The Scotsman, Guardian and PA are reporting that a complaint has been lodged with Sir John Elvidge about the SNP “abusing taxpayers' money to campaign in the by-election”.
This is Dog Bites Man territory. It has been clear for some time that the SNP is more interested in campaigning than governing. Indeed, they're currently advertising for another three spindoctors!
The party’s own website makes plain that the entire National Conversation on Independence is an SNP campaign. Visit SNP.org, click “Campaigns” at the top and “Independence Debate” at the left, between “Say No to Trident” and “Stop subsidising Labour”. You will arrive at this page:
Be fair SU. The by-election should have been done and dusted well before the 1st September. The story reflects worse on Labour for leaving the constituency unrepresented for so long. Do they really expect no-one to be allowed to visit the constituency until they deign to allow the people some form of representation?
On balance, I am inclined to agree with you that Labour should have moved the writ before the recess. But it was always quite likely that they would wish to delay this by-election, and in any case that has no direct bearing on this particular issue. If the the Scottish government has the remotest interest in being seen to do the right thing, they should now relocate their Glasgow event.
Another vexatious complaint from Labour, there's a surprise.
You wonder if they actually have the common sense to realise that come the next election the SNP are bound to use the number of vexatious complaints made by Labour to portray them as petty minded time-wasters.
Somebody in Labour HQ is surely capable of working that out.
Vexatious complaint?! Look carefully at the web page, Indy. Now repeat after me:
“The National Conversation is an SNP independence campaign.”
Of course the national conversation is part of the independence campaign.
The SNP Government was elected on a pledge to hold a referendum on independence.
Whether you like it or not that gives the SNP Government a mandate to discuss independence.
Does it give them a “mandate” to spend taxpayer's money holding a public event to promote the central plank of SNP policy in the constituency where a by-election will soon be held?
But let's focus on our common ground: that the Nat Con is part of an independence campaign being conducted at our expense by the SNP Scottish government.
Tell me: what other aspects of that campaign are there?
Discriminating against English, Welsh and Northern Irish students in Scotland? Railing against cricket on TV? Nonsense about London “spivs”? Complaining about Olympic Team GB? Blaming the recession on Scotland not being independent? Brigadoonism at the Homecoming? A Scottish entry in the Eurovision Song Contest?
Admit it: all of the above, and more.
Yes it does give them a mandate ” to spend taxpayer's money holding a public event to promote public consultation on the central plank of SNP policy, the policy they were elected to government on.
Taxpayers paid for Calman too remember - even though it was not in any party's manifesto - and they are paying for the National Conversation, which was.
As a taxpayer I feel somewhat peeved that Calman held no public meetings, I would have liked the opportunity to go along and ask some questions.
However I do not begrudge the money, even though it looks as though it has gone down the drain.
As for holding it in a constituency where there is going at some point to be a by-election - the by-election has not been called yet in case you have not noticed. For all we know we will be in the run-up to a general election by then.
Either way it is a vexatious complaint in a long line of vexatious complaints, none of which have been upheld.
SU the venue has been booked. It was booked at the latest on 29th June when the event was announced on the Glasgow SNP website.
Now mebbes the SNP were thinking ahead and reckoned that the by-election was going to get stalled. In which case they have been a wee bit clever, there is no law against that.
But did we know on the 29th June the by-election was going to be stalled? And who stalled it? And in any case as the by-election has been stalled it is not going to be held until after the recess is over.
So what difference does anyone think that it is actually going to make.
I think your problem, along with other unionists, is that you don't like the SNP spending money on the National Conversation. But it ain't against the rules - and you know what? I didn't like what the Labour Party spent public money on when they were in power - I could give you a huge long list if you have trouble sleeping. But I didn't question their right to spend it, I questioned what they spent it on. I didn't call it an abuse of public money, I called it a waste of public money.
You are quite entitled to call the NC a waste of public money if that is your opinion: but abuse is not in my view a justifiable description.
But on the substantive issue, doesn't the stuff on the SNP website confirm that the Nat Con is indeed a con rather than the pluralistic debate often posited - ie merely about the best way to independence rather than a proper debate on whether the preferable option is the status quo, devo-max or independence?
Why not be more honest and just call it the Independence Conversation?
Indy:
You could have submitted a representation to the Calman Commission had you so desired. Its purpose was to ask pertinent questions and listen to the answers, not to sit around answering your questions.
The Calman Commission was established following a democratic vote in the Scottish Parliament — specifically motion S3M-976, passed on 6/12/07. That motion charged the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body was charged by Parliament to with providing the resources and funding.
Which parliament gave the Nat Con any kind of mandate?
Now, the closest to a mention of a so-called National Conversation that I can find in the SNP’s 2007 manifesto is a veiled reference on page 8 to “preparations for offering Scots the opportunity to decide on independence”. Could you perhaps tell me where in their manifesto the Nat Con was explicitly referenced?
I don’t your reference to a possible general election. Whether a by-election or a seat in a general election, using Scottish Government resources to promote SNP policy in Glasgow North East will be seen as an abuse of power.
The “long line of vexatious complaints”, as you like to call them, are the direct result of a long line of fly-by-night behaviour from the First Minister and his cronies. He’ll come unstuck before long. His various Achilles heels are now quite clear.
Stuart
You may be right, but I feel as a taxpayer and voter, that I have had more of a say through the NC than I ever did through Calman. Both taxpayer-funded. So really, who pulled the biggest con? And yes, two wrongs don't make a right, but is there a case against the SNP if the Unionist parties did the same thing, and arguably to a greater degree.
SU - where is the reference to the Calman commission in any of the unionist parties manifestos?
And the reason why they are vexatious complaints is because none of them have been substantiated, despite the fact that if you requested written evidence of all the complaints that have been submitted, you would need a wheelbarrow to take them home with you.
Given the controversy and the snp Governments wish to be non partisan.
they will of course move the venue so as to avoid any scurrilous accusations of attempting to use the power of incumbency to influence this Election.
Um i wont hold me breath
Andrew
From my perspective both Calman and the NC are a waste of time and money, but as to which is the least attractive I wouldn't really like to try to precisely compare the two or attempt to quantify which is the "bigger con"!
As the National Conversation events have been dismissed by our Unionist chumrades, as poorly attended Nat talking shop, one has to wonder what exactly they are afraid of in making this complaint. Besides, nobody knows when the byelection will be held, we're told November but Broon might spit the dummy again and hold for longer.
Incidentally, I cant imagine there are many 'spindoctors' willing to work for £29,000 pa. I would suggest that your Communication Officers are more likely to be employed in a number of diverse governmental posts.
Wardog, Observer:
Valiant attempts to deflect from the topic in hand. But answer me two simple questions.
1. Why is public money being used for an SNP campaign?
2. Why is the devolved executive devoting public resources to a reserved area?
You keep going round in circles SU. Public money is being used to meet a manifesto commitment.
A referendum on independence is a manifesto commitment the same as any other. Perhaps that is the sticking point for you.
Evidently you believe that the SCottish Government should not be allowed to do anything to promote independence - but they have as much right to promote independence as they do to promote any other policy that they were elected on.
There is no reason why they should not devote public money to a referendum on independence because it is not reserved. The power to declare independence as such is reserved but there is no reservation on the right of the Scottish Government to discuss it and put it to a vote.
Incidentally I could not have submitted a 'representative' to the Calman COmmission as you suggest because it was not open to the public.
Your position is untenable, Indy. A consultative referendum in the form proposed by the SNP may or may not be constitutional; that remains to be seen.
But that isn’t what we’re discussing. This thread is about the allocation of public resources by the SNP administration to promote a goal which is explicitly reserved.
That isn’t a manifesto commitment like any other.
Re. the Calman Commission, you’re wrong there too. You could have made a written submission.
Oh, good grief! I see the SNP is even offering what I presume to be a "free lunch" (at the taxpayer's expense) to those willing to go along and be talked at about independence!
Scottish Unionist. The Scottish Government would not have embarked upon this public consultation excercise (which I freely admit has the added benefit of allowing them to promote independence) unless it were judged a proper and legal use of public money - by the civil service. The same civil servants who are now being attacked by Lord Foulkes et al for being politicised.
Now either we have to imagine that the Scottish Civil Service are in fact all well placed moles, or have been radicalised by Salmond to the extent that they have lost their senses, or in fact the expenditure of public money has been judged wholly legal in pursuance of a manifesto commitment.
If the unionist parties really think that Salmond is playing fast and loose with Government cash in an illegal or even unethical way, they have an easy solution. Take his Govt down - they could do it at will if they combined together to do so.
The fact that they are not leads me to believe that they know fine well that this consultation is entirely proper and legal, no matter how much they just don't like it.
SU, the Nationalist Conversation consists of a series of local rallies for SNP activists, with the odd curious member of the public popping in to see what the comedy is all about.
It's funded by the tax payer of course, and I agree it is probably an abuse of public funds and civil servants time. If Labour or Tory were to act in this unprincipled manner they would be getting high-minded pelters from the SNP and its online acolytes...
But that's Nationalist politicians for you.... Everybody else has to reach the highest moral standards, or it's helltopay, but we're just liberating a few bob from the gas meter for charitable uses, 'onest guv...
Pathetic in a way, but not unexpected...
It does not remain to be seen whether a referendum is 'constitutional'. It remains to be seen whether the Scottish Parliament votes for the bill.
It is fully competent however. That is not in question.
You are simply wrong to insist that the power to conduct a consultative referendum on independence is reserved.
Observer:
Have you read this commentary in Scottish law journal The Firm? Key quote:
“Litigation specialist Cameron Fyfe has been approached separately by two clients who are intending to interdict the Presiding Officer should an independence debate be mooted, and to seek a judicial review of any action taken by the Holyrood Parliament on the basis that it has no competence to do so. The legal aid board could even fund such an action as a test case in the public interest. On a bare reading of the Scotland Act, he says they seem to be entirely correct.”
Indy:
I didn't “insist that the power to conduct a consultative referendum on independence is reserved”. It’s quite clearly still an open question.
No it is not an open question. The fact that two un-named clients allegedly approached a lawyer to seek legal advice is neither here nor there. What legal advice did they receive - that is more to the point. Since we have heard nothing since September 2008 when that story was published I suggest that the advice they received was that the referendum was fully within the competence of the devolved parliament.
The draft bill on the referendum was after all published back in 2007. Neither the draft bill nor the national conversation has been challenged in the courts or anywhere else - I don't count people like you trying to cast doubt on it in the blogosphere as that is just a political tactic.
You clearly didn’t even read the rest of the article.
Cameron Fyfe: “I have thought for many years that even the arranging of a referendum would be outwith the ambit of the Scottish Parliament. The legislation is so unambiguous that the prospects of success would be high. For that reason we would be more than happy to pursue an action for a client wishing to do so.”
Prof. Anthony Carty: “An act of parliament is not law if it is outside the legislative competence of the Parliament. It is outside of that legislative competence if it relates to a reserved matter. A reserved matter is the union between Scotland and England. Having a referendum on whether this union should continue is clearly something which relates to a reserved matter.”
Yes I did read the article.
The professor says nothing pertinent. He does not state that a referendum would be outwith the competence of the parliament.
Cameron Fyffe does not say that he or anybody he represents will be pursuing any action.
It is, like so many things you post, a non-story.
non-story
–noun
1. any set of facts or circumstances which stubbornly refuses to articulate with the desired narrative.
2. an inconvenient truth, the acknowledgement of which would require the extraction of one's head from the proverbial sand.
Well if any of it is illegal, either the referendum or the consultation, then take it to judicial review. It's not difficult to do that.
Timing is everything, Observer.
"After removing the pin with his teeth, Agent SM753 gently rolled the small grenade bearing the words "Texas. v White" into the discussion, then crept stealthily away."
I shall look forward to it's testing immensely:-)
Timing is everything eh?
And from this we are supposed to deduce that the valiant defenders of the Union are preparing a watertight legal case to prevent the Scottish Government putting forward a referendum on independence.
I think not.
1. You have no case.
2. The real (elected) defenders of the Union (who have some understanding of politics) know that nothing could be more fatal to their case than the sight of a legal case designed to prevent the people of Scotland having the right to decide their own future.
For that reason however I would fully support any such moves and urge you to proceed with one, ignoring all advice to the contrary - indeed I would happily contribute to any fighting fund you may be setting up......