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.

Rennie and Swinney on the Budget - a masterclass in doing politics better

This week saw the passage of the Scottish Budget. For the first time, John Swinney had the ability to draw up his figures, tell his overall majority to vote for them and barely involve any other parties in the Scottish Parliament.

He could have done that, but he didn't. He actively sought input from the other parties. It takes two to tango, though and in the event the only other person who wanted to get onto the dance floor (why, oh why, did I start on that line of thinking? I feel sick already) was Willie Rennie.

By doing so, he was able to make the budget better, getting extra funding for colleges which reversed about half of the cuts imposed by the SNP Government and more money directed towards tackling youth unemployment. I go on about housing all the time, so I was pleased that he'd pushed that issue and secured extra investment from the SNP.

I am glad we voted for the Budget. In all honesty, I really don't like abstaining. You're either for something or against it and you just have to make that judgement call. Labour and the Tories sat grimly on the sidelines and achieved nothing. Every single year, the Liberal Democrats have managed to secure more money for our priorities - usually to do with education and the economy.

What was noticeable was the praise John Swinney had for Willie Rennie in his summing up speech, saying that:

The most realistic speech today came from Willie Rennie, who made the fairest contribution to the debate. He gave an account of the financial pressures that the Government is under and acknowledged that they arise out of the settlements that have been decided at Westminster. He marshalled the issues about which he had been concerned and had made representations to me during the budget process. He was dealt with in the budget process in exactly the same way as every other party was dealt with, so, on the basis of what he said, none of them can have any complaint about the process.

Mr Rennie's speech was the type of contribution that Parliament should expect from an Opposition politician, because he did not turn up, moan about the reductions in public expenditure, and demand funding for a bottomless pit of commitments, which is what the Labour Party and the Conservatives have done today.

I'm sorry, but I really can't resist mentioning that the turning up and moaning approach is exactly what Swinney's colleagues do in Westminster, and the SNP in opposition in the first eight years of the Holyrood parliament pretty much opposed everything, noisily.

Another important issue raised by Tavish Scott and Liam McArthur was that of the Air Discount Scheme for the islands and northern Scotland. With my experience of living in Caithness, I know exactly how important that is. Swinney has agreed that SNP cuts to the scheme should be looked at again and so the two Liberal Democrats will, I'm sure, continue to make the strongest representations to have work related air travel included.

Willie Rennie also highlighted on Good Morning Scotland yesterday that there was £20 million in the Budget specifically for improvements to women's prisons. This is well overdue, after the damning reports on Cornton Vale.

The SNP know fine that Willie Rennie speaks his mind - he's agreed to support minimum alcohol pricing and now the Budget and spoken out against the dreadful Sectarian Bill. He's genuine and he doesn't play silly games.

Both Rennie and Swinney come out of the Budget process with remarkable credit. Ok, so we didn't get everything we wanted. but our vote was a positive step to doing politics a bit better. I think it's the sort of politics people want to see - honest, genuine and constructive.

Here's the e-mail Willie sent to party members on Budget night:

Dear Caron
I am sending this short note to update you on the outcome of the Budget voted on in the Scottish Parliament today. My colleagues and I have been in detailed discussions with Scottish ministers for some time to secure improvements to the Budget. Today saw some fruits from that work. As a result the Liberal Democrat MSPs were able to support the Budget. It’s not perfect by any means, but good enough to vote for. You may have seen in the news that the Scottish Government has produced, at the eleventh hour, extra money for colleges to reverse their proposed cut in student support and increase the money going into colleges. You will know that, week after week since September, I have challenged the First Minister and his government to do the ‘right thing’ for colleges. I have even shown him where he has the extra money available from the UK Government to make it happen. This year is the year when Scotland’s colleges need us most, and we need colleges most. They give opportunity for all, they tackle social inequality and they work for every community. That is why Liberal Democrats put them front and centre for support in this Budget. That pressure has paid off. Thousands of students will benefit. I am also pleased to say that we have had some success in persuading the SNP to increase investment in affordable housing. This is something that many party members have asked me to give high priority to. The same is true for early intervention which has been a longstanding campaign for our party. It doesn’t stop here. Our challenge over the months ahead is to make sure that the Scottish Government is fully focused on tackling the economy and unemployment. I will keep you up to date as we go forward. Best wishes,
Willie Rennie MSPLeader, Scottish Liberal Democrats

Swinney squirms as Rennie quizzes him on SNP Calman dithering and delay

I've just been taking a wee look at yesterday's Scotland Bill Committee meeting at Holyrood which heard evidence from John Swinney and Bruce Crawford from the SNP Government.

Willie Rennie, the Liberal Democrat member of that committee, took them to task for the way in which they have behaved throughout the whole Calman process. They did next to nothing (and then, out of the blue, they come out with a whole series of demands that they hadn't thrown into the mix before.

To me, it's a bit like they're treating the constitutional process like putting up one of these pop up tent things, rather than actually looking at this rationally and with consideration.

When Calman was set up in 2007, the SNP had absolutely nothing to do with it. Had I been leading the party, I'd have made sure that I put a clear case to the Commission for exactly what additional powers they wanted. I'd have tried to get into the debate with ideas for greater powers.

But, no. The only engagement the Government had with Calman came in 2009 after they were dragged kicking and screaming to it by Jeremy Purvis as part of the Budget negotiations. As Tavish Scott explained at the time in an e-mail to party members:

The SNP have changed their position and will now engage with the Calman Commission. This is the best way to get extra powers for the Scottish Parliament. It will allow, for example, the Forth Bridge to be paid for without jeopardising every other transport project in Scotland. Professor John Curtice told the BBC on Sunday that this concession could be the "most interesting long-term consequence of all of this." 

At the time, though, the stuff the SNP Government sent to Calman was fairly limited - to do with tax powers anda report that came out of their National Monologue. Nothing about broadcasting, or the sea bed or the likes.

Fast forward a bit to the formation of the Coalition Government and Mike Moore as Secretary of State was seeking consensus on implementing the Calman Powers. Our normally sweet and mild mannered Finance Secretary Mr Swinney was talking about it being a poison pill. When the Bill was announced, he called it dangerous, and one of his colleagues described it as a dog's dinner.  So the SNP were against the Scotland Bill before they were for it, voting for the Legislative Consent Memorandum in March and their MPs didn't oppose it in the Commons last week.

Their thinking seems to be quite muddled. With one hand they say the Scotland Bill is dangerous, yet they support it. They want the borrowing powers but they also want to reserve the right to give the Coalition a kicking for not including powers they've only asked for in the last few weeks. It would be much more credible if they'd engaged with this from the start. Coming in at this stage with a list of demands seems to be a bit opportunistic, to be honest. Why didn't they want their ideas subjected to considered scrutiny by both Calman and the House of Commons and Parliament? You have to wonder.

David McLetchie asked Bruce Crawford if the Government would be filing formal amendments to the Bill in Holyrood and Crawford indicated that they probably wouldn't be. They know that without the Bill, they don't get the borrowing powers that they want - but, if the whole package was so dangerous and canine evening meal-ish,and they felt it wasn't in Scotland's best interests, why don't they oppose it.

The chomping sound you hear is the SNP trying to have its cake and eat it.

For a party that's so into the idea of independence, their grasp of detail, as we saw from Anne McLaughlin's knowledge of how many air bases we'd need in an independent Scotland is pretty ropey. It's not Anne's fault - the party as a whole doesn't seem to have thought it all through.

They've got themselves in a bit of a bourach, really, and Willie Rennie showed their lack of clarity up.

Purvis' practical solutions for business illuminate economy debate

Here are three of the four particpants in the last of the four Scotland on Sunday debates which took place yesterday. John Swinney, whose elbow you can just see on the left,  Labour's Andy Kerr, Conservative Derek Brownlee and Liberal Democrat Jeremy Purvis lined up to quiz each other and take questions from the audience and online observers on the economy.

These debates have generally been useful. Held far out enough from the heat at the nucleus of the election campaign, they've been generally good humoured and good at highlighting the difference in approach between the parties. There was a bit of needle between Nicola Sturgeon and Jackie Baillie last week, and yesterday there was a whispered conversation between Andy Kerr and John Swinney after which both of them looked a bit grumpy, though.

The issue with them being so far out is that they are before the manifesto launches so parties are keeping a certain amount of their powder dry. They also don't have to answer any uncomfortable questions as to how much their plans are going to cost.

The debates were moderated by Kenny Farquharson, the editor of Scotland on Sunday, who did a really good job. He had enough needle to get them out of their comfort zones and just the right amount of menace to try to drag some skeletons out of their closets.

Like the others, yesterday's debate started with two minute opening statements, which is enough to give the highlights and not long enough for elaborate waffle. Then they each got to ask one question of each other. After that, questions from those watching both in the room and online were taken before a one minute closing statement.

Thanks to Andy Kerr's car breaking down, the thing started half an hour late. That might excuse what was a very poor performance from him. He spent his time slagging the SNP, most viciously on the cancellation of the Glasgow Airport Rail Link, which prompted the mutual grumpiness or saying not much. I must have misunderstood what he said about Labour's manifesto not being costed because there were plenty of organisations who would do it for them post publication. That attitude certainly seems typical of Labour - we've seen the financial mess they've left us to clear up at Westminster level and locally in places like Edinburgh and Fife. Bung it on the credit card and sort it out later seems to be their mantra. Lallands Peat Worrier, by the way, is wickedly and hilariously cruel about his performance, so go and have a look later.

I was quite surprised to see Tory Derek Brownlee readily agree that Scotland should be included in the consultation on Corporation Tax that the UK Government is having with Northern Ireland, saying that if these changes were possible in one part of the UK, it would be foolish to rule it out for others.

John Swinney was competent but uninspiring. He was lucky nobody reminded him, on a question about whether the "tartan tax" could be used to avoid cuts, that he was the one who had let it lapse without telling the Parliament.

I know Jeremy Purvis is one of mine, but I was really impressed with him yesterday. I was sitting there in the audience like a proud parent. Ok, so I'm not nearly old enough to be his mother but I did assess him on his candidate approval day in the run up to his election in 2003 and it do tend to beam with pride when any of my candidates do well in things, as a fair few have.

Out of all of them his language was clearest and his proposals most practical. He talked about preventing a power grab to the centre, instead providing joined up solutions at regional level. About regional development banks to give practical help to businesses. The reason for the change is simply the massive and unhelpful bureaucracy often faced by business. He illustrated his point with a real life example of a textile company passed from pillar to post round various quangos, none of which would give them the help that they actually needed. He talked about making sure Scotland had the infrastructure and things like broadband connectivity to boost business and growth and ultimately jobs.

What was interesting from him was an admission that the Council Tax is here to stay for this Parliament at least so it doesn't look like Local Income Tax will be in our manifesto this time. However he did say that we were bringing forward proposals to make the Council Tax system fairer and that its ultimate replacement would be fair and based on ability to pay.

Of the four debates so far, justice and health have been my favourites, but I guess that's not surprising as they're the subjects which interest me most. I'm going to try to go to a few more such events as the campaign hots up - if any one lets me and my serial tweeting habit in, of course.....

Did Labour know about SNP tax power betrayal?

I was pretty livid when I read that the SNP Government had given away the Scottish Parliament's tax raising powers for the next three years by failing to pay the £50,000 a year maintenance charge to HMRC for them to do the work that meant that the power could be used. 

That power was specifically voted for by the people of Scotland in the 1997 referendum, so you would think that any government would ensure that the ability to use it was retained. Otherwise you would lay yourself open to accusations of betraying the wishes of the people. As a party the SNP moans that the Parliament didn't let it have the referendum on independence, an idea that's barely supported by a third of Scots asked in opinion polls, yet in Government it sees fit to ignore the stated will of almost two thirds of Scottish people, expressed in the ballot box.

It's not as if this power has ever been used, but in the current economic climate it might have been a good idea to retain it. It may be that using it would have been useful to retain a service that we Scots value that might otherwise fall victim of the spending cuts. I actually urged Tavish Scott and the Scottish Liberal Democrats to look at ways in which we could use the tax raising power in that way in a post a few months ago. Tavish has been the only politician in the last 12 years to seriously suggest a way in which the power could be used when he called for a reduction in income tax of 2p to create a stimulus in 2008. For John Swinney to have tied the hands of the next Government in such irresponsible fashion is unforgivable as far as I'm concerned.

And the SNP's defence - more bullish than I think is appropriate, to be honest. I would have been able to cope with this better if it had simply been an oversight from John Swinney. After all, he is the Minister for Everything. From the BBC report linked to above:

The Scottish government spokesman said that it did not advocate increasing income tax for people in Scotland and "spend yet more millions on a limited tax power which none of the major parties wanted to use".

I'm annoyed that the SNP could not find the comparatively small sum of £50,000, out of a budget of £30 billion, to retain the ability to use this power. It's not a huge price to pay. To me it seems a bit like paying our AA membership. I sigh every year when I see the subscription come out of our bank account because we hardly ever call them out. But there was one time I really did need them. Otherwise I might still be in that layby on the A92. 

I'm really annoyed that John Swinney has tied the hands of the next Government at a time when this might have been a useful power to have to safeguard things that we Scots value. It’s to me symptomatic of that SNP habit of whinging it doesn’t have enough powers and failing to keep in mind the powers it does have.  Is that anywhere near the ball park of what any of you are thinking?

To me this is symptomatic of the usual pattern of behaviour we've seen from the SNP - excessive whinging about powers it doesn't have, while failing to make full use of the powers at its disposal. I think that they should have entered into negotiations with HMRC in 2007 when the previous agreement expired. Any new Government coming in will probably find that it's going to cost a great deal more than it would have done then to sort things out so that Scots can have the powers they voted for.

Andrew has looked at the issue of whether John Swinney lied to Parliament. I wonder, though, if it's just the SNP at fault here.  The money was due to HMRC, run by the Treasury. Given that so many Scottish MPs were at senior levels in the Labour Government, not least as Prime Minister and Chancellor, I want to know if they knew what was going on and what action they took. At the very least, I would have thought that Alistair Darling should have written to John Swinney spelling out the consequences of failure to pay. And if it was so important, why didn't Labour make it public? Tell the Scottish people or at the very least Scottish MPs what was going on?

This is such an important issue that I feel it merits enquiries in both Parliaments so that the Scottish people can see who was responsible for selling their rights down the river. 

Holyrood: The Budget Battleground

Last year the SNP Government was only able to get its budget through after a highly dramatic Holyrood showdown. Will the various groups in the Scottish Parliament be able to conduct themselves in a constructive manner this year, working together to pass a budget that meets the needs of the people of Scotland? After reading the articles in today's Sunday Herald where the Party Leaders set out their positions, I'm not convinced.

We need more from John Swinney than what amounts to a plaintive wail that the big boys in London ran away with our money. If I in my own household budget have to deal with the impact of Labour's recession, then why shouldn't John Swinney with the Scottish budget. It's not pleasant, but you just have to get on with it, work out what's important, and stop whinging that it's all someone else's fault.

Let's look closer at Swinney's boasts that the Scottish Government has delivered a surplus of £2.6 billion over 3 years. I don't usually have much good to say about how Labour have managed the country's finances but you can't really compare the Holyrood and Westminster budgets in terms of responsibility. I mean, how many banks did John Swinney save? To say that the current economic crisis strengthens the arguments for independence is patently ridiculous. Look at the real pain that the Irish people go through as their Government made huge cuts make monstrous cuts in public spending in 2 emergency budgets last year.

As for Iain Gray, he concentrated most of his space on slating the SNP over the cancellation of GARL and blinding us with figures which supposedly show that the SNP has had plenty money but it just hasn't used it wisely. His words just seem to be an extension of Labour's inability to talk honestly about the financial mess we're in on a UK level. He also fails to recognise that one of the factors making things worse for Scottish businesses is London Labour's abject failure to properly regulate the banks, to use our ownership of them to keep them lending to sustainable businesses. Labour wants to see an extension of the concessionary travel scheme to those on the minimum level of DLA and more investment in housing as well as the reinstatement of GARL.

And still the Salmond-Goldie love-in continues as, get this, all the Tories want, their big idea, when Scotland's businesses and households are struggling, is that the Government should publish online any expenditure over £25,000. That's it. How is that going to help? The Tories are very keen on this kind of pledge. I remember Boris Johnson saying during his election campaign that he would publish every pennny he spent on his website. I'm not sure he's delivered on that in any meaninfgul form.

Patrick Harvie says some good things about investment in renewables and insulation but he'd be more than happy to ruin the economy of Fife by cancelling the vital new Forth crossing.

In contrast to all of the above, Tavish Scott's piece is mainly full of positive, practical stuff. That F word - fairness, highlighted by Nick Clegg this week, a principle of virtually every Liberal Democrat election campaign I've ever been involved in, is at the fore of what Tavish is saying.

First, he wants an end to the top earners in the public sector being able to award themselves big bonuses while those at the bottom end of the pay scale get nothing. He wants action on paying six figure salaries to doctors who also work in the private sector. I agree with him that if we're paying that sort of salary, we deserve to have them full time. If they want to work part time in the private sector, then their salaries should be reduced accordingly.

He says that urgent investment is needed to get young people into work, highlighting a 45% increase in claims for Job Seekers Allowance among young people.

He also highlights practical examples of how businesses are suffering, being turned own for credit even when their proposals are sound, being dealt with remotely by people who don't know their history and their business.

It's notable that Tavish is the only leader to report on constructive discussions with John Swinney which seem to be going somewhere. I like the fact that he's chosen to emphasise that dialogue.

Labour and the SNP don't escape focused criticism, but Tavish is much more positive in his presentation than the others. Labour gets it for its myriad economic failures, the SNP for the failure of its Scottish Futures Trust which "continues to consume millions of pound but still builds absolutely nothing."

If I have to say one thing about the Liberal Democrat proposals, is that they don't mention at all one of the biggest issues to me - housing. When you have some local authorities and housing associations able to house barely a fifth of the people who need housing, when large families are crammed into 2 bedroomed houses, often in hellishly poor conditions, damp, with inadequate heating with no hope of a move to something bigger, when you have families in bed and breakfast accommodation because there's nowhere else to house them, something has to be done. Tavish understands this. When I and other bloggers interviewed him just after he became leader, he wanted to see more invevstment in social housing to save the construction jobs haemorrhaging during the recession. I don't think that this can wait for action - we need to do more to help these people now. Only then will we have a budget for all of Scotland.

The first act of the budget drama plays out this week. Let's hope that the process is more serious production and less pantomime farce.