The inevitable European Elec-torial

The elections are, of course, on the way, so it would be slightly barmy of me not to use some time over the next few days to issue some sort of editorial.

It should come as no surprise then, that I'm endorsing the SNP candidates: Ian Hudghton and Alyn Smith are canny, formidable politicians who do more than the average Parliamentarian in any chamber to engage with the electorate, meaning that when they're in Brussels and/or Strasbourg, they've got direct experience of what's happening on the ground in Scotland, and can use that experience to their advantage. Add to that Aileen McLeod, who knows the European political system like the back of her hand, and you've got one hell of a team there; I hope they all find their way to the European Parliament.

Certainly her expertise is a welcome contrast to George Lyon's candidacy, which has come about following his ejection from Holyrood at the hand of the voters of Argyll & Bute two years ago, and what must surely have been a desperate search for a gravy train to board. Of course, his attempt to be a 'local candidate' not just for an election to a national list, but to be local in two different locales is little short of embarrassing, and matters are compounded by the apparent efforts in his former Argyllshire stomping grounds to pretend that the 2007 election never happened and that the last major test of public opinion in the area was four years ago. It's sad that a former Scottish Parliamentarian and one-time Junior Minister should be the least credible of the Scottish candidates in this election (second place going to Mev Brown, who as Julie flagged up last week, is one of the Jury Team candidates) but given the campaign material behind him (made worse by absurd assertions that only the LibDems can win in Area X, Y or Z when it's a proportional, multi-member election for the whole of Scotland), but there you are.

Anyway. I must still confes that my endorsement has a bittersweet quality to it.

The first is that I won't be in a position to do what I'm asking you to do: I'm in the North West of England where it goes without saying that my ballot paper won't have an SNP option, so I'm still pondering who to vote for (I'm leaning towards the Greens), and I'm also facing a County Council election where my ward has only two candidates: Labour and Tory.

Now on the one hand, none of the brushes I've had with Lancashire County Council have given me any hope that the Labour-controlled body has even the slightest clue what it's doing. But on the other hand, my brushes with the Tory-controlled Chorley Borough Council make me wonder if Lancastrian voters might well be better holding onto their Labour nurse for something far, far worse.

There isn't even a LibDem candidate, which is strange, as this County ward contains the only Borough ward in Chorley which has any LibDem Councillors representing it, so I fear a deal has been done, and if I'm still here next year, my ballot paper for the Borough elections will once again have only two names, and it will be the Conservatives who are conspicuous in their absence.

So the Labour candidate, Edward Forshaw, almost had my vote, until last week when I was walking through Chorley town centre: when I saw a leaflet for the candidate in that part of town's ward, Hasina Khan. Barring the pictures, anme and ward, the leaflets were identical. Now, I'm fine with templates, and I have no problem with two candidates in the same party making the same point about being visible all year round and not just at election time. But I draw the line at the pair of them putting on their respective leaflets the same first-person quote with the exact same wording. It doesn't inspire me with confidence that they're local candidates, acting as local voices, if they've put their name to identikit leaflets. Moreover, I have at least heard of Hasina Khan, and while readers are well aware that I'm not a fan of some of Labour's candidate progression structures (i.e. the AWS), she'd be a worthy beneficiary from them. In fact, she'd tan the hide of anyone else she faced in an open contest. Forshaw, on the other hand, has been the County Councillor for four years and it took me a couple of weeks since seeing his name mentioned on the offical declarations before I remembered where I'd seen the name before. Specifically, four years ago when he was elected for the first time. So not only can the pair of them not come up with their own rentaquote, but in his case, the centrally issued tagline is bullshit anyway.

So in short, I'm stuck with a choice of two candidates I can't bring myself to vote for, but I'm going to be at the polling station anyway for the European elections. That's a toughie, and if there are any readers in the Coppull area, if you hear tales of a man standing in a polling booth in St. John's Church Hall on Hewlett Avenue, wailing like a baby, screeching "Why? Why me?" and banging his head repeatedly against the plywood wall, it's probably going to be me.

Nevertheless, despite having to vote for someone I really don't want to support, I'll still bite the bullet and turn up with my polling card. But then, you'd expect me to: I'm into this sort of thing, and I'm an electoral diehard.

On the other hand, lots of other people won't be bothering. If you were to compare Parliaments to football leagues which reflect their standing in the national consciousness, the European Parliament ranks not as the Champions' League, but as the Cowal Peninsula Sunday League Division 3. And everyone's pissed off with the expenses scandal.

Indeed, it's now become fashionable to look at the minority of MPs with their snouts firmly embedded in the trough, throw up one's hands and say "What's the point?". That it was becoming fashionable to avoid finding time within a fifteen-hour window to cast a vote anyway is overlooked. It's also tempting to grumble about how your vote on its own won't make a difference, how voting never changes things anyway, and how voting only legitimises politicians.

Well, you're probably right. But while the chances of you casting the deciding vote may be so slim it makes Amy Winehouse look like Cyril Smith, that minuscule probability is still greater than the zero it becomes if you don't show up.

And if there's a low turnout, politicians briefly wring their hands about voter engagement, then takes their seats as if everyone acclaimed their position. So not voting doesn't spook politicians all that much. Unless it's their supporters who aren't voting, that is.

One last point: voting might not change things in one election, but give it a few tries. Here's my idea: vote once, and if the people you support don't deliver, vote for someone else at the next election. And if they don't get the message, vote for someone else again. A body of diehard voters, none of whom are beholden to any one candidate or party, but will turn out. If I were a sitting parliamentarian, or even a candidate, that idea would scare the bejeezus out of me: a hoarde of angry people willing to indulge me, but watching me constantly for five years, ready to turn on me if I fuck up. Say goodbye to safe seats, say goodbye to complacency. Say hello to a gang of politicians who will let you use their first born child as a garden gnome if you stick with them, then wave goodbye to them at the next election as you ditch them for someone who isn't willing to stoop quite so low.

So this time, don't listen to those siren voices telling you that not voting will send a message. The only message it actually sends is, "I may have wasted my spare time watching Susan Boyle, that fat Greek Cypriot family, that spoilt brat from Accrington and all those dancing chavs but I can't find five minutes to put a cross on a piece of paper".

Send a better message. How about this one from Achewood?

I kick men's asses... AND I VOTE!

The Sunday Whip

After a hectic, unusually legislation-heavy fortnight, this has been a quiet week in terms of votes, at MSPs' attentions turn to Europe.

Wendesday saw no votes taken at all: the Business Motions were waved through (inculding a rather curtailed schedule for next week), as was the Government motion on Swine Flu:

That the Parliament acknowledges the work of NHS Scotland, local authorities and other stakeholders in handling the recent outbreak of Influenza A (H1N1); commends NHS boards and Health Protection Scotland for the success so far of the containment strategy in limiting the spread of the virus by quickly and effectively treating confirmed cases, tracing contacts and dealing with possible and probable cases; accepts that we must maintain a high state of preparedness given the potential seriousness for the nation's health and economy of a full-scale pandemic, and supports the collaborative approach of the Scottish Government and all its partners, both within Scotland and beyond, in minimising the spread of A (H1N1).

Following that came two SSIs: the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002 (Amendment) Order 2009 and the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (Designation of Participating Countries) (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 2009. Both were nodded through.

Thursday saw some action, but not much. There were a few absentees (small wonder, really, when peace was on the verge of breaking out): Labour's Shadow Further and Higher Education Minister Claire Baker (Mid Scotland & Fife), Ted Brocklebank (Con, Mid Scotland & Fife), Patricia Ferguson (Lab, Glasgow Maryhill), George Foulkes (Lab, Lothian), Jamie Hepburn (SNP, Central Scotland, whose absence may or may not be connected to this piece of great news for him and Julie - congratulations, guys!), Jim Hume (LD, South of Scotland), Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothian), Jack McConnell (Lab, Motherwell & Wishaw) and John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West).

The first thing they missed was the nodding through of a LibDem motion (complete with Labour amendment) on a missing children alert system:

That the Parliament supports the establishment of strong cross-Europe working to ensure that there are effective, linked "amber alert" systems in place to bring European-wide attention to missing children; understands that early action is critical in locating missing and abducted children and that the experience of those countries that have alert systems in place, such as the United States of America, is extremely positive; welcomes the formal adoption of the written declaration on Emergency Cooperation In Recovering Missing Children as a resolution of the European Parliament in April 2009 but regrets that European countries currently fail to cooperate effectively when recovering missing children and that progress has been slow, and calls on the Scottish Government to work proactively and constructively with the UK Government and to encourage Scottish police forces to collaborate with their UK and European counterparts to ensure that all missing children alert systems and cross-border cooperation policies, including the 116 000 European hotline, are operational as soon as possible to bind the country effectively into the European system.

The only votes of the day came on a LibDem motion on supporting Scottish business. The SNP amendment passed by 63 (SNP/Con/Green) votes to 56 (Labour/LD); the Labour amendment passed without dissent and the amended motion was supported by 105 (everyone but the LibDems) to 14 against:

That the Parliament notes the serious difficulties faced by the Scottish businesses struggling to access the funds that they need during the economic downturn, with the double squeeze of late payment and tighter lending a critical concern for small businesses in particular; notes that the Welsh Assembly Government is using European Investment Bank (EIB) funding to help small businesses bridge funding gaps, supporting the expansion of 800 businesses and creating up to 15,000 jobs across Wales; further notes that the Scottish Investment Bank, announced by the First Minister on 21 April 2009, will initially bring together approximately £150 million in public sector resource to support company growth in Scotland; also notes that, following this first step, the Scottish Government will look to enhance the scale and impact of such financial support to growing Scottish businesses including the potential to secure significant additional funds from the European Investment Bank through the establishment of a Joint European Resources for Micro to Medium Enterprises (JEREMIE) fund for Scotland, and considers that, among other measures that the Scottish Government has introduced, its small business bonus scheme has helped the tens of thousands of Scottish firms now exempt from paying local business rates, and calls on the Scottish Government to provide detailed information about the Scottish Investment Bank proposal announced by the First Minister at the STUC conference on 21 April 2009.

After that, Parliament unanimously backed the re-appointment of Karen Carlton as Commissioner for Public Appointments in Scotland. Finally, a Parliamentary love-in ensued for an SNP motion on Cashback for Communities, where Labour and LibDem amendments, along with the amended motion, were all passed without dissent:

That the Parliament welcomes the fact that, since its launch in January 2008, the CashBack for Communities programme has provided positive opportunities and activities for over 100,000 young people in Scotland; recognises that providing healthy and fun activities not only gives young people something to do, but can help in reducing crime and antisocial behaviour by diverting the small minority who cause trouble away from such behaviour; welcomes the fact that the CashBack programme has been funded through £12 million recovered from criminals using the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002; commends the significant efforts of partners in the CashBack programme including Youthlink, Scottish Football Association, Scottish Rugby Union, Basketballscotland, Scottish Sports Futures, sportscotland, Scottish Screen and the Scottish Arts Council, as well as the very many local projects and volunteers that are making the scheme a success; believes that every effort should be made to ensure further progress in recovering assets from those who profit from crime, and believes that funds obtained through the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 should continue to be focussed on projects in communities affected by crime and in activities that provide diversion from offending, and calls on the Scottish Government to promote closer working and engagement between safer neighbourhood and community police teams and young people in efforts to prevent and tackle crime and antisocial behaviour and to ensure that the CashBack money is distributed fairly so that the whole of Scotland can reap the benefits of the scheme.

So that was last week. This coming week sees only one day of proceedings, taken up by Question Time and the start of Stage 3 of the Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Bill. As always, I give notice to MSPs that should they oppose it, I shall set out to cause them offence, which shall be aggravated by their prejudice. They have been warned!

The Boundaries are A-Changin: Overview

TOC

East Central Scotland
Glasgow
Highlands & Islands
Lothian
Mid Scotland & Fife
North East Scotland
South Scotland
West Central Scotland

Well, the figures are done. We have an idea of how people may have voted had the Boundary Commission's revised proposals been in law by May 2007.

In reverse order:

Margo MacDonald would have been re-elected.

The Greens would have two MSPs on my figures.

The LibDems would stay level on 16: they would lose one in South Scotland but gain one in Lothian.

The Tories would go up by one seat to 18: they would stay level everywhere but North East Scotland, where the extra seat would fall in their favour.

Labour would stay on 46: they would gain one in East Central Scotland and the Highlands & Islands as a result of the re-arrangement of constituencies. However, they would lose a seat in Glasgow as a result of one constituency being eliminated, and a seat in West Central Scotland due to Barrhead being taken out of Eastwood.

You'll notice two things: I have the Tories gaining a seat, Labour, the LibDems, Greens and Margo staying where they are and I haven't mentioned the SNP. I think you know where I'm going here. The re-arrangement of constituencies costs them a seat in East Central but wins the party an extra List seat in West Central. In Lothian, however, I project that 324 LibDem votes in Edinburgh Central and 224 Labour List votes will conspire to cost the SNP a Regional seat. That sees the Party defending a notional 46 seats, not 47 as actually happened.

Can you imagine if this had actually been the case?

46-46. Bloody hell.

The words 'ferrets' and 'sack' spring to mind.

The Boundaries are A-Changin: East Central Scotland

There's quite a lot of chopping and changing in the layout of this seat, though the internal boundaries don't change as much as we might have expected. The loss of Hamilton, Larkhall & Stonehouse, East Kilbride and Kilmarnock & Irvine Valley and their replacement with Clydebank & Milngavie, Strathkelvin & Bearsden and Linlithgow cause this rather odd shaped region, though in fairness, Central Scotland had a bit of an odd shape about it as well. You know how Italy is described as The Boot? Central Scotland could have been described as The Sock. East Central Scotland looks more The Briefs.

Anyway.

Airdrie & Shotts is saved from the carving up that it received in the provisional proposals - and it's still very marginal between Labour and the SNP: Labour have a notional lead of just 400.

Clydebank & Milngavie may move, but it doesn't change much (though it would have done - Milngavie would have been paired with Bishopbriggs while Clydebank nearly ended up in a cross-Clyde constituency): a majority of 3,000 for Labour.

Coatbridge & Chryston - another seat which would have seen serious chopping and changing - survives with a 4,300 majority for Labour.

Cumbernauld & Kilsyth would also have seen major changes (and would have been turned into an ultra-marginal SNP seat had it lost Kilsyth and picked up a chunk of Airdrie) but instead continues largely as is - that means a 2,000 notional majority for Cathie Craigie.

Falkirk East stays red, and maintains a majority of just short of 2,000 for Labour, while Falkirk West retains an SNP lead of just under 700.

Linlithgow, of course, moves into the region, and has a notional Labour majority of 600, so Mary Mulligan is not on secure ground. However, eyes will be on Fiona Hyslop: will she stick with Linlithgow, and pitch for a spot on this region's List? Or will she find a seat further East, and stay in Lothian? There is a third possibility, of course: she could take a 'win-or-bust' approach, fight Linlithgow and sod the List, but that would doubtless freak various senior SNP figures out were it actually attempted. As long as she's in the Cabinet, anyway.

Motherwell stays solid Labour, with a majority of 6,000. The question is, who will inherit it? David Whitton probably won't need to: he has a notional majority of around 3,500 in Strathkelvin & Bearsden.

The last constituency in the region - and the last of all of them alphabetically - is Uddingston & Bellshill, with a notional Labour lead of 5,700.

Now, the List stays as is: the SNP will have five seats notionally and one thing that a number of incumbent MSPs may have to consider is whether to follow their constituency into a new region, or find a new base and stay in relatively familiar territory. It will be easy for Gil Paterson to come in: his 2007 constituency comes over the border and was a Central Scotland MSP in the first term of the Parliament. Linda Fabiani has made three attempts to win East Kilbride and will have to move to West Central if she wants to make it four. And of course, Fiona Hyslop has some thinking to do. One thing to note though: the departure of two Labour seats and one SNP seat, and their replacement with three Labour seats mean that this region effectively sees a net SNP loss of one, offset with an additional seat in West Central Scotland.

For the Tories, they retain one seat, but Margaret Mitchell has to find a new Constituency or move west along with Hamilton, Larkhall & Stonehouse, so facing a selection contest for the List there that will involve Annabel Goldie and - notionally - only one slot with Eastwood going blue and probably electing Jackson Carlaw. Now of course, Mitchell is the Tories sole backbencher (the only one not to be a spokesperson or deputy spokesperson for something or other) and exiled in the Convenership of the Equal Opportunities Committee, much to Helen Eadie's disgust, as we know, so her future in the Parliament at all may potentially be at risk if members in Central are particularly exasperated at having an MSP who is at best an outrider and at worst a passenger. Going west and falling to second or (more likely) third in the rankings wouldn't make re-election impossible, but it could offer a more dignified exit than de-selection (assuming she finds a Constituency, would she even get the #1 spot on the East Central list?).

The LibDems, however, find it simple. There's no change in their one seat, and there are no potential challengers from incumbent MSPs linked with an incoming constituency. Hugh O'Donnell to hold on if he wishes and the members agree.

The Boundaries are A-Changin: Glasgow

This region sees a very significant change. Well, the boundaries don't shift greatly, apart from at the edge of Rutherglen, but the region loses a seat in the City itself. As it's Baillieston which has fallen victim to the Commissioners' red crayons, one can sympathise with Margaret Curran's desire to decamp to Westminster.

Anyway. Glasgow Anniesland stays Labour with a majority for Bill Butler of 4,700. Glasgow Cathcart also stays Labour, with a notional majority of just under 2,000, while Glasgow Kelvin stays Labour by just 700.

Glasgow Maryhill & Springburn stays Labour by 4,000 for Patricia Ferguson; Glasgow Pollok stays Labour by 4,600 for Johann Lamont and Glasgow Provan stays in the red column with a whopping 5,100 majority for Paul Martin. Glasgow Shettleston stays Labour, with Frank McAveety defending a notional majority of around 4,500.

I want to take time to discuss Glasgow Southside. I get a lead for Nicola Sturgeon of just under 200 votes. However, it's only right and proper that I direct you to Yousuf, who gets a Labour lead of just over 300. Now, on that basis, our results are probably within each other's margin of error, but the bottom lines that we reach are very different indeed.

Now, we both have concrete figures handed to us on a platter by the Scotland Office ballot box by ballot box dataset on the 2007 elections. However, they don't tell the whole story: it's possible that we've allocated some polling districts in wards split between seats to different constituencies; it's possible that we've treated results in amalgamated ballot boxes (where the individual boxes contained less than 200 votes) differently where they cover areas that are divided by the proposals; and it's a racing certainty that we've handled postal votes differently as they're presented on a constituency-wide basis.

The synopsis of this little discussion is that we can't both be right (and I think it's fair to say that we both acknowledge the possibility of error). Luckily, these figures are only realy a basis for projecting the outcome of opinion polls and a way comparing the 2011 results with what went before. So regardless of the outcomes we get now, what matters that should Nicola Sturgeon win Southside (or should the SNP be projected to win it based on an opinion poll), I'll be posting it as an SNP hold while Yousuf will see it as an SNP gain. Should Labour win it, he'll see it as a hold and I'll see it as a Labour gain. Given that any other conclusions we reach are based on something that didn't happen - i.e. we're imagining what would have happened if these boundaries had been in place in time for the last elections, which as we know, isn't the case - I advise against treating these figures as conclusions. They are only starting points which allow us to make conclusions later. I had to put that caveat somewhere and this seems like a suitable place for it.

The last constituency is Rutherglen. Now, Rutherglen was removed from Glasgow in the last change to the local government map, when it was placed in South Lanarkshire, and it has to be said that the locals are probably reasonably happy with that turn of events. However, despite that change being reflected in the dropping of the word Glasgow from the consituency name, it's still lumped in with the rest of the City. I'm not sure what the locals think of that, but there you are. It stays Labour by 5,000 votes.

As for the List, with the Region's external boundaries changing only slightly, and Labour arguably over-represented at constituency level, it's little surprise that the SNP keep four seats, and the LibDems, Tories and Greens keep one between them. If, however, Southside were to be considered Labour, the SNP would have five seats - the extra one coming at the expense of Patrick Harvie.

The Boundaries are A-Changin: Highlands & Islands

The most significant change in the Highlands is that the region acquires Dumbarton, which I never really thought of as particularly Highland in character and I suspect that the locals will be just as surprised as I am. If the revised Regional proposals are going to depart in any major form from the initial ones, this will probably be one of the changes. But we're into the realms of speculation now.

Anyway. With the exception of Dumbarton, the best way to sum up the region is 'as you were'. While there's a great deal of chopping and changing in the three Highland seats, and some fraying at the edges of Moray, neither doesn't affects the arithmetic.

Consequently, Jim Mather retains a majority of 800 over the LibDems. The enlarged Caithness, Sutherland & Ross yields a notional 3,000 majority for Jamie Stone - that's a larger figure than at present, but vote share figures barely change.

Dumbarton may go Highland, but it retains its Labour status on the notional figures, though a 3% swing to the SNP would change that.

Inverness & Nairn sees Fergus Ewing's majority goes down to 4,000 (and a lot of MSPs would love it if 4,000 was what their majority fell to) but again, vote share doesn't change much.

Moray's small adjustments project an SNP majority for Richard Lochhead of 7,000.

Na h-Eileanan Iar has been Gaelicised but that's the only change: the possibility of it being connected with the mainland was ruled out very early on in the process and so I can comfortably state that Alasdair Allan is defending a majority of 687.

Similarly, changes to Orkney and Shetland are precluded by law, though the two seats will be officially known as 'Orkney Islands' and 'Shetland Islands', with LibDem majorities of 2,476 and 4,909 respectively.

Meanwhile, Skye, Lochaber & Badenoch (the successor to Ross, Skye & Inverness West) remains notionally LibDem, but with a majority slashed to 1,200. This will be a keenly fought contest.

The List is, like the outcome of the constituencies, a model of the status quo. The addition of Dumbarton does not affect Labour's three seats, the SNP retain two and so do the Tories, with the LibDems not needing any.

The Boundaries are A-Changin: Lothian

With Linlithgow moving into East Central Scotland and East Lothian coming in from South of Scotland, the region gets shifted eastwards, and the way things play out is guaranteed to cause ructions.

First comes Almond Valley, the successor to Livingston, which initially sounded rather pretty but now I can't shake the feeling that it sounds like it should be the name of a dodgy processed foods company. I just have the image of a recent sufferer of food poisoning taking a box (that once contained some form of chicken balti) into his GP for him to take a look at before he sends it off to Environmental Health, and written in small print on one of the sides are the words "Produced in the EU for Almond Valley Foods (UK) Ltd". Anyway, flight of fancy over, it's still notionally SNP. Just.

The newly relocated East Lothian stays Labour, which is probably a good thing for Iain Gray who would almost certainly have to decamp to safer ports were this in jeopardy.

Edinburgh Central, however, is not: it goes LibDem, but only just. Edinburgh Corstorphine & Forth (because Edinburgh West just didn't sound middle-class enough), meanwhile, is safe LibDem, as you'd expect.

Edinburgh East & South (why couldn't they have just called it Edinburgh South East? I know parts of it aren't South East, but parts of the current Edinburgh South West aren't South West, South or West, and the Edinburgh East Westminster Constituency contains Tollcross, which in no way could be considered even remotely East...) is still SNP, but by a whisker.

Edinburgh Pentlands (the name has been reprieved) stays Tory, while Edinburgh Southside (which is misleading as the bit of the City considered to be the Southside rather than, say, Newington is actually in Central) stays LibDem. Edinburgh Trinity & Leith (which sounds like a fixture in a local football league) stays Labour by my reckoning, as does Midlothian North & Musselburgh.

This is where things get hairy. Under the old Lothian region, the SNP led on the Regional Vote. On the new one, there appears to be a Labour lead of just over 200 votes. This comes into play on account of the LibDems picking up a third constituency (giving them more seats in Lothian than the Tories, who pick up more votes). Now, Labour notionally gain a List seat to compensate for Central changing hands, but as the LibDems don't have a Regional seat to lose, it has to come at someone else's expense. It would come at the expense of the SNP. Accordingly, the only way for both Ian McKee and Shirley-Anne Somerville to have been elected on the List (OK, OK, Ian McKee and Stefan Tymkewycz if we're splitting hairs) would have been for Fiona Hyslop to decamp to East Central with her Linlithgow stomping grounds.

The Boundaries are A-Changin: Mid Scotland & Fife

Like North East Scotland, Mid Scotland & Fife sees only limited changes, and the most significant of those is triggered by North Tayside losing quite a large tract of land in the Angus area. The next most significant is the transfer of Dunblane from Stirling to the new Clackmannashire & Dunblane. That sentence may seem a little redundant until you realise that there's notihing about the name 'Stirling' which tells you that it contains Dunblane when other parts of the Council area presently find themselves in Ochil.

Anyway. The aforementioned Clackmannanshire & Dunblane is SNP by about 400 votes.

Cowdenbeath stays Labour by 4,000 votes - so Calum Cashley's 'Eadie to Leadie' campaign is still on track.

Dunfermline stays LibDem by 500 votes, while Kirkcaldy has a notional Labour majority 3,000 and Mid Fife & Glenrothes has an SNP majority of 1,800. North East Fife (it had an 'and' between the North and East in the initial proposals) has a LibDem majority of just shy of 5,000.

Perthsire North (the heavily revamped North Tayside) gives John Swinney a majority of just under 6,000, while Roseanna Cunningham's notional majority in Perthshire South & Kinross-shire is just over the 2,000 mark. And I get Bruce Crawford staying ahead in Stirling despite the loss of Dunblane - but only just!

So with no change in the distribution of constituencies, it's no surprise that the allocation of List seats doesn't change either, making this the most boring region of the eight.

The Boundaries are A-Changin: North East Scotland

It's hard to say whether or not the North East's redrawing is quite slight, or massively radical: on the one hand, one the one hand, Angus is no longer paired with Perth & Kinross as it was for the purposes of drawing new boundaries, so a large chunk of North Tayside comes into the region, and the region has one more seat than it did there isn't really an exchange of constituencies in the way that most other regions face, so there's only the large tract of North Tayside coming in (and some chopping and changing around the edges alongside the boundary with Moray) and the extra seat is a result of population changes in the area rather than a significant re-drawing of the region.

Aberdeen Central stays Labour, but by a flea's bollock: the SNP require a swing of 0.07% by my reckoning. But a fair chunk of Aberdeen South brings the LibDems into play, and there's less than 500 votes between first place and third.

Aberdeen Donside is the pretty new name for Aberdeen North and it's still fairly secure for Brian Adam.

Aberdeen South & North Kincardine (the pattern for the position of compass points in this review appears to be that if it comes before an 'and', the compass point goes second, and comes first after an 'and') stays LibDem by just under 2,000 votes, much like Alex Salmond's notional majority in Aberdeenshire East. Aberdenshire West, however, is pretty solid for the LibDems.

The new seat is Angus North & Mearns, and offers the SNP a seat with a majority of around 3,800. Angus South, meanwhile, as a 7,400 majority for Andrew Welsh.

Banffshire & Buchan Coast (looks very fancy with its new 'shire' and 'Coast', no?) would see Stewart Stevenson elected on a majority of about 12,000.

In the City of Discovery, the SNP majorities aren't quite that high, but the party is notionally ahead by 4,500 votes and 2,000 votes in Dundee City East and West respectively.

On the List, it's as you were for Labour and the LibDems - just as on the constituencies. The newly-formed SNP constituency means the party has one Regional seat fewer, restoring the third Tory seat that they party lost in 2007.

The Boundaries are A-Changin: South Scotland

South Scotland (it loses the 'of') may have seen more radical changes had Commissioners persisted with a Cumnock & Clydesdale seat which looked more like a Rorschach test than a Parliamentary Constituency. But while the constituencies themselves don't go through many convulsions, the region does: it loses East Lothian to Lothian (well, it was hardly going to move into Highlands & Islands, was it?), it loses Cunninghame South to West Central Scotland and gains Kilmarnock & Irvine Valley from Central Scotland. More eagle-eyed readers will have spotted that this leaves South one constituency short. They'd be right: it will now apparently contain only eight, making it the 'baby' region instead of the now even larger Highlands & Islands.

Ayr stays pretty much comfortably Tory, while Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley stays pretty solid Labour. Clydesdale stays Labour, but with a majority of around 1,300 - less than half what it was, potentially giving Aileen Campbell a very nice target, which will definitely come in handy.

As you can see, Dumfriesshire gains the letters s, h, i, r and e but loses a good part of the town of Dumfries, to Elaine Murray's chagrin. She won't be too chuffed about her majority plummeting from 2,800 to just 200 either. If there's just the slightest hint of a Cameron honeymoon in Scotland in 2011, she's out.

Ettrick, Roxburgh & Berwickshire (formerly Roxburgh & Berwickshire) stays Tory, as does Galloway & West Dumfries. Though the good folk of Upper Nithsdale might be hacked off that they no longer get a mention.

The incoming Constituency, Kilmarnock & Irvine Valley, stays SNP.

The last seat is the most significant: LibDem-held Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale becomes notionally-SNP Midlothian South, Tweeddale & Lauderdale. Could Christine Grahame have finally scored her victory? I suspect Jeremy Purvis will not be thrilled by that prospect.

Then comes the List: the arrival of Kilmarnock and gaining of MSTL causes something of a headache for the SNP: it has a notional three List seats, giving the party a total of five, but with six incumbent MSPs operating in the new region. Even if we assume that Willie Coffey maintains his 'win or bust' approach in Kilmarnock, the likelihood is that unless Alasdair Morgan decides that 66 is a good age at which to retire, the rankings could well be bad news for one of the current five Regional MSPs. And remember, this region contains two Government Ministers, one Deputy Presiding Officer, one grande dame of the SNP and one rising star. This selection contest has echoes of the 'Group of Death' that appears in every Champions' League or World Cup.

For Labour, things are clearer: the departure of two Labour seats to other regions to be replaced with an SNP constituency offers them two List seats (so two vacancies in the area) for the first time. So Jeff's scenario of MPs defeated at the next General Election heading to a Holyrood List near you might emerge, if Russell Brown were to lose his Dumfries & Galloway seat to Peter Duncan, with one other.

The Tories see no change, but the LibDems face a problem: on the previous setup, the loss of Tweeddale etc. would give them an extra List seat as compensation (as happened in Roxburgh & Berwickshire). With one seat fewer available for the parties to play with, that is no longer the case: if they lose Tweeddale, they don't have enough notional votes to get it back.

The Boundaries are A-Changin: West Central Scotland

Well, we now have revised proposals from the Boundary Commission for the new Holyrood Constituencies, and with them, initial proposals for the Holyrood Regions, giving us a better idea of the electoral landscape going into 2011, and meaning that we now have actual figures to apply to opinion polls. But the main detail that we have now is a better understanding of how we think people would have voted had the new boundaries been in place.

Let's take a look at the new West Central Scotland region - the successor to West of Scotland. It loses Dumbarton (whose good burghers will get a shock when they get their polling cards and discover that they're now Highlanders), Clydebank & Milngavie and Strathkelvin & Bearsden (both of whose residents will be surprised to learn that for electoral purposes, they are now seen as being in the East). In their place, the region gains Cunninghame South (re-uniting North Ayrshire into one region), East Kilbride and Hamilton, Larkhall & Stonehouse.

One observation: it's interesting that despite Boundary Commissioners considering the Clyde a natural boundary for constituencies in Glasgow, they thought nothing of a possible seat straddling the Clyde with the two parts (North Renfrewshire and Clydebank) being connected solely by the Erskine Bridge, which crosses the Clyde at a far more Firth-like point than the various bridges in Glasgow. It's also worth noting that the reaction to that idea appears to have been so hostile that now, not even the West Central region straddles the Clyde.

Anyway. Cunninghame North looks like it would still be SNP by a proverbial ba' hair, while Cunninghame South would still be Labour by around 2,000 votes.

East Kilbride, Andy Kerr's stomping ground, stays Labour and changes add about 600 votes to Kerr's majority. But here's the thing: this is not just Kerr's patch. Linda Fabiani has been an SNP ever-present here, standing in East Kilbride in 1999, 2003 and 2007. She faces a choice: stay with EK or stay with (East) Central Scotland. She cannot do both. She could do a stright swap with Gil Paterson (who stood in Clydebank & Milngvie last time, and was also a Central Scotland MSP for four years), but how would SNP members in the West react?

Eastwood, meanwhile, poses a problem for Labour: with the loss of Barrhead and Neilston to the new Renfrewshire South seat comes the loss of Labour's majority and a notional majority of 2,000 for the Conservatives. Ken Macintosh might want to look into possible escape routes: unless a Tory Government at Westminster draws almost instant and venomous hostility in Scotland (obviously the Tories got less and less popular the last time around, but it took the 1997 Election for Eastwood to switch), expecting him to stay on here is effectively de-selecting him.

Greenock & Inverclyde stays fairly safe Labour.

Another newcomer to the region, Hamilton, Larkhall & Stonehouse, gives Tom McCabe a majority of just over 3,000. It also gives potential food for thought to a number of Regional MSPs: Christina McKelvie fought the predecessor, Hamilton South, in 2007. Does she follow the Constituency or the Region? John Wilson had originally been the candidate here in 2007, but stood down from the Constituency election to contest the local election in Coatbridge, where he won a seat, but is quitting to focus on Holyrood. Does he follow the Region (he could conceivably contest Coatbridge & Chryston, I suppose), or attempt to secure the Constituency selection? Then there's the Tories' Margaret Mitchell, candidate here in every Scottish electon since 1999, and Regional MSP for Central Scotland since 2003. Which does she choose? Will she even stand again? Would she stand a snowball's chance in Hell of a high enough ranking in the same Region as Annabel Goldie and Jackson Carlaw?

Anyway. Paisley is united under one Constituency rather than being split into North and South, each with a bit of the environs attached. Most of Paisley South goes into here, while North gets carved up fairly comprehensively, so you'd view this more as Hugh Henry's balliwick. Which may pose a problem in the (probably) unlikely event that Wendy Alexander wants to stand again. Put simply, her seat has ceased to be, and if she wants another, this is probably her best shot. And it's not a bad one for any incumbent Labour MSP to contest: they have a notional majority of 4,000.

Renfrewshire North & West is a possible plan B for Wendy Alexander should she want (or need) one, though strictly, Trish Godman is the incumbent in this neck of the woods. And she faces an improved lot, with notional vote (and majority) increasing by 1,000. That's indifferent news for Bill Wilson, SNP Regional MSP: his vote stays largely where it is and that moves him into second place. It's bad news for Tory Leader Annabel Goldie: having just snatched second place in 2007, and requiring less than a 4% swing to gain the kudos of a Constituency in the next Parliament, approximately 1,300 Tory voters go up the swannee and leave her languishing in a rather grim third place and needing an 8% swing to win - twice what she needed before.

Then there's the 'new' seat, Renfrewshire South, made from the offcuts of surrounding seats. If Hugh Henry can secure Paisley, this offers Ken Macintosh his meal ticket for 2011-15: Barrhead stays in the seat, which would have a Labour majority in excess of 5,000 votes.

So that gives us 7 Labour constituencies, 1 SNP and 1 Tory. What of the List?

Labour's Constituency performance rules out amy List seats anyway, giving them a net loss of one seat compared with the old West region. The SNP have something to cheer here: notionally, they gain an extra List seat, giving them five to play with. But if we have sitting Regional MSPs sticking with Constituencies they were pegged with in the run-up to 2007, the party still has a problem: Gil Paterson could keep fighting Clydebank and so move into East Central, creating two vacant slots. But there are three MSPs potentially moving from Central Scotland to fill them: Linda Fabiani, Christina McKelvie and John Wilson. If the remaining MSPs for the West do not lose out, one of these three must. One of them must find a new patch of East Central Scotland.

The Tories, meanwhile, face something of a disappointment: on the current Region, they were unfortunate not to get an extra seat - Labour picking up eight constituency seats when the strength of their vote merited seven across the region prevented the Tories from gaining seat number 3. Despite gaining Eastwood, and Labour going down to the expected level, the Tories do not gain that extra seat, which instead goes to the SNP.

The LibDems (I feel like I've been ignoring them, but the reality is that I can't see many talking points involving them in this new region) stay where they are. They'll have things (good and bad) to chew on in other regions, however.

Tom Harris MP: Patronising Buffoon

Tom Harris on PR:

All sorts of claims are made by the supporters of proportional representation, along the lines of “it would push up voter turnout” and “it would increase representation among ethnic minorities”.

Not the experience of PR when it’s been tried in the UK already. Take the Scottish Parliament, elected on an “additional member” or “assisted places scheme” system. Turnout at both UK general elections held since devolution in 1999 have seen significantly higher turnours than those for the three Holyrood elections, with up to ten per cent higher voter participation in some constituencies. And in all three Holyrood elections, only one non-white candidate has ever been elected.

Similarly in elections to the European Parliament: turnout has been derisory. The more complicated you make it to vote, the fewer people will do so.

Complicated? For European Elections, you have to put an X in a box, just as you do for Westminster. What's complicated about that?

For Holyrood Elections, you have to put two X's in two boxes, one in each column (and before that, one on each paper). With the exception of the last election, where the goalposts were moved and the one-in-each-column aspect wasn't clearly spelt out on the day, how is that so complicated that it stops people heading to the polls? And even then, when voters had to deal with an unfamiliar ballot paper and two different voting systems, more people actually showed up in 2007 than 2003, when they merely had to contend with three sheets of paper, all of which they wrote an X on, just like they'd done in every election they'd ever voted in.

For Council Elections, you rank candidates in order of preference. Unless you dropped out of Primary School, what's hard about 1, 2, 3?

No. Voting isn't complicated. Voting is never complicated, and PR doesn't make the actual act of casting a vote complicated as it involves doing broadly the same things that you would do in a First Past the Post election. But since something different happens to the votes either while they're being counted or afterwards, Tom Harris has decided that you, the voter, must be too thick to understand it and so won't bother to vote. I'm sorry, Tom, there are lots of reasons for apathy but not being able to place an X in a box isn't one of them.

And if we want to talk about incomprehensible systems, how about we question the simplicity of a system where 36% of the vote translates into a Parliamentary majority?

The Sunday Whip

This has been a rather busy week and I suppose the best way of describing it would be part consensual, part confrontational, so much so that the usual manner of dividing Parliamentary sitting days into 'quiet' and 'busy' doesn't quite stack up. Even the number of votes taken on Wednesday (13) belies the fact that there was only one item (needless to say, it was legislative) and a fair number of proposals were passed unanimously. So a bit of a mix. Similarly, there were 14 questions put at Decision Time on Thursday, only five of which went to a vote.

Anyway, we start with Wednesday, where barring the usual nodding through of the Bureau motions, the only item of Business was Stage 3 of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill, and the many, many amendments (PDF) that went with it.

As always, MSPs roamed, entering and leaving the Chamber at will, so there weren't all that many day-long absentees, but the ones who missed the whole afternoon were Trish Godman (Lab, West Renfrewshire), Labour's Shadow Transport Minister Des McNulty (Clydebank & Milngavie) and Shadow Economy and Skills Minister John Park (Mid Scotland & Fife), as well as Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow), John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West) and LibDem Leader Tavish Scott (Shetland). So bearing that in mind, here are the amendments that faced votes, and you'll see that the Bill got to 5:00 in a rather different state to how the Government would have preferred it:

LibDem Amendment 15 passed by 69 (Labour/Tory/LD) to 48 (SNP/Margo). The other absentees were Wendy Alexander (Lab, Paisley North), George Foulkes (Lab, Lothians), Robin Harper (Green, Lothians), Jack McConnell (Lab, Motherwell & Wishaw) and Margaret Mitchell (Con, Central Scotland).

LibDem Amendment 16 passed by 70 (Labour/Tory/LD/Green) to 47 (SNP) with Margo MacDonald abstaining. Wendy Alexander and Robin Harper had arrived in the Chamber, but Labour Shadow Childrens' Minister Karen Whitefield (Airdrie & Shotts) popped out.

The Government notched up a success with its own Amendment 2, which passed by 79 (everyone but Labour) to 42: George Foulkes, Margaret Mitchell and Karen Whitefield were all back in time for this one.

Things weren't so good for the Government on Labour's Amendment 18, however: it passed by 71 (Labour/Con/LD/Green) to 48 (SNP/Margo): Jamie McGrigor (Con, Highlands & Islands) and Mike Pringle (LD, Edinburgh South) both missed this one.

The form continued for Labour's Amendment 19, which passed by 73 (Lab/Con/LD/Green) to 47 (SNP): McGrigor and Pringle returned, and Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians) had wandered off.

The bad news intensified with Labour's Amendment 20, which passed by 72 (everyone but the SNP) to 47: Margo was back, but Wendy Alexander and Duncan McNeil (Lab, Greenock & Inverclyde) gave this one a miss.

If the Government had been hoping that they'd turn a corner with their own amendments, however, they were to be disappointed: Amendment 4 fell by 72 - Labour, the Tories, most of the LibDems and Margo - to 49 - the SNP, Robin Harper and Hugh O'Donnell (LD, Central Scotland). Wendy Alexander returned, as did Jack McConnell and Duncan McNeil, but it was Labour Shadow Sport Minister Frank McAveety (Glasgow Shettleston) who wandered off.

Things got slightly worse for Amendment 8, which fell by 73 - Labour, the Tories, LibDems and Alasdair Allan (SNP, Western Isles) - to 46 (the rest of the SNP) with two abstentions (Robin Harper and Margo MacDonald).

At least the brief wave of minor (accidental?) rebellions was over for Amendment 11, but that was as good as the Government got. The amendment still fell by 71 (Labour/Tories/LibDems) to 47 (SNP) with one (Green) abstention: Margo had gone walkabout again.

Amendment 12 fell by 69 (Labour/Tories/LibDems) to 46 (SNP) with one Green abstention. Schools Minister Keith Brown (Ochil) went AWOL, as did LibDem Environment Spokesman Liam McArthur (Orkney) and Labour's Shadow Housing Minister Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow), who was no doubt trying to work out which Parliamentary region she'd be in for the 2011 Election).

For the remainder of the session, Deputy Presiding Officer Alasdair Morgan (SNP, South of Scotland) took the Chair, so that was one vote fewer for the SNP at a time when, well, frankly, it didn't make the blindest bit of difference. LibDem Amendment 24 passed by 73 (everyone but the SNP) to 46: Keith Brown had come back, but so had Margo MacDonald, Frank McAveety and Mary Mulligan. But Jamie McGrigor performed another disappearing act. He didnt come back.

LibDem Amendment 25 also passed, by 74 (everyone but the SNP) to 46: Liam McArthur came back for this one.

Finally, the Government ended on a much-needed high note: its Amendment 14 passed by 77 (everyone but Labour) to 41: George Foulkes skipped this one, as did Labour's Shadow Community Safety Minister Paul Martin (Glasgow Springburn).

So on that basis, it's hard to imagine that the amended Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Bill, but that's what happened - a triumph for grudging consensus!

Anyway, with that bum-number out of the way, Thursday came with its heavy programme. Wendy Alexander missed it, as did Trish Godman, Patrick Harvie, Labour Shadow Enterprise Minister Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central), Margo MacDonald, Des McNulty, John Farquhar Munro, Irene Oldfather (Lab, Cunninghame South), Elaine Smith (Lab, Coatbridge & Chryston) and Nicol Stephen (LD, Aberdeen South).

First came the Labour motion on Student Hardship: and SNP motion fell by 71 votes (everyone but the SNP) to 47. The LibDem amendment fell by 103 (SNP/Labour/Conservative) votes to 15 (LibDem/Green), while the unscathed motion passed by 69 (most of Labour, all of the Tories, LibDems and Robin Harper) to 49 - the SNP plus Labour Shadow Finance Secretary Andy Kerr (East Kilbride) and Jack McConnell:

That the Parliament calls for a cross-party approach on tackling hardship among the poorest students in Scotland; believes that students have been severely let down by the SNP's broken promises, actions and inaction in power; further believes that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning's efforts have been misplaced in focussing solely on reducing graduate debt rather than student hardship while student demand for hardship and childcare funds increases, commercial borrowing among students continues and student support levels in Scotland fall far behind the rest of the United Kingdom; notes the open letter to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning signed by NUS, the main opposition parties and student leaders across Scotland calling for the Scottish Government to increase levels of student support through increased loans and for a new direction from the Scottish Government; further notes that on the 12 March 2009, through motion S3M-3675 as amended, the Parliament rejected all of the proposals contained in the Supporting a Smarter Scotland consultation, which closed in April 2009, for not adequately addressing student hardship, and calls on the Scottish Government to work with the main opposition parties on their joint approach to tackling student hardship by using the available resources to provide £7,000 in support for the poorest students, a £500 increase in grant for the poorest students, an increase in support of £200 for all students through the non-means-tested loan and almost £2 million to discretionary funds for childcare and hardship funding.

Following that came the Labour motion on supporting employment in Scotland. The SNP motion passed by 103 (SNP/Labour/Conservative) votes to 15 (LibDem/Green), while the LibDem motion fell by 63 (SNP/Tories) to 55 (Labour/LibDems/Green), and the amended motion was waved through:

That the Parliament is concerned that 34,000 extra Scots were out of a job in the last year and that many live under the threat of redundancy; recognises that government support for business and individuals is vital in the current climate; calls on the Scottish Government to examine the ProAct scheme developed by the Welsh Assembly Government, which supports businesses on short-time working, to establish whether or not a scheme would benefit Scotland's economic recovery; further recognises the seriousness of the economic situation in Scotland; believes that the Scottish Government should bring forward a new and revised economic recovery programme prior to summer recess, and calls for such a plan to outline how the Scottish Government intends to deliver the extra 7,800 apprenticeship places agreed for 2009 and the 75,000 training places announced by the First Minister on 18 April 2009.

This was followed by a Government motion on aquaculture. The Green amendment was withdrawn before it could be put to a vote, while Labour, Tory and LibDem amendments were all waved through, along with the amended motion, proof that we all like aquaculture:

That the Parliament notes the publication of A Fresh Start - the renewed Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture and its key themes; promotes the continued development of an ambitious, sustainable, profitable, thriving and growing Scottish aquaculture industry; recognises the economic importance of the industry to Scotland as a whole and many coastal communities in particular; acknowledges the vital role to be played by aquaculture production, processing and associated businesses during the economic downturn; further recognises that, if the industry is to attract, retain and develop people for a long-term career in aquaculture, the Scottish Government must ensure that a range of suitable training opportunities are made available; supports efforts to promote the many positives of the industry and to advance the enviable international reputation of quality Scottish aquaculture products, built on high environmental standards and the principles of sustainable development; encourages Marine Scotland to work with others to deliver a transparent, streamlined and proportionate regulatory framework that encourages shellfish and finfish industries while at the same time ensuring that adverse impacts on biodiversity and other users of the marine and freshwater environment are minimised and managed; welcomes proactive and effective engagement with other aquaculture-producing countries through sharing knowledge and promoting best practice and Scotland's role as a major contributor to international cooperation on research; acknowledges the continued engagement of the shellfish and finfish industries and other stakeholders in the development and implementation of the Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture, and notes the importance of the 6,200 Scottish jobs supported by the aquaculture industry in maintaining the environmental, economic and social fabric in communities often located in Scotland's most remote and fragile areas.

Finally, an LCM on Coroners and Justice Bill was waved through, as were two SSIs: the Community Right to Buy (Definition of Excluded Land) (Scotland) Order 2009 and Local Government and Housing Act 1989 Amendment (Scotland) Order 2009, which was passed unanimously despite griping on the part of David McLetchie that the thing ever saw the light of day.

And that was this week. After the last fortnight, I will personally hunt down any MSP (I'm looking at Michael McMahon here) if they complain at the lack of legislation from the Government. It may produce lovely statistics, but good grief, it's a bastard to track on here!

Out of the Frying Pan

Since I came to this House 30 years ago, I have always felt that the House is at its best when it is united. In order that unity can be maintained, I have decided that I will relinquish the office of Speaker on Sunday 21 June. This will allow the House to proceed to elect a new Speaker on Monday 22 June. That is all I have to say on this matter.

And with those terse words, one can of worms was placed in the bin, to be replaced with two more.

The first is who will replace him as Speaker - and who would want to. We have, at this stage, only one declared candidate, and so he is, by default, the frontrunner: Sir Alan Beith, LibDem MP for Berwick-upon-Tweed. He is the bookies' second favourite, at 5/1. The favourite is Sir George Young, at 4/1. Vince Cable, David Davis and anne Widdecombe have all ruled themselves out. Mutterings from the Labour benches point towards Tory MP John Bercow. Mutterings from the Tory benches point towards Labour MP Frank Field. At this stage, it's far too early to say who will emerge.

The second is who will replace him as MP for Glasgow North East, with his departure from the Commons all but certain. Strictly speaking, there is no incumbent party, with the Speaker standing for re-election as an apartisan candidate, but had that not been the case, this would ordinarily be seen as a Labour fortress. Nevertheless, we have a little more knowledge about party strengths merely on the basis that, as you'd expect, the SNP haven't really been all that impressed by the convention that the Speaker isn't challenged. If you make the shaky assumption that all the people who voted for Michael Martin would have voted Labour, and that all the people who would have voted Labour voted for Michael Martin - and neither of those assumptions hold much water but we have to start from somewhere - the SNP would require a swing of 18% to win a By-Election: more than was required (and far more than was acheived) in Glenrothes, but less than what was needed and attained next to this seat in Glasgow East. On that basis, we can't yet read the tea leaves, and I don't yet envisage the European Elections shedding any light on how the By-Election would progress. I shall simply say that for the SNP, a victory would be best characterised as it was in Glasgow East - improbable but not impossible - while for Labour, victory is nothing short of an absolute must.

There's then the question of the candidacies. Conventional wisdom used to have it that Paul Martin was a shoo-in for the Labour nomination but hereditity might not go down overly well right now but combined with Margaret Curran's intention to fight Glasgow East again, it might provide a vacancy for Steven Purcell at Holyrood (might that make Frank McAveety a possible candidate?). The SNP have a PPC - Grant Thoms, the Tartan Hero - but as we know from Glasgow East, PPCs for the General Election don't necessarily fight a By-Election. However, he's in place, he's on the Party's NEC, he's a strong campaigner so you would see him as a frontrunner. All the same, these are unusual times, and the assumptions we would normally make can be called into question very easily indeed. All bets are very much off.

So, Michael Martin's exit creates two vacancies, and two elections: one winner will emerge from the benches of the House of Commons; the other winner will take a seat on them. But at this stage, we can't even say for sure who will be on either ballot paper, much less who will emerge on top.

We await with bated breath.

Michael Martin: A Parliamentary Piñata

Well, the statement has been and gone. On paper, it looked like everything it needed to be: contrite, sober, measured. Everything that was required of Michael Martin last week when he instead opted to fly off the handle at Kate Hoey and Norman Baker. With that, the story moved on and the question on every political geek's lips (and beyond that narrow circle, following its lack of discussion in the statement) is whether, and when, the Speaker of the House of Commons will hand over to another. But the Member for Glasgow North East failed to answer it. Once again, he's one week behind the times.

Of course, he's being cast as the central villain of the piece: he has presided over the House at its darkest hour, when Members have been exposed as benefit cheats writ large, though for sums far exceeding the odd bit of cash-in-hand work as a joiner. This is his mess, cry the critics, and he has failed to deal with it. Therefore, he is part of the problem. Therefore, he cannot provide the solution. Therefore, he should stand aside.

And his own expenses claims leave a lot to be desired: the family junkets. The chauffeur-driven ride to Celtic Park. Though, in fairness, this last one makes sense: no one should have to drive to Parkhead as there is no way that a car parked up and left unattended could remain unmolested for any more than ten minutes around that shi- sorry, getting distracted by the title race, moving on...

Anyway. The claims are pathetic, and his alleged defence ("I have been a trade unionist all my life. I did not come into politics not to take what is owed to me"), a blatant confession that he sees politics as little more than a gravy train, show an element of hubris that makes his posiiton even more ridiculous. I daresay it's also frustrating for the trade union activists in workplaces up and down the UK who spend their time doing, you know, actual work and getting little more than a thank-you for the extra task of representing their co-workers.

Nevertheless, let's look at some of the more ridiculous claims. He hasn't used expense money for a moat. He hasn't used it for a house that is neither near Parliament nor in his Constituency. He hasn't claimed that he didn't realise he'd finished repaying his mortgage. He doesn't boycott Parliament but claim Parliamentary expenses for accommodation in London. Yet while copious amounts of newsprint, airtime and bile are extended towards those guilty of those offences (though the last one has passed by far more quietly than it should have done, if you ask me) , the circus has moved from them to the next carpetbagger du jour. Michael Martin, meanwhile, has been under unrelenting pressure right from the start.

And let's be honest: it is his fault that Douglas Hogg's moat allegedly got cleared at our expense? Not really. Is it his fault that Margaret Moran claimed for repairs to a house that had bugger all to do with her work as a Parliamentarian (it may be the family home, and dry rot might be a bastard to sort out, but still, I'd love to see my boss's face if I billed work for the £250 I spent re-decorating my bedroom a few months ago)? Not really. Is it his fault that Elliot Morley claims not to have noticed that his monthly outgoings suddenly fell? Not really. Is it his fault that Sinn Féin are so opposed to the UK's presence in Northern Ireland that they refuse to represent their Constituents in the Chamber of the House of Commons, but not so opposed to it that they refuse to claim re-imbursement from Parliamentary authorities for accommodation in London? Again, not really. Politicians of all partisan hues have been caught with their hands in the biscuit tin and all of them have no one to blame but themselves. Yes, the expenses regime is ridiculous, but they didn't have to take advantage of it. So we should be wary of treating Michael Martin like a scapegoat.

There is still a case for the defence of Michael Martin, albeit a tattered and tarnished one. He had, in Betty Boothroyd, a hard act to follow. She was a bluff, no-nonsense working class woman, who stamped her authority on proceedings but did so with grace and poise. She was popular with all sides of the House (and despite being Labour MP, was elevated to the Speakership at a time when the Tories had a majority in the Commons) and it wouldn't surprise me if a fair number of MPs fantasised about her calling their Right Honourable Member to order, if you'll forgive a brief descent into smut. Michael Martin, however, is no Betty Boothroyd.

It didn't help that there were rumblings in 2000 from the Tory benches that it was 'their turn' to provide a Speaker, that the post typically alternated between the two parties. Betty Boothroyd had been a Labour MP, so it was a Tory's turn. But Boothroyd won the post as a result of a Tory Backbench rebellion. Bernard Wetherill, a Tory, was elected following the 1983 Tory landslide; George Thomas (Labour) had been elected in 1976 during the Labour Government; Selwyn Lloyd became Speaker during the Heath Government and Horace King did so during the first Wilson Government. Before that, the Tories had provided every Speaker but one since 1905, and that single exception - J. H. Whitley (1921-1928) - had been a Coalition Liberal so had sat on the Government benches with the Tories, who supported David Lloyd George's Government at the time. Therefore, Boothroyd was the first Speaker since Sir James Abercromby (also the last Speaker to represent a Scottish Constituency before Martin) in 1835 who did not come from the same Party as the sitting or emerging Prime Minister. The whole 'taking turns' thing was and is nonsense, but the Tories persisted with it and it's a point of grudge and those who are concerned at the prospect of three consecutive Labour Speakers might want to bear in mind the four consecutive Tory Speakers from 1928 to 1965. Nevertheless, it was used as a stick with which to beat the present Speaker.

Further, there's always been a contemptuous sneer in the direction of "Gorbals Mick", as the right-wing press know him. For some on the Tory benches, he's too working-class (Betty Boothroyd had a working-class background but not the accent), too unreconstucted Labour, perhaps too Glaswegian. There is a section of Parliament that has never taken to Michael Martin, and never would have, whatever he did. I have some sympathy for Tom Harris (no, really!) when he opines:

Yes, [Douglas Carswell] feels he has good reason to put down a motion this week, but if it wasn’t expenses, it would be Damian Green, and if it wasn’t Damian Green it would be something else. Of course Douglas wants Michael Martin to step down — it is after all, a day with a “y” in it.

So having followed a tough act, and having the odds stacked against him, it's been clear right from the start that Michael Martin has had to work twice as hard as his predecessor to do half as well.

This is a good time to turn to the case for the prosecution.

To put it simply, he hasn't done so. He's had eight and a half years to turn people around and failed. He's happy to break with precedent and allow police to come trooping into Parliamentary offices, and confiscate an MP's computer and records during the Damien Green affair, but allow an FOI request on MPs' expenses? Hell no! And the reports on what Parliamentarians are claiming isn't the fault of the MPs themselves for claiming it, but the fault of the nasty press for telling people, and MPs like Kate Hoey and Norman Baker who believe that something stinks are jumped on for airing that view. So his approach in the Damien Green story, and in this present tale are consistent in only one way: they are both on the wrong side of public opinion.

Further, the hubris he has shown until today on the matter is absolutely the wrong approach. The Holyrood expenses system has been used as a model for Westminster, but recent revelations show that even now, MSPs are not immune to the snot/trough interface scenario. But when tales of MSPs on the make have emerged, Presiding Officers (especially George Reid) have been quick to react, not by blaming the press or the public for being outraged, but by changing the system, making it tighter and so showing people that the system can work if you give it a chance, and give the people in it a chance to learn from their mistakes and develop new and better ways of doing things. Michael Martin has opted to circle the wagons, and reviews now (even ongoing ones) are seen as far too little, far too late, particularly when this controversy has been brewing for ages. He should have acted. He should have read public opinion. He didn't. Is it too late to parachute George Reid into Westminster?

And far from turning hostile voices around, he has turned potential supporters and allies against him: Labour backbenchers are signing Douglas Carswell's no-confidence motion against him, for heaven's sake! The LibDems, who one imagines are far less averse to Michael Martin than the Tories, have reached such exasperation that even their Leader has called for his departure. In short, Michael Martin is running out of supporters and running out of time.

And his job is a particularly sensitive one: how can his most trenchant critics, Kate Hoey, Douglas Carswell, Norman Baker and Nick Clegg get treatment that is both fair and seen to be fair from the Speaker now? How can he credibly keep order in the House of Commons if Members from all parts of it want him out of that job?

Being Speaker is not like being in Government: you would expect on Opposition to want a Government out, you would expect an Opposition to challenge the things that Ministers do. But the Speaker is an honest broker, responsible for and to the entire House, and all of its Members, requiring their confidence and good will every day. It's bad enough that a number of MPs never had any confidence in him in the first place (though that's a poor reflection on them for their prejudice), but now that others are losing confidence in him - and their numbers are growing by the day - Michael Martin's position becomes less and less tenable. It's not enough merely to avoid Douglas Carswell's no-confidence vote and it wouldn't be enough to survive it either: that MPs should feel strongly enough to table it and make a serious attempt to depose a Speaker for the first time since 1695 is a sign that the Michael Martin has already lost: he needs the confidence (or, as a bare minimum, the indulgence) of the entire House and he no longer has it.

In short: he has always faced a massive challenge but has failed to rise to it; he has failed to tackle the issues threatening to undermine the status of the House of Commons; he has failed to win over his critics despite having eight and a half years to do so and he has lost supporters.

And that, sadly, is why I believe he has to go.

The Sunday Whip

A broadly consensual approach to this week, which is probably just as well, as the political world's eyes appear to be on the feeding frenzy that is the Westminster expenses scandal (which I'll be considering tomorrow, at some point after Michael Martin has put himself in front of an increasingly hostile House of Commons to issue some form of statement). In fact, no votes at Decision Time needed to be taken at all this week, with everything getting through on the nod. The only votes were on Stage 3 of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill on Wednesday afternoon, and the key points of the day's proceedings appear to have been missed by a number of MSPs: Jackson Carlaw and his Party's Leader Annabel Goldie (both West of Scotland), Trish Godman (Lab, West Renfrewshire), Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians), David McLetchie (Con, Edinburgh Pentlands), Labour's Shadow Transport Minister Des McNulty (Clydebank & Milngavie), Anne McLaughlin (SNP, Glasgow), John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West), LibDem Leader Tavish Scott (Shetland) Labour's Shadow Public Health Minister Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland & Fife), Jamie Stone (LD, Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross) and Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon (Glasgow Govan)

Anyway, after a Business Motion relating to the afternoon's proceedings was waved through, the amendments (PDF) to the Bill were discussed, and only five went to a vote.

The first to do so was Labour's Amendment 4, and there were two further absentees for this one: Schools Minister Keith Brown (Ochil) and Culture Minister Mike Russell (South of Scotland). Now this is the key: the amendment passed by 58 votes to 56, with Labour, the LibDems and the Greens voting in favour, and, crucially, the SNP and Conservatives voting against. So had the two Ministers arrived a little earlier, the vote would have been tied and the amendment - which the Government opposed - would have fallen. As it stands, it was voted into the Bill.

Labour's Amendment 13 came a little later on, and again, there were additional absentees: as well as Keith Brown and Michael Russell, Christina McKelvie (SNP, Central Scotland), Mike Rumbles (LD, West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine) and Nicol Stephen (LD, Aberdeen South) had also gone walkabout. In fact, Mike Rumbles didn't come back. The amendment passed by 56 votes to 55, with the same party split: Labour, LibDems and Greens in favour; SNP and Tories opposed. Therefore, this amendment was passed but needn't have been.

At this point, it's worth pointing out that had there been a full attendance for the Stage 3 debate, the votes would have stacked 64 to 63 in favour of the amendments tabled, with Margo MacDonald an unknown quantity: had she opposed them, they would have fallen; had she supported them or abstained, they would have passed. So on that basis, it's possible that these amendments were destined for the Bill anyway, but given who missed the whole afternoon and who either showed up late, who slipped the odd vote or who wandered off early, then these could be chalked up as unforced errors by the Whips. Though as we'll soon see, things turned and the Government found results going its way for the rest of proceedings.

Anyway, Labour's Amendment 14 fell, with the vote tied at 56 each and the Presiding Officer deploying the status quo convention: voting the amendment down, before going on to perform at a rock concert using only three chords. Again, the parties were split the same way, and Messrs. Brown and Russell were still abstent, as were Messrs. Rumbles and Stephen but Christina McKelvie had returned, and so forced the tie.

At this point, Alex Fergusson left the Chair - who knows, maybe he actually went to perform at a rock concert? - and the SNP's Alasdair Morgan (South of Scotland) found himself deputising for the rest of the afternoon's votes. Now, under the circumstances, you would expect that the afternoon would have got slightly worse for the Government. Instead, it got better.

The Greens pressed Amendment 15, but it fell by 57 votes to 55, with the same parties supporting and opposing the amendment. Alasdair Morgan's ascent to the Chair was offset by the arrival of Keith Brown and Mike Russell, while Nicol Stephen's return was undermined by the continued absence of Mike Rumbles and the brief disappearance of Mike Pringle (LD, Edinburgh South) and his Party's Education Spokesperson Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West).

This was followed by the last vote of the afternoon: Labour's Amendment 16: Mike Pringle and Margaret Smith had come back but Mike Rumbles was still AWOL, and the parties were once against split the exact same way. The upshot was a voted tied at 57 votes apiece, and it was Alasdair Morgan's turn to deploy the status quo convention and voted the amendment down.

That being done, the rest of the debate continued without incident and the Business Motions were nodded through, easing us gently into Decision Time, when the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill was unanimously agreed by the Parliament, along with the Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 4) Order 2009.

Thursday, meanwhile, was completely consensual. It's a mark of how ratty Thursdays have become in the Parliament, that the last time a Thursday saw complete unanimity in the Chamber was almost six months ago, on 20 November. Anyway, MSPs were all in favour of the general principles of the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Bill, and the accompanying Financial Resolution. Following that, a Government motion on Scotland's engagement in the USA and Canada, along with a Labour amendment, were also nodded through:

That the Parliament recognises the importance of Scotland's relationship with the United States of America and Canada; notes the contribution of the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and all those who were involved in the development of Scotland Week over the last eight years in North America; expresses its gratitude for the significant contribution of the Scottish diaspora in helping to promote Scotland's rich cultural heritage, and encourages the Scottish Government to promote Scotland's cultural diversity in a modern Scotland and to continue to develop a more joined-up approach to the promotion of Scotland in Canada and the United States of America by working in partnership with all relevant organisations in the public and private sector in order to ensure that Scotland derives real social and economic benefits from such activities.

So that was that. Not that anyone cared, in the middle of the Westminster feeding frenzy, a Eurovision song contest that now lasts a week, the opening week of the new Star Trek movie which isn't as horrifying as I initially feared (and neatly sidesteps some of the more pedantic Trek fans' potentially awkward questions) and an SPL title race featuring two Old Firm sides who have displayed a remarkable capacity for wanto self-destruction. Of course, Eurovision is now over and the Star Trek hype will have subsided, but I suspect that political discourse will surround whether or not Michael Martin will still be able to get a chauffeur-driven ride to Celtic's must-win-for-them-though-I'd-rather-they-didn't-but-it'll-hopefully-be-irrelevant-anyway-as-long-as-we-beat-Dundee-United-at-the-same-time match against Hearts on Sunday.

The choices we make

I found myself choking on my Vimto this morning at Dave Thompson MSP's intervention in the Scott Rennie affair:

"I have no problem with people who have different beliefs or a different lifestyle.

"I do believe, however, that once someone declares himself as a Christian that they should comply with the teaching of the Bible and that active homosexuality is incompatible with that teaching."

That sounds suspiciously like Shirley Syndrome to me. Why not just say, "I'm not homophobic, but..." Then we'd at least have the red flag about what was coming.

And we'd be right. Because in this, and in Jeff's post today, it strikes me that by saying Scott Rennie can't preach the Gospel, there is an implicit assumption that being gay is automatically less holy, less Christian. The implication is, therefore, that you can turn it off, and walk a righteous path straight to salvation. The implication in that is that Scott Rennie chose to be gay, and can, therefore, choose not to be gay.

Let me ask a question:

Scott Rennie had a wife and kids, a stable home life and a ministry, to say nothing of bucketloads of respect from his congregation, the wider Kirk and his political party. Why, therefore, would he have chosen to put all that at risk, to ditch his family, shack up with another guy, risking a firestorm of condemnation (which has come his way recently) and a major threat to his career and vocation in the Kirk?

The answer, for me, is that he couldn't have done. No one would choose that. He already was gay. He had been from the moment it was possible for him to be anything at all. But he had surpressed it, until he could no longer do so.

Let me share my own perspective: I've often been asked whether I would take a "cure" for homosexuality if one existed. After bristling at the idea that homosexuality should be an illness, which may require a cure, I answer quickly and firmly in the negative. This is who I am. I would never seek to change that artificially.

But no one up to now has asked if I would choose to be gay, given the choice. And I'm not sure that I would if that was how it worked. I'm from a rough, old-fashioned, ex-mining community, where all the stereotypes are in play. In a village of more or less 6,000 people, I know of only two other gay guys, and no Lesbians. Unless I'm living in the wrong area, the others have opted either to stay in the closet or get out of town. No one came out at my secondary school, nor did anyone who I knew at College, despite there being an LGBT support group. Would I have chosen that isolation for myself, at the age where it all started to matter? Of course not. It wasn't a case of choice. It was a case of adolescent confusions, hormones heading this way and that until I felt that enough was enough and that my brain should re-assert control, assess the evidence, and work out just what my orientation was. The facts all pointed one way - towards homosexuality - and that was that. It wasn't about decision; it was about deduction.

So you'll excuse me if I reject entirely the notion that anyone chooses to be gay.

On that basis, then, that it's not a choice, I ask Christians (and, indeed, any theist reading this) to consider a simple proposition. If I did not choose to be gay, and if Scott Rennie didn't choose to be gay, then that is how we must have been created. If you believe that God created us, then it follows that God made us gay. Why, then, should wishing to preach the Gospel force you to suppress your true self, and deny your God-given nature?

Scott Rennie's viewpoint - and he's the preacher, remember, so he's the one who has to interpret the Bible week in and week out - is that it shouldn't. His current congregation in Brechin clearly believes that it shouldn't. His prospective congregation in Aberdeen have, in the main, taken the view that it shouldn't.

But Dave Thompson has taken the view that he knows and understands Christian teachings better than a minister and two congregations. Perhaps, if he feels so strongly about the Bible, he should quit Parliament to consider a career in the clergy, where he can preach his own line to his heart's content.

The Sunday Whip

An unusual week, this one, primarily as Wednesday's business spilled over onto Thursday, with the result that a kind of not-quite-consensus-but almost broke out on that issue. And things turned somewhat ugly for the Government, with ministers on the wrong end of an unusually hard Parliamentary slapping.

So, firstly, Wednesday saw the nodding through of the Business Motion but nothing further; everything else was left until Thursday, where nine MSPs were absent: Labour's Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale), Trish Godman (Lab, West Renfrewshire), Hugh Henry (Lab, Paisley South), Bill Kidd (SNP, Glasgow), Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians), Irene Oldfather (Lab, Cunninghame South), Cathy Peattie (Lab, Falkirk East), Nicol Stephen (LD, Aberdeen South) and Jim Tolson (LD, Dunfermline West).

The first matter was Stage 1 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill, proceedings for which has begun the previous day. There were amendments to the motion passing the Bill - annotation on the front cover, I suppose - and the first of these, from Labour, was waved through. The second, from the LibDems, fell by 62 (SNP/Tory) votes to 57 (Labour/LD/Green). The motion itself then passed without dissent:

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill and, in so doing, further agrees that unambiguous quantified targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions for the period between 2010 and 2019 are needed so that the current government and governments elected in 2011 and 2015 can be held to account for delivering early action on tackling climate change.

Following that came the Tory motion on School Discipline, which provided a sign of trouble to come for the SNP: their amendment fell by 71 (Lab/Con/LD) to 48 (SNP/Greens); the Labour amendment passed by 89 (SNP/Lab/Green) to 16 (Tories) with 14 LibDem abstentions; the LibDem amendment passed by 78 (everyone but Labour) votes to 41. Parliamentary Business Minister Bruce Crawford (Stirling) missed the vote on the amended motion, and it passed by 102 (everyone but the Tories) to 16:

That the Parliament deplores the rise in the number of exclusions from Scottish schools attributable to weapon attacks by pupils; supports all appropriate measures to uphold the rights of teachers to teach and pupils to learn in a disciplined environment; notes the significant steps made by the previous administration to achieve this including the setting up of the Discipline Task Group, the removal of restrictions on head teachers to exclude pupils if necessary, the use of special units, support for teacher training, reduced class sizes and more classroom assistants; calls on the Scottish Government to address the recent decline in teacher numbers and support staff, including behaviour support staff, and to work in partnership with key stakeholders to put in place a framework for a discipline code in every school incorporating rights and responsibilities for head teachers, teachers, parents and pupils, and further believes that the Scottish Government should engage closely with pupils, staff, the voluntary sector and other partner organisations to improve formal and non-formal learning opportunities for young people to ensure that they are not excluded from education.

Things got ugly for the Government when the Tory motion on Community Courts came around, however. The SNP amendment fell by 73 (everyone else) to 46. The Labour and LibDem amendments, as well as the amended motion then passed by 73 (everyone but the SNP) to 46:

That the Parliament notes with regret the decision of the Scottish Government not to proceed with the establishment of a community court in Glasgow; recognises that community courts based on the New York City model in Midtown can address patterns of offending behaviour by providing for swift and effective summary justice coupled with a range of rehabilitation services to break the cycle of reoffending, notes that the independent business plan in March 2009 anticipated numerous benefits from a community court project, including improved community safety, greater offender accountability and reduced rates of reoffending; believes that the cancellation of the community court project also undermines the Scottish Government's own stated commitment to replace short-term prison sentences with tough and effective community sentences; calls on the Scottish Government to continue to work with the Community Justice Project Board, and further believes that the Scottish Government should reverse its decision and seek to progress plans for a community court in Glasgow.

Finally, the financial resolution for the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill was waved through.

One thing to point out: calls were made following the vote on the Community Courts motion for there to be a statement made to the Chamber on the way forward. Personally, I would echo those calls as it's been some time since the Government found itself so politically isolated in the Chamber on an issue. Indeed, the last time was the off-sales age limits motion in October. Even if the Government doesn't wish to change direction on the issue, it'll be beneficial for all of us to know exactly what the position now is and why. Otherwise, this one will just fester in the background, popping up again when the Government least needs it.

A split in Glasgow Labour?

As Jeff points out today, Steven Purcell's ego is rather getting on everyone's nerves: he's going out of his way to tread on Iain Gray's toes, and is avoiding any discussion of the Glasgow School Closures with Fiona Hyslop, the Education Secretary, deciding that campaigning in the Drumchapel & Anniesland By-Election is more important than the future of education in his city.

But most of all, it's his call for an wage increase for the lowest paid Council workers to a £7 living wage that raised the most eyebrows: here was a leftward tack, the first shot in his bid for the Leadership of Labour in Scotland and a potential tilt at the First Ministership in the future.

Well, I don't think he'll be too chuffed with his City Treasurer, Gordon Matheson. While Purcell is calling for wage increases, Matheson lobbed a hand grenade into proceedings on today's Politics Show by calling for a public sector wage freeze right at the tail end of the programme, arguing that wages make up the bulk of public sector expenditure and the alternative is to cut jobs.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is local government not the public sector?

Does that not, therefore, blow Purcell's campaign out of the water?

Has he just been knifed on live television by one of his colleagues?

The answer to all three questions appears to be yes.

Your Christians are so unlike your Christ

I've been umming and ayeing about this post for ages, and have finally been spurred into action by Caron's post on the campaign against openly gay clergyman Scott Rennie gaining the ministry in Queen's Cross Church, Aberdeen, and LPW's further reflections on the matter.

I shall preface the lot by saying that while I don't consider myself a Christian (I was baptised in the Anglican Church of St Laurence, in Chorley, but was six months old at the time so didn't really have time to reflect - or have much of a say - on the matter). But then, I'm not sure what I am. There's a sort of smugness about humanism that grates with me, plus I find something slightly odd about how a lack of religion, in fact a distrust of religion, is somehow being shaped into... wait for it... a religion. I'm not an atheist as there's a finality that comes with atheism and that doesn't sit well with me either. But I'm not a theist either - the idea that there's one (or several) all-powerful beings looking out for me just unsettles me - and I recoil in horror at most organised religion: I've always thought that morality is too personal a concept to have it dictated to you by an ancient book or a bunch of guys who happen to be at the top of a particular faith's org chart.

Anyway.

It's the Scott Rennie question that I want to talk about. Despite the congregation at Queen's Cross being quite happy with a Rennie ministry, a rather loud group has basically decried his assumption of the post as the end of civilisation as we know it, simply on the grounds that they do not see a gay man as being capable of preaching the Gospel. Frankly, I thought the Gospel was all about love and tolerance so I'd have thought that a gay man was no more or less suitably placed to preach it than anyone else, but these hardliners disagree. I suppose that if you believe Lot's wife really was turned into a pillar of salt, you'd probably reckon that it was all for nothing if a gay man were to join the clergy, but even so, it'll come as no surprise that I suggest that they have misread their Bible. I would argue that they have skimmed through the bits about forgiveness, about loving the sinner regardless of what you think of the sin, about not judging lest ye be judged, and my personal favourite, letting he who is without sin cast the first stone. I would argue that if, in the Gospel they follow, the Christ they claim to worship was willing to forgive (or ask his Father to forgive) his executioners, then they can let slide the fact that their minister is involved in a consensual, mutually-fulfilling relationship with another man.

But then, the hardliners' reaction to homosexuality seems to go beyond logic. Gay couples marrying? No, that's destroying the sanctity of marriage, it would seem. Leaving the Britney Spears precedent aside, it simply doesn't work: divorce is a fact, and permitted in the Church to whihc the complainers belong. Civil marriages are a fact. Is my sister's marriage less valid, because the wedding was held in a hotel and with not a clergyman in sight? Or my cousin's marriage?

This is of course a rhetorical question, and there's a trap lying in wait for any attempt to answer it. If the answer is no, it's just as valid as one held in a Church, then I would ask why the 'sanctity of marriage' only applies when it's a barrier to same-sex marriage. If the answer is yes, then I'd respond with rage, questioning why the my sister's strong relationship with her husband, why the hard work she puts in raising her children, and the love she shows to them - a brilliant young son with tonnes of potential, and an absolute angel of a baby daughter - is somehow undermined simply because they didn't go through certain religious rites.

No, there's a strong strand of Church opinion, that gay marriage and gay adoption (which is beneficial from a purely utilitarian perspective of giving a child a stable, loving home regardless of the genders of those caring for him or her) should not be advanced simply because they don't like it. Yet when anyone objects to any of their practices, they're being bigoted, and attempting to secularise society, leading us into an age of godlessness. And in high places, actions that they disapprove of are simply swept under the carpet, rather than challenged openly. I believe that Scott Rennie would not be in this situation had he climbed the clerical ladder before coming out. In that case, it would simply be hushed up. That's the hypocrisy of the situation.

Nevertheless, there are times when the LGBT community could maybe hold back from fighting various battles. So a Church objects to gay marriage - why would we want to have a relationship blessed by someone who objects to it when it can be truly celebrated by someone else? So a faith-based adoption agency doesn't want a gay couple to adopt - why would we want to co-operate with an organisation that sees us as second class, when there are plenty that see us on our merits? So a bigoted B&B owner won't give us a double room - why would we want to pay money to sleep under a bigot's roof? We may win the vote, we earn the law but we'll never win the argument and we'll never win their respect. There is such a thing as a lost cause, and whether we like it or not, we have to accept that we are just 6% of the population, and that makes us just a little bit 'other' and what's 'normal' to us can never be seen as 'normal' in the eyes of society at large. Viable? Yes. Valid? Yes. Acceptable? Yes. But normal? Forget it. That's why there will always be bigotry, always be mistrust, always be hostility, but we can earn the support of those who will listen to us and support us without screaming in the faces of those who won't.

Which brings me back, in a way, to Scott Rennie. I don't understand why he would even want to do the job he seeks, when members of his own Church despise him so, simply for who he is. It wouldn't be too unreasonable of him to say, "Bollocks to this, I'm going somewhere where I'm welcome". Yet he won't do that. Neither did Bishop Gene Robinson, the Bishop of New Hampshire.

And that's why they have my respect: they have chosen to fight the fight. They have chosen this battle, and it is the right one. This is more than a choice about where to get married, which adoption agency to talk to, which hotel to pick. This is about doing something you feel born to do, and the bigots - these so-called Christians - are standing in Scott Rennie's way. Yet he presses on. I would probably call it a day.

In many ways, Scott Rennie is a walking, talking example of what Christianity is supposed to be about (hence the quote form Gandhi in the heading). Its founders preached forgiveness; sought tolerance; encouraged diversity. Rennie will doubtless forgive his detractors - they will not forgive him. Rennie shows a tolerance they will not. And he's an example of the diversity Christianity celebrated, yet they reject. I put it to them that they are the ones who have perverted the faith, not Scott Rennie's supporters.

Yet whether or not they have reason on their side (and they do not), they will attempt to win by volume.

By simply being himself, however, Scott Rennie is a shining counter-example to us all, of what things could be like. I wish him luck, and hope that a vision of a tolerant Christianity for everyone prevails at the General Assembly.