RELEVANCE AND THE GENERAL ELECTION
 

It comes as no surprise that Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats have tried to carve up pre-election television debates among themselves, limiting the discussions to the three leaders of those parties – in spite of the fact that in Scotland the Conservatives and LibDems jockey for third and fourth places in the political hierarchy.
 
Their cry is that it is a personality contest among those who could become prime minister.
 
In fact, it is about serious parties having the opportunity to put forward their policies to try to win over the electorate.
 
That is why the argument that because Alex Salmond cannot become prime minister he should be excluded from these debates is nonsense. The general election debates give the voters the chance to hear what the various parties stand for, not merely to judge the personalities of the leaders.
 
And of course, the policies the parties put forward in Scotland must be relevant to the Scottish context.

That is why it is so bizarre that the Conservatives are starting their Westminster campaign with the issue of the National Health Service. For in Scotland, of course, the National Health Service is the responsibility of the Scottish government.

 

TONY BLAIR AND THE EU PRESIDENCY
 

So Tony Blair did not make it to the EU presidency, thank heavens.
 
I rejoice, not just because I believe that he is not only a liar and fantasist, but also an unconvicted war criminal.
 
And there is more to it than that.  
 
There is the whole Westminster attitude that Britain is somehow special and should really be leading the EU; with the concomitant attitude that small countries are somehow second rate and laughable.
 
Some of Blair’s promotion team gave the game away by describing him as a ‘big hitter’ and someone who could ‘stop the traffic in Beijing’.
 
Little did they realise that this attitude is anathema to many EU supporters, who believe in the ideal of partnership between all nations, not in the culture of the big celebrity that is now so popular throughout Britain.
 
It was really good to hear a German politician interviewed on radio, who said:  ‘We want to be a partnership nation, not a leadership nation.’
 
Of course, when Blair failed and a Belgian won the sneers of the London press were everything that could have been anticipated:  ‘What is Belgium for?’  ‘Should Belgium be abolished?’ ‘Who is this nonentity?’
 
Again, such sneering condescension is hardly good for winning friends and influencing people.  Scotland has long had to put up with it from Westminster politicians.  More recently, they have adopted the same attitude to Ireland and Iceland.
 
It will all catch up with them in the end.



 

LABOUR’S CYNICAL MESSAGE

 
Labour Member of Parliament has recently taken a swipe at the Scottish National Party.
 
Very interesting, for in a short paragraph she manages to be deceitful, cynical and hypocritical.
 
So where is the deceit?  And where is the cynicism and hypocrisy?  She says that ‘the SNP is now actively campaigning for Labour to lose the election.  That is why our message of “Vote SNP – Get Tory” is resounding on the doorsteps.’
 
First of all, she gives the impression that it is somehow wrong of the SNP to try to win the election in Scotland.  Of course we want to win.  But that means that we are trying to defeat every other party, including Labour.  If that hurts Anne Begg’s feelings, so be it.  But, of course,  it doesn’t hurt her feelings.  She knows perfectly well that Labour is doing exactly the  same and trying to defeat the SNP.
 
The difference between us is that Labour’s Anne Begg cynically and hypocritically tries to make an issue of it, while the SNP does not.
 
And Ms Begg well knows that a Tory victory – if so it turns out - will have nothing to do with voters voting SNP, but everything to do with how electors in England vote.
 
Indeed, if voters here want to cast a vote against such things as Trident nuclear weapons and the billions of pounds wasted on them, or against pursuing illegal wars, the only real choice they have in Scotland is to vote SNP.  Labour and Tories are both united in favour of Britain’s own weapons of mass destruction and the war in Iraq.
 
Moreover, if by any remote chance Ms Begg feels the need to level with the Scottish voters, she could point out that, on seven occasions between 1951 and 1992, Scottish voters gave Labour a majority of Scottish parliamentary seats, but we got a Tory government.
 
And that was not because of the Scottish national Party, but because of Tory strength in England.
 
 

BLAIR’S FINANCES
 

An interesting article appeared in The Guardian newspaper.  It was titled ‘Mystery of Tony Blair’s money solved’.  Here are some extracts.
 
A little-known loophole in UK company law is being used by Tony Blair to keep his finances secret, the Guardian can disclose.
 
Blair would normally have to publish company accounts detailing the millions flowing into his various commercial ventures since he stepped down from office in 2007.
 
But he has set up a complicated artificial structure which avoids the normal rule. In effect, he is getting the benefits of running a British company without the drawbacks of unwelcome publicity.
 
His main vehicle is a so-called limited partnership, christened Windrush Ventures No 3 LP.
 
Thanks to a gap in the Whitehall regulations, this entity is not required to publish any accounts. Such partnerships must normally disclose figures, or face criminal penalties.
 
Blair sidestepped the rules by inserting a second partnership as one of the notional partners, in a way the regulations do not cover.
 
This second partnership, Windrush Ventures No 2 LLP, is a so-called limited liability partnership, a type of entity only invented in 2000, which the rules have not been updated to mention.
 
The LLP in turn controls Blair's operating company, called Windrush Ventures Ltd, which runs his Mayfair office in Grosvenor Square.
 
The perfectly legal structures Blair has set up to achieve secrecy are so complicated that they have previously baffled analysts.
 
They involve 12 different entities, six in the Windrush structure and another half-dozen in a more recent parallel structure called Firerush.
 
Blair's spokesman told us: "This has been done on the basis of legal and accountancy advice throughout." He called the structures "simply an administrative vehicle established in order to allow Mr Blair's office sensibly to administer his different projects".
 
One name involved is Blair's lawyer Alexandra Harle, of solicitors Bircham Dyson Bell. She specialises in setting up various types of partnership. Observers estimate that fees for keeping up such complex structures exceed £15,000 a year.
 
When Blair refused to give any information, the Guardian ran a worldwide online competition as an experiment in crowd-sourcing, to find the best explanation for his schemes.
 
The winner was crusading accountant Richard Murphy, of Tax Research UK. He identified the small print of the Partnership (Accounts) Regulations 2008 as the key to the mystery.
 
"Memo to Peter Mandelson: this really is an abuse you should stop very soon," he says.
 
Murphy adds: "What is it that Tony is so keen to hide that he'll go to this length and this cost to do so?"
 
While the law requires Blair to publish limited accounts for parts of the Windrush entities, the finances of the master-partnership remain a secret. More than £6m can be seen to have cascaded down from the partnership into other companies. But details of the full revenues remain hidden.
 
Murphy claims this gives Blair all the advantages of an offshore "secrecy jurisdiction" while allowing him to state, correctly, that he remains a regular, onshore, British taxpayer.