Competent?

With the announcement of a referendum on the proposed European constitution and the looming EU Parliament elections, focus is once again on fish.

Inevitably much of the debate is legalistic. And I now carry a copy of the draft with me because hardly anybody knows what is in it.

But it would be a ‘cheap shot’ if I were to hand it to every person I meet who makes a comment on the constitution.

The reality is that referenda are blunt instruments. They deliver political verdicts on governments rather than answers to the questions posed.

And for us, the key part of the Constitution is Article 12 which is headed up as ‘Exclusive Competence’. Let me make sure all readers can argue from an informed position. Here is the first, and relevant, of the two paragraphs:

“The Union shall have exclusive competence to establish the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market, and in the following areas:

• monetary policy, for the Member States which have adopted the euro,
• common commercial policy,
• customs union,
• the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy.”

And in case there is any doubt what ‘exclusive competence’ means; it means that the EU decides and we must legally do it – if we sign up.

The very real debate about whether Europe already has the power to force us to conform to their lunatic ideas about fishing – or not – does not matter. The point is that now, while we are discussing the introduction of a formal constitution for the first time, we can make a change of benefit to Scotland.

The Liberals and Labour in the Scottish government seem to be taking the very strange position that we signed a treaty on this in the early 70s and cannot get out of a commitment made by the Conservative government of the time. This despite the proposed new constitution being a new treaty which replaces all the previous ones.

Since when have Labour in particular been reluctant to change previous Tory dogma? Well actually less in practice than on paper. But you know what I mean.

In any event one can search previous treaties in vain for the word ‘exclusive’. The reality is that if exclusivity exists at all, it derives from a court case in 1976. And there is no doubt that a treaty over-rides case law.

The bottom line is – who wants to protect our fishing industry?

The Labour and Liberal Scottish government say that the EU’s CFP can be ‘fine tuned’ to deliver what we need.

Thirty years of EU fishing failure, and the lack of action by Tory and Labour governments at Westminster to respond to those failures, does not convince many that this time we shall get we need.

Unless we persuade them to force through changes to the constitution.

Back to School

My wife and I went back to school last week. I was one of 52 in my P7 class in the 1950s. Sandra attended a country school with a total of 24 pupils – rather similar to New Byth who had invited us in.

The key thing the pupils wanted, was to engage us in the campaign to ensure that all the world’s children had at least some access to free education.

Well they convinced us. An example to us all.

Feet

The Scottish Parliament is claiming a world first – or at least a first in these islands. We are the first to have a debate on chiropody, or as it is now called podiatry. The science of looking after feet.

And this is by no means a trivial matter. The dramatic increase in diabetes over recent years is one reason.

A side effect of diabetes is problem circulation. Not enough blood gets to the feet in particular. And regular foot care by a professionally qualified podiatrist increases the chances that problems will be spotted early and fixed.

So it is reasonable that diabetes sufferers can now get free chiropody. But that does not mean all is rosy in the world of feet.

Our older citizens, whose health and independence depends on their mobility, are routinely denied such free access.

A slightly ingrowing toenail can develop into a seriously debilitating condition. Someone previously active and asking little from the public purse can quickly become housebound and dependent. And cost very much more than the cost of the chiropody that would have prevented it.

So it was right that we challenged the deputy health minister on the subject of feet. Many warm words resulted.

But his closing words in the debate carry a stark warning for any watcher of this government; “we will continue to monitor the situation”.

And we will monitor the minister to see if any action actually results.

Family Life

In Scotland we are faced with a considerable number of challenges in public life. Recent years have seen our population shrink and within the decade we are likely to us cross the 5 million barrier – downwards.

At the same time we have, like other EU countries, an aging population. A challenge for any country wanting to prosper. And a subject now receiving cross-party political attention.

So it came as a great challenge to me personally when a visitor to one of my surgeries brought me an unpleasant letter he had received from “Jobcentre Plus”.

To divert for a moment, I find many of the “brand” names which government adopts quite baffling. Just what would a visitor from Mars make of names like “Jobcentre Plus” or “The Power of Well-Being”? You will be hearing more about the latter in the next year by the way – you have been warned.

Now back to the letter.

My constituent is someone with a range of skills, a pleasant and articulate manner and a wife. Besides sharing a desire to live in our area, they share a pre-school age child.

As a “Jobseeker” he has been actively looking for work – he showed me his letters – while his wife looks after their family. A familiar division of effort and a commitment to the next generation of Scots that we need if our population is to grow.

So he was baffled to receive a threatening letter requiring his wife to attend an employment interview – or else.

She has not been “signing on” and had planned to take five years out from here working career to see their child into school. But it seems that our “big brother” government have decided that it is “abnormal” to make child-rearing a priority for part of one’s life.

If this is not an attack on family values I do not know what it is. And like this gentlemen who sought my help, I wanted to know more.

My research has found that in fact there is no compulsion to work. But there are “sanctions” for those who fail to attend an interview designed to “sell” the benefits of employment. None of this is properly explained in the letter sent.

It is time this Labour government realised that they are there to serve our needs and to support families. Our community is not simply cannon fodder for their political “project”.

Life Challenges

For people who have planned to supplement their state pension with a personal one, life has been desperately hard of late.

The collapse in stock market confidence – and prices – has hit hard many of the funds in which people’s pension nest eggs have been invested – and hit hard.

But the news that Standard Life is paying off people sends out a wider message about our economy and the government’s stewardship of it.

Because the first action of Gordon Brown when Labour came to power in 1997 was to change the tax position of ordinary people’s pension funds.

Since then he has taken nearly £40,000 million – or about £5,000 million each year – out of our pension funds. Some mess you’ve got us into Gordon. And the next payoff is Scottish staff employed by one of major companies.

Like many others I have a personal interest in Standard Life. I have a “with-profits” policy with them. And with Gordon Brown nibbling at it the profits ain’t what they were.

But the real tragedy is the prospect of this nearly 200-year-old company being sold off. And that could mean further loss of control and the loss of yet another head office.

A shrinking economy coupled with policy to shrink our population – a deadly combination.

Olympic Hopes

I have long campaigned for more lottery money to come to the North-East. So the news that Scotland is lose £70 million of our money to pay for London’s bid for the 2012 Olympics is hardly welcome.

With our sporting record in recent years we can hardly afford the £30 million that out sports clubs will lose. And another £40 million lost to “good causes” hardly seems like a good idea.

But we are told that we would all benefit. Even the most imaginative of us would be hard pushed to add up all the benefits that Scotland could get from the London Olympics and come to £70 million.

And for this corner of Scotland, it translates into a near £1 million loss. An average of £14 for every person in the country.

With the concerns raised by the House of Commons select committee about the costs, funding and benefits of the London bid, there no guarantee that it is only £70 million.

But they are pushing ahead regardless of the impact that it could have on Scotland and on Scottish sporting and community activities.