The bald fact is that the political reverberations and consequences of Argyll and Bute Council’s botched school closure proposals will be a headline issue through the Scottish Election 2011 and the Scottish local authority elections in 2012.
The Scottish teaching union, EIS, has committed itself to campaigning on a manifesto for the 2011 Scottish Election, drawing attention to what it sees as the decimation of the Scottish teaching profession in the school closures taking pace across the country.
No other local authority went for the massive scorched earth programme adopted by Argyll and Bute. Even contemplating the closure of 26 schools – effectively closing 26 rural communities – scattered across the mainland and island constituency, was economic, social and political insanity.
It was almost gloriously mad. It also said a lot about the management of Argyll – that the only evidence of ambition was focused on destruction.
Within the Argyll and Bute campaign around the Scottish Election in 2011 are:
- the EIS manifesto campaign against teacher losses – largely focused on the Scottish Government;
- candidates for the Argyll and Bute seat directly connected with the discredited school closures and with the way it has been played (of which more below);
- the new and highly capable Argyll Rural Schools Network, mobilised, raising a Fighting Fund for legal costs. ARSN members are focused on expressing their anger in the 2012 Local Authority elections. Their schools’ communities will vote on the conduct of several councillors in the political game-playing over the disgracefully incompetent closure proposals – now to be replaced. ARSN’s very presence will be a lightning conductor for this issue in the Scottish Election.
- 23 communities whose schools were on the closure list, all of which saw the chicanery of the council at close quarters and many of which saw themselves betrayed by their councillors when the evidence was fully on their side. (The 3 communities not included here are those around two schools which are already closed – St Kierans and Ardchonnel; and Skipness, which, currently has one pupil and did not seriously campaign.)
The Scottish Election campaign battle
The two issues which will most strongly drive the vote in Argyll and Bute will be the school closures farrago and the delayed decision on the specific future of the Dunoon-Gourock ferry service.
Both of these issues will be live rather than historical during the election campaign and the election itself.
The school closures issue will be immediately active, with new proposals of some sort to come to the council on 3rd March, to go quickly into statutory consultation if approved, with the Scottish Election in May and schools intended to close in October this year (2011) – a stubbornly foolish timetable.
Of the four major national parties, Labour, with no councillors, is the only one with completely clean hands on this issue in Argyll.
The other three parties are each differently implicated in the mess but on different trajectories. The SNP found their way to the light while the LibDems and the Tories plunged deeply into the worst decisions in the entire shambles, betraying their communities and showing absolutely no political intelligence – a commodity in short supply across the board in Argyll and Bute.
The key battle for the seat – which does not mean that we see these as necessarily the two top voting candidates – will be between the LibDems and the SNP. The former has been the recent traditional holder of the seat. The latter the current holder with Jim Mather’s narrow victory in 2007.
Neither may win but these will be the two ‘going at each other’ in the campaign.
These two party groups have, in very different ways, also been the most centrally engaged in the school closures issue and their very different behaviours have impacted directly on their electoral chances.
We know that the LibDems political masters in Holyrood are furious at the damage done to the party’s chances in Argyll and Bute. The phrase ‘spitting tacks;’ has been cropping up regularly. The party is said to have virtually written off the likelihood of taking the seat and to be strategically considering the sense of allocating any serious resources to its campaign in the area.
The Russell kerfuffle
A we write though, Labour, aided by the Liberal Democrat party, is fuelling a particularly overblown media campaign attempting to smear the SNP candidate Michael Russell. This is no more than a last ditch confection to try to pull back some of the damage the LibDems freely brought upon themselves.
It is based on a single simple indiscretion in Russell’s sending from his parliamentary address, an email as the SNP’s candidate for the Argyll and Bute seat to an SNP councillor on the specific issue of the group’s handling of the closure proposals.
The email points out the potential electoral damage which as the party’s candidate, Russell was naturally concerned about. It says that he could give them a list of about 7 schools which could be closed by consensus and without controversy.
As a candidate, there is nothing improper about this email, or its contents, or the suggestion made. After the wide experience across Argyll gained in exposure to the school closures debacle, there are few who could not, with equal understanding, provide a list of seven such schools.
The embarrassment is that this email was sent from Russell’s official email address and he is Education Secretary.
This is being inflated by the LibDems to support claims of improper interference. In fact, Russell has made it clear that he will personally have nothing at all to do with the Government’s engagement in the Argyll and Bute closure proposals. He is standing aside and his place in the Government’s part in the process will be taken by his new ministerial colleague, Angela Constance.
As is normal in the case of any allegation of impropriety, Russell’s actions are automatically being investigated by the relevant authority. This is standard practice but again has fuelled shock-horror headlines.
We understand that tomorrow’s Scotland on Sunday has been fed a story that Russell’s visits to schools in Argyll were ‘improper’. It will say that he should have had permission from some panjandrum at the council for each visit which he may or may not have had – and which other politicians visiting schools in Argyll may or may not have had.
Like any politician visiting a school, Russell will have had an invitation to do so, whether or not – like ourselves in the situation noted below, he may now be subject to a newly invented or revived procedure designed to embarrass him.
We have a sneaking fellow feeling for Russell here, as it seems he is to be dubbed an ‘unaccredited’ visitor to a few schools where, at the council meeting on 5th January, we were suddenly dubbed an ‘unaccredited’ press service. We’re not ‘press’ anyway, of course, although we certainly press the council.
We understood our treatment to be the clearest recognition of the potency of the dominant and sustained challenge offered by For Argyll to the council’s conduct of the school closures affair.
No doubt Mr Russell will take his own alleged lack of ‘accreditation’ for school visits as clear proof that his LibDem opposition, which has defenestrated itself, know when they’re in serious trouble. The belligerent new Education Spokesperson for Argyll and Bute, is the LibDem Councillor Ellen Morton, who drove her colleagues to vote to support the doomed closure proposals.
Russell’s error amounts to an email sent by an understandably anxious candidate, already a cabinet minister and in a busy working day – from the wrong address.
On the other hand, the LibDems are faced with a situation where they have actively made worse the damage from an unworthy threat to the sustainability of a swathe of rural communities in Argyll.
Even further beyond recovery, their own candidate seems to have approved and signed off without objection on the very mechanism that has dealt Argyll the worst budget cut in Scotland – 4.94%, a total of £11.9 million, with £5.6 million of this an unanticipated and unjust addition, directly due to culpable personal negligence.
The Russell kerfuffle will, no doubt, continue to feature in newspapers on slack days.
But this is an orchestrated and synthetic fuss about nothing of substance – designed to disguise serious negligence elsewhere – and we despise the national media’s willingness to be a pawn in political games that disrespect the intelligence of the electorate.
New series of related articles
- Labour, the school closure issue and the Scottish Election 2011
- Conservatives, the school closure issue and the Scottish Election 2011
- SNP, the school closure issue and the Scottish Election 2011
- LibDems, the school closure issue and the Scottish Election 2011
- The politics of Argyll and Bute
- The 2012 Scottish Local Government Election (coming)
- The school closure issue, a chronological commentary (coming)
The photograph above, taken at the council climbdown meeting on 5th January 2011, shows the two worlds of this issue: the lights burning in the upper level chamber of this tatty building where the elected non-representatives hash with the lives of the waiting folk, chilled outside.
Just to be first in the queue: can I just assure everyone that when Mr Russell visited Barcaldine Primary it was at the invitation first of my daughter Shona McKenzie (9), an invitation he accepted and which was confirmed by our Parent Council. I am not aware that Parent Councils require the permission of anyone before inviting anyone we like to come and visit the school and talk to us.
Had Mr Russell invited himself to visit the school and requested a meeting with our Parent Council then that would have been a different matter.
Mr Russell made it clear that as the Cabinet Secretary for Education he could not comment on the closure proposals as they related to Barcaldine or to Argyll as a whole. He also made it clear that any call in decisions would not be made by himself as he is the SNP’s candidate for MP for Argyll at the next election.
We discussed the Act and our rights as parents, which was very useful and I would like to think that our comments were of some use to him when he deliberates as to how the Statutory Guidance can be strengthened to prevent in the future some of the problems that we have encountered during the current process.
Mr Russell’s visit was very well received and we were very pleased also to have had the opportunity to show off our great school. He also was able to hand out some prize certificates from a road safety competition which pleased the pupils as well.
My abiding memory of the evening was Mr Russell answering questions on the Act as toddlers played around his feet – which seemed somehow apt.
Mr Russell will always be welcome in Barcaldine.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cant understand why you keep insisting that Labour are the only party with a clean sheet – don’t you remember Tony Blair, New Labour, Gordon Brown, Free market, Globalisation, deregularisation, Banking crisis?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pingback: Argyll News: Labour hands not so clean on school closure affair after all : Argyll,school closures,Argyll Bute Council.Labour Party, | For Argyll
For John Semple – of course. But this is only about the Argyll school closure issue in which they were not involved at all.
However, we now understand that they have become involved in this issue after the event: http://forargyll.com/2011/01/labour-hands-not-so-clean-on-school-closure-affair-after-all/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Councillor Morton is just doing as directed by the LibDem candidate, Councillor Alison Hay (who is very quiet on this issue) and of course puppetmaster, George Lyon MEP. Councillor Morton is in a safe seat. Jackie Baillie and the Dumbarton Labour Party have no interest in Argyll & Bute local government and field no council candidates in the Helensburgh & Lomond area. They know that the genetic Labour vote there is strong and can be taken for granted. At Council elections this natural Labour vote finds its way to LibDems and Independents. Councillor Morton feels insulated in her safe ward with no school closures so is willing, as Education Spokesperson to front council officer’s new proposals. The other half of the new Education double act, The Scissor Sisters (they do the cuts) and Councillor Morton’s deputy, Councillor Vivien Dance (whose coat is on a shoogley peg) is furious.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For James: This is an interesting analysis. It;s a very uncomfortable perspective that a national party like Labour can simply not bother to use its vote to get councillors into any local authority – and particularly when that authority is known to be as cavalier and with such questionable competence as Argyll and Bute.
In the current financial climate the social justice agenda is a necessary part of the debate – and it has to be tested by exposure to contrary views. Without this, it can achieve the unearned status of a sacred cow, as much as it can fail to represent those who need that voice to be heard.
Labour has to use its vote in Helensburgh, among other places, to get councilors elected to Argyll and Bute openly as Labour affiiliates. Without that honest reflection of the balance of political perspectives in the area, decisions made cannot be other than of limited validity.
Any willingness to mute or disguise the voice of any political philosophy – and by the keepers of that philosophy – is unacceptable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Typo in my post – Mike Russell is of course the SNP candidate for MSP for Argyll and not the MP.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I read the article in Scotland on Sunday, not a paper I would normally read, and has I suspected it was the usual anti SNP rant that I have come to expect from the Labourite press.
The only really interesting piece was towards the end of the article where it states that ‘Mr Russell now faces a probe from the Standards Commissinor into whether he has broken the MSP’s code on poaching business. The code states ‘ An MSP must not deal with a matter relating to a constituency case or constituency issue out with this or her constituency or region unless by proir agreement. ‘
Mr Russell both sort and received this permission from the incumbent MSP, Jim Mather.
The whole story come crashing down and falls flat on its face.
The real and more important issue here is how did a E-mail on the computer of a SNP Councillor find its way in the public domain. Clearly the E-mail has been removed without permission, i.e stolen, from the computer, in the office of the said Councillor at the Council HQ at Kilmory. Anyone handling this stolen E-mail would have, unwittingly, become an accomplice to a crime.
I believe that Mr Russell has asked the Council to investigate the incident but I do not hold out much hope there. Perhaps the correct course of action would be to ask Police to look into matter. They could begin by working backwards starting with David Graham to see were he obtained this copy of the E-mail from.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have just read the piece on the other thread ingard to David Graham and fully except his statment that he was not involved in an diry tricks regarding the Mike Russell E-mail.
I would still mantain my stance that a criminal act has taken place and the police should be called.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
David Graham of course works for the council under Cleland Sneddon, the author of the ridiculous consultation proposals
The SOS also describes Argyll and Bute as an “SNP run” council which it is not and never has been.
David Graham is also on the team of Mick Rice, the Labour candidate against Mike Russell in May.
I wonder if Mr Graham’s implication in this is appropriate given his position working for the council in an essentially non-political position.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Dave McEwan Hill: David Graham has assured us that he has rarely caught sight of Cleland Sneddon, never spoken to him and never had an email from him. He describeds himself as a ‘minion’ in the hierarchy led by Sneddon.
We accept this without hesitation as being true. Before we spoke to MR Graham, we had lodged an FoI to see all emails between Sneddon and himself and we expect this to bear out what Mr Graham has said.
We do know, from our following of Mr Graham’s Westminster campaign. that he is meticulous about keeping a cordon sanitaire between his job and his personal interests and commitments.
We don’t warm to the inflation of matters of little actual substance (as this is) and it is disappointing to see someone like David Graham do it – but politicians will continue to use strategies like this for as long as the public fall for it – and it is a decreasingly useful ploy.
There is another issue we are watching during this campaign – and that is whether or not Labour have agreed to go light on the LibDems in the campaign in the expectation that, if the election goes their way, they will then find little difficulty in forming the latest version of the Lab/Lib coalition they would need.
Turning up at Kilmory and being genially supportive of the delegations from threatened schools has been an attractive note on grim occasions – bit those voters will expect such appearances to be followed by a strong campaign stance on the issue from Labour.
If that is to help their vote as it would be designed to do, it will need to chime with what those at the sharpest point of impact of the school closure proposals know to have been the sources of their most profound anger and disappointment.
Labour’s problem with this is that townsfolk, never mind city folk, do not understand the way rural communities function. They see things by dogmatic formulae where rural life is the fudge of survival.
Labour remains an urban, industrialised party and their candidate’s experience is in that sphere.
The party’s fit with rural, remote and island Argyll is not an easy one. Their assumed sympathy over the school closures shambles will need to find a voice or it will be seen to have been an opportunist scam – and Argyll has had it with tricks, empty words and nothing but decline.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mis-direction is one of the LibDems favourite tricks. Get the punters chasing shadows and involved in pedantic discussions on the trivia.
If Russell broke the Code he will pay the price. If he has pushed the envelope to help parents fight the Council’s incompetence – well done! If he talks to other SNP members or anyone else in a private capacity (no matter how they see it) – so what?
Meanwhile the elephant that is the farce over school closures lies undisturbed. The excuses from the Council lie in tatters. Its reputation in serious question.
Parents groups should be alert to these cynical tactics and continually remind the Education Spokesperson in any discussions to focus only on how schools can remain open.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For James: Absolutely.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So, lets see Russell’s list of seven non-contentious school closures and we’ll see if the parents agree.
If, as you state, the following is true:
“In fact, Russell has made it clear that he will personally have nothing at all to do with the Government’s engagement in the Argyll and Bute closure proposals. He is standing aside and his place in the Government’s part in the process will be taken by his new ministerial colleague, Angela Constance.”
Then why is he sticking his nose in?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Presumably he is sticking his nose in because he in candidate in the forthcoming election in Argyll and Bute and that is what candidates do.
Next question.
The real story here is that the LibDems sold out to take council convenerships and to do so supported ridiculous proposals which have now been comprehensively trashed.
This much ado about nothing is being used to deflect attention from this disgrace.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So why did he say he was going to have nothing to do with it? He stood aside and fired off an e-mail.
That’s right the LibDems sold out and ran with what the SNP helped to put into motion, there are very few eggless faces is Argyll politics over this
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Listen carefully.
He said he would have nothing to do with any formal process on this issue in his capacity as Education Minister. He will not.
He is perfectly free to hold opinions on the matter and express them privately. The scandal here is the illicit leaking of emails.
You are a little behind.
When the SNP saw the details of the proposals they decided they were unacceptable and refused to back them. The SNP group expected by removing their support the proposals would fall but were shocked when the LibDems suddenly changed their position and supported the proposals.
I am surprised that you seem to be attacking the wrong culprits.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So, to sum up, he wont have anything to do formally with the process but he is quite prepared to have a quiet word when he thinks it might harm the interests of the SNP to be associated with this issue, he was worried about the political ramifications at the frthcoming elections and wanted to look after his own chances. So you are right he wont get involved for the public interest just self interest.
Regarding the illicit leaking of e-mails, he got caught, get over it.
If you really believe that the SNP suddenly realised, on the morning of the meeting, that the proposals were flawed, then you are extremely naieve or they are very slow readers. Come on, they made a calculated political decision to save face for the good of the national party.
I am equally disgusted with the LibDems, who have shown nationally that they will sell their own Grannies for a seat at the table. The alliance of independants have no manifesto and seem to be devoid of intellect and are not worthy of comment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Splenic Vent: The SNP did realise late how bad the proposals were – but they at least realised it first and openly. They also were trying to get the proposals dropped (or reduced – which we heavily criticised them for doing, on the grounds of lack of procedural integrity) well before the meeting on 25th. We pubished on this at the time as we discovered the series of moves that were going on.
And of course there will have been an element of political realism in their decision to walk away from power. This is likely to have had a dual focus – not only on the national political consequences but on the local ones. Had they not acted decisively to try to get some shift in the situation their own jobs would have been on the line later rather than sooner perhaps, but also fully rather than partially.
Having worked endless hours on research and information management on this issue and in support of the sterling work the SRSN team delivered, we were mightily glad to find councillors who were prepared to look at the evidence of serious errors in the proposals, consider it, admit to the situation and try to get the damage stopped.
For that we would specifically credit the SNP group, the Argyll First Group, Councillor James Robb, Councilor George Freeman and, at the last minute, Provost William Petrie who, we understand, was specifically encouraged by his Luss constituents to check the solidity of the evidence against the security of the proposals.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I can assure there was considerable discussion about these proposals long before the morning and informal approaches were made but to no effect.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
But, at the end of the day, we shouldn’t forget that the SNP were part of the group that brought the proposals for school closures to the table (the SNP thought it was a good idea to recommend the closure of rural primary schools, fact), they deserve the credit for having the sense to realise that to carry on with these flawed proposals was going to harm their chance in the forthcoming elections, they then decided to walk away, this is not heroic but pragmatic, and anyone who says otherwise is deluded or Mike Russell! So stop trying to defend this, they made a mistake pure and simple.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh my goodness golly gosh what is the world coming to – a minister for education actually visiting SCHOOLS! We simply cannot tolerate a cabinet minister takimg an interest in his area of responsibility, this is NOT DONE in British politics. So there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wikkileaks in Kilmory?
This was an opportunistic leaking of a private e-mail for political point scoring.
The BIG question one should ask is, where and who did the leak come from?
As for Mike Russell, he allegedly used his Hollyrood Ministerial computor to send an e-mail, foolishly, in a private capacity as a prospective candidate to party members, big deal, he is not the first and will not be the last, its happened before and will happen again.
As they say down here in Kintyre “worse things happen at sea”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It would be wrong to view this has a simple case of Opportunism.
All Councillor’s, in the course of their duties, can receive up to a 100 E-mails a week. These will be from many different sources, MP’s, MSP’s, businesses, members of the public and internal Council papers which will contain private, senstive and confidential information.
Someone has gone into the office of a Councillor, sat at his desk and taken their time to look thought his E-mail account going back many weeks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Mark McCormack:
Only 100 emails a week? For Argyll gets well over 100 a day.
At only 100 a week allowed, what happens to the surplus?
For instance, what happens to the hundreds that will have been coming in to each single councillor in mass mailouts from the schools campaigners and their huge volume of supporters?
And if indeed, as is looking increasingly possible, there was improper surveillance of councillors’ email accounts within the council, this could most simply be centrally done through administrator’s privileged access to the entire system.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For John in KIntyre: Love the steady values of ‘worse things happen at sea’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (I assume this applies in Scotland) defines the offence of:
>>> unauthorised access to computer material, punishable by 6 months’ imprisonment or a fine “not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale” (currently £5000)
(quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Misuse_Act_1990)
and I would imagine that “unauthorised access” in the sense intended in the Act has taken place here, therefore a criminal offence has been committed by whoever obtained the email at whichever end.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just to clarify my previous post (which is awaiting moderation at this time):
I do not mean that either the sender or addressee of the email is guilty of anything.
Rather: as Mark McCormack suggests, “someone has (impersonated someone) improperly”; or, as Newsroom suggests, an improper access via an administrator’s id has occurred. In either case I add the gloss “which might be at either sending or receiving ends”, ie within either Holyrood or ABC.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0