David Cairns MP, we salute you. That was a noble performance on the wireless this morning, discussing Tony Blair's memoirs.

According to Mr Cairns, the real interest in the Blair apologia should lie in his prescription for the future of the Labour Party. Aye, as they would say in Mr Cairns constituency, right.

Of course, the thoughtful Mr Cairns knows perfectly well that the Blair memoirs carry weight in direct proportion to their analysis of the author's own past years in government; not future political prospects.

In particular, they are fascinating in their confirmation - if one were needed - that relations were less than cordial between Blair and Brown. The former Chancellor, according to the former PM, could be "maddening".

Right back at you, G Brown might say in his own forthcoming book. Or perhaps not. The word from some is that the Brown tome is an intense dissertation on the economic crisis and his part in tackling it.

Then we have the Third Man, Lord Mandelson. I was in the audience at the Edinburgh Book Festival as he gently dissected those who had exasperated him down the years. Diverting from the true New Labour path, he said, would be to enter a cul de sac.

The best question came right at the end from an audience member who asked him to define the adjective "Mandelsonian". Subtle, he essayed, before adding a few other epithets and ending with "loyal". Loyal, one wondered, to whom.

Two further elements from the Mandelson performance. One, he offered a robust defence of his party's performance in government, citing key policy issues.

Two, he suggested that previous governments - post-war Attlee, Wilson, Major - had similarly featured clashes in personality at the very top.

That is undoubtedly true. But were those contests not largely about policy or raw power? There appears to be an added psychological tension in the emerging stories about the Blair/Brown period.

Does any of this have a continuing impact, other than to market rival books? I believe it does. It has a potential impact upon Labour's performance and upon the leadership contest.

Peter Mandelson, in particular, is inviting the contenders to define themselves at least partly in relation to what has gone before, to the Blairite agenda which, he notes, won three elections.

They have to choose whether to take up that invitation - or whether to seek to shape a new narrative of their own.

Either way, I suspect the contenders and the party in Scotland, facing elections next year, would welcome a pause in these exercises in exculpation. Nae luck, as they might also say down David Cairns' way.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

"Back soon" is the notice pinned, metaphorically, to the Holyrood doors. But here's the thing - the problems are exactly the same as prior to the recess.

The big issue? It was and is public spending. In October, we get the outcome of the UK government's comprehensive spending review or CSR.

Thereafter - and it will be thereafter, despite Labour prompting - we get the statement from Finance Secretary John Swinney as to how he plans to balance the books in Scotland.

Cuts there will be - but think here of the politics, the partisan aspect. Think of Mr Swinney's dilemma in, for example, dealing with some of the options presented in the Independent Budget Review, the Beveridge Report.

Imagine the speech if he bought all of Beveridge, without caveat. "I'm John Swinney. I want to scrap universal free personal care for Scotland's frail elderly. I'll be having your bus pass too, depending on income. Free prescriptions? Forget it. You work in the public sector? You'll have had your pay rise, then. By the way, vote SNP."

Not easy, is it? But next think of the politics for the opposition parties in Scotland. There's the blame game, of course. Labour's recession, Salmond slump, Tory cuts, LibDem helpers.

But that doesn't take us too far. In particular, it doesn't take us far when the various leaders in Scotland's multi-party democracy have to sit down and confront the need to fashion a budget for 2011/12 and the succeeding years.

Tricky business

Sit down, they will. Today, actually, when the sundry parties get together to generate a comprehensive, agreed response to the Beveridge report. Or rather not.

For, just as John Swinney faces a huge challenge, so the opposition party leaders are notably reluctant to outline what they would do if they were in charge of the budget.

Cast your minds back to 2009 when the Scottish budget was initially defeated in Parliament - only to arise in triumph after a brief period of mental concentration.

One of the concessions to the LibDems then was that opposition parties would be given a greater role in scrutinising and formulating the budget. Sounding fine and dandy, it helped to allow the package to pass.

In practice, little came of it. The opposition leaders duly met, tiptoed round the topic of spending plans - but generated little in terms of practical progress.

As one opposition figure put it to me, it's tricky enough negotiating one-to-one with John Swinney; it's asking too much to expect you to show your hand to all your opponents simultaneously.

I think the same applies to today's meeting. There will be bold talk of the need to be bold. Anyone fancy going first with that boldness? "After you, Claude. No, after you, Cecil."

Boldly going?

The Tories have offered one or two ideas in the past. For example, they opposed the progressive reductions in prescription charges. But that is, literally, a declining asset.

The much-reduced charge now levies so little that the time is coming when the Tories might have to suggest increasing prescription levies to be offering a credible saving.
So will they be bold?

Eventually, I believe they will if only to provide a narrative that is concomitant with the austerity on offer from David Cameron. But will they ride point on cuts when they are unlikely to form part of the Scottish Government next year? Not easy.

The LibDems have offered some intriguing thoughts on public sector pay - where they have called for restraint at the top. Expect more of that. Plus they have been notably sharp on spending by the quangocracy such as Scottish Enterprise.

I believe that they are coming close to thinking and saying radical things about the present quango structure. Certainly challenging said organisations to justify their role. Perhaps suggesting that, in certain instances, that role might have expired.

Showing their hands

But, right now, right away, I think they will be more inclined to challenge the finance secretary to produce his thinking - on the grounds that governments govern and oppositions oppose.

Labour? If anything, their dilemma is more acute - and the path of oppositionalism most attractive.

They are out of government in both Westminster and Holyrood. The narrative of warning about "Tory cuts" seemed to serve them well in the UK General Election in Scotland.

The temptation, then, must be simply to repeat that formula, substituting SNP for Tory.
There are one or two voices in Labour ranks arguing that it would be more governmental to set out detailed options, to provide a shadow proposition.

There are other voices that say there is nothing, electorally, to be gained from proposing cuts and everything to be gained from attacking J Swinney.

Eventually, next spring, there will be Holyrood votes in which parties will have to show their hands (or press their voting consoles.) For now, stasis.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Perhaps it is the season, perhaps it is the Holyrood recess but I find myself inclined to take a slightly longer view in these musings than is customary.

It seems to me that in Scotland in particular we are about to face a series of choices: each substantial, collectively with the potential to transform.

Firstly, the next session of the Scottish Parliament will be the last before the elections which are due in May. Scotland will choose new MSPs on new constituency boundaries.

That choice will determine whether the SNP is returned to power or replaced. MSPs in their sundry parties may also have to determine whether to forge a coalition.

Viewed from this distant standpoint, SNP / LibDem seems feasible, just, provided the SNP has maintained momentum and not lost ground. Another choice would influence that: the issue of an independence referendum.

When one is tabled at Holyrood, it seems presently certain that it will be thwarted. The SNP would be bound to try again. Could they and the LibDems find a way this time to finesse that dividing point? Does the UK coalition approach with regard to a voting reform referendum offer an option? Maybe not.

Labour direction

Again viewed from this standpoint, it seems likely that Labour would seek to govern alone should they be returned as the largest party. Little enamoured of the LibDems, they would probably prefer to attack them for supporting the Tories at a UK level than coalesce with them at Holyrood.

Plus they have the example of the SNP before them. Nationalist Ministers cannot do all they want: on occasion they appear becalmed. But they are in power with decisions to take and money to spend, albeit at lower levels in the future.

Underlying it all, of course, is the more fundamental question which sustains the SNP and challenges their rivals. Should Scotland opt for independence? Whatever critics say, that is and remains a defining question in Scottish politics. It is in many respects the political fault line in Scotland.

Then there is that choice on whether to introduce the Alternative Vote for Westminster elections. Will that referendum go ahead, as presently scheduled, on the same day as the Holyrood elections?

It seems to me that the UK Ministerial replies to those who object to this timing - including the First Minister - are not yet addressing the points raised.

UK Ministers say that Scots are comfortably capable of deciding upon Westminster voting systems and their choice of MSPs at the same time.

Campaign 'confusion'

Mr Salmond, as a wise politician, would never question the sagacity of Scots voters. Rather he makes other points. In particular, he argues that the campaign - not the vote itself but the prelude - may prove confusing: that there may not be sufficient distinct attention paid to the Holyrood elections or the Westminster choice, that the issues may become blurred.

It may be that UK Ministers can provide a substantive reply to that point. At this stage, for this observer, they have failed to do so.

Whenever the referendum is held, there is then, of course, the choice for Scots along with the rest of the UK. Would AV be better than the present system?

Next, there is the choice - or choices - regarding the future powers of the Scottish Parliament.

UK Ministers, notably the LibDems, are set on implementing Calman on a reasonably short timetable, with a Bill due in the Autumn. There may be changes on the basis of further consideration. But this is Calman. Not Calman Plus. Certainly not Calman Minus.

Scottish Ministers object that Calman on tax was always flawed and that those flaws will be exposed when the LibDem proposal to take those earning up to £10k out of income tax is implemented.

Tax questions

Meritorious on its own that move may be, they will argue, but it will cut the tax base available to Scotland while the alternative revenue raising measures, VAT and NI, will not go to St Andrews House.

Simple, say LibDem Ministers. The Treasury can take account of this disparity in determining the notional sums assigned to Scotland from income tax. This was, broadly, the approach suggested by the previous UK Government's White Paper.

But, say critics, does that not undermine the concept of fiscal autonomy - if the sums allotted are calculated by the Treasury rather than being based upon actual revenue? No, say UK Ministers, the Calman approach will give responsibility and decision-making to Holyrood.

There, then, is another choice. Calman or a move towards full fiscal autonomy. Right now, Calman seems decidedly most likely. Longer term, one may find greater support for autonomy.

For example, it would arguably be logical for Scottish Tories to support such a move: within autonomy, they could credibly argue for low spending and lower taxation.

Spending needs

For now, though, the biggest choice remains the level of public spending. The signs are not propitious for a sane, sensible debate about the method of allocating scarcer reserves of cash.

So far, we have had bickering and back-biting. It is perhaps understandable that Labour, out of power in both Holyrood and Westminster, should indulge so vigorously in such tactics.

It is equally understandable that Ministers in both Holyrood and Westminster choose to return the favour by recalling who was in charge of the Treasury for the last decade and more.

However, spending will have to be cut - and there is a real choice confronting the people and their elected politicians. Not a partisan choice but a pragmatic one.

We can squabble endlessly, allowing money to go to those with the loudest voice. Or we can ask fundamental questions of those who spend public cash. Why do you need that spending at all? What is it for? What does it achieve? Why?

Hopefully, the independent review of Scottish spending will contribute substantially to that process. But it is not their choice. It is not Ministers' choice. It is ours.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• NowPublic |
• Reddit
• - What's this?