Willie Rennie talks about domestic abuse and Bill Walker, Yes Scotland supporter tweets he has a "face you just want to hit with a shovel"

Willie Rennie went on Channel 4 News to talk about why he wants to see convicted violent abuser Bill Walker MSP (TM Better Nation) out of the Parliament. He talked about how he wanted to see a recall law to enable people like him to be forced out if they won't do the decent thing and resign. Walker, you may remember, was recently convicted of 23 counts of violent assaults against 3 ex wives and a stepdaughter over a 28 year period.

In a quiet corner of Twitter, some independence supporters were talking about him. Here's how the conversation goes:

Delightful, isn't it. Yes Scotland supporter Roseanne Stuart says that Willie has a face you want to hit with a shovel.

The equally pleasant LabForIndyInterNat, who said Willie had a grunge face like Albert Steptoe's did us a bit of favour though. He posted a video I hadn't seen before from an independence debate that Willie took part in in May. It's to Willie's credit that he was eminently reasonable, and a bit funny at times. But compare his approach to life to these rather sad people. He was really complimentary about Nicola Sturgeon, calling her one of the best ministers in the Scottish Government. I happen to agree with him on that as I have a lot of time for Nicola, but it shows a generosity of spirit which appears to be lacking on the Nationalist side at the moment, most obviously with Alex Salmond's comments that the pro UK stance is "against Scotland."

Anyway, if you have a spare hour and a half, it's worth a watch. 

UPDATE: I should add that a nationalist friend of mine has pointed me on Facebook to a couple of pretty vile tweets about Alex Salmond. This one is particularly unpleasant and I link to it just to show that this stuff happens on both sides and that wherever it does, it's bang out of order.

Like Nick Ross at the end of Crimewatch, I probably ought to add in a "don't have nightmares - most people, whatever side they are on, are pretty reasonable. Let's hope it stays that way. All of us who are involved in the debate need to try and bring light and respect into it as well as robust analysis.

Herald reveals SNP's savage Police cuts

When I was on Brian Taylor's Big Debate on Friday, one of the questions was on the 3000 civilian jobs expected to go after the creation of the single police force.

My answer was that it was hardly responsible government on the part of the SNP to say they'd meet their extra 1000 police officers pledge while cutting back office jobs. What's the point of having those extra officers if they're stuck in the office filling in forms and doing the intelligence work themselves. Years of work have gone into creating a civilian support structure so that bobbies can be out there on the beat catching criminals and the SNP are just discarding that.

They've been dead sleekit about the whole Police re-organisation. Their 2011 manifesto was very woolly on the subject and when they were pressed, Kenny MacAskill hinted that around 3 or 4 police forces would remain.He was clearly hedging his bets as every police force outside the major cities were against a single force and there was considerable concern in local communities about it. The minute the SNP got their majority, they reverted to centralising type and went for a single force.

MacAskill wrote to all police staff promising no compulsory redundancies and no changes to terms and conditions of employment last October. If today's Sunday Herald report is to be believed, both of these promises are not worth the paper they are written on. Special payments to police officers look to be under threat as well as £300 million in cuts over the next three and a half years.

Liberal Democrats have opposed a single force from the start. I wrote about it way back in January 2011. Apart from the fact that it will concentrate way too much power for law enforcement in the hands of two people, the Chief Constable and the Justice Secretary, there's going to be less local control over policing. You can't have one force properly meeting the diverse needs of communities from Stromness to Elgin to Kelso to Glasgow. It seems that our concerns are now being proven right.

Willie Rennie is quoted in the Herald article saying:

These cuts are even worse than we feared and what was set out in the outline business case. The costly upheaval of centralising our local police forces will have a big impact on the effectiveness of the police.

It is vital support staff that are to pay the price for the SNP's costly reorganisation. For years we have worked to create police forces with the right level of support staff to help our front-line officers do their jobs. The SNP are reversing that good work to pay for their obsession with centralising control. The Justice Secretary must come before Parliament to explain himself.

The thing is, if we can't believe a personal letter to staff from the Justice Secretary, how on earth can we believe anything else the SNP says to us about how independence will turn out? They're making all sorts of claims, EU membership being the prime example, that they have no evidence to substantiate and when someone tries to get to the truth under FOI legislation, they blow our money to maintain secrecy.

Again, as I said on the Big Debate the other day, the SNP have to remember that they have to govern for the next two years. People need healthcare, decent education and jobs. The Police cuts, and the broken promises associated with them, will be beginning to bite by the time the Autumn of 2014 comes round. I could do with knowing what exams my daughter is going to be sitting in 2015 sooner rather than later, and so could she. It might be all about independence for the SNP, but for the rest of us, life and its challenges and milestones go on. I was never going to vote for independence anyway, but if they screw up secondary education, nobody will have any confidence in their constitutional claims.

Let's not miss the point on Trident

Today's Telegraph reports that a new Government contract for nuclear reactors in submarines brings the renewal of Trident a lot closer and creates a rift with the Liberal Democrats.Well, I'm glad that they recognise our point of view on this, that we fought the last election on a policy of there being no like for like replacement of Trident. Can I suggest that before we get ourselves in a twist about this, we read what Liberal Democrat defence minister Nick Harvey wrote on Liberal Democrat Voice last month. The main decision will not be made until after the next General Election. We have seen to that.

I for one was never entirely comfortable with the notion of no "like for like" replacement of Trident. I have no desire to go shopping in the bargain basement for nuclear weapons. I actually don't think we have any business investing squillions in weapons of mass destruction at all. I want to see our entire nuclear weapons programme ended. No ifs, buts or maybes. Keeping a stock of these weapons is absolutely unjustifiable in my opinion. Why would you want to have missiles whose prime purpose is to cause widespread devastation, death and destruction amongst innocent civilians, people like you and me.

What those of us who feel the same way, whatever party they're in, should be doing is spending the next 3 years building a campaign against a nuclear deterrent in principle. That's going to be a huge issue in the next election. I am far from convinced that we'll be out of the economic mire by then and we will have better things to spend our money on than stellar guided wickedness. The Labour Party needs to think long and hard about whether it can justify it. They may well be haunted by their 1983 manifesto which advocated unilateral nuclear disarmament but we are in a different world now. If the biggest threat we face is from international terrorism, as the US and UK Governments would have us believe, then there is no point investing in more nukes, because they will do nothing to deal with that threat.

My Nationalist friends will no doubt rush to tell me that an independent Scotland wouldn't have any nuclear weapons. How selfish can you get?  As part of the UK, we Scots, who tend to be less convinced by the argument for these things, have a chance to bring about a change of policy which will rid the whole island of them. Narcissistic nationalist nimbyism isn't going  to help make the world non nuclear place. A UK without Scotland would, I think, be less likely to abandon nuclear weapons, leaving all on these islands worse off.

We know that the Tories like to scare people into accepting the unacceptable - just look at Theresa May's comments on the Draft Communications Data Bill (which is only a draft bill due to Nick Clegg putting his foot down). She's clearly trying to convince us that unless she's given unbridled power to snoop on all our Facebook messages, terrorists will run amok. Of course, the people who are really up to no good will be able to circumvent such measures. In the same way, they will build a frightening case for maintenance of the deterrent. The  opponents of nuclear weapons need to build a more compelling, evidence based case for getting rid of them. We don't have long - just around half a year further away than the Independence Referendum. Let's get to it.

Willie Rennie: We need Scottish Water funds now

Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie has asked John Swinney to pick up the phone and talk to Danny Alexander about releasing funds in Scottish Water to create jobs and investment in Scotland.

In the 2011 Holyrood election, Jeremy Purvis came up with the original and radical idea of turning Scottish Water into a Public Benefit Corporation, releasing a one off windfall of somewhere around £1.5 billion. This would be a real boost to the Scottish economy at a time when it is really needed and could create 100,000 jobs.

Liberal Democrats would spend the money on:

• £500 million to support Scottish business that grow and create jobs
• £250 million to install super-fast broadband in every part of our country
• £250 million to support science and technology research in Scotland’s universities
• £250 million for an Early Intervention Revolution to transform the lives of young people
• £250 million to transform public sector energy efficiency, micro-generation and reduce household bills through    energy efficiency


If we're looking at early intervention, we should look at a pupil premium - just look at the difference it's making down south. This is a policy Nick Clegg has championed and it's making a real difference as he said last month.

The odds can be beaten. It’s happening right here – New North Academy – where you’re working hard to close the gap and seeing real progress. It’s happening in great schools up and down the country. There are now 440 secondary schools – one in five - where disadvantaged pupils are doing better in their GCSEs than the national average for all children. A new generation of high poverty, high performance schools – with high expectations to match. Yes, they are in the minority, but a minority that proves the power of ambition, leadership, great teachers: a ‘sky’s the limit’ approach.

And that is what the Pupil Premium is for: to equip every school to support pupils from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, to help us build a more socially mobile Britain where ability trumps privilege, where effort trumps connections, where sharp elbows don’t automatically get you to the front.

It’s not the only tool in the Coalition’s box. We’re intervening at every stage of a child’s educational journey, from when they’re very young - for example, increasing early years education for two year olds in households feeling the squeeze as well as increasing it for all 3 and 4 year olds – to when they make the transition to adulthood, opening up internships and work experience placements. Giving employers cash bonuses to take on the young and unemployed. Providing disadvantaged university students with more financial support than before. Ensuring – through our income tax changes – that when you start your working life you keep more of the money you earn.

But, for me, the Pupil Premium remains the most important lever we have - and it’s in your hands.

You can read whole speech here. For me, it's a policy that sums up what Liberal Democrats are about - breaking down barriers and giving people the flexibility to decide how they do it, what works best for them. That's why some schools are spending the extra money on Summer schools, others on more classroom assistants and all sorts of innovative plans that work for their children.

But anyway, back to Scottish Water. The SNP, having dissed the idea last year, are now saying that it could happen - but only after independence. If it's a good idea, it's a good idea and we don't need to hang around for four years. Why not try to implement it now? Willie Rennie is a bright boy. He's hardly going to suggest John Swinney talks to Danny if he thought Danny would knock him back. He must think there's a realistic prospect of the Treasury agreeing to the plan.

If Swinney doesn't try to make it happen, it looks very much like he's storing it up to use as a bribe in the independence campaign. I actually think he's better than that. It would astonish me if he put narrow party interest above genuinely exploring a sensible idea. Mind you, he's constructing a tax quango now rather than coming up with innovative ideas for use of the new powers the Scotland Act gives. 

The SNP needs to govern for the needs of Scotland in the here and now. People need houses, jobs, a decent education, social care, good health care now. Everything the SNP does seems to be woven round independence which may well not even happen. 

Willie Rennie said pursuing the Scottish Water plan now was a "no brainer":

Unlocking the money in Scottish Water to re-invest in job creating projects is a no brainer.

We need this investment now to create 100,000 new jobs in broadband, science, energy efficiency and more but the SNP government seem content to sit on their hands and do nothing.

There appears to be no longer any objection in principle to reforming Scottish Water by the SNP. They have dropped their wild and inaccurate rhetoric that this would be ‘privatisation’ that we heard during last year’s election. People will ask one simply question, why wait?

The suspicion is that the SNP want to hold this money in reserve as an independence bribe, putting party politics above national interest.

I want Scotland to be able to invest this money now. CBI Scotland and the Institute of Directors want Scotland to be able to free up these funds. Danny Alexander is ready and willing to listen to any approach the SNP government makes.

John Swinney should pick up the phone and work with the Coalition Government to deliver this investment for Scotland.

So, Mr Swinney, please go talk to Danny. Today. Thanks very much.

John Swinney jumps the gun with new tax quango

"Everything the SNP does is a stepping stone towards independence".

These were the words of the former leader of the SNP's councillors in Glasgow, Allison Hunter, during the disastrous election campaign  which saw her group fail to form the administration.

I sighed a bit when I heard yesterday that John Swinney had announced the creation of a new Scottish revenue quango to collect a new landfill tax. What was wrong with giving it to local councils I have no idea, even if HMRC were going to be more expensive. I'd like to see more about that, some more detailed costings. I wonder if this is like the £250 million that they SNP claim to have saved on the new Forth Crossing. Public sector projects have a habit of costing a lot more than planned.

I think we need more in terms of new ideas and less in terms of creating, in fact, replicating, the machinery of bureaucracy.

But Swinney gave us a glimpse of his real motives:

With full fiscal responsibilities, we could tailor policies to match the aspirations of the Scottish people and deliver competitive advantages… These are the opportunities opened up by independence.”

The SNP are talking like they have already won the referendum, even though polls suggest that they are far from close to a majority. Alex Neil on Question Time last night was talking about how "Independence Day" would be in 2016.

It seems they've already decided how it's all going to pan out. Allison Hunter, John Swinney and Alex Neil may well find that the Scottish people don't agree with them. I'm making no predictions because I'm not taking anyone's vote for granted. I will be campaigning our socks off because I think we're much better off staying in a reformed union than we would be as an independent country.

There's a feeling that the SNP are marking time - but now is the time where we need ideas, vision and passion. People need them now, not in 4 years' time. I sometimes think that the SNP have forgotten what they were elected for last May. It wasn't just for a referendum on independence, it was to look after health, education, the legal system, transport, the environment, housing and we need them to do it now.

Willie Rennie talked about the lack of SNP vision yesterday:

Mr Swinney didn’t set out today a grand new vision for the use of these new tax powers.

“Instead, what got him excited was the prospect of setting up a new tax office quango with all the potential costs and extra administrative burden on business that come with it.

“He reluctantly accepted the need to look at Scottish Liberal Democrat proposals on the potential use of the taxes for high street regeneration, brown field redevelopment and energy efficiency."

The Scotland Act gives so much scope and plenty new powers. We need to make sure we can make best  use of them, not just concentrate on the government architecture of an independent Scotland which might never come to pass.

"It is not normal to break up a modern successful country in order to be small"

So said Willie Rennie in the debate on Scotland's future yesterday. The Holyrood Parliament was discussing the  following motion:

That the Parliament agrees that Scotland should be an independent country; sees it as the responsibility of this generation to hand over a better country to the next generation than the one inherited, and believes that it is vital for the people of Scotland to take full responsibility for the decisions about the future of Scotland.

It will come as no surprise to learn that the Holyrood Parliament, with an SNP overall majority, passed this motion. It strikes me as strange that they were even debating it, given that the real decision will be made by the people in the Referendum around 27 months' time.

I am always getting told by people who support independence that nobody ever advances anything positive in favour of the UK staying together. Well, Willie Rennie made a good case in the debate. Here is his speech in full.

What I don't get is why those who want to split up the UK are so sure that we wouldn't enter into illegal wars. Spain did. Don't you remember that rainy press conference I think at George W's Texas ranch where the Spanish PM stood shoulder to shoulder with Blair and Bush? The idea that bad things wouldn't happen because we'd be independent is a fallacy. There are corruption scandals and abuses of power all over the world in big countries and small. What I want to see is a Scotland where liberal values flourish - and that can be achieved either way. I just want to see us concentrate our energies on building the sort of society that we speak about in the Preamble to our Constitution which begins:

The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives.

You've got to admit, it's a bit more stirring than the Declaration of Cineworld. 

Anyway, over to Willie

Drew Smith made a very valid point. Those on the SNP benches who condemn people who have a different point of view should be a bit more temperate in their language. I have never said and have never believed that Scotland is too poor and too stupid. I have never held that view. I have always believed in devolving more power to Scotland. I have campaigned for that for my whole life. Inherent in that position is a belief in Scotland’s abilities to do much more. However, that does not mean that I want to be separate.

The SNP often says that it is normal to be a small country, which I do not deny. Denmark, Norway, Ireland and many other countries are small. However, it is not normal to break up a modern successful country in order to be small. I hear muttering from SNP members. We are going through tough times now, but to say that the United Kingdom is not a modern successful country is to decry what we have achieved together as the United Kingdom.

Mark McDonald: Willie Rennie says that he believes that more powers should be devolved. What powers does he believe should not be devolved? How does he define those powers and will he explain why such decisions should not be entrusted to the people of Scotland?

Willie Rennie: Mark McDonald misses the point in the language that he uses. I believe in sharing, partnership and working together when that is appropriate. I will describe later some of the things that we have done well together as the United Kingdom.

We should devolve more of the domestic agenda and we should have much more control over our finances, so that we can do things here and we are not limited by other people’s priorities. That does not mean that I want everything here but, just because I do not want everything here, that does not mean that I do not trust Scots to make decisions. The SNP completely misunderstands that fundamental point.

Kenneth Gibson said that we have compared Scotland to Bangladesh and other countries. The problem is that no modern successful country wants to break itself up. The reality is that all the countries that have broken themselves up after the second world war have been involved in communism or war. Of course, I am not saying that Scotland is a war-torn country; I am saying that it is the exact opposite. Because we are modern and successful, we should not break up the United Kingdom. The countries that broke up had nothing left before they broke up. That was why it was easy for them to break up.

The United Kingdom has 15,000 treaties with other countries. We have global regulations and we are a complex organisation that is connected with the rest of the world. Breaking that up would be difficult, which is why nobody else has done that. No other modern successful country has broken up.

Another key argument of the SNP is about control and the belief that, just by taking all the decisions ourselves, we would somehow have control. That ignores the fact that we have global markets and that we rely on co-operation and partnership. We want to influence other people, which is why we pool sovereignty.

We want to influence other people, which is why we come together to make the better world that we all want. Just doing things ourselves will not suddenly make things better. England will not suddenly disappear if Scotland goes independent—England will still be there and will still be a force. As long as that is the case, I want to influence our neighbours and work together in partnership.

I will look at some of the things that we have achieved together. We have one of the biggest international development budgets that the United Kingdom has ever had. It is a force for good throughout the world and we are respected throughout the world for what we achieve in international development. I do not want to lose influence over that budget. Despite the Iraq war, I agree with Humza Yousaf about the Iraq war—it was the wrong decision and it was illegal. However, I reach a different conclusion from him. I want to influence what is one of the strongest defence forces in the world and one of the biggest defence forces in Europe.

In foreign affairs, we have embassies throughout the world that have a big impact on the rest of the world. Let us maintain our influence on them.

Of course, we do not get it all our own way—I understand that—but it is much better to be involved, to be in partnership, to work together and to influence what our neighbours are doing. What is great about the United Kingdom is that we take the rough with the smooth and we work together in partnership.

For us, home rule is about devolving much more power to the Scottish Parliament. We have a strong record that we have built over a long period.

We worked together with the Labour Party to deliver the Scottish Parliament, the Scotland Act 1998 and many more powers. With that, we get the best of both worlds: we can work in partnership and have more control while maintaining our influence.

That is the best of the United Kingdom and that is what we should maintain.