Right, that's me. It's the Summer recess, I've done what I need to for now, and frankly, it's time for a break. I'm off on my holidays for a week and no, the computer isn't coming with me.
My next brush with bloggery will be the Scottish Roundup on the 12th, so as I say there, until then, Bye-de-bye!
This is the first time I've put a book review online, but hopefully, it won't be the last: I've spent the last few days reading "A Useful Fiction: Adventures in British Democracy", by Patrick Hannan.
There are a few things that strike me: firstly, this is a book for moderates. Hardline Unionists may will feel vindicated by his calling into question what has been understood as "British-ness", but on closer inspection, might be unsettled by some of the twists and turns he takes. Conversely, fundamentalists might be equally vindicated by his questioning of British-ness, but will be disappointed that the book keeps returning to the theme, as though Hannan currently takes it as a given.
Another key point is that I suspect a second edition won't be far behind: Hannan's subject matter - essentially the outlook of the nations of the UK and their interaction with each other - is one that has been in flux for some time, and many recent events are referred to. Indeed, with the Calman Commission referred to, but with the book clearly having gone to press before the report, there'll already be scope for an update.
I suppose you could say that Hannan is reluctant to take a clear line himself: you'd expect that from a BBC journalist. You'd also expect to see (or at least, believe that you see) clear hints of what the author actually thinks. He's a closet Unionist, a closet Nationalist, a closet Socialist, a closet Thatcherite. Any or all of these could end up levelled at him.
One other thing that hit me was that he doesn't seem to like many people: he seems to have little time for Prince Charles, the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph or the Murdoch press. He seems a little more sympathetic to Peter Hain though, with almost a whole chapter becoming a reflection on the man's political history.
Anyway, there's a Bryson-esque quality to the work: firstly, there's the occasional tangential account of personal history or memories, which evokes Bill Bryson's style. Secondly, readers of "The Lost Continent" will recall Bryson's search for Amalgam, the archetypal all-American small town, that Bryson goes in search of, then realises that he will find in pieces, with elements of it scattered in towns across the country. His constant return to Amalgam came into my mind when looking at Hannan's attempts to return to the main theme of the book, the idea of British-ness.
Nevertheless, the more flag-waving end of the Unionist spectrum won't be happy. Firstly, he asserts the idea that overt patriotism is, in a way, un-British and so the Gordon Brown zeal for stronger displays of a UK identity falls flat. Certainly, his descriptions not of Northern Ireland, but of the mainland's reaction to NI, back that idea up: he suggests that people on the British mainland can't relate to their displays of political allegiance.
Meanwhile, there are a few suggestions that might raise eyebrows. Certainly his view and reaction to England, particularly in the current political landscape, has echoes of the imagery put out by Jim Sillars in "The Case for Optimism": both see England as a massively large component of the Union (let's face it, it is) and take the view that more often than not, the smaller nation have to react to England. Sillars had Titanic England; Hannan has a Whale in the Bathtub.
There's also a frustration that "Britain" gets conflated with "England", the "Home Counties" or "London", and his discussion of the media (a brave topic for a BBC journalist, and though Auntie gets a ticking off, some might suggest that it got off quite lightly) certainly displays a level of frustration at the London-centricity of the press, at the expense of local journalism elsewhere.
And, more damning for the Unionist cause, he takes a look at some of the traditional pillars of Britishness - things like the class system, religion and sport - and questions their impact on national identity. Or at least, their support for Britishness.
Further, what begins as a repeat of the regular refrain that the banking crisis has killed off independence for now takes a different path as Hannan understands that the misfortunes of RBS and HBOS are just one piece of the puzzle, and his comments on the Republic of Ireland and the Celtic Tiger are at once a dismissal and an endorsement of the Irish model of independence.
However, nationalists might be unsettled at his suggestion that calling British-ness into question isn't the same as calling the Union into question.
I was surprised by the almost Beadle-esque approach to where England and the metropolitan classes fit into things. You know the scene, in Beadle's About, where some poor, unsuspecting punter turns up at an office, and we hear the voice of the late Jeremy Beadle, letting us in on a secret: "What Sue doesn't know is that we've connected her desk to the National Grid..." You can almost see that style creeping in: "What John Birt doesn't know is that opposing a Scottish Six makes one of the nationalists' points for them..." I'm paraphrasing, of course, but there are times where it feels like Hannan is letting us all in on a few secrets involving the path to devolution.
In many ways, that's the mark of a good communicator: we're drawn into his world, as he shares his secrets with us. Comparing Hannan to the late Jeremy Beadle may seem unorthodox, but let's not forget that Beadle was a massive draw at one time and once got a hefty audience share, boosting ITV's viewing figures during the all-important Saturday prime-time slot. The pranks were cruel, but we got to share in the gag.
There are the occasional frustrations, however. Obviously, the subject is a fast-moving one, and so Hannan is always going to be difficult to pin down. As such, there are very few conclusions reached: he argues that the natures of Britain and Britishness have been changed for good, and that the change will continue. But he does not possess a crystal ball, so can't say where we're going. He constantly refers to where England and the English fit into things, but again, he offers no projection or direction for England's relationship with her neighbours.
For me, however, there is one key frustration: Hannan asserts that while devolution represented a massive change in the way the nations think of themselves and each other, it was part of a process that stretches back to 1973 and the entry into the Common Market. He keeps referencing that, and discussing Europe in passing (in particular reactions to Europe in the various UK nations), but it would have been interesting to see more on how that was the case. He could have expanded on that very easily and it would have given us even more food for thought. Instead, we have a whisper, an echo of an idea. I would have preferred it, had this been firmed up.
So all in all, it's worth a read: Unionists will feel comforted as he takes us on a journey through the British state and psyche; Nationalists will be fascinated as he scrutinises some of the key landmarks along the way. My warning is this: if you are going to read it, do it quickly, before half of this work ends up out-of-date.
Well, it's time for MSPs to go on their hollybobs (though many went early and missed Her Maj - orf with their heads, and so forth), so it's time to look at who was taking a mid-term inset day as well.
The Top 5 is as follows: Trish Godman finds herself MIA for a total of 42 votes, making her the most absent MSP. However, about a third of them were occasions where her fellow DPO Alasdair Morgan was in the chair, and it may have been considered bad form to vote. Even so, taking that into account, she'd still be in the Top 5. Second is John Farquhar Munro, with 41, while third is Margo MacDonald, who let's face it, can pretty much come and go as she pleases. Fourth is Irene Oldfather, while fifth is Des McNulty. Only Margo was in the last collection.
SNP
The SNP get the attendance award, with a rate of 97.12%, up on last time. The absences are:
18 Michael Russell
12 Nicola Sturgeon
11 Alex Neil
9 Bill Kidd
Shona Robison
7 Alasdair Morgan
6 Roseanna Cunningham
Nigel Don
Richard Lochhead
Dave Thompson
5 Anne McLaughlin
Alex Salmond
4 Keith Brown
2 Jamie Hepburn
1 Bruce Crawford
Christina McKelvie
The cohesion rate has dropped slightly however, and the lost of the top spot in that department will be a cause of some unease to Whips. Alasdair Allan, Angela Constance, Joe FitzPatrick, Kenneth Gibson, Sandra White and Bill Wilson have all rebelled once.
Labour
Labour's attendance rate has increased slightly to 90.2%, while their attendance ranking has gone from fifth to third. it's still pretty weak reading, but progress is progress. Barring Trish Godman, Irene Oldfather and Des McNulty, here are the other absentees:
19 John Park
16 Elaine Smith
15 Marilyn Livingstone
Elaine Murray
14 Karen Gillon
Cathy Peattie
Richard Simpson
13 Margaret Curran
12 Cathy Jamieson
11 Wendy Alexander
Tom McCabe
Jack McConnell
9 Hugh Henry
8 Claire Baker
Duncan McNeil
7 Rhona Brankin
6 Sarah Boyack
Helen Eadie
Iain Gray
Andy Kerr
Ken Macintosh
Pauline McNeill
5 George Foulkes
Lewis Macdonald
Frank McAveety
4 Karen Whitefield
2 Patricia Ferguson
Peter Peacock
1 Malcolm Chisholm
Rhoda Grant
Paul Martin
Mary Mulligan
Cohesion has also improved slightly to 99.79%: Malcolm Chisholm, Patricia Ferguson, Charlie Gordon, Andy Kerr, Paul Martin, Jack McConnell and David Whitton are the rebels.
Conservatives
The Tory attendance rate has gone down to 95.7%, giving them second place. The absentees were:
14 Jackson Carlaw
11 Annabel Goldie
8 Nanette Milne
6 Alex Johnstone
5 David McLetchie
4 Jamie McGrigor
3 Margaret Mitchell
2 Ted Brocklebank
1 Murdo Fraser
John Lamont
And they are the most cohesive group with a rate of 99.92% with only Margaret Mitchell breaking with the party line on a single occasion.
LibDems
The LibDem's 90.08% attendance rate puts them in fourth place and is a hefty drop compared with last time. Leaving JFM aside, here are the missing members:
19 Tavish Scott
Nicol Stephen
11 Jamie Stone
10 Mike Rumbles
9 Jim Tolson
8 Liam McArthur
4 Mike Pringle
3 Margaret Smith
2 Jim Hume
1 Ross Finnie
Their cohesion rate is also the lowest of the Big 4, though with only 16 MSPs, it's far more vulnerable to small-scale rebellions/lapses in concentration. All the same, it's still managed to go up to 99.65%, and only four MSPs have voted the 'wrong' way: John Farquhar Munro, Hugh O'Donnell, Nicol Stephen and Jim Tolson.
Greens and Margo
The Greens' attendance rate has fallen very heavily to 87.5%. If memory serves, Patrick Harvie chose the wrong week to be ill and missed 18 votes. Robin Harper missed two, though the Greens aren't victim to any splits.
Neither is Margo, though as she only has one vote, we wouldn't be aware of it if she did. Having said that, her attendance rate is only 51.25%, so she isn't using that one vote very often...
Well, it's the last Sunday Whip of the season, and what a corker!
Wednesday saw an all-day sitting for the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill, and a whopping 15 amendments went to the vote.
Two MSPs missed the whole thing, namely Labour's Shadow Environment Minister Elaine Murray (Dumfries) and Constitution Minister Mike Russell (South of Scotland). Otherwise, it was the usual case of Members walking in and walking out again.
The Greens' Amendment 6 fell by 119 (everyone but the Greens) votes to two: also absent were Tory Deputy Leader Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland & Fife), Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians), Labour's Shadow Sport Minister Frank McAveety (Glasgow Shettleston), Tom McCabe (Lab, Hamilton South), and Irene Oldfather (Lab, Cunninghame South).
Following this, the SNP's Alasdair Morgan (South of Scotland) took no further part in voting, having donned his DPO's hat.
LibDem Amendment 11 fell by 104 (SNP/Lab/Tories) to 18 (LD/Greens). Murdo Fraser, Frank McAveety and Irene Oldfather took part in this one, but Margo MacDonald and Tom McCabe were still absent, and Duncan McNeil (Lab, Greenock & Inverclyde) missed the vote.
At this stage, Trish Godman withdrew from proceedings, with a view to chairing them later on.
Green Amendment 12 fell by 103 to 18, with the same party split.
Green Amendment 15 fell by 103 to 19: Duncan McNeil returned to the Chamber, but Malcolm Chisholm (Lab, Edinburgh North & Leith) voted in favour of the amendment. Green Amendment 17 fell by 120 (everyone but the Greens) to 2.
The first Government amendment, Amendment 18, passed by 79 (everyone but Labour) to 43. Government Amendment 20AA passed by 101 to 18 (LD/Greens). Labour's Shadow Education Secretary Rhona Brankin (Midlothian), Labour's Shadow Health Secretary Cathy Jamieson (Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley) and Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon (Glasgow Govan) missed this one as well as the others. For the record, Amendments 20A and 20, passed without dissent.
Government Amendment 23 squeaked through by 60 (SNP/Tories) to 59 (Labour/LD/Greens). Rhona Brankin had returned, the others had not, while Rhods Grant (Lab, Highlands & Islands) was MIA.
Labour's Amendment 107 fell by 61 (SNP/Tories/Margo) votes to 60. Rhoda Grant had returned, and obviously Margo was present, but otherwise, the same MSPs were absent.
Green Amendment 108 fell by 118 to 3 (Greens/Margo). There were no surprises.
Labour Amendment 113 saw a tied vote, at 60 votes each, with LibDem Leader Tavish Scott choosing a bad time to nip out: Labour, the LibDems, Greens and Margo had voted in favour, but the SNP and Tories voted against, and convention dictated that DPO Trish Godman had to use her casting vote against her own party's amendment. Had Scott been in the right place at the right time, she would have been spared that.
It was at this stage that Tom McCabe finally rocked up, whereupon he helped to defeat the Government, whose Amendment 38 fell by 62 (Labour/LD/Green/Margo) to 60. Government Amendment 49 went the same way, with one odd variation: the SNP's Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) voted against the amendment, but was cancelled out by LibDem John Farquhar Munro (Ross, Skye & Inverness West) voting in favour.
With only two votes left, Cathy Jamieson and Nicola Sturgeon returned to the fray, but Margo MacDonald and Jack McConnell (Lab, Motherwell & Wishaw) withdrew from the Chamber. They missed the passage of Government Amendment 85 by 77 (SNP/Tories/LDs) to 45 (Labour/Greens), and the failure of Labour Amendment 2 by 62 (most of the SNP, all the LibDems and both Greens) to 60, where Labour and the Tories were joined by the SNP's Angela Constance (Livingston), but it wasn't enough.
So with all of that done, and the Business Motions waved through, the Bill was passed unanimously, as was the motion that the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Bill reach Stage 1 by 16 January 2010 (Shit, if we're thinking about 2010 already, I'd better start my Christmas shopping!) and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exclusions and Exceptions) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2009
Thursday, meanwhile, had an air of predictability about it, and was so predictable that Labour's Shadow Rural Affairs Secretary Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central), Margo MacDonald, LibDem Environment Spokesman Liam McArthur (Orkney), Nanette Milne (Con, North East Scotland), Peter Peacock (Lab, Highlands & Islands), Mike Pringle (LD, Edinburgh South), Elaine Smith (Lab, Coatbridge & Chryston), LibDem Education Spokesperson Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West) and Labour's Shadow Children's Minister Karen Whitefield (Airdrie & Shotts) all gave it a miss.
First came the motions on the Calman Commission: the SNP amendment fell by 72 (everyone but the SNP) to 47, while the motion itself passed by 69 (Labour, and most of the Tories and all the present LibDems) to 49 (SNP and Greens) with one abstention: Margaret Mitchell (Con, Central Scotland), who, it seems, knew what she was doing, refusing to back the following:
That the Parliament warmly welcomes the Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution's report, Serving Scotland Better: Scotland and the United Kingdom in the 21st Century, which is based firmly on evidence and engagement with the people of Scotland; thanks the chair and members of the commission for their work on behalf of the Parliament and the UK Government; agrees that the commission's report is a comprehensive response to the remit approved by the Parliament on 6 December 2007; welcomes the establishment of the steering group to take forward the report's recommendations to strengthen devolution and enable the Parliament, through new powers and responsibilities, to serve the people of Scotland better in the United Kingdom; calls on the Scottish Government to make fully available the resources of the Scottish administration to cooperate in this respect, and calls on the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to continue to allocate appropriate resources and funding to enable the Parliament to support the work of the steering group and consider the recommendations that apply to the Parliament.
Following that, the SPPA Committee's motion passed without dissent:
That the Parliament notes the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee's 7th Report 2009 (Session 3), Hybrid Bills (SP Paper 299), and agrees that changes to Standing Orders set out in Annexe A to the report be made with effect from 26 June 2009.
Finally, the Arbitration (Scotland) Bill was waved through Stage 1, and LCM regarding the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Bill was passed unanimously, and MSPs were happy to approve a minor SNP Committee reshuffle.
And that's it now, until September. Through the week, I'll have the Summer Whip on line.
Via Jonathan Calder, I'm drawing your attention to the quiz he's running over at Liberal England, where two copies of Patrick Hannan's new book, A Useful Fiction: Adventures in British Democracy are up for grabs until 2359 hours on Tuesday 7 July.
For the record, I'm hoping to have a review of the book up by this Friday (my copy arrived today and I have a very small window to read and digest it for your delectation).
Also, this week, it's the last Sunday Whip of the season, and the usual Summer Whip rundown. So three things to look forward to in the coming few days, after which the blog and blogger will follow MSPs into a state of recess for a short while...
Obviously, when Gordon Brown and David Cameron are paying tribute to Michael Jackson, it's time to jump on the bandwagon, with a tribute.
Of course, it'd be easy (or perhaps, not so easy) to go through his back catalogue. Instead, I thought I'd point out just how far Jacko's influence spread: not only did he have a profound impact on Western pop culture, he also found himself inspiring scenes in Tollywood films.
This is Golimar (Shoot the Bullet), from the 1985 Telegu film Donga (Thief):
Incidentally, the star of the film, Chiranjeevi, is now leader of Telegu political party Praja Rajyam, and is a member of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly for the Tirupathi constituency...
Much has already been said about the decision of Grant Thoms not to fight the Glasgow North East By-Election, and most of it seems to revolve around his blog: the conventional wisdom has it that despite having taken the site down, others have got hold of the posts and some of the more forthright views would get repeated. Well, traduced.
By co-incidence, Stephen has read this post by Charlotte Gore about why her being a blogger would rule her out as an effective PPC.
To be honest, I disagree. After all, with only limited print resources (money, paper and ink are all finite) and no local media access (save the local papers' letters page or maybe 2 seconds on regional news), a blog does give candidates a chance to get the message out. Certainly, Kez started blogging in the run-up to the 2007 election; Christina McKelvie had a blog; Chris Stephens still blogs occasionally; Julie McAnulty's blog was doubtless a useful tool in her campaign as an Independent back in 2007; and in the run-up to this month's Euro election, Labour's Kirsty Connell was blogging fairly routinely. Meanwhile, Richard Thomson may be the SNP PPC in Gordon, but his blog goes from strength to strength. And of course, Stephen's role in the Scottish blogstablishment may never have come about had he not been the PPC in Linlithgow & East Falkirk in 2005.
So a blog has its advantages for your campaign, and as the battle in each constituency is effectively one micro-campaign in a network of such contests up and down the country, perhaps being a blogger of some note may generate a little extra media interest in the seat in question, but not enough to be a major liability: if an SNP blogger is a candidate in the next Westminster election, they'll be one of 59. Labour and the LibDems will have 631 candidates, so being a blogging PPC for one of those parties is to be a drop in the ocean. While a Tory blogging candidate will be one of 649 (albeit with 18 fighting under the UCUNF banner). 650 if they decide to challenge John Bercow. So a blog offers PPCs an advantage, gives perhaps a little extra coverage to their local campaign, but is ultimately one contest of many so there's limited scope for scrutiny.
Which brings me back to Grant.
The Glasgow North East By-Election is due very soon, and the candidates will be fighting in that and not necessarily in a Westminster General Election. Indeed the maximum number of campaigns taking place concurrently could, at the moment, be no higher than three: Glasgow NE, Norwich North, and potentially Livingston. More than 600 battles in a normal Westminster election will have been condensed and concentrated into no more than three. Where the Scottish media is concerned, no more than two of those will matter.
That changes the game.
Digging through everything Grant has ever said to anyone at any time since primary school might seem pointless when he's one of 59. When he's one of two, or on his own, everything becomes fair game for his opponents. Moves that may seem excessive or unacceptable in a General Election become par for the course in a By-Election. Conversely, things that would never have seen the light of day in a General become front page news for days in a By-Election: for example, who would have given a shit about where Margaret Curran lived had her candidacy for Glasgow East been in a General Election?
In short, Grant probably had to do what he's done. But there's something else.
I'm speculating wildly here, and I apologise profusely in advance if I am wide of the mark, but what if Grant, who has done and is continuing to do a good deal for the SNP's LGBT wing, Out for Independence (this is the primary reason that I am gutted for his withdrawl - not only would it have been a good thing for the movement for him to fly the flag, but I can tell you now that he's a sharp political operator and would once again make an A1 candidate and damn good constituency Parliamentarian), feared a Bermondsey-style campaign? As I said, things that are unacceptable in a General Election (such as homophobic abuse, like that meted out by the Liberal campaign regarding then Labour candidate Peter Tatchell) become just a tactic in a By-Election. Similarly, things that no one would surely pay all that much attention to (like, for instance, a candidate's sexuality) become massive news. Did Grant see the writing on the wall?
After all, every Party has its own heroes and villains where the LGBT community is concerned: Labour has the likes of Peter Mandelson and Stephen Twigg on one hand, and Michael McMahon and Jim Dobbin on the other; the Tories have Iain Dale and Alan Duncan on one side against Anne Widdecombe and, I daresay, a higher percentage of the membership than the leadership would like. Even the LibDems have Simon Hughes on one side, and, err, Simon Hughes' By-Election campaign team (oh, the irony in their slogan, "The Straight Choice") on the other. For the SNP, it's a case of Grant, among many others, against the likes of Brian Souter. Would that be commented on? Of course it would.
And would Grant's own life be commented on? Sadly, that too is likely. And in a city led by Stephen Purcell, it would be rank hypocrisy. But unfortunately, I still think we'd see it.
Like being a blogger, we may still at a stage where being openly gay or bisexual is fine when you're one candidate of many, but problematic when you're one of one.
And, if I'm right, I guess the challenge to that situation will have to come another time.
It seems that the LibDems have ousted their Leader in Aberdeen, Councillor Kate Dean. The councillor has been calling the shots since 2003 if memory serves, presiding over the budget crisis that has brought the Council and Council services to its knees.
This had to happen sooner or later: reports about Aberdeen City Council - and the LibDems in particular - were hostile, yet she was intent on carrying on. Sooner or later, something had to give, and if she didn't jump, she would have to be pushed. It appears that this is what has happened.
Her replacement is John Stewart (this has the potential to be confusing: the LibDem Group and Council Leader, and SNP Group Leader and Council Depute Leader with the same surname). There's an LGBT significance too: the Councils of two of Scotland's three largest cities are now led by openly gay men.
But the political significance takes priority: Dean also led the LD/Tory Coalition that was in charge in Aberdeen between 2003 and 2007. In a sense, her downfall represents a break with the past, and an administration that ended two years ago. As the SNP were in opposition during that time, there was an inherent tension in the Coalition: to blame past administrations for the financial difficulties plaguing the City Council since the election was to blame the Leader of their current Coalition administration.
However, there's another factor: what significance is there in the Labour Group also having a new Leader in Barney Crockett? We do have to bear in mind that the LibDems and Labour combined do have a majority on the Council. Could the LibDems join forces with the party they ousted in 2003?
What we know at this stage is that it's not business as usual in Aberdeen. What we don't know is whether this strengthens the current administration, or whether we're about to witness a change in arrangements. Time will tell, but this one is worth following.
Well, this is an easy one, on account of the total consensus that took hold at Holyrood this week.
On Wednesday, MSPs nodded through the Business Motion, the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill was passed unchalenged and unamended, and members were all happy that Bill Aitken, Ross Finnie, David Stewart and Alasdair Morgan all be appointed trustees of the Scottish Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund. Following that came a wave of SSIs:
Licensing (Mandatory Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 2009
Environmental Liability (Scotland) Regulations 2009
Renewables Obligation (Scotland) Amendment Order 2009
Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2009
Town and Country Planning (Charges for Publication of Notices) (Scotland) Regulations 2009
Adoption (Disclosure of Information and Medical Information about Natural Parents) (Scotland) Regulations 2009
Finally, MSPs agreed that the Subordinate Legislation committee get to take a first look at the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Bill (lucky them) at Stage 1, with SPPA Committee also scrutinising the bill.
On Thursday, MSPs were as one that the Convention Rights Proceedings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill should be treated as an Emergency Bill, and it whizzed through all three legislative stages (including a brief Committee of the Whole Parliament) without an amendment or challenge.
Further, the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee reported back to the Chamber and members were happy to agree to its motion:
That the Parliament agrees to the proposal for a Committee Bill, under Rule 9.15, contained in the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee's 1st Report, 2009 Review of SPCB Supported Bodies (SP Paper 266).
Finally, the following Government motion on Scotland's festivals was waved through:
That the Parliament recognises the international success of the Edinburgh festivals, along with Scotland's other festivals, their contribution to the Scottish economy, their role in the cultural life of the nation and the positive messages that they promote about Scotland's cultural confidence and ambition in this Year of Homecoming.
Has peace finally broken out? Is this the 'new politics' we've all been searching for over the course of the last decade of devolution?
I sodding well hope not, it's bloody boring.
I note that the English Premier League has opted to withdraw Setanta's rights to 46 matches for the coming season, on the grounds that the broadcaster has failed to make an expected £30million to the League before today's deadline.
This shouldn't be a surprise: Setanta couldn't find £3million for the SPL a few weeks ago, and attempts to find a buyer have failed. Significantly, we now know that the sticking point appears to have been Setanta's £50million unpaid tax bill.
Credit is due to the Premier League for acting: they had a contract with Setanta; Setanta has failed to meet its obligations in that contract by stumping up the cash; the contract was broken; the rights are no longer theirs.
It's in stark contrast to the SPL; they did the right thing in making sure that the money that would have gone to the clubs got there, even if it came from SPL funds, but we do have to ask why the SPL is sticking with this failing organisation.
It would surely be tempting for Sky to get back into the Scottish market in a serious fashion, and reports from SPL grounds on Soccer Saturday would be welcome. Similarly, the BBC might fancy getting a big draw to accompany their English Championship acquisition, particularly now Formula 1 looks like it's about to go belly up, the rights that Auntie picked up there might not be quite so useful, so the SPL might go some measure to a replacement. Sky did have the rights once upon a time, before ten of the SPL clubs took leave of their senses and decided that an SPL TV channel was the way forward. They consequently ended up with no broadcast agreement, a League at war with itself and an emergency deal with the BBC. Which is why they may also wish to step into the breach.
So what happened? Simple: Setanta had a solid subscriber base in Scotland, and with expats, thanks to the captive audience they had. If you wanted to watch an SPL match, you needed Setanta. That's how Sky did so well: they created the captive audience for the EPL which the European Commission has since objected to. They were also, in theory, a good channel for the diehard footie fans: Bundesliga, Ligue 1 and Eredivisie matches were an extra selling point. Then came the jewel in the crown: the extra EPL games.
However.
The SPL is a draw in Scotland, and among Scottish expats. However, the (ancedotal) evidence I've put together is that most of my neighbours here in England wouldn't pay to watch an SPL game. in fact, barring Old Firm matches, wouldn't overly fancy watching a game if you paid them. Now, sometimes, they're missing out on something special, but equally, there are many occasions where you can't blame them. Further, the extra games from other leagues are a point of interest, but none of those in the Setanta portfolio are particularly big draws. The one that people are especially interested in is La Liga - doubtless more so with the strength of Barcelona and the potential return of the 'Galactico' signing policy at Real Madrid - and Setanta do not have the rights to this. One also worth watching is Serie A, particularly with clubs' plans to form a Premier League-esque breakaway known as Lega Calcio Serie A. Again, this is not offered by Setanta. Then there's the Premier League package. Sadly, it's the bottom of the barrel games. On a weekend when Sky might offer Chelsea v. Liverpool and Man United v. Arsenal, Setanta might put up Portsmouth v. Sunderland. Oh dear.
In short, the package they offered didn't really do much to attract many more subscribers than they already had. And, having outbid Sky for one of the EPL packages, they paid too much for what they had.
And even if it had offered more tempting games, viewers had to put up with the crap camera work (one camera, with a lens that went unwiped when it got wet) and a signal so weak that it cut out with even the lightest of drizzle. Whatever you thought of the matches, everyone agreed that the coverage was shite.
The EPL will live without this: they'll find a buyer for the 46 matches, and despite rumblings about West Ham's new owners, the clubs aren't in any major financial trouble. Besides, there's always the Sky package.
For the SPL, however, it's panic stations: there are hints that three SPL clubs could be badly hit without a TV deal (given Kilmarnock's dire prophecies about the threat of relegation, they're probably one of them) and with no additional exposure, would be unattractive for sponsors. That's two important income streams wiped out. Never mind the armchair fan, it's the ones who go to the games who could be screwed when their club is so badly hit. If Setanta is at risk of collapse - and it's now obvious that that is the case - a new deal, any deal, needs to be worked on ASAP.
Unless, of course, someone is mad enough to buy Setanta, and take on an annual loss of £100million.
Has anyone got Mike Ashley's phone number?
You thought the football season was over, didn't you? Well, it is, but preparations for the new one are underway, and we therefore await the draw for the first two Qualifying Rounds of the Champions' League and Europa League.
For Rangers, winning the League made things simple: their prize is an automatic place in the Group Stage, where the likelihood is that Pot 3 beckons for the Group Stage Draw at the end of August, unless three teams from Arsenal, Lyon, Shakhtar Donetsk, Sporting Lisbon and Panathinaikos get knocked out in the Qualifiers, in which case, Pot 2 becomes a possibility.
For Celtic, their final-day failure makes things complicated. And difficult. They enter the Third Qualifying Round, in which they will be seeded. However, as UEFA have split domestic league winners from lower-placed teams in stronger leagues, their pool of opponents is reduced to five teams: Sparta Prague, Steve "Schtop, schtop, thish acschent ish not ready yet" McClaren's Twente Entschede, Dinamo Moscow, FC Timisoara and Sivasspor.
If they are unfortunate enough to lose that tie, they go into the Europa League Play-offs, where they'll probably be seeded. If they win their Third Qualifying Round tie, however, they go into the Champions' League Play-offs, where they will not be seeded under any circumstances. They could face Arsenal or Lyon. Other possible opponents are Shakhtar, Sporting or Panathinaikos. If they get knocked out in the Third Qualifying Round, VfB Stuttgart, Fiorentina and Atletico Madrid are the next teams in line to be seeded. Celtic do not get a look-in.
If, by some miracle, they do win this tie, they'll probably go into Pot 3 for the Champions' League Group Draw. Pot 2 isn't a mathematical impossibility, but it is highly improbable, and there would have to be a lot of upsets. If they lose, they go into the draw for the Europa League Group Stage instead, and they'll probably end up in Pot 2.
For Hearts, their third place gives them a spot in the Play-off Round of the Europa League. Unfortunately for them, however, they won't be seeded, so possible opponents include, but are not limited to, UEFA Cup Runners-Up Werder Bremen, Villarreal, Zenit St. Petersburg and Benfica, but that's only the tip of the iceberg: there are 38 potential opponents, many of which we can't yet identify and won't be able to until the Qualifying Rounds start. If they get through that, they'll go into the Group Stage but they'll more than likely end up in Pot 4.
Meanwhile, Aberdeen sneaking fourth place gets them a spot in the Europa League Third Qualifying Round, where they will be seeded. They have 35 potential opponents (well, assuming that Falkirk and Motherwell a) get there and b) aren't seeded, 33) coming from countries such as Serbia, Israel, Cyprus, Sweden, Slovakia, the Republic of Ireland, Slovenia, Poland, Croatia and Finland. Assuming they win that tie, they go into the Play-off and aren't seeded. If they do get into the Groups, they too are probably going to end up in Pot 4. Mind you, an awful, awful seeding didn't pose that big a problem for them in the 2007-08 campaign under Jimmy Calderwood.
Falkirk's Cup run gets them a place in the Second Qualifying Round, where they will be seeded, with any one of 40 possible opponents coming from places such as Belarus, Bosnia, Hungary, Georgia, Moldova or Iceland. And whatever happens, they will go into the hat for the Third Qualifying Round as the draw for that tie takes place between the first and second legs of the Second Qualifying Round. Therefore, we know already that Falkirk will not be seeded in the subsequent game (assuming they get to play it). They have 39 possible opponents (they can't meet Aberdeen), including AS Roma, Hamburg, PSV Eindhoven and, closer to home, Fulham.
Meanwhile, they say that nice guys don't win football games, and perhaps Motherwell's failure to get into the Top Six last season proved that. However, they were rewarded for their pleasantness with a UEFA Fair-Play League place in the Europa League First Qualifying Round, in which they will be seeded: possible opponents come from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Azerbaijan, Estonia, Albania, Kazakhtan, Armenia, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Faroe Islands, Luxembourg, Montenegro and Malta. As the draws for the First and Second Qualifying Rounds take place on the same day, we know that Motherwell will be seeded should they win, but, like Falkirk, will not be seeded for the Third Qualifying Round draw.
So for Scottish football fans, the competitive football season begins in less than two weeks, on 2 July, when Motherwell play their first match. How time flies!
PS I should, of course, credit Bert Kassies for this, who does all the hard work so schmucks like me can just take a look at it without having to work it all out for themselves...
