I think I agree with the common sentiment that the SNP or Plaid Cymru don’t have a place in the debates, Alex Salmond isn’t even standing for Westminster in the next General Election.  Although the fuss was inevitable it does raise a slight issue with the debates.  What are the criteria for inclusion?

I haven’t read anything that outlines how this was agreed between the parties and the broadcasters.  Have they set an arbitrary share of the national vote criteria?  If they have set one – what is it?  Is it a condition that a party needs to be standing in all parts of the United Kingdom?  Was consideration given to a debate between other ministers and shadow ministers to better reflect the parliamentary nature of our democracy?

There are still a lot of issues that need to be ironed out but I dont think this from the SNP:

“The SNP are seeking to have a substantial influence at Westminster by electing a block of 20 or more MPs, with obvious UK-wide political implications – not least given the perfectly possible outcome of a hung parliament and tight arithmetic.”

has sufficient merit.

Scotland’s unemployment rate stood at 7.2% between July and September of this year and a staggering 32% (claimant count measure) of those had been unemployed for more than the critical length of 6 months. The worst areas were North Ayrshire, Glasgow City and West Dunbartonshire. The reason for this is simple: these areas were based around industries which have now been rendered uncompetitive by the access firms in developing and newly industrialised countries have to cheap labour and raw materials. Furthermore, it is unrealistic to expect these areas to improve in the future as the national minimum wage and lack of skilled labour deters potential investors.

The classic policy to deal with long-term structural unemployment is to increase spending in education and thus develop a more skilled and flexible labour force that allows entrepreneurs to capitalise on areas of potential comparative advantage within the economy, but the Scottish Government’s attempts to follow this path are undermined by the proposal of accelerated spending now and subsequent fiscal cuts over the next 20 years. Salmond and Swinney plan to spend the extra money on building affordable housing to help the long-term unemployed, but this reduces labour market flexibility by providing a disincentive to relocate and, given that Britain’s strengths are in financial services and that potential investors in this field are not interested in areas of economic depravation, compromises any educational schemes designed to increase the occupational mobility of Scotland’s workforce.

 This is also the worst possible time for any Government to be embarking on a major spending plan, as the possibility of misallocating resources is so great. The absence of private sector demand means that the Government will be choosing the areas for investment, and not consumers and producers. The wrong choice, as shown above, leads to public debt without the increase in productive potential necessary to justify it, and the consequences of increased public debt are currently much more severe than usual. Britain is in grave danger of losing its triple AAA debt rating, and if that happens then interest rates will have to rise in order to attract the funds from abroad necessary to service our monumental current account deficit. Higher interest rates will deter private investment within the economy and thus lead to economic stagnation. The Scottish Government’s fiscal response would be handcuffed by the deal made over the Forth road bridge ensuring a reduced budget for 20 years.

 The solution to the nightmare outlined above is to allow a private firm to construct a bridge and then let them charge a toll and keep the profits. If no firm deems this to be profitable then the project should not go ahead and the Government should continue to dry out the cables on the old bridge and thus prolong its life. The Scottish Government should also cut back its spending on affordable housing and instead promote more flexibility in the labour force which would encourage investment, reduce unemployment and lead to a long term increase in residential construction stimulated not by the Government, but rather by demand for houses.