Whither Football?

Seeing as everyone's looking at ways to take Scottish football forward, I thought I'd add my ideas.

Bringing the SFA, SFL and SPL all under one roof won't work. You'll still get rows. You'll still get clashes. The SPL clubs were sick of the SFL anyway, and that's why they split. The row between the SPL and SFA over fixtures was not a product of the two bodies having separate management, but that the SPL is managed by idiots. It won't harmonise a thing, and if you still have muppets in charge of a combined body then the whole Scottish football structure will go up. And whoever's in charge...

SPL2 is a ridiculous idea. All it would do is shift the First Division clubs from being big fish in a small pond to minnows in a slightly larger pool. The amount of TV cash they got would be greater than at present, but coverage would be limited and ultimately, the larger clubs would take the view that the others were holding them back and would split once again, leaving the smaller ten up the creek without a paddle. Instead I'd...

Expand the existing SPL to 16. The Top 4 in the First Division would doubtless hold their own in an expanded SPL and the only things holding Livingston back right now are their off-the-field woes. It's also a suitable number: the current 12 is flawed, ten would be worse, fourteen would result in only 26 matchdays, while sixteen would enable a calendar of thirty matchdays - reducing fixture congestion, creating a suitably sized league for teams to play each other only twice (reducing boredom) and allowing the introduction of a winter break, which would doubtless be good for playing surfaces. You could also...

Ditch the idiotic split. I mean, seriously, what's the point? You can usualy see what direction the League's going in by Week 33 and the only pize for finishing in the Top 6 is getting gubbed by the Old Firm on account of them needing the points more than the team in sixth place. There's still a bagload of exhibition matches and it just makes the fixture list more complicated. Instead it would be better to...

Introduce Dutch-style play-offs for Europe and relegation. Think about it... it would reduce the likelihood of rubbish games at the end of the season - more positions would matter and even position within the play-off zone would determine who would play whom. The play-offs themselves would have to be keenly contested: relegation would become more interesting with the possibility of two teams going down, and if the Champions qualified for Europe automatically, second to fifth could play-off for the remaining places. You could also offer an opportunity to the sixth to ninth places. Alternatively, it might be an idea to:

Offer a Europa League place to the League Cup winners. Give the non-Old Firm teams something besides pride and a trophy to play for: access to European TV money. And at the other end of the League:

Reconstruct the SFL. Obviously, the departure of fur teams would leave something of a hole in the SFL, and it's clear that the present setup isn't working, hence the drive for SPL2. You could easily move to sixteen-team divisions, and potentially set the stage for...

A Regionalised Second Division. Well, with only eight teams left from the present setup to form a second division, there's going to have to be a massive expansion anyway, and this presents an opportunity to be radical, to bring in a fair chunk of clubs from the lower leagues who could make a decent fist in the League setup. The likes of Preston Athletic, Spartans, Edinburgh City and perhaps even teams from the Universities (as happens in Rugby Union) would be a great addition, to say nothing of a big complement from the Highland League. Also, it's hardly fair for Elgin fans to be expected to travel to somewhere like Annan, so this would reduce the distances for fans and clubs alike. Also, the SFL would start to resemble the English Conference, which might not sound ideal at first, until you realise that if the Conference can attract cash from Setanta...

An SFL TV deal is a must. Let's face it, Setanta will soon be losing some of their English Premiership rights and will need something to fill the scheduling gap (fair enough, it might not draw the punters in like the Premiership, but it's better than a test card), while BBC Alba have expressed an interest in a proper deal for First Division coverage. If people will happily sit down and watch Weymouth v. Ebbsfleet, there's no reason why people couldn't get interested in Ross County v. Clyde. There's a potential service to be provided for the right broadcaster to tie into. It could also be tied up with League Cup rights, as happens in England. But besides that:

There absolutely needs to be a pyramid system. As well as regionalised Second Division, a full-on possibility of relegation from the League altogether. Not the bureaucratic contraption thought up to eject East Stirling (which has since backfired) but proper relegation from and promotion to the League on merit as happens everywhere else. Why? Well, take a look at the teams who have been voted into the League since 1994. Inverness are an SPL side; Ross County or relatively secure in the First Division and Peterhead are pushing for a play-off place in the Second. Gretna reached the SPL at Warp Speed 9 (but the club's setup was unsustainable in the long term) and their replacements Annan Athletic aren't precisely setting the heather alight but look comfortable in the Third Division and are doing far better than some more established names. Only Elgin are letting that line-up down, rooted to the bottom of the third, but there's no way of replacing them with a team like, Deveronvale, who might actually be a credit to the League. But whoever does join them...

SPL reserve sides should not take part. OK, it sounds good to Celtic and Dundee United, but, really, how's it going to work? You'd have to effectively hive them off from the first team completely for it to be fair, you'd have to find somewhere for them to play, a fan base from somewhere that wasn't watching the first team (and, if it came, how would the other clubs cope with it?) and you'd have to decide just how high they were allowed to climb. And if they reached that ceiling, what then? No, it would be a step too far and a total pisstake of the League setup. There does need to be some sort of League for the Reserves (not necessarily based around the SPL), but it should not be the SFL.

A Calman Influence?

I've been reluctant to blog on the Calman Commission - I don't like to intrude on private grief - but recent developments have got me thinking.

Labour's MPs and MSPs have been squabbling over the direction the party should take: the MPs wanted powers to head back South, while MSPs wanted them to head North - a completely natural reaction on the part of both camps. The issue was resolved by reality: it was an MSP - Pauline McNeill - who had the job of making the submission to Calman, and so it was always going to have a pro-Holyrood flavour. But they do, at least, have a line.

The Tories, meanwhile, have opted that there's no point even in submitting anything to the Commission, suggesting that their attitude either to new powers or the Commission is far more lukewarm than we anticipated.

But it's the LibDems who find themselves facing problems. Now, Calman has already batted away a number of LibDem proposals, but the party has stuck at it and even succeeded in getting the SNP (well, the Scottish Government) to engage with a body whose remit goes well and truly against the SNP's grain.

Yet, they've not submitted anything - not out of any clear decision as in the Tories' case, but because they need more time to do so. They want to involve the Spring Conference - seeing as Calman is more than a year old, this seems slightly barmy: did no one think to involve last year's Conference? - and have reconstitued the Steel Commission as a way of informing the contribution that they still hope to make. Again, why didn't the Steel Commission's original report form the basis of a contribution, following established party policy on the Constitution?

And this comes in the wake of John Farquhar Munro's "Wendy" moment, in which he suggests bringing on a referendum, with a straight choice between the status quo and independence (in complete contrast to Tavish Scott's poicy of no referendum involving independence at all, even if extra powers within the Union were included as a possible option), and argues that the Party membership would back that.

If (and I assumed that the LibDem blogosphere would point to it being a very big if but Stephen has since blown me out of the water on that one) this is the case, then the LibDems are split on this, and there's a gulf between what the Leadership wants and what the membership wants. If it isn't, then Tavish Scott still has some firefighting to do.

But this isn't really about the LibDems, because you can't blame them for wanting extra time and wanting to frame their position carefully. We're going into the active phase of the electoral cycle: for constitutional matters, we can bypass the European elections, but there's still the theoretical possibility of a Westminster election alongside them, though even if that is left until 2010 (as I believe) the LibDems need their position set out for that ballot, so it's needed to be ready sooner rather than later. Further, we are now approaching the mid-point in the Holyrood cycle and parties will soon begin setting out their stalls for 2011. Those need to be the parties' priorities.

And Calman itself is flawed. Take a look at the two previous attempts to discuss the Constitution: the Kilbrandon Commission and the Constitutional Convention. Both were primarily (for the main framers at least) an exercise in spiking the SNP's guns, but that's the only commonality.

Kilbrandon took place when there was a real need in the eyes of Unionists to counter the SNP: we'd had the Hamilton By-Election, the first gain in a General Election, the Govan By-Election and the emergence of the First Eleven. But no party was all that clear on what it wanted, and the response to the idea of devolution was at best half-hearted. The result was a set of limp proposals in the 1978 Act, a failure of the parties to seriously work together and a rigged referendum at the fag end of a government which had lost control.

The Convention of the late 80s and early 90s was framed under different circumstances: minds had been concentrated by the Thatcher Premiership and the Poll Tax, intra-party relations were relatively smooth and the need for action was clear given the Tory stranglehold on the political system. And the SNP rise at that point was a false dawn: the Govan By-Election victory led nowhere and the defection of Dick Douglas surrounded the Poll Tax rather than independence. The proposals that finally did come into law did so because they had not just intra-party but major inter-party unity behind them, were backed in a fair referendum held in the early days of the Blair Government, when its popularity and strength were insurmountable.

And what of Calman? Its primary mission was to undermine the National Conversation, excluding independence as an option and trying once again to put the SNP down, despite the 2007 victory. No party seems to know what it wants, which way it wants powers to flow or even if it can be arsed engaging with the thing, and we now have the supreme irony that the one party that was meant to be excluded from the process is the one group to have made a clear submission which the whole party can get behind. Further, the Brown Government is now weak and getting weaker, and unless Calman can report in the next six months, it will be down to a Tory Government to respond to it and consider whether or not it wishes to put the proposal into practice: by the late summer and early autumn, it will be too late for this Government to do so with any credibility. It may form part of a Labour manifesto, but that manifesto looks less and less likely to be put into practice.

Basically, Calman will go the way of Kilbrandon. At best, it will be rejected, at worst, it will be ignored. Either way, it will be forgotten.

The Sunday Whip

A mixed week, this, with sobriety, consensus, defeat, embarrassment a casting vote and a little bit of deal-breaking to spice things up.

Anyway. Wednesday started with a motion without notice (which was nodded through), to allow the Motion of Condolence for Bashir Ahmad to be taken at that meeting. After the Business Motions were waved through, the Motion of Condolence was passed:

That the Parliament expresses its deep regret and sadness at the death of Bashir Ahmad MSP; offers its sympathy and condolences to Bashir's family and friends, and believes that as the first Scots-Asian Member of the Scottish Parliament, and a man of faith and dignity, his contribution to Scotland's democratic process and community relations over many years leaves a hugely positive legacy for all of Scotland.

Following that came the vote on the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (Scotland) Order 2009. There were a few absentees for this: Wendy Alexander (Lab, Paisley North), Labour's Shadow Education Secretary Rhona Brankin (Midlothian), Gavin Brown (Con, Lothians), Labour's Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale), Trish Godman (Lab, West Renfrewshire), Tory Leader Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland), Robin Harper (Green, Lothians), Hugh Henry (Lab, Paisley South - must have been a Renfrewshire day out), Margaret Mitchell (Con, Central Scotland), Labour's Shadow Environment Minister Elaine Murray (Dumfries), Tory Rural Affairs Spokesman John Scott (Ayr) and Elaine Smith (Lab, Coatbridge & Chryston). They missed the Order pass, by 99 (everyone but the LibDems) to 1 - Nicol Stephen (LD, Aberdeen South) with 15 abstentions (the rest of the LibDems).

Following that, the Non-Domestic Rating (Petrol Filling Stations, Public Houses and Hotels) (Scotland) Order 2009 was waved through.

Thursday, meanwhile, saw the debut of Anne McLaughlin as an MSP, and the only absentee was Elaine Smith. The first vote taken was on the appointment of the new Junior Ministers: this passed by 48 (SNP/Margo) votes to 0 with 78 abstentions: Labour, the Tories, LibDems and Greens - the latter breaking a deal with the SNP by abstaining, as I explained on Friday. Murdo Fraser withdrew an amendment to remove Alex Neil from the list of new Ministers.

Following that, we had the stramash on Labour's Healthcare Associated Infections motion. A Government amendment passed by 79 (SNP/Tories/LibDems) to 45 (Labour) with three (Greens/Margo) abstentions. The LibDem amendment saw a defeat for the Government that perhaps need not have happened: it passed by 63 (Labour/LibDems/Greens) votes to 62 (SNP plus all bar one of the Tories) with two abstentions: Margo and Alex Johnstone (Con, NE Scotland). Whether or not Alex Johnstone intended to break with the rest of his Party, and if so, why, is not known, but the reality is that by doing so, he allowed the motion to be passed against his colleagues' wishes: his vote would have brought it to a tie, and so the Presiding Officer's casting vote for the status quo (i.e. no amendment) would have kicked in.

Which is exactly what happened on the amended motion: Labour's Shadow Culture Secretary Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) went walkabout and so the vote tied 63 to 63, with Labour, the LibDems, Greens and Margo in favour and the SNP and Tories on the other. Obviously, the casting vote was cast in favour of the status quo - so no motion - and the motion fell, which would not have been the case had McNeill cast her vote (assuming she would have voted with her party). So the Government's (and the Tories') blushes were spared, but they became the Parliament's blushes, as members failed to reach a position on the rather serious matter of healthcare associated infections. The embarrassment is compounded by the fact that the Government amendment removed the original text of the motion (with the exception of the words "That the Parliament"), so the Chamber had already voted on all but three words of the motion as amended, and voted in favour of them, yet still voted not to pass the motion. The words "stark", "raving" and "tonto" spring to mind.

Anyway, the vague approximation of sanity was restored for Labour's Housing motion, at which point McNeill was back in the Chmaber: a Tory amendment fell by 94 (SNP/Labour/Greens) votes to 33 (Tories/LibDems/Margo), but the motion itself was waved through:

That the Parliament notes the growing crisis in Scottish housing with rising numbers of repossessions, the continuing challenge of homelessness and the falling number of houses being built; calls on the Scottish Government to ensure the urgent and effective implementation of the accelerated spending programme, introduce a realistic housing association grant formula and negotiate with the housing association movement a range of flexible models of procurement, and further calls on the Scottish Government to examine, as a matter of urgency, alternative means of expediting the provision of land and infrastructure and the regeneration of communities.

After that, Stage 1 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill went through on the nod, as did the Bill's Financial Resolution, along with a change to the SNP Committee line-up, based on a number of Committee members being elevated to Government office.

So that was this week. Next week is a recess, for the half-term holiday - which also goes to explain why we're so short-staffed at work next week. Tch. I got left with Grandad during half-term, and it didn't do me any harm!

Man of principle?

I recently quoted from the text fo the agreement between the SNP and Greens after the Budget debate. Let me do so again:

Therefore, the Scottish Green Party is committed to supporting the Scottish National Party in the votes for First Minister and Ministerial appointments. For their part, the Scottish National Party agrees to consult Scottish Green Party MSPs in advance regarding the broad shape of each year’s legislative and policy programme (together with any key measures announced in-year), and in relation to the substance of the budget process. The Scottish National Party also agrees to nominate a Green Party MSP as Convenor of a subject committee for which the SNP is the nominating Party.

Yesterday, Green MSPs voted to abstain on the motion appointing Keith Brown, Roseanna Cunningham and Alex Neil as Junior Ministers. Abstaining is not supporting.

That means the deal is off.

And as the SNP should be the nominating party for the Convenership of the Transport, Infrastructure & Climate Change Committee, that makes Patrick Harvie's continued presence in the chair illegitimate: it is based on an agreement that no longer stands. He has disregarded an agreement but continues to hold an office based on the outcome of that agreement.

Now, Patrick Harvie has, in recent weeks, been lauded as a man of principle. I've been happy to go along with that.

Therefore, as a man of principle, Patrick Harvie has only one course of action available to him. Failure to take that course would expose him as a charlatan.

He must resign as Convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

Edinburgh University's New Rector

You know, when I was involved in student politics, I was on the winning side of a vote just once. Unless you count the time I got 65% of the vote in an election to become an SRC Rep. Granted, only 20 votes were cast, but still.

Anyway, having been supportive of Iain Macwhirter (albeit from a distance, and unable to affect the outcome in any way, shape or form), I am pleased to say that he defeated my vote share triumph on a far higher turnout: he took 69% of the vote against George Foulkes.

We learned, of course, that the campaign for Foulkes was a Labour campaign. Well, that was a mistake: if you want to appear popular with students, you don't achieve that by proposing a man who voted for Top-Up Fees as the students' champion in university affairs.

Who knows what would happen, had Labour chosen a better candidate?

Of course, that doesn't matter. In the alleged words of Iain Gray, this campaign was about the Labour Party and they lost by a majority of more than two to one: a damning verdict.

They lost the trust of the academic community. Judging by this result, it seems that they have not regained it.

LIT put to bed

(A gold star to the first person to state why I might find that title mildly amusing)

Sadly, it seems as though the Local Income Tax will not be coming forward to Holyrood until 2011 at the earliest. It goes without saying that I am disappointed: out of the three models of local taxation put forward in the Chamber - LIT, LVT and the status quo Council Tax - LIT is by far and away the fairest as it's based on the money that householders have coming into their income. Land Value Tax is self-explanatory, and Council Tax is based on what your house would have been worth in 1991. Neither of those are progressive: you cannot 'spend' the land on which your house is built, so its value is absolutely meaningless as to whether or not you can afford the tax, and you cannot 'spend' the bricks and mortar either - especially not at 1991 prices. LIT, meanwhile, is based on actual, genuine, cash money.

Unfortunately, Labour and the Tories take the view that because you took out a financially crippling mortgage a while back to buy a nice pad, you must be minted - don't they know there's a credit crunch on these days? - while the Greens appear to be of the opinion that living in prime development land equals rolling in cash. Neither is the case.

Still, we are where we are. The three parties have made it abundantly clear - and did so in a Parliamentary debate, remember - that LIT is not their thing and as such, any Bill introducing it would die. Questions you know the answer to, you need not ask.

And even if it could get through, would it be right? The SNP thought that there would be money in the bank. And they weren't the only ones: no sane party with a prospect of forming a government wants to issue unrealistic promises, and that's partly why all the parties talk to the Civil Service in advance of an election, so that the administrators can work out how their policies can be implemented. If the SNP policy were unworkable, civil servants would have raised a red flag, and the party would have been absolutely stark raving bonkers to proceed under those circumstances. Therefore, we can assume that the folk at Victoria Quay also thought that LIT was do-able.

What no one was banking on was the elimination of £500 million from Holyrood's expected annual budget. Nor did people expect that a pot of money geared towards supporting ratepayers would stop supporting them in Scotland simply because the devolved Parliament decided that the rates should be paid differently. Frankly, I thought that was the point of devolution, that Scotland could employ its own policies, but he who pays the piper calls the tune, and Scotland, alas, is saddled with the Barnett formula: the political equivalent of a chauvinistic husband giving his downtrodden wife a tenner and telling her to get something nice. In this case, hubby decided that he didn't want LIT, so wifey couldn't have it either.

So the Government has neither the financial nor the political capital to deliver LIT at this time. And the Opposition have raised their hackles, as one would expect. Labour's reaction is borderline absurd: Julie sums up the madness more elegantly than I'm capable of doing.

But the LibDem reaction sticks in my craw. Firstly, they're blaming "SNP intransigence" over the point of variability. Now, they can't credibly claim that as even with LibDem support, the Bill is dead, and John Swinney went out of his way to hold out hope of LibDem support. That suggests that at least some form of variability would have ended up in the Bill: if it could have passed just on the basis of SNP/LibDem co-operation, the LibDems would have had serious questions to answer had they not backed the general principles of the Bill, while the SNP would have had to support the introduction of variability in either Stage 2 or 3. They'd also have had to take it to the Finance Committee rather than Local Government and Transport: an SNP casting vote would have advanced the Bill in the former; a Labour casting vote would have killed it in the latter. But my point is that the final Act would surely have set up a more localised tax than would have been proposed in the draft Bill. And in fairness to the LibDems, it would have been all the better for it.

Further, LibDem accusations of cowardice don't wash either. No party in its right mind would ditch their headline policy unless it proved absolutely necessary. But seeing as it wouldn't have been viable to set up the LIT now, John Swinney made the tough call and put the plans on hold. The cowardly thing to do would have been to keep stringing Parliament and taxpayers along, asserting that we'll get round to it at some point during the four-year term. John Swinney bit the bullet and admitted that it wouldn't be possible. That takes guts.

Finally, this LibDem zeal for the policy is sudden and unexpected: where was the rush when they were in Government? It's interesting, I think, that when they're negotiating with the SNP, they'll make one outrageous demand and flounce out of the room if they don't get it, whether it's the dropped of the SNP's very reason for being, or wiping £800 million out of the money available to the Government. Yet for Labour, they'll drop their pants for a cop-out on tuition fees (righted by the SNP) and a change in the voting system to Councils. Now, having Councils more closely resemble how people voted in the last election is a big step forward, but I can't imagine many struggling householders saying, "I'm skinning myself to pay my tax bill, but at least I have a fairer Council voting system!"

So my question to the oh-so righteously indignant LibDems tonight is this: where was your stroppy, fist-banging attitude in 1999? Where was it in 2003?

If their claim to being "the only genuine LIT-supporting party in Parliament" were even remotely true, this wouldn't be an issue now as the Local Income Tax would already be on the statute books, having been implemented in one of the two Partnership Agreements at the LibDems' behest.

Yet for eight years, they couldn't be arsed to press this. And now they're in Opposition, they expect us to do it for them even when it's not possible for anyone to do it at all.

They put this to one side when they were in Government. Sadly, they, like the rest of us, will just have to wait a little longer for the political and economic barriers to be cleared up. Gabriel García Márquez but it better than I did.

Él que espera lo mucho espera lo poco.

The Reshuffle

Well, the pack has been re-shuffled, but not by much: only a handful of real changes. What this means is that a re-shuffle of the Cabinet Secretaries probably won't come for a year or so, if at all, unless absolutely necessary.

As we know, Culture, External Affairs and Europe Minister Linda Fabiani is out, and Environment Minister Mike Russell becomes Minister for Culture, External Affairs and the Constitution. Now, this move initially surprised me: I assumed that Russell would be promoted at some point, but not to this post as it arguably forestalls the promotion to full Cabinet Secretary rank that I expected. But it makes sense: on Constitutional matters, when Nicola Sturgeon is wearing her Deputy First Ministerial hat, guess who has her back. Yup, it's Mike Russell. And he's seen as a key fixer in the Party. This is a move for the Referendum, plain and simple, and the change in title goes to show that. Sadly, what it also shows is that Culture is the odd man out in this portfolio: it was this part - and not the External Affairs part - that felled Fabiani as the then Minister managed to lose the Creative Scotland Bill. Now, you don't expect minority governments to get every piece of legislation on the statute books, and as we know, John Swinney lost a piece of legislation a couple of weeks ago, with no threat to his position. However, the fundamental difference between the two is that opposition MSPs had clear criticisms of the Budget, while everyone agreed on the Creative Scotland Bill, but Linda Fabiani crashed and burned in the Chamber, as she got mixed up over the body's funding. But you'd expect her to find it tough: her bag was External Affairs, not Culture. That aspect of the portfolio seems something of an outlier and in the absence of an old "Tourism, Culture & Sport" type department (as the last administration had, in fairness to it), these matters would probably be best handled by Education. Nevertheless, Culture is where it is, and Mike Russell is in charge of it.

His replacement as Minister for the Environment is Roseanna Cunningham. The influence of this one-time firebrand has waned somewhat of late, and I was surprised by her inclusion: I imagined that a Committee Convenership was as high as things we going to get for the former Deputy Leader and Leadership Candidate. What this does mean is that the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee (she's on familiar ground with this portfolio) is now looking for a new Convener. It'll probably be Rob Gibson.

Elsewhere, Communities Minister Stewart Maxwell returns to the back benches, to be replaced with Alex Neil, another firebrand who split from Labour to help Jim Sillars found the Scottish Labour Party, only for that to fail in its endeavours. Like Sillars, he went to the SNP and became a fairly trenchant critic of the current Leadership. Unlike Sillars, he has mellowed a great deal, even becoming a sort of Minister for Newsnight Scotland. This means that the European and External Relations Committee needs a new Deputy Convener (and I'm surprised he didn't get the Culture and External Affairs job, incidentally). Neil's title is Minister for Housing and Communities. The Sport element of his portfolio now heads to Shona Robison's Public Health brief, which is an arguably more sensible place to put it than Communities.

Finally, Schools Minister Maureen Watt is replaced with Keith Brown, MSP for Ochil and former Convener of the Standards Committee. The ex-marine is currently one of the Parliamentary Liaison Officers to the Office of the First Minster (the Holyrood equivalent of a PPS). He also has eleven years' experience in local government for the SNP, and having led Clackmannanshire Council for four of those years, comes with some experience of policy delivery, so should suit a Ministerial post. He also served in the Falklands, so shouldn't find the rough and tumble of Holyrood too taxing.

It's an interesting move, all in all: the most experienced Minister to lose a place was Linda Fabiani, in Parliament since 1999 but never really held a major role on the SNP front bench. Stewart Maxwell came in four years later (and was the only one of the ill-fated West of Scotland Class of 2003 to retain his seat, with Campbell Martin being booted out of the party and standing in vain as an Independent, and Bruce McFee standing down altogether), though can claim the smoking ban as his. I suppose that had he taken the Public Health brief, he would have remained in situ today - he would probably have been more assured there - but fate dealt him a different card and he goes to the back benches. Maureen Watt, meanwhile, may have SNP Parliamentarianism in her blood - her father Hamish was SNP MP for Banffshire from February 1974 until the 1979 Election - but she herself was only sworn in in 2006 and sadly, orbitted around Planet Gaffe once or twice (including one unfortunate proposal to introduce bloggery to the Curriculum).

By contrast, Roseanna Cunningham was John Swinney's Deputy, Alex Neil is one of the SNP's big beasts, and Keith Brown may have only just entered Holyrood but has more than a decade of experience in local government on which to draw.

On the Opposition parties: no word yet of a reshuffle on their part, though short of moving personnel around to match Mike Russell, it's doubtful what point there would be of moving people yet. Iain Gray has to consider if Pauline McNeill is who he wants to handle the Constitution, but there is as yet no reason to make wholesale changes. The Tories have a limited pool on which to call anyway, so anything they offered would be nothing more than the odd swap. The same is true for the LibDems, whose portfolios bear no relation to Cabinet posts anyway, so there'd be no point.

IndyGal MSP

As has been pointed out by various sources, the vacancy in Glasgow region is to be filled, by the sixth member of the SNP's List there: Anne McLaughlin, better known to bloggers as IndyGal.

And I reckon she'll do well: she's got a sound enough political brain to play a key role in the SNP's 22% swing from Labour in the Glasgow East By-Election, she's passionate, committed, infectiously enthusiastic and she's a good empathiser: that comes in handy in politics, even if it's a skill we don't see very often. But when she gets correspondence from someone in Glasgow, or when someone turns up at a surgery to see her, they're going to need her to be tuned in, hear them out, understand, and most importantly, care about them and the problem they've sought to raise. Anne will absolutely fit that bill.

But there's a knock-on effect that hasn't yet been mentioned: Anne had gone forward for ranking on the SNP's list of European candidates this year. Now, I'm reasonably confident that there's nothing theoretically stopping someone from being an MSP and an MEP (though an MP and an MEP is a different story, I believe) but it's not necessarily desirable and I don't envisage her remaining in the European selection process (UPDATE: turns out that there are no dual mandates at all: you can't be an MP and MEP, an MSP and MEP or even a Lord and MEP - so that's George Foulkes screwed - thanks to the commenter who pointed that out). If I'm correct, SNP members will now be ranking five candidates: incumbents Ian Hudghton and Alyn Smith, SNP National Secretary Duncan Ross, European affairs expert Dr. Aileen McLeod and Highland Councillor Drew Hendry. I wouldn't be overly surprised if the two present MEPs were to retain their positions on the List, but recent political trends - even the Glenrothes By-Election - point to the SNP in touching distance not only of first place, but also a third seat. That makes #3 rankng on the List important, and I had imagined that Anne would have been a strong contender for it. With her at Holyrood, it's now anyone's game...

The Sunday Whip

Well, after last week's stramash, this week turned out to be a rather good one for the Government. We know about Wednesday: the Budget (Scotland) (No. 3) Bill passed through the Parliament at Warp Factor 9, with members waving through an amended Business Motion, a motion to treat the Bill as an Emergency Bill and Stage 1 of the legislation. At that point, MSPs formed a Committee of the Whole Parliament, which waved through Stage 2 of the Bill. Following that rapid transformeation, MSPs then reverted from being a giant Committee to being the Parliament once again.

Following the Stage 3 debate, MSPs waved through a Business Motion and voted 123-2 in favour of the Budget (Scotland) (No. 3) Bill, as we know. The missing MSPs were Jackson Carlaw (Con, West of Scotland), Labour's Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) and Elaine Smith (Lab, Coatbridge & Chryston).

After that solitary vote, MSPs waved through a motion to suspend part of the Standing Orders next Wednesday, as well as the following SSIs:

Town and Country Planning (Grounds for Declining to Follow Recommendations) (Scotland) Regulations 2009

Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009

Town and Country Planning (Amount of Fixed Penalty) (Scotland) Regulations 2009

Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2009

Fun, fun, fun. Anyway, Thursday went well too: missing were Jackson Carlaw, Labour's Shadow Cabinet Secretary without Portfolio Margaret Curran (Lab, Glasgow Baillieston), Karen Gillon, James Kelly (Lab, Glasgow Rutherglen), Tory Rural Affairs Spokesman John Scott (Ayr) and Elaine Smith.

First came the LibDem motion on Borrowing Powers for the Scottish Parliament: a Labour amendment fell by 80 (everyone but Labour) to 42, while a Tory one fell by 64 (SNP/LibDems/Margo) to 16 (Tories/Greens) with 42 (Labour) abstentions. The untouched motion passed by 66 (SNP/LibDems/Greens/Margo) to 0 with 56 (Lab/Con) abstentions:

That the Parliament believes that the acquisition of borrowing powers would enhance the autonomy and accountability of the Scottish Parliament and improve the Scottish Government's ability to respond to changing economic circumstances; notes that borrowing powers would allow the Scottish Government to phase the funding of major capital projects such as the new Forth Replacement Crossing sensibly and efficiently, and therefore welcomes the Scottish Government's commitment to give permission for civil servants to engage fully with the Commission on Scottish Devolution to assist the delivery of borrowing powers for the Scottish Parliament.

Next came the LibDem motion on a financial sector jobs task force, in which a Labour amendment, a Tory amendment and the motion itself were all waved through:

That the Parliament notes the importance of the financial services industry to the Scottish economy; believes that the Financial Services Advisory Board (FiSAB), set up to be the custodian and advocate of the strategy for the industry in Scotland during a time of economic boom, should now be given more powers and a new purpose to focus on protection for this major Scottish industry during the current banking crisis and recession; notes the Scottish Government's commitment that FiSAB should be adapted to deal with the challenges in the sector and should meet more frequently than the present position of twice a year; believes that there should be continued workforce representation at the meetings in the shape of the recognised trade unions, and calls for the urgent formation of a finance sector jobs taskforce within FiSAB to work proactively to help the staff with essential skills who are losing their jobs and for ministers to report to the Parliament on its work and for such reports to include the latest estimate of the number of jobs in the financial sector in Scotland, direct and indirect.

The last act of business came with a Government motion on the Early Years Framework. A Labour amendment to the motion fell by 61 (SNP/Tory) votes to 45 (Labour/Greens/Margo) with 16 LibDem abstentions. Tory and LibDem amendments were nodded through, as was the amended motion:

That the Parliament recognises that getting the early years right is key to delivering improved outcomes for children and young people and a key opportunity to shape a more successful Scotland; notes the publication of The Early Years Framework and the vision it sets out for giving children the best start in life, including a focus on parenting, early intervention, meeting the needs of children and parents and play; further recognises the challenges in shifting to prevention and early intervention while also supporting children who need help now, and calls on national and local government to work together with external agencies and the voluntary sector to address these challenges in partnership during the implementation of the framework which should include greater emphasis on the development of parenting skills and harnessing the excellent work of voluntary sector groups that provide these services.

So all in all, a decent week for the Government.

One final word: as we know, these votes were the final Parliamentary acts carried out by the late Bashir Ahmad. It is my understanding, looking through the records I keep, that there have been 260 votes taken up to this point in Session 3 of the Scottish Parliament. Bashir was present for 257 of them - an attendance rate of 98.85%. That's a credit to the commitment of the man and his successor will have a hard act to follow.

Sad news

I am led to understand that Bashir Ahmad, SNP MSP for Glasgow and the first Muslim MSP and indeed the first MSP from any ethnic minority, has passed away. I must stress that I have no official confirmation but I trust the source, his accuracy, and the Facebook status announcing the news.

The man was a trailblazer, there's no question of that: no one from his background or faith had served at Holyrood before 2007, and now there is no sitting member who shares it, so the Parliament will indisputably be weaker in his absence.

Peace be upon him.

She's Back!

As you're now no doubt aware, Kezia Dugdale has returned to the blogosphere, and I for one am delighted to welcome her back!

Of course, I didn't agree with a lot of what she posted, and there were the occasional moments at outright fury, but she's always been readable and she possesses those rare gifts: getting noticed, and getting people talking. Towards the conclusion of Soapbox I, she seemed to start thinking that those weren't all that great, whereas I reckon they're pretty much essential for a top blog.

The small tone of disappointment comes when she says she's going to be "a bit smarter" with how, when and what she posts. "Smarter" sounds to be a synonym for "cagier" and I think that's a retrograde step: the best posts are the ones when you just go for it, in my opinion. I hope she won't be too offended when I say that Soapbox I got a little repetitive near the end and the point that she wasn't a big fan of the SNP got a little laboured at times - though every partisan blogger is occasionally guilty of overegging the political pudding. And I'm looking forward to the wider variety of post she's talking about. If Kez can surprise us every now and then - and I bet she can - then she'll have cracked it. All she needs to do then is enjoy taking to the keyboard again - and I'm certain she will...

Welcome back, Kez!

Here's £33 billion, buy yourself something nice!

At last! We have a Budget!

For the SNP, it's a relieving moment: to follow the first ever failure of a Holyrood Budget with a set of proposals which achieved almost unanimous support is surely a good thing. Moreover, once deals had clearly been achieved with the LibDems, the Government could have simply pulled the ladder up and ditched any negotiations with Labour and the Greens. Wiser heads prevailed, at least so far as discussions with Labour are concerned. That's precisely as it should be.

And it help that wind was in the SNP's sails: a poll carried out in the aftermath of the Budget suggested that the Opposition had the most to lose (denting conventional wisdom somewhat) in blocking the first attempt and that the only party leader to have a net approval rating (as opposed to a net disapproval rating) was a certain Mr. A. Salmond.

The lesson here is not to trust conventional wisdom: we've had three long, dull months of commentators waxing lyrical about the end of the honeymoon period, that the sheen was off the Government, and the failed Budget was part of that. Well, if the honeymoon is over, then so much the better for the SNP: it would show that the Government's ability to pull a rabbit out of the hat when you least expect it is, in fact, permanent. That it should be John Swinney displaying that particular skill might seem somewhat ironic to the casual observer - during his spell at the top of the Party, he was not noted for his miraculous strokes of good fortune. But his current role suits him, which helps.

Labour have something to cheer about too: 7,800 new apprenticeships. That's got to be good news, especially for the 7,800 apprentices. And it shows that engagement actually pays off: they could have stayed in a huff, but they'd have got nothing. Instead, they got something good, along with the possibility of a further 7,800 in 2010-11.

Of course, that possibility - it's not a promise by any means - is a double-edged sword: if the SNP deliver, then Labour at last have a theme (the party of apprenticeships and everything that follows from that), and will (reasonably) attempt to claim the credit for demanding it. On the other hand, the SNP will (equally reasonably) claim the credit for actually delivering them, and it binds Labour hands: how could they not support the 2010 Budget, if it includes such a long-standing policy? Conversely, if the policy isn't in next year, then Labour have a clear attack point and total justification for opposing the Budget outright on account of their aims being known for twelve whole months, but Parliamentary arithmetic could see them being sidestepped anyway, and even if the Budget (No. 4) Bill falls, this week suggests that public opinion could easily punish them instead of the Government.

And indeed, they have been just as fortunate as the SNP with events: had the process collapsed, it's clear that they would have lost out, and could have been bounced into an election they didn't want with grim results. Further, there is gossip suggesting that Labour were trying to assemble a new coalition involving the LibDems and the Greens (which couldn't have worked, for reasons I'll explain later) and we know that George Foulkes was trying to use this as an excuse to oust the Government and abandon the Budget process altogether, giving credence to my initial suspicion that the main point of contention regarding the Budget was that it was being delivered by John Swinney rather than Andy Kerr. Luckily for them, wiser heads prevailed, who realised that the contents of a Budget are more important than who presents it. All the same, a clip on tonight's Reporting Scotland showed the applause that Labour offered when the Budget passed: it was half-hearted at best. Now, no one likes being in Opposition, but you'd think that having voted for the thing, and having secured those apprenticeships, a couple of the frontbenchers would have at least smiled. Sadly, one of them - I think it was John Park but I couldn't tell - applauded whilst apparently attempting to hide under his desk. Things like that are just plain embarrassing: they can do better than that.

And what of the Tories? Well, we knew they were more likely than not to support the Budget, and it's not a stretch to imagine that they'll be willing to back the 2010 Budget as well (the 2011 Budget, which will follow a CSR, is another matter entirely). But Annabel Goldie's approach at FMQs was telling:

For Iain Gray and the Scottish Labour Party, this was not about addressing Labour's recession; instead, it was about trying to stage some bloodless debating chamber coup to ensconce him as First Minister. Let me make it clear: I shall have no truck with such antics.

This begs the question: if it had come down to a confidence vote, would the Tories have voted with the Government? Because it looks like it there! Is this the start of a verbal confidence-and-supply agreement? Not necessarily:

Does the First Minister agree that Scotland is already badly served by one Labour Government and that we certainly do not need two?

That's the key: Goldie and the Tories have one eye on Westminster. Whether the General Election is this Spring or next year, we are heading into the concluding part of a Westminster election cycle, in which Labour and the Tories are in a state of direct clash over which one forms the UK Government. Their campaign to eject Labour from office at Westminster would become far more difficult and far less effective were the Scottish Tories to install Labour in office at Holyrood. The SNP and Tories don't necessarily share common policies and viewpoints, but they do share a common adversary.

And what of the LibDems? I wasn't a fan of the tax cut proposal - the talk of a stimulus is all well and good, but with people losing their jobs, there's less taxable income anyway so less money coming into public coffers and more people needing help that only the Government can afford to provide: while tax cuts might provide a stimulus for those who are just about holding on, keeping tax levels as they are maintains the present safety net for those who need it - but I'm intrigued by what the LibDems have got in this negotiation.

Firstly, the letter to the Calman Commission. Now, a letter from the Government stating the obvious (of course the Government wants borrowing powers - it wants every power the UK Government has!) might not seem like much, but as the SNP have been aloof from the Commission (no wonder really, when its terms of reference effectively freeze a pro-independence party out anyway), getting the Government to engage with it on any level is something of a coup. Of course, the LibDems haven't been getting the best return from Calman, so this might steer things in their direction or might serve to alienate them further. Even that may not be a bad thing: it would provide them with an out when the signposts suggest that Calman might not be all that close to what the LibDems want to see. Obviously, there's the joke that the LibDem position has shifted for the price of a stamp, but that stamp yet turn out to be significant.

The public spending review is another odd beast, and may prove less fruitful for the LibDems. Firstly, it sounds like it's going to be little more than a consultation with shoulder-pads, and consultations don't always deliver. And if it's carried out by the Parliament (which would make more sense) the likely people to do so would be the Finance Committee, where an SNP/Tory combination could freeze the LibDems out. So the LibDems should prepare for disappointment here. Even though they both want to travel in the same direction - a reduction in spending - the SNP are aiming for efficiency savings in preparation for a cut in the available budget, while the LibDems are looking for tax cuts.

Further, the LibDems want greater roles for the Council of Economic Advisers (an SNP creation) and Financial Services Advisory Board (of which SNP Ministers have been members for eighteen months), the latter with a view to protecting jobs in the financial services sector - an issue where the two parties are once again on the same page.

Lastly, the LibDems want to see movement on the Scottish Futures Trust - a brainchild of the SNP. That isn't surprising either, since neither party is all too enamoured with PPP/PFI.

That's the thing with the LibDems: there's a massive overlap between what they want and what the SNP want, but the two parties just don't seem to be speaking the same language at all. Are the underlying beliefs of the two parties so irreconcilable, or is it just a holdover from the Lab/LibDem Coalition?

Finally, the Greens. I feel sad for them, in a way, in that they seemed to be the fairest of the parties to vote against the Budget, while a lot of the vitriol that went their way following last week's vote was unfair: they were one of three parties to oppose the Budget, yet seemed to get a larger share of the blame despite being genuinely unhappy with proposals after negotiation when the LibDems didn't even try to get a viable deal and Labour were, it seems, looking at opportunities for intrigue. A deal with them would have made the most sense.

Instead, they got less Government funding for insulation - £15 million instead of £22 million - and more from other sources - £15 million instead of £11 million - though not enough to make the £33 million the Greens wanted. Moreover, if the Government finds at least £11 million of that extra outside cash, then Patrick Harvie will be made to look like a total chump: John Swinney said they'd get it and if he's proven right, then Harvie's opposition to the last Budget was for nothing. And even if Harvie is proven right instead, then there would still have been more money available to the project in the first version of the Budget, so his vindication would cost the scheme £7 million. I think Patrick Harvie realised this at the end, and the two Greens looked like rather forlorn figures today.

Moreover, the rumours are that Labour was making doe eyes at them. Now, it would be strange for the Greens to want to back a pro-Nuclear, pro-Trident, anti-Referendum party, when they are the exact inverse of all of those things and so are the SNP but there's something more practical standing in the way - the Greens' signature against this:

Therefore, the Scottish Green Party is committed to supporting the Scottish National Party in the votes for First Minister and Ministerial appointments. For their part, the Scottish National Party agrees to consult Scottish Green Party MSPs in advance regarding the broad shape of each year’s legislative and policy programme (together with any key measures announced in-year), and in relation to the substance of the budget process. The Scottish National Party also agrees to nominate a Green Party MSP as Convenor of a subject committee for which the SNP is the nominating Party.

Now, the SNP met their end of the deal: they consulted with the Greens - "consult" does not mean "agree with", remember - and Patrick Harvie is still Convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, so with the letter of the agreement still in play, for the Greens to vote to replace Alex Salmond with Iain Gray and SNP Ministers with Labour and LibDem Ministers before an election would be a massive tactical error: they would be the first party in Holyrood to tear up an agreement. They would be going back on their word and Iain Gray would be wise to bear that in mind. If he does, they're totally frozen out: the Scottish LibDems were frozen out in 2007 through intransigence, the Welsh LibDems through indecision. The Greens would be the first to be isolated for not sticking to an agreement and while that might not have any impact outwith the Holyrood village, a total lack of influence on proceedings definitely would (people did at least notice and think about the Greens this week) and it wouldn't be a positive one. If they have been thinking about a deal with Labour, they might want to think about the deal they already have with the SNP as well.

But then, the important thing tonight is that we have a Budget. And 123 MSPs (plus the three who were AWOL) have something to smile about from it.

Rector's Cut

Students and staff at my alma mater, Edinburgh Uni, are soon heading to the polls to elect a new Rector to place Mark Ballard, the former Green MSP. The three candidates are Iain Macwhirter, the political commentator, George Galloway, the hardline Socialist gobshite, and Labour's all-purpose sock puppet, George Foulkes.

Now, Foulkes served under Clare Short in the Department for International Development, and didn't end up having a nervous breakdown. That's a real credit to his stamina and for that reason alone, he's earned his Peerage.

But despite that, I have zero respect for the man. The reason for that stems to Blair's 2003 Cabinet re-shuffle, when he abolished the post of Scotland Secretary, only to un-abolish it a few hours later. That Thursday, George went on BBC2 and admitted that it could have been handled better. Less than 24 hours later, on the same channel, George then waxed lyrical about what a wonderful re-shuffle it was. Clearly Alastair Campbell had activated the man's cybernetic implants, and Foulkes's brief moment of independent thought was over-ridden.

Anyway, back to the Rectorial Election. One of the reasons Ballard won was that the Students' Association broke with over a century of electoral neutrality and impartiality to attack rival candidate Boris Johnson, who as Tory Shadow Higher Education Minister had suggested that his party would no longer seek to reverse Labour's implementation of top-up fees. The main architect of this policy was the University Labour Club. Of course, this time they're backing a candidate who actually voted for top-up fees (Johnson didn't) so it will be interesting to see what line EUSA takes. In an ideal world, consistency would be the order of the day and student politicians would end up mandated to campaign against Foulkes. In the world of student politics, the events of 2006 will be quietly forgotten.

Mainly, this will be because the Foulkes campaign isn't actually about the Lord of Cumnock, but about his Party. So says Iain Gray. Now, theoretically, he's only Labour's Leader in the Scottish Parliament, but it seems that his voice carries some weight - which will no doubt be a surprise to Jim Murphy, but there you go.

Anyway. Tory Bear understands that Iain Gray has intervened in the campaign, maybe as it's dying on its feet on account of some key activists apparently not being a fan of the man, and being somewhat sceptical of his campaign.

TB reports that Gray took aside a reluctant member of the team and told him to get on board in no uncertain terms, such as: "It'd be a shame if you're career ended here" and "George is very important in Scotland, and he has a long memory..."!

When pressed, the Leader of the campaign stated, "I can categorically assure you that no one from within George's Rectorial campaign team has ever issued a threat to anyone." Which doesn't say anythng about anyone from outwith the campaign team, such as, for example, Iain Gray, whose mantra appears to be: "This isn't about George, or you, it's about the Labour Party".

So there we have it: Gray would seem to be involved in a struggling Rectorial campaign, and is being somewhat less than subtle about matters. This does not bode well for his campaigning abilities come 2011 (or, indeed, next month if it comes to that).

And he has perhaps picked the wrong mouthpiece: if this were about the Labour Party, they could have found a better representative than Foulkes: after all, he did vote for top-up fees (not exactly student-friendly). He is the master of the spurious question. He views the Budget not as an opportunity to get some Labour policy on the books and potentially do some good (until, if their HE policy is anything to go by, a Labour government at some point in the future decides that it'd be a wheeze to charge a four-figure annual sum for vocational training), but as a method to eject the SNP from office regardless of the consequences to public services. And he's being reported to the Standards Commissioner for paid advocacy.

So if they wanted a mouthpiece, why didn't they go for someone who isn't such a liability, like, umm.... erm.... nyeurgh...

Hang on, a name will come to me eventually...

The Sunday Whip

Well, I think we all know part of what happened this week, but it's only right that we should fill in the gaps.

So, firstly, on Wednesday, the Business Motions were waved through. And the following SSIs were passed without dissent:

The Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 Modification Order 2009

The International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) (Scotland) Order 2009

The Private Landlord Registration (Modification) (Scotland) Order 2009

After that came the vote on the Budget (Scotland) (No 2) Bill, and we know what happened there: it tied at 64 (SNP/Tory/Margo) votes to 64 (Labour/LD/Greens), with the Presiding Officer casting his vote for the status quo - against the Bill.

Thursday, meanwhile, was a mixed bag for the Government, and there were four absentees: George Foulkes (Lab, Lothians), Hugh Henry (Lab, Paisley North), Elaine Smith (Lab, Coatbridge & Chryston - and it would seem that her persistent absence is indeed health-related), and Deputy FM Nicola Sturgeon (Glasgow Govan).

The first thing they missed was a revised Business Motion, which went through on the nod, as did a proposal to suspend part of the Standing Orders for consideration of the Budget (Scotland) (No.3) Bill. Following that came the Labour motion on Forestry, which faced a LibDem amendment and a Government amendment, which itself had a Tory amendment to it.

So we begin with the Tory amendment, which passed by 80 (SNP/Tory/LD/Green) to 42 - Labour voted against, though Shadow Rural Affairs Secretary Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central) missed this vote - with one abstention. You know who by now.

Then came the SNP amendment, which passed by 62 (SNP/Tory) to 61 (Labour/LD/Green) with one abstention. I have to say, at first glance, the idea of voting for an amendment, then against whatever it amends, goes against the grain a little, but on reflection, makes a bit more sense when you bear in mind that the amendment might make matters less unacceptable to a party, who might take the view that if something absolutely has to go through, it's better to pass in the amended form than the original. And, in this case, the passage of the SNP amendment pre-empted the LibDem one, so it was in their interest to oppose it in any form. They weren't successful, but I can see where they're coming from.

Anyway, the amended motion passed by 62 to 61 with one abstention - with the same party split as before:

That the Parliament notes the consultation on climate change and forestry that has just closed; welcomes the widespread agreement that there must be a significant planting increase to assist the process of combating climate change; is grateful to all those who brought a variety of ideas and views forward, and looks forward to a report to the Parliament on the outcome of the consultation and to subsequent detailed parliamentary scrutiny of any proposals brought forward as a result of the consultation.

Following that came the Labour motion on Transport Priorities, which was one in the eye for the Government and was an Opposition attempt to light a fire under various Ministers' arses, particularly Richard Lochhead, the Rural Affairs Secretary. The plan was simple: either he had to oppose a motion criticising the Government for not putting an Elgin Bypass (which he campaigned for) in its Transport Plan and potentially irk his constituents, or he had to support the motion, thus continuing the campaign in public, but resign as a Minister under the principle of collective responsibility. He opted for the former, so Labour do not have their Ministerial scalp but Opposition parties will doubtless be leaflet-bombing Moray over the matter.

Anyway. The Government amendment to the motion fell by 75 (Lab/Tory/LD) to 46 (SNP) with three (Green/Margo) abstentions. The Tory amendment passed by 121 (the Big 4) to 2 (Greens) with one abstention. The LibDem amendment, meanwhile passed by 75 (Lab/Tory/LD) to 46 (SNP) with three abstentions, and the amended motion passed by 75 (Labour/Tory/LD) to 48 (SNP/Green) with one abstention:

That the Parliament notes that the Strategic Transport Projects Review lacks detail on timescales and does not commit the Scottish Government to deliver a programme of expenditure for the vast majority of the projects identified; also notes the concern of communities along the length of the A82, A77, A9, A90 and A96 that no indication has been given as to when their needs for road improvements will be addressed; notes in particular the disappointment of people in Elgin, Inverness and Maybole who were led to believe by the SNP prior to the 2007 election that their bypass schemes would be given priority by an SNP government; reminds ministers of the principle of collective responsibility and the need to ensure that communities are not misled about the Scottish Government's intentions and, while recognising that the new Forth Replacement Crossing is an overriding priority for Scotland, and calls on the Scottish Government to state its priorities by reference to the projects listed in the Strategic Transport Projects Review and others identified by regional transport partnerships and local authorities as having a major regional significance.

So after that embarrassment for the Government, a little consensus was welcome, and it came in the shape of an SNP motion on the Gaelic language plan, where both a Labour amendment and the motion itself passed without dissent:

That the Parliament recognises that Gaelic is an integral part of Scotland's heritage, national identity and current cultural life; welcomes and supports the launch of the consultation on the Scottish Government's draft Gaelic Language Plan; acknowledges the work being carried out on the implementation of other Gaelic language plans by Argyll and Bute Council, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, Edinburgh City Council, Glasgow City Council, Highland Council, the Scottish Parliament and Highland and Islands Enterprise; further welcomes the boost to the language provided by the establishment of BBC Alba, and calls for continued investment in and expansion of Gaelic-medium education.

So that's another week gone. And for now, at least, Parliament is still here, rather than in Election mode. And let me be direct: these stats will come in handy whenever an election is called: it will give us an opportunity to compare parties (and incumbent candidates) directly. Knowledge, after all, is power...