The Sunday Whip

A successful week for the Government, with the two days broadly following the established pattern: consensual(-ish) Wednesday, followed by a Thursday with a little (but not much) more needle.

Anyway. To Wednesday first, which was missed by Jackie Baillie (Lab, Dumbarton), Labour Shadow Education Secretary Rhona Brankin (Midlothian), Margaret Curran (Lab, Glasgow Baillieston), LibDem Health Spokesman Ross Finnie (West of Scotland), George Foulkes (Lab, Lothians), Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale), Robin Harper (Green. Lothians), Marilyn Livingstone (Lab, Kirkcaldy), Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians), Jack McConnell (Lab, Motherwell & Wishaw), Duncan McNeil (Lab, Greenock & Inverclyde), Alex Salmond (Gordon), Tory Rural Affairs Spokesman John Scott (Ayr), Elaine Smith (Lab, Coatbridge & Chryston) and Nicol Stephen (LD, Aberdeen South).

The Business Motions were waved through, as normal, and most of the substantive business revolved around the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee's rewrite of the Code of Conduct. The Review of Section 6 (Cross-Party Groups) was passed without dissent. So did the Reimbusement of Members' Expenses Scheme. The new Section 8, however, was challenged, but passed by 100 votes to 8 with two abstentions. The SNP, Labour, Tories and Patrick Harvie were all in favour, although Bill Kidd (SNP, Glasgow), Cathie Craigie (Lab, Cumbernauld & Kilsyth) and Bill Wilson (SNP, West of Scotland) missed the vote, so the dissent was clearly down to a LibDem free vote. For the record, Jim Hume (South of Scotland), Local Government Spokesperson Alison McInnes (North East Scotland), Hugh O'Donnell (Central Scotland) and Culture Spokesman Iain Smith (North East Fife) all voted in favour. Justice Spokesman Robert Brown (Glasgow) and Jim Tolson (Dunfermline West) abstained. The remaining eight voted against.

Following that, MSPs unanimously put forward Jim Martin as Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.

The only remaining dissent came on the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (Scotland) Amendment Order 2009, which passed by 99 (SNP/Labour/Tories/Green) to 0 with 14 LibDem abstentions.

After that, came the other SSIs, which were waved through:

Advice and Assistance and Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions and Contributions) (Scotland) Regulations 2009

Bankruptcy and Diligence etc. (Scotland) Act 2007 (Inhibition) Order 2009

Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Booking Offices) Order 2009

Community Care (Personal Care and Nursing Care) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2009

Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2002 (Amendment to schedule 1) Order 2009

Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 2009

Licensing of Animal Dealers (Young Cats and Young Dogs) (Scotland) Regulations 2009

Renewables Obligation (Scotland) Order 2009

Victim Statements (Prescribed Courts) (Scotland) Order 2009

Scottish Government Code of Practice for the Welfare of Equidae (SG 2009/20)

After that, came the motion on the SPCB Supported Bodies Committee:

That the Parliament agrees to amend the remit and duration of the Review of SPCB Supported Bodies Committee as follows—

Remit: To consider and report on whether alterations should be made to the terms and conditions of the office-holders and the structure of the bodies supported by the SPCB; to consider how any proposals, including the addition of any new functions, for future arrangements should be taken forward, including by way of a Committee Bill, and to make recommendations accordingly.

Duration: Until the Parliament has concluded consideration of the committee's report and any Bill which may follow thereon.

Finally, came this last Bureau motion:

That the Parliament agrees to designate the Health and Sport Committee as secondary committee for the purpose of considering Part 9, section 129 and Part 10, section 140 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill at Stage 1.

So with that out of the way, Thursday was generally easy for the Government, and this was reflected in the number of absentees: Jackie Baillie, Rhona Brankin, George Foulkes, Karen Gillon, Marilyn Livingstone, Margo MacDonald, Labour Shadow Schools Minister Ken Macintosh (Eastwood), Enterprise Minister Jim Mather (Argyll & Bute), LibDem Environment Spokesman Liam McArthur (Orkney), John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West), Culture Minister Mike Russell (South of Scotland), Alex Salmond, Elaine Smith, Nicol Stephen, Jamie Stone (LD, Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross) and Maureen Watt (SNP, North East Scotland).

First came another Business Motion, which was waved through. Then came the Tory motion on the NHS and the Independent Sector. The SNP amendment fell, by 67 (Lab/Con/LD) votes to 45 (SNP/Greens). The Labour amendment, however, passed by 84 (SNP/Labour/Greens) to 16 (Tories) with 12 LibDem abstentions. With a LibDem amendment being waved through, the amended motion passed by 96 (everyone but the Tories) to 16:

That the Parliament welcomes the success of the Scottish Regional Treatment Centre at Stracathro with its high level of patient approval and welcomes the Scottish Regional Treatment Centre's contribution to maintaining Stracathro Hospital as both a local and regional resource; notes the success of the nationalisation of the HCI hospital in Clydebank, now the Golden Jubilee National Hospital, and recognises the contribution of both these units and their staff in achieving the continuing reduction in waiting times, while ensuring that the use of the private sector does not destabilise local NHS provision or undermine the recruitment and retention of NHS staff.

After that came the Tory motion on Alcohol Strategy, which saw just what happens when the SNP and Labour work together. Now, in fairness, I probably wouldn't have bothered with the Whip if this had been the order of things right from the start, but it is nice to see. Anyway. The SNP amendment passed by 82 (SNP/Labour) to 17 (Tories/Greens) with 12 LibDem abstentions and Alex Johnstone (Con, North East Scotland) popping out for this one. The LibDem amendment fell by 84 (SNP/Labour/Greens) to 28 (Tories/LDs), and the amended motion passed by 80 (SNP plus most of Labour) to three - the Greens along with Wendy Alexander (Lab, Paisley North), with 28 Tory and LibDem abstentions. As well as Wendy Alexander voting no, Hugh Henry (Lab, Paisley South) didn't cast a vote. Here's what was passed:

That the Parliament welcomes the decision of the Scottish Government to incorporate its proposals for reform of the law relating to the sale of alcohol into a new health Bill, which will facilitate democratic accountability and greater parliamentary and public scrutiny of its proposals; calls on the Scottish Government to place greater emphasis on a much more rigorous application of the existing licensing laws and to recognise that any changes can be introduced only on the basis of a wider and meaningful consultation with the licensed trade and Scotland's communities, and believes that any measures taken to tackle harmful drinking and underage drinking must be workable and properly targeted so that, while the responsible, sensible majority of moderate drinkers are not unnecessarily penalised, wider issues of excess consumption contributing to huge costs to Scottish society are effectively addressed.

I must admit, I'm not sure why MSPs for Paisley find themselves particularly unable to support that. Or maybe it's just a mildly amusing co-incidence...

Showdown in the City of Discovery

Well, well, well. Following the Maryfield By-Election, which ended the Grand Unionist Coalition's majority on Dundee City Council, I predicted that Councillor Ian Borthwick would hold all the cards, whereas Grogipher - regular correspondent and friend of this blog - suggested that internal ructions in the other parties would prove telling. Give that man a coconut, is all I can say.

Lord Provost, John Letford, has quit the Labour party, and is now an independent Councillor. This now places the parties at SNP 14, Labour 8, Conservatives 3, LibDems 2 and Independents 2. Significantly, the Unionist parties now have fewer members between them than the SNP on its own. More significantly, Councillor Letford has let it be known that he will support the formation of an SNP administration on Monday.

It goes without saying that there is some scepticism regarding his decision: Stuart airs it and, sadly, I am inclined to agree: Councillor Letford claims to have wanted an all-party administration, and to have been unhappy at the SNP being shut out. Yet for six years, he was happy to be the Civic Leader of the Council whose largest political group was isolated. Given the timing of his decision to convert opinions into action, it's hard not to see Letford as a political weathervane.

Jeff, as it happens, goes further and argues Councillor Letford's move to political independence is anti-democratic. He's right: Letford was elected on a Labour platform, but the reality of our system is that with the exceptions of European elections and the List component of Holyrood elections, it's the person who gets elected rather than the party. Granted, the party is what gets them elected most of the time, but that doesn't change the fact that it's the individual candidate who gets the victory at the end. And even in the two exceptions I noted, those returned can do their own thing once they're Parliamentarians: Dorothy-Grace Elder, Margo MacDonald, Campbell Martin, Brian Monteith, Tommy Sheridan and Rosemary Byrne can all attest to that. So it's a pretty barmy system.

But we know that: while the Maryfield By-Election which triggered this whole situation was a clear SNP win, its consequence was to leave the electors of that ward with no representatives from any party other than the SNP. Given that even in the By-Election which saw the SNP vote increase, 52% of voters cast their first preference for a candidate from another party, they have the right to feel a little aggrieved when STV is meant to be a proportional system.

And even if Letford were to resign, democracy would have come late to Dundee City Council, with the most popular party excluded completely from administration by a convoluted arrangement in which even the official Labour/LD coalition had fewer Councillors than the SNP group before the By-Election and defection. In short, the situation was barking mad to begin with, and subsequent events have merely continued in that vein.

Indeed, they look set to get even stranger. Doubtless as a nod to Councillor Letford, the SNP have said that 'quasi-judicial' Convenerships such as the Licensing Board will not necessarily be in the hands of the administration-designate, which will be content to restrict its control to the policy committees. They propose letting Letford keep the LP's office, with Ian Borthwick as Depute. The latter would prefer an all-party administration but agreement appears to have been reached. And unless it's a formal Coalition with the two independents, the SNP still do not have 'control' of the Council even after the administration is formed: were the two independents to vote with the Opposition on any policy, that would make 15 Councillors to the SNP's 14: a defeat.

Labour, of course, are smarting somewhat from this: to a degree, they have resigned themselves to Opposition but intend to propose Councillor Borthwick as Lord Provost and SNP Councillor Liz Fordyce as Depute. She has told them where they can stick that idea, but they may still proceed with it. Further, the Labour Group Leader, Kevin Keenan, has suggested that the Tories join the formal Labour-LibDem Coalition. Which would still be in opposition so is a bit pointless really.

The Tories, however, are up for this idea but only if it's called a Dundee Unionist Alliance. Which is fine until you realise that the Unionist-Nationalist dimension of Scottish politics is basically meaningless at Council level. And a refusal to work with the SNP flies in the face of their professed sympathy for Councillor Borthwick's idea of an all-party administration. They also don't want to be seen supporting the SNP but have no problem about supporting Labour, who their party will be casting as the enemy at the next Westminster election.

As for the LibDems, they "will not be participating in discussions taking place in smoke-filled rooms". Well, leaving aside the fact that there aren't any smoke-filled rooms anymore - not public ones, anyway - this seems equally rich as they were quite happy to prat about in one of the most contrived political combinations in Scottish local government.

So no one seems to come out of this shining. But if the vox pops in the Evening Telegraph are anything to go by, Councillor Letford may be the villain of the piece, but locals seem content to let the administration that he will be supporting have a fair crack of the whip.

And that's where we are: in less than a week, Dundee will have a new Council Leader. Whether or not things settle down, however, is another matter entirely.

Rebutting the rebuttal

Well, folks, we have ourselves a good old blogosphere argument: Kez has entered the debate on All-Women Shortlists. Now, I enjoy these occasions as it's an opportunity to take an issue and analyse the living crap out of it... possibly proof of my invocation of Holmesian sociolinguistics.

Firstly, I'd like to refute any notion of my previous posts on the matter being 'offensive tripe'. My foray into gender-based communication - i.e. the argument that the two genders communicate differently and as such hold distinct skills, all of which have their uses in our political system - was developed from a theory ('private speakers' versus 'public speakers') espoused by the likes of Janet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff - experts in the field of language and gender and definitely not misogynists! It is not offensive to suggest that men and women do things differently. It is only offensive when that suggestion carries the assumption that one of the groups is doing things wrong. Given my argument that the two genders have different communication skills that prove useful is different areas of political life - so acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of both genders - I feel vindicated by my suggestion that it's now an automatic reflex to brand someone challenging the idea of the AWS as sexist. Even when it's blatantly obvious that they are not. To label me a misogynist for my views on gender and communication is to accuse Professors Holmes and Meyerhoff of self-loathing.

Anyway.

"...The Labour Party's current policy - led by Harriet Harman - is that all seats where the incumbent Labour MP is standing down should be all women shortlists."

Is Gregg McClymont, the Labour PPC in Cumbernauld, Kilsyth & Kirkintilloch East (where Rosemary McKenna is standing down), a woman?

"Each Constituency Labour Party elects its own candidate. It is simply untrue to say that you piss off your activists with an AWS."

Tell that to activists in Blaenau Gwent and East Lothian.

"I'm fed up hearing that democracy has somehow been overted by the imposition of an all women shortlist."

If I were being pedantic, I would point out that 'overt' is not a verb, but even if it were, it would surely mean to open something up which is the Great Assertion in favour of AWS! My guess is that Kez was trying to dismiss the idea that democracy is subverted by the concept. Well, let me spell this out: it is artificially restricting the pool of potential candidates in an election. It is not using merit as the first consideration for whether or not someone should be able to stand. The first question now used to vet potential candidates is "Do you have a penis?", and anyone who answers in the affirmative is ruled out of the running. That is certainly not meritocratic, and it's not democratic either: if the boot were placed back on the other foot (where it resided either in law or in practice or both for centuries) there would, quite rightly, be an outcry. Kez will just have to get used to hearing this line... only the people discussing it will, I'm sure, use real verbs.

"Nobody in this debate seems capable of addressing the fundamental issue which is that of the decline in the membership of political parties. Of what ever political colour and ilk, people just simply do not join political parties in the same way any more. Yet those that remain decide who represents their party and often in a safe seat, who represents that constituency in Parliament.

"To be brutally honest, there's something not quite right about a room full of 100 people selecting the candidate to represent 75,000 people."

I agree. But two things spring to mind: firstly, where is the evidence that AWS has arrested that decline, and secondly, surely that is an argument for open primaries, rather than an AWS?

"I'd love to know how many SNP people took part in the selection of George Kerevan in Edinburgh East? I'd love to know how many Lib Dems voted for Fred MacIntosh in Edinburgh South. Was there even a contest? Or simply a right of passage?

"Until we reignite the fire behind party politics or change the way we select our candidates - nobody is on solid ground to argue that all women short-lists are undemocratic."

I would imagine that the Edinburgh SNP selection was arranged rapidly: in preparation for the election that never came. What I know for sure is that following the 2003 candidate selection debacle, the rules changed so that under normal circumstances, candidates were chosen by OMOV: this has happened to select the SNP's European Candidates: the shortlist was narrowed down at Conference - where every delegate had a vote - while the final ranking determined by the enitre Party membership, and every candidate had an equal chance of coming first regardless of incumbency. This is in stark contrast to Labour, where the candidate ranked third actually outpolled the top two, but was prevented from overtaking them simply because they are sitting MEPs.

Now consider that: Mary Lockhart has been held back in third place despite outpolling 'first-placed' David Martin. That does make a mockery of Labour's gender equality mission, doesn't it?

And of course, while I'm not sure how we widen political participation across the board (though giving the most popular candidate first place on a Party list might help), I have every right to call an undemocratic process undemocratic. I might not be sure how to move forwards but I can at least recognise a retrograde step and oppose it.

"Let me be clear again - nobody is getting parachuted in from anywhere! The Labour Party takes great pride in the importance of a constituency link."

So Maggie Jones wasn't parachuted? So John Reid, whose Hamilton seat disappeared, wasn't parachuted into Airdrie? What link did Tony Blair have with Sedgefield? What link did Peter Mandelson have with Hartlepool? How did Donald Dewar end up in Aberdeen? How did Taysider Mike Watson end up in Glasgow? What connection does Ed Balls have with West Yorkshire? And Anne Moffat's connections with East Lothian were at best ancestral - so her candidacy would be like me seeking election in Paisley!

"Imposing a woman?! Who says the woman in Airdrie and Shotts wont be local?"

Here's the thing... the Party rules as set out by Harman (though disregarded for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth & Kirkintilloch East, I note) are imposed centrally on a constituency. HQ has told local activists that they can pick any candidate they like as long as she's a woman. That's imposition. Of a woman. By the centre. Regardless of the woman's address she has been imposed. And if she's local, then there is no reason why she can't tan the hide of any male candidate in a fair contest.

I am not disputing the argument that the number of women (and LGBT, and BME) candidates and parliamentarians is woefully short of what it should be. It is.

I am not disputing that we need to do something to open up politics. We do.

But I do not believe that just because AWS is something, we should do it. That's an approach straight out of the Jim Hacker School of Politics.

And I do not believe that AWS is the way to equality. It is, at best, the way to parity and those two are very distinct concepts. The idea that any individual, whatever their profile, should be ruled out from consideration for office simply because they might skew the demographic balance is, to me, utterly abhorrent. But that is the risk with the search for parity and it is, unfortunately, an integral part of the AWS process.

Well-meant? I'm reasonably sure of that. Wrong? Absolutely.

The Sunday Whip

A couple of defeats this week for the Government but nothing too problematic, so the only note-worthy events were the challenged Business Motion and the first LCM to be forced to a vote since the Election.

Anyway. The only thing to be challenged on Wednesday was the Business Motion, and this was missed by Brian Adam (SNP, Aberdeen North), Jackie Baillie (Lab, Dumbarton), Labour's Shadow Education Secretary Rhona Brankin (Midlothian), Angela Constance (SNP, Livingston), George Foulkes (Lab, Lothians), Labour Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale), Marilyn Livingstone (Lab, Kirkcaldy), Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians), Stewart Maxwell (SNP, West of Scotland), Margaret Mitchell (Con, Central Scotland), Labour's Shadow Economy Minister John Park (Mid Scotland & Fife), Cathy Peattie (Lab, Falkirk East) and Andrew Welsh (SNP, Angus). The motion passed by 97 (SNP/Labour/Tories) to 18 (LibDems/Greens). Everything else went through on the nod, including a set of motions to muck about with some of the Committee remits, a motion to set a timetable for Stage 1 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill and a clutch of SSIs:

Budget (Scotland) Acts 2007 and 2008 Amendment Order 2009

Regulation of Care (Scotland) Act 2001 (Minimum Frequency of Inspections) Order 2009

Regulation of Care (Fitness to Register, Provide and Manage Care Services) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2009

Representation of the People (Postal Voting for Local Government Elections) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2009

Thursday was far busier, there were only five absentees: Jackie Baillie, Karen Gillon, Marilyn Livingstone, Elaine Smith (Lab, Coatbridge & Chryston) and Andrew Welsh.

The first item of business was a Labour motion on forestry, which faced amendments from the SNP, Tories and LibDems. Everything was waved through:

That the Parliament notes the unanimous recommendation of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee that the Scottish Government drop proposals for leasing up to 25% of the Forestry Commission estate for a period of 75 years; notes that the Forestry Commission makes a major contribution to the economy of Scotland and can also make a major contribution towards helping Scotland meet its climate change targets; welcomes the decision of the Scottish Government to amend the Climate Change Bill to remove the relevant clauses; calls on the Scottish Government to bring forward its review of the operation of the Scotland Rural Development Programme urgently, including reviewing the level awarded for grants, and to pursue proposals for joint ventures to deliver renewables projects in the Forestry Commission estate; considers that all forestry proposals in future must be part of an integrated land-use strategy, and further calls on the Scottish Government to introduce a comprehensive sustainable land-use strategy, taking into account the strategic economic, social and environmental impacts and benefits of forestry, agriculture, recreation and other land uses and setting out, where appropriate, the contribution each can make in dealing with the consequences of climate change.

Following that came the Labour motion on police numbers. A Tory amendment to the SNP amendment fell, by 61 (Lab/LD/Green/Margo) votes to 16 (the Tories) with 46 SNP abstentions. The SNP amendment then fell by 60 (Lab/LD/Greens) to 47 (SNP/Margo) with 16 Tory abstentions. This was followed by a LibDem amendment, which fell by 65 (SNP/Con/Green/Margo) votes to 58 (Labour/LibDems). The motion itself remained untouched and passed without dissent:

That the Parliament believes that the Scottish Government must ensure that there are 17,265 full-time equivalent police officers by March 2011, calculated on the basis currently used by the Chief Statistician in the reporting of the official Police Officer Quarterly Strength Statistics, for the SNP's stated manifesto pledge for 1,000 more police officers to be met.

After this came the Government's Science in Scotland motion. This began with a Labour amendment, which fell by 64 (SNP/most of the LibDems/Greens/Margo) to 58 (Lab/Con) with one abstention: Hugh O'Donnell (LD, Central Scotland). The Tory amendment, however, got through by 77 (everyone but the SNP) to 46 (the SNP). A LibDem amendment was waved through, as was the amended motion:

That the Parliament welcomes the publication of the Scottish Government's strategic framework for science, Science for Scotland, on 27 November 2008; agrees with its vision for Scotland as a nation of world-class scientific achievement, a magnet for talent and for investment and a powerhouse of technology, innovation, enterprise and increasing sustainable economic growth; supports the strong message that Science for Scotland sends out to Scotland and the world about this vision; agrees that maintaining a strong science base in Scotland is vital because it will underpin economic growth, help improve public services, enhance quality of life and help solve the world's most pressing problems; notes the detailed ambitions and commitments made around the five themes of Science for Scotland about developing individuals, scientific research, economic and business demand, international profile and connections in Scotland and government; further notes that Science for Scotland calls to action many bodies and sectors of the economy and asks them to work with the Scottish Government to help progress the aspirations of Science for Scotland, further notes the concern that some secondary schools in Scotland are reducing the availability of SQA Highers and Advanced Higher courses in science subjects; regrets that, although half a million women in the United Kingdom are qualified in either science, engineering or technology, less than a third work in those sectors, noting in particular the high fall-off rate at postdoctoral research level; calls on the Scottish Government to include within its strategy for science specific action to improve the participation and employment of women in the science sector and asks the Scottish Government to monitor and report to the Parliament on the progress being made.

Finally, following the apparent departure of Anne McLaughlin (SNP, Glasgow) and Nanette Milne (Con, North East Scotland), the LCM on the UK Parliament's Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill was passed by 118 (the Big 4) to 2 (the Greens), with Margo MacDonald reverting to type following what I can only assume was a nasty case of Abstention Withdrawl.

Remember, kids, the best way to quit Abstention is not to start in the first place - a lesson learned too late for poor Margo!

The Glass Ceiling

Having promised a post on this, I thought this was as good a time as any to deliver. It's the inevitable 'women and politics' post.

Firstly, of course there is something wrong when a group that comprises just over half of Scotland's population could provide only just over one third of MSPs. And I sympathise: the LGBT community has only four 'out' MSPs. By rights, on the most recent figures, there should be eight. On more optimistic figures, there should be thirteen. Four is a bit of a let-down, though not as big a let-down as the zero that Scotland's ethnic minorities have to tolerate since the passing of Bashir Ahmad.

So on the numbers, Holyrood is whiter, straighter and more male than Scotland as a whole. Westminster, despite some ethnic minority presence, is certainly more male and straighter. Nevertheless, we do have to look past the numbers. Frankly, I would be just about happy to put up with a 100% heterosexual Parliament if I could be sure that any LGBT constituent could go to his or her representative and get a fair hearing. Similarly, any heterosexual constituent should be able to call on a gay MSP or MP and be listened to. The job of representing any area in Parliament should not be contingent on your sexual orientation. Or race. Or religion. Or, and this is where my post comes in, gender.

Because the row over the AWS in Airdrie and Shotts has re-ignited that old chestnut about how we engage with women.

As Jeff notes, the cause if equality is not helped if women are less likely to be interested in politics. Certainly that's something borne out in Scottish Roundups passim. Frankly, I think there's a possible chicken-and-egg issue here: women don't often see other women in major roles (and before a certain Prime Minister is brought up, Thatcher was hardly a great advert for Womens' Lib, particularly as she ended up behaving more like a stereotypical male than anyone else in her Cabinet), so don't see "people like them" where it counts, so don't see anything that grabs their attention, so don't get involved, so don't end up in major roles, so don't engage other women.

But Holmesian sociolinguistics comes into play: the politics we see the most of is the quick report from Parliament, with men shouting at each other. That's where the problem lies - Parliamentary debate isn't a big medium for female communication. Janet Holmes argued that men are public speakers, while women are private speakers. Put another way, men are more confrontational; women are more conversational. So right then and there, you have a male, confrontational environment: a sure recipe for women getting turned off.

That said, that's not the be-all-and-end-all of a Parliamentarian's job: he or she has to represent the community, and be a key local figure. Hence things like surgeries, where elected officials invite their constituents to call on them and raise issues affecting them. A lot of the time, this means people coming through the doors with problems, often big ones. To get through this requires no small amount of empathy. And women are better at that then men are. This means that there is a massive need for there to be women in elected posts: the Chamber may be off-putting, but there's more to being in Parliament that that.

So from a principled and a practical point of view, it's right for there to be more women in Parliament than there are.

But are All-Woman Shortlists the way to go?

While Yousuf puts up a thoughtful defence of the approach, I disagree.

Yousuf argues that cliques develop in local parties over tiem, and that means that if your face doesn't fit, you don't get ahead. He may be right, but an AWS doesn't get rid of the clique: all it does is piss off the bulk of your activists, who are saddled with a candidate they don't like. And we need only look to East Lothian to see where that leads. Imposing a woman on a local party by central diktat doesn;t say that women are just as capable as men: it says they need a leg up, a helping hand. Where local cliques are a part of the problem, an AWS isn't part of the solution, as it misses the point: it's not that the candidate is a woman that's the problem. it's that she's not one of the group. A man imposed on the same group would face a similar problem and the only way for either to succeed is to ingratiate themselves with the clique: if you try and break with a group, the group breaks you.

Basically, imposing rules from Headquarters doesn't open things up for anyone, male or female, black or white, gay or straight.

Besides, here's my main beef with AWS: it doesn't deliver equality at all. It merely aims for parity. True equality is only achieved when we stop focusing on the numbers, and when a candidate's gender, race or orientation isn't what we think about. Yes, I accept that women have faced centuries of prejudice in politics: even when women had the vote, attitudes like "You're a woman, how could you possibly represent X?" prevailed. I don't see how replacing that with "We think we need a woman to represent X, so no men allowed!" actually changes anything. It's still discrimination, it's still prejudice, it's still patronising, and more importantly, it's still seeing the gender first and the person second. We need to get past that.

So it's reasonable for people in Airdrie and in Blaenau Gwent to bristle at the thought of a woman being parachuted in from elsewhere. It stand to reason that a man from Airdrie will have a better feel for the community than a woman from elsewhere. Therefore, for as long as we have a constituency system, the Airdrie man is a better candidate for the seat than a woman from somewhere else.

But conversely, if there's a local woman who has a shot at things, and the only alternative is a man parachuted in from another part of the country, then for the same reasons that a local man is preferable to a woman from outside the area, the local woman is a better option than a guy from elsewhere.

And if there's a local man and a local woman, then it's for local Party members, who know them both, to judge who's the better candidate. And the better prospective Parliamentarian. It's not for the centre to decide that the woman needs a leg-up simply because she's a woman.

That's why I oppose the AWS approach: it doesn't prevent cliques shutting out anyone in a local party who they don't like, it doesn't bring true equality, it simply reduces the whole notion of Equal Opportunities to a box-ticking exercise, with the female candidate reduced to the status of Trophy Woman.

Yes, politics would be better served with more women are involved, but not like this. We need to find another way.

The Airdrie AWS shouldn't be necessary

It seems that the ructions concerning who will be Labour's candidate to succeed John Reid as MP for Airdrie & Shotts has now rippled not just outside Lanarkshire, but also outside Scotland. Michael Crick has now grabbed the story.

To summarise, Labour has imposed an AWS rule on Airdrie & Shotts. The local party have bristled at this, fearing that they are being used as a conduit to get an ally of Harriet Harman into the House of Commons. Also, following the death of John Smith, they've played host to a number of big names that haven't necessarly been the local option. Comparisons are now being drawn with Blaenau Gwent, once Labour's safest seat, now lost, following the decision of the then local Welsh Assembly Member Peter Law to stand against the AWS-selected official Labour candidate Maggie Jones for the seat in 2005. He won that election, and on his death, his widow Trish won the Assembly seat as an Independent, while his election agent Dai Davies won the Westminster seat, also as an Independent.

Now, the line taken by one local member is that "at the present moment people are not thinking about running an independent local candidate". That's hardly re-assuring for Labour: "at the present moment" means that what happens when an election is called is still anyone's guess, while "people are not thinking" is not the same as ruling out the idea categorically.

And there's another dimension: in Blaenau Gwent, Labour was the only option, until Peter Law came along. In Airdrie & Shotts, it's not so clear: the SNP vote between the 2003 and 2007 Holyrood elections almost doubled, while Labour lost one sixth of its support. The boundaries between the Westminster seat and Holyrood seat are not all that different and if the same thing were to happen again from the 2005 Westminster election to the next one, Labour's majority in the seat would fall from 14,000 to less than five and a half thousand. The threat posed by an Independent candidate, therefore, is double what it was in Blaenau Gwent: not only could he (for it will almost certainly be a he) unseat Labour himself, but it is also possible that neither could win, and that the SNP could end up coming through the middle to gain the seat. That would be a disaster for Labour: this area's MP was John Smith, Labour Leader; he was succeeded by Helen Liddell, former Secretary of State for Scotland; she was succeeded by John Reid, former Home Secretary. Three party bigwigs in a row: for Reid to be succeeded by a non-Labour MP would be embarrassing; for him to be succeeded by the SNP challenger would be a humiliation for Labour.

But it needn't have been this way: Airdrie & Shotts selected a woman at its Holyrood candidate in 1999 - Karen Whitefield - and she may yet "do a Margaret Curran" and gain the selection (this, incidentally, is probably the only hope of keeping the AWS and holding the local party together). But as I said, Helen Liddell was Reid's predecessor: with Tony Blair having no more space for her in the Cabinet in 2003, and with the number of Scottish seats at Westminster reducing, Liddell was pensioned off with the post of High Commissioner to Australia in 2005, when she made space for John Reid whose Hamilton North & Bellshill constituency was disappearing. Airdrie & Shotts was represented by a woman, and a prominent one at that, until intrigue got in the way.

Could she not have remained in the House of Commons? Could Tom Clarke have not have been sent to the Lords instead, so that Coatbridge, Chryston & Bellshill? Could not Jimmy Hood have stepped down, to enable Reid to fight Lanark & Hamilton East? Or Tommy McAvoy, in Rutherglen & Hamilton East?

Apparently not, and so it was that party intrigue deprived Lanarkshire Labour of its most prominent female standard-bearer four years ago. Party intrigue looks set to play its part in the attempt to have a woman represent Lanarkshire Labour at Westminster once more, and while the cause of getting more women in Parliament is a noble one (there's a post on that coming at a later date), Labour may find itself re-acquainted with the old cliché about two wrongs not making a right.

The Sunday Whip

A busy week, mainly due to the volume of legislation passing through the Chamber.

Starting with Wednesday, all the amendments to the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill were waved through, along with the Business motions and the eminently sensible suggestion that the Justice Committee take charge of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill.

That meant that there was only one vote taken on Wednesday, and there were a number of absentees for it: Wendy Alexander (Lab, Paisley North), Labour's Shadow Eduation Secretary Rhona Brankin (Midlothian), Cathie Craigie (Lab, Cumbernauld & Kilsyth), Marlyn Glen (Lab, North East Scotland), Trish Godman (Lab, West Renfrewshire), Robin Harper (Green, Lothians), Hugh Henry (Lab, Paisley South), Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians), Stewart Maxwell (SNP, West of Scotland), LibDem Local Government Spokesperson Alison McInnes (North East Scotland), Labour's Shadow Parliamentary Business Minister Michael McMahon (Hamilton North & Bellshill), Elaine Smith (Lab, Coatbridge & Chryston), LibDem Education Spokesperson Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West) and Nicol Stephen (LibDem, Aberdeen South).

They missed the passage of the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill by 98 votes (everyone but the Tories) to 16.

Thursday, however, was a different animal, primarily thanks to the many amendments to the Health Boards (Membership and Elections) (Scotland) Bill. In the afternoon session, Trish Godman and Alasdair Morgan (SNP, South of Scotland) missed all the votes: they each had spells in the Chair. Also absent were Cathie Craigie, Marlyn Glen, Rhoda Grant (Lab, Highlands & Islands), Labour's Shadow Finance Secretary Andy Kerr (East Kilbride), Labour's Deputy Leader Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok), Peter Peacock (Lab, Highlands & Islands), Nicol Stephen, David Stewart (Lab, Highlands & Islands) and Finance Secretary John Swinney (North Tayside).

The first amendment, which was also missed by Alex Salmond, was Bill Butler's amendment which would have allowed for a small majority of elected Board members. It fell, by 77 (SNP/Tory/LibDem/Green) votes to 38 (Labour) with one absention (guess who!).

The second - Amendment 12 - was lodged by Helen Eadie and would have given Holyrood a say in when Councillor members of the Boards are dismissed. It too fell, by 63 votes (SNP/Tory/Green) votes to 54 (Labour/LibDems/Margo).

It was sometime between the that amendment and the next one - Amendment 2 - that Labour's Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) left the fray. Amendment 2 came from the Government and got rid of the need for personal identifiers in all-postal elections. It passed by 61 (SNP, all but one of the Tories and Margo) to 55 (Labour/LibDems/Greens plus Glasgow Tory Bill Aitken).

After this, we were denied the presence of Margo MacDonald and Tom McCabe (Lab, Hamilton South). The fourth amendment - Amendment 3 - came from Ross Finnie and would have raised the voting age for Health Board elections to 18. Finnie attempted to withdraw it but the issue was pressed. It still fell, by 62 votes (SNP/LibDems/Greens) to 52 (Labour/Tories).

The last amendment to be voted on - Amendment 4 - was also missed by Labour's Shadow Education Secretary Rhona Brankin (Midlothian), emerged from the Government and provided for anyone who was entitled to vote in a local Council election to be entitled to vote in a Health Board election for the same area. It passed by 97 (everyone but the Tories) to 16 (the Conservatives).

The amended Bill was passed unanimously at Decision Time.

Speaking of which, the votes on the morning's motions were taken at 5pm as usual. Missing this were Cathie Craigie, Karen Gillon, Marlyn Glen, Rhoda Grant, Andy Kerr, Margo MacDonald, Stewart Maxwell, Peter Peacock, Nicol Stephen and David Stewart. First came a LibDem motion on Aberdeen Crossrail. An SNP amendment fell by 72 (everyone but the SNP) to 46 (the SNP), while a Labour amendment passed by 72 to 46. The Tory amendment got the SNP out of jail somewhat, and passed by 62 (the SNP and Conservatives) to 56 (Labour/LibDems/Greens), as did the amended motion:

That the Parliament affirms its support for the Aberdeen Crossrail project, a vital infrastructure link for the region and for the wider national transport network in Scotland, which would provide a frequent cross-city rail service; notes the comments of NESTRANS, previously chaired by Alison McInnes MSP, in its regional transport strategy, that "it is clear that improved rail services can only realistically be delivered on an incremental basis and in a way that capitalises on existing planned investment"; welcomes the recent improvements to the timetable, meaning that there is now a significantly better service north of Aberdeen than was the case when Nicol Stephen MSP and Tavish Scott MSP were ministers for transport; considers that proposals contained in the Strategic Transport Projects Review to improve services north and south of Aberdeen must be progressed as a priority as a key means of securing better crossrail services; welcomes the forthcoming opening of Laurencekirk station and considers that plans to open Kintore station should now be taken forward; further considers that local agencies should work together to build strong cases for the opening of stations at Newtonhill and Altens; notes with regret the very poor stewardship of rail projects under successive Liberal Democrat transport ministers, notably the significant cost overruns and delays that blighted the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line and the managerial paralysis at the heart of the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link, and regrets the additional investment for projects such as Aberdeen Crossrail that has been lost as a result of this mismanagement.

Following that came the LibDem motion on a Minimum Income Guarantee for Students. The SNP's amendment fell by 72 to 46. Labour's passed by 56 (Labour, the Tories and, rather embarrassingly, Brian Adam, the SNP's Chief Whip and MSP for Aberdeen North) to 47 (the rest of the SNP - was this a massive revolt involving the entire Cabinet or did Brian Adam just press the wrong button? - and the Greens) with 15 LibDem abstentions. The LibDem amendment passed by 70 (Labour/Tories/LibDems) to 48 (SNP and Greens, with Brian Adam remembering just who he was the Whip for this time):

That the Parliament recognises the importance of the higher and further education sector; notes the outcome of the New Horizons: responding to the challenges of the 21st century report and the need to involve key stakeholders in discussions about the funding of the university sector; believes that Scotland's students have been let down by the SNP government's failure to deliver on its manifesto pledge to dump student debt; notes the Supporting a Smarter Scotland consultation on student support and rejects all of its proposals for not adequately addressing student hardship; expresses serious concern at reports of childcare and hardship funds being stretched to breaking point across colleges and universities in Scotland; recognises the calls of the NUS and other student representatives for a £7,000 minimum income guarantee but believes that a £7,000 minimum income for all students in Scotland is unachievable with the funds allocated for student support by the Scottish Government in this spending review period, and calls on the Scottish Government to come forward with new proposals that focus the available resources at the poorest students to genuinely address student hardship in Scotland.

And that was this week. Next week we have, among other matters, Stage 1 of Patrick Harvie's Offences (Aggravation By Prejudice) (Scotland) Bill, and if I'm reporting divisions on that then this blog might just declare open war on MSPs who vote against it. I will intend to cause offence, and it will be aggravated by their prejudice. See how they like it!

What is it with LibDem Councillors and Planning Applications by Rich People?

As readers know, I'm blogging from the North of England, in a village on the outskirts of Chorley, a town so miserable I only go there when I'm heading to somewhere else. The closure of Woolworths hit the town hard, not because it was popular but because it was across the road from the bus station (sorry, ahem, "Interchange") and so represented the most direct route into the main shopping precinct.

Anyway, in the village where I live we have the misfortune of being represented by three LibDem Councillors who sink without trace for ten months of the year (and Heaven help you if you ask for their help on a local issue during those ten months, you get a string of abuse about how you wouldn't care if the problem were happening 100 yards down the road rather than any actual help) then pop up around March, when there's an election on. Right on schedule, one of them, Ken Ball, has emerged. I wouldn't mind, but there isn't even a Borough Council election this year. I can only assume that he is, once again, the local LibDem candidate for the County Council election.

Enter Trevor Hemmings, a local businessman, owner of one good racehorse and a load crap ones and twice owner of Pontin's. Yes, the holiday camps. The first time around, he advised telesales staff not to take bookings for the 'Dolphin' camp in Devon. 24 hours later, it burned down. Now, I am not alleging for one minute that Hemmings knew that this was going to happen, but I am flagging up the co-incidence and inviting readers to draw their own conclusions. If predicting the future were one of his gifts, he would have bought better horses.

Anyway. Hemmings is, among other things, a local developer and sees the opportunity to build a number of houses in one of the more rural parts of the village, by knocking down the Waggon and Horses pub on the corner of Coppull Moor Lane and Chapel Lane, then building on the site and the adjoining land. Here's where Ken comes in, speaking to the local press, informin us that "the pub has been vacant for some years now and has been looking untidy".

Now, the land around the pub is definitely in a bit of a state, but the supposed void status of the pub itself will doubtless come as news to the landlord. And the people who go in for Poker Night on a Thursday. I don't find myself at that end of the village very often, but a fortnight ago, it looked very much occupied and seemed to at least be trying to make a decent fist of things. Basically, Ken's told a whopper so as to endorse Sir Trevor's plans.

Compare and contrast with Aberdeenshire's Martin Ford, who was drummed out of the party after opposing plans for the Trump development on the Menie Estate, along with a number of Councillors whose only wrongdoing was to oppose how Ford had been treated.

And Ken doesn't have to fear that: there are only three LibDems on Chorley Borough Council and they all represent the Coppull ward. One of them is his wife Nora, for Pete's sake!

I wonder if he's seen what happens to LibDem Councillors who say no to rich people. I wonder if he thought he'd better toe the line. By making stuff up. In ways which can be refuted by a short walk around Coppull's Old Parish.

It's only bad if the SNP do it, apparently

The Scotsman, 7 March:

SERIOUS concerns have been raised in Whitehall over the legality of plans by the Scottish Government to introduce a minimum price for alcohol.

The Scotsman has learned UK ministers have been briefed that the proposal announced by the SNP on Monday breaks European competition laws.

And with at least two major trade organisations preparing legal challenges to minimum pricing, there is concern that the Scottish Government's actions might see UK government ministers dragged through the courts.

Civil servants have warned UK ministers that the Westminster government is responsible for maintaining European regulations and it would be held legally accountable, rather than the Scottish Government, if ministers in Holyrood pressed ahead with the proposal...

But a senior Whitehall source told The Scotsman: "Basically we have been told minimum pricing is completely illegal.

"We are worried this will mean we will be taken to court as the responsible authority.

"The Scottish Government's proposal appears to be ill-thought-out and we don't even think it will work, because what is needed is a cultural change in Scotland and that is not going to be effected by making booze more expensive."

BBC News, 14 March:

The government's top medical adviser has drawn up plans for a minimum price for alcohol which would double the cost of some drinks in England.

Under the proposal from Sir Liam Donaldson, no drinks could be sold for less than 50 pence per unit of alcohol they contain.

It would mean most bottles of wine could not be sold for less than £4.50.

The proposal is aimed at tackling alcohol misuse and is set out in his annual report on the nation's health.

Harold Wilson was right: a week truly is a long time in politics. When Nicola Sturgeon and Kenny MacAskill suggest a minimum price on alcohol, it might breach European law. Yet the UK Chief Medical Officer is willing to look at the idea himself.

So the question is, has Sir Liam checked the legal position, and if so, why is minimum pricing legal when it's suggested by him and not the Scottish Government?

Here's another question: if he is on a sound legal footing, can we trust any Whitehall pronouncement about the supposed illegality of Scottish Government proposals ever again?

Perhaps the Government just doesn't see the need to keep Sir Liam's wings clipped. And if that's the case, then devolution is basically being exposed as a cheap sham of autonomy.

It's time for the real thing.

What next for Dundee?

The SNP has won the Maryfield By-Election on Dundee City Council, with an increased first preference vote share and a small swing from Labour. Dundee, of course, became an SNP City at Holyrood last year with Shona Robison holding Dundee East and Joe FitzPatrick gaining Dundee West. And the SNP are the largest group on Dundee City Council, but control was in the hands of a Labour/LibDem Coalition that relied on Tory backing.

Between them, the three parties had fifteen seats out of twenty nine. They now hae fourteen, and have therefore lost their majority.

The SNP had thirteen seats. They too now have fourteen, drawing the party level with the three Unionist parties combined.

(Incidentally, this should serve as a warning to Councillors just over the boundary in Angus, where the opposition to the SNP - which previously controlled the Council - pulled a similar stunt and formed the Angus Alliance: yesterday saw a 3% swing away from the combined first prefernce vote share of the three parties in Dundee so this would be a good time for Alliance Counciilors in Angus who got in on transfers to start checking the arithmetic again!)

The SNP have, therefore, suggested that it would be sensible for them to assume control of the Council. If one of the Unionist parties breaks away (and it's a big if), then it's a done deal. Otherwise, it now all hangs on Ian Borthwick, the sole Independent.

My guess is that it will indeed come down to Councillor Borthwick: simply consider the hostility to the SNP from the other parties that must surely be the cause for the current administrative arrangements.

Firstly, the Grand Unionist Coalition that it's rumoured was attempted by Gordon Brown and Ming Campbell couldn't be formed at Holyrood. In Dundee, they appeared to manage it without any prodding from UK Party Leaders.

Secondly, we're told so often about how Labour hate the Tories and how a vote for anyone else would let them in and that would be a disaster. In Dundee, Labour see Tory support for their administration as a good thing. One wonders if they'll mention that in their election literature.

Thirdly, the Tories take the view that the Labour Government at Westminster is bad enough without it being coupled with a Labour-led Government at Holyrood. In Dundee, this distaste for Labour does not extent to the Council Chambers.

Fourthly, the Tories spent eight years ripping the piss out of the Labour/LibDem Coalition at Holyrood. In Dundee, they've been propping it up.

Fifthly, the LibDems chose Opposition over joining any Coalition at Holyrood in 2007, and even spurned Labour, their long-standing partner. The most likely reason for this was Labour's second place: the absence of a Parliamentary majority even with the combination of the two parties was another possible reason. In Dundee, the two parties combined actually had fewer Councillors than the SNP alone after the May elections, and still pressed ahead.

Basically, unless Councillor Borthwick actually joins the Grand Unionist Coalition in Dundee, it looks like the city is heading for a minority administration. The question now is whether it will contain one party or three.

And the next two years of Dundonian politics rest in the hands of one man: Councillor Borthwick. We shall see what he decides.

The Sunday Whip

This week, we had the usual mix of Wednesday consensus and Thursday bunfighting, with a couple of twists: firstly, a three-party mugging of the Government - something which, despite the Government's minority status and frequent looking at the wrong end of a Parliamentary division, is surprisingly rare (indeed, you have to go back to October to find a motion and amendments where the SNP found itself up against the three main Opposition parties on every relevant vote) - and secondly, a Committee motion which saw amendments that not everyone liked the look of.

Anyway. Wednesday saw no votes taken: the Business Motions were waved through, Stage 1 of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill achieved consensus, as did the LCM on the relevant section of the UK Parliament's Policing and Crime Bill. Finally, Parliament declared itself universally happy with the idea of the Health & Sport Committee taking the lead in scrutinising the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill at Stage 1. So everyone was happy.

Thursday, on the other hand, was a different story, which is no surprise when the first (Labour) motion was entitled "Scottish Government Failures". The absentees were: Ted Brocklebank (Con, Mid Scotland & Fife), Parliamentary Business Minister Bruce Crawford (Stirling), Labour's Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale), Charlie Gordon (Lab, Glasgow Cathcart), Jamie McGrigor (Highlands & Islands), John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West, and packed off to Germany where he could put his party in any number of difficult positions and no one would notice) Public Health Minister Shona Robison (Dundee East) and Labour's Shadow Public Health Minister Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland & Fife).

That first motion didn't go well: the SNP amendment fell by 74 (Labour/Tory/LD/Green) votes to 45 with one Margo-shaped abstention. The LibDem amendment - the one that said that we're not allowed to talk about certain things while there's a recession on... I didn't realise that was a Liberal or a Democratic sentiment, but there you go - passed by 72 (Labour/Tory/LD) votes to 47 (SNP/Greens) with one abstention (guess who), and the full package passed with the same figures:

That the Parliament notes that SNP manifesto promises have been broken on a wide range of issues including health, housing, community safety and education; further notes the absence of a credible strategy to address the needs of people facing difficult economic circumstances and to tackle poverty and disadvantage; regrets that the Scottish Government prefers to focus its attention on the powers it does not have in order to pursue its party's agenda of separation; urges the Scottish Government to examine how it might effectively use the powers at its disposal to meet the needs of people by sustaining economic activity and employment and supporting communities across Scotland, and calls on the Scottish Government to concentrate its efforts on economic recovery and abandon its divisive plans for a Referendum Bill for the remainder of its term of office.

Next came the Local Government and Communities Committee's motion on the National Planning Framework 2. This faced amendments from Labour and the Tories, with the latter amendment itself facing a potential re-draft at the hands of the Liberal Democrats. The Labour amendment went through on the nod, and the LibDem amendment to the Tory amendment passed by 65 votes - the SNP, most of the LibDems, the Greens, Margo, and three Labour MSPs: Marlyn Glen (North East Scotland), Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East) and Elaine Smith (Coatbridge & Chryston) - to 54 - the remaining 40 Labour MSPs and the Tories - with Jamie Stone (LD, Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross) abstaining.

The amended Tory amendment also passed, by 64 - the SNP, the LibDems minus Stone, the Greens, Margo, Marlyn Glen and Elaine Smith - to 14 (the Tories) with 42 abstentions: the remaining Labour MSPs (Cathy Peattie reverted to voting with her party) and Jamie Stone. The amended Committee motion then passed by 62 (the SNP, the LibDems minus Stone, Margo, Marlyn Glen and Elaine Smith) to 16 (the Tories and Greens - why vote for the amendments, only to oppose the amended motion?) with 42 abstentions (the remaining Labour MSPs plus Stone):

That the Parliament agrees that the Local Government and Communities Committee's 5th Report, 2009 (Session 3): National Planning Framework for Scotland 2: Proposed Framework (SP Paper 218), together with the Official Report of the Parliament's debate on the report, should form the Parliament's response to the Scottish Government on the Proposed Framework; supports the inclusion of the high-speed rail link between Scotland and London on the list of designated national developments; recommends that the Scottish Government ensures that both interim and long-term targets for reducing emissions are fully taken into account in land use and energy policies; considers that local and national land use planning must facilitate walking and cycling in urban as well as rural areas; endorses the recommendation of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee that the Scottish Government removes any technology-specific references from candidate national developments 8 and 9; calls on the Scottish Government to amend the descriptions of these national developments to reflect this in the final version of the National Planning Framework for Scotland 2, and reaffirms that in accordance with paragraph 152 of the National Planning Framework for Scotland 2 proposed framework document it does not support the construction of new nuclear power stations in Scotland.

Finally, Parliament re-discovered consensus, in the form of an LCM regarding the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill.

One final thing: readers will note one absentee from the absentees, as it were: Elaine Smith, who appears to be back, though I suspect that this had more to do with the Members' Debate on International Women's Day than the substantive business. Still, it's good to see her back in the Chamber. Whether the Labour Whips thought that after she voted against the party line on three of the divisions is entirely another matter...

Independence: more important now than ever

My patience is getting somewhat worn having to listen to Unionist politicians complaining that a global recession is not the time to talk about independence. The irony of them taking time - and whole debates - to explain why this is the case is apparently lost on them, but that irony has been a perverse aspect of Scottish politics since, well, 1707, so we'll leave that to one side.

There's also a further irony in some of the people saying there shouldn't be a referendum - which would be used to determine how and from where we're governed - have also suggested that there should be a General Election - which would be used to determine how and by whom we're governed.

Add to that the irony in maintaining the Calman Commission: if independence is off-limits during a time of economic crisis, why is it OK to spend time and money tinkering around the edges of the constitution?

Anyway, that's by the by. The fact is, it's more important to think about independence at a time of crisis as it makes us think about how Scotland could be reacting: I've always described independence as a toolkit of powers, and right now, we're trying to fix a major leak with nothing more than a screwdriver and a small scrap of sandpaper.

Think about it: what powers does John Swinney actually have? The power to set spending priorities from a fixed (and declining) budget. Business rates. Scottish Enterprise (not necessarily a byword in generating capital). The Income Tax varying power at a time when its use would blow a massive hole in the Budget. He can't borrow money - so that's major capital projects on ice - and while Labour keep saying he should use PFI, that would entail a massive reliance on private consortia, which would doubtless include banks if previous PFI projects are anything to go by - and they're too busy doling out pensions to disgraced former executives to pay for a bridge.

And when Labour say that Alex Salmond should appoint a Minister for Economic Recovery, two questions spring to mind: firstly, with the complete lack of meaningful powers available to the Scottish Government, what would he or she do? And secondly, would anyone in Scottish Labour care to tell me who Gordon Brown's Minister for Economic Recovery is?

Does he have one?

No?

Right, well appoint one first, then tell us how wonderful it is to have one in place.

And of course, there's that old chestnut about how an independent Scotland couldn't have saved the banks - and I thought we weren't supposed to be talking about independence, but Unionist politicians will make an exception for one-way traffic - but even those two much derided countries Iceland and Ireland have managed to take action to keep their banks going, while Alastair Darling's forced merger of HBOS and Lloyds TSB has succeeded only in dragging the latter down into the former's mess. Meanwhile, RBS has become a black hole into which millions of pounds of taxpayers money falls - though in fairness, it's difficult to see what else could be done here, but again, Iceland and Ireland managed to do similar things even in their economic state - Add to that the EU's assurance that help will be made available for Eurozone countries in trouble and you get a growing sign that independence isn't necessarily the barrier to economic recovery that Labour et al suggest.

Meanwhile, the grim financial signs show that the Union hasn't exactly insulated Scotland from trouble - nor did it protect Scotland from the dot.com bubble burst in the earlier part of this decade - while the £500million cut in the Scottish Budget isn't going to help much either, and the only ways around that under devolution are to raise Income Tax (which would really screw everyone over), or cut public spending resulting in a collapse of public services and major job losses just when we need them the least.

In short, we need the full toolkit. And we need it soon.

But it's not just the economy: take Local Income Tax. The Council Tax is massively regressive, so the Government proposes a solution, which HMRC rule out as illegal under the devolution settlement. Labour's proposal: we'll get back to you.

Scotland has a drinking problem, and amongst a range of possible solutions, the Government proposes a minimum price on alcohol, which the Government complains would be illegal in the current constitutional landscape. Labour's proposal: silence.

So when devolution was meant to deliver Scottish solutions to Scottish problems, the reality is that Scottish Ministers are powerless to deliver real, radical change where it's needed. On Scotland's booze culture, the Government's hands may be tied. On local taxation, the Government's hands would have been tied had a so called democratic socialist party got on board for a progressive form of taxation. On public spending, the Government's hands are tied. On the economy, the Government's hands are very much tied.

So Iain Gray, Annabel Goldie, Tavish Scott et al, listen up: now is exactly the time to discuss cutting the rope.

The Sunday Whip

This was a markedly consensual week, and one in which it was hard for juices to get flowing: only two votes were taken in the Chamber.

Wednesday was always going to be quiet: it involved Committee reports which are rarely challenged. The Business Motion was subject to a small amount of huffing - though no puffing - from Patrick Harvie, who I would expect to challenge the Business Motion more often than he does, as one of three MSPs not represented on the Bureau. Still, most of the time he's either happy or chooses to hold his peace, and in this case, he didn't force a vote on the matter either, so he was content to have his say, then let the Motion pass.

Anyway, Wednesday being a quiet one, there were a few absences: Jackie Baillie (Lab, Dumbarton), Angela Constance (SNP, Livingston), Parliamentary Business Minister Bruce Crawford (Stirling), Nigel Don (SNP, North East Scotland), Helen Eadie (Lab, Dunfermline East), Joe FitzPatrick (SNP, Dundee West), Robin Harper (Green, Lothians), Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians), LibDem Environment Spokesman Liam McArthur (Orkney), Jamie McGrigor (Con, Highlands & Islands), Alex Salmond (Gordon), Shadow Public Health Minister Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland & Fife), Elaine Smith (Coatbridge & Chryston) and Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon (Glasgow Govan).

And the Committee motions were waved through. First came the Equal Opportunities Committee's day in the sun:

That the Parliament notes evidence gathered by the Equal Opportunities Committee on unpaid carers at its meetings on 25 March and 7 October 2008, which highlighted that there were around 660,000 unpaid carers in Scotland, a figure that represented one in eight of the population; recognises the valuable contribution that unpaid carers make in saving the Scottish economy £7.6 billion a year; further notes that around 40% of unpaid carers surveyed reported that their access to services was poor or that available services did not meet their needs, and calls on the Scottish Government to take into consideration the evidence gathered when developing the forthcoming Scottish Government/COSLA carers strategy.

Following that came this offering from the Justice Committee:

That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Justice Committee's 18th Report, 2008 (Session 3): Report on Inquiry into Community Policing (SP Paper 155).

The one motion that was challenged was a motion to designated the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee as the lead committee for Stage 1 of the Arbitration (Scotland) Bill. The challenge came from its Convener, Iain Smith, but seems to have been based more on the LibDem reaction than the Committee's (and how strange it is that a Member who isn't represented on the Bureau doesn't seek to force a vote on a Bureau Motion, but one who is represented - by Mike Rumbles - is more than happy to make a challenge). As it happens, the motion passed by 99 (everyone but the LibDems) to 15 (the LibDems).

Thursday was equally consensual, but the sole vote was at least taken on a matter of policy rather than procedural wonkery. The absentees were Jackie Baillie, Bruce Crawford, Helen Eadie, LibDem Health Spokesman Ross Finnie (West of Scotland), Alex Johnstone (Con, North East Scotland), Shadow Enterprise Minister Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central), Jamie McGrigor, Shadow Transport Minister Des McNulty (Clydebank & Milngavie), Richard Simpson, Elaine Smith and Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson (Banff & Buchan).

They missed the unanimous passage of Jackie Baillie's Disabled Persons' Parking Places (Scotland) Bill (PDF). There was a Government motion on the Marine Bill consultation, and it was the Labour amendment which faced the challenge, falling by 61 (SNP/Tory/Green) votes to 40 (Labour) with 16 abstentions (LibDems and Margo). Tory, LibDem and Green amendments were all waved through, as was the amended motion:

That the Parliament notes the Scottish Government's commitment to deliver a Scottish Marine Bill to accommodate environmentally sustainable economic development and improve the stewardship of the marine environment; acknowledges the positive response to the consultation, Sustainable Seas for All, the widespread support for the proposals and the concerns that remain; considers that the forthcoming marine legislation must fully take into account the interests of commercial fisheries and recreational sea anglers and could provide an appropriate vehicle for tackling the severe decline in breeding sea bird populations, and calls on the Scottish Government to publish its conclusions on the consultation and bring forward a dedicated Scottish Marine Bill as soon as possible to ensure that Scotland does not fall behind the rest of the United Kingdom in the sustainable management of its seas and coast.

Following that, one last Bureau motion was passed without dissent, concerning an SNP Committee reshuffle. I suppose, in the end, it was re-assuring for the Bureau to get a refresher on things going through without any quibbling at all.