| |||||
|
| News Greens pact assures reins of power for Salmond Analysis It is intended to demonstrate that the SNP leader is a bridge-builder, as a signal to larger parties that the New Salmond is open to deal-making - as he will surely have to remain if his administration is to last long. But its real significance is in securing two vital MSP votes that could otherwise have joined with the Labour Party and which would have been sufficient to keep Jack McConnell in Bute House. Barring a surprise deal between Labour and either the Tories or the LibDems - with both of those smaller parties expected to abstain - the agreement with the Greens confirms that Mr Salmond can expect to be in power from Wednesday. Greens are not committed to support anything beyond elections for First Minister and his ministerial team, falling short of the model they had suggested of backing the SNP on budget bills and votes of no confidence. What the Greens can claim is that the SNP will prioritise a bill introducing binding climate change targets, though they are expected to be 3% annual cuts rather than the Greens' preferred 4.5%. As if to emphasise their weak negotiating position, the Greens' first whiff of a role in government was accompanied yesterday by the party's parliamentary staff being laid off last night because they lack the resources they had when they had seven MSPs. The stand-off between the SNP and larger parties means Mr Salmond can only remain in power if he can secure the unity of his own 47-member group as well as a minimum of a further 19 votes from a shifting alliance of others. The arithmetic forces him to look for issues on which he can get agreement. Tories, for instance, are looking forward to working with him on cutting business rates and slimming Scottish Enterprise. Being in office will give him the backing of the civil service to draw up legislation, which the opposition will crucially lack. But it would make sense also for the new First Minister to use executive powers to push through change without having to seek parliament's approval. That should be sufficient to change class sizes, set new targets for NHS waiting times, increase police numbers and plan a new Forth crossing. More controversial issues on which opposition parties wish to defeat SNP ministers will require them to work with each other, which is not guaranteed, and to be wary of being portrayed as wreckers. The Green deal falls short of where Mr Salmond hoped to be when he started coalition building last weekend. With all his opponents nursing electoral bruises, he wanted LibDems to come on board, with the prospect of a three-party majority. Both Tories and SNP had ruled out coalition with each other, while Labour was never a likely ally. LibDem leader Nicol Stephen began the week with an agreement with Mr Salmond that LibDems would publicly rule out a deal with Labour, even if talks with the SNP got nowhere. That was delivered last Sunday by LibDem campaign director Tavish Scott. But a meeting of MSPs then firmed up the LibDem position on talks with the SNP. Despite some of the 16 members wanting to leave options open, the LibDems were in no mood to talk, with most wanting to be in opposition. Partly, this is personal, having seen Mr Salmond take Gordon from the LibDems, and thinking it would not be easy to work with him. Partly, it is an expectation that he should be allowed to try a minority administration, and will find it so difficult that he will be willing to give more ground in future negotiations than he would in his triumphant mood this month.
Agreement 2. They will oppose new nuclear power stations, agree to early legislation to reduce climate-change pollution and believe Scotland can be more successful if independent. 3. The Greens are committed to supporting the SNP in votes for First Minister and ministerial appointments. The SNP agrees to consult the Green MSPs in advance regarding each year's legislative and policy programme. 4. The SNP also agree to be sympathetic towards issues raised by the Greens in parliament, including motions and members' bills. 12:40am Saturday 12th May 2007 Posted by: JC, Glasgow on 12:07am Sat 12 May 07 Come on Nicol ... lets get some stable government. As for Numpty McConnell, the comments attributed to him today show his continuing state of denial. Posted by: Jack McConnell, HM Prison Barlinnie on 1:14am Sat 12 May 07 " The SNP and the Scottish Green Party agree a new government in Scotland will place addressing climate change at its heart." The people of Scotland do not want the Green party and its policies. They lost 5 seats and 50,000 (38%) of their votes. There is no proof of man-made global warming, despite the endless enviro-fascist alarmist bleatings. Carbon footprints, and credits, and "green taxation" are just anti-people, anti-rural, anti-progress policies of a bunch of "environmental" loonies. If the SNP really do adopt "green" taxation, they will lose my vote, and the votes of many many others. Posted by: Brian Blessed, Glasgow on 1:34am Sat 12 May 07 There is no proof of man-made global warming, despite the endless enviro-fascist alarmist bleatings. Got any proof for that other than the completely discredited Channel 4 documentary? Anyway, don't you think it makes economic sense to use less of our own mineral resources and sell the excess abroad, thus bringing more investment into the economy? Less oil consumed in Scotland means more petro-dollars from the oil desperate USA and West. Posted by: LA, Los Angeles on 2:10am Sat 12 May 07 Some prat pretending to be another prat said; They lost 5 seats and 50,000 (38%) of their votes.The international observers overseeing the election aver the vast majority of spoilt ballot papers would have put the Greens where they were before the election, with the same number of seats. Posted by: murray smith, glasgow on 3:15am Sat 12 May 07 Posted by: Brian Blessed, Glasgow on 3:22am Sat 12 May 07 LA - (@rse kissing coming up) As ever you show maturity, intelligence, a knowledge of the facts, and common sense. Have you ever considered not running as a Labour MSP? ;) Posted by: Ian, Scotland on 3:38am Sat 12 May 07 LA wrote:If the ballot papers were spoiled, how can you tell they were for the Greens? Or, if you can tell that they were for the Greens, then why were they listed as spoiled? Please clarify! Posted by: LA, Los Angeles on 3:39am Sat 12 May 07 Brain Blessed (he of stentorian voice) said: Have you ever considered not running as a Labour MSP?LOL. There are days when I can barely run for a bus! If we ever get independence for Scotland by democratic means I will be plumb tuckered out so exhausting is the battle outwitting devious politicians keen on Westminster promotion. Posted by: LA, Los Angeles on 3:46am Sat 12 May 07 Ian asked; If the ballot papers were spoiled, how can you tell they were for the Greens?You need to address that question to the international observers for it is they I quote. It appears they could see voter intention in a majority of ballot papers though the voter had spoiled their ballot. The presumed distinction between international observers and government enquiry staff presumes the former to be objective. Posted by: douglas eckhart, edinburgh on 2:11pm Sat 12 May 07 You are wasting your time calling for the Lib Dems to at least discuss things aronud a table like civilised individuals. Ming has already instructed them that there will be NO deal with the SNP. The SNP know this. Even if the SNP went all the way and dropped the referendum altogether it would make no difference. Ming has already instructed the Scottish Lib Dems that there will be no deal with the SNP under any circumstances... full stop. That is the deal for Ming Campbell and the UK Lib Dems backing Brown in the next UK election. Westminster politics will always overide Scottish interests, that is the nature of the current settlement. Wake up people. |
|
| Herald & Times Group | |
|
Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy © Copyright 2001-2009 A Gannett Company | |