SNP Budget Fiasco

The SNP administration in Edinburgh suffered a humiliating defeat on Wednesday 28th January when their £33bn budget proposals were rejected by the Scottish Parliament, with the Greens of all parties holding the balance of power. The SNP government spent a frantic last day or two before the vote throwing money around as sweeteners for any party who might vote with them. Incidentally, this is money which comes mainly from the English taxpayer, which is presumeably why the Nats are so happy to waste it.

The Conservatives gained a £100m concession in return for voting with the administration, while the Greens, with a lowly two MSPs, made ludicrous demands, and then voted against the budget anyway because the demands were only partially met. With the budget defeated, both the SNP and the Conservatives are now casting the blame at Labour. I suspect this is more for public consumption than for the love of truth.

What happens next? The vote for the second attempt at passing the budget is scheduled for Wednesday 11th February, although it is possible that the SNP will wish to bring it forward. If the budget passes the second time (most likely) then it will simply be an embarassing blip for the SNP. If it fails, they have made it quite clear that Alex Salmond will resign as First Minister. Unfortunately such a respite would only be brief. MSPs would have 28 days to choose a new First Minister, failing which there will have to be an early Scottish Election. This is the SNPs trump card. They know that another election would favour them, probably giving them 3 or 4 extra seats, while Labour could be looking at losses of 6-8 seats. This would be a dream come true for the SNP, and a nightmare for Labour.

I very much doubt it will come to that. The likelihood is that the Greens will be thrown an irresponsible sweetener to bring them onside, while Labour will be too afraid of an election to try calling the SNPs bluff. With Labour abstaining and the Greens changing sides, only the LibDems would be left opposing the budget, which will probably have passed comfortably within two weeks. An election would be attractive for the SNP and Conservatives, who could both be looking at gains, but from a Conservative point of view it could be one year too soon. If the SNP government were to fall early in 2010, I believe the Conservatives would be the main beneficiaries at an ensuing election.

The Coroners and Justice Bill

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmbills/009/09009.i-v.html

The above is a link to a particularly pernicious bill currently seeking passage through the House of Commons. The apparent purpose of this bill is to pass as many unpopular and controversial laws as possible under the benign sounding auspices of reforming rules on inquiries.

There are two clauses in this bill which are of particular concern to those of us who value liberty (there are in fact a lot of clauses in this bill which will concern people, I am picking out two of the most outrageous). Firstly, clause 58 of the bill seeks to curtail freedom of speech. This clause would repeal the part of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (an anti free speech law) which protects the freedom to voice legitimate criticism of homosexuality. Whatever one's views are on the subject of homosexuality, or the criticism of it, there can be no excuse for trampling underfoot the ancient freedom of the British people to express their views freely.

Incitement to commit a crime has been a criminal offence in itself from time immemorial, but incitement to hatred - however well meaning - is no more than a thought crime. Since the 2006 Act this thought crime has been a part of life in the UK, but a Lords amendment, very sensibly introduced, prevented this Act from silencing the legitimate criticism of homosexuality. Now of course the Lords amendment did not go far enough - legitimate criticism of anything should be perfectly legal, whether we agree with the critic or the criticised - but it was a step in the right direction, a bastion of freedom standing against a tide of totalitarianism. But now the government, who have despised this amendment from the start, are seeking to abolish it in a very underhand fashion - this is the first serious flaw in the legislation. Dominic Grieve, who put in an excellent performance at the second reading on Monday 26 January said, quite pertinently, that "this would not be a new Labour justice Bill without some attempt to curtail freedom of speech". Of course that is exactly what this provision is. It turned the stomach to see Conservative maverick John Bercow give an apology for this piece of New Labour 1984ism in the second reading debate on Monday.

The second, and more deeply worrying aspect of this bill is clause 152. This draconian data sharing provision strikes at the heart of the Data Protection Principle, codified in Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 1998, that data gathered for one purpose must not be used for another purpose without the consent of the data subject. That principle is a major roadblock to creating a police state and, while it is important not to exaggerate the seriousness of any draconian Labour law, one must wonder why they insist on laying the foundations for a police state.

There is plenty more that could be written, but the post is assuming dissertation proportions already so I will have to cut it short. Will the Bill be passed? It will be tight. I think that unless there are substantial amendments the Bill will be opposed by the Conservatives and LibDems, but this still leaves us hoping for a sizeable Labour rebellion. Nevertheless, the Bill may have difficulty in passing through the Lords, and we can always hope that this draconian, deceitful, liberty attacking provision will not be passed onto the statute books.