Introducing the Scotblogs

As you've probably heard by now, the Scotblogs Awards have been launched, giving us a chance to celebrate some of the good stuff that's out in the Scottish blogosphere, as well as find new things we've not yet discovered.

Right now, the panel is awaiting nominations (as well as ideas for categories), and self-nominations are actively encouraged... so don't just sit there waiting for someone to spot you, get your details in so we can take a look!

So to nominate a blog, just e-mail scottishroundup+awards@gmail.com before 1800 hours on Wednesday 13 January.

After that, there's be a readers' vote along with a panel decision to select the winners, running from Thursday 14 to Wednesday 27 January.

So get your ideas in - we'd love to know what you think!

The Hypocrisy Vortex

Andrew is peeved at the criticism made by the SNP to the four MSPs who are seeking mandates at Westminster next year, given that Alex Salmond still possesses a dual mandate.

Now, one could argue - and Bill Kidd does - that it was clear to all and sundry when Alex Salmond sought re-election to Westminster that he would be seeking to return to the Scottish Parliament. The voters of Banff & Buchan still re-elected him, and the voters of Gordon elected him to the Scottish Parliament despite LibDem howls of protest that he'd be representing two different areas (which, in reality, overlap). Conversely, the voters of Glasgow Baillieston, Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley and Roxburgh & Berwickshire were not given such clear intentions from Margaret Curran, Cathy Jamieson and John Lamont. I think we could have guessed that Alex Johnstone would try again for Westminster, and in any case, he hasn't actually won any constituency election. Ever.

And Andrew flags up the Kelly Review, citing the abolition of the dual mandate, but still overlooks that it would not take effect until 2011, by which time Alex Salmond's mandate at Westminster would have expired.

Nevertheless, sometimes, things aren't about what they are, but what they look like, and this doesn't look good. Perhaps Bill Kidd might, in retrospect, view that declaration as a bad idea: it's an open goal to opponents.

But wait! What's this, lurking in the mists of time, amid those LibDem howls of protest back in 2007? This is what I had to say back then:

In actual fact, the first parliamentarian to [represent two different set of constituents] was Donald Gorrie, who was MP for Edinburgh West when he was elected as an MSP for the Central Scotland Region (which does not contain Edinburgh West) in 1999. Gorrie did not stand down from Westminster until 2001.

I do not recall the LibDems complaining (at least in public) that Gorrie would be either a part-time MP for Edinburgh West or a part-time MSP for Central Scotland.

Oh dear! It may well be that the LibDems consider that they have exposed hypocrisy, but in so doing, they themselves are being hypocritical about hypocrisy, having committed it themselves when Alex Salmond sought election in Gordon. Little wonder that they are in danger of entering the Hypocrisy Vortex.

Merry Christmas

Well, the festive shutdown is now upon us - I'll be in a position to blog should there be a reason but, frankly, I'm hoping that I have no such reason. I'd prefer to be left to eat ridiculous amounts, and head to the Wigan game on Saturday, unless the car park at the DW Stadium is still a death trap.

Here's hoping that everyone of you has a decent week off, a good rest and plenty to enjoy, the better to come back revved up and raring to go for the challenges of the year and decade to come.

May your team win... unless it's Blackburn!

The Telly Box

It would remiss of me to enter the festive season without a few words on the Leaders' Debates. So here they are.

My personal view is that whoever is invited, they will generate far more heat than light, little of consequence will emerge from them, and unless David Cameron uses his allotted speaking time to disembowel a kitten, they won't serve to change anyone's opinion: rather, they will serve to bolster opinions already held, and everyone who has a stake in proceedings will claim that their guy has won.

However, the fact is that they are a reality. Or will be, at least.

So then, the questions are, should the SNP be there, and who should represent it?

To the first question, my answer is that in some form, yes it should. The idea of tacking some form of interview with a representative on at the end of the programme sounds pretty dreadful. One, everyone will have switched off by then (so what's the point?), and two, the whole point of having a debate rather than a set of interviews is that the participants can engage with each other. Chatting to Alex Salmond or anyone else about the issues raised after Brown, Cameron and Clegg have left the building is of no use to anyone.

And for me, the reasons are as follows:

Firstly, whatever the main UK parties may sniff about the SNP, it is relevant at the very least to Scottish voters, who will have an SNP option on the ballot paper. Indeed, more people exercised that option than the Tory one at the last General Election in Scotland, yet David Cameron's place is a given. They are no less viable as Parliamentary representatives than any other candidates. And, at the end of the day, that is who we're electing despite the Presidential nature of this debate. Accordingly, to dismiss a key political player in one part of the Union as irrelevant is complacent and insulting. If you take the few that this event is valuable to voters, then Scottish voters deserve to get the full value, and see the full choice available to them.

Secondly, it's useful even for non-Scottish voters, whatever the outcome of the election. Even if the SNP simply stood still at this Election, and even if David Cameron were returned to office with a healthy majority, it's still Parliament and MPs who call the shots. Therefore, SNP MPs could still have a stake in that. After all, Blair's 2001 majority was reduced to just 25 on Foundation Hospitals, and just five on Top-Up Fees. And the moderately-sized majority won in the 2005 Election was wiped out over terror detention, where in the end, Northern Ireland's DUP had a 'casting vote'. And there was Major's reliance on the UUP at the fag-end of his Premiership, to say nothing of Callaghan's government falling on the basis of an Independent Northern Irish MP opting to go home rather than vote to support the administration. What that means is that it surely isn't inconceivable that the SNP could find themselves in a position to tip the balance (particularly with the outcome of the next election becoming less certain rather than more) and as such, the people of the entire UK have a right to know how the SNP will affect them. If you believe that these debates will be informative, then the public of the entire Union has a right to be informed as to the SNP's intentions. What better place than the main showpiece?

Then there's the idea that to invite the SNP is to be forced to invite the Greens, UKIP and even the BNP. Not necessarily, because there's one key criterion which the SNP meets that the others do not: they are a Parliamentary reality, with MPs already in place. The others don't have that and the system is stacked against that happening. If Nick Clegg's place is a given, when the best he can probably hope for is to be Kingmaker, then the idea that they of all people can show contempt to other Parliamentary supporting acts and demand that they have no place in any debate is utterly hypocritical.

Finally, who should represent the SNP? Simple: Alex Salmond. And here's why: the other parties are complaining that Alex Salmond isn't a candidate in this election. That's true: his name will not be on any ballot paper in a General Election. But Gordon Brown's name will only appear on ballot papers in the Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath constituency; David Cameron's name will only be on papers in Witney; and people will only be able to vote for Nick Clegg in Sheffield Hallam. In the remaining constituencies, voters will have to make do with their chosen party's candidate.

So why, then, are Brown, Cameron and Clegg the players in this debate? It's simple: in the upcoming election, candidates will be nominated by the parties to stand on their manifesto, and Brown, Cameron and Clegg are the Leaders of their respective parties. SNP candidates will have been nominated by SNP members to stand on the SNP Manifesto, and Alex Salmond is the SNP Leader. That no one will be able to vote for him is irrelevant: hardly anyone will be able to vote for the other three, and where they do, they'll only be able to vote for one of them and that will be to decide whether they should be their local MP - not necessarily Prime Minister!

So if we're going to have a debate, then the SNP should have a part to play in it: they will, after all, have a part to play in the Election and a part to play in the Commons after it has taken place. And as the democratically-elected Leader of the SNP, it is Alex Salmond's right to play that part.

The Christmas Whip

Having rolled to the end of term with a surprisingly bland set of votes (i.e. no votes at all), despite a rather acidic FMQs, the festive recess is now upon us (by the way, if any children are reading, it's now five sleeps until Christmas, so sit down, shut up and be good or Father Christmas will bring you nothing more than a roll of woodchip wallpaper and a tub of Polyfilla).

So with that, it's time to take a look at who's getting coal from the Whips for Crimbo.

As always, we begin with the Top 5 absentees. Hugh O'Donnell (LD, Central Scotland) missed 33 votes out of 54 and so is the most absent MSP; Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothian) missed 27 and is the only regular fixture in the Top 5; Shadow Housing Secretary Cathy Jamieson (Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley) missed 23 votes (not a good advertisement for her bid for the Kilmarnock & Loudoun candidacy); Shadow Finance Minister David Whitton (Strathkelvin & Bearsden) missed twenty; while Marilyn Livingstone (Lab, Kirkcaldy) missed 19.

SNP

The report card is a good one for the SNP: an attendance rate of 95% - second only to the Greens. Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) missed the most votes - 18 - which is understandable given that he was on paternity leave for a spell. Bob Doris (Glasgow), Joe FitzPatrick (Dundee West), Michael Matheson (Falkirk West) and Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow) all missed eleven.

Stuart McMillan (West of Scotland) missed ten votes, while Bill Kidd (Glasgow) missed seven and Maureen Watt (North East Scotland) missed six.

Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead (Moray) and Shirley-Anne Somerville (Lothian) both missed four votes, while Willie Coffey (Kilmarnock & Loudoun), Angela Constance (Livingston), Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North), Stewart Maxwell (West of Scotland) and Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson (Banff & Buchan) all missed three. Nigel Don (North East Scotland), Culture Minister Fiona Hyslop (Lothian), FM Alex Salmond (who, as we know is the MSP for Gordon) and DFM Nicola Sturgeon (Glasgow Govan) all missed two votes.

A small handful missed only one vote: Alasdair Allan (Western Isles), Aileen Campbell (Clydesdale), Christopher Harvie (Mid Scotland & Fife), Tricia Marwick (Central Fife), Gil Paterson (West of Scotland), Public Health Minister Shona Robison (Dundee East), Education Secretary Michael Russell (South of Scotland), Finance Secretary John Swinney (North Tayside), Andrew Welsh (Angus), Sandra White (Glasgow) and John Wilson (Central Scotland).

There have been no rebellions on the SNP side, making them the most cohesive of the Big 4 parties.

Labour

Labour's report card is far weaker, with the party falling to fourth and the attendance rate falling to 86.76%. And at this point it might be wise to flag up Shadow Justice Secretary Richard Baker (North East Scotland) and Shadow Community Safety Minister James Kelly (Glasgow Rutherglen), who bear the slightly sad honour of being the only Labour MSPs to make every vote since MSPs returned from the Summer recess. Oh dear.

Anyway, besides Cathy Jamieson, David Whitton and Marilyn Livingstone, the absences are as follows:

Hugh Henry (Paisley South) missed 17 votes, while Cathie Craigie (Cumbernauld & Kilsyth) missed 16. Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow Maryhill) and Shadow Finance Secretary Andy Kerr (East Kilbride) both missed 14.

Shadow Further & Higher Education Secretary Claire Baker (Mid Scotland & Fife), Margaret Curran (Glasgow Baillieston), Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) and Tom McCabe all missed thirteen votes. Wendy Alexander (Paisley North) and Shadow Local Government Secretary Michael McMahon (Hamilton North & Bellshill) missed twelve. Duncan McNeil (Greenock & Inverclyde) and Elaine Smith (Coatbridge & Chryston) missed eleven.

Shadow Culture Secretary Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) and Shadow Climate Change Minister Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East) missed ten votes; Marlyn Glen (North East Scotland), Deputy Leader Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok) and Shadow Children's Minister Karen Whitefield (Airdrie & Shotts) missed nine. Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh North & Leith), Helen Eadie (Dunfermline East), Shadow Transport Minister Charlie Gordon (Glasgow Cathcart) and Shadow Enterprise Minister Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central) missed eight.

Irene Oldfather (Cunninghame South) missed seven votes, Shadow Schools Minister Ken Macintosh (Eastwood) missed six and Shadow Public Health Minister Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland & Fife) missed five.

Rhona Brankin (Midlothian) and Peter Peacock (Highlands & Islands) missed four votes; Bill Butler (Glasgow Anniesland), Jack McConnell (Motherwell & Wishaw) and Shadow Housing Minister Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow) all missed three. Shadow Health Secretary Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) and George Foulkes (Lothian) missed two.

The following MSPs missed one vote: Shadow Rural Affairs Secretary Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central), Trish Godman (West Renfrewshire), Rhoda Grant (Highlands & Islands), Leader Iain Gray (East Lothian), Business Manager Paul Martin (Glasgow Springburn), Shadow Sport Minister Frank McAveety (Glasgow Shettleston), Shadow Education Secretary Des McNulty (Clydebank & Milngavie), Shadow Environment Minister Elaine Murray (Dumfries), Shadow Cabinet Secretary without Portfolio John Park (Mid Scotland & Fife) and David Stewart (Highlands & Islands).

Cohesion has dropped slightly to 99.54%: Malcolm Chisholm is the most rebellious MSP, having broken with the Group four times - all on Lockerbie. Next comes Elaine Smith, who rebelled twice on teacher numbers. Patricia Ferguson, John Park, Cathy Peattie and Richard Simpson have all rebelled once.

Conservatives

Attendance is down again to 94.44%, putting them in third place. Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) missed thirteen votes); Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) missed seven; Elizabeth Smith (Mid Scotland & Fife) missed six. Finance Spokesman Derek Brownlee (South of Scotland) and Nanette Milne (North East Scotland) missed five votes, while Ted Brocklebank and Deputy Leader Murdo Fraser (both of Mid Scotland & Fife) have missed four. Justice Spokesman Bill Aitken (Glasgow), Gavin Brown (Lothian), Leader Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland) and Jamie McGrigor (Highlands & Islands) have all missed one vote.

The Tory cohesion rate has fallen to 99.39%, thanks to Bill Aitken, Ted Brocklebank, Derek Brownlee, Annabel Goldie and Jamie McGrigor all rebelling once. Well, I'm assuming that Bella pressed the wrong button, so we'll let her off.

Liberal Democrats

The LibDems' attendance rate of 86.23% is the worst of the five parties and they can only spare their blushes if they treat Margo MacDonald as a party. Anyway, besides Hugh O'Donnell the absentees are as follows.

Mike Pringle (Edinburgh South) and Jim Tolson (Dunfermline West) missed twelve votes, while John Farquhar Munro (Ross, Skye & Inverness West) missed eleven. Leader Tavish Scott (Shetland) and Culture Spokesman Iain Smith (North East Fife) missed nine.

Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine) missed eight votes, Environment Spokesman Liam McArthur (Orkney) missed seven, while Nicol Stephen (Aberdeen South) and Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross) missed six. Justice Spokesman Robert Brown (Glasgow) missed four votes, while Health Spokesman Ross Finnie (West of Scotland) missed two.

The LibDems also have the lowest cohesion rate. They have the same number of rebel votes as the Tories, but their higher absence rate means that those votes account for a higher percentage of votes registered by LibDem MSPs. Accordingly, their score goes down to 99.33%, thanks to Ross Finnie, Liam McArthur, John Farquhar Munro, Finance Spokesman Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale) and Iain Smith.

Greens and Margo

Well, cohesion isn't a problem here: it would be a bit cringeworthy to see the two Greens facing two ways, and it would be impossible for Margo to rebel against herself having only one vote. However, attendance is a different story: the Greens top the table with 98.15% - both of their MSPs ducked the vote on Ministerial appointments. Margo, however, had only a 50:50 chance of being in the Chamber for a vote, missing 27 out of 54. Ouch.

The Sunday Whip

This was a quiet end to the term, as no votes were taken. In fact, there weren't any contentious motions either - the debate on the Pre-Budget Report had no motion attached to it.

So, for the record, here's what was nodded through, in addition to the Business Motion. On Wednesday, the Pharmacy Order 2010 was approved. On Thursday, MSPs agreed:

That the Parliament notes the 7th Report 2009 (Session 3) of the Finance Committee on the scrutiny of the Draft Budget 2010-11 (SP Paper 349) and refers the report and its recommendations to the Scottish Government for consideration.

They then went on to approve Stage 1 of the Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Bill and the Financial Resolution.

So that was it for the week, and indeed for 2009. MSPs return to the Chamber on the 6th, and later today hopefully, I'll have the usual summary of errant MSPs over the past few months.

More on Changing Chambers

There's a history of Parliamentarians and ex-Parliamentarians switching institutions, so should Cathy Jamieson succeed in her bid to be the candidate for Kilmarnock & Loudoun next year, her name may as well be Legion.

Of course, Winnie Ewing was the first to do it, all the way back in 1979: despite having lost her Moray and Nairn seat to the Tories earlier that year, the winner of the Hamilton By-Election defeated Russell Johnston (Liberal MP for Inverness) to become MEP for the Highlands & Islands. She kept that position for twenty years, until being elected as a Regional MSP for the same area. In so doing, she became the only MEP to switch to Holyrood.

But 1999 was the big year, with a large corps of MPs heading north to assist in the formation of the Scottish Parliament. Donald Dewar led the Labour Group, and was a dual mandate politician until his death; Henry McLeish went up with him, as did Sam Galbraith, Malcolm Chisholm, John Home Robertson and John McAllion. They all stood down from Westminster in 2001, and Galbraith resigned as an MSP at that time as well. McLeish stood down from Holyrood in 2003; McAllion lost his seat that year and went on to switch to the SSP; John Home Robertson stood down in 2007, but Chisholm remains, for now. The other Labour Parliamentarian to join them was Mike Watson, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, who had been MP for Glasgow Central until the seat disappeared and his attempts to stand in Glasgow Govan failed.

For the SNP, all six of the Westminster MPs at the time ended up at Holyrood: Alex Salmond, Margaret Ewing, Roseanna Cunningham, John Swinney, Andrew Welsh and Alasdair Morgan. Five of them stood down from Westminster, but Alex Salmond resigned his Holyrood seat to lead the Westmnister Group. Of course, we know what happened next: he returned to Holyrood in 2007 and he, along with the surviving members of that intake - Margaret Ewing passed away in 2006 - remain in the Chamber. Those six, and the outgoing MEP Winnie Ewing were joined by former Parliamentarians Margo MacDonald and George Reid.

OF course, by 1999, the Tories had considerably fewer people to draw on - not helped by the wipeout of the Scottish Tories at Westminster two years earlier. Consequently, the only Tory MSPs in 1999 with any Parliamentary experience were James Douglas-Hamilton, former MP for Edinburgh West and by then Lord Selkirk of Douglas, and Phil Gallie, former MP for Ayr. Both stood down in 2007, leaving the Tories with a group of MSPs who only had experience of Holyrood, if that.

The LibDems had more in their ranks: Jim Wallace, of course, and also Donald Gorrie, who by being elected for Central Scotland (despite succeeding James Douglas-Hamilton as MP for Edinburgh West), became the first and only ever dual mandate politician to represent to completely different areas: the First Minister's two constituencies do at least overlap, as do the two that Cathy Jamieson would represent should she win Kilmarnock & Loudoun. Wallace and Gorrie both stood down in 2001, and both quit Holyrood in 2007. Wallace, however, was ennobled soon after, and is now Lord Wallace of Tankerness.

But the weren't the only ones with Parliamentary experience: obviously, Lord Steel of Aikwood had shedloads of that, having been in the Commons for decades and having entered the House of Lords in 1997. But Nicol Stephen had briefly been the MP for Kincardine and Deeside, while Keith Raffan had been the Tory MP for Delyn, in North Wales.

And of course, there was Dennis Canavan, who stood down from Westminster early, having won his Holyrood seat despite the wishes of his former colleagues in Labour.

There have been other transfers since 1999, of course. David Mundell became the only sitting MSP to transfer successfully to Westminster in 2005, while his former colleague Ben Wallace won the seat he was contesting in Lancaster & Wyre. And aside from Alex Salmond's return to Holyrood in 2007, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock made the trip to Edinburgh (having been in the Commons from 1979 to 2005 as well), and David Stewart, who lost his seat in the 2005 Election, ended up getting into Holyrood on the Highlands & Islands list. Even in this year's European Election, George Lyon made a return to elected politics, having gained the #1 position on the LibDem List after losing his Argyll & Bute seat at Holyrood two years earlier.

So Cathy Jamieson isn't the first transfer and won't be the last - particularly if the rumours of the man she's replacing, Des Browne, seeking a place in the Scottish Parliament turn out to be correct. But the move that she wants to make has only been successfully executed once. Can she be the second?

On Changing Chambers

We learn this morning that Cathy Jamieson, the Labour MSP for Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley and Shadow Housing Secretary, seeks to replace Des Browne as MP for Kilmarnock & Loudoun.

She should be wary as history is against her: only one sitting MSP has managed to make it to Westminster - David Mundell, then MSP for the South of Scotland and now MP for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale. Other Tory MSPs have tried and failed to make it : Alex Johnstone (who is trying again in West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine after not managing to win in 2005), Jamie McGrigor (who stood in Argyll & Bute in 2005) and Phil Gallie (who sought to return to the Commons in 2001 after being caught in the 1997 wipeout). The only other former MSP to make it to Westminster is Ben Wallace, who stood down in 2003 having been MSP for North East Scotland, and ended up the successful Tory candidate in Lancaster & Wyre (ironically, that seat is being split up next year and Wallace is now fighting Wyre & Preston North). Meanwhile, the only precedent of a sitting Labour MSP trying to move to the Green Benches is not a happy one: Margaret Curran suffering a 22% swing against her to come second in the Glasgow East By-Election. However, she is trying again at the General Election.

Together with the aforementioned Johnstone and Curran, Cathy Jamieson is one of four present MSPs looking to re-locate to London: the fourth is John Lamont, Tory MP for Roxburgh & Berwickshire, who has his eye on Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk. It should also be noted that Jamieson is merely seeking her Party's selection and her candidacy is still to be formally confirmed. The other three have been selected and barring any hiccups, will appear on a ballot paper in their respective constituencies next Spring.

For the record, if Cathy Jamieson were to win the nomination, she would be defending a majority of 8,703 against the SNP, and a 10% swing would prevent her from making the transfer However, her present Holyrood Constituency (or at least, her revised constituency following the boundary changes) will require only a 7% swing for her to be dislodged.

There are other factors to consider: Cathy Jamieson will have to rely on being seen as a prominent Labour politician as her current seat only just overlaps with the constituency she's after at Westminster: about 10,000 voters around Mauchline and Auchinleck are in both Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley for Holyrood and Kilmarnock & Loudoun for Westminster. This situation is analogous with Alex Salmond's position as MP for Gordon and MSP for Banff & Buchan, and he did manage to take the SNP from third to first in Gordon in 2007, but 1) that was a good election for the SNP anyway, whereas a bad election is forecast for Labour; and 2) he was and is a bigger draw than Cathy Jamieson: he was and is the SNP Leader and sought to be First Minister; she was Labour Deputy Leader at Holyrood, is the current Housing Spokesperson and seeks to be a Backbencher.

Accordingly, she will find it tough: particularly as the SNP candidate will have been able to 'work' the area for some time, while she's stepping in quite suddenly. That Electoral Calculus categorises this seat as 'Not Safe' won't help.

And if she does win, that'll create a new problem in Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley, where Labour will have around a year to find a new candidate. Further, they're vulnerable to a smaller swing than Kilmarnock & Loudoun, while the probable SNP opponent will be Adam Ingram, Minister for Children and sitting MSP for South of Scotland since 1999. History shows that sitting regional MSPs get a bonus swing when the incumbent constituency MSP stands down: Christine Grahame slashed the LibDem majority when Ian Jenkins stood down in 2003; Kenny MacAskill overturned the Labour majority altogether in Edinburgh East & Musselburgh in 2007 after Susan Deacon stepped down, and you'd have thought that Dennis Canavan's retirement in Falkirk West ought to have seen the seat revert to Labour; instead, Michael Matheson won it for the SNP. So a Jamieson victory in Kilmarnock & Loudoun makes Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley a very tempting and realistic SNP target.

One last thing: there's a wider problem for Iain Gray in that having lost one frontbencher to a Westminster campaign, he now stands to lose another. Worse still, Cathy Jamieson's post as Shadow Housing Secretary means that she represents the Party on Gray's 'priority' (for which read 'fad') for the parliamentary year.

It now transpires that his Housing Spokesperson's primary aim is to re-house herself.

Just a Bit of Fun!

It would be remiss of me not to flag up th new look Scotland Votes site, newly beefed up to include details of the upcoming Westminster election, links to candidates' Twitter feeds, seat profiles, and everyone's favourite, the predictor, of which I include a screenshot:



Now, I love the predictor, as do most election geeks, as it enables us to live out our secret desire to be Peter Snow (or, for those of a more mature vintage, Robert McKenzie - I am quite sure that no one of any vintage at all has a burning desire to be Jeremy Vine), but there's a minor issue that I want to flag up - a small quibble, really, the equivalent of Craig Revel-Horwood berating Ricky Whittle and Natalie Lowe for coming down the stairs at the wrong time during their Argentine Tango on Saturday. All the same, look closely at the predictor:



Why that order of the parties? Why Labour, SNP, LibDem, Tory?

I ask simply because that order of the parties hasn't formed the basis of an actual Scotland-wide election result since 2001, and there have been five elections since then, all of which have yielded a result that wasn't this.

As such, I'd be fascinated to know what the mindset of the designer was, when they used an alignment of the parties which has only ever taken place once in a real election as the basis for their layout. Is it based on an expectation of the result? That would be an unwise approach. Is it based on the designers' suppositions of Scotland's political landscape? If so, they should have checked their facts first. Is it an institutional approach? The Weber Shandwick predictor for Holyrood - on the same site - puts the four parties in the same order. Again, this wasn't a reflection of the 2003 Election, on which the initial predictions were based (the 2007 poll not having taken place at the time), or the 2007 Election, whose outcome it was initially designed to project. It reflected an analysis that wasn't borne out by the electoral facts and that same analysis is being used again despite it being unclear what, if anything, it is based on.

And of course, if you attach any kind of significance or symbolism to that ordering, then three of the four main political parties have cause to feel aggrieved: the SNP can complain that the results of the last two Scotland-wide elections have been overlooked. The Tories can complain that the general trend of their third place has been overlooked: in the ten elections since 1994, the Tories have come behind the LibDems only twice - 2001 and 2005. And the LibDems would probably have the strongest cause for complaint of all three: on the best basis for comparison - the 2005 Election - they were the ones who came second behind Labour. That too has been overlooked.

Of course, the three parties would all envisage different orderings, so finding one based on past results would be difficult. A fairer approach would be to order the parties alphabetically: this allows an element of common sense and transparency as it's easy to see why the parties are laid out as they are. It also has the benefit of offering no symbolism whatever given the utter implausibility of the result turning out that way - the Tories haven't come first in Scotland since the 1979 European Election and haven't even reached second since 1992, while the SNP haven't been as low as fourth place in a real poll since 1987. It would seem more sensible to me.

But, frankly, the actual order doesn't matter too much, save as a possible barometer of Weber Shandwick's view of the political landscape. In truth, the predictor is, like all those that have gone before it, a decent enough tool in trying to project poll results to actual electoral outcomes (though, obviously, success can never be guaranteed), and a good way of passing a few spare minutes if you're of a persuasion that is as geekish as my own. As Peter Snow (or was it just Rory Bremner pretending to be Peter Snow?) used to say, it's just a bit of fun.

The Sunday Whip

A quiet week, with a rather clear hint of wind-down now entering proceedings. It is, as the song says, beginning to look a lot like Christmas.

Anyway. Wednesday was a good day for the Government: the Business Motion was waved through and the substantive business went the SNP's way. There were only three absentees, all from Labour: Marlyn Glen (North East Scotland), Shadow Schools Minister Ken Macintosh (Eastwood) and Tom McCabe (Hamilton South). They missed the vote on Further Powers for the Scottish Parliament, and the Labour amendment fell by 66 (SNP/LD/Green/Margo) votes to 59 (Labour/Tories). The motion itself passed by 63 (SNP/LibDems) to 61 (Labour/Tories/Greens) with one Margo-shaped abstention:

That the Parliament welcomes the recommendations of the Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution that responsibility for the law across a range of areas be devolved to the Scottish Parliament and also welcomes the recommendations for closer working between the Scottish and UK Ministers to ensure that the needs of Scotland are properly represented, and urges the UK Government to work with the Scottish Parliament to ensure that, where there is consensus, all such recommendations are implemented before the dissolution of the current UK Parliament.

Of course, if I were feeling particularly venomous, I would point out that Labour could have killed this motion by making sure its members were in the Chamber: their three missing people could have turned a 63-61 loss into a 64-63 win. Politicians of all hues love to slate their rivals for opportunism but Labour aren't taking the opportunities afforded to them here, and poor organisation has given the SNP an easy win on the Constitution.

Anyway. After that, members agreed to tweak the Education Committee's remit, and Wednesday was over and done with.

Thursday, meanwhile, saw more consensus than is usual and there were eight absentees: Rhona Brankin (Midlothian), Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale), Marlyn Glen, Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians), Stuart MacMillan (SNP, West of Scotland), Mike Pringle (LD, Edinburgh South), Nicol Stephen (LD, Aberdeen South) and Shadow Finance Minister David Whitton (Strathkelvin & Bearsden).

Firstly, there was an outbreak of agreement on a Labour motion concerning concessionary travel, with SNP and LibDem amendments, as well as the amended motion, all waved through:

That the Parliament welcomes the recommendation of the Review of the Scotland Wide Free Bus Travel Scheme for Older and Disabled People to include seriously injured armed forces veterans to the scheme but notes with disappointment and concern the review's recommendation to disenfranchise disabled people who receive the lower rate of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) from the scheme; further notes that the review paints a worst-case scenario of the costs of including disabled people who receive the lower rate of DLA and that these costs are open to scrutiny and debate and that the review also played down the positive social impact that the scheme has on people's lives; acknowledges that denying disabled people on the lower rate of DLA access to the scheme will damage the main aims and ethos of the scheme, namely to allow disabled people improved access to services, facilities and social networks by free scheduled bus services and so promote social inclusion and improve health by promoting a more active lifestyle for disabled people; notes that previous local schemes operated in West Lothian and Strathclyde provided people on the lower rate of DLA access to concessionary travel schemes and that they supported the national scheme mirroring their eligibility criteria instead of the stringent criteria that are now adopted; welcomes disability organisations Leonard Cheshire Disability, Learning Disability Alliance Scotland (LDAS), Inclusion Scotland and many more in challenging the review's negative recommendation; considers that disabled people's views, that the national concessionary travel scheme should include people who receive the lower rate of DLA instead of backing the unfair recommendation on eligibility from the review, should be listened to; considers that if the Labour Party wishes this to be the case, it should bring forward a costed proposal to the Budget to show where the resources will be taken from to pay for this; recognises that rural areas suffer disproportionately from bus fare increases or reduced bus services, and calls on the Scottish Government to consider extending eligibility for the national concessionary travel scheme to include older and disabled people using community transport in rural areas.

Then came the SNP motion on Climate Change. The Green amendment fell by 117 to 3. The three were the two Greens, and Labour's Shadow Climate Change Minister Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East) - the 117 were everyone else. But this is rather embarrassing, either for Labour or for Cathy Peattie: their Climate Change spokesperson voted the opposite way to the rest of the group on an amendment about Climate Change, which called for "a fundamental policy shift in areas such as road building, energy generation and use and aviation expansion." Now, either Peattie genuinely supports that, in which case she's isolated from the rest of her group (who don't support it) and so Labour's policy on one of the most important issues of our generation is now in a mess; or one the one vote of the year where she, of all people, really needs to know the gen, know the policy, know what she's voting for, know which way she's voting and most importantly of all, know which button to press managed to press the wrong button. In short, she was either dissenting or ditzy on Thursday and neither of those is particularly positive for her. In any case, the motion itself was waved through:

That the Parliament, having agreed unanimously on a 42% target reduction in Scotland's greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and an 80% reduction by 2050, agrees that MSPs and Scotland as a whole must focus on the practical implementation of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009; urges that all countries bring forward the most ambitious commitments appropriate to their circumstances early in the talks; looks to participants in Copenhagen to reach a legally binding agreement at the earliest opportunity that will prevent world temperatures rising by more than 2°C, and notes that a failure to do so would threaten vulnerable countries with, for example, inundation and desertification.

So that's it. Next week is the last week before the holidays (MSPs will be bringing board games in on Thursday), and there'll be a debate on the Pre-Budget Report (which will be ugly), a Finance Committee debate on the Draft Budget for next year (which will be even uglier) and Stage 1 of the Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Bill, which will only be ugly if more festive-minded MSPs break out the mistletoe.

Is Gradualism working?

This started life as a comment on today's post by Yousuf about the TNS-BMRB poll on independence, but it was turning into an essay so rather than bog Yousuf's site down with it I've moved it here. The numbers don't make the greatest of reading, but they are what they are: both Yousuf and I have seen plenty of uncomfortable polls, but we are capable of keeping calm and carrying on. Particularly when, a little later, another poll comes along with better news, as can sometimes be the case. And even then, when the polls are on your side, you're smarter to remember - as we all do - that it's just a poll. They mean the same to all of us (or should do) whether they're good, bad or indifferent.

But there's one thing I do want to pick up on:

After all, those who believed in the gradualist case that winning power in Holyrood would enable them to prove they could govern and nudge the country towards Independence is failing, as Jim Sillars at least seems to have noticed.

Well, Jim Sillars is not exactly Gradualism's biggest cheerleader, so for the SNP, an article by him saying the present direction isn't working is a little like how the Tories must see an article by Dan Hannan or Roger Helmer arguing that David Cameron should take a tougher line and pull the UK out of the European Union: heartening for a decent-sized section of the support, slightly uncomfortable for the Leadership, an interesting story for the press about key party figures dissenting with the party's default position, but ultimately, nothing new. This is no change of mind by Jim Sillars, just as a post on EU withdrawl wouldn't be anything radical from Hannan or Helmer.

But the real question is this: in the face of the poll numbers and the expected criticism, is it actually right to say that gradualism is failing?

Here's something to think about: around 1997, in fact from pretty much the late 1970s until the millennium, the debate on constitutional policy focused on whether there should be a Scottish Parliament, or whether Direct Rule should continue. And in the early, difficult days of the Parliament's establishment, there was a vocal minority that openly questioned whether or not devolution was worth the fuss.

But as we moved deeper into this decade, the terms of reference changed, and you had the LibDems producing the Steel Commission on the powers of the Scottish Parliament, as well as an element of soul-searching within the Tories about Holyrood's financial powers. By the time the McConnell Executive came to its end, Labour was the only party clearly wedded to the current framework. The Scottish Parliament had become a fact, a given, and the debate now focused on whether more powers should be transferred to Holyrood, or whether the status quo should prevail.

Now, as we move out of this decade, the Calman Commission has reported and there are quarrels over how to implement it. But no one's talking seriously about things staying as we same. The wish to change the balance of powers and responsibilities is now the basic point of reference, and the question is whether Scotland goes for a partial or a full transfer of powers.

So in the space of just over a decade, we've gone from Direct Rule or Devolution, through Devolution As It Is or Further Devolution, to Further Devolution or Full Independence. That's the debate now.

In short, points that used to produce a great deal of uncertainty are now givens. This means that gradually, the debate is moving the SNP's way.

On that basis, I'd say that Gradualism is doing exactly what it's supposed to.

The Great Navelgaze Continues

So the blogosphere still finds itself turning inward: it seemed like normal service (or something like it) was about to resume, but then Subrosa opted to pack up for a time, citing the possibility that she was going to be the next to be outed. Fortunately, she's still active to a limited degree, but her blog has gone the way of Bruce and Mark's.

Now, I've said before that I'm instantly sceptical of any conspiracy theory. This is because the participants are ordinary human beings like the rest of us, and as we know, humans have these things called egos, which, sooner or later, will cause them to blab. The person they blab to will then blab to someone else and as quickly as it took to say "I know something you don't know," the conspiracy will unravel. Of course, David Icke's fear that everyone in charge is part of a race of twelve-foot lizard people neatly elides this, but let's be honest, if you were a twelve-foot lizard person, you'd have no reason to keep yourself secret and achieve control on the sly - you could just come out in your true form, roar, "I'm a twelve-foot lizard person, tremble before my might" and that would be that - you'd achieve total domination and the very obvious enslavement of the human race, mission accomplished, Bob's your uncle. Or at least he would be if twelve-foot lizard people have names like "Bob".

But I digress. The point I'm trying to make is that even the most hardened conspiracy-cynic such as myself must surely have noticed that, with bloggers being 'outed' (and in some cases, having their story dragged through the MSM), it really is open season on the Scottish blogosphere, and one anonymous commenter on my previous post about all this notes blatant hostility to the blogosphere on the part of the Murdoch press, something which, frankly, should surprise no one.

But the basic point is this: yes, we are under the microscope now, and as I keep saying, we have three choices. We can pack up and go home - some of us will (or have already been) forced to do that, but I don't see that as an option for the rest of us; we can fight hostility with hostility, rail against the conspiracy and descend into a dungeon of rage and inverted snobbery; or we can raise our game, answer the charges with the positive, celebrate the good things we get up to and in so doing, make the critics look like muppets, simply by proving them wrong. It's obvious, I think, which one I'd go for.

But while we consider our own reaction, let's also take a look at how this tale is moving from the scandal section to the opinion column. On the one hand, we have Iain Macwhirter, who is entirely right to say:

No problem with people ranting away in space if that's what they want to do - in private. But people need to remember that this is a published medium - just like newspapers. Anonymity is no longer a way of concealing identity, and it is certainly no defence in the law. Increasingly, you have to be absolutely sure not only that what you are saying is legal, but also that you can stand by it when it is public - and it almost certainly will be made public - because it is out there FOREVER.

But he undermines his point by preceding it with this:

And it's no use citing other blogs like Guido Fawkes in Mark's defence. That just makes the case. The standard of debate on the internet is dire and deeply depressing. This is the main reason that people have turned away from blogging and taken to social networking sites like Facebook where they can avoid being abused by anonymous idiots. Many people I know don't put comments on blogs that they read because they just don't want to be part of the slime.

As this blog has pointed out before - and has even demonstrated in practice - there is an inbuilt bias on the blogosphere toward vituperation. It is written into the very architecture of the web. The surest way to get noticed on the internet - to generate traffic, attract links, get ranked on Google - is to attack people in the most offensive way possible. It makes blogs come alive. Most blogs aren't really there to be read, they're there to be reacted to.

Again, that may be true on some blogs but not others, and this seems like a reprise of the points he made in the Spring which were so easily rebutted by the blogosphere simply doing what it does best. Macwhirter has, I suspect, formed his opinion of the blogosphere from two sources: the news reports tracking Drapergate and the like, and the comments after his posts on the newspaper sites. Now the scandals happened, but most bloggers were and are embarrassed by them themselves and are willing to criticise when others mess up. In that way, there is accountability: not self-policing, but mutual policing. As for the second source, well, there's some overlap between the bottom of the news pages and the blogosphere. Frankly, anyone who's spent time studying the blogosphere would have picked up on this, would have spotted the rigorous levels of analysis that can be seen and noted the generally cordial tone used by most bloggers to each other. This leads me to suspect that our friend in the Herald has come into this with a bucketload of pre-conceptions, then gone looking for the proof, rather than the full story.

Now, he has found some evidence, but there's plenty out there that challenges his assumptions and he's not quite so willing to publicly take that on board. You can tell that even when he's venturing onto his own blog, he's very wary of getting involved to any major extent, even to the degree of thinking of Now and Then as an 'anti-blog'.

Compare and contrast his approach with that of Joan McAlpine. She's thrown herself into the new media and describes it as a "learning experience" - and a positive one at that. She's concerned herself less with the likes of Comment is Free and gone straight for Twitter and an actual separate, free-standing blog of her own. Having engaged with the wider blogosphere, she's takes a broader view:

Scotland is different in that our bloggers are highly individualised. They often link to each other’s sites, even when they are on opposite sides of the political fence. So you can access Scottish Tory Boy and Soapbox, by Labour’s Kezia Dugdale, from Jeff Breslin’s SNP Tactical Voting, the most widely read political blog in Scotland. Yousuf Hamid, a loyal Labour activist in Glasgow who blogs as Yapping Yousuf, regularly allowed comments by the now maligned Wardog, the nationalist supporter who hung up his keyboard after calling the secretary of state for Scotland, Jim Murphy, a rude name.

The lack of a Slugger-type forum means it is up to individual bloggers to police themselves and anyone commenting on their site. Many take this responsibility seriously, warning that abusive and offensive comments will not appear. But it depends on what you regard as offensive. Our mainstream media culture is pretty crass these days. Jonathan Ross, who yelled obscenities into the answering machine of a grandfather, is prime-time Saturday night entertainment and enjoys a generous salary paid by the taxpayer.

And vicious personal insults are hardly new in politics. It’s almost three decades since the former US President, Lyndon Johnson, commented of the future Republican president Gerald Ford: “He’s a nice guy but he played too much football with his helmet off.”

And that's the difference. Despite being in league with that feared Murdoch press at the Sunday Times, Joan has dived right in, found out about the rest of us, and she's impressed with what she sees. Accordingly, she's able to celebrate the strengths with us and look at the reality of the problems, concluding that, when you think about it, it's not that much worse than real life (if anything, a number of bloggers - myself included - have been harsher on others than she has). Conversely, Iain sees a bunch of guys in Donnie Darko masks raging at each other.

Maybe it's another case of people seeing what they want to see. But if we're going to look at ourselves and how we do this, I'd rather we lived up to Joan's vision that lived down to Iain's. And you know what? I think we're all more than capable of doing just that.

The Sunday Whip

A mixed bag, this week. Wednesday was largely peaceful, Thursday, on the other hand, wasn't. It was, therefore, a typical Holyrood week. Even if it did involve a Cabinet reshuffle.

Wednesday saw the usual waving through of the Business Motions, and only one vote needed to be taken. There were, as you can imagine, quite a few absentees: for the SNP, Culture Minister-designate Fiona Hyslop (Lothian), Stewart Maxwell (West of Scotland), the FM himself, Alex Salmond (Gordon) and his Deputy and Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon (Glasgow Govan). For Labour, Wendy Alexander (Paisley North), Shadow Further & Higher Education Minister Claire Baker (Mid Scotland & Fife), Bill Butler (Glasgow Anniesland), Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale), Shadow Schools Minister Ken Macintosh (Eastwood), Shadow Sport Minister Frank McAveety (Glasgow Shettleston) and Elaine Smith (Coatbridge & Chryston). The LibDems were minus John Farquhar Munro (Ross, Skye & Inverness West), Hugh O'Donnell (Central Scotland), Leader Tavish Scott (Shetland) and Culture Spokesman Iain Smith (North East Fife). Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians) was also elsewhere.

The only vote was on Labour's amendment to the SNP motion on violence against women. The amendment passed by 53 (Labour/LD/Green) to zero, with 59 SNP & Tory abstentions. A Tory amendment passed unanimously, as did the amended motion:

That the Parliament is pleased to reaffirm its commitment to ending violence against women; supports the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence and its theme this year of Commit - Act - Demand: we can end violence against women!; celebrates the commitment of partners across Scotland, including the voluntary sector, local authorities, the police, NHS boards and others, to work together to end violence against women; acknowledges the importance of the shared understanding developed through the Safer Lives: Changed Lives strategic approach, and welcomes the progress that has been made to date on tackling violence against women in Scotland, including the groundbreaking work to involve young people who have experienced domestic abuse as expert advisers; regrets that a report on the implementation of the first round of single outcome agreements has not yet been published, given the concerns of Scottish Women's Aid about the level of provision across Scotland; believes that the strategy of protection, provision and prevention remains central to the tackling of violence against women; agrees that the Scottish Government should produce a joint statement from across its directorates to ensure that all its key policies are tested against their impact on women facing violence, and calls on the Scottish Government to consider, where practical, extending the principle of domestic violence courts throughout Scotland.

Following that, the Budget (Scotland) Act 2009 Amendment Order 2009 and Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (Designation of Participating Countries) (Scotland) (No. 3) Order 2009 were nodded through, and members were happy for the Health & Sport Committee to consider the Alcohol etc. (Scotland) Bill - which probably won't be overly favourable, given that the Opposition outnumber the SNP on there by five to three.

Thursday, meanwhile, began with a vote in the morning to confirm Mike Russell as a member of the Cabinet (interestingly, I don't recall any motion confirming that Fiona Hyslop is now a Junior Minister - has she actually been demoted, is a motion to this effect unnecessary, or was this an oversight?). Given the early vote, there were, again, a number of absentees: Tory Justice Spokesman Bill Aitken (Glasgow), Shadow Rural Affairs Secretary Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central), Gavin Brown (Con, Lothians), Bill Butler, Tory Leader Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland), Shadow Transport Minister Charlie Gordon (Glasgow Cathcart), both Robin Harper (Green, Lothians) and his successor as Green Co-Convener Patrick Harvie (Glasgow), Margo MacDonald, Jamie McGrigor (Highlands & Islands), Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland), John Farquhar Munro, Hugh O'Donnell, Irene Oldfather (Cunninghame South), Shadow Cabinet Secretary Without Portfolio John Park (Mid Scotland & Fife), Shadow Climate Change Minister Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East), Elaine Smith and Iain Smith. The new Education Secretary was confirmed in his post by 58 (SNP/Tory) votes to 0, with 52 Labour and LibDem abstentions.

In the afternoon came the LibDem motion on Education, which would have been a no-confidence vote in Fiona Hyslop had the FM not moved her out of harm's way 48 hours previously. There were far fewer absentees for Decision Time: Margo MacDonald, Tom McCabe (Lab, Hamilton South), Margaret Mitchell, John Farquhar Munro, Hugh O'Donnell, Irene Oldfather and Iain Smith.

The SNP amendment fell by 72 (Labour/Con/LD) votes to 47 (SNP) with two Green abstentions. The Labour amendment passed by 59 (Labour/LD/Green) votes to 47 (SNP) with 15 Tory abstentions. The Tory amendment fell by 106 (everyone but the Tories) to 15, and the amended motion passed by 57 (Labour/LD) votes to 50 - the SNP plus Tories Bill Aitken, Ted Brocklebank (Mid Scotland & Fife) and Jamie McGrigor - with 14 abstentions (the rest of the Tories, along with the Greens):

That the Parliament regrets that for the last two years the SNP government has presided over a series of failures on a range of education indicators, including teacher numbers and class sizes; believes that there are fundamental challenges that must be addressed in order to tackle the growing crisis in Scottish education; therefore calls on the new Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning to take immediate action to rebuild the bond of trust between central and local government and establish a constructive working relationship with local authorities so that schools can deliver the best possible outcomes for Scottish education and young people, to bring fresh impetus to the implementation of the Curriculum for Excellence and the new national qualifications, providing teachers with the clarity, training and resources that they urgently require to implement the changes, and to focus on the key issue of teacher numbers, giving new teachers the career opportunities that they deserve and delivering effective workforce planning for the future, and calls on the Scottish Government to introduce a properly planned and resourced scheme for early retirement and more flexible winding down arrangements for older teachers, linked to guarantees that teachers released from the classroom will be replaced by post-probationary teachers.

Finally, there was an SNP motion and Labour amendment on Getting It Right For Every Child, both of which were nodded through:

That the Parliament supports the Getting it right for every child (GIRFEC) approach; commends Highland and the other pathfinder programmes for their work in developing the approach; notes progress under the eCare framework to enable secure, targeted information sharing across Scotland; welcomes the report by the University of Edinburgh on progress to date, particularly with regard to the pathfinder programme in Highland; welcomes Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education's summary report on its first round of multi-agency children's services inspections as providing a clear and comprehensive picture of how children's services are operating across Scotland; encourages work to further develop and implement the GIRFEC approach as a means of public services and the third sector working with parents and communities to improve outcomes for children and deliver the Early Years Framework, Achieving our Potential, and Equally Well; recognises the scale of the challenge described in the HMIe report, How well do we protect Scotland's children?, which states that almost half of the 30 councils inspected were assessed as weak or unsatisfactory in relation to the assessment of risks and needs; further acknowledges that the report highlights the need for improved information sharing in relation to child protection, and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that sufficient resources are available for the effective delivery of the Early Years Framework, Achieving our Potential and Equally Well.

So a consensual end to the week. Next week, there are Government debates on Further Powers for the Scottish Parliament and Climate Change, along with Labour business on Thursday morning. Bunfights all round?

Leaders of tomorrow?

There's another a round of hand-wringing beginning - this time about private education. I can't say I'm complaining as the hand-wringing about the state of the blogosphere isn't doing us any good (though I'm gutted that Subrosa has had to hang up her blog) right now so it's good to get onto a discussion of something different. Anyway. Calum noted Gordon Brown's school jibe towards the Tories, which was undermined by the roll call of Labour politicians' school days. Kez, meanwhile, enters the fray with a consideration of how schooling, class warfare and politics interact.

Allow me to present a personal perspective, which I suspect is fairly rare - having seen elements of both the private and state sectors for myself. I went to the local Church Primary, which was state-funded. Though after that, there was a bit of a fiasco: there was one school in the Chorley area, Parklands, which had a good reputation, and my parents applied for me to get a place there. That's where one of my classmates wanted to go as well, and we were excited at the prospect of going there. Thing was, we were outside the catchment area, and the County Council had instead allocated us to Albany, which was probably under-subscribed given the poor reputation it had at the time. Well, you can guess what happened: our respective parents hit the roof. But they had different reactions. My friend's parents decided to look outwith the county: we were just a few minutes' bus ride away from the boundary between Lancashire and Wigan Borough, and just on the other side of that boundary was Standish High School, so they applied there, to the consternation of the County Council, who were forced to relent in the end. My parents went down a different route: they sent me to a Grammar School in Blackburn (that's the one in East Lancashire, not West Lothian). It's not quite a private school in the sense of Eton or Harrow, but it's fee-paying, it was single-sex at the time, and it selects its pupils in an exam (mind you, there's no good way to put this, but if some of those kids actually passed the test I sat, the required mark must have been bloody low). They skinned themselves to do it.

And what a waste of money! First, the buildings looked like they were about to fall down. Everything was old, and grim, and quite shabby - this place had been founded in the reign of Elizabeth I and that appeared to be its heyday. Second, the ethos. We were, it seemed, continually ranked against each other; anyone who cocked up got pretty much humiliated by the teachers and in any case of harassment, most of those in charge (though there were a few with their wits about them) would blame the victim rather than the aggressor for having done something to bring it on themselves. Basically, while there were a few good people and the usual groups would form, hostility was the order of the day and your classmates were potential rivals, not friends. Then there was the teaching: brandy-soaked buffoons and golf obsessives pacing around the room dictating everything; getting told where all the literary devices were in a set text in English Lit. We basically got spoonfed everything, with no room for questioning, challenging, engaging on anything. This is what it was, and that was that. And the fact that it took anywhere between an hour and an hour and a half to get there in the mornings (and the same timeframe depending on traffic on the way back) didn't help.

Eventually, my parents' bank balance and my tolerance for this turgid way of doing things both gave way at around the same time, and I switched, to that school just over the boundary, where I could have gone in the first place (and just seeing my travelling time drop to around ten minutes was a boon!). And while some of the buildings looked like they needed a fresh coat of paint, a lot had recently had that, and more besides. It was brighter, happier, and while there were a couple of tosspots, mostly, everyone just got on, even across the different groups. But the classes were the eye-opener: we were actually discussing openly the same literary devices, the same ideas, that Old Brandy Breath had dictated to me at Blackburn. We engaged with each other, and we'd have the odd argument over various points, but it was just about the actual matter being discussed in class and as soon as the bell went, we'd go back to being mates. Things were what we made of them, and as long as we could explain ourselves, the teacher actually encouraged us to do the talking. It was the complete opposite of Blackburn and the only areas where the Grammar School had the edge were Classics (only because Blackburn offered Latin and Greek, but Standish didn't), and German, and that was only because in the classes there, everyone showed up because they actually wanted to learn German, whereas at Standish, everyone else was there because they didn't want to do French - and even then, that possibility wouldn't have been open to them at Blackburn. Neither would the options of studying Italian and Spanish. There were even Japanese classes at lunchtime. We actually engaged with the teachers in the running of the school, with a school council, and it was the pupils who took the initiative to run a charity appeal during the Kosovo Crisis - that would never have happened at Blackburn!

In terms of what Calum and Kez are saying, I think they're both right: Calum's right to point out that it's rich of Labour to slag off David Cameron et al for the school he was sent to, when plenty of Labour people were sent to similar institutions, but Kez is right to point out that you can't blame either side for where their parents sent them - only how they behave afterwards.

And where does my tale fit in? Here's the moral: the Grammar School kept up the Establishment way of doing things, the way things are, the way they've always been and always will be. There was no scope for challenge, for independence of mind or individual thought. There was a mindset which you followed or you'd never get on. And yet they talk about private schools educating the Leaders of Tomorrow? Wrong. Do you think David Cameron is capable of coming up with new, original ideas? Of course not - he's had his brain hardwired by years of life in the Establishment ethos. Whatever he does, whatever anyone comes up with who's been to a place like Eton, or even just the Grammar School in Blackburn, it'll just be variations on the same old tired themes, there'll be no real change, no way of doing anything radical that will genuinely improve ordinary people's lives. They aren't the Leaders of Tomorrow at all, but the Followers of Yesterday, a yesterday that let so many people down and bodes ill for today, tomorrow and the next day, while those spoonfed Old Boys are calling the shots.

But the original thinkers, the ones who might just have that big idea, that actually could change the world, they're not the ones who've been sat there, their concentration wandering as their teacher marches around the room telling them where the metaphors are in a piece of prose. They're the ones who are used to coming up with their own ideas, and batting them around. They're in your local state school.

They're the ones who could bring about real change. They're the real Leaders. What we need is for them to step forward... and for parents to stop pissing their money away on having their kids told what to think, when they can be taught how to think at the Comp, for free.

A Third Choice

As the brief flurry of posts (well, by my standards) will probably indicate: I've revised the original plan for work-to-rule bloggery.

Why? Well, obviously, it's a big week and I'd have been mad to miss it.

But also because, while I hate thinking of posting as something I have to do, the fact is that this is a testing time for the Scottish blogosphere, and particularly the SNP end of it. Given some of the strident posts coming from all sorts of different places, it's not entirely unthinkable to suggest that a scramble for the heart (and maybe the soul) of nationalist bloggery is now on, and it's leaving us all vulnerable to any number of traps which we'll walk right into if we don't start looking where in blazes we are going.

Accordingly, socks need to be pulled up, realities need to be checked and if we have something - anything - that's remotely constructive to add, now is the time to do it. I'm back for now, and I will be writing as I prefer to do: to keep myself engaged with what's going on, and to offer my interpretation of events; to send the ideas out there and see what happens to them. No plots, no cliques, no rows, no agenda. Just me, my laptop and the news websites. As it has always been.

So I'll be getting myself out of this rut now. But as those few of you who have seen me try to get out of an armchair will attest, that might get a little bit hairy.

A Second Choice

The pack has been re-shuffled, and it's a straight substitution: Mike Russell becomes Education Secretary; Fiona Hyslop becomes Culture Minister.

It's no surprise: education was the policy area where the SNP manifesto was the most ambitious; it was therefore always going to be the area most laden with potential pitfalls. The simplistic answer would be to say that the Government should be better at delivery. Well, of course. But, with the Budget being a zero-sum game, as John Swinney puts it, the money required to go the full distance would put practically everything else in jeopardy, particularly in light of a mediocre Comprehensive Spending Review and further unkind cuts to the Scottish Budget. More could, and should, have been done, but how?

Of course, the other answer would have been to promise less. Again, maybe. But why shouldn't a political party be bold? Why shouldn't a manifesto be a statement of what the party believes in? Politics may be the art of the possible, but if that's the case, why did, say, the Tories - who said right from the get-go that they'd eschew any formal power deal - even bother to print a manifesto? Most major parties can look at past manifestos and reflect that, actually, things didn't go quite as they'd hoped, like when Labour said they wouldn't introduce top-up fees, then - whoops! - introduced top-up fees, or when the LibDems said they'd get rid of tuition fees altogether, then - whoops! - voted to replace one tuition fee with another instead. Sometimes you don't get as far as you'd like, but it's generally a good thing for the electorate to see which way parties are facing. It's even better for them to then travel in that direction, though I suppose that not getting quite as far as everyone wanted is better than changing lanes altogether.

Still, the reality is that this portfolio has been a bear trap for the SNP and obviously, re-assessment as to how things are going is needed. And obviously, someone other than the person who has got us to where we are has to undertake that re-assessment.

So, then, the timing. Obviously, the LibDem no-confidence vote has concentrated the FM's mind somewhat. This was a real threat (unlike the discussion of a similar vote for Kenny MacAskill during the Lockerbie row, a threat which never materialised) and the outcome would have been inevitable. Indeed, the main surprise is that it's taken this long to arrive: the opposition has been gunning for Fiona Hyslop all year - something the Tories telegraphed almost 12 months ago by pointing out how many votes Fiona Hyslop had lost in the Parliament since her appointment. The idea that Alex Salmond hadn't noticed until today that his Education Secretary did not have her troubles to seek is laughable.

And, let's be honest here, would it have been wise for the no-confidence motion to be the trigger? Patently not: if that were the only cause, then Alex Salmond would have ceded an important power to the Opposition - the power to determine his ministerial line-up! Now, of course, that power is technically in the hands of the Parliament anyway, and the Opposition enjoys a majority in the Parliament, but the fact remains that First Ministers generally prefer to remain (and have, up to now, remained) in control of who they appoint. Hand that over without a fight, and that's it - game over. That's the rationale for keeping her, albeit moving and demoting her (incidentally, for those who wince at the idea of moving from Education to Culture being a demotion: she has moved from being a Cabinet Secretary to a Minister, or to use the Scotland Act terms, from being a Minister to a Junior Minister, and has taken a pay cut: therefore, I'm afraid the term is correct). Alex Salmond still wants Fiona Hyslop to play a role in his Government. End of.

So could something else be at work here? Mike Russell was brought to his current post to develop the White Paper. The White Paper is now written. Now there's legislation to steer, which the FM has said that he himself will do - seeing as this was always in the Department of the First Minister, this makes sense - so Russell can move on to the next task. Which is quite clearly education. Perhaps, and we can't know this, but it's a good bet, with the White Paper now out there, this move was always going to happen? It's logical, given that Russell's primary task in his previous role is now complete, and it's far more logical than the possibility that the Liberal Democrats succeeded in dictating to the First Minister just who he should have in his line-up. Obviously, this was a major vulnerability here, but simply giving in would serve simply to expose that vulnerability further (and set an ugly precedent) unless more were going on than we realised.

So what of Mike Russell? He's beginning to be seen as a key lieutenant, perhaps even an enforcer, within the Government: not so much the Mandelson-figure that LPW sees, but perhaps a more affable, SNP version of John Reid. Reidzo, if we remember, became the first post-devolution Scotland Secretary, stepped into the breach at the Northern Ireland Office after Peter Mandelson imploded for a second time, filled in as Leader of the House of Commons after Robin Cook resigned, took over the Health portfolio following the surprise resignation of Alan Milburn, steadied matters in the MoD following Geoff Hoon's rough ride, and came to the rescue of the Home Office at the calamitous end of Charles Clarke's tenure there. Mike Russell, meanwhile, has stepped up to the plate following the difficult period endured by Linda Fabiani as Culture Minister, and now does the same again as he replaces Fiona Hyslop. We can see, therefore, the embryo of a Reid-esque career progression. If he can settle matters down in this portfolio as he did so well at his last one, it can only grow stronger.

A First Choice

So the White Paper is out. And we see the options - the status quo, Calman, Devolution Max or full independence. It's notable how established devolution is in the mind that rollback is not considered an option by anyone. It's also notable that everyone wishes to move away from the status quo at some point, even if it's not quite now.

Of course, the SNP position is obvious: it's the established SNP position, though it says something that the SNP are offering options other than their own - something the UK Government was not willing to do in 1997 (during the 2007 Election campaign, Nicol Stephen said that the voters rejected independence in the devolution referendum - this was a blatant lie as independence was not even offered to be rejected in the first place) and look unwilling to do whenever they get around to discussing the implementation of the Calman report.

The Tory position, meanwhile, is the clearest of the opposition parties' stances on the Scottish Government White Paper: No. That is the stance, just No. They don't believe in it, and have better things to talk about. Granted, their stance on Calman is significantly less clear (I don't think even they know what their stance on Calman is) but on independence, their position is a clear signpost. And I actually respect it. Why? Because it's clear, it's constant, it's principled. Just like their position on devolution was in 1997, when they ended up with no MPs in Scotland as a result of it. Yet despite that debacle, they're still willing to repeat that approach! Fair play to them.

The Labour position du jour, however, is a mish-mash of Wendy Alexander's moment of bravado and the party's general mistrust of anything at this end of the constitutional spectrum. Yes, there ought to be a referendum at some point, they say, but not just now. Well, when? Have they any idea? If, somehow, Labour get that fourth term when they're going to get around to putting Calman into practice (interesting how it took two years from election victory to the formal establishment of a Scottish Parliament, but it would take five years to get from election victory to a simple transfer of extra powers to a body that's already up and running - what gives?), will independence come on the table in some form then? I have my doubts. The truth is that for Labour, because their answer to the question is No, the right time to ask the question is Never. If you don't ask the question, the status quo prevails. If you do, the answer might turn out to be Yes. For all the faults of Wendy Alexander, she did put on record her willingness to accept what the people had to say. Now, we never had to put that willingness to the test, but no other figure in Scottish Labour has come remotely close to expressing anything like that, least of all Jim "We'll sort a quick transfer of powers out at some stage before 2015" Murphy. Bring it on, it ain't.

Then there's the LibDems, to whom the details of the proposal seem to be the most accommodating, given that the party's own work on the issue seems to lie somewhere between the two middle-ground options. But my feelings about the LibDems have been made quite clear on may occasions and, once again, they have lived down to my expectations: if the price of getting somewhere, and maybe even getting exactly what they want, is co-operating with the SNP, then, in the view of the Leadership, the price is too high. I've noted on so many occasions that the SNP and LibDems seem to be on the same page on so many issues, and seem to fit together as a logical pairing in some Council chambers, but beyond that, LibDems seem to have this mental block when it comes to working alongside the SNP even when it comes to the point of various logical contortions such as suggesting that you're subverting the will of the people by asking them directly just precisely what that will is.

And that's where we are. We have the basis for something that people can talk about. Other options are available for those who would prefer them. But the positions of a majority of MSPs mean that sadly, the White Paper is probably going to stay on bookshelves for about eighteen months or so. And I suspect that the SNP gets that: there's one eye on 2010, of course. But, let's face it, the ramifications of independence are - and this is blatantly obvious - very much for the long term, so you can see why it's perfectly possible and entirely proper for the SNP to bide its time. This White Paper could well be put to one side soon enough, but it could be very easily be picked right back up again in its present form after, oh, let's say, May 2011. And should the document be taken forward now or then, and a middle ground be taken, either in the form of Calman or devo-max, then Scotland will have gone, in the space of less than two decades, from no Parliament, to Parliament, to more powers, with the continuous direction of travel being towards a transfer of responsibilities from the UK Government to Scotland. That's precisely the direction that the SNP wishes to head in, even if this way, there are more comfort breaks than the SNP would prefer to take. Whatever the result of this process now taking place, this is something for the SNP to celebrate. As I've said before:

El que espera lo mucho espera lo poco.