Philosophical caterwauling
You would have been hard pushed to spot it amid the caterwauling, but there was a fair dose of philosophical debate underpinning .
Wendy Alexander posed the latest in a weekly series of questions designed to claim that the Scottish Government鈥檚 budget will deprive funds from a vulnerable section of the community.
Alex Salmond pointed out that he hadn鈥檛 removed the cash. He had removed the central ring-fencing which obliged local authorities to spend money in particular ways. He invited Ms Alexander to trust local authorities, including Labour ones.
Now there will, eventually, be a mundane, pragmatic answer to these queries. That will surface when, by the passage of time, it is proved whether or not the vulnerable in society have been assisted.
For now, it is a philosophical dispute. Central government provides the bulk of local funding.
Should central government therefore direct, in detail, the disbursement of that money? Or should central government withdraw from ring-fencing, striking a deal - as SNP Ministers have done - which commits to achieving certain specified outcomes, without specifying the precise means?
Who has the mandate? Central government which dispenses the funds? Or local government which runs the services? Who takes responsibility? Who takes charge? Who takes the blame if things go wrong?
In essence, the same argument underpins the block grant which funds Holyrood. And the same complaints are levied.
The Treasury provides an overall sum derived from a calculation based upon English spending patterns. But Scotland does not have to follow those precise spending patterns.
It can spend as it chooses, free even from the constraint of outcome agreements with the exception of statutory duties, for example to educate the young. However, today鈥檚 philosophical debate also has a rough, contemporaneous element.
That is the issue of whether opposition parties will back the SNP Government鈥檚 budget.
This sequence of complaints from Labour is designed, as they would see it, to expose substantive gaps in that budget. Labour this afternoon said they were being invited to sign 鈥渁 blank cheque鈥.
The SNP version is that Labour is gearing itself to vote against the budget, regardless. Of the others, both the Tories and the Liberal Democrats are raising principled objections.
It remains possible at this stage that the budget might be rejected by Parliament, obliging Ministers to make concessions before returning to the chamber for a further vote.
Alternatively, they might strike one or two deals in advance in order to win sufficient support.
I'm 
Comments
The budget should be ratified quickly so that we dont lose the confidence of the scottish economy.
Let the SNP sink or swim with the calculations they have made, then we will all see what theyre made of
In principle, I would like to see outcome agreements and an end to ring fencing for some other areas of the public sector, and most noticeably further and higher education. Current funding formulas and ring fenced projects are cumbersome and inefficient. Outcome agreements with universities and colleges would enable greater institutional freedom, but would also mean it is easier to hold Principals to account for their institutions performance.
Hilarious, wendy alexander doesn't trust councils, even labour ones, to manage their books.
Pot and Kettle surely!
Salmond was at the absolute top of his game today.
Wendy can not accept anything has changed with local authority funding and constantly compares like with nothing like it.
Nicol was dreadful, even with his London master watching from upon high.
Annabelle was measured and delivered well, as usual, but the Tories really need to branch out from the 'Crime, crime and more crime' line just to appease blue rinse and Daily Mail readers.
On the whole significantly better that PMQs.
I hope the opposition block this budget and force a new election - it was a travesty that with almost 10% of ballots
spoiled in the election, that a government was allowed to be formed.
This would decide the true future of this great country as it would be an election for or against the union (and not an anti-iraq vote)
Or it could go to the wire and become a vote of confidence ...which would shake up the system again.
'Post code lottery' is just another phrase for 'local democracy'. If you drive decision making power down to the local level, then different localities with different priorities will make different decisions. And if the people in those localities don't like those decisions, they'll vote to change their councillors.
Which is how it should be.
Britain as a whole - and Scotland, too - is vastly over centralised, with a 'one size fits all' approach to pretty much everything. But Scotland is a hugely diverse country, and solutions which work in the central belt are totally unsuitable for the highlands and islands (and vice versa).
Is it a 'postcode lottery' that people in central Edinburgh have to pay to park their cars outside their houses, while we in rural Galloway don't? No. Rural Galloway is different from central Edinburgh, and our different local governments elected by our different local electorates reflect that difference.
As they should.
Let's be clear about this. Anyone who is against 'postcode lotteries' is, fundamentally, opposed to democracy.
Yes it could go to a vote of confidence or in the case of the BritNats a vote of political suicide. Mainly because that is an outcome they cannot survive. To put it simply a challenge to the SNP Scottish Governments authority to bring in a new type of politics in the country they see as being the Scottish Peoples land, would result in a clear majority SNP Scottish Government able to bring forward a referendum on our countries future.
That is something the halfwit Hen Broon is trying to deny not only Scotland, but also the other countries within these islands, in the matter of the EU Constitutional changes.
The principles of democracy dictates national and local councillors should be responsible and accountable for delivery of services. And that their performance should be transparent.
I have yet to see any politician actually living by these principles.
"This sequence of complaints from Labour is designed, as they would see it, to expose substantive gaps in that budget. Labour this afternoon said they were being invited to sign 鈥渁 blank cheque鈥.
The SNP version is that Labour is gearing itself to vote against the budget, regardless. Of the others, both the Tories and the Liberal Democrats are raising principled objections."
OK Brian-since you are a political guru, pls let us know which version YOU go for!
Aren't your piles playing up, with all the sitting on the fence you do? or are your Bean Broadcasting Corporation masters still pulling your strings?
Ring fencing doesn't work. It brings with it needless spending of money in inappropriate areas to the detriment of local needs. Witness how some councils spend vast sums to rid themselves of their obligation on often useless projects, simply to satisfy the rules. For Wendy to play the 'vulnerable two year olds' card was simply laughable. I thought we'd moved on from 'the SNP ate my hamster' mentality.
Unless I missed the point, Simon Brookes comment seems silly. Fine, have local decision making but it wouldn't be very fair if you had really extreme inequalities in budget between different areas. How could you justify say, having 10 years better life expectancy in one town than another town 10 minutes down the road?
I have to agree with Scott about the Tory obsession with 'crime, crime and more crime.'
Annabel Goldie has a good brain and excellent delivery, but what she and others have to realise is that every time they mention crime and the need for new laws and restrictions they are adding fuel to the 'fear factor' which has dominated life in the UK since the Thatcher years, reaching a zenith when Howard used prison sentences, home leaves etc as tools to buy popularity in the hope of getting Thatchers job.
All politicians should be trying to douse the fires of fear before idiots and those not in the least bit stupid use fear to turn the UK into a camera, microchip orientated police state, all in the name of keeping us 'safe'.
BTW, school kids are now so 'safe' after 20 years of motherly cotton wooling that knife proof vests and school blazers are being produced, posters about knife searches are appearing in schools with 'security' staff in others, obesity, rudeness and lack of social skills are just some of the prices we are paying for childhood 'safety', all brought about by the exaggeration of the fear factor for short term political gain.
Annabel, I'm sure you can come up with more positive, eye-catching policies than crime. You are a born leader, for all our sakes, lead.
This is now at least the 4th time Wendy has asked the same question at FMQs on seperate weeks.
ie "Why has ring fencing been removed from "
She has been given an answer every week by the First Minister.
Dare I say it, the same answer every week, it was a valid answer the first time, it continues to be a valid answer no matter how often she repeats the question.
On the subject of questions, there is one she has failed to answer herself. can I remind you Brian of your post on 19th Dec
Quote "PS: I have, of course, been making daily checks re progress in the Electoral Commission鈥檚 inquiry into the funding of Wendy Alexander鈥檚 leadership campaign."
Any news of the progress of these daily checks ?
This afternoon, Radio 4's Costing The Earth featured the urban rat and it's effect on British society. The problem with them is that there is no co-ordination on their control from central government.
So it is with the SNP. On some issues the central authority has to give co-ordination and guidance. If the direction from the centre is too detailed, both democracy and local initiative suffer. Too loose and the post-code lottery is the result. I think the SNP has strayed too far from the centre way.
Q - "why has ring fencing been removed?"
A - because the government trusts the local authorities to make the best decisions for their local areas.
I dont even know how wee Wendy gets up the nerve to ask a question on the budget at all considering her own record on finance.
Wendy Alexander seemed proud to pronounce on today鈥檚 Politics Show her up and coming London visit with her newly acquired bosom buddies, the Scottish Conservatives and the Scottish Liberals; I would have been more impressed with such collaboration in the past and even presently had this been in the interests of Scotland, in opposition to such an act that has all the characteristics of a ragbag coalition whose sole purpose seems to be the derailing of the legally elected Government of Scotland.
I think Wendy Alexander must have stolen the crown of the most embarrassing Scottish politician from Nicol Stephen; although it must be said such a loan must have been through a temporary arrangement.
I鈥檓 sorry but I failed to notice when exactly local councils in Scotland became such principled paragons of virtue when it comes to local decision-making based on reasonableness and equity when allocating funds to vulnerable, and often 鈥榰npopular鈥 groups in Scottish society.
In all the hoo-ha about ending ring-fencing there seems to be no mention about the central fact that many local councils on many occasions have demonstrated that they 鈥榗annot be trusted鈥 鈥 not at least to deliver for the most vulnerable and often unpopular groups, causes and outcomes that central government has had to provide ring fencing for.
I hold no torch for Wendy Alexander but I do hope that there are many who are in private supporting her principled stand on ring fencing 鈥 for they are not doing so in public when they know full well that her argument is true.
It is no coincidence that it was a Labour Scottish Executive that did indeed give 鈥榣ess freedom鈥 to Labour (amongst other) councils than the SNP administration is now doing. That was because many Labour MSPs and Ministers were poachers turned gamekeepers and knew full well what Labour Councils can get up to in sideling and misusing funds intended for particular purposes when given to them.
Some cynical persons might add that the SNP are giving more discretion to local councils over a wide range of activities because they (the SNP) anticipate that the councils will fail to deliver鈥 but by that time the central Scottish Government will be able to say 鈥榮orry guv, nothing to do with us鈥欌 and proceed to end any further funding in the direction of the area of failed delivery.
In plain English, it may be a long way around for a Scottish Government to withdraw central funding to local councils across a huge range of activities 鈥 many of which will, as Wendy Alexander is trying to plead, include some of the most vulnerable sections of our society who will be unable to advocate on their own behalf.
UK Regional Labour and Lib Dem parties lost the election, but no one told them.
They will try to scupper the budget, the SNP shopuld call their bluff and stick to their guns.
UK Regional Labour and Lib Dem will sell Scotland short at every opportunity, let's just hope that the electorate will wisen up to this crass behaviour.
P.S. if Hain goes, does that automatically mean that Alexander will have to follow?
Ms Alexander has become a liablility to Labour in less time than it took Henry or Jack. Not an easy feat!
At FMQT Ms A wastes questions, appears ill-informed and looks like a substitute six form debating forum member.
Is this the best the Labour party can offer? I will not be returning to the fold this time. The union is antiquated in its curent format and the SNP offer hope, pride in Scotland and a better future.
Voting down the budget will hasten the end of Union, I'd encourage the unionist to that aim!
MM Mc
Brian it seems pefectly understandable that Wendy Alexander wants ring fencing on spending, it keeps the labour party on the right path, after all she can't manage a small election budget, how can the labour councils be trusted to spend such sizable budgets if not directed?
What about central control Wendy Alexander is not very disposed to local control, so she probably wants to let Westminster control and direct Holyrood. What then is the point of we the taxpayer paying her for wanting others to make decisions?
Oh I forgot she disnae want tae take any responsiblity fur her actions, sorry Brian I furgot.
Trouble is the SNP don't trust local authorities. Hence the Trump call-in.
Dear Robert (# 21),
SNP have erred on side of caution and introduced another layer of acountability.
Needless to say, you and your other Unionist advocators would like to see the 拢1 000 000 000 000 go to Northern Ireland? Just like the other Scottish resources the UK has squandered over the years?
When it comes to trust, the Labour party are fine ones to talk, lies, scaremongering, finaincial shenanigins, sleazy associates and the "IRAQ LIE", need I go on?
MM Mc