the wit of humankind to ensure a suitable mix of renewables sources in the twenty first century to ensure a baseload adequate for our requirements.

Michael McMahon, Labour MSP for Hamilton North and Bellshill for some reason quoted John F Kennedy's "Man on the Moon" speech during the debate. I shall be charitable and avoid snide statements about Labour members being wired to the moon! He was trying to use the speech as some form of justification for nuclear power, as far as I could understand. He failed to make the comparison properly I feel, but it did serve as a useful reminder of the scientific achievements that people have made.

If we can successfully send a man to the moon and return him to the earth, then I do not believe it is beyond us to develop the proper mix of renewables energy in Scotland to meet our requirements.

As for the suggestion that nuclear is needed to breach the gap left by expired finite resources, it fails to pay cognisance to the fact that nuclear power is reliant upon uranium that must be mined from the ground and is itself a finite resource. This is to fail to mention that this uranium is often sourced from some of the most volatile parts of the world.

It is also to fail to mention the fact that still we have not worked out how to safely store nuclear waste. I doubt we ever will. It seems an oxymoron in itself. How can you safely store radioactive waste? This is material that remains hazardous for thousands of years, yet some would have us store it somewhere as yet to be defined. Funnily enough the proponents of nuclear power in today's debate didn't offer a corner of their garden to bury the toxic stuff in. Maybe they're not so keen on it after all?

Anyway, this is all to say that I am proud to be in a party in government that is opposing an expensive and dangerous new generation of nuclear power stations supported by Gordon Brown's Labour government at Westminster. It was pointed out today, that Scotland is a net exporter of energy. That being the case, and it also being the case that we have only begun to scratch the surface of our national renewables potential, I cannot see the logic in building new nuclear power stations in Scotland.

Scrutiny Panel Report Vindicates Monklands A&E Decision

2008-01-14T22:33:00.000Z

I was delighted to see that the decision taken early on by the SNP government to save the Accident and Emergency Department at Monklands Hospital - which was of course a manifesto pledge - was further vindicated today with the publication of a report by the Independent Scrutiny Panel established to review the decisions of NHS Lanarkshire that led to the proposals to close the A&E in the first place. The Panel was set up by Health Minister Nicola Sturgeon after she reversed the decision by the previous Labour/Lib-Dem administration to close A&E departments at Monklands and Ayr Hospitals.

People deserve a first-class health service, and easy access to accident and emergency services. The report has totally vindicated the decision by the SNP Government to save the department at Monklands and has also been critical of newer plans submitted by NHS Lanarkshire which would still try to close or reduce intensive care services at Monklands. These proposals received short shrift from the consultants who work in A&E in the area, and now the Independent Scrutiny Panel has said that the changing demographics in Lanarkshire "does not necessarily require a reduction in the level of emergency services (such as emergency surgery, intensive care and emergency medical services) currently provided at Monklands Hospital."

It is now incumbent upon NHS Lanarkshire to accept this report and continue to provide the full level of emergency services currently provided at Monklands.

You can read more at the following links:

http://www.independentscrutinypanels.org.uk/resources/Final+Report+Lan.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7186550.stm

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1962449.0.Scheme_to_shut_AEs_strongly_criticised_in_review.php

The Aileen Campbell Fan Club

2008-01-13T11:03:00.001Z

Seeing as its the weekend I feel a silly post is in order.

At the Parliament my office is adjacent to that of my good friend, Aileen Campbell MSP. Last week Ms Campbell came bounding into my office with a big daft cheeky grin on her face to ask me if I had a fan club.

It may come as some shock to you that I had to admit to her that in fact I did not have any such fan club.

Her response to me thereafter was - with a little more glee in her riposte than I felt was strictly necessary - that she did in fact have a fan club. It almost made me wonder whether this piece of information had formed the very basis of her original question to me to see whether I had such a club!

Someone had e-mailed her to enlighten her of this fact and to tell her that some enthusiastic users of the Bebo website had established such a club. You can see this for yourself at:

http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=4515769668

The temerity of Ms Campbell! Not only did she deny me the mantle of being the youngest member of the Scottish Parliament by being born a year after me, but now she has gone and got her very own fan club.

Some people command all the attention.

Me, bitter? Never!

Close Down Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp

2008-01-11T19:16:00.000Z

Today marked the sixth anniversary of the use of the American Guantanamo Bay base on Cuba as a detention camp for those captured in the so called "war on terror". We are told that the rationale for this "war on terror" is to protect the human rights and civil liberties that we enjoy in our society. However, this involves the incarceration of hundreds of people without charge or being brought to trial, many of whom are held in isolation for 22 hours in the day in windowless cells at the Guantanamo Bay site. This clearly represents a fundamental breach of the human rights and civil liberties of those individuals and undermines any concept of protecting the human rights of the rest of us.

Human rights are a universal concept, applicable to all citizens of this planet. That is why the United Nations declaration of human rights - which incidentally has its sixtieth birthday this year - is a universal declaration. When any individual has those same human rights denied to them then it is an attack on the human rights of us all, as it undermines this concept of universality.

Clearly this does not concern the American government much at all, but it concerns me.

Thankfully it concerns many other right minded individuals as well, and I was able to gather with over 150 of them today outside the U.S. Consulate in Edinburgh to protest at the existence of the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay and to call for its closure. This was organised by Amnesty International, who deserve great credit for this, and also for the petition they put together for parliamentarians across the world to sign to call for the closure of the camp that will be delivered to the White House in due course. I was happy to sign this petition as were over 1,200 other world parliamentarians too.

John Watson of Amnesty International informed the gathered crowd today that 53 of the members of the Scottish Parliament were amongst the signatories, which apparently represented the highest percentage of any parliament in the world - a fact which was pleasing to hear.

The event today took the form of hundreds of individuals dressing in similar types of the orange jump suits that have become synonymous with incarceration at Guantanamo Bay, kneeling down in silent protest (see attached photo but please ignore the fact that my eyes are shut). John Watson, myself and Mike Pringle MSP then delivered a letter to the U.S. Consul General setting out objections to the continued existence of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. What a surprise it was then that the Scottish security guard manning the Consulate came out to tell us that no one was working that day, but he would gladly take in the letter to be handed in later. Funnily enough, no one gathered there thought it a coincidence that no one was working the same day that a protest was organised outside their front door.

It is to be hoped that 20 January, 2009 will see the inauguration of a more even minded and humanitarian President of the United States that the current incumbent, and that the time will soon be up on the horrendous detention camp at Guantanamo Bay.

Ten Steps to "Go Green"

2008-01-11T12:54:00.000Z

Climate change affects us all – but we can all do our bit to tackle its causes and effects.

Every time we throw away rubbish, get in the car or turn on the lights we are leaving our mark on our planet.

Earlier this week, I took the Christmas cards that Julie and I had received over the festive season to a local recycling point. This coincided with a new initiative to make it all easier for us to take action on climate change.

The ‘ten steps’ launched by the Scottish Government are straightforward ways for ordinary people to make a difference. If we can get as many families and individuals throughout Scotland to sign up, the impact will be tremendous.

The ten Greener Pledges are:

Recycle household waste using locally-provided facilities

Turn the tap off when brushing your teeth

Switch to using energy-saving light bulbs

Leave the car at home at least once a week and cycle, walk, share a car or use public transport more often

Use rechargeable batteries instead of disposable ones

Reuse carrier bags when you shop

Buy more seasonal and unpackaged food

Hang your washing up to dry rather than using a tumbler dryer

Organise or volunteer in an environmental project in your local community

Pay back the environmental impact of any flights you take and choose not to fly when there's a suitable alternative

Visit www.infoscotland.com/ourfuture for more information.

Electoral Ponderings on the Land of the Brave

2008-01-07T19:21:00.000Z

Here goes my first post of 2008, a week after stating my resolution to post more often - don't know if this counts as much of an upturn in blogging activity, but never mind!

It seems appropriate to write about the dominant theme in the body politic at the moment, that of the American presidential election. Over the course of the 21st Century many nations will come to prominence as their position on the global stage grows. India, China, and Brazil - it has been well commented upon - fall into this category.

However, in this year of 2008, for better or worse, there remains just one real superpower on the planet, the United States of America. That is why we are captivated by their Presidential election. And we are especially captivated by this contest because it is just so interesting.

I happened to have been in America in the Summer of 2004 when they were building towards the election that year. Everywhere I went was captivated by politics, in a way that doesn't seem to happen here, with people really engaged with the electoral process. That contest was hugely enthralling, as feelings were running so high in the aftermath of Bush's decision to invade Iraq. And of course, Iraq is still a factor this time round, but there are other reasons that this election captures our interest.

For the first time since the 1928 presidential election where neither the sitting President or sitting Vice-President has been actively seeking the nomination of their party for the upcoming contest. This, combined with the emergence of Barack Obama on the Democrat side and Mike Huckabee amongst the Republican front runners makes things interesting. Interesting, because they have shaken the preconceptions that party establishment figures would get the nomination.

Obama's bandwagon is now in top gear as they head into the New Hampshire primary contest, which will be held tomorrow. His victory in the Iowa caucus seems to have proven his electoralibility to some previous doubters and it looks as though many former Hillary Clinton supporters in New Hampshire are now moving his way. Two victories in a row will not have it in the bag for Barack Obama, but will certainly do Clinton's chances in particular real damage. Of course, when primary contests move elsewhere we might see different results. In the traditional South, John Edwards might hold more appeal, given he was the Senator for North Carolina. Clinton might be more successful in Florida, given it is the retirement capital of America and of course Bill was the governor for Arkansas, so the family name might see her through there.

It might be the "big states" that decide the Democratic nomination. Hillary is or course the Senator for New York. If she can't win the primary contest in the very state that she represents then it really would be game over for her I suspect. Obama would you imagine carry Illinois. It might come down to states like California. If Obama can build the same kind of coalition that Robert Kennedy was building in his bid to secure the Democratic nomination forty years ago - and it looks as though he is - then you would imagine he may be able to win there.

Anyway, the machinations of the selection of the Democratic nominee are matched in their interest levels by the Republican Party. Huckabee of course won in Iowa on the back of evangelical support, with most of those supporters wary of the Mormon faith of Mitt Romney, and the supposed social liberalism of Giuliani and McCain. In New Hampshire the voters will be wary of Huckabee's social conservatism and most likely back McCain, although Romney hails from close by and will hope this will curry favour amongst some voters. Giuliani will win in New York and similar type states.

The nomination for the Republicans is wide open. Probably wider than that of the Democrats. Given the specific appeal of the various nominees for the Republican candidacy to different regions and wings of the Republican party it may be that they enter their Convention without a clear nominee. That really would be interesting, as that hasn't happened for a while.

Anyway, maybe this speculation is nonsense and there is a far simpler explanation to it all. My friend Anne McLaughlin commented on her blog following the Iowa result that both Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee won their respective contests due to the fact that they contain the combination "ck" in their names, and that people subconsciously associate this with the word "lucky". (http://indygal.blog.com/ - "It's the "CK"s in the lead" - 4th January 2008)

An interesting observation, and I'm off to change my name by deed poll just in case. And yes, I know that in Scotland you don't actually need to do this to legally change your name before any legal pedants make any comments!

For Auld Lang Syne and A' That!

2007-12-31T16:56:00.000Z

Best of this festive season to anyone out there reading this. As clichéd as it may be, given this is Hogmanay (or Mahogany as my little sister used to call it when she was wee), it seems apt that I should reflect on the year just past.

It has been a monumental experience for me personally, and I think, for our country as a whole.

Not only did this year see my first wedding anniversary, but the months of hard work during the election period in the first few months of 2007 (and several months of 2006 as well) saw me elected as a Member of the Scottish Parliament. This has obviously resulted in a few changes to my life, not least amongst them that I find myself considerably busier than I was before but still thoroughly enjoying the experience.

It has been an honour to serve in the Scottish Parliament with a SNP government led by the first ever SNP First Minister, and to have been able to actually cast a vote to elect Alex Salmond to that post.

However, of greater significance is that first ever SNP government.

There were of course worries that governing from a minority position would prove hugely difficult, but all the signs thus far are that the SNP is doing a far better job with a minority of members of the Scottish Parliament than the Labour-Liberal administration ever did from a majority position.

I think that in part this comes down to different mindsets. Many scoffed when the SNP made the conscious decision to change the term "Scottish Executive" to "Scottish Government". However, I don't think that the significance of this should be underestimated.

Firstly, it made sense as too many people did not relate to the term "Executive" but can more readily identify with what a government is. That alone made the change worthwhile.

It also speaks volumes about different attitudes to governance in devolved Scotland. Whilst the Labour-Liberal administration was content to act as a mere executor of British rule in Scotland, the SNP has set out its stall as a true government for Scotland. This in part reflects the "cooncil" mentality that many Labour ministers in particular brought to their administration, and clearly with devolution there are certain limits on what the SNP government can achieve. And we of course retain our perspective that independence is the best constitutional option for our country, allowing any Scottish government to be able to achieve even more. However, even within the confines of devolution the SNP is acting more like a government than our predecessors ever did before.

As I was able to state in a piece I wrote for the blog of Plaid Cymru Assembly Member, Bethan Jenkins, in government the SNP is already pursuing its distinctive social democratic agenda, designed to bring about a more prosperous, fair and socially just Scotland.

Consider just some of the achievements of the SNP government in what should be remembered has been just a short seven month period:

Moves have been made to being about the abolition of tuition fees for university students in the shame of the Graduate Endowment, and a return to the principle of free education.

Plans to follow the Welsh example and abolish prescription charges for all Scottish citizens by 2011.

One of the most ambitious targets for carbon reduction by the middle of this century of any country on the planet - an 80% reduction in carbon emissions.

A review of the right to buy policy in council housing, with proposals to scrap it entirely for newly built homes.

A decision that no more private prisons will be built in Scotland and work begun on creating a viable alternative to New Labour’s PFI madness.

Scrapping the tolls for the Forth and Tay road bridges, which remained an anomaly following the removal of tolls from other bridges across the country, with a further announcement on a new crossing for the Forth to replace the outdated road bridge there.

The most ambitious programme of railway infrastructure improvements for decades with electrification of the main line between our two biggest cities long overdue.

A decision to allow asylum seekers the same rights in higher education as the rest of Scotland’s people, underlining the SNP's internationalist and progressive credentials.

The freezing of the unfair council tax with plans to replace it with a fairer local income tax based on the ability to pay and the signing of a historic agreement with the representatives of local government to create a new more equal relationship between central government and local councils.

A summit held to discuss nuclear disarmament – the first ever government organised summit in the UK to discuss such.

These are just some of the achievements of the SNP in office, reflecting the progress made in Scotland in just a short space of time.

This year has been politically momentous for Scotland. It has ushered in the first ever democratic government distinctively for Scotland, and moved us on from the first eight years of devolution which were marked by that "cooncil" mentality I mentioned before.

The year has been momentous in other ways too. For Gordon Brown it might just have been the year when he lost the next general election whenever it may be, when he might just have won it if it had been held this year. His dithering has been well commented upon elsewhere, but he may just rue the day that he didn't decide to go for it in November.

No one really knows what made him change his mind. For me, he is an instinctively cautious politician and he was exercising that caution. Of course, the performance of Cameron at the Tory conference and the innate conservative English media moving closer to the Tories after their love in with New Labour over the last decade played a huge role, but I don't think we can discount Brown's alarm that the SNP would make huge gains played a part in his calculations.

Anyway, the history books of the future will tell us whether he called it the right way or not, but I think we can safely say that those same history books will also state that 2007 was a huge year for the development of Scotland and that the SNP in government performed marvellously well.

All that remains are my New Year's resolutions.

One, to blog a little bit more often, and two, to play what ever part I can in ensuring that 2008 and beyond are as good if not better for the SNP than 2007 has even been.

Long-term solutions to long-term conditions?

2007-12-18T10:33:00.000Z

Last week in Parliament the Long Term Conditions Alliance Scotland (LTCAS) were raising awareness about the need for better support for people with long term conditions in Scotland.

Figures from LTCAS show that some 32287 people in Cumbernauld & Kilsyth, and around 2 million people across Scotland as a whole are living with long term conditions such as asthma, epilepsy, M.E., skin conditions, mental health problems, diabetes, heart disease, cystic fibrosis and cancer.

I was happy to support LTCAS’ vision for a Scotland where people living with long term conditions enjoy, not endure, full and positive lives, free from discrimination and aided by high quality services, support and information.

Without proper support, long term conditions can be very debilitating, and the worryingly large number families and individuals in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth affected by such conditions should not be denied their rights to full and positive life experiences.

The MSP Pledge from LTCAS reads:

“I support LTCAS’ vision for a Scotland where people living with long term conditions enjoy, not endure, full and positive lives, free from discrimination and supported by high quality services, support and information. I agree to: Recognise the significance of the challenge of long term conditions and work to improve the lives of the estimated 2 million people living with long term conditions in Scotland; Support increased resources for self management so that people have access to the information, education and support they need to successfully manage, and live well with, their condition(s); Support measures to improve transitions between services, for example child to adult, adult to older person, hospital to home.”

Warming Blanket Warning

2007-12-07T15:59:00.000Z

At this time of year it is very important that people, especially older people, are able to keep safe and warm in their homes.

I was therefore very concerned to read that a North Lanarkshire survey revealed almost one-third of electric blankets tested were in a potentially dangerous condition. The Council Home Safety Unit had introduced a free testing programme to ensure electric blankets were suitable for use over the winter.

For one third of these blankets to be judged at risk is a worrying statistic, as faults can cause burns or electric shocks. Anyone who uses an electric blanket should get it checked regularly and serviced if necessary - so that they can rest easy during the colder months.

The North Lanarkshire Home Safety Unit can be contacted on 01698 302037 or PEhomesafety@northlan.gov.uk.

Positive - and Popular - Progress on Police and Prescriptions

2007-12-06T16:14:00.001Z

Two more pieces of good news from the SNP Government in the past two days.

Yesterday, Cabinet Secretary for Health Nicola Sturgeon announced that from April 2008, the cost of a single prescription will be reduced from £6.85 to £5.00, with further annual reductions until the charge is abolished in April 2011.

Prescription charges are a tax on ill health, and can be a barrier to good health for too many people in Scotland - around 50% of the population currently pay for their prescriptions, two thirds of whom are estimated to have a chronic condition..

The Scottish Government is committed to building a healthier nation; through tackling the health inequalities that still scar our nation and supporting people to live longer and lead healthier lives.

Today Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill today announced that he had approved the increase in full, backdated to September 1 this year. The decision follows a recommendation from the Police Arbitration Tribunal last week following the breakdown of police pay negotiations earlier in the year.

Our police officers have a vital role to play in protecting communities of across Scotland, tackling crime and the fear of crime. This pay rise will boost morale among our police officers and acknowledges the vital contribution they make in building safer and stronger communities.

The announcement builds on the SNP Government’s provision of an additional £54 million to deliver 500 new recruits, improve the retention of skilled and experienced officers and support the redeployment of officers to strengthen community policing.

Both of these welcome developments show that this SNP is delivering on the pledges it made in the May 2007 elections. No wonder that today's YouGov opinion poll gives the SNP its highest ever rating - and another recent poll showed the Scottish Government to be five times more popular than Gordon Brown's disintegrating Westminster administration.

Clear Benefits Seen in Eyecare Announcement

2007-12-05T10:08:00.000Z

A £10 million package for Scotland’s optical practices and health boards has been announced by Public Health Minister Shona Robison at the Scottish Optometric Conference in Glasgow.

Within Central Scotland region, this will include £159,600 for NHS Lanarkshire to provide a low vision and functional vision service for children and to integrate community eyecare services for adults. NHS Forth Valley will receive £114,150 to develop adult and children's low vision clinics.

Quality eyecare, and especially the kind of preventative measures this announcement will fund, are hugely important to the wellbeing of communities across Central Scotland.

Young people and their families in Cumbernauld, Kilsyth, Falkirk and across the NHS Lanarkshire and Forth Valley areas are quite literally seeing the benefits of the new SNP Government on daily basis, and this announcement confirms more good news for us all.

Cumbernauld Primary Should Re-open

2007-11-27T10:08:00.000Z

I was saddened to read reports that the school building on Glasgow Road, Cumbernauld Village, is becoming vandalised and derelict - and have reiterated calls I made in submission to the North Lanarkshire Draft Local Plan process at the beginning of November.

The building is deteriorating rapidly, yet demand for primary school places is increasing in Cumbernauld, and the new shared primary campus on Eastfield Road is already struggling to cope with demand.

Re-opening the primary school in Cumbernauld Village would mean the building once again becomes a place of learning and development that unites the community in pride, instead of a place of vandalism and destruction that unites the community in concern.

The recent Scottish budget announced by Finance Minister John Swinney included £115 million extra capital for local authorities in 2008/09 which can be invested in schools.

New houses are being built north of the A80, and almost 100 new homes will be constructed in Cumbernauld Village in the coming months. Consideration must be given to re-opening the Village Primary School to cater for the huge number of new pupils these houses will bring.

Warm Welcome for Warm Homes

2007-11-27T10:02:00.000Z

Last Friday I had the opportunity to visit two constituents who have benefited from the Warm Homes Campaign - a national programme run by fuel poverty charity Energy Action Scotland that aims to cut the number of people living in fuel poverty and reduce cold-related illnesses by raising awareness of the help available to people who cannot afford to heat their homes in winter.

Fuel poverty and excess winter deaths in an energy rich country such as ours are a disgrace. The work of Energy Action Scotland in raising awareness of these issues is hugely important and I fully support their efforts. I particularly welcome their Warm Homes Campaign, which is offering huge benefits to those at most risk of the effects of fuel poverty and cold related illness in Scotland.

People who are worried about keeping warm or who are struggling to pay their energy bills are encouraged to contact the Scottish Government’s Warm Deal freephone on 0800 316 6009 to ask what help is available.

It is important to remember the social value of saving energy as many fuel poor households currently ration their energy usage. The fear of debt when you are on a low income and living in a poorly insulated house is very real. Much more needs to be done to achieve the target of affordable to heat homes for all.

The awareness campaign by Energy Action Scotland runs in November and December and is supported by eaga.

Blogging for Bethan

2007-10-30T22:38:00.000Z

I was recently asked by Bethan Jenkins (pictured), the youngest member of the Welsh Assembly, and a Plaid Cymru representative for South West Wales, to write a piece for her blog. Because I am being lazy I am going to just reproduce it here, but if you want to read it at her site then you can get it at:

http://bethanjenkins.blogspot.com/2007/10/bethans-guest-bloggers-1-jamie-hepburn.html

Anyway, it is a piece about where Scotland is going with the SNP government and is perhaps quite timely following the weekend's SNP conference in Aviemore.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone who knows their Shakespeare will be aware of the question posed in Macbeth; “stands Scotland where it did?”

If someone had fallen asleep before the Scottish Parliament election this year and awoke today and posed that same question, the answer would have to be a resounding no. You would need to have been asleep not to have noticed the changes taking place in Scotland.

The Scottish writer and artist Alasdair Gray once wrote “work as if you were in the early days of a better nation”, and our hypothetical Rip Van Winkle would be able to wake from their slumber to find that by virtue of the election of an SNP government these are the early days of a better nation.

The SNP is already pursuing its distinctive social democratic agenda, designed to bring about a more prosperous, fair and socially just Scotland. For my part it is a huge honour to serve in the Scottish Parliament at a time when we have the first ever SNP government. Indeed, not only is this the first ever SNP government, I would contend that it is the first ever Scottish government. Our predecessors in the shape of the Labour-Liberal pact which was in place for eight years could be accused of many things, but acting as a government is not really one of them. Their local council mentality would only ever allow them to be described as an administration at best.

However, since Alex Salmond and his cabinet were put in place we have seen a series of announcements that are impressive in their intent and reach. In just five months announcements have been made that will see the abolition of tuition fees for university students, and a return to the principle of free education; plans to follow the Welsh example and abolish prescription charges for all Scottish citizens; one of the most ambitious targets for carbon reduction by the middle of this century of any country on the planet; the creation of a new entrants scheme for Scottish farming; a review of the right to buy policy in council housing, with the suggestion that this will be scrapped entirely for newly built homes; two local accident and emergency departments earmarked for closure have been saved; a decision that no more private prisons will be built in Scotland; work begun on creating a viable alternative to New Labour’s PFI madness; the most ambitious programme of railway infrastructure improvements for decades; a decision to allow asylum seekers the same rights in higher education as the rest of Scotland’s people; the freezing of the unfair council tax with a view to replacing it with a fairer local income tax based on the ability to pay; and a summit held to discuss nuclear disarmament – the first ever government organised summit in the UK to discuss such.

This indicates a government that is progressive and outward looking. It reflects a programme of a real government rather than that of an administration following orders from London.

This is not to say that we do not face difficulties. The SNP are a minority government, with 47 members of the Scottish Parliament out of a total of 129. The maths clearly indicates that it will be difficult to pursue some of our agenda. That will mean that, on occasion, we will have to build loose alliances with other parties on a one off, policy by policy basis.

Furthermore, the comprehensive spending review conducted at Westminster has announced that the SNP government can expect to get the lowest annual increase to the Scottish block grant since the advent of devolution, with a miserly 0.5% increase.

This makes things financially tight for the SNP government, but in John Swinney MSP, we have a Cabinet Secretary for Finance who is equipped with all the abilities that his predecessors have lacked necessary for the task at hand, and I remain confident that the government will be able to cope with this financial settlement.

So, things are going well just now. I remain confident that they will remain to go that way so long as the SNP remains in power. The challenge for the SNP is to ensure that after four years we win the next Scottish Parliament election in 2011.

My hope is that when we do so, it will be the first elections to a Scottish Parliament in an independent Scotland. The SNP government has launched a “national conversation” which it wants all citizens and all of civic society to engage in about the future constitutional direction of our country. We will clearly set out our belief that Scotland can be a hugely better country to live in with independence, and I think we can convince the people of the merits of that case.

The plan is to hold a referendum in 2010, where we will provide the Scottish people with the chance to move to independence. If we can hold that referendum, then my hopes that the SNP election victory in 2011 is in the context of Scottish independence stand a very real chance of being fulfilled.

Right to Buy Shake Up

2007-10-22T22:35:00.000Z

Nothing for weeks from me, and then two posts in one day!

However, the announcement that the SNP government is to consult on bringing forward changes to the right to buy legislation for council houses is an excellent development.

I believe that the right to buy policy has had long term consequences of creating real pressures on the availability of socially rented homes across the country.

I understand that many families have personally benefited by the policy as individual units. Indeed, I know, and am related to many people in that category. But taken as a whole, I think it has left us with a vastly depleted number of council houses available for rent today, which given the huge numbers of people registering as homeless in Scotland each year (over 50,000) as well as the huge waiting lists that exist for the limited number of available properties gives us huge problems today.

In short, as wider public policy and leaving the individual benefits to individual families (as important as they are) to one side for a moment, the right to buy policy has been limited in its effectiveness.

Therefore, the possibility that any new homes built for social let may be excluded from right to buy legislation is a very sensible one.

One of the reasons that local authorities have been reluctant to build new council houses was the realisation that as soon as they were built and let they were likely to be bought by tenants at huge discounted value under the right to buy legislation presently in place. You can understand the reluctance of local government to spend money on new properties that might be quickly whipped from under their feet.

Therefore, with this possibility removed, it is much more desirable for local authorities to get back into the house building game.

In itself, this proposal will not revolutionise socially rented housing in Scotland. It might just be the first step to doing so however.

At a time when Gordon Brown's Labour Party and David "just call me Dave" Cameron's Tories get sucked into a Dutch Auction on inheritance tax (something that effects only 6% of heritable estates it is worth noting), it is useful to remember that there are those who will not ever have to "worry" about falling into the taxable bracket in relation to this tax. They are the countless numbers of people who neither can afford or want to buy a house and are desperately waiting on a housing list for a council house.

They will welcome the idea being floated by the SNP government.

SNP Government Pursue End to Nuclear Weapons

2007-10-22T22:11:00.001Z

Today saw a quite amazing event take place in Glasgow. For the first time in our country's history, we have had a government sponsored summit on nuclear disarmament.

This simply would not have been possible without the election of an SNP government. It is quite unthinkable to envisage at any stage a UK government of either Labour or Tory hue sponsor such an event such is their addiction to the nuclear weapons game.

Some will argue that this falls outwith the constitutional competence of the SNP government. You may argue that this is the case under the terms of the Scotland Act, although clearly in relation to planning, transport and environment one might argue that there is a degree of competence.

Whatever the case may be, I have to say that I am not bothered. Of course the unionists want us to confine Scotland to its own wee devolved kailyard on this and every other subject. Their small minds cannot comprehend Scotland's democratically elected government expressing a view that falls outwith this scope.

However, it can't come as that much of a surprise that the SNP is determined to act on this area. We have a long standing opposition to nuclear weapons, and naturally we don't see Scottish government as having to be boxed in by the Scotland Act.

However, this has not been the only criticism levelled against the SNP in relation to this issue.

David Cairns MP, a Scottish Office minister (my, he must be busy!) came out with the downright bizarre assertion that the SNP was pursuing a "loony left" policy in relation to nuclear disarmament.

Well, maybe he genuinely believes so. However, then many ordinary people will be surprised to learn that they belong to the loony left such is the breadth of opposition to nuclear weapons in this country. Indeed, I understand that it is actually somewhere within the deep darkest recesses of Labour Party policy to oppose nuclear proliferation. However, I suppose Mr Cairns gets to square that seeming circle by the fact that the Labour government is ignoring that policy of their own party and is intent on renewing the Trident nuclear weapons scheme.

Indeed, not only does this ignore Labour Party policy, but goes against the internationally agreed Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.

This brings me onto another area of attack on the SNP, expressed by Eric Joyce MP on Newsnight this evening.

Alex Salmond has written to all signatory states of this Treaty asking for Scotland to be given observer status at the next discussions surrounding this treaty. Apparently for Mr Joyce this amounts to Alex Salmond "cavorting with despots and dictators".

Let me say that there are a number of international leaders in the world who perhaps do fall into this category and are less than savoury characters. However, Alex Salmond has quite correctly written to each and every signatory of the Treaty. So it would just be as easy to characterise this as cavorting with democrats and statesmen given the number of liberal democracies that are included on the list. Of course that wouldn't make for the snide soundbite that Mr Joyce and the Labour Party are looking for.

The fact of the matter is that Alex Salmond and the SNP government are pursuing, by combination of today's summit and writing to the signatories of the non-proliferation treaty, the stated objective of the Scottish government, and something widely supported by the Scottish people; the removal of nuclear weapons from our country.

The Big Blockade

2007-10-01T20:27:00.000Z

I don't seem to be doing too great a job at keeping this blog up to date! I must try better.

Anyway, today I managed to make it along to the "Big Blockade" protest at the Faslane nuclear submarine base on the Gareloch (picture below).

I considered it important to be there today as I totally oppose the existence of these immoral weapons that if used would incinerate men, women and children indiscriminately. I have always thought it the ultimate irony that one of the supposed reasons for war in Iraq was the existence of weapons of mass destruction there. Of course none were found there. If one wanted to find weapons of mass destruction they could find them quite easily and much closer to home, at Faslane.

I was delighted that the Scottish Parliament voted against the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons system. I was also pleasantly surprised when a majority of Scottish members of the Westminster parliament also expressed their opposition.

This counts for little though until we have powers over defence repatriated to Scotland so we can legislate against nuclear weapons. So despite todays "Big Blockade" being touted at the culmination of a years long activity by the Faslane 365 organisation, the work goes on until we can get rid of Trident and nuclear weapons from Scotland.

Shrinking Lake Chad Highlights Environmental Change

2007-09-03T22:01:00.000Z

Quite startling images of Lake Chad in today's papers really bring home the impact of humankind on the global environment. Sattelite images indicate that since 1963 the lake has reduced in size by 95%. The Scotsman ran an article on this very topic and also mentioned that Mount Kilimanjaro has lost 80% of its ice cap in the past 100 years and that the Dead Sea is 25 metres lower than it was 50 years ago. You can read the article at:

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1398802007

Anyway, don't want to say too much on the topic (just a quick blog today and I have written an article for the SNP Student Wing newspaper on the issue of climate change, and don't want to spoil that for you when you all rush out to read that!) but the pictures of Lake Chad were one of the starkest examples of the change to the Earth's environment in the last decades.

I am aware that there are those who question humankind's role in global warming, and I am hardly an expert in this field, although I do note that the vast majority of mainstream scientific opinion does seem to be in support of the viewpoint that we have and continue to play a determining factor in this trend. However, those who question our role have to ask themselves the question, can we afford to gamble that we haven't played any part? Wouldn't it be safer to assume we have and act accordingly and strive to make environmental improvements.

Anyway, I'm off to play my part by saving some energy by ending this post and turning off my computer for the night.

Time to Lock Up Drug Dealers

2007-09-01T17:01:00.000Z

A couple of articles in the press in which I am quoted today (and a quite shockingly bad photo of me in the Daily Record, but we will skim over that) in relation to the proportion of those convicted of supplying illegal drugs serving jail time.

The articles can be found at:

[i] http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1391282007

[ii] http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/news/tm_headline=msp-jail-all-drug-dealers&method=full&objectid=19718926&siteid=66633-name_page.html

Anyway, the articles come on the back of an answer I received to a written question (S3W-3093 if you are interested in having a look at the Scottish Parliament website) with the government which indicates that whilst in 1985-86 some 72% of those convicted of the supply of illegal drugs served a custodial sentence, by 2005-06 this proportion had dropped to a mere 46%. Less than half of those convicted of peddling drugs are doing jail time!

This statistic is despite the fact that in the same period the number convicted of the offence has risen from 244 in 85-86 to 1,562 in 05-06.

It all indicates that Kenny MacAskill is on the right track with his attempts to ensure that those in prison are the ones that should be in prison. It is a nonsense that we send people like fine defaulters to jail (frequently at a cost well in excess of the fine that has not been paid in the first instance) when only 46% of those convicted of the supply of illegal drugs face a custodial sentence.

Dusting off the Cobwebs

2007-09-01T16:56:00.000Z

I was out and about in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth earlier today distributing some community surveys and finding out some views of local people about their area and on Scottish politics in general.

This will doubtless be the first of many "workdays" for me as we build towards the expected Westminster general election - possibly this Autumn, but more likely a bit further down the line I suspect. It was good to get out and about after what has been a busy Summer in the office and to hear a few views being expressed from more than a few local people.

Anyway, as I say, there will be more of this type of activity in the not too distant future, so if you are interested in coming and giving us a helping hand then just drop me an e-mail and let me know.

Time to Decouple Council and Parliament Elections

2007-08-31T22:16:00.000Z

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.

PFI Madness Costs Taxpayer £22.3billion

2007-08-28T20:21:00.000Z

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.

SNP Plan for Refugee Amnesty Denied by Labour

2007-08-04T19:57:00.000Z

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.

Unionists Fail to Learn the Obvious in European Parliament Debacle

2007-08-03T13:33:00.001Z

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.

Unionist MPs are motivated by self-interest

2007-07-05T21:13:00.000Z

I had a letter in the Herald today in response to an article by Malcolm Bruce MP, which I took particular umbrage with. You can read Mr Bruce's article at:

http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/featuresopinon/display.var.1514120.0.0.php

My letter can be read below:

Malcolm Bruce suggests that the new SNP government is trying to provoke the Westminster government. Among the examples he cites are the abolition of the graduate endowment fund and the denial of this benefit to English students.

This is a bizarre claim to make. First, I seem to recall that his party also included the abolition of the graduate endowment fund in its manifesto at the Scottish Parliament election. Was this an act of provocation, too? Or does Mr Bruce's attitude suggest that this was a LibDem promise that was never to be fulfilled in the first place?

Secondly, far from it being the SNP that denies English students the same entitlements as Scottish students, it is he as a Unionist who does so. Mr Bruce knows fine well that if Scotland were an independent member state of the EU, then English students would be entitled to the same as Scots-based students. Our status as a sub-state nation within the EU denies us this opportunity. It is being part of the UK that stops English students from being entitled to the same benefits as Scottish students.

Mr Bruce then goes on to spout the old Unionist rubbish about Scotland suffering reduced influence in the world with independence. His statement that "our combined influence in the world" would be weakened with independence is nonsense.

Indeed, his claims don't stand up to scrutiny, given that we are presently in the throes of seeing Scotland's number of representatives at the European Parliament cut from seven to six, while Lithuania, with a population of some 1.5 million fewer than Scotland, has 13 members of that body.

The fact of the matter is that Scotland presently has no distinct voice of its own in the world and only independence will rectify that.

Mr Bruce almost comes clean as to his real concerns when he writes about Scots being no longer eligible for influential careers with independence. This is, of course, by and large total garbage. Scotland will have its own civil service and diplomatic corps and there will be many opportunities for our citizens as part of this.

One area of employment may be cut off, however. The 59 Scottish MPs who are presently elected to Westminster will no longer be able to sit in that institution and draw their salaries or expenses.

Mr Bruce is, of course, one of these individuals. It is his career he is really worried about, and not those of anyone else. It is this self-interest that is so evident in the Unionist politician that holds our country back from making real progress with independence.

Opening of the Parliament

2007-06-30T22:12:00.000Z

Today saw the third riding of the Scottish Parliament. This event for those who don't know, is an ancient tradition stretching back to pre-union days where members of the Scots Parliament would process along the Royal Mile to mark the opening of the legislature.

Since the advent of devolution, this event has been recreated with each new Parliament after each election. All members of the Scottish Parliament are invited to attend to be in the presence of the Queen as she addresses the assembled parliamentarians.

I was not amongst those parliamentarians present today.

It would be disingenuous to suggest that I was not there solely because I had an appointment in the constituency I represent. That was certainly part of it, but I must admit that the fact that I believe in an elected head of state was part of my rationale as well.

Before I left the house to attend the event in Cumbernauld I went to, I did manage to catch some of the proceedings on television. I thought Alex Salmond gave an excellent speech before Parliament setting out the SNP government's position.

I see some of my Parliamentary colleagues from the Labour benches have been upset by Alex's words. They seem perturbed by the fact that he pointed out that the SNP government favours independence.

Wouldn't it have seem rather odd had Alex Salmond omitted that fact? Indeed, wouldn't it have seemed just about as disingenuous if he had done so as if I had pretended that the only reason I wasn't in Edinburgh today was because of the event in Cumbernauld.

Anyway, that brings me onto that event. It was a Highland Dancing competition at Cumbernauld High School (photo below shows the participants along with myself and some of the Cumbernauld councillors) and I was very privileged to be asked to dole out prizes to the participants. The kids taking part were fantastic and I was very glad to be with them today.

Glasgow Airport Targeted for Terror Attack

2007-06-30T21:47:00.000Z

I haven't posted for a while but today's events at Glasgow Airport feel like they should be commented upon. Terrorist incidents are not something we are used to in Scotland. Even at the height of the IRA bombing campaign on mainland Britain there were no attacks on Scottish soil.

The tragedy in the skies over Lockerbie on 21st December 1988 was the worst terrorist incident in the history of the United Kingdom, but mercifully there have been no major acts of terror perpetrated in Scotland since.

It is quite clear that the four wheel drive vehicle that was driven into the Glasgow Airport terminal building ablaze was done so to jeopardise life and limb. Thankfully that central aim of this maniacal act went unfulfilled and whilst people have obviously been scared and inconvenienced, no one has apparently been hurt, other than one of the drivers of the vehicle themselves.

Apparently since this incident another vehicle has been discovered outside the hospital where this individual is being treated with what has been described as a "device". Not much further explanation, but this ominous description would lead us to believe another attempt to maim and kill.

All very frightening, and will draw greater comment in coming days as more details emerge.

It is difficult to know what to say when something like this happens so close to home, particularly when something like this hasn't really happened so close to home before.

Doubtless, those who sought to perpetrate the act will seek justification in retribution or retaliation for some other event. It is hard to comment further when it is yet to be confirmed who exactly has been involved and what their motivation was.

However violence of this type can never be justified. The random targeting of civilians anywhere in the world is abhorrent. It is though alarming that even though no one was harmed on this particular occasion that this should be emphasised so starkly on home soil.

Scotland's Parliament Says no to Trident

2007-06-14T22:01:00.000Z

Today was quite historic. For the first time, the Scottish Parliament has actually taken a clear position on the issue of nuclear weapons and their presence in Scotland.

The issue of the Trident nuclear weapons system has been debated before in the Parliament, but never before has such a position been reached.

Some concern was expressed by Labour members that the Parliament shouldn't be discussing the matter. This faux concern with constitutional niceties disguised their real concern that they might be forced to express a view on the matter themselves.

In the end most of them abstained, although congratulations are due to those Labour representatives who stood up for their principles and voted against Trident renewal.

There are those who would have Scotland contained to its own kailyard and impotent to voice its opinion on matters such as nuclear weapons. Clearly as a Scottish National Party MSP you would not expect me to agree with a such a stance. However, I can quite clearly state that of the many people contacting me about the matter advocated the cowardice avenue of failing to express an opinion. Indeed, all urged me to vote against Trident renewal.

I was delighted that not only did I do so today, but a majority of my parliamentary colleagues did so as well.

Not the Best Wee Country in the World

2007-06-11T22:02:00.000Z

Jack McConnell's tagging of Scotland as the "Best Small Country in the World" in his former incarnation as our First Minister really annoys me.

It annoys me for several reasons. Firstly it smacks of the kind of national chauvinism that I shy away from. I never have bought into the idea that Scotland is somehow the "best" country in the world, or somehow better than others (the implication of best logically being that we must somehow be better than others). In fact all I want for Scotland is equality. I just want my country to be an equal member of the community of nations.

Secondly, I am hugely irked by the suggestion that Scotland is somehow "small". It annoys me when this is literally suggested. If you actually look at the size of Scotland in comparison to other nations in the world, our population places us right in the middle. (See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population) So in fact we are not a small country, but a perfectly reasonably sized one.

I am even more moved though by the suggestion that Scotland is figuratively small. Certainly the unionists would keep us confined to our own backyard and think small, but Scotland presents limitless opportunities for itself if it only demands the means to achieve such. The "Scottish cringe" is conjured up by this talk of us being small and I really hate it.

So having made my case against Scotland being the "best small country in the world", it is interesting to see today a report commissioned by the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) that has attracted plenty of attention to quite clearly indicate that even if you bought into the rhetoric, the reality is somewhat different.

I certainly think the reportage that we are the "worst small country in Europe" is a tad over the top, but the report and its coverage brings into stark contrast McConnell's slogan with reality. Using measures such as health, life expectancy, employment prospects and educational attainment, this report places Scotland bottom out of ten countries of nine million or less.

And it is not just the FSB that can point to the ludicrous nature of Scotland being the best of the small. The United Nations Human Development Index - which broadly speaking measures quality of life in each UN member country - has consistently ranked Norway as the number one place to live on Earth in recent years. This country has a population some half a million less than ours. If any country can boast about being the "best" (although I would hope all nations would shun such pomposity) then surely it is Norway.

Monklands A&E Saved

2007-06-08T19:46:00.000Z

A few days late with this post I know - but things have been pretty hectic of late. Anyway, I was absolutely delighted with the announcement made on Wednesday that the A&E at Monklands Hospital would be saved, just as the SNP promised it would be should we win the election and form the government.

A lot had been said by certain cynics that the SNP only made the promise to save the A&E out of electoral expediency and that it was a pledge that would go unfulfilled. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that the SNP took the decision to promise to save the A&E because any reasonable analysis of health services in Lanarkshire dictate that it had to remain open.

The A&E is sited in a location of high deprivation and the associated problems that brings, such as above average levels of ill health. I doubt it can be proved that any such area which has lost its local A&E has then gone on to see improvements to the local population's health as a consequence.

Furthermore, the transport links through the NHS Lanarkshire area are such that the various communities presently served by the three operating A&Es are poorly connected. This is not to mention the overcrowding at A&E at the remaining sites if the A&E at Monklands had closed.

For these reasons and more we took the decision to save the A&E. It was the right thing to do.

Maiden Speech Made

2007-05-31T21:33:00.000Z

Today provided me my first opportunity to make a contribution in the Scottish Parliament chamber. The speech was on a topic that I hadn't really envisaged making my first contribution, being as it was on rural development.

I was born and brought up in Glasgow, so this may at first glance seem an odd choice. However, the Central Scotland region I represent has a large number of rural communities within it. Most people probably think of it as a fairly urbanised part of the world, and whilst this is in the main quite true, it is fair to point to the large rural part of Central Scotland as well.

That was why I was delighted to be able to speak today (and also delighted to hear the excellent maiden speech in the same debate of my friend Aileen Campbell). Rural communities in Central Scotland and beyond will welcome the £1.6billion that the Rural Development Programme announced by the SNP government today. Equally they will welcome commitments to assisting the rural economy.

To that end I was glad to be able to highlight two local cases which require attention to assist rural communities in Central Scotland. Firstly I was able to point out the need to upgrade the A803 road that stretches from Glasgow through Kilsyth and on to Falkirk. This road is a vital artery for many rural communities in Central Scotland and is to be frank not fit for purpose, having to deal with a volume of traffic that it wasn't designed for. The road is the responsibility of the local authorities whose area it snakes through and not the Scottish Executive's per say.

However I look forward to working with the new government to encourage local authorities to make improvements to Scotland's rural roads network. Improving the A803 would be of great social and economic benefit to those rural communities served by it.

I was also able to highlight the problem of poor bus services in rural Central Scotland - citing the specific example of services from Kilsyth to Monklands Hospital. Poor public transport links are holding back people in rural communities from being able to get around to recreate, do business or in the specific example I give, visit ill friends and relatives in hospital. We need to make improvements to rural public transport.

Rural development is a national urgency, and I am glad that the new SNP government is treating it as such.

Extraordinary Rendition Allegations

2007-05-24T22:00:00.000Z

A programme broadcast on BBC 2 tonight reminded us of the allegations that the process of extraordinary rendition has been facilitated through Scotland's airports. Coincidentally, there was a demonstration held at the Scottish Parliament today by the "Scotland Against Criminalising Communities" organisation against the process of extraordinary rendition.

For those who are unaware, the process of extraordinary rendition is whereby United States government agencies (most likely the Central Intelligence Agency) abduct individuals who they allege of involvement in activities they dislike and hold them against their will without recourse to due legal process and then fly them (bound and hooded and it is alleged, drugged) to countries where they will be detained and tortured. This is clearly outwith the terms of acceptable domestic or international legal practice and violates the UN Convention Against Torture.

The programme televised tonight often made for harrowing viewing. Some of the stories of individuals who allege they have been subjected to these practices were truly horrific. And whilst horrific they may have been, and whilst easier it may be to flick to another channel and close our eyes and ears to such happenings, I believe we must not.

I think all decent citizens of Scotland reasonably expect that when a crime has happened, those responsible should face the fullest extent of prosecution under law. That extraordinary rendition may have been facilitated through Scotland's airports indicates that a crime may have happened on Scottish soil. And I believe these to be crimes of the most serious nature.

To that end, I think it is wholly right and justified to seek a full inquiry into the allegations that have been made. I made clear to those demonstrating today that I will fully back such calls and I make that clear again on my blog.

A Real Government for Scotland

2007-05-17T21:12:00.000Z

Today has seen a huge stride forward for the SNP. Yesterday was of course a monumental occasion, with us seeing - and I being fortunate enough to be in the privileged position of being able to actually vote for - the first ever SNP First Minister of Scotland. However, today was arguably even more important, for we now have the various ministerial posts filled, and we have the first ever SNP government in Scotland.

Indeed, I would contend we have our first ever Scottish government.

Whilst the previous Scottish Executive was basically content to administer Scotland in a fairly basic manner, we now have a set of people who are actually willing to make big decisions about our country's future as well as stand up for Scotland and demand that more responsibilities be given to our elected representatives. First up will be calling for the return of £23million of money withdrawn from Scotland's pensioners by Westminster when free personal care for the elderly was introduced. Then we will see demands for Scotland to be given a share of its oil revenues.

Much has been made by Labour that this amounts to picking a fight with the UK government. I happen to think this is basically part of their scaremongering campaign against the SNP that they started during the election campaign. However, even if they genuinely believe it, then they are grossly mistaken.

And it would be an easy mistake to make from their limited perspective I suppose. Their style of "leadership" for Scotland has been to faithfully administer London rule north of the border. What they fundamentally fail to understand is that the SNP will of course never do this. We will govern, and that means actually standing up for the national interest.

I look forward to playing my part supporting my SNP colleagues who have the honour of that task of government for Scotland.

Name Change

2007-05-15T19:06:00.000Z

I have been somewhat lax in my blogging attempts of late, having been somewhat busy since my election to the Parliament. However I am keen to keep going with the blog, but felt a wee change in name was necessary to reflect the change of circumstance I find myself in, so "520 votes for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth" has by the power of magical metamorphosis become "The Hepburn Herald" (best I can come up with folks, if you have any better ideas then feel free to let me know). Anyway, my thoughts and musings on the world as I find it will shortly recommence here, so feel free to keep an eye open for them.

That was the election that was

2007-05-04T20:10:00.000Z

So it's all over and as most will probably know by now, we didn't manage to win the Cumbernauld and Kilsyth constituency. Naturally I am personally disappointed by this result. However, we still managed to increase our vote. A big thanks to the 10,593 people who voted for me and backed the SNP's campaign for progressive change.

And through my personal disappointment I am able to see the bigger picture which is that the SNP has won the Scottish Parliament election and ended up the largest party with 47 seats. I should also point out that I am one of those 47 members of the Scottish Parliament having been elected to represent the people of the Central Scotland region. So whilst I am disappointed not to be the MSP for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, I am delighted to have been elected to serve in Scotland's Parliament for the next four years.

Thank you to all who have contacted me through the blog over the course of the campaign. Feel free to contact me on jamie.hepburn@snp.org and keep in touch.

Tricentenary of the Union, Blink and You'll Miss it!

2007-05-01T21:59:00.000Z

Today marked the three hundredth anniversary of the stubbing out of Scottish independence and the enforcement of the Act of Union. Not that you would necessarily know it to have walked down practically any street in Scotland today. Noticeable by their absence were the marching bands, fireworks or red arrows fly overs.

The reason for this of course is that on the eve of an election the unionist establishment don't want to remind the people of Scotland that their country was essentially dragged kicking and screaming into a union the people of the time didn't want (or indeed need). They don't want to remind people that there were riots on the streets at the time, lest it focus minds too sharply on the question of the continued usefulness of the union today.

Sadly for them, people are doing this anyway. And as they continue to do so I believe that more and more will come to realise that the union has had its time and outlived any usefulness it may have once served (if it ever did at all) and opt for an independent future for Scotland.

Tony Blair - Narrow Nationalist

2007-05-01T21:46:00.000Z

Tony Blair returned to Scotland to make a last ditch plea to vote for Labour. He seemed to make the ludicrous case for the continuation of the union on the basis that, "in all probability, a Scot will become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom".

The response of Scotland should be an overwhelming "so what" to this statement.

For some reason Tony Blair - and no doubt Gordon Brown, the Scot in question - seem to think that our country should decide its future based purely on the ambitions of one man. For some reason they seem to believe that Scotland will be better served by having a Scot as Prime Minister based in England rather than taking control of their own destiny and making decisions for themselves.

For all Blair's wittering on about the SNP representing narrow nationalism, it is actually his utterings that represent the narrow nationalism. Are we in Scotland supposed to be so narrow that we would rejoice in Gordon Brown becoming PM of the UK merely because he is Scottish?

The fact of the matter remains that Brown remains committed to pushing the interests of the British state ahead of Scotland's own interests. That is why having one Scot at the top of the pile in the UK political establishment will never be an adequate replacement for Scotland collectively taking decisions for ourselves with independence.

Thankfully the Scottish people don't zip up the back of their heids and won't fall for this Blair blarney.

Gordon Picks a Fight

2007-04-30T22:17:00.000Z

One of the features of campaigning all day in an election contest is that it is hard to keep up with the news. So it was interesting to be told on the doorstep today by one voter that Gordon Brown has apparently given a frosty response to being questioned as to whether or not he can work with Alex Salmond as First Minister. This was then confirmed in discussion with my election agent who said that our Chancellor had indeed been less than forthcoming with reassurances that he will work with my party leader should he become the next First Minister.

The irony here is that whilst the Labour Party spout a lot of nonsense about an SNP led government causing all sorts of havoc and seeking fights with Westminster, Alex Salmond has made it quite clear that he will work with a Brown premiership to further Scotland's interests. It is the Labour Party leadership, and the most likely future Prime Minister of the UK that is threatening obstruction and is seeking a fight with a SNP led Scottish Executive.

This macho posturing from Brown is of course a lot of nonsense. He will have to work with Alex Salmond, and he will have to like it, or (more likely) lump it!

Meanwhile, the campaigning goes on. A few photos are attached from the campaign trail.

The Early Days of a Better Nation?

2007-04-29T22:07:00.000Z

Today was a good one. Some more campaigning in the Sun was made all the better by reading the Sunday Herald before heading off in the morning. Their editorial was reserved for an endorsement of the SNP for the election (which can be seen at http://www.sundayherald.com/election2007/election2007/display.var.1362928.0.0.php). This lifted my spirits immediately as it is not every day that the SNP gets an endorsement from a national newspaper.

This indicates the tremendous success of the SNP campaign, exemplified by the fact that practically every newspaper today carried stories of huge swings towards the SNP from Labour in the most recent opinion polls. The work of course goes on in the final days of this election campaign to ensure that these polls come to pass. Then we will hopefully be able to bring into being the words used by the Sunday Herald at the beginning of their article, borrowed from Alasdair Gray, "work as if you live in the early days of a better nation".

International Press Descends on Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

2007-04-26T22:12:00.000Z

In between visits and campaigning today, I had quite a bit of dealing with the press. First up was the Guardian newspaper up from London who wanted to interview me in relation to the campaign and to see how things are on the ground in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. It is quite clear that despite the London media usually not bothering with what happens north of Watford that they are alert to the fact that this Scottish Parliament election is rather interesting, hence the Guardian's visit today. I await their article with interest.

Then in the afternoon I was interviewed by a national radio station in Portugal. The guy interviewing me had clearly done his research on the issues being discussed on Scotland and we had quite an interesting interview. I think he might have struggled with my West of Scotland accent, but his English was certainly a lot better than my Portuguese!

And then whilst en route to Kilsyth I was informed via text message that a piece on Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (which I was interviewed for last week) was broadcast on tonight's Scotland Today programme. You can view this (and other broadcasts on other constituencies) at the Scotland Today website at http://www.stv.tv/content/Politics_NEW/index.html

Campaigning in the Sun

2007-04-26T21:47:00.000Z

Today was spent canvassing voters across the constituency and enjoying the good weather (makes a nice change from the rain). Once again we were receiving a great response from those we spoke to, with many people confirming that they will be voting SNP on 3rd May. I spent the morning sunning myself with Councillor Neil MacCallum (pictured with myself) in the Seafar area where we spoke to a few folk. One woman was particularly angry at the way Cumbernauld has been run down since the town was incorporated into the North Lanarkshire area under Labour control from Motherwell. She was worried about her kids growing up in the area with a lack of amenities. We could inform her that we shared those concerns and she left us with a promise to vote for us but equally to "hound" us if elected to make sure that we get things done for the area. We were able to respond that we were quite happy with that bargain!

Then in the evening I visited a few households in Kilsyth with our local council candidate David Key. I was struck by just how aware of the issues featured in this election campaign that most people we spoke to were. It is clear that this election has captured the public imagination in ways that previous campaigns have not done.

21st Anniversary of Chernobyl Accident

2007-04-26T21:35:00.000Z

I started this morning's campaigning by swinging by George Square in Glasgow to pay a visit to the vigil for the 21st anniversary of the Chernobyl accident organised by Jim Gillies, a Cumbernauld resident. Jim is a quite phenomenal person.

He has organised a lot of fundraising for the children affected by the Chernobyl accident travelling over to Ukraine quite regularly - often by coach for the whole journey across Europe - to deliver the funds he has raised or vital equipment for local hospitals. His truly remarkable efforts are rightly to be praised.

Also, his efforts to ensure we don't forget about the Chernobyl accident is itself a great effort. We must not forget this event, which serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of nuclear power.

SNP Rising Star

2007-04-25T22:02:00.000Z

Today I had the pleasure of attending my third hustings of the campaign. I know I said previously that there were only two for me to attend, but I got a wee message sent to me a couple of days ago to say that there would be another for me to go to.

However, there is a twist. This particular hustings meeting involved my attendance as part of the audience rather than the panel as they were being held at St Maurice's High School as part of their mock election campaign. So the SNP candidate today was Matthew Hewitt (pictured with myself and Councillor Liz Irvine) and not Jamie Hepburn.

I am glad to say that Matthew aquitted himself very well against his fellow candidates, all of whom were good performers on the day. Their election is being held tomorrow so best of luck to Matthew who has all the makings of a top rate SNP representative of the future.

They're Fitba Crazy, Politics Mad

2007-04-23T21:27:00.000Z

The news was today awash with stories that several leading Scottish football figures have banded together to appear in an advert backing the union. These guys are entitled to their opinion, but the content of their message needs to be called into question.

The advert apparently begins, "When Scotland calls, we answer." Very noble, however it seems in this instance that it is far more likely the Labour Party has been calling. What will their answer be when Scotland calls for independence I wonder?

The advert goes on to say, "We are proud that Scotland has always stood on its own two feet, but we also believe that Scotland stands taller because we are part of the United Kingdom." Scotland has always stood on its own two feet has it? I would have thought our country standing on its own two feet would have involved engaging directly with the world community rather than relying on a government based 400 miles furth of our borders to do our talking for us.

The following anodyne statement within the advert is my favourite bit. "The United Kingdom is a country Scotland helped build." And what of it? Does this mean that we are to be stuck in it forever more?

And the advert finishes off by saying, "We urge every patriotic Scot to help maintain Scotland's place in the United Kingdom which has served Scotland well."

Served Scotland well has it? Go tell that to the one in four children in poverty, or the one in five pensioners living in poverty. Or explain to me why it is that Scotland is the only developed country on this planet which has discovered oil and in the interim period seen its people get relatively poorer. Why is it that economic growth in our country lags way behind similarly sized European nations.

I won't lose too much sleep over this intervention. It all smacks as a little bit desperate to me.

Our Delusional First Minister

2007-04-21T22:26:00.000Z

You may recall that I previously posted on the blog about Tony Blair begging the people of Scotland not to "give him a kicking" by voting SNP. Now we have Jack McConnell on Radio Four repeating his master's message.

How convenient for Jack to try and obscure the fact that the election is to form the next Scottish Executive which HE has been in charge of since 2001. What exactly does Tony Blair have to do with this. It is he who will get an electoral "kicking" on 3rd May, and deservedly so. The campaign of the Labour Party in this election has been one of the most unremittingly negative going.

Meanwhile we took the positive message of the SNP to the streets of Kilsyth and Cumbernauld, as well as finding time to pop by the Tesco at Craigmarloch (pictured) where we found a great and warm response from the members of the public we spoke to there. And I didn't have to suggest they kick anyone at any time!

The Second and Last Hustings

2007-04-20T21:59:00.000Z

Tonight saw the second and last hustings for the Cumbernauld and Kilsyth constituency after the first set yesterday. Unlike last night the hustings tonight (held in Cumbernauld College) was exclusively for the Scottish Parliament candidates, with the four of us contesting the constituency joined by a representative from the SSP, Solidarity and the Scottish Christian Party.

The event tonight was well attended and many issues of local importance were brought up.

One issue that was raised was the ongoing problems at Cumbernauld Town Centre. Since the Tories allowed this facility to be privatised there have been problems there. Essentially the people of Cumbernauld don't really have a proper town centre, but a decrepit 1960s shopping centre. Have you ever heard of a town centre that is locked at night so that people can't access it? That is the reality that people in Cumbernauld have to face. The town centre does not do justice for a town the size of Cumbernauld. It should be the very civic heart of the town, but at the moment it is far from achieving that purpose.

One lady at the hustings who is involved with a local credit union highlighted the huge problem that local bodies such as that have in getting premises at the town centre, reinforcing the fact that the town doesn't really have a town centre to speak of. My Labour opponent and incumbent MSP Cathie Craigie has recently announced that she intends to establish a trust for the town centre.

How convenient that she makes this announcement on the eve of an election in which she feels under pressure. She has been an MSP for eight years and it has taken her this length of time to act on the issue. We have been surveying local people - as I have mentioned previously on this blog - and fully 96% of people who responded told us that they are concerned by the state of the town centre. If successful on 3rd May I give an assurance to them that I won't wait eight years to act on the town centre, but will get working on the matter within the first eight DAYS of being elected.

Other matters of importance raised were the loss of 400 jobs at the Inland Revenue in Cumbernauld, something to which I am totally opposed. Gordon Brown has made big play of cutting "civil service" jobs. He clearly is lulling people into the idea that Sir Humphrey down in Whitehall is for his jotters when in actual fact it is front line workers, many of whom are on short term contracts with little job security and low pay that face the chop.

We also had the chance to discuss Cumbernauld House's future. This important building has a long history and was most recently used by the D.H. Morris Group which has recently gone under. Many local people now believe that this should be used as a community facility and I agree with them. It was suggested that this could be brought into community ownership with a purchase organised by the Cumbernauld community. That is one solution and if it emerges as the most obvious way to create a community facility out of Cumbernauld House then I will support it, but we can look at other methods too.

The future of the A&E at Monklands was also brought up. I was delighted to be able to point to the fact that the SNP has given a cast iron guarantee - and it is in our manifesto if you want to look - that if we form the administration after the election then we will reverse the dangerous decision to close the A&E at Monklands.

All in all, I have to confess I enjoyed tonight's event. My only disappointment is that we have only had two hustings during the entire campaign.

Alex Salmond visits Kilsyth

2007-04-19T22:03:00.000Z

Another busy day today. Spent the early part of the afternoon knocking doors in Abronhill with my colleague Councillor Liz Irvine. It was heartening to hear from people that they had received our election address and most seemed to respond well to the issues we had raised in it. I met many people who are going to vote SNP on 3rd May, some for the very first time. Increasingly people are coming to realise that the way to make change happen at this election is by supporting the SNP and that was quite clear from many conversations I had today.

Then it was over to Kilsyth where SNP leader Alex Salmond was paying a visit. We got the chance to meet with a number of folk on Kilsyth Main Street. Again, it is clear that not only are people coming over to our campaign locally, but that the campaign to make Alex Salmond First Minister of Scotland has really captured the public imagination. Most people we spoke to were telling us that they intend to vote SNP at the election.

And this evening we had the first election hustings of this campaign at Cumbernauld Primary. It was a combined hustings for the Cumbernauld and Kilsyth Scottish Parliament campaign and the Cumbernauld North ward for North Lanarkshire Council, so there was a massed rank of about 16 candidates including myself and my SNP colleagues Alan O'Brien and Norman Robinson.

The chairman of tonight's event started off by making that old gag that at one stage he thought he would have to introduce the audience to the panel, but in the end there was a pretty good turnout. That there were so many candidates meant not a lot of time to talk for each individual, but we got through some interesting topics, many of which we have been speaking about already in this campaign. It was a good warm up for tomorrow night's second (and last) hustings of the campaign at Cumbernauld College.

Democrazy

2007-04-17T21:12:00.000Z

The Electoral Reform Society (ERS) is running a campaign to encourage young people to use their vote at the upcoming election. As part of this they have made a video which is being hosted at the "You Tube" website.

A few weeks ago myself and Aileen Campbell, the SNP candidate for Clydesdale, were cornered by the ERS whilst in Edinburgh and persuaded to be filmed for this video. Have a wee look at it yourself at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eybm6aqWGQk and catch the fleeting appearance of myself and Ms Campbell.

Labour Lose Unison Support

2007-04-16T21:07:00.000Z

I am a staunch supporter of the principle of trade unionism and always have been. I think that it is fundamentally important that workers have the maximum protection in the workplace and that our unions have played a hugely important part in securing many of the basic laws that protect employees which we take for granted today.

However, I have always had qualms with the way in which many of the trade unions in Scotland have given blind loyalty to the Labour Party. The manner in which they have continued to pay homage to Labour, not to mention swell the coffers of the Labour Party, even whilst they have governed against their interests and policies. Labour have pursued the Private Finance Initiative almost religiously despite trade union concerns. Labour has done little to reverse the privatising tendencies of their Tory predecessors (take air traffic control as an example). And the UK continues to have the longest working hours and least public holidays of Western Europe.

Therefore, the persistence of the unions in supporting Labour has been annoying to say the least.

It was therefore hugely heartening to hear that Scotland's biggest union Unison abstained on a vote at the general council of the Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) on whether or not to back Labour in this election. I have always reckoned that Unison was perhaps the most loyal of all the trade unions to the Labour Party. Therefore their failure to back Labour in today's vote is a huge indication of the level of disaffection that exists amongst many trade unionists with the current direction of the country.

I should point out that the downside is that if Unison had voted against the backing of Labour then the STUC would not have given its support, as despite their abstention the vote went through by a majority of one. Still it is a step in the right direction and one which I imagine that many grass roots members of Unison will welcome.

MoD Ready to Enact SNP Policy

2007-04-15T21:58:00.000Z

An interesting article appeared in the Scotland on Sunday today. It indicates the influence the SNP can exert even before we have seen the result of the upcoming election.

It appears that the Ministry of Defence has scoped out alternative sites - all furth of Scotland's borders - to locate the nuclear fleet presently anchored at the Faslane base on the Clyde. And the main reason for this appears to be the mere prospect of an SNP victory on 3rd May.

Thus we have the British government preparing to respond to a central demand of the SNP - the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Scotland - already. This policy is hugely popular with the Scottish people. Indeed in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, some 75.5% of those who responded to the survey we distributed across the area stated they opposed the Labour government's renewal of nuclear weapons.

It also tells us how serious the prospect of an SNP victory is on 3rd May. Even the British government recognises this.

To have a read of the Scotland on Sunday story take a look at http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=577262007

Our Delusional Prime Minister

2007-04-14T20:59:00.000Z

Scotland was "honoured" to have Tony Blair visit yesterday. Apparently he is calling on the Scottish people to resist the urge to give him a kick on the way out the door by voting SNP on 3rd May.

What a great conceit of himself this guy must have. Doesn't he realise that this election is about something much more important than him? Our country's future is at stake here. In Scotland today we have one in four children in poverty; one in five pensioners in poverty; low economic growth; unemployment around three times the reported levels; a government about to spend £100billion on nuclear weapons the people don't want; over 50,000 people classed as homeless; and young Scottish men and women engaged in a war in Iraq that we didn't need or want. This is the backdrop to the current election.

We are debating the way forward to improve Scotland, yet Tony Blair (with willing assistance from his ego) has somehow managed to delude himself that this campaign is all about him. This is just another reason why his party are flying so low in the opinion polls just over two weeks from polling day.

A Programme for Real Scottish Government

2007-04-12T21:29:00.000Z

Today saw the launch of the SNP manifesto for the election. I didn't make the event held to launch it at Napier University this morning as I was busy campaigning in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth today, but all accounts I have heard of it indicate that it went very well.

The event has garnered much interest, and even the BBC's network news was reporting on it tonight. This indicates the depth of interest in the SNP and the Scottish Parliament election, although Nick Robinson (the BBC political editor) still managed to get the blood boiling with his throw away comment that there doesn't seem to be much appetite for independence. I presume he hasn't spoken to as many people as we have in this campaign and I have to disagree with that point of view. Independence is increasingly supported by people I have spoken to over the last few months.

Anyway, I digress. The manifesto has now been launched and contains all the proposals that can make a real difference in Scotland. It has been quite aptly styled a programme for real Scottish government. Our commitments include proposals to put more police on the streets; the creation of a fairer type of local taxation in the form of a local income tax; the dumping of student debt; fairer rates for small businesses; and of course, a referendum on independence.

Take a look at the manifesto for yourself at http://paddington.snp.org/jthomas/manifesto/

Poll of Polls Shows SNP Lead

2007-04-11T21:36:00.000Z

The company Weber Shandwick have set up a website called Scotland Votes (http://www.scotlandvotes.com/) for the election. They have compiled what they are calling the "poll of polls" by averaging the support for each party in the last six published opinion polls. The figures indicate that the SNP has a five point lead in constituency voting intentions and a six point lead in regional voting intentions. All this translates into good reading for those of us campaigning for an SNP victory on 3rd May.

As I have said before though, to read too much into the opinion polls could allow complacency to set into our campaign. So the work goes on as before. I came home shattered tonight after distributing our election leaflet across the Seafar and Ravenswood area of Cumbernauld and tomorrow I plan to be as shattered again.

Labour's Council Tax Damp Squib

2007-04-10T22:11:00.000Z

I am watching Cathy Jamieson on telly as I type. I find the hypocrisy of the Labour Party quite astonishing. They consistently attack the SNP for being light on detail yet have announced an entirely vacuous policy this very day.

Earlier in the day they announced their radical (sarcasm doesn't necessarily come through on typed format, so for avoidance of doubt that was it) proposal for local taxation. They have announced that they will create two new bandings for council tax in their manifesto launched today.

What Cathy couldn't say when pressed, is at what value of property will people (a) pay less on the new bottom band or (b) pay more on the new top band. This absence of detail is quite startling. As they always say, the devil is in the detail.

Clearly the Labour Party are reacting to the fact that the SNP has got off to a much quicker start in the debate on local taxation and are trying to be seen to act on this area. They have ridiculed the SNP local income tax policy despite the fact that it is transparent and fair. We desire fairness in taxation and taxing people on what they can afford to pay (i.e. their income) is clearly fairer than taxing them on something much vaguer, that being the supposed value of the property in which they reside.

The total and utter lack of detail in the Labour policy on council tax, as well as the fact that it fundamentally fails to make local taxation fairer (it is impossible to make the council tax fairer, thus the Labour Party will never square that particular circle) will surely find this announcement falling on deaf ears. This policy is neither fair or innovative. It is rather a damp squib.

It's Time to Win Back Our Schools and Hospitals

2007-04-09T22:08:00.000Z

The SNP has long called for the replacement of the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) scheme used by the Labour government to fund public projects. Our argument was lent some additional weight by the recent publication of a report undertaken by the respected Allyson Pollock of Edinburgh University that appeared in the Public Money and Management Journal. Professor Pollock states in the study that government claims that PFI delivers projects more quickly and more efficiently than other methods of borrowing are "either non-existent or false" and that comparisons are "rigged in favour of PFI and that Treasury policy is not evidence based". Government claims that PFI represents best value for money are therefore utter baloney.

This is particularly pertinent for people in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, whose local authority and local health board are big on PFI. North Lanarkshire's schools modernisation project cost £280.7 million. Meantime the cost to the taxpayer of NHS Lanarkshire's projects to build the Hairmyres and Wishaw General hospitals will be almost £1,200 million over the coming years, despite these two schemes only costing around £260million to build. This means that Cumbernauld and Kilsyth residents, in common with those across Scotland, are paying through the nose for PFI to line the pockets of private businesses.

Polling data compiled for the BBC also indicates that the number one priority for the electorate in the Scottish Parliament election is building and running schools and hospitals through public bodies. The public are wakening up to the PFI con. People wouldn't accept it if they paid up a mortgage and didn't own their house at the end of it, yet we are meant to accept this type of arrangement for our schools and hospitals.

The SNP plans to introduce a not for profit trust to finance future projects. This means that millions of pounds of taxpayers money will no longer find its way into private hands and will be much better value for money. This also chimes with the message people are sending out to pollsters, and that is that our schools and hospitals should be built and run through public bodies. The SNP will respond to that concern and deliver just that.

Alex Salmond Visits Cumbernauld

2007-04-06T16:34:00.000Z

Attendance at a reception for a friend's wedding meant that I was unable to get posting on the blog until today, but yesterday was hugely busy.

In the morning my wife Julie and I joined Councillor Neil MacCallum to visit the Beild Sheltered Housing complex in the Seafar area of Cumbernauld. This is a wonderful facility and my second time there. I managed to visit it along with Nicola Sturgeon when I was candidate for the area in the 2005 general election and was impressed then. I was impressed by the place again.

The staff there seem utterly dedicated to the residents who were amongst the friendliest people I have met in while. They were interested to hear about the campaign and I was interested to hear from them. One couple recalled that I had visited before and even remembered what school I had attended! So I was amongst old friends.

Sadly not all of Scotland's pensioners live in such circumstances as those at the Beild complex. It is a national disgrace that one in five of pensioners lives in poverty at this time. You can tell a lot about a society by the way in which it treats its older citizens, so this statistic makes for sad reading. That is why it's time for the SNP policy of a non means-tested Citizens Pension of £120 per week linked to earnings and to cast the means-tested pension credit, which far too many poorer pensioners fail to claim, to the dustbin of history along with pittance pensions under the Tories and then Labour.

After the visit to the Beild complex the three of us set off to Cumbernauld Village to meet up with Councillor Liz Irvine at the Senior Citizens Lunch Club at the Roadside Hall. We were fed and watered by this fantastic organisation which is run by the members for the members themselves. The food was top quality but I was left disappointed by failing to win a prize in their raffle, although Neil won some Jaffa Cakes and Julie managed to win a can of mushroom soup.

We then dashed off to Cumbernauld Town Centre where over twenty SNP activists were able to engage with the public and distribute literature with balloons and flags for the kids. A really good atmosphere was topped off by the visit of Alex Salmond who was able to meet with many members of the Cumbernauld public. I was struck by just how many wanted to shake his hand and pledge support to the SNP.

We then visited a local small business, Hopscotch, a children's clothes store. There Alex was able to meet with the owner, Frances, and explain the benefits of the SNP "Small Business Bonus" scheme which will see the ending of rates in their entirety for the 120,000 smallest businesses in Scotland, with reduced rates for many thousands more. This policy will ensure that small businesses are better able to keep afloat, something which is absolutely vital given that small to medium enterprises are by far and away the major employer of private sector workers in Scotland. It will also mean a better range of shops and services for people in their local communities.

This is particularly pertinent in the case of Cumbernauld Town Centre which has suffered particularly poorly with many empty lets there at present.

Then to round off the day Alex was interviewed by the local newspaper. So if you live in the area look out for the report of this interview in next week's editions of the Cumbernauld News and Kilsyth Chronicle.

I have a reader!

2007-04-04T21:13:00.000Z

Whilst out campaigning in the Craigmarloch area of Cumbernauld tonight I received confirmation of the fact that I have at least one reader of my blog. One resident informed me - without prompting - that he had been reading my musings on the world.

This highlights the benefits of this site. It allows me to communicate in another way with people in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. It is heartening to know at least one person out there is reading.

Thirty Days to Go!

2007-04-03T21:35:00.000Z

Unbelievably we have now a mere thirty days until the Scottish Parliament election. I was selected by the Cumbernauld and Kilsyth SNP members to be their candidate well over a year ago, but it somehow seems much more recent than that, yet here we are, little more than a month until "D-Day".

This election is perhaps the most important in the history of our country. The 1st May will see the tercentenary of the enactment of the Act of Union which extinguished the burning flame of Scottish independence. Two days after that anniversary we will have the third election to our devolved Scottish Parliament.

The campaign to decide the make up of that body has seen a tremendous amount of effort expended by the Labour government in convincing the Scottish people that they are singularly incapable of self government. They have continued the old unionist myths of Scotland being an economic basket case that cannot afford independence, whilst simultaneously claiming that they have performed wonders stewarding over the Scottish economy. Try squaring that circle!

The fact of the matter is that our country is just like any other. We are entirely capable of governing ourselves and looking out for our own affairs. It is true that with independence we may from time to time stumble. But at least it shall be on a path of our own choosing.

This election can be the one where we start to make real lasting changes for Scotland. We can have a change of government, with a First Minister in Alex Salmond who is ambitious for Scotland and who will stand up for Scotland, and we can demand a chance to decide our own constitutional future and to go for independence.

We will make that decision collectively as a nation in thirty days time. In the interim period I shall be doing my level best to see that we vote for change and to move our country forward.

Two Campaigns for the Price of One

2007-04-01T21:28:00.000Z

Yesterday was busy. We started off in the morning in Kilsyth town centre where myself and the SNP council candidate for the area David Key went to meet many of the local small business owners and managers to discuss some of the issues affecting their business and to explain the SNP policies that are designed to help them.

Specifically we were able to tell them the SNP plans for business rates which would see all small businesses with a rateable value of £8,000 or less having rates abolished in their entirety (which would mean that 120,000 businesses across Scotland would no longer have rates to pay) whilst those with a value of between £8,000 and £10,000 would qualify for rates relief of 50% and those between £10,000 and £15,000 would get relief of 25%. That is significantly more generous than the present system which, for example, sees businesses with a rateable value of £8,000 to £11,500 qualify for a mere 5% rates relief.

The business owners we spoke to were able to say how welcome our proposals are. They would ensure that their businesses have a greater chance of success, are in a better position to consider expansion, and ensure that staff are kept in employment. This is not to mention the possibility of allowing for a greater breadth of shops and services for people in their communities. That is why the SNP backs small business.

Then in the afternoon it was off to Cumbernauld Town Centre where we were able to campaign for the SNP policy of establishing a local income tax in place of the inequitous council tax system. This scheme would set local taxation at the very reasonable level of 3p in the pound on existing income tax bands and would mean that 90% of people in Scotland would pay less in local taxation. This will be welcome news to hard pressed council tax payers who have been hammered by constant rises in the level of council tax, seeing it increase on average by 60% since Labour came to power.

Most people we spoke to were delighted at the prospect of an end to council tax and the creation of a fairer system based on ability to pay. They know that council tax hits hardest those who can least afford it, like pensioners and the low paid. Under the SNP that will change and people will see a link between what they can afford to pay and what they are asked to pay.

Now all we need to do is win the election and make sure that we can bring in a fair system for Scotland's small businesses and Scotland's tax payers.