My 2026 Manifesto for Edinburgh Central

 DRUGS

There is a plan to set up a legal heroin-shooting-gallery in Edinburgh, copying one already running in Glasgow. That would be a mistake! Drugs policies are a disaster under the SNP! The plan should be opposed!

ENERGY & FUEL

I grew up with coal fires and a coke oven that heated radiators and a hot water tank. If I have to make a judgement on the best fuel systems, I would say that probably variety is best. Variety also means that it could be easier to get cheaper fuel with more competition. Solar panels should be used, but not perhaps too much built on farmland. The same applies to windmills. Gas still has a big role to play along with electricity. Sadly, widespread coal fires are probably a thing of the past. 

The problem with green energies is that they cannot be relied on 100% of the time. However, it is still pretty high. I once recorded wind direction for about three years. The wind blew most of the time. I would say over 90% of the time, maybe 95-100% of the time. However, there is always that gap, so coal, gas and nuclear are also always needed, at least for backup. I am sure that everyone is familiar with the story of power running out as we all make our Christmas dinners, and so that is when with a flick of a switch the great floodgates are released and the waters released from the reservoirs to turn the great turbines that instantly generate all that electricity needed at that very moment. I wonder if we perhaps do not use hydro-power quite as much as we could or should.

With the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and now with the new war in the Persian Gulf, we are all much more familiar with the concept of fuel security. It is an issue we need to consider and deal with.

At the moment, there are oil and gas fields that straddle the border between Norway and the UK. The Norwegian are drilling but we are not. It is madness to let the Norwegians have all the oil and gas! I am not saying we should have a race to get out as much as possible, as fast as possible. However, a moderate expansion in drilling by us, and talks with the Norwegians, seems a much better way forward. At the moment it seems Labour in London is blocking new drilling, just as they previously blocked a new coal mine. The SNP block the building of new nuclear plants. We need more energy and more energy security. We need more gas stored. More oil stored too.

A lot of rubbish is talked about North-Sea oil going onto world trading markets, as if they are like white rabbits that a magician makes disappear into his top hat. They come out from the sea-bed up a pipe, then the pipe goes to shore, then the oil goes into a container. Then it may get sold around the world, but it starts off in the UK. If, there is a war, and it is quite possible there may be, take your pick! then as soon as the war starts the UK PM will draft an 'Order in Council', (an order from the Privy Council with no Parliamentary oversight), stating that no oil will be exported during the time of the emergency. This would be, and may be, a very likely scenario!

I am glad that the linking of everything to the gas price has been cut. Why should we pay the gas price for free electricity from the wind?

The more fuel, the more fuel types, then we have more competition, and then cheaper prices and the more fuel security we can have as individuals and as a nation. 

So in the North Sea, we need to 'Drill, Baby, Drill' (well at least a slight moderate increase in drilling!).

We also need to start building new nuclear power stations. Where should these be located? The fairest and most obvious place, would be next door to an old nuclear power station that is already there. It would be difficult to argue against that!

EDUCATION

Choice! 

Choice creates competition and competition raises standards!

Parents should not be forced to send their children to a particular type of school. There should be a wide choice of types. The state should not dictate a certain type but allow all sorts of schools and let parents choose. Primary schools should be small and located locally. Boarding schools, comprehensive schools, grammar schools, performing arts schools, religious schools, single-sex schools, sports schools, technical schools, all should be allowed to be built and set up. Let demand drive the creation and running of schools.

With regard to universities, Scotland has great universities like Edinburgh, Glasgow and St Andrews. They attract students from around the world. Theses foreign students are happy to pay a pretty penny to get their education here in Scotland. The universities themselves are also happy to charge these said students a pretty penny for their education. Indeed, because the Scottish Government does not charge Scottish students fees, the universities need the money that comes in from the foreign students to survive. 

Edinburgh is a tourist town, but it is also a student city too. Large numbers of students come to study at Edinburgh University. This brings money into the local economy.

There need to be some guidelines to balance all the goods and the competing claims. Here are some guidelines and ideas of mine that I think would make a useful contribution to the debate for Edinburgh and Edinburgh University specifically, as well as the other university towns more generally too.

At the BBC hustings, I said that the Scottish Government should get off the backs of the universities and allow them to run their own affairs. Specifically, there is the problem of Scottish students not paying fees, so the universities want the high fees from the foreign students. The universities should be allowed to charge fees. The more prestigious universities should be able to charge more money. Different courses have different value! In the past, students had grants, in other words free money. It is now generally accepted, that low paid workers should not pay tax to finance free education for people who are destined to earn high salaries in their chosen professions. Thus loans are fair! This is what I said on the radio show. However, I also said that interest on those loans should be abolished. Right now, we have former students paying off their student loans from their wages, and yet their student loan debts are still increasing because of the interest charged on those loans. This is one thing that the Scottish Government should tackle in some way if they can. We must try to lessen the interest charges on students.

So loans, and fees, but no interest, would help get more Scottish students into universities. Of course, a university could just fill up all of their places with foreign students to get more money but they wouldn't be very Scottish then. They may as well set up shop in some foreign country! Whatever the funding model, one restriction that should be on universities, is that over 50% of their students should be Scottish. For foreign students to experience being at a Scottish university, then they need the ethos that comes from being alongside Scottish students.

Some courses may be viewed as more useful for society and thus it would be a useful role of government to subsidise such courses in some way.

With regard to the total number of students going to university, I will address that issue in my housing section. 

There should be some guidelines, but other than that, we should try as much as possible to leave universities to run themselves.

FAITH 

Freedom of religion for all! Freedom of religion includes the right of parents to send their children to the religious school of their choice. This specifically includes Catholic schools. The status quo position regarding the funding and provision of such schools should also remain.

FAMILY

I am opposed to abortion, euthenasia, fertility treatment and surrogacy.

Abortion is murder!

Instead of providing free abortions the state should pay people to have babies.

In the last dying days of the last Parliament, euthenasia was voted against. This status quo position should remain. The issue should not be revisited in the newly elected Parliament.

The state provides abortion and fertility treatment, thus encouraging women to delay trying for babies until it may be too late. Embryos and eggs are frozen and just left in limbo. There should be a ban on any future freezing. Those that wish to have embryos and eggs implanted should be allowed, for free, to adopt and use those that are already frozen.

Surrogacy should be banned. Rich people should not be able to pay poor people to have their babies and then have them taken off them straight away at birth. This is cruel to the baby!

Adoption does still have a role to play. What I would like to see is, rather than the parents choosing the baby or child, that it is the child that chooses the parents. If a child is old enough to understand about adoption and is comfortable with the family set up, the adoption should go ahead.

Adoption however, is a big thing for a child to come to terms with even with a traditional married couple as parents. Babies should not be allowed to be adopted by gay or trans couples.

Having a baby is not a right! It is the baby that should have rights and those rights should be paramount! Not everyone is able to have a baby.

Single people can double their income, and half their costs, by getting married. Marriage should be encouraged. Ideally, a young couple getting married for the first time, should be given a large sum of money to go towards the deposit for a mortgage for a small flat. When the said married couple then have a baby, they should be given a second and larger sum of money to go towards the deposit for a small house with a small garden.

Young children should be looked after by their parents. 

Is it best for a baby to be separated from their mother?

Rather than just giving free childcare, parents should also be offered money instead too. It is surely best to give a mother enough money to support her at home so she does not need to go to work. That choice should at least be offered!

We are mammals! For over 66 million years mammals have looked after their young! It is thus the tried and tested method of bringing up the young.

When the parents are old, the children should look after them.

One of the chief reasons for the NHS struggling, is because older people ready to be discharged do not have support packages set up by the Social Work Department. It is really unbelievable to think that all of those older persons are childless! Just as the parents had a moral responsibility to look after their children, so too, the children have a moral reponsibility to look after their parents!

I am old now, but ever since I was young, I have tried to avoid getting into dangerous situations. Parents need to protect their young children and teach them to avoid the dangerous situations.

FLAG

In decades past, when I have stood as an independent candidate before, I have been the sole candidate not wearing a rosette. I am old enough to remember when the Militants wore home-made cardboard rosettes. I was therefore determined when I entered this election to have a rosette and put much careful thought into organising the making of my rosette. It is, if I say so myself, a magnificant rosette! Further, and adopting a rather Trumpian tone, I can say that it is probably one of the biggest rosettes ever seen in the history of rosettes! It is the greatest rosette in the history of the world! The size of my rosette was actually governed by the decision of what colours to use. I picked four colours. They are what I call the footballing colours of the four home nations of our shared UK. The colours are blue for Scotland, green for Northern Ireland, red for Wales and white for England. For those interested in colour combinations, I have deliberately chosen the order of those colours!

The four colours thus represent the four nations of our shared UK, and the three loose ribbons below of red, white and blue represent the Union flag.

The purpose of my rosette was to show my political colours!

It should therefore be clear that I support the present day status quo constitutional position of Scotland and oppose Scottish independence. Indeed, this was one of my main reasons for entering this election.

The SNP are the biggest threat to the UK and that is why I want to see them voted out of government and office. If I am elected as the MSP for Edinburgh Central I am willing to work with almost anyone to help create a coalition that will replace the SNP Government!

Strangely, in this election, I have once more found myself the odd man out!

I was invited to, and attended, two hustings meetings during this campaign. At both hustings, none of the other candidates were wearing a rosette. I hope by election day and the count, that the other candidates have overcome their shyness and have decided to don their rosettes. I, at least, am fully intending to wear my rosette on election day and at the count.

With a Scottish father, (Glaswegian actually, thus why I can claim to be a fourth generation Glaswegian), and an English mother, the only label that really fits me is British. Indeed, I grew up on the site of a battle between Scotland and England. I want to see no more battles, and bloodshed, and death and wars between Scotland and England. It is the SNP that threaten to take us back to those dark days of the past. The SNP offer division and wars, whilst I offer unity and peace!

HOUSING

Edinburgh is an old city! Indeed, Edinburgh has been an area of power and settlement dating back to before the Romans. Much of the Old Town, and indeed much of the so-called New Town is also actually very old. The houses and streets are old and well established. A great many tourists from around the world come to see and walk the streets of Edinburgh. So I accept the status quo condition of the present buildings in Edinburgh, including the centre of Edinburgh, and this constituency of Edinburgh Central. Sure, we could demolish and knock down some buildings and replace them with lots of high-rise flats, but who would want that? It would destroy what makes Edinburgh Edinburgh!

As the housing stock in Edinburgh is mostly old and well established, we should assume that it is roughly in balance with the population. Indeed, the two should match!

It is the job of Edinburgh Council to make sure that the housing stock matches housing need. They need to plan carefully to make sure this happens. There seems to be vast numbers of new houses being built on the outskirts of the city. If the council views these new houses as being needed for a growing population, then they are doing their job. It is also part of their job to control the size of the population. A status quo population size only requires a status quo level of housing stock!

There has been much talk of high levels of immigration. This is a big issue, certainly in the south of England. One way to deal with this, has been for English councils and the UK Government to encourage dispersal further north of both migrants and those more generally seeking council houses. 

I lived in Glasgow for four decades. Over much of that time, Labour, and now SNP, councils, have been happy to take in large numbers of asylum-seekers. They have been paid to by central government. This puts extra strain on housing provision generally, and council housing and council-funded housing for homeless people in particular. There has been some talk of Edinburgh following the example of Glasgow. This is not something that I would encourage Edinburgh to do. There are enough problems anyway, without adding more problems caused by the population of Edinburgh being increased.

A lot of students come to Edinburgh University. They make up a sizeable share of the population of the city. it is good for them that they come, and good for the city too. They bring in money and their presence adds to the ambience of the city. The more students there are, the more money comes in! However, there is obviously a limit that can be sustained. More student accommodation means less housing for others! Getting the right balance is something that requires careful planning. Whilst I want to see universities free to do their job, they cannot be allowed to enroll unlimited numbers of students. It is the job of Edinburgh University, Edinburgh Council and the Scottish Government, all working together, to make a judgement as too what is the right balance of the number of students and the level of student housing, that can be sustained.

The same applies to the number of houses that are now run as holiday homes, either as second homes by richer people, or as Airbnb short-term holiday lets. Edinburgh is a tourist town, so it needs places for tourists to stay. However, the more homes that are just used by tourists, the less that are available for Edinburgh residents to live in. Again, this is something that Edinburgh Council have to give careful consideration to. A decision made for a certain number one year, may need to be tweeked or tinkered with in a following year.

Here in Edinburgh Central, we need to strive for a healthy balance of city residents, students and tourists. it is the job of local and national government to get that balance right.

I believe in a property-owning democracy! As many as possible should be able to own their own homes! Here in Scotland, the right to buy your council house has been abolished. They still have it in England. I think abolition was wrong! Buying your council house at a discount is a cheaper way of getting a first foot on the propery ladder. Perhaps it is the only way for those with smaller pay packets!

Building cheap council housing is a way to deal with some housing problems. In Glasgow, the post-WWII pre-fabs were historically some of the most sought-after and desired council houses. I am not advocating this for Edinburgh Central, but for other areas beyond the city centre. The same applies to those who are homeless. The priority should be to to provide some basic shelter or home. Edinburgh should home its homeless, however, it should not be involved in any schemes to bring in homeless from other parts of the UK.

NHS

Capacity!

The NHS needs more capacity!

Everybody has heard the stories of not being able to get an ambulance, because the ambulances are in a queue outside Accident & Emergency, because A&E has no room, because A&E cannot send people to wards, because there are no beds, because the beds are full of people who cannot be discharged because they have no care package at home, because the Social Work Department has not set one up.

The Social Work Departments are a complete failure and they are destroying the NHS. On Day One of the next Scottish Government, the government should, AND MUST, take control of the Social Work Departments and place them under the control of the NHS, and take their budgets and put them in the NHS. 

It seems to me that in my time in Glasgow, they were always shutting two big hospitals and building one new small hospital. Clearly, the problem with the NHS seems to be a lack of beds. New beds in new wards must be built as a priority from day one.

It is said that a new hospital or a new prison cannot be built overnight. BUT IT CAN! It is part of the basic skill-set of an army to build overnight a hospital for wounded or a prison-camp for POWs. During COVID, we saw the army used to quickly construct great numbers of beds and wards. So it is theoretically possible to do so. Theoretically, it wouldn't cost anything either. For the army, it would be a training exercise, and soldiers are already on a wage.

I am talking about constructing wards with minimal care needed to be provided. I am talking about people who are already fit to be discharged but do not have their care package set up. They need a bed, and a minimum level of nursing to make sure they are fed and are given their pills. Some TV rooms too! That all! That could be done TOMORROW!

We also need more staff to work in A&E. At the moment we have this strange thing that we train doctors and nurses, then when they qualify, we don't give them jobs! Then they go and work abroad! This is madness! Every doctor and nurse who qualifies, should be offered a job, in A&E, for a year. This seems obvious. Why train people for five years, spending all that money on them, if you are not going to employ them?

The NHS needs increased capacity!

SINGLE-SEX SPACES

In prisons you cannot put men in women's prisons. Those that identify as trans cannot be put in men's prisons or women's prisons. The obvious solution is to build trans prisons. The same applies to toilets too. In the future, trans toilets need to be built.

Returning to the issue of prisons, not only should the prisoners be of one sex, the same should apply to the prison officers too. Already in the UK, we have followed the trend in the USA, where love and romance have led to corruption. Though we haven't yet seen the prison-breaks that the USA has. The danger of exploitation or seduction if a man was working in a female prison is obvious!

Prisons should be single sex for all!

While the state should intervene regarding trans persons in prisons and toilets, the same should not apply regarding sport. Over many decades, men have spent much time and money building up great sporting associations. In more recent decades so have women.

Trans people have no right to just announce that they identify in a certain way and thus can now compete with a different sex. This issue is really confined to men. Men naturally are stronger, faster etc than women. This is why we have the different sexes performing separately.

If trans people want to take up sport, then like men and women of previous decades, they should spend time and money, over decades, building their own trans sporting associations. That is up to them to do. It is not the role of government to do it for them, either by creating those sporting associations, or by forcing, women for example, to accept biological men into sport. This is not about self-identification or sex-change operations. This is about the body you were born with and which grew over the years. The masculine muscles of a man cannot transform into those of a woman.

TAXES

'The Laffer Curve', is an essential component of a good tax system. Essentially, it is a line drawn on a graph. If we think about a 0% tax rate, then no one pays any tax. If tax is 100%, no one would pay tax, because no one would work for nothing. In between those two points is a curve, like an arch, on the graph. The top of the arch is the middle point. Here is the best tax rate. High enough to bring in money. Low enough not to deter people from working. The same applies not just income tax but to other taxes too. 

When I was out canvessing, a voter told me that some of the workers who worked at the power-station midway between Edinburgh and Berwick-upon-Tweed were now moving to England to avoid the higher tax rate here in Scotland. No doubt, a similar problem may arise regarding the new proposed mansion tax.

So we have to consider things like the Laffer Curve as well as the tax rates set in adjoining tax jurisdictions. This is not something that can be decided one time only. it requires to be constantly reviewed.

There is talk of new new council-tax rate bands. Those should only be considered if they were better, fairer and more just than the present day status quo bands for both rich and poor. Again, something like this needs careful consideration.

What does not seem right to me, is if the Edinburgh residents are expected to pay much more money to their council, and then central government seizes that money and redistributes it to other councils. Your council tax should go to your council!

About thirty years ago, I visited New York City. When I paid my hotel bill, they charged me a bed tax. I think it was $10 a night. It was easily paid and easily collected. This seems like a good way for a city to earn money from it's tourists. Of course, just like the Laffer Curve mentioned earlier, you want the tax to bring in money. Set it too low, and you don't get much money. Set it to high, and you don't get much money because the tourists stay away. 

Council tax brings in money to a council, except on student accommodation. This is an issue in many university towns, so when we are thinking of student numbers, this is an issue to be considered. A property tax can get money from very rich people who otherwise do not pay any tax. This is a big issue in London for example, so a property tax has it's uses. Property speculation is another big issue in London. Whole blocks of flats sold for property speculation, lying empty, and their owners living in foreign countries. The spoilt children of foreign dictators owning great swathes of property is also a problem in London. I do not know how big these London problems are in Edinburgh. I mention them, to show that we need to be aware of them.

When raising taxes, probably a variety of methods of taxation may be the best way. This may make it easier to hit everyone with tax in a way that balances out fairly. Not too much tax by one method that could hit one group too harshly. All paying tax, but not too much or too little.

TRANSPORT

There always seem to be great political arguments over transport, with right-wing politicians being pro-car and anti-public transport, and left-wing politicians taking the opposite position, when really what is needed is common-sense.

Let us start with car-parking spaces. It makes sense for the number of cars driving into a city-centre, like Edinburgh city centre, to match the number of car-parking spaces. If too many cars come in, there is no where for them to go! Therefore, the local council must be very hands-on in monitoring the volumes of cars coming into the city compared to the car-parking spaces. If too many cars are coming into the city, so they cannot all get parked, then car-parking charges need to be tweeked as part of a plan to encourage some people to leave their cars at home. Good public transport services are also required. A bus may have say ten rows of seats, so that is twenty people on each side, 20 + 20 = 40. Make it a double-decker, that takes us to 80. You can probably get two car lengths in the space of one bus. So if one bus load of people want to drive their cars into the city, they will need 40 times as much space on the road. So it probably doesn't matter much how many car-parking spaces there are, there is just not enough space on the roads for all those cars. So we need a transport strategy that combines all forms of transport. Bikes, buses, cars, trams, trains and walking, all need to be considered so that the great city of Edinburgh can run smoothly.

With regard to buses and other forms of public transport, these need to be run well and to charge cheap fares to encourage use. However, free transport, would just be used by beggers, and criminals, and chronic drink and drug users and the homeless. This would deter others from using public transport. A self-defeating exercise! The same applies to flat-fares! Fare structures need to deter people from making buses etc home from homes and spending all day living in them. 

TACTICAL VOTING

The voting system we have, with the two votes, is so that parties that get a lot of votes, but not many seats in the Parliament, get extra seats to make seat representation more proportional. To be precise, they count the votes in two ways. In the constituencies, the candidate in each constituency who gets the highest number of votes gets elected. This is what is called the first-past-the-post system. The second vote is the party list. Here you vote for the party of your choice and each party will get candidates elected if they get enough votes. However, the party list is counted in a special way. The total in each region is counted up for each party. Then that vote is divided by one. In other words it stays the same. However, if a party has already won a constituency in that region, then that one seat is added to the party list one. 1 + 1 = 2. So if a party has won a constituency vote, their party list vote is divided by 2. In other words, it is halved. If a party won two constituency seats, then two would be added to one to make three. 2 + 1 = 3. And so on. The system is designed so that a party's representation in Parliament is more proportional to their vote. So, the more constituencies a party wins in a region, the harder it becomes to get a list candidate elected. So one vote can cancel out another, or it may not! It all really depends on how the votes go and are spread out.

I would advise voters to consider splitting their vote, so that one vote does not cancel out the other.

You should vote on the party list for the party of your choice. If they get enough votes, they will get a candidate elected. If they don't get enough votes, they wont!

In the constituency, there may be all sorts of reasons why you want to vote for a certain candidate. You may like their message. You may like the candidate because you like their party. You may try to vote tactically to try to keep someone else out.

Someone with strong party loyalty to a certain political party may find it very hard to vote for another party in the constituency vote, as they probably would not want that party candidate to get elected.

If you are uncomfortable voting for another party's candidate, then vote for me!

If you like some or most of the things I have set out in my manifesto, then vote for me and my manifesto.

On the party list, vote for the party of your choice, but in the Edinburgh Central constituency vote, please lend me your vote in this election and vote for me.

I support the continued unity of the UK and oppose Scottish independence.

I want to see the SNP out of government!

If I am elected MSP, I will do my very best to work with others to elect a new First Minister and a new government.

This is my manifesto!