Where do we go from here?

A couple of weeks ago, I discussed what would (well, what should) happen if Parliament rejected the Budget. Parliament has rejected the Budget.

Thing is, I treated the Budget like a confidence vote. I didn't really think of what would happen in the event of a tie.

In this case, the Presiding Officer voted with the status quo, as he's supposed to. That meant voting with the Opposition.

In a no-confidence vote, the Presiding Officer would have voted with the status quo, as he's suposed to. That would have meant voting with the Government.

So we're in a grey area. We cannot say that Parliament has outright confidence in the Government, as it did not vote for its Budget. But we cannot say that Parliament has no confidence in the Government as the latter would have won a confidence vote on the basis of tonight's proceedings.

So there needs to be some sort of attempt to move things forward, but it must not get bogged down: it will either be simple - giving the Greens enough money for their home insulation project that they can abstain (so 64 votes to 62, and a passed Bill) - or it will be impossible as all parties retreat into their own camps and we end up with lots of grandstanding, loads of egg-throwing, but no Budget.

If it's the former, we can all breathe a sigh of relief, and life goes on for another year.

If it's the latter, then we'll know soon enough, and there can only be one eventual outcome: an Election.

Let us assume that the process fails and the First Minister resigns. The clock begins. Labour may attempt to put together an alternative government: Iain Gray can probably count on the LibDems. That's a total of 62 votes - not enough. He may be able to score a deal with the Greens, but it will be far looser than Labour would like and it will still only take that Coalition up to 64, which as we learned today, is not enough. Even if they do go on to form a Government on that basis, they'd have to keep Margo MacDonald on side permanently, so as to secure the 65 votes needed. Without that, their Budget would also die and we'd be back to square one. On that basis, then, it might not be wise for Iain Gray to proceed as he too would hit a brick wall: like the current Government, he might get the Confidence, but not the Supply.

So the calculation is: which will do Labour the most damage, to go into an Election now, or attempt to form a weak administration, then go into an Election a few months later, and weakened from that experience? That is what Iain Gray now has to consider. It's also what Tavish Scott has to consider.

But assuming that they vote in favour of proceeding (they may conclude that they want to form a Government and that an Election may form a barrier to that aim), and direct their Business Managers to vote in favour of a programme which includes a vote to replace the First Minister, that's still only part of the story as they have only 62 votes out of a possible 125 on the Parliamentary Bureau. The SNP would want an election in these circumstances, so would vote against a Programme which contained a First Ministerial election: the plan would be the only one available - to run down the clock. So that's 62 votes in favour, 47 against.

It then falls to the Tories, and their 16 votes. Should the current Government fall, would they want an election immediately, or only after Labour tried and failed to put together a stable administration?

There are now only two factors which will decide whether or not this Government and this Third Session of the Scottish Parliament survive: whether or not John Swinney can get a deal that keeps the Tories and Margo on side, and gains Green acquiescence, and if he should not succeed, whether David McLetchie - the Tories' Business Manager - votes for or against any schedule for Parliamentary Business that includes a vote to replace the First Minister.

My view is that a change in Government should always require an election - surely any prospective administration would recognise the need to put its supposed public support to the test, and present its programme to the country, unless it saw itself as little more than a Caretaker administration until an election could be held?

But, frankly, I do not want a change in Government. If the LibDems think this Budget is uninspiring, then they must look back on the old days of the Lib-Drab Pact with rose-tinted spectacles. The last administration only ever seemed to promote pessimism, and had no positive approach to any policy challenge, other than, "We hate Alex Salmond". The only thing they took forward was inertia. Even now, Labour are happy to see other countries descend into misery, simply to highlight a political point. What Scotland has now is a vast improvement on those days.

So my position as of now is, "A deal if possible, an election if necessary".

How did we get here?

Well, we're Budget-less. I could go on about what now won't happen as a result of this, but there's no point. The debate has been held, the vote has been taken and there is currently no Budget, and no financial plan for next year.

Bugger.

Anyway, what can we say about the parties tonight?

The SNP is, in fact, in a similar position to where it was last year - it's the other parties whose positions hae changed and in a far more aggressive direction. Nevertheless, that does necessitate a change in approach from the Government. Some might say it needs to adopt a consensual approach so as to secure deals with other parties. Others might say that deals are probably less likely than they were a year ago, so it falls to the Government to be more robust, and meet attack with attack. I'm not comfortable with either: the former approach relies on the goodwill of the opposition parties - which is not available at this time - while the latter doesn't generate the goodwill needed to get things done. Catch-22.

That said, where we did goof was with the Greens. A deal could have been done, but the approach we took was familiar to all Rangers fans. A smaller SPL club, say, Kilmarnock, has a star striker who is absolutely fantastic. Rangers want to buy him. Killie expect a seven-figure sum for him. Martin Bain tables the Gers' offer: 50p and a refillable lighter. John Swinney managed to find £22 million, then a further £11 million. When it became apparent that a deal with Labour wasn't possible, surely there could have been a further £67 million from offers to them that could have come into play? The Greens still wouldn't have supported it while we were planning to build roads that would at least get Scotland's cars moving faster rather than being stuck in queues belching out emissions at traffic jam hotspots, but they could have abstained, letting the Budget through. That was our miscalculation: £67 million and two votes.

Labour's position is odd. Firstly, it's a reversal of last year, where they basically sulked through the Budget, went on about how terrible it was and how they didn't want any part in it, only to abstain at Stage 3. This year they engaged, had negotiations, put their point across and, most importantly, gave us an idea of Labour's priorities only to vote the Budget down. Last year's approach was barmy, and this year's? Well, I can't begrudge it. After all, Oppositions oppose - it's what they do. If they don't like what's in the Budget, then in theory, it stands to reason that they can't vote for it.

However. The basic tenet of the Labour opposition has been that the SNP Government isn't doing enough to combat the recession. However, today we learned that Scotland has managed to avoid recession this quarter. Of course, this means that there's a likely six months to the beginning of the recession and it's going to be an utter bastard, but SNP policy clearly has some merit if it's staved the real troubles off for six months longer than Gordon Brown could achieve. Also, if it's in the Scottish Government's power to fight recession, then that inadvertantly damns both Iain Gray and Andy Kerr: Scotland's last recession was in 2002, when Gray became Enterprise Minister and Kerr was Finance Minister - the two economic portfolios. If it's down to the SNP to deal with the recession now, they were at fault then, and Gordon Brown is at fault for the wider UK recession at this time. If they can't admit responsibility for those then their reasons for opposing the Budget are bogus, and so I'm left with the feeling that their main beef with the Budget wasn't what was in it, but who was presenting it.

And of course, as Brown himself said today, the worst thing we can do to fight the recession is nothing. That is precisely what they voted for tonight.

The Tories are still playing the game: talking to the Government and winning concessions. They got something they could be happy with today and so stand apart as the only opposition party able to do that. And they didn't do it through temper tantrums. The only other political force capable of doing that was Margo MacDonald.

The LibDems? They've showed themselves up in fine style, haven't they? Remember their demand for a 2% cut in income tax, and sending the Chief Whip to negotiations instead of the Finance Spokesman, coupled with the inevitable flounce-out when everyone - even the Tories who normally jump on tax cuts - went pale at the thought of an £800 million black hole in the Budget, a black hole which the LibDems themselves offered no methods of filling? Well, it's now a bit rich for Liberal Democrat bloggers to accuse the SNP of arrogance, and blame the Government for the felled Budget. I'm willing to accept that miscalculations were made, but the idea that a party that made only one demand and refused to talk to anyone until it was met (a re-hash of their approach to Coalition negotiations in 2007) can sit on a high horse and damn others for their arrogance is little short of rank hypocrisy, particularly when they accuse the SNP of not negotiating, despite the fact that the LibDems were the only party not to enter into serious discussions. The LibDems increasingly remind me of the annoying little snotbag that everyone knew at Primary School, who would run around hitting people then whining, "Why are you hitting yourself?". That should be the title of the next LibDem manifesto.

This is what I don't get about them: they made a massive demand that they surely couldn't expect to be funded - they'd have had some ideas about where the money would have come from if they were serious enough to actually think about it - they refused to negotiate, they made no other suggestions and yet are still surprised and offended when they come away with nothing.

As for the Greens, they feel aggrieved and have every right to: they made a constructive suggestion, a weaker-than-acceptable alternative was put forward. What else could they do?

So the Government made one single error, and it was in the treatment of the Greens. The Tories and Margo got what they came for and supported it. Of those in opposition to the Budget: the Greens opposed the Budget out of principle. Labour opposed it out of politics. And the LibDems opposed it out of petulance. They're fit only for the playground, not for Parliament.

Don Do-Don Don, Don Do-Don Don Donnnn!!!!

Well, someone had to present the case for the defence of Nigel Don, MSP for North East Scotland, and Paul Hutcheon's latest hapless victim. For those who are unsure, the Sunday Herald's political editior has hit upon a novel way of meeting his filing deadlines on a week when little major news has emerged from Holyrood: he scours MSPs' expense records until he happens on something juicy. Indeed, Hutcheon has had a hand in the defenestration of both David McLetchie and Wendy Alexander as leaders of their respective parties. So everyone has cause to be wary of the man. And make sure that all of their records are above board and seen to be above board.

Unfortunately, Nigel Don has not realised this, and this can probably be put down to a rookie mistake, though he has attempted to put his side of the story across through means of an interview with Hutcheon, which the Sunday Herald appears to carry verbatim. As such, he probably has a better shot of gettign through this than anyone else to face up to the journalist: the instinctive response is to circle the wagons and it usually fails.

Where Nigel Don has gone wrong is pretty clear: yes, he's entitled to this, yes, every procedure has been followed as it should have been and yes, there are practical reasons for the move to Aberdeen and establishment of a second home in Edinburgh. But he's forgotten the Golden Rule: politics is never about what is. It's about what appears to be. And as the man himself admits, it looks dodgy. So whatever his intentions - and I don't view them as malicious - there is an element of naivety at work. Especially as the writing appeared to be on the wall for the Edinburgh Accommodation Allowance at that stage.

But the fact is that his work wasn't in Dundee (I'll come to that later): it was in Aberdeen and Edinburgh. Now, Dundee is the least bad place to be if you want to travel to both of those cities regularly, but it's still far from ideal. Dundee-Edinburgh-Dundee is not a commute I'd like to make day in and day out for four years. Neither is Dundee-Aberdeen-Dundee. Yet the rules of the EAA plainly expected Nigel Don to make the former, while circumstances demanded the latter. This goes to show that there was an arbitrary element to the nuts and bolts of the scheme, which offered a gravy train for some MSPs, and made unrealistic expectations of others.

So what this story tells us is what we already knew: that the EAA was and is a complete pain.

But now to the other point: the main thrust of reaction to the story is indignation at the idea that Nigel Don is not travelling the length and breadth of a cobbled-together region which stretches from the Buchan Coast to the Firth of Tay, but focusing on the non-SNP areas, which are all focused in and around Aberdeen.

Now, firstly, you wouldn't expect a Highlands and Islands MSP to cover the entirety of the region from Lerwick to Campbelltown so why Nigel Don should be expected to go on a magical mystery tour taking in Dundee, Forfar, Brechin, Stonehaven, Aberdeen and Peterhead is beyond me.

Anyway, let's begin at constitutional principle. What is Nigel Don's job? Let's look at the two types of MSP. The Constituency MSP's job is to represent the Constituency as its sole voice. They are, if you're a purist, elected as an individual and just happen to be standing as a Party's candidate. Their primary duty is, therefore, to represent the entire constituency. It's the constituency > individual > party hierarchy that explains firstly why MP's refer to each other as the Member for Such-and-such, and why we have to have a By-Election to replace a Constituency Member.

But a Regional MSP's purpose is different. Why were they established? Well, the cynic's view would that they were established a) to prevent the SNP from ever gaining a majority in the Scottish Parliament, and b) as a sop to the LibDems. The purists' answer is simple: to redress the political imbalance in a region caused by distorted FPTP results. In short, Nigel Don, as a Regional MSP, was not elected as a community voice, but strictly as an SNP one, to make sure that the number of MSPs emerging from the North East broadly reflected the way votes had been cast in the region. If there is a representational element at all, it must surely be to provide an SNP alternative to SNP supporters who find themselves with a Constituency MSP of another party and would feel happier taking up issues with a more politically sympathetic ear. The only formal duty that he is charged with is to be active in at least two of the region's constituencies. Nigel Don ticks that box.

Beyond that, anything else is incidental, and Nigel Don has no individual duty. The Regional MSP hierarchy is party > individual > region. He was elected on an SNP List as an SNP candidate, but does get to keep his seat until the next election should he change his affiliation. Should he cease to be an MSP, Karen Shirron, who was next on the List, would automatically take his place. Indeed, Nigel Don did not campaign as an individual candidate for the Scottish Parliament in 2007: he was not a constituency candidate, so the only votes received for Nigel Don during the entire 2007 electoral process were those on the North East selection ballot of SNP members in the region, and perhaps any Constituency in which he might have put his name forward for selection. The only members of the general public to vote for him were the voters of Lochee Ward on Dundee City Council. They did give him a personal mandate, one he surrendered when he realised that his MSP work would take him either to Aberdeen or Edinburgh, but that his role in Dundee would be limited. Otherwise, the idea that Nigel Don, and indeed all the Regional MSPs, have to cover the entire region is undoubtedly noble but somewhat misplaced.

For instance, even if you discount the Constituency element which Nigel Don correctly cited, the idea that everyone elected should cover the whole region does raise the issue of what happens when there's more than one elected member from a party. Does it make sense for the two to duplicate the workload, and get under each other's feet, or is it wiser to divvy the region up into more manageable chunks, which each member can cover? Plainly, the latter is the more sensible option.

Now let's bring in the full gamut of elected officials. Constituency MSPs already face turf wars from Councillors of any and all political hues, MPs who may not necessarily be from the same party but still face re-election and want their picture in the local paper and Regional MSPs of rival parties. So Andrew Welsh (SNP, Angus) will notice that Tory Regional MSP Alex Johnstone was his challenger in 2007 (and Robert Smith, LibDem MP for West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine will surely be aware that Johnstone is after his sea at the next Westminster election); Stewart Stevenson (SNP, Banff & Buchan) defeated Alison McInnes, who became a LibDem Regional MSP so is still very much a presence. Brian Adam (SNP, Aberdeen North) has Labour MP Frank Doran to contend with, while Joe FitzPatrick (SNP, Dundee West) has to deal with Labour MP Jim McGovern. Alex Salmond (Gordon) and Nicol Stephen (LD, Aberdeen South) have a double whammy: the FM is in LibDem MP Malcolm Bruce's stomping grounds and has Tory MSP Nanette Milne in the background, while the former LibDem leader has to look over his shoulder at Labour MP Anne Begg and SNP Regional MSP Maureen Watt.

So on that basis, the last thing Constituency MSPs need is Regional MSPs from the same party moving in. It's also the same duplication of effort that would be expected if every Regional MSP had to cover the entire region.

So in Nigel Don's case, he is an SNP alternative in areas where one isn't available: Aberdeen Central, Aberdeen South and West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine. The other Regional SNP MSP, Maureen Watt, faces the same task, but can focus on her ministerial role while Nigel has her back. Joe FitzPatrick is a backbencher so doesn't need much in the way of backup: he has time to devote to his Constituency. Shona Robison (Dundee East) may have ministerial work to contend with, but she has backup in the form of her husband, and the area's MP, Stewart Hosie. Andrew Welsh is the Convener of the Finance Committee, but that just means he has some extra work to do when Parliament is sitting - when he's already in Edinburgh. So as far as Dundee and the surrounding area is concerned, Nigel Don's work is already being done.

In the rest of the region, aside from the gap in SNP Constituency representation, Brian Adam (Aberdeen North) is the SNP's Chief Whip, meaning extra work making sure that SNP MSPs are where they're supposed to be, but again, that boils down to extra work when he's already in Edinburgh. Any backup he'd need would be minimal. Alex Salmond would need some help as there'll be lots of demands on his time as FM and the MP in the area is, as we've established, a Liberal Democrat, so an extra bit of SNP backup would be useful to him, and Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson would have an SNP MP to help lighten the load, but that MP is the already-busy First Minister, so again, Nigel Don has a role to play there. But what do Salmond and Stevenson's constituencies have in common?

Simple. They're as far away from Dundee as you can get while still being a) in the North East region, and b) on dry land. There's no two ways about it: Nigel Don's job is not in Dundee, whee he'd be duplicating someone else's workload. It's in Edinburgh, and it's in Aberdeen and the surrounding area.

So although it would be noble for Nigel Don to make a heroic effort and pop up everywhere across the region talking to as many of the hundreds of thousands of people that live there as possible, that would reduce his efficacy as an MSP. He is needed more in Aberdeenshire than in Dundee. And while the timing and appearance of his EAA claim that is unfortunate, the decision to up sticks to the Granite City, and set up a proper second home in Edinburgh was, on balance, right one. Staying in Dundee would have made his job - and his life - more difficult.

I can't honestly say that I wouldn't do any different in Nigel Don's shoes. It's perception that's made him vulnerable. Well, that and the misfortune that Paul Hutcheon has reached the D's.

Hutcheon nobbled Wendy Alexander in December 2007. He's onto Nigel Don now. So the real moral of the story is that MSPs whose surname begins with G have twelve months to get their house in order.

The Sunday Whip

Another quiet one, this week: seems we're all saving our energies for the Budget Bunfight next week.

Anyway, the only substantive item of business on Wednesday - aside from the waved through Business Motion - was a Government motion on the CAP Healthcheck. The absentees were: Jackie Baillie (Lab, Dumbarton), Cathie Craigie (Lab, Cumbernauld & Kilsyth), Labour's Shadow Cabinet Secretary Without Portfolio Margaret Curran (Glasgow Baillieston), Labour's Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale, on maternity leave), Hugh Henry (Paisley North), Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians), Jack McConnell (Lab, Motherwell & Wishaw), Environment Minister Mike Russell (South of Scotland), Elaine Smith (Lab, Coatbridge & Chryston, who was thought to be in a hidey-hole with Osama bin Laden, Elvis, Lord Lucan and Shergar, but has since surfaced in the form of a press release to hail proposed improvements to a pair of railway bridges in Coatbridge though as yet has not seen fit to return to the Chamber), Finance Secretary John Swinney (North Tayside) and Shadow Deputy Finance Minister David Whitton (Lab, Strathkelvin & Bearsden).

They missed the Labour and Tory amendments being waved through, and a LibDem amendment passing by 53 votes (Labour and most of the LibDems) to two - LibDem Justice Spokesman Robert Brown (Glasgow) and Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead (Moray), both of whom, I suspect, goofed - with 62 (SNP/Tory/Green) abstentions.

The Green amendment, which was missed by Jamie McGrigor (Con, Highlands & Islands), fared far worse: it fell by 76 (SNP/Tory/LibDem) votes to three - the Greens and Labour Deputy Leader Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok), who I assume was also a member of the Wrong Button Club - with 37 Labour abstentions. But the amended motion was waved through:

That the Parliament, noting the recent agreement in the Council of Ministers on the European Commission's legislative proposals for the Health Check of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), acknowledges the Scottish Government's commitment to work with stakeholders on how key aspects of the proposals should be implemented in Scotland and on the longer-term implementation of CAP in Scotland and believes that future decisions must reflect the distinctiveness of agriculture in Scotland and support a dynamic and competitive industry with farmers playing their full part in achieving the Scottish Government's purpose of sustainable economic growth through food production and the environmental management of our agricultural land, combined with the delivery of other economic and social public goods; calls on the Scottish Government to work constructively with UK ministers to ensure that the United Kingdom's negotiating strategy delivers the right framework for rural Scotland, including support for farming and crofting in fragile rural areas, to ensure that new policy mechanisms are in place to maintain habitat programmes, following the loss of set-aside provisions, and to continue a bull hire scheme; considers that greater levels of food production and increased self-sufficiency are becoming increasingly important; therefore encourages policy makers to work towards future support being linked to the active farming of land; notes with concern evidence of serious difficulties experienced by farmers and crofters in accessing monies under the Scotland Rural Development Programme (SRDP); recognises the Scottish Government's commitment to review the Rural Priorities scheme, and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that the review is sufficiently wide-ranging to cover all aspects of the structure of the SRDP as well as the application process for payments to resolve urgently the problems with the operation and implementation of the programme.

Thursday was relatively quiet as well, by recent standards, and the absentee list reflects that: Labour Shadow Education Secretary Rhona Brankin (Midlothian), Cathie Craigie, Margaret Curran, Karen Gillon, Labour Shadow Health Secretary Cathy Jamieson (Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley), Shadow Finance Secretary Andy Kerr (East Kilbride), Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill (Lothians, now where could he have been, I wonder?), Shadow Enterprise Minister Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central), Margo MacDonald, Jack McConnell, Elaine Smith and Labour's Shadow Children's Minister Karen Whitefield (Airdrie & Shotts).

They missed the waving through of Stage 3 of the Scottish Parliamentary Pensions Bill.

The main point of contention on the day was the debate on the Government's response to the Scottish Council of Economic Advisers Annual Report. The Labour amendment was waved through, but the Tory one faced a vote, and passed by 98 (SNP/Labour/Tory) votes to 18 (LibDems/Greens). The LibDem amendment, which was missed by John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West), fell, by 48 (SNP/Green) votes to 15, with 52 (Labour/Tory) abstentions. And the amended motion itself was passed, by 98 (SNP/Labour/Tory) votes to 2 (Greens) with 16 LibDem abstentions:

That the Parliament notes the recommendations made in the First Annual Report of the Scottish Council of Economic Advisers: December 2008 and the Scottish Government's response to those recommendations in the context of its action to help businesses and households, support jobs and investment and ensure Scotland is well positioned to take advantage of any recovery; calls on the Scottish Government to establish a formal link between the Council of Economic Advisers and the National Economic Forum to ensure that the work of the two bodies is coordinated to be of maximum benefit to the Scottish people, and in particular notes the commitment to an independent assessment of the full economic costs and abatement potential of the various energy options, including nuclear power, which are open to Scotland.

Following that, the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill passed Stage 1 without any challenge, and the Bill got its Financial Resolution without dissent.

That's your lot. Now, get ready for the biggie...

Seriously, where is she?

Following on from my last post, when I noticed that Elaine Smith hasn't voted in Parliament since 8 October, the plot thickens: the most recent sign of activity that I can find from the MSP for Coatbridge & Chryston is this press release dated 29 October on her website.

Which begs the question: what in blazes did children at Carnbroe Primary School do to her? Is their P7 class particularly feral, or is there something else occurring?

Of course, it's going to turn out that it's health-related, and I'm going to feel incredibly guilty (as well as embarrassed for not knowing), but the fact remains that the people of Coatbridge & Chryston have, in effect, been without a Constituency MSP for two and a half months.

Now, according to Section 9 of the Scotland Act, when a vacancy comes to the attention of the Presiding Officer (i.e. when a Constituency MSP resigns, dies or is disqualified), there's a three-month time limit on holding a By-Election to fill it, unless a full Election is due within three months of that deadline.

Of course, the PO has not been notified of any official vacancy, but a de facto one now seems to be in effect, and it can't be filled until either Elaine Smith returns from wherever she is, or officially resigns. And then it could take up to three months for her to be replaced!

This is a massive flaw in the system: whatever the reason, she is not discharging her duties effectively. Even those MSPs on maternity leave this session (Angela Constance, Karen Gillon and Shirley-Anne Somerville) have found their way to the Parliament at crucial moments. But Elaine Smith has not. She is not in a position to do her job, and in any other walk of life, some sort of cover (or even a full-time replacement) would be arranged.

But the people of Coatbridge & Chryston have to wait until 2011 to replace her. Maybe it's time that we started thinking about some sort of provision for a recall vote, or a method of Parliament triggering a By-Election.

This isn't a campaign against Elaine Smith in particular: this could be any MSP for any Constituency, in any Party. But she's the first one to just vanish like this since the Election, and the fact remains that it shouldn't be any MSP at all, for any Constituency whatsoever, in any of the parties in Parliament. It shouldn't be happening and it's time that rules were looked at, for the sake of the people of Coatbridge & Chryston, and for the next constituents (wherever they are) who find themselves suddenly deprived of their representative and with no prospect of a replacement.

But in the absence of any likely change to the law, I'll settle just to know where she is and how she's doing.

The Sunday Whip

An odd week, this one. It had moments of consensus, but there was a "Yes, but..." feel to it. there were also moments of confrontation, but they too seemed a little muted. Oh well.

Anyway, Wednesday had only one vote (the Business Motion was waved through, as usual), and it was the biggie: Stage 1 of the Budget (Scotland) (No.2) Bill. The only absentees were from Labour: Cathie Craigie (Cumbernauld & Kilsyth) - who doubtless was trying to avoid a repeat of last year, when quite inadvertantly, she became the sole voice of opposition to the previous Budget - Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) - who is still on maternity leave - Elaine Smith (Coatbridge & Chryston) - whose last voted in the Chamber more than three months ago, on 8 October: does anyone in Lanarkshire Labour circles know what's happened to her? - and Shadow Children's Minister Karen Whitefield (Airdrie & Shotts).

They missed the Budget clearing Stage 1 quite comfortably, by 107 (SNP/Labour/Tories/Greens) to 16 (the LibDems - who aren't against A Budget being passed, but just don't like THIS one, which I thought was an argument for voting in favour at Stage 1 and against in Stage 3, instead of voting to kill the process at the first available moment, but there you go), with Margo abstaining as per usual. The Bill spends next week in the Finance Committee and all being well, should return to the Chamber for Stage 3 the following week.

Thursday saw the same sort of mixed bag: first came Stage 1 of the Health Boards (Membership and Elections) (Scotland) Bill, and a LibDem amendment to the motion passing it. Both were nodded through:

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Health Boards (Membership and Elections) (Scotland) Bill but, in so doing, noting the terms of the Health and Sport Committee's Stage 1 report, calls on the Scottish Government to bring forward, ahead of Stage 3, firm proposals for the piloting of a variety of alternative schemes to improve public participation and shares the committee's view that such agreement to the general principles should not be taken to pre-empt any decision that the Parliament may later be asked to take on the rolling out of direct elections to health boards nationwide.

This suggests that while no one is particularly hostile to the idea of elections for health board members - though the debate did suggest a level of scepticism in some circles - the Bill might have a slightly rougher passage through Stages 2 and 3. But the Financial Resolution passed without any argument.

Finally, came the niggle: the Government motion on the Forth Crossing. Again, the only absentees at Decision Time were from Labour: Cathie Craigie, Karen Gillon, Shadow Culture Minister Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin), Shadow Housing Minister Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow) and Elaine Smith. So it's only fitting that the first amendment to the motion should come from their party. It fell, by 64 (SNP/Tories/Margo) to 43 (Labour/Greens) with 16 LibDem abstentions, though the Tory position was to vote against any amendment which removed the line opposing a toll on the new bridge, and I suspect that the LibDems only abstained as success for the Labour amendment would have fallen automatically. The Tory amemdment (which boiled down to "Why can't we all just get along?") passed without argument, but the LibDem amendment, which survived the procedural threat, didn't survive the vote, falling by 66 (SNP/Tories/Greens/Margo) to 57 (Labour/LibDems). The amended motion hen went on to pass by 121 votes (everyone but the Greens) to 2:

That the Parliament notes the Scottish Government's choice of conventional capital funding for construction of the Forth Replacement Crossing and welcomes the fact that Scotland's biggest infrastructure project for a generation will be delivered without the need for tolls, and calls on the Scottish and UK governments to work together to ensure that the new crossing is delivered at the earliest possible opportunity.

So that's this week sorted. And seriously, where is Elaine Smith?

Bloggers' Association again

A whie back, I floated the idea of a Scottish Blogging Association, a suggestion got a couple of comments, but not all that much interest, unless people were thinking "Yes! When are you going to take it forward?", in which case, this would be a good time for me to answer, "Oh, bugger."

Anyway, the reason I've opted to revisit it now is this post by Welsh Tory Eurocandidate Evan Price, via Iain Dale (the Tory one, that is), which notes the threat bloggers face from more litigious readers, and suggests almost a sort of Trade Union (Tory sacrilege, surely!) to act as a mutual defence fund against malicious lawsuits. Dale himself is sceptical, on the grounds that bloggers are just too individualistic.

Personally, I think the reason that Evan Price comes up with is worryingly defensive, but in the wake of the Alex Hilton row, it's also rather prescient. However, even that wasn't a black-and-white issue, as the comments I received on the matter show. I envisioned an association being more capable of driving forward and securing an almost mainstream-status for bloggers (and it's interesting how I view mainstream as something to aim for, while Iain Dale, the blogger who has crossed into the mainstream more than any other on this side of the Atlantic, uses the term in a less positive light). I still think it could work, but I've considered a number of obstacles that we'd have to address.

Firstly, in terms of the Price proposals, on what level would an association be formed? A UK-wide one? I know that given my politics, I'd have trouble signing up to that. It sounds petty, but what would you expect? I've posted time and again in support of independence, and my view of British identity as a myth, so it would be slightly ridiculous (and hypocritical) on my part to sign up to a newly created British institution. I suspect that would be the case for a fair chunk of the SNP blogosphere and given what a significant chunk of the Scottish political blogosphere is formed by SNP voices, that would weaken a UK organisation right from the start: a group that SNP bloggers had trouble with wouldn't be as effective at supporting and defending the Scottish blogosphere as one that included them from the start; a UK-wide organisation that had only a very weak Scottish arm which didn't reflect the full range of opinions in Scotland - or Wales, for that matter - wouldn't really be a "British" organisation either, but an English one with a few addenda. That could even exasperate Unionist voices.

So that would leave us with an association for each of the nations. Now, I could go with that, and the four bodies could still co-operate on an informal basis, but then, the associaitons would inevitably adopt different approaches - which defeats the object of collectivity do a degree - and what's the point in setting up formal structures, if at another level, we revert to informality?

And on that point, that another look at the Alex Hilton case. Individual bloggers signed up to support him, and publicise the case. He got a body of people out there, on his side, without a formal structure. The same is true during the Usmanov affair. And of course, let's not forget the Scottish and BritBlog Roundups. While these are clearly collective works, they're not formal associations but they are very much important, successful parts of the blogosphere (though, interestingly, the Scottish one may arguably be evolving into that and the way it's happening is only serving to enhance the Roundup). So the status quo can work - though the Roundup may end up showing that a change can work better.

But the point that does worry me is that of the team dynamic. A couple of commenters over at Iain Dale ask what'll happen if one strong personality or group of bloggers takes control. Frankly, that's the least of my worries (though being the minority voice in the wilderness is never fun. For me, the bigger trouble is what happens if you have two or more strong personalities: sooner or later, they'll enter a state of clash, and whoever wins, the association would lose. If this can be avoided, we have a way of making things work.

There's also another couple of random questions: firstly, what of expats? From a strictly Scottish perspective, I'm one of those: I'm blogging from an address in England but this blog is unashamedly Scottish and focuses on Scottish politics, with occasional meanderings into European politics, and Scottish football. Now there's always a part of me that would happily turn the blog into a Wigan Athletic fanzine, but that's another story. But what would be the criteria for membership of an association, on either a Scottish or UK level?

Finally, what happens if membership requires firm commitments of time and/or money? I've delayed the EuroCountdown to write about another few things that have turned my head (I'm going to start doing that feature as and when, rather than just on a Sunday - keep looking out for it!). I know from my perspective that one bad week, and everything would get dropped, and I suspect it's the same for many bloggers.

Plus which, I bear the scars from working with the Socttish Students' Debating Council when I was at Uni, and that asked for firm commitments, which various institutions - especially my own - would piss all over at the drop of a hat. Not out of malice, but out of the fact that everyone was either busy or skint. But still, we faced rows from various quarters, with people asking how hard it was to get four people on a bus to University X for their competition. Of course, when we held ours, a number of institutions couldn't make it, and I remarked that I was sorry for them that they were missing a good weeking, only for the same voice that insisted how easy it was to find four willing people to travel on any weekend of the year to grumble that it was our fault for holding the tournament on a date they couldn't make. At that point I felt that for such breath-taking hypocrisy, the individual in question might be better off in the Let's Bitch At Edinburgh Association, but there you go.

But I digress. The point I'm making is that when you put commitments into the equation, some may struggle to meet them - and start to resent them - while those who tick every box will end up resenting the ones that don't. We have to think about that.

So those are the issues that I see standing in the way of an association. How do we beat them? On what level do we organise? It is even worth it? Would you join if we did?

Answers, as always, on a postcard. Or better yet, a comment.

Does a failed Budget mean a new Election?

Much has been made of the SNP stating that, if its Budget is rejected, it will resign. Opponents are deriding this as grand-standing.

But here's the thing: whether it's grand-standing or not, it's the right thing to do.

The Budget is the Government's proposals to spend the money allocated to it for the coming year. That money is, therefore, used to discharge Government policy. If a Parliament rejects the Budget, it rejects the Government's policies completely. If a Parliament does that, it's saying that it no longer wants that Government in office. A Stage 1 rejection would rule out any co-operation with the Government under any circumstances. A Stage 2 rejection is highly unlikely - the worst-case scenario would be all five Opposition members of the Finance Committee ganging up to amend it to death, and that won't happen: Derek Brownlee will probably win a few bonus concessions and vote for the amended package, meaning that with Andrew Welsh's casting vote, it's going through. Labour might win a few points - we shall see - but Jeremy Purvis will walk in looking angry (it doesn't suit him, and neither does the facial hair), demand a 2% cut in income tax that everyone including the Tories - the natural tax-cutting party - are baulking at, and go in a huff when they vote him down, by seven to one. A Stage 3 rejection isn't impossible, however, and would show that despite the best efforts of the Parliament and the Government, members and Ministers just aren't on the same page.

At that point, any Government has to go. If Iain Gray reckons he can do any better, then let him: even with a pact with the LibDems, he'd still come up short of a majority, putting him in a similarly risky position when his Government were to table its spending plans.

And what about forcing an election?

A First Ministerial resignation on its own can't force an Election. Parliament can vote to dissolve itself, but that requires a two-thirds majority. That means any party with 43 members can block an Election. In the current Parliament, the SNP and Labour share control of this mechanism: there can only be an election held this way if they both agree to it, and if they do, it's guaranteed to happen.

But there's another way: the "28 days later" scenario. Parliament would have four weeks to replace the First Minister. It would therefore be down to the Parliamentary Bureau to schedule an election. The Bureau consists of representatives from any Party with five seats or more in the Parliament: Bruce Crawford for the SNP, Michael McMahon for Labour, David McLetchie for the Tories and Mike Rumbles for the LibDems. They each have a voting strength equal to the number of seats their respective parties have in the chamber: Crawford carries 47 votes, McMahon 46, McLetchie and Rumbles 16 each. As they plan the Business of the Parliament, they determine when a vote for a First Minister is held. Control over the continuation of Parliament, and the timing of a new Election would, in effect, pass from the SNP and Labour in the Chamber, to the Bureau.

And in the Bureau, there is no two-thirds majority rule. Further, with the Greens and Margo MacDonald out of the equation, there are a total of 125 votes available, with 63 needed for a majority: the SNP and one other party - any other party. If the SNP can secure Tory (or, less likely, LibDem) support for a new election, it can be triggered by a combination of the First Minister's resignation, with Messrs. Crawford and McLetchie voting to let time run out.

Of course, it's plausible that the Tories could vote to have the vacant First Ministership filled in those circumstances, but then they would face an odd choice: vote to re-instate the Government whose Budget just fell, or vote for Iain Gray as First Minister, with likely LibDem support. Not a choice any Tory would fancy, I'd imagine.

So if a Budget isn't possible, it's absolutely right that the Government should quit, and it's fair enough for Ministers to flag up the possibility: this wasn't an issue before May 2007, now with no guaranteed majority, there is the possibility of a Budget being rejected and it's right for Ministers to spell out what will happen as a result of that. And anyone thinking that a failed Budget won't cause a new election is wrong: it takes only a few easy steps - the Budget fails, the FM resigns, the Bureau fails to schedule a new vote, the 28-day time limit expires and bingo.

Remember: the Bureau holds the veto.

The Sunday Whip

Well, once again, we're back with the Whip, and we appear to have picked up where we left off in terms of the old routine, with Wednesday being largely consensual, and Thursday showing a little more partisan antagonism, though even that was put on hold briefly, as we will see.

Anyway, Wednesday saw the usual easy passage of the Business Motions, and the only substantive business was the Government motion on national qualifications. It was missed by Cathie Craigie (Lab, Cumbernauld & Kilsyth), LibDem Health Spokesman Ross Finnie (West of Scotland), Labour's Shadow Rural Development Spokesperson Karen Gillon (Clydesdale, maternity leave), Tricia Marwick (SNP, Central Fife), Duncan McNeil (Lab, Greenock & Inverclyde), Environment Minister Mike Russell (South of Scotland) and Elaine Smith (Lab, Coatbridge & Chryston).

The only vote to be take was on the Labour amendment, which fell by 63 (SNP/Tory/Green) votes to 42 (Labour) with sixteen abstentions (LibDems/Margo).

The Tory and LibDem amendments, together with the motion itself, were waved through:

That the Parliament recognises the importance of developing the next generation of national qualifications in Scotland in line with the aims, vision and values of the Curriculum for Excellence, with its emphasis on equipping all young people to respond to the demands of the 21st century through developing their capacities as successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens and effective contributors; further recognises the funding, resourcing and training implications of such a move; acknowledges the challenges and opportunities in taking forward the findings of the national consultation exercise and the key role to be played by local authorities, schools, colleges, universities and others in ensuring that we develop a system that meets the expectations of society, in which robust and credible assessment supports good learning and teaching and all young people have the opportunity to acquire the skills, knowledge and experience that they require to take their places in a modern society and economy, and, in particular, recognises the need to ensure that pupils in Scotland are properly schooled and tested in the basic skills of literacy and numeracy by the end of primary 7 and also to ensure that the qualifications structure better reflects the specific needs of all pupils, whether they wish to pursue courses that are more academically focused or more vocationally focused.

Thursday had a little more needle, though not as much as on previous occasions, and there was some scope for consensus. It was missed by Wendy Alexander (Lab, Paisley North), Shadow Higher & Further Education Minister Claire Baker (Mid Scotland & Fife), Ross Finnie, Karen Gillon, Duncan McNeil, Mike Russell, Elaine Smith and Jamie Stone (LD, Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross).

The first votes were on Homecoming Scotland. A Labour amendment to the Government motion fell by 62 (SNP/Tory) votes to 55 (Labour/LD) with three (Green/Margo) abstentions, but Tory and LibDem amendments, along with the amended motion, were passed without dissent:

That the Parliament supports Scotland's first ever homecoming celebration; recognises that the spectacular calendar of events and activities taking place this year from the weekend around Burns Night to St Andrew's Day will make for a unique year for all those joining the celebrations, including the people living in Scotland, the diaspora Scots and those with an affinity for Scotland who visit in 2009, and further recognises the potential for Homecoming Scotland 2009 to boost international and domestic tourism in support of the Scottish economy at this time; recognises that ensuring a lasting economic legacy will depend on capturing information on those who visit during the Year of Homecoming with a view to creating a substantial marketing database for engaging with the diaspora Scots going forward; further recognises that individual tourism providers will be the engines of economic growth generated as a result of the Homecoming, and urges the Scottish Government to ensure that the industry be fully engaged throughout and calls on the Scottish Government to bring forward details of its plans to promote Homecoming in Scotland, the United Kingdom and abroad in order to achieve maximum economic benefit from the celebrations.

Next came the Government motion on the ongoing crisis in the Gaza Strip. This is one of those issues where you don't really want party politics to get in the way, and MSPs didn't disappoint, the motion was waved through:

That the Parliament expresses its concern over the loss of all lives in the conflict in Gaza; joins the international community in calling for a ceasefire; acknowledges the unfolding humanitarian disaster in Gaza; recognises and welcomes the role being played by those in Scotland involved in the humanitarian response, and supports the work of all charities and NGOs in Scotland that are responding to this situation.

The motion on Protecting Scotland's Communities, however, did re-expose those old partisan faultlines, but did, on the quiet, highlight just how minority government works, and really promoted the whole "issue-by-issue" approach to government. In a week where everyone's been talking about the Budget, and economic issues, we've seen that the SNP and Tories aren't exactly a world away, and that Labour and the LibDems are a little more hostile (though, surprisingly, it's the LibDems who are out on a limb, and Labour who fancy engaging with the Government). On issues around justice and community safety, however, we see an alternative SNP/LD/Green axis in full swing, with Labour and the Tories more likely to be singing from relatively similar hymn sheets. And so it proved on Thursday: the Labour amendment fell by 79 (everyone but Labour) votes to 41; Shadow Culture Minister Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) went walkabout for the Tory amendment which fell by 63 (SNP/LD/Green/Margo) votes to 56 (Labour/Tories). McNeill was back for the LibDem amendment, but Shadow Public Health Minister Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland & Fife) had gone a-wandering instead, so that passed by 62 (SNP/LD/Green) votes to 56 (Lab/Con) with her Margo-ness abstaining. Finally, Richard Simpson came back, but Kenneth Gibson (SNP, Cunninghame North) seemed to walk out early. This didn't stop the amended Government motion passing by 62 (SNP/LD/Green/Margo) votes to 57 (Lab/Con):

That the Parliament welcomes the publication on 17 December 2008 of Protecting Scotland's Communities: Fair, Fast and Flexible Justice, which sets out the Scottish Government's strategy to deliver a coherent offender management strategy built on a robust regime of community penalties and payback and proportionate management of offenders sentenced to prison; recognises that community sentences that are completed speedily and enforced with rigour offer greater benefits to communities and individuals than short prison sentences and that their planned expansion must be adequately resourced; calls on the Scottish Government to incorporate in its offender management strategy effective action to tackle the underlying causes of crime and factors and circumstances known to have a link with offending behaviour; reaffirms the importance of judicial independence free from executive direction, and looks forward to constructive engagement with the Scottish Government on the detailed implementation of the programme.

EuroCountdown: Latvia

Number of MEPs now: 9
Likely number of MEPs in June: 8

2004 results

Tēvzemei un Brīvībai/LNNK (For Fatherland & Freedom/LNNK) - 170,819 (29.8%) - 4 seats
Jaunais Laiks (New Era Party) - 112,698 (19.7%) - 2 seats
Par cilvēka tiesībām vienotā Latvijā (For Human Rights in a United Latvia) - 61,329 (10.7%) - 1 seat
Tautas Partija (People's Party) - 38,114 (6.7%) - 1 seat
Latvijas Ceļš (Latvian Way) - 37,357 (6.5%) - 1 seat
Latvijas Sociāldemokrātiskā Strādnieku Partija (Latvian Social Democratic Labour Party)- 27,437 (4.8%) - 0 seats
Tautas Saskaņas Partija (People's Harmony Party) - 27,423 (4.8%) - 0 seats
Zaļo un Zemnieku Savienība (Union of Greens and Farmers) - 24,405 (4.3%) - 0 seats

Prediction

Once again, this is proving difficult. Although the turnout in 2004 wasn't quite as appalling as in some countries, the 41% showing is still lower than the average, and of course, that leads to some screwy results. Things aren't helped by the incredibly tight nature of Latvian politics: there are seven parties in the Saeima, and four parties are within 10% of each other at the top. There's also a four-party Coalition governing the country. Basically, if you recall how freaked out everyone was at how inconclusive the last Scottish Parliamentary election appeared, or how opponents of PR crowed at the result of the last German Federal Elections forcing a Grand Coalition, none of that has anything on how Latvian parliamentary arithmetic seems to operate.

Despite this, the last European Elections seemed pretty conclusive, and pretty safe for TB/LNNK. I don't see much changing for them (they gained a seat in the 2006 Saeima Election, and joined the governing coalition since then). Well, I see them losing a seat, but that's more to do with Latvia as a whole losing a seat. Indeed, the only real question for them is the group that they'll be in post-June. Right now, they're in the Union for a Europe of Nations group, but with its future having been called into question (even if the current members are in a position to form a group that meets all the necessary criteria, a number of them are thinking of heading elsewhere) they may have to find a new home, and matters may hinge on David Cameron's ability to get the Movement for European Reform Group off the ground. That's the group they're most likely to end up in.

For New Era, things are looking far bleaker. The party went down from 26 Saeima seats to 18 in 2006, and last year, a number of key figures left to create a new far-right party. In short, New Era will go backwards: the only question is whether they will lose one seat or two. This will be a small facer for the EPP.

And For Human Rights in a United Latvia aren't likely to do any better. It was an alliance of three parties, and while it's now a single entity, it's more of a rump, having lost alliance members and going from 25 Saeima seats to just six. This is pretty bad news for the EFA, and it's not clear whether the new Harmony Centre coalition (comprising, among others, the People's Harmony Party and the Socialist Party) would fit into it, or the PES. Certainly the 2006 results suggest that Harmony Centre would pull ahead of ForHRUL, and the combined results of the Harmony Centre coaliton members would be enough to give them a seat. The question is, will ForHRUL stay in?

Things seem a little safer for the People's Party: they became the largest party in 2006, so the chances are that they'll advance, and a second seat for them (and the EPP) is a possibility.

Latvian Way also face a bright future: they've formed an alliance with Latvia's First Party, which will probably be good to take them up to the 9-10% mark, making their position more secure. They're currently in the ALDE group, but they're heading further to the right, and the alliance with Latvia's First Party will only push tem further in that direction. Whichever they end up in, I predict one seat for them: no more, no less.

Finally, keep your eye on the Union of Greens and Farmers: they made a big leap forward in 2006, and became the second largest party. The one fly in the ointment is Aivars Lembergs, the mayor of Ventspils. Well, he's probably the former mayor now, given his arrest. He's pretty close to the Union so they could get hauled over the coals. Or they could escape unscathed, and cross the five-percent threshold needed for a seat. And if they do, it's a question of whether a Green or a Farmer gets the seat. If the former, they'll join the Green group (well, duh), If it's the latter, they'll go into ALDE.

So I'm saying three seats for TB/LNNK, two for the People's Party, one for Latvian Way. And the other two? Take your pick. New Era could hold on to one, the new far right offshoot - if it gets off the ground - could pick up the seat instead, Harmony Centre look like a good bet but ForHRUL could still hold on, at the expense of New Era. And waiting in the wings, the Greens and Farmers. This is going to be interesting to watch.

TommyWatch

On watching a clip of Tommy Sheridan's entrance into the Big Brother House (yes, readers, see how much I am willing to suffer for you), I'm struck by the booing. I thought that hardly anyone had heard of him (hence Davina's explanation of just who he is) so wouldn't be in a position to jeer. Maybe they just boo politicians by default. Maybe they were sent there by the SSP. Or the News of the World. Or MI5. Or, in Tommy's mind, no doubt, all three in a massive conspiracy. Though having said that, they seemed to have been booing everyone.

I'm also struck by Davina's inability to pronounce the word 'Convener'. So for the benefit of La McCall, and those listening to her, it's pronounced "con-VEE-ner", and not "CUH-vuh-ner". Note the extra N in the first syllable, and the stress on the second syllable rather than the first. It is not the word "coven", with an "-er" suffix on the end, but "convene" with the suffix. For those unfamiliar with the meaning, a Committee Convener is its Chairperson, while the Convener of a political party is, in effect, its Leader.

And as Tommy Sheridan is a Co-Convener, let me take a moment to remind everyone of Rosemary Byrne's existence. And, indeed, Solidarity's existence, which has received fewer first preference votes than the SSP across the Council By-Elections that took place last year, came behind the SSP in the two Westminster By-Elections (including eighth and last place in Glenrothes), and in 2007, lost its only Councillor when Ruth Black defected to Labour.

So you might think that this is a good way of getting easy publicity - reminding the world of Tommy Sheridan's existence on national television. But his perjury trial will do that. And publicity for Tommy isn't necessarily publicity for Solidarity. But then. this isn't about the advertising: the man himself has said that he's after the cash this will bring.

Trying to move cash from Channel 4's coffers to his own bank account. I'm not sure that's the conventional Socialist view of redistribution of wealth, but there you go.

2009: Predicting the Unpredictable

Seeing as practically the entire planet seems to be in a massive state of flux right now, making predictions for the year ahead might seem barmy. But I'm not going to let that stop me - here's how the parties are going to find 2009:

SNP

At Holyrood, this is going to be an odd mix. The most buttock-clenching moment of last year was the Budget process, but the early signs are that this will be far more sedate than last year. My guess is that the other parties will be more likely to engage in an attempt to force major concessions from the Government, and the Finance Committee meetings could be painful, but the end result will be a budget that no one is particularly unhappy to pass, meaning the uncertainty that faced Holyrood before isn't likely to repeat itself. The only major threat to consensus comes from the row with Westminster over the funding available to Scotland: the SNP will criticise the UK Government for cutting the budget, while Labour will attempt to attack the Scottish Government for blaming its inability to fund its commitments on Westminster. But seeing as it's Westminster that provides the money, and the cash available to the Scottish Government isn't quite as abundant as it may otherwise have been, you can't help but think that the SNP do have a point. Nevertheless, the Budget will pass. It's individual pieces of policy that might struggle to get through: watch for continuing and intensifying attacks on the Local Income Tax and the Scottish Futures Trust.

One other thing to watch for: this May will represent the second anniversary of the SNP Government and the mid-point in the Parliamentary term, so the summer will provide the ideal moment to freshen up the Ministerial team with a re-shuffle, particularly as there will be, at a minimum, the European elections from which to take stock and make changes as required. As I'm expecting a 2010 Election, it'll also be the last sensible chance to make changes in advance of that - anything later will look like panic. Also, as Opposition parties now seem to be making a serious attempt to go after Education Secretary Fiona Hyslop, the First Minister has only a small window of opportunity to shuffle her out of harm's way.

At Westminster, the team does not yet enjoy a high profile, despite the two Westminster By-Elections in the second half of 2008. If the group there can rip into the UK Government regarding the cuts to the Holyrood Budget, then there's scope for some traction for Angus Robertson and Treasury Spokesman Stewart Hosie. However, if the By-Election campaigns are any indicator, it's still Alex Salmond in the driving seat and with two elections coming up where he won't even be a candidate - since his resumption of the Leadership, he's been a successful candidate in both the 2005 and 2007 Elections - that's not a favourable situation and the FM needs to start delegating with a view to giving the SNP MPs (and MEPs) a little more of the limelight so that the can defend their seats, and gain new ones, more effectively.

For the European Election, even the swings from the disappointing result in Glenrothes would see the SNP come first - a massive morale booster and great source of momentum going into 2010. But the fact that those swings didn't result in first place in Glenrothes could pose a problem: people vote for perceived winners and the result there knocked that perception for the SNP. Party oranisers are taking the June election seriously and will be fighting hard, however, so first place is possible. And it's necessary: it will give the SNP a major PR advantage going into 2010. Second place will give the SNP's opponents that advantage instead.

Labour

The signs are that Labour MSPs are beginning to regroup, after the turmoil of electoral defeat and Wendy Alexander's disastrous stewardship of the party. However, they now face the Paradox of Opposition: they have to challenge the Government, they have to provide their own model, or they're accused of favouring the status quo and being the 'do-nothing' party. But they can't offer any concrete policies or they'll either get shot to ribbons or the Government will adopt them and claim the credit. Meanwhile, Iain Gray has his own profile problems: he's in danger of being overshadowed by Jim Murphy, Secretary of State for Scotland, who seems to be far more prominent in his challenges to the SNP than the Leader of the Opposition. You could go so far as to say that he is the real Leader of Scottish Labour at this time, relegating Iain Gray to a sort of Deputy's role. I don't foresee this changing in 2009 but this may hinge on the European Elections. A good performance will see them scrambling to take the credit - if that happens, Jim Murphy will win this one hands down - while a poor one will see them passing the leadership - and, with it, the blame - around. It'll be left to Iain Gray to pick up the pieces.

While we're on the subject of the Euro Elections, they provide a real test for Labour UK-wide. We will see to a degree just how strong support for the Government is during the downturn, and the polls will be backed up - or blown out of the water - by real evidence of behaviour at the ballot box. However, Euro Elections are second-order, and often misleading. The Tories won the Euros in 1999 and went on to get gubbed in 2001. They won again in 2004, but Labour still won a third term in Government a year later, so second place UK-wide is spinnable. However, in Scotland, they have to come first. End of story. Second place would be a disaster, confirming them as the second place party in Scotland, rather than showing 2007 as some sort of aberration. The runner-up spot in two consecutive elections in something that Labour hasn't seen happen to it in half a century. If it happens now, they're in trouble.

At Westminster, it has to be said that the recession has brought new life - and new purpose - into the Brown Government. That said, I don't foresee a 2009 General Election. It's just too risky: it will take place at a point where it's biting the hardest for the most people, and a random event just before or during the campaign could blow the whole thing off course. A 2010 Election provides time to recover from events and the chance of the economy heading out of reverse. And a guaranteed extra year in office.

Conservatives

At Holyrood, there are signs that Tories are getting ready to go on the attack, having been co-operative previously. However, if that does bear out, it could be a costly gamble. The Tories have gained relevance through their willingness to engage positively with the SNP, and have for the first time since 1997, been able to influence Government policy in Scotland in a serious way. If the SNP manage to work around the Tories, they revert to the sidelined status they suffered from before 2007, with a larger party (this time Labour) providing the primary opposition, and the LibDems in a stronger position to get a deal. They cannot afford to burn their bridges now.

At Westminster, the economic crisis has not been kind to David Cameron, as the Paradox of Opposition kicks in. Hopes for the Tories rest on the Government making a massive mistake or things getting a lot worse - and for a catalogue of the job losses and businesses going under so far, check out The Wilted Rose, which seems to be providing a far more devastating critique of Labour policy than the Tory front bench can muster right now. Worse, Cameron faces another paradox: George Osborne's efficacy as Shadow Chancellor is questionable right now, but moving him would be devastating politically. Whether he goes or stays, he is the Conservatives' Achilles Heel.

In Europe, the Tories will most likely lose one of their seats in Scotland, as a result of the reduction of Scottish seats from seven to six, and they will stay in third place. UK-wide, however, first place is a must: William Hague and Michael Howard achieved it, so if David Cameron can't in his first nationwide electoral test, it'll be a massive humiliation. However, he's not helped by the perception that Tory MEPs are mired in sleaze (watch the North West of England, where the row over Den Dover's expense claims will rear its head again). Also, even if he gets everything he wants, there's still a potential setback waiting in the wings: Cameron is staking a lot of capital on being able to form a new group in the European Parliament - the Movement for European Reform. To do that, he'll need 30 MEPs from seven member states. He can get the 30 MEPs, but the seven member states may prove a problem. If he fails, it'll be an embarrassment that Labour will seek to make hay from. In short, this year could ever provide a staging post for the Tory revival, or it could damage David Cameron heavily. Time will tell.

Liberal Democrats

As the Tories are pushing away from the SNP, so the LibDems are looking to engage more constructively, perhaps because the policies being looked at now come from areas where the two parties' policies overlap. In any case, Tavish Scott has up to now confounded my initial forecast that he'd seek to kill Alex Salmond just to watch him die. The problem is that scepticism will remain and any offers made to the LibDems will have to be impossible to refuse. Nevertheless, relations between the two parties are defrosting: that the two parties were in broadly the same place where the fate of HBOS was concerned helped there. The fact that Tavish Scott actually has a personality, unlike his predecessor Nicol Stephen, means that together with the thawing of relations with the SNP, the Scottish LibDems are stronger and more relevant at Holyrood than they were this time last year.

At Westminster, however, it's a different story. Their only hope of salvation is to wheel out Vince Cable at every opportunity, and even the party's economic Cassandra may not be able to save them from the gathering storm. The Labour/Tory contest brewing pushes them out, Clegg is not exactly Mister Charisma, and what distinctive policies they have are either ignored or scorned (it's hard to tell which is worse in politics).

For Europe, third place is a must now that UKIP are far weaker than they appeared to be in 2004. If they come behind them again then their credibility is gone. There's also the defection of NW England MEP Saj Karrim to the Tories, and the vulnerability of their MEP in Scotland. With Elspeth Attwooll retiring, George Lyon (who lost his Holyrood seat to Jim Mather in 2007) is picking up the LibDem baton and looking at recent elections, the idea that the SNP may once again gain a seat at his expense is entirely plausible.

Greens

I don't know what to make of the Greens. Their ability to tip the political balance should give their two MSPs disproportionate influence, but last year, that wasn't happening as much as it could have done: decisions taken by the other parties - either to gang up or abstain - meant that for a lot of the time, the Greens were out of the loop and their only hope is to use the 2007 deal with the SNP to get to Ministers before policies can even reach Parliament. Also watch to see if Patrick Harvie, having gained the Co-Convenership of the Party, cedes his Convenership of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee to Robin Harper.

And speaking of the Co-Convenership, sadly, this year, it's going to look like a sham. We will see nothing of Eleanor Scott while Patrick Harvie will be the one making waves. Scott's only hope for prominence would have been to top the list for the Euro Elections, but that task goes to Elaine Morrison instead. Indeed, if people do sense a joint Leadership structure, they may be under the misapprehension that the team consists of Patrick Harvie - the Green everyone sees on the political programmes - and Caroline Lucas MEP, Leader of the English & Welsh Greens.

However, the de facto single Leadership of Harvie might be just the thing: they'll have a single, recognisable figure, but an attempt to change the rules to an official one-Leader structure might expose a few divisions within the party, between the younger get-serious politicians who see the party as a political force, and the older, more traditional elements who perhaps view themselves more as a glorified pressure group. It's something most parties go through: Labour went through it from the 1983 Manifesto through the row with Militant Tendency to the new Clause 4. The Tories suffered it from Maastricht all the way through to the election of David Cameron. The SDP had the row over the merger with the Liberals, and the SNP found itself in the same position during John Swinney's Leadership. So it would be a sign that the Greens have made it to the big time but it might have come too soon and at a time when they're too vulnerable, with only two MSPs. It's a row for another year.

So that's what I see in 2009. Now to spend the year backtracking when things don't follow the script...