HAVE YOU HAD ANY ELECTION MATERIAL?

John brought up an interesting point on Munguin's last article, and I thought that it really needed a better airing than at the bottom of a day-old story.

He wrote: You may recall that I mentioned a leaflet from a local Labour candidate which made no mention whatsoever of Labour's proposal of a tax-rise of 1p across all tax bands and I wondered if this was a 'one-off' omission by the local candidate or whether it was wide-spread by all candidates? Perhaps some of your readers might have received similar leaflets? 

I think that it would be an interesting exercise for readers who have received any party literature to share any apparent inaccuracies or glaring omissions in them, so putting up taxes in the case of Labour, or the reduction in public services that will be the inevitable result of reducing taxes in the cases of the Tories... the fact that the Tories have more or less wiped their toxic name off everything and replaced it with Ruth Davidson.

Have the Liberals or UKIP put out something that is economical with the truth... and does anyone care? 

This election, overshadowed as it is by Cameron's ridiculous and undemocratic decision to run an EU referendum campaign concurrently,  is mainly a contest for second place between two partners in the last referendum Better Together or Project Fear coalition, but let's not forget that the Greens and the SNP are sending out leaflets too. Are there errors or omissions in them?

Are  errors down to purely local decisions made by the candidate and his or her agent or are they widespread. In other words is there a "don't talk about the tax rises" type policy from head office, or is candidate Jock McBloggs leaving out things he's not comfortable with? 

(Remember, of course, that in a  doorstep leaflet you can't include the whole party manifesto!)

Oh, and  is anyone getting leaflets from RISE?

So if you get anything through your door (and you are minded to do this), please let us know.

**********

John raised another interesting point. 

When Scottish Labour proposed their tax increase policy across the board, they very reasonably decided that those earning under £20,000 should be given a rebate. 

(The inadequacies of the system currently devolved does not allow for a change in tax free allowance, the bands, nor any kind of rebate. The  questionably legal rebate proposed by SLAB  would have had to be managed by local authorities at considerable cost and a great deal of prying!) 

However, when Labour discovered that the UK tax free allowance was being raised by George Osborne to £11,000, it decided to drop the somewhat clumsy rebate proposals. This means that those earning over £11,000 will not be liable to pay the increase in taxes that Labour wants to introduce.

John,  and now Munguin, wonder why SLAB's website appears to not mention this. 

Any ideas?

************

Niko highlighted another totally separate but every bit as important point in the same Munguin article. This Guardian piece looks at how the DWP are treating people who are dependent on Tax Credits becasue they are not in full time work (including those who are on zero hour contracts, which sometimes are 40 hours or more on occasions). 

The system is operating in trial areas at the moment (something which seems inherently wrong to me in any case. All areas of "our united kingdom", as Dodgy Dave would have it, are, or should be, subject to the same terms and conditions where matters of UK-wide government policy still holds). However, it is, in the future, to be rolled out across these islands.

It's another way of smacking down the people who aren't lucky enough to have a full time solid job. They, in many cases, are the REAL strivers in the UK. The people who often get up at silly o'clock to do horrible unrewarding jobs in bad conditions, and with no security at all.  Compare them to the fat cat bankers, politicians and those who have fallen into cushie numbers because of their connections.

What a wonderful country this is if you got to a good school at £50,000+ a year, and have a daddy who can get you into Oxford no matter how thick you are, then have a word... and get you a nice little number with one of his friends.

If not, not so great!

ON MAY 5.....

For a better future: VOTE SNP and SNP.

And don't think we're so far ahead that YOUR vote doesn't count. We need you.

Indeed YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU to go out and vote SNP.

Can you imagine Subway Sam running, or rather running away from, the country.

Think Jackie Baillie at Health, Johanna Lamont at Communities, Andy Kerr running our budget, and worst of all, think Richard Baker in charge of anything at all, even the tea fund?

It doesn't bare thinking about. They rubbished all the SNP policies for 4 years and then, with only a few days to go, they only went and adopted them.

Between running into Subway and out of ASDA, Gray has made a lamentable job of attacking the Tories, who are not in power, and then concentrating on the "Crazy" idea of independence.

The "Crazy" idea of Scots running Scotland, with authority to raise taxes which are appropriate, pay pensioners enough to keep them from dying in the winter, and decide who we're going to war with... ?Yeah crazy if you're thinking Iain Gray. But not so daft with the SNP's team.

Oh, and Iain, it's the Scots people who will decide in a Referendum; not Alex Salmond, not you, not parliament, not even Auntie Annabel... US!

It doesn't bare thinking about having a bloke like Gray as first minister.

So, let's hope we Scots elect and SNP government tomorrow with a clear mandate to take us forward to a safer, fairer country... with Alex Salmond as First Minister.

SNP GAINS BACKING OF THE PRESS

Today the SNP received the backing of more Scottish newspapers: the Scottish Sunday Express, the Sunday Herald, and the Scottish News of the World. This is in addition to the Sun who declared for the SNP a couple of weeks ago.

The Express and the Murdoch titles came with little surprise. As Tory supporting papers in England it was never likely that they would actively support Labour in Scotland, however, few could have expected them to actually come out in support of Alex Salmond’s team.

But the huge surprise is that The Herald, which has fairly consistently been a pro Labour paper has written the following editorial.

I thought it was worth a repeat here.

Scottish National Party deserves a second term

Published on 1 May 2011

FOUR years ago, when for the first time in Scotland’s history the Scottish National Party won by a whisker the right to govern, it was rightly regarded as a watershed moment.

Eight years of devolution had done two apparently contradictory things, remarked Alex Salmond, soon to be installed as First Minister. On the one hand there was a sense of general relief; the grass was still getting cut, the sky was still blue ... the land had not been visited by plague. On the other, a sense of impatience had grown. Not enough was being done fast enough. Such change as there was, the improvement in people’s lives that many anticipated had not materialised.

The SNP’s victory signalled that Scotland had changed irrevocably. The public put their faith in the hands of untried politicians in the hope they would not let them down.

In large measure their hope has not been misplaced. Forced to govern as a minority administration the SNP demonstrated pragmatism and maturity. To pass legislation, they had no option but to negotiate with other parties. In the main this has worked to the nation’s advantage. The books have balanced and real progress has been made.

Moreover, in certain areas Scotland has shown the rest of the UK that a little can go a long way. Thus the freezing of the council tax and determination not to introduce tuition fees. Similarly, the removal of charges for prescriptions demonstrates a commitment to a health service that is free at the point of entry for all.

The Government’s most controversial action was the decision to free convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds. Regardless of whether you agree with that decision or not, the SNP have faced down their critics and emerged from the whirlwind with two strong moral arguments: first that this was a decision for the Scottish Government to take without outside interference; second, that the moral grounds for the release chime with Scottish values and indeed that those valued are enshrined in our laws. In contrast, other parties were left looking hypocritical, feigning public outrage at a decision they had previously signalled in private was in the national interest.

Inevitably, the SNP did not get everything right and did not win every argument. They did not, for example, convince the Parliament that its policy on minimum pricing of alcohol could be effective in combating Scotland’s drink problem. And it has yet to convince the Parliament, and the public at large, of the need for a referendum on independence. For the moment, they are more important to concentrate on re-energising the economy and creating jobs than on redrawing the constitution.

Despite all of the above the SNP apparently started the election campaign behind Labour in the opinion polls. With four days to go they appear now to be destined for victory. How has this transformation come about? The first thing to say, perhaps, is that polls are not infallible and that elections are not won until every vote is counted.

Having said that, it is obvious that Labour’s campaign has been uninspired and negative. Whoever decided that attacking the Conservative-LibDem Coalition should be the party’s top priority was wrong. If devolution’s brief history tells us anything it is that the Scots know the difference between Holyrood and Westminster and vote accordingly.

Indeed, there is something distasteful about political parties wheeling in the so-called big guns from Westminster for the Holyrood campaign, as if Scottish politicians need help from those who bestride a bigger stage.

The divisions between Holyrood and Westminster are underlined by the more recent Labour attacks on independence. It is one thing to argue against the principle of separation but quite another to suggest Scotland and the Scottish people are incapable of managing their own affairs. Those tactics rebounded badly on Labour at the last Holyrood election and it looks likely that history will be repeated on Thursday.

In an interview with this newspaper before campaigning got underway, Salmond said that he intended to fight the election on two fronts: the “business of vision” and the “quality of his team”. The ensuing weeks have vindicated this strategy. On top of this it has Salmond, who has grown in stature as First Minister. The SNP deserve another term in office, not because the alternative is so poor but because their vision and talent genuinely represent the best hope for our country’s future.