Archive: Jack McConnell

As a fairly heavy user of trains, I was interested to hear on the radio this morning that Scotland’s trains are all going to be re-painted in a standardised Scotland-wide livery.

It sounds reasonably sensible to me. I never got why trains from the west used that old-fashioned maroon and beige colour scheme, particularly when (presumably for expediency’s sake) those trains were often used in other parts of the country. Mind you, it will be a shame in a way to lose the distinctive liveries of each franchise.

It does come just a few years after First Group decked out the old Scotrail trains in their own new colour scheme. Impressively, several trains and stations were made over overnight with the old stylised map of Scotland (I presume that is what it was supposed to be) being replaced with First logos left, right and centre.

(Incidentally, the First livery is a vast improvement on the old National Express Scotrail livery. Whoever decided that deep purple goes with peely-wally shades of orange and bluey-green must have been colour blind.)

At least the paint jobs will only be done when a train was due to be painted anyway. And it’s claimed that it will save money in the long run because if and when First Group lose their franchise the livery will remain the same. Having said that, what happens when Transport Scotland decides it’s time for a visual refresh as everyone feels like from time to time? I doubt much will actually be saved.

The reason this is a news story is that George Foulkes has been complaining about the new livery. You see, it depicts a Saltire. And because the SNP are in government this is a bad thing. Apparently it’s all part of an attempt to “brainwash people into independence”

The thing is, Labour also often used national symbols and there is nothing at all wrong with that. At least, you would expect it — particularly when Scotland has such a strong national identity. National symbols are perfect tools for governments to use in their materials / brands / propaganda / what-have-you. As Anseo over at Ideas of Civilisation points out:

What about when McConnell as First Minister had the Saltire adopted as the symbol for promoting Scotland – was this part of the plot?

How about the One Scot (Many Cultures) logo inspired by the saltire, started under the last administration…since that wasn`t under the SNP administration does this not count?

George Foulkes’s argument is further diminished by the fact that Transport Scotland have pointed out that the plans for this revamp began when Labour were still in power. Whoops.

As Ideas of Civilisation points out, this ought not to be an issue. George Foulkes is just frothing at the mouth for no good reason, as seems to be happening quite regularly nowadays.

Scotrail's new livery Anyway, am I the only one who thinks the new design looks nothing like the Saltire? I mean obviously I saw what the design was getting at because I was told it was based on the Saltire. But it looks to me more like two arrowheads pointing at each other.

I mean, if that’s meant to be the Cross of St. Andrew, it’s not because it doesn’t cross. I know that there is a gap between the two carriages that messes it up a bit, but if you continue the lines across they don’t meet. Also, that shade of blue does not look like the official shade of blue of the Flag of Scotland which is Pantone 300. In fact, it looks suspiciously like First Group’s purple. I guess that saves on costs.

Anyway, given that I have now unilaterally established that the train looks nothing like the Saltire, I do wonder what George Foulkes is on about. I find it odd that the sight of something that vaguely looks like the Saltire would “brainwash” him into becoming a nationalist.

George Foulkes being brainwashed

George Foulkes’s tie looks vaguely like the Saltire actually… Oh dear… He’s been brainwashed by his own tie!

Reflections on Glasgow East

A series of posts

  1. The Labour and Liberal Democrat dimensions
  2. The SNP dimension
  3. The Conservative dimension

To the extent that the SNP’s current electoral popularity is due to pro-SNP (rather than anti-Labour) effects, it must be remembered that there is much more than independence at play. Does an SNP success in an election mean that Scotland has suddenly converted to the cause of independence? Of course not.

Firstly, support for independence is pretty low at the moment. According to the 2007 Scottish Social Attitudes Survey (which I believe asks a question about independence every year), support for independence (PDF link) was lower than it had been since May 1997. Asked to choose between independence, devolution or getting rid of the Scottish Parliament altogether, just 23% plumped for independence.

The peak of support for independence was actually in September 1997 — ironically, also roughly when Labour were also at the height of their powers. Then, independence was favoured over devolution for, as far as I can tell, the only time in history. Over the preceding decade support for independence has flitted up and down but has been in a pronounced decline since 2005.

Another point to note is that this, the SNP’s most successful period ever, has come at a time when the SNP has played down its support for independence. Take the slogan it has used since last year’s election campaign. Instead of things like “Michty me, we’ll soon be free” and all that sort of thing, their slogan was: “It’s time.” Time for what? Time for bed? The SNP don’t say.

You have to admit, it is a fiendishly clever slogan. Classic dog whistle stuff. So SNP activists and hardened advocates for independence think it’s time for independence. Anti-Labour voters see it and think it’s time for a change, time to kick Labour out. In fact, it can mean whatever you want it to mean.

Crucially, the independence issue was not rammed down people’s throats by the SNP. Given the closeness of last year’s election, that could well have been what swung it for them.

You should also bear in mind that the SNP are very far away from being a single-issue party. A vote for the SNP is not necessarily a vote for independence, and often an SNP activist will be the first person to tell you this. For instance, Richard Leyton got this line from no less a person than Nicola Sturgeon.

Don’t want an independent Scotland? It doesn’t matter. The SNP have made it very clear that independence will only come after a referendum victory. In the meantime, there is a “national conversation” about independence where you can express your views if you so wish. In effect, the SNP have tried as hard as possible to divorce the independence issue from Scottish Parliament and Westminster elections. The debate over independence now runs separately.

So what explains the SNP’s success? It’s the policies stupid. It is conceivable that Fifers who voted for the SNP did so because they were enticed by their promise to abolish the bridge tolls. Students may have been attracted to their promise to “dump student debt”. And of course, the people who felt that there should be a change in government were always likely to vote SNP because they are the second largest party in Scotland, and the only party in a position to stand up to Labour.

It must also be said that Alex Salmond’s leadership has a lot to do with the SNP’s current success. Yes, he splits opinion. But like him or loathe him, you have to admit that he is a great politician. He is good orator and has the charisma and leadership qualities necessary. The only other Scottish leader that can compare to him in my book is Annabel Goldie, and even she is pretty colourless compared to Alex Salmond.

Particularly when you compare him to the likes of Nicol Stephen and Jack McConnell, who both look permanently nervous, Alex Salmond towers above everyone else in the Scottish Parliament. Wendy Alexander was no match for him either, particularly given the state of disarray Labour are in at the moment. With Alex Salmond at the helm, the SNP should expect an upswing in fortunes, especially since their leader at the 2003 Scottish Parliamentary election was the dull and ineffective John Swinney.

Back in Glasgow East, from what I gather, the issue of independence was not completely ignored, but it certainly did not form a major part of the campaign. Instead, it was presented as a contest where the electorate would pass judgement on the records of the Labour Government in Westminster and the SNP Government in Holyrood.

The SNP were also hugely advantaged by the fact that they were already in 2nd place in the constituency. If my theory about whichever party being in a position to beat Labour will win is correct, then it is no wonder the SNP did well while the Lib Dems tanked.

Most votes are wasted anyway, especially under the FPTP system. But a sure-fire way to waste your vote in Glasgow East was to vote for the Conservatives or the Lib Dems. Only hardened Tories and Lib Dems who despise Labour and the SNP equally will have voted for them (or, indeed, any of the other smaller parties).

In summary, I think that the SNP’s victory in Glasgow East means almost nothing for the union.

That is not to say that I think that the status quo will prevail. I think I am right when I say that all of the parties currently represented in the Scottish Parliament, and the largest parties that are not represented in the Scottish Parliament, all support some kind of increased devolution to varying degrees. That includes the Conservatives, who appear pretty open to the idea of the Scottish Parliament having some leverage over fiscal policy.

Even Labour, painted into a unionist corner by their opposition to the SNP, have toyed with the idea of fiscal autonomy. Mind you, that was under the leadership of Wendy Alexander, who seemed to be a bit of a loose cannon when it came to trying to tackle the issue of the constitution. Who knows what direction Labour will take under their new leader, but I suspect that they will find it difficult to maintain support unless the take the majority view that the Scottish Parliament should have a greater degree of fiscal autonomy.

All of this, though, is almost incidental to the success or otherwise of the SNP. Increased powers for the Scottish Parliament will not come about as a result of SNP success. It can come about as a result of the success of any party.

I would normally reserve a link like this to the linklog, but this one gives me the chance to say, “Told you so, neeeh!”

Richard Thomson says: You Scotland — RIP?

A couple of weeks ago, a video appeared on YouTube featuring Tommy Sheppard, former Labour apparatchik and owner of ‘The Stand’ comedy clubs. The film was a request for feedback from the founding fathers of a website called ‘YouScotland.com‘, asking whether or not they should continue with their venture.

That their video has at the time of writing had only 257 hits and attracted precisely zero viewer comments, is probably all the feedback they need.

Back when YouScotland launched, I wrote a rather critical post. It looked as though I was wrong when their viral, The Best Wee Numpty in the World, proved to be immensely successful.

But since then, nothing again. I have to admit that before Richard Thomson’s post, I had completely forgotten about YouScotland. I suppose it is natural that YouScotland was going to quieten down a bit once the election was over. But these are the people who thought they could kick-start a second enlightenment. One funny video then disappearing without a trace isn’t enough to achieve that sort of thing.

Looking at site’s failings, I think Richard Thomson hits the nail on the head. And I can’t help feeling that I was right when I wrote my first post about YouScotland in February. The virals made me have a re-think, but it looks like my initial gut instincts turned out to be right.

Funniest of all about YouScotland was the fact that they tried their best to sound like a state-of-the-art Web 2.0 campaigning machine. But the middle-aged clique who ran it fundamentally misunderstood what Web 2.0 is all about. I’m afraid it was a real disco Dad moment.

Even more embarrassingly, they seemed to misunderstand how grass-roots movements form. Hint: grass-roots movements tend to form from the bottom-up, not at the say-so of a clique.

And now that the SNP are in charge, they can’t really point at Scottish Labour and complain about the establishment any more. Change happened. They can’t use the same old anti-establishment rhetoric, because a pro-independence party is the establishment now!

They were also not helped by the fact that they didn’t seem to be very different to a lot of pro-independence organisations, or the established pro-change movement as a whole. Why be bombarded with requests for donations at YouScotland when it didn’t offer anything different?

Ah yes, those requests for donations. In Tommy Sheppard’s latest video, he says that the only way YouScotland could continue is if all of its users donated “a minimum of ten pounds”. Ten pounds!! What?!

I mean, really, how expensive is it to make a website like YouScotland (which was shoddy anyway)? There are any number of political movements who do not go around cap in hand — and they certainly do not ask for a minimum of £10.

As I said in my original post about YouScotland, it costs nothing to set up a blog. While I accept that you could not expect a website like YouScotland to be made for nothing, you have to ask what they were intending to spend the money on?

I mean, say that YouScotland managed to get 1,000 members (in some ways, quite modest for a revolutionary, rip-roaring grass-roots movement). If each member donates a tenner per year, YouScotland would have £10,000 to spend every single year. I mean, what on earth was that website going to have on it for it to cost that much to make?!

Try to visit YouScotland today and the website will not load. If I had donated some money in the run-up to the election, I reckon I would feel pretty short-changed.

Some thoughts as the night goes on (ahem, I forgot to include them in the post below).

The election has been a two-horse race, but for me it was between two baddies. I rub my hands with glee considering the prospect of Jack McConnell and the Labour mafia being knocked off their perch.

But at the same time, I would love to see the smug grin wiped off Alex Salmond’s face. And I would laugh my arse off if he doesn’t become an MSP.

Perhaps an ideal situation would be for the SNP to win the election, but for Alex Salmond to fail to win a seat. But then again, Salmond as First Minister would be quite good. He is far more statesmanlike than McConnell, who is nervous, reedy-voiced and always looks as though he’s got the shits.

Aah, the reality check. How much is a pint of milk? Who’s murdered who in EastEnders? Who’s at number one in the singles chart? A politician’s career could hang on the balance of a question like this. If you get it wrong, you are deemed to be out of touch. BBC News Online reports on how the main party leaders in Scotland coped with this grilling.

But how many normal people could actually answer a question like this? I certainly could never tell you who had won the Grand National. That’s not because I’m out of touch. It’s just because I’m not a gambler and I’m not interested in horse racing.

Annabel Goldie might have been pleased to get Nicol Stephen’s question right. But, combined with the fact that she knew who is top of the SPL (a question that I probably would have got, although I don’t follow football that closely), it just looks as though she was just sitting in front of the television all Saturday.

I also would have probably correctly guessed who was at number one — but I wouldn’t have been certain and it would only have been because I blogged about it a couple of weeks ago. Most weeks I haven’t got the slightest clue who is at number one.

And then there is the price of a pint of milk. I am somewhat surprised that Jack McConnell didn’t get this correct. It is the classic ‘reality check’ question, and I would have thought that he would at least make sure he had a vague idea of the answer.

But it’s not as if I would know. Anyone who doesn’t do the shopping for their household (like me for instance) — or just doesn’t drink milk — would be scratching their heads at this one. But does that make me, or Jack McConnell or any politician who gets this question wrong, somehow less real than avid milk guzzlers?