Whither bloggery?

The political season is all but over, and so the summer provides ample opportunity for bloggers to descend into a period of navel-gazing. This is intensified all the more by the use of this time to prepare the Total Politics Guide to Blogging 2009-10, which will emerge just in time for the resumption of political hostilities and give us all something to think (or take the huff) about at our respective party conferences.

I do recommend the book when it comes out, incidentally. I have the 2007-08 and 2008-09 editions on my shelves and found them to be just the thing for whetting my appetite before the journey to Aviemore and Perth respectively. I look forward to this year's Guide getting me ready for Inverness.

But I digress. Iain Dale has been rounding up bloggers named Stephen, and seeking their input on this year's work. Consequently, Stephen Glenn has been asked to consider the state of the Scottish blogosphere and has posed a few questions for the rest of us. Here, therefore, are the results of the MacNumpty Jury:

What are the greatest successes of the Scottish blogosphere?

Two connected factors are at the heart of this. The first is more abstract: there's a sense of community that seems to transcend partisan boundaries among the main bloggers, a feeling that we're all in this together, and that despite the obvious differences we can learn things from one another, back each other up, and generally make friends to the extent that we comment on each other's Facebook status. That might seem fairly basic (or cheesy) but don't take it for granted. I recall proposals by left-wing bloggers in the Westminster-centric blogosphere that the blogging awards should be boycotted because they are the brainchild of Iain Dale. By contrast, with the exception of Terry Kelly, I've never heard anyone slag off the Scottish Roundup because of the regular editors' political beliefs. We've been accused of sexism once, and I seem to remember that we had a couple of accusations that we're invading someone's privacy (if you're nervous about having your privacy invaded, then why blog?), but the politics of the authors has never been a reason to stay away from, well, anyone's site, least of all the Roundup.

The other factor is, of course, the Roundup itself. Think about it: you have people of all political persuasions and none going through as many blogs and posts as they can (from all sorts of different angles) and picking out the best. You have people from all political persuasions and none reading the suggestions. The result of that collaboration is a nexus of ideas and perspectives, a great starting point for anyone not used to the blogosphere and wanting to explore it. It's the practical achievement of the co-operative spirit we've developed.

What are we, collectively as bloggers, failing to achieve?

Positive impact on political discourse. While some politicians are more tuned into the blogosphere than others, there's a growing problem that others almost spit the word 'blogger', as though it's pejorative. Take the row over Grant's blog, before he opted not to seek the Glasgow NE candidacy; take Kez deciding to lock her blog away for a time; take the brief stushie over some of Anne's posts when she gained her seat at Holyrood; take the regular rows over what Tom Harris posts. Also, don't forget Iain Macwhirter's brief flirtation with bloggery, and the less than consensual way in which he made his entrance to the blogosphere. There's a sense that blogs (and bloggers) are still looked down on when and where it counts: some political figures might be supportive, but the Scottish press and commentariat still pooh-pooh their online cousins, and they're the ones getting read in the papers every day. The assumptions made in the MSM regarding bloggers are mostly negative but it's up to us to do what we can to challenge those assumptions and prove that we're just as good, if not better.

Which is why, I suspect, there's been no Scottish Iain Dale figure (even though there is an Iain Dale) who has managed to use a blog as a springboard to something with a wider audience. As yet, no Scottish blogger has successfully made the journey either from or to the mainstream (though, again, at the political level, we have a handful of blogging MPs, MSPs and PPCs, which can only be a good thing).

How is the Scottish Blogosphere served by the Labour, SNP, Conservative, Lib Dems, Greens and other parties?

The SNP makes up the largest chunk of the Scottish political Blogosphere but even I have to admit that there's a chunk of the SNP Blogosphere which I side-step because a) it's broadly the same slice of people who stay up till 2 so they can be the first to rant on scotsman.com and b) as such, it's all a little bit same-y (all right, you don't like the UK Government or the UK-based political parties, we've established that, now is there anything else you'd like to add?). But like all communities, it's natural that there should be some split. Many blogs (too many to name) are must-reads, while some are more suitable for fellow travellers, or Unionists looking to either be offended or pick a fight.

Conversely, Labour and the LibDems are served by a small (but well-established) group of bloggers. Labour has Yousuf, Kez and Tom Harris (sadly, it also has Terry Kelly), while the LibDem and Scottish blogospheres would undoubtedly be weaker without Caron and Stephen. Willie Rennie's also building up his online presence.

However, the paucity of Tory and Green blogs is a problem. We have STB and James, both of whom are worth the read, but who stand in something of a desert. Yes, they offer us the Tory and Green viewpoint respectively, but let's be honest: for the blogosphere to really work, we don't want "the Tory viewpoint" or "the Green viewpoint". We need "Tory viewpoints" and "Green viewpoints"

How helpful is blogging as a campaigning tool (are there examples of it making a real impact)?

People are still coming to terms with the advantages of a blog. There was an upturn in blogging candidates in the run-up to the 2007 election but many of them tailed off afterwards. Frankly, at the moment, political opponents find blogs more useful - hence the rough ride Grant got when he wasn't even the official By-Election candidate. Further, a lot of what's out there, when it's out there, is pretty anodyne. Both Brian Adam and Cathy Peattie have what might be loosely termed a blog, but when you read them, you realise that they're basically a library of press releases - nothing worth following closely unless you write for the local paper.

By contrast, Anne (the blogger who became an MSP rather than the other way around) gets it, with a good mix of the political and the personal (with actual first-person narrative). Julie Hepburn (the SNP PPC in Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) combines a campaign diary with her take on the wider political issues. Julie McAnulty uses her blog effectively to highlight her NHS and PFI-based campaigns for Holyrood and North Lanarkshire Council, as well as key health issues before and after election time. While at Council level, there are loads of examples of local representatives highlighting local issues (and often giving you an idea of what makes them tick politically), all of which are invaluable to constituents (and rounder-uppers).

What do you think the next year holds in store for the Scottish blogosphere?

It's not going to be easy. It'll grow again, as candidates look to new means of publicising their campaigns, but contract very rapidly between mid-May and early June next year, only to pick up again around next autumn as Holyrood candidate lists are finished off. The partisan rhetoric will be dialled up and there's always the chance of a row spilling over into the papers (which I think is far likelier than a blog-based scoop making the headlines).

However, the Scottish political blogosphere will be overshadowed on two sides: by the rows between the differing members of the full-time political establishment, and by the inevitable confrontation between left and right in the Westminster-centric blogosphere. Next year's version of Staines/Draper will come just in time for the General Election and will completely swamp everything else online.

I do not envisage a thousand virtual flowers blooming, in the way the Obama campaign generated so much online interest last year. Rather, I see blogs being used as attack points and our collective reputation will, rightly or wrongly, take a more severe pounding than last year.

Despite that, the potential long-term gains are there. Those that survive the storm with their reputations intact will be more credible than ever before. They will have seen off, and perhaps even disproven the MSM critiques. 2009-10 and the Westminster election will be ugly, but those who get through it unscathed will be in one hell of a position for 2010-11 and the Holyrood election. Those bloggers will have more weight having stayed above the fray and will be in a better position to get that scoop or make that crossover twelve months down the line.

Next year will be rough. There will be rows. There will be damning editorials in the papers. The environment will be more hostile but the task will be simpler: keep going. If we can do that, we'll be in a position to do far better the following year.

The Premise of the Question

According to the BBC, Alistair Darling believes that Labour "can and will win" the next election.

However, he did slip up ever so slightly. And I'm not talking about the trial separation that he and reality appear to have begun.

Andrew Marr asked him: "Even under Gordon Brown?"

Darling replied, "Yes, absolutely."

Now, let's take a look at that sentence. Let's take a look at the word "even".

There's an incredulity about the word "even". It either means that something took place (or will take place) under unlikely circumstances, or that far more has happened (or will happen) than previously assumed. "Even" conveys a sense of surpassed expectations. What Marr was implying, therefore, is that Brown makes victory less likely, that he makes it harder for Labour to win.

And Darling walked right into that.

If he'd said "especially under Gordon Brown", there would have been no problem. Well, there would, as it would have meant that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had voiced an intention to stand in the constituency of Planet Zog North at the next election, but he wouldn't have accepted the underlying premise of Marr's question: that Brown is a millstone around Labour's neck, that he lowers the expectations of a Labour win next year.

But Darling didn't pick up on that.

Oh, dear.

It's Like She Never Existed

Richard Baker, on David Kerr's membership of Opus Dei:

“There has been a lot of coverage about Opus Dei . . . and I’m sure it will be a cause for people to have questions about Mr Kerr’s views.”

Now, it should be fairly obvious to most readers that I'm not exactly rushing to sign up to Opus Dei myself - and I don't suppose that they'll be crying into their pillows when they learn that. They're just not my type of group and I'm just not their type of member.

All the same, there are lots of organisations out there which don't get the same coverage Opus Dei does, and won't unless and until Dan Brown writes a book about them. The Speculative Society - whose members are said to have included Alec Douglas-Home, James Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Fraser, Nicholas Fairbairn (interesting that their party colleague Murdo Fraser should also rail against secretive societies: were they all poor representatives in his eyes, or are the Specs somehow less bad than Opus Dei?) - springs to mind.

But anyway, back to Labour and Opus Dei. It's a brave stance (and, incidentally, one that is not shared by the candidate, Willie Bain) that Richard Baker has taken against the group.

I mean, it's not like Labour have had any Opus Dei MPs, and certainly no members of the Cabinet from the group, is it?

Is it?

Ummm...

Oh, shiiiiiiiiiit...



Remember her, Dickie Boy? The name Ruth Kelly ring any bells for you? You know, Transport Secretary, and before that Communities Secretary? And Opus Dei member? Hey, if Opus Dei is as bad as Richard Baker thinks, then at least we didn't put any member of the group in charge of, you know, Government equality policy...

So, Dick, was she so insignificant that you've forgotten her, or are you just trying to force feed the voters yet another great big steaming bowl of hypocrisy?

That Was The Week That Was

This has not been a good week for the mainstream political parties.

On the one hand, the SNP finally have a candidate for Glasgow North East - and a fairly sharp one at that. Sadly, it's been a tougher road than we might have expected: the presumptive candidate didn't apply, the initial candidate withdrew, and so David Kerr, having already made an attempt to secure the selection, will now be on the ballot paper. Now, having a candidate is a good thing, and having a smart candidate like David Kerr is even better, but we're now at the stage of the press raking through everything that David Kerr has ever said or done. Frankly, I'm expecting headlines such as "Kerr put worm in Sarah Wallace's hair in Primary 1" next week. Interestingly, Willie Bain - Kerr's Labour countrerpart - appears to have received very little scrutiny and precious few column inches. On the one hand, he may not have to put up with tabloid muck-raking for the next few weeks. On the other hand, he's not getting any mention in the press at all. At least people will be able to match the phrases "David Kerr" and "SNP By-Election Candidate". Still, with the way the press seem to be operating this week, you can see why Grant felt it wasn't a good idea to put himself forward for nomination, and why James Dornan felt it necessary to stand down.

So the SNP can move forward from the frustrating events of the last couple of weeks. David Kerr will have to handle more journalistic egg-throwing, but 1) his name is in the papers while Willie Bain's isn't, and 2) I get the feeling that he'll withstand it, and dish it back out if need be...

For Labour, Gordon Brown has had to cope with the ghosts of Cabinets past. He's had former ministers complaining about the laddishness of his approach (here's something to think about: if a hypothetical male former minister said that an equally hypothetical female PM was 'girly', all hell would break loose, but hey, gender-based stereotyping and labels are perfectly acceptable if you're discussing men, it seems). Jacqui Smith told Iain Dale that she wanted to resign just before the G20 but was told not to (she also lamented not getting training). James Purnell's been telling the papers that he lost faith in Gordon Brown last December (that late?). Lastly, John Hutton has complained that the likely election campaign message is too crude, that while he - of course! - recognises Brown's many talents, the country as a whole doesn't, and has now jumped on the Afghanistan bandwagon (while eliding the obvious point that having been Defence Secretary until last month, it was his job to get the troops the equipment they need).

Now, this may seem like a bunch of has-beens mouthing off. Jacqui Smith complains about training - why couldn't she learn on the job like everyone else? James Purnell moans that he lost faith in the PM about a year after everyone else did but six months earlier than when he actually quit. If it was that bad, why didn't he have the cojones to go at Christmas? And John Hutton's "I'm not being funny, right, buuuut..." approach to criticising Brown is pretty shabby as well, particularly when, on the Afghan situation, he had a chance to make a difference and do the things he's now talking about, but didn't. In short, under normal circumstances, you'd expect Brown to brush this off. Blair would have. But Brown isn't Blair. This is how the Summer is going to go: more people coming out of the woodwork slagging the PM off, and just like last year, it'll be down to Sarah Brown to bail him out at Conference...

For the Tories, their European project has started badly: Edward McMillan-Scott MEP broke ranks with the rest of the party to stand for a Vice-President's post in the European Parliament, defeating official candidate Michal Kaminski of the Polish Law and Justice Party (part of the Tories' new ECR Group) in the process. By way of compensation, Kaminski has been appointed Leader of the Group, and now the press are going through his previous pronouncements as well - use of homophobic language, and today, accusations of anti-Semitism. When the Tories are trying to look human, they don't need this.

On the other hand, it is, after all the European Parliament and few people care about the niceties of European group formations, or, for that matter, the European dimension. Who refused to vote Tory because they were quitting the (then) EPP-ED Group? Did anyone in the UK vote (or not vote) Green because of Daniel Cohn-Bendit, for example? Have many people in the UK heard of Martin Schulz? I doubt it. So the story will pass, and the fact that today's allegations were deep in the middle of the paper suggest that they'll have limited impact. Kaminski will occasionally be used (by Labour) for egg-throwing purposes. Besides, out of 45 million eligible voters, barely a third bothered to show up for the Euro Elections. And if Kaminski is a vote loser, then the Tories only have 4,198,394 votes to lose in European terms. And most of them probably agree with Kaminski anyway...

Finally, the LibDems. They made a good point on the lack of support being offered to frontline troops in Afghanistan. The problem is, the point was too good, and Third Party Syndrome kicked in. Now everyone wants more helicopters for the troops but no one remembers who suggested it, just as on the Gurkhas, the LibDems were the ones whose motion won a parliamentary vote, but Joanna Lumley took the credit for the eventual success. This is a problem: when the have a bad idea, they get the piss ripped out of them in ways that doesn't happen to the others. When the have a good one, everyone else nicks it and no one remembers who thought of it in the first place. At least, for the others, the problems are (relatively) transient. For the LibDems, they're pretty much existential. It'll take PR for the LibDems to be considered seriously, but it's only the LibDems who are proposing PR, and not Labour or the Tories...

Get Your Calculators Out

£14,100: The cost to the taxpayer of legal advice sought by SNP and Plaid MPs on the possibility of an impeachment process - a procedure not used since 1848 - against Tony Blair, on the grounds that his case for dragging the UK into the Iraq War was predicated on weapons of mass destruction which Saddam Hussein did not have. In so doing, Blair misled Parliament, the people and the international community, and supported action which has killed more than four and a half thousand Coalition troops (to say nothing of the resources diverted from Afghanistan), killed up to ten thousand Iraqi soldiers up to the fall of Saddam, and has been responsible for perhaps one hundred thousand civilian deaths. Imagine, if you can, that the entire population of South Ayrshire were wiped out over the course of six years: that's roughly what has happened in Iraq, yet Blair, whose case for the actions that have caused those deaths was based on a fabrication, has never been directly called to account for his part in it, and for the UK involvement which he sought.

Yet Lord Foulkes has reported Alex Salmond - only one of nine MPs to pick up the costs on their expense accounts - to the Standards Commissioner because, and I quote, "I think it's quite wrong for public money to be used for a party political campaign."

£120,000: The estimated cost to the taxpayer incurred by Lord Foulkes asking such questions as:

To ask the Scottish Executive what official engagements the First Minister has planned for July and August 2009 and whether an estimate has been made of catering costs.

To ask the Scottish Executive when it booked the venue for the National Conversation event that was held in Livingston on 16 June 2009.

To ask the Scottish Executive what use has been made of hire cars for ministers’ travel since May 2007; what companies have been used, and what the total cost has been.

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has subscriptions for (a) Sky and (b) Setanta TV output and, if so, how many and at what locations these services are provided.

To ask the Scottish Executive whether the First Minister has travelled by train to or from any official engagements since August 2008.

And so on.

So let's recap: nine MPs spend £14,100 on attempting to hold Tony Blair to account for a lie which has cost the lives of more than a hundred thousand people, and Lord Foulkes objects to one of those nine putting the bill on his expense account.

But Lord Foulkes himself has cost the taxpayer £120,000 (that's more than a pound for every death caused by the Iraq War and the occupation) to ask whether the Scottish Government subscribed to Setanta (they didn't, by the way).

Some Parliamentarian!

Blogging off

Right, that's me. It's the Summer recess, I've done what I need to for now, and frankly, it's time for a break. I'm off on my holidays for a week and no, the computer isn't coming with me.

My next brush with bloggery will be the Scottish Roundup on the 12th, so as I say there, until then, Bye-de-bye!

"A Useful Fiction" by Patrick Hannan

This is the first time I've put a book review online, but hopefully, it won't be the last: I've spent the last few days reading "A Useful Fiction: Adventures in British Democracy", by Patrick Hannan.

There are a few things that strike me: firstly, this is a book for moderates. Hardline Unionists may will feel vindicated by his calling into question what has been understood as "British-ness", but on closer inspection, might be unsettled by some of the twists and turns he takes. Conversely, fundamentalists might be equally vindicated by his questioning of British-ness, but will be disappointed that the book keeps returning to the theme, as though Hannan currently takes it as a given.

Another key point is that I suspect a second edition won't be far behind: Hannan's subject matter - essentially the outlook of the nations of the UK and their interaction with each other - is one that has been in flux for some time, and many recent events are referred to. Indeed, with the Calman Commission referred to, but with the book clearly having gone to press before the report, there'll already be scope for an update.

I suppose you could say that Hannan is reluctant to take a clear line himself: you'd expect that from a BBC journalist. You'd also expect to see (or at least, believe that you see) clear hints of what the author actually thinks. He's a closet Unionist, a closet Nationalist, a closet Socialist, a closet Thatcherite. Any or all of these could end up levelled at him.

One other thing that hit me was that he doesn't seem to like many people: he seems to have little time for Prince Charles, the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph or the Murdoch press. He seems a little more sympathetic to Peter Hain though, with almost a whole chapter becoming a reflection on the man's political history.

Anyway, there's a Bryson-esque quality to the work: firstly, there's the occasional tangential account of personal history or memories, which evokes Bill Bryson's style. Secondly, readers of "The Lost Continent" will recall Bryson's search for Amalgam, the archetypal all-American small town, that Bryson goes in search of, then realises that he will find in pieces, with elements of it scattered in towns across the country. His constant return to Amalgam came into my mind when looking at Hannan's attempts to return to the main theme of the book, the idea of British-ness.

Nevertheless, the more flag-waving end of the Unionist spectrum won't be happy. Firstly, he asserts the idea that overt patriotism is, in a way, un-British and so the Gordon Brown zeal for stronger displays of a UK identity falls flat. Certainly, his descriptions not of Northern Ireland, but of the mainland's reaction to NI, back that idea up: he suggests that people on the British mainland can't relate to their displays of political allegiance.

Meanwhile, there are a few suggestions that might raise eyebrows. Certainly his view and reaction to England, particularly in the current political landscape, has echoes of the imagery put out by Jim Sillars in "The Case for Optimism": both see England as a massively large component of the Union (let's face it, it is) and take the view that more often than not, the smaller nation have to react to England. Sillars had Titanic England; Hannan has a Whale in the Bathtub.

There's also a frustration that "Britain" gets conflated with "England", the "Home Counties" or "London", and his discussion of the media (a brave topic for a BBC journalist, and though Auntie gets a ticking off, some might suggest that it got off quite lightly) certainly displays a level of frustration at the London-centricity of the press, at the expense of local journalism elsewhere.

And, more damning for the Unionist cause, he takes a look at some of the traditional pillars of Britishness - things like the class system, religion and sport - and questions their impact on national identity. Or at least, their support for Britishness.

Further, what begins as a repeat of the regular refrain that the banking crisis has killed off independence for now takes a different path as Hannan understands that the misfortunes of RBS and HBOS are just one piece of the puzzle, and his comments on the Republic of Ireland and the Celtic Tiger are at once a dismissal and an endorsement of the Irish model of independence.

However, nationalists might be unsettled at his suggestion that calling British-ness into question isn't the same as calling the Union into question.

I was surprised by the almost Beadle-esque approach to where England and the metropolitan classes fit into things. You know the scene, in Beadle's About, where some poor, unsuspecting punter turns up at an office, and we hear the voice of the late Jeremy Beadle, letting us in on a secret: "What Sue doesn't know is that we've connected her desk to the National Grid..." You can almost see that style creeping in: "What John Birt doesn't know is that opposing a Scottish Six makes one of the nationalists' points for them..." I'm paraphrasing, of course, but there are times where it feels like Hannan is letting us all in on a few secrets involving the path to devolution.

In many ways, that's the mark of a good communicator: we're drawn into his world, as he shares his secrets with us. Comparing Hannan to the late Jeremy Beadle may seem unorthodox, but let's not forget that Beadle was a massive draw at one time and once got a hefty audience share, boosting ITV's viewing figures during the all-important Saturday prime-time slot. The pranks were cruel, but we got to share in the gag.

There are the occasional frustrations, however. Obviously, the subject is a fast-moving one, and so Hannan is always going to be difficult to pin down. As such, there are very few conclusions reached: he argues that the natures of Britain and Britishness have been changed for good, and that the change will continue. But he does not possess a crystal ball, so can't say where we're going. He constantly refers to where England and the English fit into things, but again, he offers no projection or direction for England's relationship with her neighbours.

For me, however, there is one key frustration: Hannan asserts that while devolution represented a massive change in the way the nations think of themselves and each other, it was part of a process that stretches back to 1973 and the entry into the Common Market. He keeps referencing that, and discussing Europe in passing (in particular reactions to Europe in the various UK nations), but it would have been interesting to see more on how that was the case. He could have expanded on that very easily and it would have given us even more food for thought. Instead, we have a whisper, an echo of an idea. I would have preferred it, had this been firmed up.

So all in all, it's worth a read: Unionists will feel comforted as he takes us on a journey through the British state and psyche; Nationalists will be fascinated as he scrutinises some of the key landmarks along the way. My warning is this: if you are going to read it, do it quickly, before half of this work ends up out-of-date.

The Summer Whip

Well, it's time for MSPs to go on their hollybobs (though many went early and missed Her Maj - orf with their heads, and so forth), so it's time to look at who was taking a mid-term inset day as well.

The Top 5 is as follows: Trish Godman finds herself MIA for a total of 42 votes, making her the most absent MSP. However, about a third of them were occasions where her fellow DPO Alasdair Morgan was in the chair, and it may have been considered bad form to vote. Even so, taking that into account, she'd still be in the Top 5. Second is John Farquhar Munro, with 41, while third is Margo MacDonald, who let's face it, can pretty much come and go as she pleases. Fourth is Irene Oldfather, while fifth is Des McNulty. Only Margo was in the last collection.

SNP

The SNP get the attendance award, with a rate of 97.12%, up on last time. The absences are:

18 Michael Russell
12 Nicola Sturgeon
11 Alex Neil
9 Bill Kidd
Shona Robison
7 Alasdair Morgan
6 Roseanna Cunningham
Nigel Don
Richard Lochhead
Dave Thompson
5 Anne McLaughlin
Alex Salmond
4 Keith Brown
2 Jamie Hepburn
1 Bruce Crawford
Christina McKelvie

The cohesion rate has dropped slightly however, and the lost of the top spot in that department will be a cause of some unease to Whips. Alasdair Allan, Angela Constance, Joe FitzPatrick, Kenneth Gibson, Sandra White and Bill Wilson have all rebelled once.

Labour

Labour's attendance rate has increased slightly to 90.2%, while their attendance ranking has gone from fifth to third. it's still pretty weak reading, but progress is progress. Barring Trish Godman, Irene Oldfather and Des McNulty, here are the other absentees:

19 John Park
16 Elaine Smith
15 Marilyn Livingstone
Elaine Murray
14 Karen Gillon
Cathy Peattie
Richard Simpson
13 Margaret Curran
12 Cathy Jamieson
11 Wendy Alexander
Tom McCabe
Jack McConnell
9 Hugh Henry
8 Claire Baker
Duncan McNeil
7 Rhona Brankin
6 Sarah Boyack
Helen Eadie
Iain Gray
Andy Kerr
Ken Macintosh
Pauline McNeill
5 George Foulkes
Lewis Macdonald
Frank McAveety
4 Karen Whitefield
2 Patricia Ferguson
Peter Peacock
1 Malcolm Chisholm
Rhoda Grant
Paul Martin
Mary Mulligan

Cohesion has also improved slightly to 99.79%: Malcolm Chisholm, Patricia Ferguson, Charlie Gordon, Andy Kerr, Paul Martin, Jack McConnell and David Whitton are the rebels.

Conservatives

The Tory attendance rate has gone down to 95.7%, giving them second place. The absentees were:

14 Jackson Carlaw
11 Annabel Goldie
8 Nanette Milne
6 Alex Johnstone
5 David McLetchie
4 Jamie McGrigor
3 Margaret Mitchell
2 Ted Brocklebank
1 Murdo Fraser
John Lamont

And they are the most cohesive group with a rate of 99.92% with only Margaret Mitchell breaking with the party line on a single occasion.

LibDems

The LibDem's 90.08% attendance rate puts them in fourth place and is a hefty drop compared with last time. Leaving JFM aside, here are the missing members:

19 Tavish Scott
Nicol Stephen
11 Jamie Stone
10 Mike Rumbles
9 Jim Tolson
8 Liam McArthur
4 Mike Pringle
3 Margaret Smith
2 Jim Hume
1 Ross Finnie

Their cohesion rate is also the lowest of the Big 4, though with only 16 MSPs, it's far more vulnerable to small-scale rebellions/lapses in concentration. All the same, it's still managed to go up to 99.65%, and only four MSPs have voted the 'wrong' way: John Farquhar Munro, Hugh O'Donnell, Nicol Stephen and Jim Tolson.

Greens and Margo

The Greens' attendance rate has fallen very heavily to 87.5%. If memory serves, Patrick Harvie chose the wrong week to be ill and missed 18 votes. Robin Harper missed two, though the Greens aren't victim to any splits.

Neither is Margo, though as she only has one vote, we wouldn't be aware of it if she did. Having said that, her attendance rate is only 51.25%, so she isn't using that one vote very often...