It's all meme, meme, meme, meme, meme

In this time of contagion, I appear to have been in contact with the First Time meme, thanks to Caron. It should surprise no one that Iain Dale is Patient Zero. Nevertheless, here I go:

First Job

I was regular babysitter to two psychotic young boys, who were sons of my Dad's psychotic friend. I deployed cruel and unusual tactics, and my method of getting them to go to bed was brutal yet effective: they could go to sleep, or they could stay up with me and read the Business pages on Ceefax. They usually caved in once we got to the Forex section.

First Real Job

It was after my A-Levels: my College's Modern Languages Department needed a Web Designer. All the language teachers knew me (on account of having taken all the languages that the College offered), and they knew I was a techno-geek. Cue technician's job. This of course was manna from heaven to the girl in Lower Sixth who had a thing for my sideburns, fancied older men (I was a year older), had a thing for some of the technicians (of which I was now, in effect, one) and who ended up chasing guys who - guess what - didn't reciprocate her feelings on the grounds that she was the wrong gender. Sadly for her, I ended up on that list. Luckily for me, I got staff room privileges so spent breaks there, where I didn't have to deal with her, and ended up comparing ways of eating various chocolate bars with one of the Psychology teachers and the Head of French.

First Role in Politics

Without counting school/student politics, my first role was as an activist in my local Labour(!) Branch. Decent folks, mostly. Shame about the rest of the party...

First Car

Still in the future, if at all. I generally get by without one, but recently, a couple of days of public transport chaos between Preston and Chorley, coupled with the soul-crushing bus journey as an alternative, have made me wonder if it might be worth revising that approach.


First Record

Never really bothered with singles, but my first album was ABBA Gold. Way to live down to a stereotype!

First Football Match

October 1990. Springfield Park. Wigan Athletic v Southend. Division Three (now League One). Wigan won 4-1. You beauty!

First Concert

1997. Christian rock concert in Blackburn. Same American band, can't remember the name, but they were nice people. The music, on the other hand...

First Country Visited

Most family holidays were in either England (Northumberland once, very nice, Devon twice, OK the first time but slightly dull the second) or Scotland (Galloway, OK but ruined by external factors, Dunoon, would have been nice had visibility been greater than 10m), so it was a pleasant change to go to Brittany in 1999. We stayed in Cancale, just down the road from St Malo, and it was lovely. Apart from the heatstroke. Anyway. We stayed in this upstairs holiday flat in a converted cottage, and there were German tourists in the downstairs one: a group of students who were really nice in the first week (I liked that as I got to practice my German) and a somewhat standoffish family the second week. I recall the landlady, a woman who seemed to have slept with members of every conceivable trade from every European nation that had been on the map at any point over the previous 40 years. She fell out of the downstairs flat's kitchen window at one point, and ended up sitting in the garden with my parents, getting pissed.

First TV Appearance

In the background, I was in shot for a report from College for North West Tonight on some sort of row over A-Level Coursework. I ended up being on camera in 2003, when Margo MacDonald was out talking to voters (I was one of them) while being filmed for an STV documentary. Nothing proper though. At least, not yet.

First Political Speech

Other than student politics, and Debates Union events (though in 2005, I found myself speaking alongside Margaret Smith MSP against all-woman shortlists), I'm yet to deliver one, unless you count the time EUSA sent me to do a hatchet job on Marilyne MacLaren at an Edinburgh South hustings over her support for HMO Quotas. I have co-written one though...

First Girlfriend/Boyfriend

The actual Boyfriend thing is a little thorny as my love life has hitherto been a total and utter train wreck of the first order: either potential romances turn out to be borderline stalky (ie, the previous possibility, where we'd started chatting, I thought he seemed pleasant enough but in his mind, he was getting ready for me to move down to Eastbourne with him and leave out a life in the eternal shackles of domestic bliss) or just fizzle out when we realise that we don't seem to have all that much in common and the conversation just dies (ie, the ones before Mr. Rabbitboiler).

However, my friendships tend to be pretty intense affairs for as long as they last: "Bromance" type things with people who I do have a lot in common with, where we get on like a house on fire, becoming inseparable to the point where the only person who'd be surprised if it evolved into something more would probably be the other guy. The first one of those was, of course, at secondary school, with a fellow geek, Anthony. He liked Star Trek, I liked Star Trek, he was into computers, I was into computers. Though the fact that we went to see Shakespeare in Love at the pictures together meant that maybe this one could have been something more. It wasn't, of course, and while at Uni, we did drift apart, alas, but I do, on occasion, wonder how and what he's doing.

First Encounter with a Famous Person

If you can call Margo MacDonald famous, then her, after a public debate at Uni on the War on Terror, where I made a floor speech which she disagreed with. Afterwards I was having a drink with one of my mates and she swept towards me, shouting, and effectively pinning me towards the bar. Yeek!

If you don't count her, then I'd say Nicola Sturgeon, at a Politics Society event in 2004. She was fantastic.

First Brush With Death

Not too long after the Christian rock concert, as it happens. Needless to say, there were a number of conflicting internal factors, I soon found that I was at odds with myself, and things reached a head in the early part of 1998. I nearly did something incredibly idiotic and I don't know what it was that stopped me but it was a bloody good instinct, and a Very Good Thing. What I eventually learned from that was not to take life (or myself) too seriously.

First House/Flat Owned

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! You're joking!

First Film Seen at a Cinema

The first one I remember is a showing of The Jungle Book at the Unit Four in Pemberton.

First Time on the Radio

Being interviewed by Radio Scotland's Tim Reid back in 2006, on bloggery for a Good Morning Scotland feature over Christmas.

First Politician I Met

Lindsay Hoyle, MP for Chorley.

First Book I Remember Reading

I remember reading all the Postman Pat stories, most of the Mister Men series and a fair few Thomas the Tank Engine ones, but my first actual memory of a specific book is The Highway Code. It started as I was fascinated by the road signs, and what they meant. I was a very strange four-year-old.

First Visit to the London Palladium

Still in the future.

First Election

The first one I remember was the 1992 General Election: I was nine and carried out a poll of my classmates. If they'd reflected the general adult population, the Tories would have won by a landslide rather than the heavily-reduced majority they actually got. Needless to say, I remember how disappointed my parents were the following morning.

The first one I voted in was the 2001 General Election, having turned 18 a couple of months earlier. I was excited to actually cast my vote (not many were in that election), and did so for the aforementioned Lindsay Hoyle in the Westminster election, and for the LibDem candidate (who I have since gone off) on the County Council ballot. I'd have stayed up to watch the results but had a Spanish A-Level exam the next day and that had to come first. Incidentally, Lindsay got back in and I got an A in Spanish, so everything came up roses in the end.

The first one I did any campaigning in was the 2004 European Elections, having only just switched allegiances (top-up fees being the final straw) and basically acting as a cheerleader for Alyn Smith. It was a nice welcome to the party.

I am, as always, going to adopt my alter ego, Zoltan, Swallower of Memes. If you fancy doing it, do it. If not, meh.

Swine Flu

No doubt most of us will now be aware that two cases of swine flu have been confirmed at Monklands Hospital in Airdrie, following the spread of the disease from North America, and that a further seven people have developed mild symptoms. There are, of course, cases in Mexico (the source of the outbreak), the USA, Canada and Spain, and the WHO has described this as a public health emergency of international concern.

Obviously, at times like this, information makes a decent vaccine: the more you know, the better your chances at avoiding anything unpleasant. So I thought I'd pitch in - civic duty, and all that:

Stay in the loop. Keep your eye on the news: the BBC website is probably a first port of call for any information. If you're on the move and have a radio with you, check a local station every now and then. To really stay on top of things, head for the NHS24 website (check NHS Direct in England and Wales). It may also be worth visits to the Scottish Government website.

Just because you sneeze, doesn't mean you have swine flu. The symptoms are flu-like - coughing, sore throat, tiredness, fever, loss of appetite and so forth - but those are pretty common things so there is currently no need to jump to conclusions. If, however, you've been to one of the 'affected areas', or been in contact with someone who has, it may be worth getting on the blower to your GP. As soon as possible.

Someone who's only been on a day trip to Largs is probably OK. The 'affected areas' are currently listed as Mexico City, Baja California, San Luis Potosi, Mexicali, Oaxaca, Chihuahua, Naxcalla and Hidalgo in Mexico, and California, Texas, Kansas, Ohio and New York City in the USA.

You should be trying to prevent the spread of germs anyway. Basically, the usual rules still apply for the moment: cover your nose and mouth when you sneeze or cough, get rid of old tissues quickly and carefully, wash your hands thoroughly and regularly, and keep hard surfaces clean. Those are generally the way you stop germs from spreading and the H1N1 virus is no exception.

In the worst-case scenario, you can be treated. Testing apparently shows that Tamiflu and Relenza can ease matters.

So basically, for the moment, there is very little to worry about as long as you follow good hygiene practices, use your common sense and stay informed.

The Sunday Whip

Well, MSPs returned from their Easter break and baiscally picked things up where they left off, with the old routines kicking in. Wednesday was consensual, and given over to Committee business: following the passage without dissent of the Business Motions, Parliament waved through the following motions:

That the Parliament notes the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee's 3rd Report 2009 (Session 3), The Scottish Parliamentary Pensions Act (asp 1): Proposed Standing Order Rule Changes (SP Paper 230), and agrees that changes to Standing Orders set out in Annexe A to the report be made with effect from 24 April 2009.

That the Parliament notes the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee's 1st Report 2009 (Session 3), Members' Bills - cut-off date for introduction (SP Paper 205), and agrees that the changes to Standing Orders set out in Annexe A to the report be made with effect from 24 April 2009.

That the Parliament notes the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee's 4th Report 2009 (Session 3), Review of equal opportunities in the work of committees (SP Paper 244), and agrees that the changes to Standing Orders set out in Annexe A to the report be made with effect from 24 April 2009.

That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee's 1st Report, 2009 (Session 3): Report on the Inquiry into the potential benefits of high-speed rail services (SP Paper 219).

In addition, members waved through the nomination of Tam Baillie as Children's Commissioner, and approved the Health Care and Associated Professions (Miscellaneous Amendments and Practitioner Psychologists) Order 2009.

Thursday, though, saw a little more meat on matters, but there were a lot of absences - twenty to be precise:

Labour's Shadow Further & Higher Education Minister Claire Baker (Mid Scotland & Fife) and Shadow Education Secretary Rhona Brankin (Midlothian), Environment Minister Roseanna Cunningham (Perth), Nigel Don (SNP, North East Scotland), Helen Eadie (Lab, Dunfermline East), Tory Leader Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland) and her Labour counterpart Iain Gray (East Lothian), Alex Johnstone (Con, North East Scotland), Labour's Shadow Finance Secretary Andy Kerr (East Kilbride), Marilyn Livingstone (Lab, Kirkcaldy), Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead (Moray), Labour's Shadow Culture Minister Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin), Nanette Milne (Con, North East Scotland), John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West), Housing Minister Alex Neil (Central Scotland), Irene Oldfather (Lab, Cunninghame South), Labour's Shadow Economy Minister John Park (Mid Scotland & Fife), Mike Rumbles (LD, West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine), Jamie Stone (LD, Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross) and Dave Thompson (SNP, Highlands & Islands).

Anyway. First came a Labour motion on the Scottish Newspaper Industry. The Tory amendment fell by 53 (Lab/LD/Green/Margo) votes to 13 (Con) with 42 SNP sbstentions and the LibDem amendment fell by 40 (Lab/Green/Margo) to 26 (Con/LD) with 42 SNP abstentions. Having survived unscathed, the motion was passed by 82 (SNP/Lab/Green/Margo) votes to 13 (LibDem) with 13 Tory abstentions:

That the Parliament recognises the threat to the Scottish economy from the current crisis facing Scotland's newspaper and media industries; notes that local newspapers are facing particular difficulties in the current economic climate; opposes any moves towards compulsory redundancies such as those imposed by Trinity Mirror at the Daily Record and Sunday Mail; calls for all newspaper and media organisations considering restructuring, reorganisation or redundancy to engage in meaningful negotiations with the relevant workforce representatives in order to minimise the economic impact of any job cuts, and calls on the Scottish Government to hold urgent talks with Trinity Mirror management in order to prevent compulsory job cuts.

Following that came the Labour motion on West of Scotland Transport Infrastructure: the Tory amendment passed by 55 (SNP/Tory) votes to 53 (everyone else). The LibDem amendment passed by 54 votes - Labour, the LibDems, Greens, plus Joe FitzPatrick (SNP, Dundee West) and Sandra White (SNP, Glasgow) - to 0 with 54 abstentions (the remaining SNP MSPs, the Tories and Margo - and did I mention how much forcing a vote just to abstain annoys me? I did? Oh, well...). The amended motion then passed by 56 (SNP/Tory/Margo) to 52 (Lab/LD/Greens):

That the Parliament notes the need for investment in transport infrastructure in the west of Scotland, particularly in the Greater Glasgow travel-to-work area, to ensure the continued competitiveness of the area; therefore regrets the previous Labour-led administration's disappointing record on delivering improvements to key road links connecting the west of Scotland, notably the substantial delays and cost overruns in upgrading the M8 and M74; welcomes the fact that the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link project pioneered by the previous Labour-led administration has been cancelled, thereby freeing up investment for the crucial Edinburgh to Glasgow Rail Improvement Programme; calls on the Scottish Government to ensure the clear prioritisation of transport projects both in the west of Scotland and elsewhere; welcomes the significant opportunity presented by the 2014 Glasgow Commonwealth Games for the creation of legacy transport infrastructure projects in the west of Scotland, including the proposed redevelopment of Dalmarnock station as a key public transport hub for the Games and the area, offering speedy direct rail links to the main Games venues and to Celtic Park from Lanarkshire, the city centre and the west in particular, as well as a high standard of pedestrian and cyclist pathways through the area; supports the work of Clyde Gateway in developing the project, and urges the Scottish Government to give the Dalmarnock station project its full backing.

Finally, a Government motion on the Glasgow 2014 legacy plan, along with a Labour amendment, passed without dissent:

That the Parliament welcomes the forthcoming meeting to take place in Glasgow between the Minister for Public Health and Sport, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport Andy Burnham, Secretary of State for Scotland Jim Murphy and Glasgow City Council leader Steven Purcell to discuss the release of a substantial sum of National Lottery funding towards supporting a legacy for the 2014 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow; welcomes this new spirit of cooperation and calls on the Scottish Government to work with the UK Government to maximise the benefit of sporting events in Scotland and the wider United Kingdom, especially the 2014 Commonwealth Games and 2012 Olympic Games, in terms of encouraging sporting participation and harnessing the talents of Scots; notes Glasgow City Council's own 2014 legacy plan and calls on the Scottish Government to work with other local authorities to produce their own legacy plans to meet shared aspirations on tackling obesity and low levels of participation; supports the work of the Scottish Government and its partners, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Glasgow City Council, local authorities across Scotland, NHS boards, public bodies and the third sector, in planning for a legacy for the people of Scotland from these Games; agrees that the Interim Games Legacy Plan, published on 18 December 2008, set the right context for that planning with its emphasis on health, physical activity and sport and its coverage of volunteering, education and learning, culture, sustainability, business, skills, tourism and Scotland's international profile; commends the real opportunity that the hosting of the Games offers for regenerating the east end of Glasgow, and further agrees that, following the launch of the full Games Legacy Plan in the summer, the Scottish Parliament can play a part by encouraging individuals, groups, communities and businesses to get involved so that Scotland's legacy from the 2014 Games can be lasting and positive.

So all in all, a nice, easy start, and an OK week for the Government.

On Unemployment

I feel the need to get this off my chest, given that people are starting to bandy employment (and, more to the point, unemployment) statistics around to prove a political point. The Tories point to the unemployment figures as A, then note the 1997 figures as B (where A > B). Labour might attempt to point to 1981 or 1991 unemployment figure C (where C > A) and if that doesn't work, highlight current employment figure D and compare it with 1997 figure E (where D > E).

But all of this - on both sides - misses the point. Having been armed with bitter experience, let me tell you what it's like to be one of those statistics.

Unemployment is not a figure on a page. It's not an interesting statistic. It's not a point for party political debate.

It's death.

It's a slow, lingering death, during which your mind, your soul and even your body weaken.

Your family can try and make things easier but can't tackle the root cause.

Your circle of friends appears to shrink.

You begin to doubt yourself, and your capabilities to function as a normal member of society.

You have - for a time - your Dole money. You have the ridiculous, bureaucratic hoops that you're expected to jump through as you tick all the JobCentre Plus boxes yet still seem no closer to finding, as they put it, "they work you want, and the help you need". You have ridiculous courses like "Life Balance", and a two-week programme not unlike the "Restart" course in The League of Gentlemen, in which you're led to believe that spending an afternoon in a kayak on a canal with three other unemployed people (one of whom keeps hitting himself where it hurts with the oar and screaming), then left in a room with ten other people and two copies of the Lancashire Evening Post.

All you have left - and that too is always on the brink - is hope. Hope that yes, you can beat this. After all, you have to.

I look back on that particular time and find few redeeming features. One of them, as it happens, is this blog, which was born as a result of the desperate need to keep my mind active, an urge to feel like I was doing something with my time. Many others don't even find that outlet.

Which is why I bristle at the thought of the unemployed being reduced to the status of mere numbers in the House of Commons.

But every one of those numbers represents a story, a real human being, with needs and aspirations of their own - as yet unmet.

So here's something to think about: what happens when this group of exasperated, frustrated people with aims, dreams and ambitions, all of which have been held at bay, find their hope turn to despair, and then on to anger?

Then, and only then, will it be wise to think of them in terms of numbers.

Adding it all up

I'm trying to find a theme in this year's Budget. The tax increase on the wealthier slice of society? It's better than the tax increase on the working poor that Gordon Brown unveiled in his final Budget, but it's not the big thing. It still doesn't keep the national debt in check, and in any case, pundits discussing the symbolic death of New Labour ought to keep a cool head: New Labour was a slogan, a buzzword, nothing more. They may as well have called it 'Diet Labour'. And in any case, New Labour as was managed some radical things: The first Blair term (the zenith of New Labour) did get a national minimum wage (radical), did sign up to the Social Chapter (shouldn't be radical, but there you go) and did establish devolution (a policy which had been gathering dust in Labour Party offices for decades). So the idea that New Labour was afraid to do some very Old Labour things (like increase taxes) doesn't wash. No, the tax change is not what we're looking for.

The so-called "efficiency savings"? Well, aside from the fact that the Scottish Government has already gone down that road and these "savings" represent, in real terms, money that would have been available - and could have been planned for following the last CSR - being withdrawn. That the Government hasn't yet had a chance to spend it is irrelevant. That cash was supposed to be heading north. It is no longer heading north, and plans have to be redrawn. It's that revision of future plans that is the key to that story, and for all the arguments now, this one will reach its key point come the next Scottish Budget, when its effects will be felt. Until then, this argument isn't the big story.

The overoptimistic predictions? No, they've been a hallmark of Treasury presentations for years. Reality will bite soon enough: focus on that.

The spiralling levels of national debt? Ironic that the Government's solution to a crisis started when too many people found borrowed large amounts of money that ripped a hole in personal (and ultimately the banks') finances is to borrow large amounts of money that will rip a hole in public finances. Otherwise, we knew this was coming, and anyway, what else can they do? A more widespread increase in general taxation? No. Harsher cuts in public spending? Definitely not. No, this, believe it or not, is the least bad option. Shame that the Scottish Government can't use the same strategy, but there you are. In any case, this, again, isn't the signature piece of the Budget.

Individually, none of those things make the Budget what it is. Put them together.

What I see is this: a Government that can't really do all that much (which, thanks to the 'triumph' of the market, is the reality: Government tinkering is exactly that, most factors are beyond the Government's control and all they can really do is try and make sure that people don't get hit too badly during tougher times), but has to be seen to be doing something. A Government that is at the mercy of world events (evidenced by the continued use of the phrase "global recession").

What I see is, when you think about it, what we've seen from the UK Government since Gordon Brown's appointment to the Premiership almost two years ago. There is no common thread, there is no narrative - just a few things put together in the hope that they work. What was this Budget all about? What has this Government been about? Blair I had a new agenda, a theme. Blair II was overshadowed by 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but we can still see that as the mark of that period. Blair III saw the War at Home take centre-stage, and the final ebbing away of political strength. What will be the defining subject of Gordon Brown's Premiership?

Here's the thing: Gordon Brown has had since 1994 to prepare for office, to work out his vision, and his course of action. Yet we have seen no evidence of that: while the Blair administrations were far more pro-active, the Brown Premiership has been consistently re-active. The UK seems to have spent two years bouncing from fad to fiasco to crisis and back again, like a ping-pong ball in a tumble dryer.

And that, sadly, is the only image I get from the Brown Government. No coherence, no order, no purpose, just the hope that if we throw a few things together, they'll all work out.

That is the defining point of the Budget: it is a microcosm of the Government as a whole.

Trouble brewing

It's amazing how things can snowball so rapidly. Iain Macwhirter's article generated a reasoned response from Yousuf and a rather hacked-off response from myself (backed up with a letter to the Herald) at a time when I'm still dealing with overwhelming feelings of shame that there are fewer than the customary six degrees of separation between myself and Derek Draper (incidentally, the other week, I was at a wedding reception with a former schoolmate of his: "a bit strange, even then" was the verdict).

Following that, Jeff wades in with a measured response, Malc links the whole issue back to the row that initiated it - namely, Drapergate - and Stephen produces a post celebrating the blogosphere's strengths. Meanwhile, Alex Massie performs the textbook fisking, going through the Macwhirter article and practically gutting it, taking it apart point by point, and responding with clear, well-presented arguments of his own.

All of these posts represent the good of the blogosphere, not the bad. All of them show that we are - get this - adult human beings capable of having an argument (not a row) and make clear points to justify our case.

Iain Macwhirter, however, disagrees with that analysis, and has dusted off his blog in order to say so. In so doing, he fulfils his own prophesy, playing the man rather than the ball, making no attempt to actually engage on the issues or the points raised and opting for comments that are frankly uncalled for, and unworthy of one of Scotland's sharpest political commentators.

I had initially wondered if Macwhirter was trying to use irony to prove a point. But his follow-up suggests that the joke has gone horribly wrong, or he was actually being serious. Which begs the question, what is he playing at?

Three ideas spring to mind.

Firstly, it's possible that despite what he says, he didn't actually expect the response, that he thought his article would pass by un-noticed or that we'd all line up to admit how rubbish we all are. Therefore, his response has something of the cornered animal about it, lashing out at his attackers. But that doesn't measure up: why would he make that mistake in the first place, and why would he waste such time and energy responding?

Secondly, it maybe that his article, its response and his follow-up were all attempts to prove a point about the blogosphere. In which case, it's possible that we're playing into his hands but even so, he's still doing more on his own part to show the blogosphere as a venomous pit of hatred in his post. The bloggers have simply taken him to task for a poor article based on faulty premises, and have shown themselves at their best. Macwhirter has seen the Draper/Guido row, seen the blogosphere as a place where people's darker impulses get a run out and is aiming to prove this. Even if he's the proof. But just a quick analysis of the Scottish blogosphere - where most of the reaction has been - shows that, in the main, we can all get along with each other (though there are exceptions). While Macwhirter thinks that we may be proving his point, the response by bloggers lends itself more to my argument that we do challenge inaccuracies and we do go after lapses of taste. That we are now placing Macwhirter under the microscope says more about his distorted view of bloggery than it does about us. So this may be what he's doing, but the blogosphere's response actually serves to undermine his point.

The last possibility is that he is eyeing up a presence on the blogosphere - and he would be a welcome addition were that the case. Yet he comes to it from an odd angle: while most of us just start blogging, and develop a following over time, he already has the status and could easily bring it online - if he gets involved fully in the blogging community, that's a mouth-watering prospect for all of us. But he's making all the mistakes that Draper - who is in a similar position - made: he has misjudged the blogosphere very badly, and there's a patronising tone that grates with us. Even now, he still doesn't get it: he thinks that by attacking Alex Massie he'll be welcomed into the club, just as Draper thought that by starting a flamewar with Iain Dale and Paul Staines, he could create a left-wing blogging movement that people could rally around. It doesn't work like that. He has misjudged his audience. If this is an entry into the blogosphere, and if Macwhirter has started as he means to go on, then strange as it sounds for one of Scotland's best political analysts, I don't envisage him making it into many Roundup. Could we have John Curtice instead?

You'll notice that I keep using superlatives to refer to Macwhirter. I used to believe them, but the way he's approached this subject is grim, and none of the possible conclusions regarding what he's up to leave his standing with me intact. I suspect a few other people feel the same, but he doesn't nned to worry about that: he has his wider readership.

And that's the scary thing: through his writings, they're getting a false impression of a creative activity. My name is on my site, because I'm proud of what I post and I want my name to be put to it. I've even used examples from it as part fo a portfolio which I submitted for a job I've applied for - that's how much I care about this. I get a buzz when I'm producing good work and I feel hacked off when it seems like I'm simply going through the motions. Could I - could any blogger - truly feel like that if this were so squalid?

That's why we need to respond. We put our hearts into this, all of us. It should not be undermined by two unhinged spin doctors, a right-wing gossip merchant and a bandwagon-jumping pundit.

I do not intend this post to be the response or the rebuttal to Macwhirter's assertions, merely my take on where we are now. The response is the blog itself, and the blogger. By being the positive side of the blogosphere, we will prove ourselves right in the end.

How, exactly, are we to blame?

Isn't life wonderful? You're already tainted by association with Derek Draper on account of hailing from the same neck of the woods as him (other famous sons of Chorley Borough include Myles Standish - who captained the Mayflower - Barry Mason - who wrote Delilah - Ken Morley - Reg Holdsworth from Coronation Street - Dave Spikey, Kevin Simm from Liberty X and Michael Jennings, the Welterweight whose teeth made a separate journey back home from Madison Square Garden a couple of months ago) and all of a sudden, he manages to bring the entire blogosphere into disrepute. Or at least, Iain MacWhirter thinks he does.

Now leaving aside the irony of the blogosphere being criticised by a man who reproduced his newspaper columns on his own blog until recently, I really must take issue with him.

Firstly, the row that started this - the Damien McBride e-mails - has actually little to do with bloggers. Derek Draper's first attempt at bloggery led to something of a humiliation for the man, mainly at the hands of Guido Fawkes. Now, I must admit that I've never really bought into the Guido hype, even though it was seeing a news article about his blog that made me think about joining the blogosphere myself. Maybe it's just the pure, unbridled cynicism. Maybe it's the venom. Maybe it's the fact that the blog is a hotchpotch of tittle-tattle. Nevertheless, whichever the reason, I don't like the blog. I have nothing against Paul Staines, and I recognise that there's a decent amount of work that must surely go into it, but I simply don't read Guido except on rare occasions - it just isn't my cup of tea. He's good at what he does, but it's not my thing. But I will say this for him: his stories can at least bear a passing relationship with the facts.

But when Draper attempted a left-wing equivalent of Guido - Red Rag - he e-mailed his old chum Damien McBride to ask for possible stories. McBride proceeded to make stuff up. And Staines found out.

So you have a spin doctor who's tried and failed to blog before, getting duff stories from another spin doctor.

And yet MacWhirter seems to be citing the blogosphere - which after all broke the story of the spin doctor so low that he would do such things - as the problem.

Instead, the blogosphere did what the MSM wouldn't: it blew the whistle. Rather than a problem, it showed itself to be an antidote.

This new frontier of hackery is not subject to the same standards of accuracy, taste, style and legality that newspapers like The Herald are subject to.

No, Iain. Try writing a post filled with glaring factual errors, and see what happens. Try subverting any idea of decency, and watch the fur fly. Talk to the likes of Alex Hilton and the Scottish blogosphere's own Kezia Dugdale, who have bitter experience of being threatened with unjust legal action.

It is fashionable to condemn the "dead tree press" for being unreliable and sensationalist, but we are like academic research journals compared to the stuff on the web.

Ah yes, over-generalised guff such as that evidenced in the previous sentence is the mainstay of academia.

Why is the new journalism of the web so nasty? I really don't know.

Why did The Sun show a picture of the SNP logo fashioned into a noose? Why would a spin doctor go to the trouble of fabricating stories? Why would politicians go into witch-hunt mode agianst one another when it suits their purpose? Why would the newspapers go along for the ride? Why do journalism and PR have their own nasty streaks and why should the online row be singled out?

Blogging should have been the opportunity for all sorts of interesting people from all walks of life to start provoking debate with original ideas.

And indeed it is. Just check out a couple of example in the blogroll. Ideas of Civilsation, for one.

Whistle-blowers had a new noticeboard on which to post information the authorities didn't want us to know about.

And they still do. Which is why we know that Damien McBride had decided to make stuff up for Derek Draper to publicise.

Instead the blogosphere has been hijacked by sociopathic egos with extreme views, who spend most of their time attacking each other.

Ah, yes, is that why we can co-operate on various projects of interest, name each other in our Top 10s and promote each other's posts on the Scottish Roundup? Is that why, for example, I can squabble with Caron on matters of policy one minute, then compare notes with her about Strictly Come Dancing the next? Is this why the SNP bloggers, planning a meetup at Conference in Glasgow thought it might be an idea to invite local Labour blogger Yousuf - who, incidentally, has produced an excellent post on precisely the same issue?

There is no quality control on the web and no editorial discretion.

Of course there is. No blogger seriously wants to produce crap. Every blogger has to make a decision about what they want to publish and what kind of blog they want to show to the world. And any blogger can come a cropper if they fall short of their readers' standards. Derek Draper has found this out the hard way.

And since nothing on the web can be longer than a couple of hundred words, argument and insight has been replaced by bark and bite.

Nonsense. Anything online can be as long as the author needs to make it (or as long as the audience wants to read). And the good blogger is the one who researches the arguments, digs out the facts, and produces a cogent piece of analysis to back up the points being made - something which, in his newspaper piece, MacWhirter has completely failed to do!

Bloggers don't write, they ejaculate. But then, I'm just a boring old hack, so what do I know?

Judging by the sweeping assertions made in the rest of the article, it might be better if I refrained from answering that question.

The fact is that the blogosphere - particularly its Scottish end - really is alive: there are ideas, insight, arguments, discussions and debates bouncing off the online walls. As well as all sorts of new friends and acquaintances being made. But this weekend, that's all been overshadowed by two idiots who thought that you actually could behave like the stereotypical blogger in Iain MacWhirter's piece of uncharacteristically lazy, sloppy journalism. And it's precisely the fact that his assertions are utterly flawed which brought about the downfall of McBride and the humiliation of Draper. Put simply, if MacWhirter were right, if we were just a bunch of vicious nerds, McBride would still be in a job, Draper would have used those stories to launch Red Rag and it would have been a rousing success. Actually, scratch that. If he were right, Draper would still be producing posts for LabourList, spending his days locked in a permanent flamewar with Paul Staines and Iain Dale, and he'd have become the Left's online standard-bearer. It is his failure, compounded by McBride's exposure, which undermines MacWhirter's entire case.

But then, I'm just a nasty, opinionated nerd, so what do I know?

The Spring Whip

MSPs are, of course, in recess now (what do you mean, you hadn't noticed?!). So, as always, it's time to go take the register, as it were. Starting with the Top 5 absentees:

Labour's Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) retains her most absent MSP title with sixty absences, down in no small part to the pitter patter of tiny Gillons. Elaine Smith (Lab, Coatbridge & Chryston) retains her second place with fifty absences. Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians) is third, with 25, Cathie Craigie (Lab, Cumbernauld & Kilsyth) comes fourth with 24. Fifth place goes to Nicol Stephen (LD, Aberdeen South), who has missed 21 votes.

SNP

The SNP have the highest attendance rate in Parliament: SNP MSPs are present 96.89% of the time. This is down slightly on the September-December period, but the party still keeps its Number 1 status.

External Affairs Minister Mike Russell (South of Scotland) is the party's main absentee, with 14 missed votes. Alex Salmond has missed ten; former Communities Minister Stewart Maxwell (West of Scotland) has missed nine. Parliamentary Business Minister Bruce Crawford (Stirling), Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead (Moray), Gil Paterson (West of Scotland) and Deputy FM Nicola Sturgeon (Glasgow Govan) have each missed eight votes, while Finance Secretary John Swinney (North Tayside) and Andrew Welsh (Angus) have missed seven.

Enterprise Minister Jim Mather (Argyll & Bute), Public Health Minister Shona Robison (Dundee East) and former Schools Minister Maureen Watt (North East Scotland) have missed six votes; Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill (Edinburgh East & Musselburgh) and Alasdair Morgan (South of Scotland) have missed three votes, while Angela Constance (Livingston) has missed two.

The following MSPs have missed one vote: Brian Adam (Aberdeen North), Nigel Don (North East Scotland), Joe FitzPatrick (Dundee West), Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North), Bill Kidd (Glasgow), Tricia Marwick (Central Fife), Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow), Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson (Banff & Buchan) and Bill Wilson (West of Scotland).

In terms of cohesion, the SNP is the most united party of the Big 4, with a 99.94% rate: only Chief Whip Brian Adam (!) and Richard Lochhead have departed from the party's line.

Labour

Labour's attendance record is up from the last period, but that's like naming Elgin City's Player of the Year: it has achieved the dizzying heights of 89.23%, making them the most poor attenders of the five parties. Of course, Karen Gillon's maternity leave and Elaine Smith's health do tip the balance somewhat, but nevertheless, the list of absentees is rather long. Beyond the three Labour entries in the Top 5 we have:

19 Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton)
16 George Foulkes (Lothians)
15 Shadow Education Secretary Rhona Brankin (Midlothian), Shadow Finance Secretary Andy Kerr (East Kilbride), Marilyn Livingstone (Kirkcaldy)
13 Marlyn Glen (North East Scotland)
12 Highlands & Islands MSPs Rhoda Grant, Peter Peacock and David Stewart, along with Hugh Henry (Paisley South)
11 Margaret Curran (Glasgow Baillieston)
10 Tom McCabe (Hamilton South)
9 Shadow Public Health Minister Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland & Fife)
8 Duncan McNeil (Greenock & Inverclyde)
7 Former Labour Leaders Wendy Alexander (Paisley North) and Jack McConnell (Motherwell & Wishaw)
6 Charlie Gordon (Glasgow Cathcart) and Shadow Schools Minister Ken Macintosh (Eastwood)
5 Shadow Further and Higher Education Minister Claire Baker (Mid Scotland & Fife), Deputy Leader Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok), Shadow Culture Minister Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin)
4 Trish Godman (West Renfrewshire), James Kelly (Glasgow Rutherglen), Shadow Enterprise Minister Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central) and Shadow Children's Minister Karen Whitefield (Airdrie & Shotts)
3 Shadow Health Secretary Cathy Jamieson (Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley) and Shadow Housing Minister Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow)
2 Helen Eadie (Dunfermline East) and Deputy Shadow Finance Secretary David Whitton (Strathkelvin & Bearsden)
1 Shadow Environment Secretary Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central), Shadow Parliamentary Business Minister Michael McMahon (Hamilton North & Bellshill), Shadow Transport Minister Des McNulty (Clydebank & Milngavie), Shadow Environment Minister Elaine Murray (Dumfries), Shadow Economy Minister John Park (Mid Scotland & Fife) and Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East)

Meanwhile, Labour is the second least cohesive group, though a 99.69% rate is hardly a harbinger of disunity and it's an improvement on the last period. Marlyn Glen and Elaine Smith have rebelled three times, while Wendy Alexander, Johann Lamont, Mary Mulligan and Cathy Peattie have departed from the rest of their group on one occasion each.

Conservatives

The Conservatives' 96.63% attendance rate puts them mid-table. Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) has missed ten votes; Jamie McGrigor (Highlands & Islands) has missed nine; Environment Spokesman John Scott (Ayr) has missed seven. Ted Brocklebank (Mid Scotland & Fife) has missed six votes, while Jackson Carlaw (West of Scotland) has missed five votes, possibly as a result of being a setting for an episode of Midsomer Murders. Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) ahs missed two votes, while Gavin Brown (Lothians), Annabel Goldie and Nanette Milne (North East Scotland) have all missed one.

The Tories' 99.83% cohesion rate is decent as well: Justice Spokesman Bill Aitken (Glasgow) and Alex Johnstone are the only MSPs to break from the Party line.

Liberal Democrats

The LibDems' 94.87% attendance rate is an improvement on last period, but they rank fourth once again in the party league table, with only Labour (and Margo) sparing their blushes. Aside from Nicol Stephen, John Farquhar Munro (Ross, Skye & Inverness West) has missed 13 votes, Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross) has missed 11, Health Spokesman Ross Finnie has missed nine and Environment Spokesman Liam McArthur (Orkney) has missed seven. Justice Spokesman Robert Brown (Glasgow), Local Government Spokesperson Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) and Education Spokesperson Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West) each missed one vote.

Further, the party is the least cohesive, with MSPs staying in group 98.9% of the time, mainly as a result of the party being more willing to hold free votes (or more willing to dissent in them): Jamie Stone has departed from the majority LibDem view on three votes, Robert Brown, Hugh O'Donnell (Central Scotland) and Culture Spokesman Iain Smith (North East Fife) all dissented twice, while Jim Hume (South of Scotland), Alison McInnes, Nicol Stephen and Jim Tolson (Dunfermline West) all departed from the rest of the Group once.

The others

The Greens rarely trouble the Whip pages: they have had no 50:50 splits and their 96.79% attendance rate is down to Robin Harper (Lothians) missing five votes.

Margo, of course, cannot rebel against herself, but her 25 absences give her a 67.95% attendance rate. She's a little like the good cutlery, in that she only seems to come out on the big occasions, and while a lot of the votes she misses aren't all that major, and her presence wouldn't have changed things, I do have to wonder what people who voted for her must think.

Professor Sir Neil MacCormick

As we've no doubt all heard now, Professor Sir Neil MacCormick, one of Scotland's foremost legal academics and former MEP passed away yesterday.

I met him only once, at University, campaigning in advance of the European elections five years ago. He was not seeking re-election but still came out to support the SNP's candidates.

What struck me at first was how genial he was, that it didn't seem like you were talking to an academic, or your average politician. He seemed approachable and was good company for that morning session on the stump.

It helped as well that he seemed to be actually enjoying it.

In a world where politics and politicians are becoming professionalised, the Prof stood out, as someone who had earned his place, and was there because he was an expert in his field. Which is why I don't think he'd have enjoyed Holyrood or the House of Commons quite so much. The Lords, perhaps, but that Chamber was never an option - and it's the likes of Sir Neil that make me wonder if the SNP's anti-Lords stance is something of a missed opportunity, but that's a discussion for another time.

I was a linguist, not a lawyer, so I never had the chance to learn directly MacCormick's expertise. My heroes were the likes of Bob Ladd, Jim Hurford, Caroline Heycock and especially John Joseph, the Professor MacCormick of Applied Linguistics. But knowing how big an impact they had on me, I can understand how those who knew Sir Neil better than I did, or knew him as an academic, will be feeling today.

But I still learn two things from the man, even now. Firstly, his life tells us how politics needs people like him. He came into elected politics already an expert on a field, with decades of experience behind him, and when Parliamentarians don't have that internal backup - when their experience is in politics itself - the result is a weaker standard of debate and, more catastrophically, poorer legislation.

The other thing I learned was from that morning, when I didn't see the prominent academic or the outgoing MEP, but simply saw a man, at ease with his surroundings and himself, doing something he enjoyed. These days, to be in a position such as his at any time is almost a luxury.

Whatever anyone else learned in his texts, he gave me - and doubtless so many others - a lesson that we all ought to heed but are always in danger of forgetting: do the things that we can take joy from, and take pride in them.

Let that be his legacy.

The Sunday Whip

A successful week for the Government, though as we know, proceedings - especially on Thursday - took place under a very large cloud. Nevertheless, the political process did continue as best it could (despite the complaints from Lord Foulkes about a lack of accountability) and the actual outcome of matters resembled an ordinary week.

Wednesday saw everything passed on the nod: the Business Motions, the appointment of Stuart Allan as Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, a Finance Committee motion acknowledging its report, Inquiry into methods of funding capital investment projects and an LCM for the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill.

Thursday saw a full card of votes, with nothing taken on the nod, but party lines became relatively established early on and there were no defeats for the Government. Indeed, there were only five absentees: Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale), Alex Johnstone (Con, North East Scotland), Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead (Moray), Tom McCabe (Lab, Hamilton South) and Gil Paterson (SNP, West of Scotland).

First came the SNP motion on Hospital Waiting Times. The Labour amendment passed by 92 (SNP/Lab/Green/Margo) votes to 31 (Con/LD), while the Tory amendment fell by 91 (SNP/Labour/Green) votes to 31 (Con/LD) with one abstention and the LibDem amendment fell by 89 (SNP/Labour) to 31 (Con/LD) with three (Green/Margo) abstentions. LibDem Justice Spokesman Robert Brown (Glasgow) missed the vote on the amended motion, which passed by 91 (SNP/Labour/Greens) to 16 - the Tories plus LibDem Culture Spokesman Iain Smith (North East Fife) - with 14 abstentions (the remaining LibDems plus Margo):

That the Parliament welcomes the most recent progress that has been made in reducing waiting times for patients; applauds the commitment, dedication and hard work of all NHS staff who have contributed to delivering these significant improvements for the people of Scotland; notes the progress made by the previous administration; while welcoming the extension of the waiting times guarantee to include child and adolescent mental health services, calls on the Scottish Government to consider extending the range of specialties to include adult mental health services; further calls on the Scottish Government to ensure sufficient resources to bring NHSScotland in line as soon as possible with the NHS in England where a "whole journey" national waiting time standard of 18 weeks was delivered by December 2008, and notes that this compares to a target of 18 months introduced by the previous Conservative administration.

Following that came the Anti-Social Behaviour Framework. The Labour amendment fell by 79 (everyone but Labour) to 44, with the Tory amendment passing by the same margin. The LibDem amendment passed by 63 - the SNP, LibDems, Margo and Labour's Shadow Housing Minister Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow) - to 58 (the other Labour MSPs and the Tories) with two Green abstentions. The amended motion passed by 79 (again, everyone but Labour) to 44:

That the Parliament notes the publication of the new Antisocial Behaviour Framework, Promoting Positive Outcomes: Working Together to Prevent Antisocial Behaviour in Scotland, which has been developed in partnership with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) and other national partners; further notes that the success of the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004 has not been universal; agrees that antisocial behaviour blights the quality of people's lives and should not be tolerated but believes that prevention is better than cure when it comes to protecting communities from disorder and encourages communities to report all incidents of crime and disorder so that they can be properly addressed; appreciates the wealth of good practice followed in some areas of Scotland and the importance of replicating it as widely as possible; welcomes the framework's emphasis on addressing the causes of antisocial behaviour, such as drug and alcohol addiction and deprivation, and on improving life chances; supports the promotion of the new prevention, early intervention, enforcement and rehabilitation (PIER) model, including the use of acceptable behaviour contracts pioneered by Liberal Democrats in Islington, and regards increased community involvement and empowerment as vital components of success in action to tackle antisocial behaviour.

So that was it for this week, and indeed, this term. Later on in the week, I'll be producing the usual overview.

Respectfully, Lord Foulkes is wrong

(What do you mean, "No change there, then!"?)

George Foulkes, on Thursday:

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I understand that today's First Minister's question time has been suspended. I appreciate that a terrible tragedy has taken place in the North Sea. We all are deeply worried about the position of the families and share in the sympathy for them, but the suspension creates a precedent. There are a number of very serious issues that members on all sides of the chamber might wish to have raised today. The First Minister should be accountable regularly to the Parliament: we are about to go into our two-week Easter recess during which there will be no such accountability to Parliament.

Now, I sympathise, in a way, with the sentiments of what the Lord is saying: Parliamentary procedure has to continue under most circumstances. But the disaster in the North Sea would have hung over proceedings. FMQs in its usual format wouldn't quite have fit the scenario and had it proceeded, it would have ended up looking broadly like the session which unfolded: one question, tabled by Iain Gray, allowing the FM to make a brief statement on the situation and sober questions to come from the Opposition leaders, which sober responses from Alex Salmond. Politics as usual, particularly the kind we see as FMQs would have been deeply, deeply unsatisfactory.

But let's review the serious issues that were up for discussion at FMQs. Barring the three Leaders' questions, we had a question from Christine Grahame asking "whether the Scottish Government considers that a national police force would prejudice and undermine local policing intelligence". This could have been asked via a written question. Sarah Boyack had one in asking "whether the Scottish Government agrees with the head of the European Environment Agency that tougher targets are needed before the end of this year to avert catastrophic climate change". Now, you can see why, as a frontbencher, she might want something portfolio-related to come up at the highlight of the Parliamentary week. But, equally, she could have written a letter, and published the exchange. As could John Scott, who wanted to ask "what recent discussions the Scottish Government has had with the management, staff and unions of the National Trust for Scotland on its future". None of these issues required First Minister's Questions to be raised. None of them required FMQs for the Government to be held to account. And any urgent constituency questions would only have appeared insignificant, compared to the loss of life in the North Sea. Again, written questions would have to be the way forward. So the idea that all accountability was blown out of the water by the one-week rejig of FMQs is utter nonsense. Of course it wasn't.

Besides, if three weeks is too long to go without questioning the First Minister in Parliament, I'm sure George Foulkes will be voting against any schedule that involves recesses of longer than two weeks, like the Summer one, which goes on for two months?

If he did, it would be a change of tack: up to now, he has not done so.

So the Foulkes point of order seems a little hollow. FMQs in its usual format would have looked entirely out of place, the only issue that the party leaders could have possibly discussed was discussed in detail, the issues being raised by backbenchers can be raised by other methods and it's a bit rich for Foulkes to complain at not being able to heckle Alex Salmond for three weeks in the Spring when he doesn't vote against two-month holidays in the Summer.

Besides, how useful is FMQs in terms of accountability, anyway? For backbenchers wishing to raise an issue they view as important, not very: we rarely hear of anything that happens if it's after Question 3. And if it's raised by the Opposition leaders, it sometimes gets lost in the grandstanding.

Take the Lewis Doig questions, raised by Iain Gray the other week. Now, the issue that Gray wanted to highlight is important: how is the Government supporting apprentices in a time of economic hardship? It's a serious point, and it's one that any Opposition Leader worth his salt should be raising, especially if his party is making a big thing about apprenticeships.

But Gray tackled it all wrong. One, he personified the argument. Two, he tried to make it poor little Lewis Doig against the big bad Scottish Government. So when the FM was supportive of Doig's situation, the basis of Gray's challenge was undermined. And of course, by linking it all with this one case, journalists started digging, and it turned out that Doig's last post was not ended for economic reasons. Rather, he had been fired. It also emerged that before Gray had even asked the question, he'd found somewhere else to continue. So the issue got lost, this lad had his entire life dragged out into the press and Gray ended up looking like a chump who had managed to mislead Parliament.

So other than the chance to heckle the First Minister, FMQs is largely counter-productive. But then, when was the last time Lord Foulkes asked a serious question?

V are not amused

The previously unthinkable has finally happened: Barry Ferguson has been dropped and stripped of the Rangers captaincy, for his act of gross stupidity on Wednesday night at Hampden.

The eight-hour drinking session following the game against the Netherlands should have set alarm bells ringing, and the Burley compromise - dropping him and McGregor to the bench seemed elegant enough: it didn't require a major overhaul of the squad and left the door open for both players to return should they prove their worth. And of course, Craign Gordon put in an assured performance between the sticks (there wasn't much he could do about the Iceland goal), while Scott Brown may not fully justify the hype he gets, but is good on his day. Wednesday, fortunately, was his day and for me, he performed better than Darren Fletcher, whose presence I simply didn't register for most of the Iceland game. So Ferguson and McGregor get a simple punishment for wrong-doing, they have an opportunity to work their way back into favour, Burley picks too good replacements and Scotland gets the result. Everyone wins. Well, everyone except Iceland.

Except.

Ferguson and McGregor, who in any other walk of life would be suitably chastened at getting a bollocking for acting like complete idiots in the first place (which does make you wonder what, if any, bollocking they got and whether or not any punsihment at all was even Burley's idea), then sit on the subs bench and act like utter children. In so doing, they show the sort of petulance that we shouldn't expect from a job from a professional footballer, but sadly, seems to be all too common. They embarrass themselves, they embarrass their country and - you'd think the second point would be the key one but it's actually this one that seems to generate the bigger hoo-hah - as representatives of their club in the squad, bring Rangers into disrepute.

And the Club acted. Even after the SFA decided either didn't notice or chose to ignore that the pair's actions, the Club told its players that enough was enough, and in so doing, shamed the SFA into further action. Hallelujah.

There's a very large school of thought within the Rangers fanbase which takes the view that the Sun shines out of Barry Ferguson's arse. I must confess that I am not one of its members: I think he's provided an abysmal lack of proper Leadership to Rangers on the pitch since his return from that disastrous spell at Blackburn Rovers; I've noticed his preformances are below the standard you might expect from him, particularly this season, and the effect he's had on Rangers this season has been nothing short of catastrophic. Think of the early games, when Thomson was partnered with Mendes in midfield, and not only did Rangers get results but played first class football. Then Thomson got injured, just as Ferguson returned from the treatment table, and suddenly, a large black cloud of doom hung over Ibrox. The performances evaporated, the results disappeared with them and there must have been times when Mendes wondered what on earth he had done to deserve playing alongside Fergie.

Add to that the malign influence he's had in internal Ibrox politics: Ferguson's lack of respect for Paul Le Guen did more than anyone to undermine the manager - who had his faults, mainly a basic failure to understand that you can't plan for both teams, you can only plan for your own (though I also believe that if his commitment to the club had been cast-iron, he would have learned how to pronounce 'Rangers' and 'Ibrox' correctly) - and it's no co-incidence that probably the best result and most organised Rangers performance under Le Guen's tenure came at Fir Park, in the match after PLG's decision to drop Ferguson. Unfortunately, despite that, the Ferguson Fan Brigade got their way and Le Guen was out. At that point it became obvious where power lay at Ibrox, and Ferguson gained the same aura of invincibility that Alan Shearer enjoyed as a player at Newcastle. What Barry wanted, Barry got.

So perhaps, just perhaps, Barry was trying the same stunt again, trying to undercut George Burley. Again, there's a cogent case against the gaffer: results have been far from perfect (Scotland's place in a play-off berth should be far more secure than it presently is: we are only three points ahead of Iceland and out of the nine teams currently in second place, we rank seventh on the calculations used to determine who gets one of the eight play-off spots), some of the selections have been questionable (you're not teling me that Graham Alexander is the only alternative to Alan Hutton, or that Steven Fletcher justifies his hype, or that Dundee United, Aberdeen and Motherwell don't have any players who could have started for Scotland), you don't alienate a striker who can find the back of the net without even trying to break into a sweat and the last week shows that Burley has a way of being overtaken by events. You don't want that in a Scotland boss, and frankly, I would have preferred Craig Levein at the helm.

But nevertheless, he is the Boss. Not Allan McGregor, and certainly not Barry Ferguson. It's not the place of any player to decide that their manager's jacket is on the proverbial shoogly peg. That Fergie was allowed to get away with it ever was pitiful.

And the sad thing is, that despite Ferguson being the likely source of the troubles, he will probably salvage something: the pair of them don't have much of a future in Scottish football but Ferguson does at least have Dick Advocaat in his corner and will more than likely end up joining the Dutchman at Zenit St. Petersburg; Allan McGregor, despite being a decent goalie, could end up being quite literally sent to Coventry.

And all because they couldn't stop one drink turning into a session, then took the huff when they got a bad press.