I'm covering this because I've come too far to stop

But I make it quite clear that this story is now embarrassing to follow. Labour's current position on a referendum is that they "won't give the SNP a blank cheque". This means that they will cop out on any proposal. The wording won't be good enough. The date won't be good enough. Nothing will be good enough. We will be back to square one in 2010.

The only difference will be that Labour have made prize tits of themselves over this over the past week.

So to sum up:

Labour are Unionists, so don't want an independence referendum, but aren't afraid of the verdict of the people, so want a referendum now, while waiting for the Calman Commission to present its findings, so want to set the timing and question of a referendum which they do want in a Bill which they can't introduce and may even be ultra vires, and as they can't introduce it, they have scored a victory over the SNP by agreeing not to oppose the SNP's main policy come 2010, when they get round to scrutinising the policy in detail that is already available and decide it's completely unpalatable,

I've left a comma there rather than a full stop as I'm expecting another clause to added in about five minutes.

How fitting that so soon after Humphrey Lyttleton's death, Scottish Labour should produce such a wonderful tribute to him: one giant political game of Cheddar Gorge!

A Triple U-Turn, Double Salchow and Back Flip

Wendya Alexander's latest announcement: she will not stand in the way of the SNP's Referendum Bill in 2010. That to me suggests that Labour will abstain, guaranteeing passage of the Bill. However, she can still amend it to death, as - and the Tories' David McLetchie has confirmed this - the SNP's proposed wording on the referendum question is just about legal, insofar as the Scottish Parliament would ask it. Wendy currently favours "Do you want Scotland to be ripped out of the UK kicking and screaming?", or something like that. This would be ultra vires. So she could strangle the Bill by making it breach Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act: she could, by getting Tory or LibDem support, support the Bill in such a way that she destroys it. So although she could let the Bill through, we have to wonder in what state it will complete its passage. Any welcome should be cautious.

Of course, it's doubtful that the Tories or LibDems would play ball: the Tories (with the exception of Michael Forsyth) are saying a flat no, just as they did in 1997. The LibDems are so opposed to a referendum that they refused even to sit down and discuss Coalition with the SNP, ostensibly on the grounds that they didn't want a referendum to be discussed. And this whole debacle has soured relations between Labour and the other Unionist parties. It's also made the Calman Commission an exercise in pointlessness.

And we don't even know if Wendy will be the Leader by January 2010? What stance would Andy Kerr take? Or Iain Gray? Or Malcolm Chisholm?

Nor do we know what Labour's view will be tomorrow. Any bets on a quadruple U-turn?

Now to more important matters

We now know which Scottish football clubs will be involved in which European competitions next season.

With a Man U/Chelsea Champions' League final this season, and those two teams occupying the top 2 places in the English Premier League, the SPL Winners will get their place in the Group Stage. The Runners-up will be a seeded team in the Second Qualifying Round, and should they progress, will be seeded in the Third Qualifying Round as well. This is a good thing as it means that they will not play Barcelona at this stage. For the actual Group Stage seedings, Rangers will go into either Pot 2 or Pot 3 - this appears to be contingent on their performance on Wednesday - while Celtic will go into either Pot 3 or Pot 4 - this has more to do with who get knocked out in the Qualifying Rounds.

Motherwell are confirmed in Third Place, and so qualify for the UEFA Cup, as do Queen of the South, for reaching the Cup Final - Rangers' access to the Champions' League means that QoS will go into UEFA. Unless a mighty upset takes place, they will enter into the Second Qualifying Round, and Motherwell will go into the First Round proper. If, somehow, the First Division side do manage to overturn Rangers, then the reverse will be true. We don't yet know the seedings, though I'd guess that the team in the Second Qualifying Round will be seeded, but that the team(s) in the First Round Proper will not.

Finally, Hibs will go into the Intertoto Cup - by virtue of the fact that only they and Falkirk could be arsed to enter it. They will enter in the Second Round, where they will play the First Leg at home to either Sweden's IF Elfsborg or HB Torshavn of the Faroe Islands. If they get through that, they'll play the First Leg of the Third Round tie at home to one of Latvia's FK Riga, Iceland's Fylkir Reykjavik, Bohemians (from Dublin) or Rhyl. If they win that tie, they go into the Second Qualifying Round of the UEFA Cup, where they're a good bet to be seeded, and in fact have a greater chance of being seeded than either Queen of the South or Motherwell.

My thanks, as before, go to Mr. Kassies.

That shiver is still looking for a spine to run up

Wasn't it Winnie Ewing who said that a shiver went across the Labour benches, looking for a spine to run up? Well, it's as true today as it was when she (or whoever) first uttered that line. Wendy Alexander has caved in to Gordon Brown, and gone off the boil as regards a referendum.

It turns out that they won't be supporting a referendum because the SNP want to hold one on their terms. Seeing as the SNP are the Government, this is quite natural. The fact that the SNP position is the same as it was right the way back at the start of the 2007 Election campaign - that there would be a referendum in 2010 - has not stopped Labour from accusing the SNP of breaking a manifesto promise, by planning for policies to take place in the future in accordance with, er, the SNP manifesto. Compare and contrast this with Labour, whose policy appears to have changed hourly.

This, incidentally, is why I disagree with Kez's comparison with events leading up to the SNP's support of the 1997 Devolution referendum. Was there a tactical element to the SNP's considerations? Of course! Just as there were tactics involved in Labour's decision to hold a referendum in the first place. But implicit in invoking points in history when the other side did something you're being accused of is an admission that you find the action distasteful, and that you're only doing it because the other side did it. If an action is wrong, they shouldn't do it, rather than carry it out then blame the other side for doing something similar in 1997. "Well, that lot did it!" is an argument deployed most often by seven year olds in the Primary School playground. I think it should be left to them.

Besides, tactics are always going to come into it: every announcement, every policy, is carefully weighed. How is it to be presented? When is it to be presented? How is it to be delivered? Those questions are big ones in politics, and we ignore them at our peril. Why? Because if you get the tactics wrong, you never get the chance to put a policy into practice - you don't get that support at the ballot box in the first place. So for my part, I don't have a problem with Wendy Alexander trying out new tactics - rather, I think that's her job: she's supposed to challenge the Government, she's supposed to look like a potential First Minister, and if doing one thing isn't working she absolutely has to try doing something else - but for me, the problem was that the tactics were, well, awful. And so it proved.

But in any case, the comparison with the SNP in 1997 is invalid. At the heart of the choice facing the SNP then - back or attack devolution - was a major ideological question: should the SNP accept it as some autonomy coming to Scotland, a marker of progress on a road to independence; or should it reject it as a lousy halfway house, an attempt to sate Scots and deny them full self-determination? It had to be considered, had to be discussed, had to be thought out, and it took a National Council meeting to confirm that yes, devolution is an acceptable stepping stone and the SNP would support it as welcome progress. The only tactic used was to leave the decision until there was a clear proposal from the new Government after the election, rather than annoy one wing of the Party just a couple of months before their help would be needed.

Wendy Alexander, on the other hand, had an inconclusive phone call with Gordon Brown, obviously had someone leak it to the Sunday Mail what she was thining about, and then blurted it out on BBC Scotland.

And now, after a week of discussing it, of the position shifting so rapidly, we now have the Labour position, which can be summed up as "the SNP don't want to play our way, so we're not playing at all".

But here's the thing: for all its risks, for all the chaos that surrounded it, support for the referendum was the right thing. I've been saying all this time that if Labour (and the others) really believe that Scots support the Union, then they should take the issue directly to the people and settle it for a generation. Wendy Alexander looked like she agreed with that, and I can't knock her for it now: the tactics may be poor but the principle is entirely correct. The problem is that she's met the Clunking Fist that was supposed to beat David Cameron... it's beaten her instead.

As soon as Gordon Brown made it clear that he was less than enthralled with the idea, it was never going to get off the ground. The notion that he has 'lost control' of Scottish Labour is a nonsense: what has changed is that he has other matters to distract him, so he has taken to slackening the leash. But he can still yank it back at any time and this is what happened this week. Alexander's plan was doomed from Wednesday lunchtime - that was predictable. It was also predictable that they'd try and blame the SNP, whose response has been to say nothing other than, "We're glad you want a referendum, we promised one in 2010 and we'll stick to our promise!" It's the right thing - the only thing - to say.

I'm sad - but not surprised - that Wendy Alexander has been beaten. I'll be even sadder - but still not surprised - if she ends up having to quit over this. She probably has to go, even though she doesn't desrve to: she's been slapped down in a rather humiliating fashion, she's found herself unable to hold down a specific policy for longer than an afternnon, and she's allowed what could have been the most radical plan to come out of Scottish Labour for years turn into a self-destructive squabble. But for everything that has gone wrong, the idea was entirely the right one. It's just a shame that the rest of the Labour hierarchy didn't agree with her.

The Sunday Whip

The actual debates and voting in the Scottish Parliament were something of a sideshow this week, with Wendy Alexander doing her level best to prove that constitutional debate smothers discussion of anything else. She did this by talking repeatedly about the constitution, over and over again.

Anyway, the complete dog's breakfast that was the Labour constitutional position overshadowed what was not the best of weeks for the Government in terms of votes. It wasn't the worst week by any means, but Ministers have had better.

Wednesday began with the usual wavethrough of the Business Motion, followed by the vote on the Government's International Framework. Community Safety Minister Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn & Lochaber), Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead (Moray), and Marilyn Livingstone (Lab, Kirkcaldy) missed the shenanigans.

The first vote was on the Labour amendment, which passed by 79 (Labour, Tories, LibDems, Greens) votes to 0 with 46 (SNP and Margo) abstentions. Did I mention how I hate it when parties do this? What's the point in forcing a vote, if you're only going to abstain? Anyway, before I get revved up, the Tory amendment passed by 77 (SNP, Tory and LibDem) votes to 48 (Labour, Greens and Margo), and a LibDem amendment also passed by 77 (Labour, Tories and the LibDems) to 48 (SNP, Greens and Margo). This rendered the motion quite unacceptable to the SNP, but it still passed by 76 votes to 46 with two abstentions. John Farquhar Munro (LibDem, Ross, Skye & Inverness West) must have dozed off, though Labour, the Tories and the rest of the LibDems voted in favour. Alex Neil (SNP, Central Scotland) broke ranks and joined Margo MacDonald in abstention, but the rest of the SNP opposed the amended motion, along with the Greens. So with the Unionist parties prevailing on this occasion, Parliament resolved:

That the Parliament recognises the importance of ensuring that Scotland is competitive in an increasingly globalised society; agrees that creating the conditions for talented people to live, learn, visit, work and remain in Scotland is crucial to helping to deliver the goals of growing Scotland's population and economy in a sustainable way, and welcomes the Scottish Government's International Framework as part of the means to extend, focus and align the actions and policies of the government and public sector partners to these ends while stressing the need to "make full use of the UK resources at our disposal", including "the Foreign and Commonwealth Office network around the world to maximise business, cultural and educational opportunities for Scotland", and "engage more directly with the British Council in our priority markets with a view to maximising the opportunities to showcase Scotland's cultural and educational excellence abroad", as outlined in the International Framework document, but does not consider it in the best interests of Scotland for the Scottish Government to promote policies which do not command the support of the Parliament and, in particular, does not believe that the International Framework or any of the related documents or actions of the Scottish Government should contain any reference to Scottish independence, for which the minority Scottish Government has no mandate nor any authority from the Parliament to promote.

The day then ended with MSPs waving through the Victim Notification Scheme (Scotland) Order 2008

Thursday, however, was a 50:50 day for the Government, though it was not a shining day for the new politics, with every question being put to a vote. Labour's Shadow Education Secretary Rhona Brankin (Midlothian) missed the day's votes, as did Tory Health Spokeswoman Mary Scanlon (Highlands & Islands) and LibDem Justice Spokeswoman Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West).

Things started badly for the Government, with the voted on Labour's Housing Needs motion, all of which were missed by the Parliamentary Business Minister Bruce Crawford (Stirling), whose talismanic presence may or may not have come in handy. The Government amendment fell by 75 (Labour, Tory and LibDem) votes to 48 (SNP and Greens) with one Margo-shaped abstention. Elaine Smith (Lab, Coatbridge & Chryston) missed the Tory amendment, which passed by 74 (Labour, Tories and LibDems) to 46 (SNP) with three (Greens and Margo) abstentions. Smith was back for the LibDem amendment, but it was the turn of Tory Business Manager David McLetchie (Edinburgh Pentlands) to pop out. The amendment still passed by 74 (same parties) to 48 (SNP and the Greens) with one abstention. McLetchie came back in time to vote on the amended motion, but strangely, Elaine Smith managed to miss that as well. But it still passed - thanks to the three main Opposition parties - by 74 to 48, with Margo not resting until her abstain button has worn out completely. So Members resolved:

That the Parliament recognises the broad range of issues that must be tackled in meeting the diverse housing needs of people across Scotland; confirms that the Scottish Government must act to address these issues, including continued work to prevent and reduce homelessness, the further development of housing to meet particular and specialist need, dealing with the blockages to the supply of housing, providing affordable housing to buy and within the socially rented sector, ensuring higher quality and better managed housing for rent in the private sector, seeking solutions to the problems facing local authorities where tenants voted against stock transfer and recognising the distinctive challenges in rural areas, regeneration areas and areas of high demand; notes that the consultation responses to the Firm Foundations document exposed significant flaws in the Scottish Government's approach; urges the Scottish Government to address these flaws and bring forward a coherent strategy for all of Scotland's housing needs and, in particular, agrees that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing should ensure that the Mazars report into second stage transfer issues in Glasgow Housing Association is subject to open, transparent and independent scrutiny; regrets the failure of the Scottish Government to actively promote housing stock transfer by local authorities to community-based housing associations, with the approval of tenants; urges the Scottish Government to co-operate with HM Treasury and councils to achieve the substantial debt write-offs of over £2 billion which are available and thereby facilitate new investment in social housing; regrets that after two parliamentary debates on the subject since the budget was passed, the Scottish Government has still failed to come forward with clear figures on its housing plans across all sector and tenure types including the number of affordable rented houses to be built from 2008 to 2011, and has further failed to produce a clear trajectory for how it intends to meet its commitment to abolish unintentional homelessness by 2012; calls for improved energy efficiency to be a key objective in plans for new housing, and opposes the Scottish Government's proposals for large scale procurement put forward in Firm Foundations.

Following that came the Government motion on Effective Public Services, for which Bruce Crawford was back in the Chamber, which is a good thing, as the motion was in his name. A Labour amendment fell by 64 (SNP/Tory/Green) votes to 45 (Labour) with 16 (LibDem and Margo) abstentions. A Tory amendment fared better, passing by 63 (SNP/Tories/Margo) to 46 with 16 abstentions: Most of the LibDems abstained with the Greens, though Iain Smith (North East Fife) ended up voting with Labour, against the amendment. Smith remembered which party he was in for the LibDem amendment, though it still fell, by 65 (SNP/Tories/Greens/Margo) to 60 (Labour and the LibDems, so Iain Smith still voted with Labour, technically). The motion, which had been amended by the Tories, passed by 63 (SNP/Tories/Margo) to 60 (Labour and the LibDems) with two Green abstentions. So MSPs resolved:

That the Parliament welcomes the opportunity to debate proposals to deliver better public services by reducing duplication, bureaucracy and overlaps in the public sector with the aim of achieving greater focus and alignment with the Purpose of Government and the outcomes set out in the national performance framework; believes that there is scope for continuous improvement in the design and delivery of public services, and rejects the notion that improvements in public services can only be achieved by increased levels of public spending.

But no one cared. Because Wendy Alexander was announcing her fifteenth position on the constitution in the space of a week.

Bear with me on this one

Once upon a time, I had a cheap, crappy joystick attached to one of my previous computers, the one (obviously) with the game port that came with my soundcard. The joystick was a bit rubbish, quite frankly, but it did the job. It was plugged in, the computer recognised it and it worked on all the games I wanted to use it on.

One of those games was FIFA 97, and I duly instructed it to use the joystick. Until I got bored with the game - as, sadly, is my way; I am a fickle thing when it comes to computer games - and decided to play Transport Tycoon or something.

Then, of course, I went to Uni, and took the computer with me. Though I decided that the joystick was taking up box space that could be used for RF signal booster and 5,000 SCART cables that I took up to Edinburgh with me. I have to be honest: I did not initially miss the joystick.

But one day, I was going through the Start Menu, and remembered that I still had FIFA 97. So I decided to run it, to pass the time.

Disaster! I could load the menus, and start a game, but for some reason, I simply couldn't control the virtual players. They were running around like digitised headless chickens, bumping into one another, unable to respond to any instruction I issued, from either the keyboard or mouse.

Then I realised. The game was still working on the basis that I was using a joystick. The joystick wasn't there. It was seeking commands from a controller whose absence it wasn't prepared for.

In the past few days, Gordon Brown has been too busy with Labour's embrassment in the local polls - and I maintain that it's not the meltdown it's perceived to be - the 10% tax row and detention without trial (to name just three things in his in tray) to get down and dirty with the complexities of Scottish Labour. This weekend, the joystick was, in effect, disconnected from the party.

Then someone decided to load Wendy Alexander and click "Run"...

I think I've got the details of how things have progressed since Sunday, but I fear I may have lost track. From what I can tell, she said she wanted a referendum to spook the SNP on Sunday morning, as I blogged before she went on the Politics Show. Then, I thought it was the stupidest thing she could do.

Then she said she wanted the SNP to get their arses in gear and publish their proposals ASAP. This was the dangerous bit: goading the SNP, daring them. And, perhaps, saying something that some SNP supporters might agree with, albeit for different reasons. Could she have cottoned on to something?

Then momentum gathered, and Wendy was going to put forward her own proposals for law. And yes, she absolutely had Brown's backing.

Then a Downing Street press spokesman started distancing Numer 10 from her idea.

And Brown appeared to believe that "We want an independence referendum" means "We want to hang around and wait for the Calman Commission to report back, then we'll have a think". Which is actually a completely different sentiment though probably the most sensible one for Labour, who, through Wendy, have now severely pissed on their chips in terms of Tory and LibDem support.

Thn someone checked the Parliamentary rule book, and found that if the Government intends to legislate on an issue, there ain't no Member's Bill. And if an MSP can't get at least one other party for support on an issue, then there ain't no Member's Bill. And seeing as 1) the Government do intend to propose legislation, and 2) a Wendy Alexander Member's Bill on the matter wouldn't secure support from any party except her own, her plans were pretty much dead.

Now they are appearing to claim that it was all just a wheeze to throw eggs at the SNP. Which is probably the truth, but it's confused a lot of people - not least a certain Mr. J. G. Brown of Downing Street, London.

So where do we all stand? For one brief period, the SNP had won the support of the main opposition party for its main policy: an independence referendum. Then the Labour approach seemed to turn from a concrete policy proposal into political blancmange. The Tories can accuse Gordon Brown of not knowing what Wendy Alexander is doing (how can he, when she clearly hasn't exactly got an A1 grasp of that herself?) and judging on his apparent unawareness of precisely what she said, they have a point. Meanwhile, the SNP can point to Wendy Alexander being slapped down by Gordon Brown, citing her return to the old mantra: "The prime minister and I are agreed". They clearly are not, and Brown has said and done nothing to support a referendum - he could arrange one through Westminster if he wanted to - even in the past 48 hours. Therefore, if the two are agreed, Alexander has been forced to backtrack. So to English anti-Labour audiences, Brown looks even more like a blundering oaf who can't even work out what's going on in his own backyard. To Scottish anti-Labour audiences, Alexander looks like a puppet whose strings have got tangled, forcing the PM to take control again.

And all because Scottish Labour's joystick wasn't plugged in.

Labour's supposed boycott of Reserved Issues

The UK budget is a reserved matter and we do not intend to vote on it, just as we did not vote on identity cards, defence or a European referendum.

- Iain Gray, in the Official Report, 1 May 2008, c. 8209.

Sounds fair. Except:

On a European referendum, Labour put forward an amendment which read:

"membership of the European Union has been hugely positive for Scotland and Britain, delivering more jobs, a single market, freedom to work and live abroad, environmental protection, security and an enhanced place for Scotland and Britain in the world; believes that the European Union needs to become more efficient, more effective and more accountable and welcomes the signing of the European Reform Treaty as a significant step towards tackling these concerns, and believes that the treaty will allow the European Union to move on from debates about institutions to concentrating on the fundamental challenges of climate change, globalisation, terrorism and international development."

So they took part, lodging an amendment which clearly took a broader view than is permitted in Schedule V of the Scotland Act. The only played the boycott card after the amendment fell.

On Firearms - again involving UK-level powers - Labour tabled the following amendment:

"the unacceptable incidence of gun crime and in particular the illegal misuse of air weapons across Scotland; welcomes the actions of the previous Scottish Executive, working with the UK Home Office, to restrict the sale of airguns and increase the age at which an airgun can be obtained; notes that there is a case for reviewing the effect of these provisions with a view to implementing further restrictions on the ownership of airguns other than for recognised and legitimate occupational and sporting interests; but further believes that improved firearm legislation would be best obtained by retaining consistency across all parts of the United Kingdom, and therefore calls on Scottish ministers to engage constructively with the UK Government to better control and reduce serious and violent crime in Scotland."

This amendment actually brought a call for UK-wide legislation to be brought forward into the debate, during which they did not abstain.

On Trident, Labour did put forward an amendment to a motion last June, huffily eliminating everything but a grumble that defence is reserved. A number of MSPs broke ranks and took a position other than abstention. But that's not the whole story: in 2006, the SNP put forward a motion on Trident - and Labour responded with this amendment:

"that the UK Government has initiated a debate on the future of the independent nuclear deterrent force and urges everyone in Scotland to take part in it; recognises that the decisions on national defence are rightly reserved to Westminster; considers that any government has a primary duty to protect the security of its people and that this includes a credible policy on national defence and international security; believes in a shared objective of a world without nuclear weapons and supports further reductions in the global nuclear arsenal; further believes that, in seeking a world free from nuclear weapons, we should utilise and develop our international engagement at every level including at the EU, the United Nations including the UK's seat on the Security Council, NATO and the G8; notes with concern the plans of the SNP to take Scotland out of the collective security arrangements of the UK and NATO and to establish separate armed forces for Scotland with greatly diminished capabilities either to contribute to international peacekeeping operations or even to defend Scottish interests, and rejects those policies on the grounds that they would threaten the security of Scotland, diminish our armed forces and destroy jobs."

Youll notice that while it mentions that defence is reserved, it waxes lyrical about nuclear policy, the UN, NATO and the G8. So much for that!

Oh, and isn't the constitution reserved? So why did Labour get this passed at Holyrood?

That the Parliament, recognising mainstream public opinion in Scotland, supports the establishment of an independently chaired commission to review devolution in Scotland; encourages UK Parliamentarians and parties to support this commission also and proposes that the remit of this commission should be:

"To review the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 in the light of experience and to recommend any changes to the present constitutional arrangements that would enable the Scottish Parliament to better serve the people of Scotland, that would improve the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament and that would continue to secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom",

and further instructs the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to allocate appropriate resources and funding for this review.

So they actually wanted to allocated Parliamentary time and funding to a commission reviewing something that Holyrood can't legislate on.

In short, this boycott of reserved matters is a sham. The next time Labour MSPs hide behind it, mention their positions on Trident in 2006, the EU treaty in 2007, firearms legislation in 2008 and their initial support for a Constitutional Commission based at Holyrood.

Remember: I only ever call politicians two-faced bastards when they're being two-faced bastards. Iain Gray gets that label for this.

The Sunday Whip

There was a rather surreal air to motions and votes this week: amendments to the Commonwealth Games Bill were either not moved or moved then withdrawn, Parliament voted to take no position whatsoever on housing - with a little help from the Deputy Presiding Officer - and the bizarre sight of an amendment passing with the lowest level of support of any successful motion or amendment that has gone to a vote in Session 3 of the Scottish Parliament. And then Labour failed to oppose a motion slagging off the UK Government!

Anyway. Wednesday saw absolutely no votes taking place, mainly as the nine amendments to the Commonwealth Games Bill that had been put forward seem to disappear down a great big holeover the course of the afternoon, and everyone was happy with the Bill as it stood by the end of the day, so it passed without dissent. As did the Business Motion (as usual). And the Mental Health (Cross-border Visits) (Scotland) Regulations 2008. And the motion detailing when the Clerk's Office would be open over the next year. And the motion detailing the recess dates, which no MSP in his or her right mind would oppose.

Thursday was a strange mixture of consensus and anti-consensus. It was missed by Community Safety Minister Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber), Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead (Moray), the First Minister (who was suffering from a stomach bug), his predecessor Jack McConnell (Motherwell & Wishaw), Labour's Shadow Enterprise Minister Elaine Murray (Dumfries), LibDem Health Spokesman Ross Finnie (West of Scotland), LibDem Justice Spokeswoman Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West), her Tory counterpart Bill Aitken (Glasgow), his party colleague Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland), and Margo MacDonald, who opted to give her abstain button a rest. Oh, and Alasdair Morgan (SNP, South of Scotland) was there, but had his Deputy Presiding Officer's hat on, so couldn't vote. Or could he?

Anyway, first came the Tory motion on housing. A Government amendment fell by 72 (Labour/Tory/LibDem) votes to 42 - the SNP alone, minus Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson (Banff & Buchan) - and two Green abstentions.

The Labour amendment fell by 56 (the still Stevenson-less SNP and the Tories) votes to 44 (Labour), with 15 abstentions - the LibDems minus Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross) and the Greens.

The LibDem amendment was a tie at with 58 votes on each side: Labour and the LibDems, who had Stone back, voted in favour; the SNP, Tories and Greens voted against. So the DPO had to break the tie, and as convention dictates that the Chair votes for the status quo, he voted against the amendment, so that was that.

The motion itself then came up for a vote, and it too fell, by 102 votes to 14 with one abstention - Elaine Smith (Lab, Coatbridge & Chryston). The Tories were the motion's only supporters, and everyone else (apart from Smith, but including Stewart Stevenson, who had by then showed up) voted against. As such, Parliament took no position on housing. The last time Parliament failed to vote for any motion or accompanying amendments was a series of votes on firearms, which took place in January.

However, MSPs re-discovered the spirit of consensus with a Tory motion on food security. A Labour amendment itself faced a Green amendment, which went through on the nod, along with the amended amendment. So did a LibDem amendment. And the amended motion:

That the Parliament expresses its concern at the potential for global food shortages; notes the recent cost increases in many basic food products here in Scotland, with food price inflation now exceeding 6%; further notes that many developing countries are experiencing growing social unrest as a result of food pressures; calls on the Scottish Government, Her Majesty's Government, the European Union and other relevant bodies to work closely, and with the appropriate urgency, to seek solutions that take account of the growing pressures on agriculture from both climate change and the rush to biofuels, as well as the peak in oil production; recognises the role of Scotland's primary producers in ensuring the long-term capacity and capability of our food supply, and further calls on the Scottish Government to encourage the development of local supply chains through public procurement, address the imbalance in power between the big supermarkets and our food producers, reduce the regulatory burden on farmers, and ensure that our primary producers operate on a level playing field with foreign competitors.

Then came the Government motion on the UK Budget. A Tory amendment fell by 16 (LD/Green) votes to 14 (Tories) with 87 (SNP/Labour) abstentions. A LibDem amendment, on the other hand, passed by 16 (LD/Green) to 14 (Tories) with 87 abstentions. Given that the two largest parties opted to sit this one out, it's fair to say that the LibDems won this "Clash of the Gerbils". The amended motion finally stirred the SNP into action: it passed by 57 (SNP/LibDem) votes to 16 (Tories/Greens) with 44 abstentions (Labour):

That the Parliament is disappointed with some of the decisions taken in the 2008 UK Budget and their damaging impact on the Scottish economy and households; in particular regrets that action was not taken to reverse the 2007 decision to abolish the 10p tax rate; deplores the continued failure of the UK Government to provide an adequate package of measures to help families affected by the falling housing market and the absence of sufficient budget provision for the alleviation of child poverty; notes with concern the increase in the small companies' rate of corporation tax; believes that the blanket approach taken in setting alcohol duty is too simplistic and does not address the wider social and health issues around alcohol; regrets that the measures aimed at tackling fuel poverty are insufficient, and further regrets the lack of appropriate measures to moderate the impact of rising fuel prices.

Now, in the interests of fairness, it would be very easy to crow that the Labour abstention shows that even they can't bring themselves to oppose a motion criticising the Labour budget. However, Shadow Finance Secretary Iain Gray claims that Labour are boycotting any motion which debates reserved matters. I'll come back to that in a separate post, but if Labour stick to that policy, Alex Johnstone (Con, Angus) is right to flag up that it gives the SNP a working majority on debates concerning reserved matters.

Anyway. The last two motions were waved through, and concerned changes to the Labour membership and substitutes on various committees. So it was, all in all, a mixed bag. Isn't politics fun?

Labour press the panic button

If reports from the Sunday Mail are to be believed - and on the internal state of Labour I'd read them very closely - Gordon Brown and Wendy Alexander are coming round to the way of thinking that Labour need to support a yes/no referendum on independence to "call the SNP's bluff" and so throw Alex Salmond's party into chaos.

Well, any conversion to a refernedum is welcome, but this is the problem with Labour's view on the constitution: none of their plans are ever put forward because they believe in X or Y. They are always put forward because the Leadership reckon it will shaft the SNP. So if this is about party self-interest rather than the principle of Scotland having a say, let's take a look at why it's completely barmy.

1. What if they're wrong? They want a yes/no referendum. Independence does better when a simple yes/no question is asked than when a range of options are put forward, and a System3 poll which gave a yes/no question found a plurality voting in favour. They could give Scotland independence through a political miscalculation.

2. Even if they're right, this won't sideline the SNP at all. How long were the Quebecois nationalists in power for? How long have the Catalan nationalists been in power for? Even if Scots did vote No, they might quite like a devolved administration that goes its own way, with a First Minister who can bang his fist on the table at JMC meetings. And besides, look at Labour campaigns: in 1999, the slogan was "Divorce is an expensive business"; in 2003, there was a poster of Scotland literally coming apart from the rest of Britain and sort of dangling off the corner of Northumberland with the caption "Then what?"; and in 2007 the slogan was "Break up Britain, End up Broke". A 'No' vote would put independence off the table for more or less 15 years, and Labour would lose its biggest point of attack against the SNP who could then govern Scotland in the way that similar political parties in Quebec and Catalonia have done. Labour could still end up in Opposition for a long time.

3. Every move made by the Unionist parties has been in the SNP's direction. To get Labour to support a referendum would be a massive triumph for the SNP, in fact it would be the ultimate victory. Labour could never credibly oppose a referendum again, and more importantly the SNP could simply state that Labour had conceded on the SNP's main point: that it's for the Scottish people to decide the issue. That's the SNP policy and Labour would be supporting it, even if the two parties disagreed on the outcome. The SNP would never let Labour forget that. Ever.

4. Doesn't this completely sideline the Calman Commission, which both Alexander and Brown are putting their faith in? What about its work, its findings? To boil the matter down to "Independence - Yes or No?" is to render the commission/working group completely ineffective.

So either the Sunday Mail's got it wrong or the Labour Leadership is in a more heightened state of panic than we thought.

Is that so?

Today's Scotland on Sunday:

Brown is also expected to carry out a major Cabinet reshuffle later this summer. Scotland on Sunday understands that the post of Scottish Secretary could be axed to make way for a new 'Minister of the Regions' with responsibility for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Current Welsh Secretary Paul Murphy is said to be favourite to take up the post.

I don't know who their source is, or even if they had one. They signs go back several weeks to when Paul Murphy met Alex Salmond to discuss the JMCs. Certainly I spotted them then, but did the SoS? I hedged my bets somewhat, taking the presence of Shaun Woodward into account, but despite that, these dots were easy to join. Why would the Scottish First Minister meet with the Secretary of State for Wales?

And why didn't the SoS ask that a few weeks ago?

Of course, it's PR's fault

From the BBC today:

Thanks to the version of proportional representation used in London, the [BNP] gained one of the 25 London Assembly seats after winning 5.3% of the vote.

Of course, there have been two elections to the GLA under the same system prior to Thursday. The BNP won no seats at either of them. The system is similar to that in operation in Scotland - the difference being that there's one giant list for London rather than electoral regions - where the BNP have never had an MSP. The Welsh system works in a similar method, and there has never been a BNP AM either. PR is used in the European elections, and there has never been a BNP MEP. Oh, and the STV system in Scotland's Council elections saw no BNP Councillors elected.

In that opening clause, the BBC have implicitly asserted that the electoral system is the primary cause of a BNP London Assembly Member. The fact that - whether we like it or not - 130.714 Londoners saw fit to vote BNP has been mentioned only in passing: the fact that the first thing the BBC mention in relation to the election result is the electoral system, you can see what's coming: PR will be blamed for the election of a fascist.

But what opponents of PR will neglect to mention when they accuse the voting system of letting fascists into politics is that there were Council elections in England and Wales on Thursday as well. They were carried out under FPTP, and the BNP won 37 Council seats in England. They were defending 27 seats which they had won in 2004. Ten BNP Councillors were elected last year (up from nine in 2003). 32 BNP Councillors were elected in 2006 - up from five in 2002. Therefore, FPTP has seen the far Right elected as well, on a far more regular (and increasing) basis. Based on the current electoral cycle, we can expect there to be 79 BNP Councillors scuttling around town halls across England.

So here's a thought... maybe it's not the voting system. Maybe it's because mainstream politicians don't quite know how to deal with them. Maybe taking the huff when the BNP turn up, refusing to debate with them and flouncing off, leaving the BNP to fill a vacuum in places where people feel cut off from politicians anyway, isn't working. Maybe, just maybe, it's time for our politicians to have the guts to stand up where the BNP are, and rip them to shreds, which anyone with half a brain who is willing to challenge their propaganda could do in their sleep.

As for this election? Well, it's not the vanguard of a BNP tidal wave. Richard Barnbrook is no right-wing version of Tommy Sheridan, and the electoral system mitigates against a 2003-style take-off for the BNP anyway. The GLA results would not produce a BNP MEP in London - there would have to be 15 London MEPs for just one of them to be BNP - and a seat at Westminster is still a long way off. And now, hopefully, Barnbrook and the BNP will face actual scrutiny. Taking the huff with the BNP, not reporting on them, not challenging them, is playing into their hands. Let's shine a spotlight on them. I want to see Barnbrook on the news, spouting his hatred and showing his party's true colours night after night. Let's see the likes of Navid Shah and Murad Qureshi take Barnbrook on and win inside City Hall, showing them to be better at representing London - and Londoners - than the party that claims to put 'Local People First', by threatening to put many of them on a boat out of the country.

With luck, this will be the end of the BNP for a generation. We can but hope.

This is why I don't blog on London politics

The one shining light for Brown is that Ken Livingstone is likely to be re-elected as London's Mayor, thus denting David Cameron's credibility for a little while.

That was me on the 1st of January.

Oops.

Still, I'm stunned at just how many Councillors Labour have lost in the English and Welsh local elections - 331?! That's obvious bad reading, especially when you try to look at the wider picture.

But looking at that wider picture, I'm going to ignore the BBC projected vote as I view it as a massive red herring - you can't project a vote like that and pontificate on how Westminster would look like when Scotland didn't vote, when many Councils didn't hold elections, and those that did weren't necessarily holding them across the Council area, or holding them to elect the entire Council. Many (including the Council ward I'm currently in) were elected by thirds.

And even if you do, surely it's better to project an election result not on a straight analysis of the projected percentages, but by comparing them to the 2004 poll, analysing the change in vote, and applying that to a Westminster Election? That would put the Tories ahead on 38%, and Labour on 33%. The LibDems would end up on 18%. According to Electoral Calculus (I know, I know, not ideal but it's there and it's quick), this would lead to a Hung Parliament with Labour as the largest party by ten seats. Sadly for the SNP, Labour wouldn't be close enough to a majority, and the SNP group wouldn't be large enough, for Angus Robertson's group to tip the balance.

What I'm trying to say is that the biggest problem for Labour for tonight is the loss of key activists in the form of those 331 lost Councillors. The actual change in votes is not, when compared against these Council seats were up for election (and incumbent Councillors were last on a ballot paper), a total disaster for the party, nor is it a harbinger of utter electoral apocalypse. But it is a warning: no recovery means no majority; continued decline means Labour will be out of government. Simple as.

The problem is, looking at the reaction of Labour politicians over the past 24 hours, they are split between three camps: the first is a continued assertion that New Labour is working and the party can't change tack now (isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result each time?); the second is panic and despair; the third, and seemingly most popular in the upper echelons of the party appears to be a bizarre mish-mash of the first two.

So the message to Tory candidates in England, and indeed SNP candidates in Scotland, is simple: progress is probable, and victory is possible, but neither is certain. And they won't be certain until they have happened. That won't be until 2010.