A Wind of Change?

As I mentioned yesterday, the Opposition Democratic Party of Japan has won a landslide victory in yesterday's elections, taking 308 seats (more than double their last haul) out of a possible 480. The main governing party, the Liberal Democratic Party, took just 119. The two parties' positions were almost exactly reversed in an 11.4% swing - how very Blair-like!

But then, should we be surprised? The LDP has governed Japan for all but eleven months in the last 54 years. Sooner or later, voters were going to get hacked off, especially with the economy in the doldrums, and the party having four leaders in as many years can't have helped matters. Junichiro Koizumi stood down as expected in September 2006; Shinzo Abe cited health reasons (and severe personal unpopularity) for his departure a year later; Yasuo Fukuda blamed political deadlock in September 2008, leaving Taro Aso to hold the fort. He failed.

And the main factor that it's taken this long for the LDP to lose is that it's taken this long for there to be someone that the LDP could lose to. Even in the run-up to this election, there were doubts about the DPJ's ability to strike the final blow and for a while, former leader Ichiro Ozawa was openly musing about a Grand Coalition between the two parties. Nevertheless, Yukio Hatoyama made the breakthrough. The last time any opposition managed to oust the LDP in 1993, it was basically an all-party Coalition (including some former LDP splinter parties) that simply couldn't last.

Of course, you could argue that this is part of a wider anti-incumbency picture: just take a look at the other G8 nations.

In Canada in 2006, Stephen Harper's Conservatives succeeded in ousting the Liberal Party which had been in office for 13 years: a victory made all the more astonishing when you bear in mind that the party was formed from a merger between the Progressive Conservatives - who went from 169 seats to just two in 1993 - and a party on the basket-case end of the right-wing spectrum which had gone through numerous incarnations since its formation in 1987. And to rub salt into Liberal wounds, a subsequent election in 2008 saw the Tories stay in office, and attempts to dislodge Harper's minority government have come to nothing, albeit with Gubernatorial intervention.

In Germany, the SPD have been in Government in one way or another since 1998, albeit as part of a Grand Coalition with Angela Merkel of the CDU since 2005. But opinion polls for the upcoming election to the Bundestag have Merkel being able to form a Coalition with her preferred partner, the FDP, sending the SPD back into opposition.

Of course, in the USA, we all know (how could we not?) about Barack Obama's election as President - significant not only for ejecting the Republicans from power, but also because he managed to beat the assumed Democratic candidate to his party's nomination. And let's not forget that in the 2006 mid-terms, the Democrats managed to end twelve years of GOP control.

Then there's the UK. The signposts have been around for sometime: the SNP's victory in the 2007 elections (repeated this June in the Europeans), putting Labour into second place for only the second time in 40 years of elections in Scotland; Boris Johnson being elected Mayor of London; and the European elections which saw Labour lose first place in Wales for the first time since WW1, and fall to third across the UK, behind the Tories and UKIP. And opinion polls for the next General Election currently give the Tories of around 15 points. Basically, Labour, who have been calling the shots since 1997, will most likely be in opposition by next June.

So that's five G8 nations, all showing major change: the Liberals' thirteen-year rule in Canada being ended by Stephen Harper; the Republicans' twelve years of control in Congress and eight years in the White House coming to an end in the US; the SPD's eleven-year presence in the German Federal Government is under threat; and it looks like the curtain will fall on the UK Labour Government on or around its thirteenth anniversary. So an end to fifteen continuous years of LDP rule in Japan, and 53 out of the last 54 years in office at that, shouldn't be much of a surprise.

There are, of course, exceptions: Vladimir Putin has a vice-like grip on politics in Russia; while Nicolas Sarkozy is well-ensconced in the French Presidency and despite recent scandals, Silvio Berlusconi's position in Italy is relatively secure. In the latter two cases, this may have more to do with a complete and abject failure on the part of the country's respective oppositions to get their act together. If France's Socialists stop quibbling amongst themselves (or get eclipsed altogether by another party), and Italy's Democrats get their arses in gear, then both Sarkozy and Berlusconi are in trouble: a divided Socialist Party's Presidential candidate, Ségolène Royal, came within just two million votes of beating Sarkozy (out of an electorate of more than 44 million, that could be described as marginal); while the never-ending wave of scandals hitting the Berlusconi government needs nothing more and nothing less than an opposition capable of capitalising on them. Even Putin isn't necessarily safe: he may seem all-powerful now, but constitutional power still technically resides with the President, Dmitriy Medvedev. If he decides to try and step out of Putin's shadow, then anything could happen...

In short, the fall of the LDP and the rise of Yukio Hatoyama is just another chapter in a tale of major change at the top table of global politics. The next instalment? The Bundestag, this time next month, when we'll find out whether Angela Merkel really is Germany's Margaret Thatcher, as she's so frequently billed, or merely Germany's Neil Kinnock.

Japan: LDP Out of Power for only the second time in 55 years

The President of the Democratic Party of Japan, Yukio Hatoyama, is to become the new Prime Minister of Japan. His party has secured a majority of Lower House seats in today's elections, inflicting a crushing defeat on Taro Aso's Liberal Democratic Party (which seems not to have much in common with its UK namesake), which - barring ten months in the mid-90s - has been in power in Japan for more than half a century.

I'll have more on this soon...

Tom Harris: Right, but for the Wrong Reasons

It's not often I agree with Tom Harris, but he has, inadvertently, stumbled on a good idea for House of Lords reform, in his reaction to the idea that members of the new Lords would take a cooling-off period before being permitted to stand for the Commons. I'll come back to why I support that in a moment, but let's take things back to first principles.

What is the purpose of the House of Lords in a parliamentary system where their elected colleagues in the Commons wear the trousers?

I suppose it's intended as a revising chamber, which can and does take a longer view on the issues facing it than the Commons (whose members have no longer than five years before they have to answer to the public for their decisions) ever could and make considered opinions based on something beyond the short-term political advantage. Of course, this is undermined by the fact that a) birthright - the initial qualification for membership of the Lords - doesn't actually give you a better long-term view of anything other than Daddy's Last Will and Testament; and b) with the exception of the Cross-Benchers, the Peers are organised along Party Lines as they are in the Commons, so obviously, short-term political advantage is going to rear its ugly head at some stage.

Besides, the House of Lords is beginning to look more and more like an extension of the Commons with every year. Its judicial functions are being farmed out to the Supreme Court; the current Lord Chancellor is a Commoner, not a Peer; Bills can be and are introduced in the Lords; the Upper House is used as a source of candidates for Ministerial office and even a device to get people into Ministerial office; and in any case, a great many members of the Lords got their position having been members of the Commons - and more often than not, are there to clear the way for someone else to stand in the newly ennobled parliamentarian's constituency. One does wonder, therefore, what point there is in there being a House of Lords at all.

Yet in a way, an electoral process for the Peers could provide a new one: a check (preferably a PR one) on a Commons elected by FPTP, and one on a Government which was formed as a result of the composition of the Commons and can generally rely on it for support.

Of course, the mechanism for doing this leaves a lot to be desired. Election by thirds, for terms the length of three Parliaments is one thing, but the idea of tying it to General Elections seems utterly barmy, in that you're connecting a theoretically independent House of Lords to events in the Commons. But as well as that, imagine if this system had been in play since 1945. Peers elected then (probably 70 Labour, 57 Tories and allies, 13 Liberal, 5 others) would find themselves retiring in 1955. Peers elected in 1950 (Lab 65, Con 61, Lib 13, 1 Other) would leave office in 1959. Those elected in 1951 (Lab 68, Con 67, Lib 4, 1 Other) would go on until October 1964. So Peers elected on the same basis would last ten, nine or thirteen years depending on when they had the fortune to be elected.

So the Government propose disregarding any elections called within three years of the last one. So Peers elected in 1945 would instead last until 1959 -thirteen years. Peers elected in 1950 would last until 1964 - fourteen years. Peers elected in 1955 would leave office in 1970 -fifteen years. But if tying elections for an independent House of Lords to Commons elections seems crazy, then tying them not just to the one being held but to the one before that is just plain daft.

Better to have a fixed term - but then, if fixed terms are good for the Lords, why not for the Commons?

But let's go with the electoral timings proposed by the Government. By the time of the 1955 Lords Election, there would be 197 Labour Lords, 186 Tories, 30 Liberals and 7 Others. Unfortunately, you would also have an Anthony Eden-led Government which had come close to a majority not just of Commons seats, but of actual votes (49.7% of UK votes cast). A check on the Government is one thing. A Chamber in which a Party that nearly gets a popular majority isn't even the largest is, quite frankly, perverse.

So the timing looks dodgy, and the voting arrangements look ropey, thanks to the long terms of office.

And of course, under the Straw proposals, no Peer can seek re-election. You get your fifteen years, and that's that. But the ability to seek re-election is the best bit of the process: that's how you're accountable to your voters, as you know that a few years down the line, you have to face them again. What's the point in having the democratic process of an election if there's no procedure for voters to deliver a verdict on the people they've sent to Parliament already?

If we must have phased terms - and, for the long-term view, it's does have some merit - then it may be better to elected by halves, and have Peers serving the length of two Commons terms, and allowing them the prospect of re-election. That way, the Chamber more closely reflects current opinion, and peers are accountable to their voters for as long as they seek to continue in the job.

And that would solve the vexed question of what to do about Peers who come in mid-term, to complete someone else's spell in office. Under Straw, either they get a second bit at the cherry which their colleagues do not, or they find themselves in the job for a curtailed period of time. Neither is satisfactory, so allowing re-election would be a bonus.

It also weakens the case for recall votes, as considered in the proposals, because voters would be able to decide for themselves whether or not to keep X in office for another eight-ten year term. Recalls are a good idea, but if you're having them for the Lords, why not the Commons?

So the proposals seem half-baked, but the idea of Lords being barred from standing for the Commons is, despite Tom Harris's misgivings that the idea is merely a way of stopping Peter Mandelson from becoming Labour Leader (I suspect the Leadership Contest would do that). Firstly, if the Straw proposals did go ahead, it would stop the Commons becoming the retirement home for the Lords who had finished their stint and had nowhere to go. Secondly, as Constituency MSPs will bear witness, having someone elected on a regional, PR level who could stand in your seat having had years to build up a profile in the area is pretty un-nerving. Now, Constituency and Regional MSPs are one thing - they at least are being elected to the same body - but having people use the reformed Lords as a stepping stone to a Commons constituency is pretty pathetic. It might assert the primacy of the Commons, but frankly, you're never going to get the Lords to act as an effective check on the Commons if Party organisers can dangle the prospect of a Commons Constituency before Peers.

But then, Tom Harris's own suggestion also has merit: if using the Lords as a career stepping stone is shabby, then continuing to use it as a retirement home/dumping ground for ex-MPs, particularly those who have been encouraged to make the space for newer figures, is equally pitiful. For me, it's as bad as Cash for Honours, but it's completely permissible under the law and it's a long-standing practice: the Peerages for Constituencies Scandal. Again, it might assert the primacy of the Commons for the Lords to be full of parliamentary offcuts, but having a Second Chamber stuffed with rejects from the First isn't going to create an independent body with its own practices, just a carbon copy of the Commons with a different method of getting there. Tom Harris may have come up with the idea out of indignation at Jack Straw's proposal, but it's worth looking at.

The Release

We are, of course, watching the dust settle, as the reaction to and consequences of the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, who will go to his grave as The Lockerbie Bomber, continue to unfold.

Frankly, we are nowhere near the end of this saga. How can we be? Many of the relatives of the Lockerbie victims think that Kenny MacAskill has ordered the release of a mass murderer - no closure for them - while the others think that he ought never have been convicted of the atrocity in the first place - no closure for them either. Keeping him in prison would at least have suited some of the bereaved.

But to be blunt, if I myself had been one of the bereaved, Megrahi being in prison and alive wouldn't have been satisfactory either. I would have wanted Megrahi tried by that higher power Kenny MacAskill talked about ASAP. I would have made it happen myself, given half the chance.

Fortunately for Megrahi, neither I nor Kenny MacAskill lost anyone that night twenty years ago. But if you can imagine yourself in their shoes (and I can try, but will never come even close to knowing what that's like), you can understand the frustrations of those who wanted him to remain locked up. And you can understand the frustrations of those who do not have faith in the outcome of the initial trial: with only the guilty verdict for Megrahi - and the end of his appeal against his conviction - they will not be satisfied, as they will never get the chance to get to the bottom of what happened.

But as far as the law is concerned, he is responsible. He is the guilty party and he has withdrawn his appeal.

So why release him?

Had I been in Kenny MacAskill's shoes, this is what I would have argued. With the exception of the relatives of the victims, for whom the suffering and the pain of loss is so real, the rest of us can afford a look at the whys and wherefores. And the key point for me, is this: we, in our stable, democratic country, have the luxury of asserting our moral superiority over terrorism and terrorists. We are not the ones who would entertain the very idea of putting a bomb on a civilian airline, far less carry that idea out. We have the moral high ground, and rightly so. Now, we're talking about showing Megrahi compassion. And there are many who would suggest that he didn't show any when he put the bomb on Pan-Am 103. They'd be right. But does that mean that we shouldn't show him any?

No, it doesn't.

And the reason for this is simple: we have asserted our right to the moral high ground. He did not show compassion, so deciding not to show it to him in his dying days takes us to that same unfeeling level. That moral high ground which we so rightly claim suddenly finds itself on the wrong end of a very swift erosion process.

Outrage begets outrage. Atroctiy begets atrocity. Rage begets rage and revenge begets revenge. Just as in Megrahi's eyes, the passengers of that flight were not ordinary people going about their lives, but dehumanised targets, so we have dehumanised Megrahi. He is The Lockerbie Bomber. Nothing else matters.

But MacAskill had to - and it seems that he did actually have to - meet the man. And that is precisely what he met. A man. A man convicted of mass murder, but nevertheless, a man. And a man who appears to be suffering from terminal cancer. A weakened, frail man. Perhaps, in that moment, Kenny MacAskill understood what Jack Straw must have gone through when he had to assess the fitness of General Pinochet to stand trial. Could the elderly, sick man who Jack Straw mercifully sent home to die in his homeland be the same man who sent literally thousands - there were three thousand deaths in just the first month after Pinochet deposed Salvador Allende - to their death in his seventeen-year tyranny over Chile? He was, of course, but Straw showed the mercy in power that Pinochet himself never would. Of course, the General lived on for six more years before passing away. Unless the Libyans have been pulling a similar stunt, Megrahi will be lucky to see in 2010.

I'll refer back to Pinochet in a little while, but in the case of Megrahi, MacAskill seeing him in his cell must have caused some sort of cognitive dissonance. It would have had to: on paper, Megrahi was the man who blew up a plane. In the flesh, MacAskill would see a weakened, ill man in a cell. An Megrahi, in a flash, is suddenly re-humanised. What else could the Justice Secretary have done?

And besides, let's look at the purpose of a criminal justice system. Punishment? Well, he's had that, but now his own body is punishing him in ways which not even Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo could achieve. Deterrence? It is doubtful that the thought of Megrahi in jail made any potential terrorist stop and think again about what they were planning to do. It's not impossible, but it's highly doubtful. Public safety? Megrahi had already carried out the act and Colonel Gaddafi is now, apparently, an ally in the War on Terror. The probability of recidivism in this case, was low. Lower than in the case of the prisoners released from the Maze as part of the Good Friday Agreement, anyway.

So when the application for compassionate release came, of course it had to be taken seriously.

And MacAskill made his decision.

The Libyan triumphalism was disgraceful - an affront to Scotland's dignity for one thing - though the Scottish Government can hardly be blamed for that.

The US reaction was hysterical - though one can forgive them the conflation of the two governments: why should they be expected to understand Scottish constitutional issues? - on the one hand, they stand with the victims, but there are other matters to think about.

As others have already asked, did they think about the victims of IRA bombings when their citizens (along with Libya, incidentally) supported their cause either with words or money? Or when they gave Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams a visa while the IRA's campaign was ongoing? Apparently terrorism is only evil when it's your people getting blown up.

Then there's the Boycott Scotland campaign (I don't recall a Boycott America campaign when Adams was given a visa), who say:

Mr. MacAskill, the so-called "Justice" Secretary of Scotland, you should be ashamed of yourself. You know nothing of justice, nor will we ever forgive your heinous action, and it is our sincere hope that the people of Scotland will strongly voice their opposition to what you have done. You have shown to the international community that your government and the United Kingdom as a whole will stop at nothing to pursue the neverending and relentless acquisition of oil revenues.

One wonders what they thought of the Iraq War, when the WMD we were told about failed to materialise, when the terrorists who were being linked into Iraq actually found their way into the country and began a bombing campaign which they never managed before, and when the regime change saw the rise to prominence of such unsavoury figures as Moqtada al-Sadr, but when, in the midst of all that chaos, US business interests had a field day. Blood has been shed a war that got rid of no WMD, enabled rather than prevented terror, risked allowing a regime that actually would have been the one thing worse than Saddam but did succeed in giving US business some new investment opportunities. Funny, that.

Now, the anger at his release is one thing - it's understandable, of course - and the USA's past lax approach to terror (until it started happening to them) is quite another, while the hypocrisy of decrying the potential influence of commercial interests in international geopolitics is quite another, but here's the bit I don't get. Libya did support terror, did have a WMD programme, was a risk to regional stability and has, at the risk of understatement, a not-very-nice leader.

So why, when Libya has (as far as we know) got rid of its nuclear programme, stopped using terrorism as a policy instrument, and has gone to the forefront of the African Union - a project to calm things down on the continent - is all this outrage directed at Tripoli now? Why wasn't it on George Bush's "Axis of Evil" list? Why did Coalition forces go into Iraq instead of Libya, when Colonel Gaddafi's regime met all the reasons for attacking Iraq better than Iraq itself did?

Again, the frustration of the victims is real, we can't discount that and shouldn't even try. Of course they want Megrahi locked up (I daresay a good number of them would have wanted him tried over their, in one of the states which still uses the death penalty and if I were in their shoes, I can't say for sure that I would disagree). But the outrage of others seems somewhat hollow when you look at the wider picture.

Then there's the UK Government - stuck between a rock and a hard place. It has to say nothing - to support Kenny MacAskill would be to exacerbate the row with the US (and pull the rug from Iain Gray's feet), while to condemn it would set back the progress in normalising UK-Libya relations (though the Libyans themselves are doing well at that by parading Megrahi like a trophy: it's their turn to dehumanise him, it seems) and raise questions about previous contacts with Libyan officials and put an unfortunate light on the Prisoner Transfer Agreement that Tony Blair signed with Gaddafi. Nor could it say anything beforehand for fear of appearing to attempt to influence a decision that wasn't theirs to take (and, in so doing, giving another publicity gift to the Scottish Government, which the UK Government would be anxious to avoid) But the repercussions are affecting it: just as the Scottish press seems to have thrown the spotlight on Kenny MacAskill, so the London-based press is gunning for Gordon Brown.

And in many ways, this could do more damage to him than to MacAskill or the SNP, which has managed consistently over the last two years to find rabbits in even the deepest of hats, while Gordon Brown's two years in office have been marked by crisis after fiasco after row. This will prove to be another nail in the UK Government's coffin, another milestone on the road to electoral defeat. And this could yet be the most serious row to challenge the Scottish Government, potentially providing the first Ministerial scalp since 2007 (in fact, since the enforced resignation of Malcolm Chisholm in December 2006 from the Labour-led Executive over Trident), but the Government has so far survived the Trams row, Trumpton, rows over student funding, the Budget fiasco, the LIT row and the accusation of misleading Parliament over escaped prisoners. This may be the biggest challenge yet, but the SNP's form in recovering from what pundits perceive as critical damage to the Government has hitherto been remarkable. Don't write the Government off.

Nevertheless, it's no surprise that David Cameron has chosen to lead the attack on Lockerbie - breaking his pledge not to intervene in devloved matters as long as MSPs don't quibble with him over reserved policy (that promise didn't even survive the election - see why I'm not enthralled by either possible UK Government?) - it's more a chance to attack Labour than the SNP. If it were the latter, Annabel Goldie would be there. And it's also interesting that, in the world of Tory policy, this mass murderer should spend his last three months in jail, but General Pinochet shouldn't even have to stand trial for a seventeen-year reign of terror. But then, he was a "friend of Britain" (well, friend of Thatcher). He may have been a mass-murdering despot, but he was our mass-murdering despot.

Speaking of Pinochet, the quibble I have with Kenny MacAskill's handling of the situation was his focusing his energies in communicating with Whitehall on the Foreign Office, who - perhaps wisely after the row when the PTA was signed two years ago - remained silent, when UK Justice Secretary Jack Straw would have made a wiser contact: in having had to make the call on Pinochet in 2000, he is perhaps one of the few people on the whole planet who would get the enormity of the decision facing his Scottish Government counterpart. As such, he would have been an invaluable source of experience and insight on the matter and may have been able to discuss what did (and didn't) happen, what were the right calls and what mistakes were made (I'd hazard that believing that Pinochet really was at death's door was one of them and we have to hope that those in the Scottish justice system who have dealt with the Megrahi case have not been hoodwinked in a similar way): Kenny MacAskill ought to have made better use of that, if possible.

But back to the political reaction: before Jack McConnell reminded us that but for a few votes in Cunninghame North, he'd have been dealing with this and Cathy Jamieson would have been holding that press conference (and opted to blame his successor for the one thing over which the Scottish Government had no control), Iain Gray came forward, attacking Alex Salmond for not intervening (he would, I suspect have attacked him for interfering had the FM done so), and prefacing his remarks as follows:

If I was First Minister, Megrahi would not be going back to Libya.

Shoddy grammar aside, not even David Cameron opted to preface his remarks by saying what he'd do in Government, and so, I fear, we come to the heart of the matter for Scottish Labour and Iain Gray. If he were in charge - that's the bit that counts here. Never mind the geopolitics. Never mind the 270 deaths. Never mind the dying man convicted of them. In the world of Scottish Labour, it's all about who's Numero Uno, and Iain bloody Gray. For shame!

Nevertheless, he is not First Minister, but Leader of the Opposition, and will have the opportunity to hold the Justice Secretary to account in a special session of Parliament tomorrow.

Kenny MacAskill is going to get a grilling from the three main Opposition parties: we can be certain of that.

There may be a proposal to hold an inquiry into the entire history of the Lockerbie bombing, from the events leading up to it, Megrahi's flight home. This would probably get the support of the Chamber.

There may be an attempt at a no-confidence vote in Kenny MacAskill. With the parties attacking him holding 78 votes to the SNP's 47, we may find that Scotland has (or requires) a new Justice Secretary in 24 hours time. But even if that doesn't happen tomorrow, it will happen eventually: it may be Government business scheduled in the Chamber for the first two weeks of Parliament's full return to work, but sooner or later, there will be a window for an Opposition motion against him. And let's not beat around the bush: it is unlikely that he will survive it. All the main opposition parties are criticising him, and in any case, a scalp is a scalp.

There may even be an attempt to ditch the whole Government, especially if Iain Gray wants to be FM as badly as he appears to. At this point, things may backfire for the Opposition: ths will be the ultimate over-politicisation of the Lockerbie decision - the attempt to use a terroirst outrage, 270 deaths and a decision made in the spirit of mercy to, as Annabel Goldie said of the failed Budget earlier this year, "stage some bloodless debating chamber coup to ensconce him as First Minister". And with Goldie going on to say at that time "that Scotland is already badly served by one Labour Government and that we certainly do not need two" then whatever the UK Tory position on Lockerbie, Labour could not count on Socttish Tory support to oust the SNP Government.

So the immediate political future is uncertain. What we do know is as follows:

Kenny MacAskill will face a tough time tomorrow and will be fortunate if opposition MSPs haven't contrived to eject him from ministerial office within four weeks.

Megrahi is home.

The Libyans are gloating.

The US Administration is visibly outraged.

But most importantly, there are the relatives of 270 casualties, with emotional wounds ripped well and truly open and no prospect of closure anytime soon, if ever.

And that is something everyone involved at least needs to acknowledge when they discuss Lockerbie.

Question for George Osborne

How can something conservative be progressive, when the words themselves have something of the oxymoron about them?

Here's another question: the origins of 'Right Wing' come from the start of the French Revolution, and the Legislative Assembly of 1791, in which those sitting on the right of the Chamber were generally the royalists, conservatives and moderates. How, then, can any party of the Right or even Centre-Right ever brand itself progressive?

Just a thought.

Bloggers' Meets?

Apparently, a couple of people took my rather lame attempt at a title for Sunday's Roundup slightly more seriously than I anticipated, and thought that there was an actual Blogosphere Barbecue in the offing. There isn't, but there has been a realisation that some kind of meetup would be a go-er.

As such, plans are being made to hold one in Edinburgh, possibly w/c 24 August, or the week after. Details, as yet, TBC. So is my attendance, which is slightly embarrassing having been named as a member of the organising committee!

All the same, it should be good - whenever it takes place. Reports from the last general one were positive, and the last SNP Bloggers' Breakfast in Glasgow a couple of months ago was delightful. So any ideas, drop me a line.

By the way, it looks like there will be another SNP bloggers' meetup at Conference in Inverness this Autumn. Another breakfast? Something else? Again, ideas welcome...

An unholy row

I've been holding off on posting about this subject, but I think we all knew that sooner or later, I would say something about Councillor Kenneth Gunn. And here it is.

As part of an exhibition as Glasgow's Gallery of Modern Art, the Metropolitan Community Church installed a Bible, inviting people who felt they had been marginalised (i.e. the LGBT Community) to write themselves and their stories back into the Bible. Now, this is a thoroughly laudable aim: homosexuality pre-dates Christianity, will survive Christianity, and indeed, isn't confined to the human race either as the sheer number of examples of homosexual behaviour in other animal species will attest. From that, we can assume that homosexuality is - for some of us - a fact of life. Yet, barring a few less than positive discussions of the matter, it rarely gets mentioned in the Bible. Here's their idea:

“Are there any gay people in the Bible? Out of the tens of thousands of people who appear in the Old and New Testaments, there must have been.

“Same-sex love, such as that between Ruth and Naomi, existed, but has been written out over time.

“If you feel you’ve been excluded from the Bible, please write your way back into it.”

The idea was to show that we too can be a part of the Christian faith.

Of course, I have my doubts about this, and the way events played out justify them. Firstly, some tossers decided that it would be an effective use of their time to write offensive messages in the Bible that was on display. Clearly the MCC was trying to appeal to the better side of human nature. That was their mistake, but then, it's not their fault that a bunch of arsewipes can't display a bit of dignity when putting their case across.

So it was no surprise that far from creating any synergy between the wider Christian faith and the LGBT community, or a rational airing of a sensible grievance, this exhibition merely created a bunch of very pissed off Christians. And frankly, I don't blame them for being pissed off.

Unfortunately, with the ball in their court, Kenneth Gunn took the racket on Radio Scotland:

“When we all went to church on a Sunday morning and prayed to Jesus Christ, this was a much better country. Look where it’s going now. We’ve got so-called gays, who are really very sad people, and we have non-believers and heathens running the country and running down Christianity.”

Of course, in those halcyon days to which the good Councillor refers, we executed people, which isn't very Christian, and sectarian bigotry, which isn't very Christian either despite the players involved, was a even bigger problem than at present, but hey ho. Never let little things historical perspective get in the way of a good mouth-foam.

And now it's our turn to be pissed off. Thanks to the idiocy of a few gobshites, Councillor Gunn has decided to damn us all to Hell. Now, I accept that not everyone is going to want to buy me a drink, but Gunn is an elected official, who (as he himself admits) has to represent everyone in his ward. And as members of the LGBT community are more likely to face prejudice, discrimination and outright hostility than heterosexual men and women (who ever heard of straight-bashing?), it follows that they may be more likely to have a reason to see their elected representatives. I suppose LGBT residents in Councillor Gunn's neck of the woods have cause for relief that the days of single-member Council wards came to an end two years ago.

But then, we're always going to be labelled 'Other' by some folk, even though we're not quite as different as you may think. As Linda Jackson, Chair of the Scottish Borders LGBT Forum argues:

"We eat, drink and sleep. We laugh and cry, get angry and sad. We pay bills, go on holidays. We love our parents, brothers, sisters, nieces and nephews. We work and pay taxes. We get irritated by cold-callers and talk about the weather.

"Is that description any different from the rest of you?"

Quite. Most guys' aspirations, when it comes down to it, are basically to get a good job, meet a nice girl, settle down, get a decent house and live a comfortable life. Mine are to get a good job, meet a nice guy, settle down, get a decent house and live a comfortable life. Only one word is different - yet that one word seems to make me a threat to a long-standing way of life. Why should this be?

I'll come back to the broader attitude in a while, but I wish to consider Councillor Gunn a little more.

Since the row blew up, he made this statement:

"As a Christian I was upset by the content of the art exhibition being discussed in last weeks phone in and wished to express my views on that as an individual. In doing so I said things which I regret. As a Christian I believe that we should all work together for a better society in which acceptance, mutual respect and understanding are key - regardless of belief or sexuality. I understand the offence my statements have caused and apologise for that."

Fair enough, then. Or is it? Check out the last sentence. When someone apologises for your being offended, are they actually apologising for saying something to offend you? Not necessarily. He's not apologising for his action, but for our reaction. It's not so much an apology as a cr-apology.

Now, Gunn asserted that he spoke as an individual, and the SNP Leadership were initially happy to leave it at that. Gunn, they argued, was not speaking for the SNP. They're right, there's nothing even remotely resembling Gunn's initial rant in any SNP policy document. But what if Gunn wanted ot seek re-election in 2012? Could he stand for the SNP if he can't speak for the party? Could he campaign for people to support the party at the ballot box, if his own personal views are so at odds with the SNP's official policy?

I would suggest that the answer is a resounding no. Particularly in light of his cr-apology.

Personally, I think that if Councillor Gunn lives in a world where we can all leave our front doors open (because the only thing worth nicking is a mangle) and pray to a God which apparently despises 6-10% of the population for the way that He created them, then he's welcome to it. But that's not the modern world, and it's not the inclusive, progressive world in which the majority of SNP members want to see Scotland take a full part.

Therefore, my view is what you'd expect it to be: that the SNP shouldn't so much throw the book at Gunn as take the book, beat him black and blue with it, and then stuff it page by page down his hateful throat.

But then, I would say that, wouldn't I? It's logical that i would want to go in all guns blazing.

For the Leadership, much as we would like it to be so easy, there's one added complication.

Look how closely tied to religion it is. Look how Dave Thompson's comments regarding Scott Rennie were tied to religion and Christianity. Roseanna Cunningham's opposition to gay adoption revolved around her support for the 'traditional' family model, while Brian Soutar's Keep the Clause campaign was tied to 'traditional' values.

And therein lies the rub. To back up the LGBT Community is, in effect, to go against the Christian faith and centuries of tradition - or these people's interpretation of them. That's a fight that's hard to win: even though many Christians (and traditionalists, for that matter) may look at the situation differently, the erroneous idea that we're trying to undermine their way of life could start to creep in. The more noise made by hardliners, the harder it is to hear those rational voices who seek tolerance and understanding (that's something that the LGBT Community should bear in mind as well: the wankers who subverted the MCC exhibition have won no friends and influenced no people). And once tolerance and understanding go out the window, we're the ones in trouble, not the Christian community.

Let's go back to that wider view. My way of life is a threat to the Old Order, apparently. But consider this:

I am not a Christian, yet they expect me to be bound by their approach to marriage. However, my right to a Civil Partnership (which they oppose) with a hypothetical male companion - let's call him "Kris Boyd", merely for the sake of argument, you understand! - does not entail the dissolution of Christian marriage. I win, "Kris" wins, there is no effect on the Christian Church.

I am not a Christian, yet their view of the family unit would preclude the possibility of "Kris" and I adopting a child together (frankly, I'd be a disaster as a parent - not because I'm gay but because the kid would run me ragged and there's a very real possibility that in a moment of absent-mindedness, I'd leave him or her at the supermarket checkout, so thanks, but I'll stick to being the Fun Uncle). However, permitting gay couples to adopt would not undermine other examples of the traditional family model: it would simply allow for children to find loving, stable homes, allow gay couples to do something that they'd do well (just because I'd make a rubbish parent doesn't mean that the same is true of all gay men and women), and ease the burden on the care system. Gay couples get their right, the kids get homes, and the adoption process steps in when the traditional family unit is no longer an option, so no damage is done to that idea.

Basically, you can look at any aspect of the equality campaign, and you'll see that LGBT rights don't intrude on the rights of anyone else, but simply allow us to live our lives on the same legal footing as anyone else. Despite that, sections of the Christian Right, complain that simply letting us do our thing weakens their rights as Christians. It doesn't. But if they were to have their way, that would certainly curtail our rights.

And that's really the point of my post. It's less about Councillor Gunn's rant and more about the fact that politicians shouldn't have to choose between LGBT equality and the traditional Christian establishment. There is room for both ways of life. However, the likes of Councillor Gunn present a false dichotomy between New Jerusalem and New Sodom. They want to force the rest of us to choose sides when we shouldn't have to.

I would suggest that, should they succeed in getting people to make a decision, whichever side would force that false choice is the wrong side to choose. I hope that the SNP Leadership agrees.

What is it about death that brings out our inner hypocrite?

It's striking just how large a part of the footballing world was willing to pay tribute to Sir Bobby Robson, who died this week. But with such a long and distinguished career, it's not hard to see why. For me, my earliest memory of the man was at the 1990 World Cup, when England lost out on penalties to West Germany, coming fourth to Argentina.

Here's something to consider when looking at just how good Sir Bobby was: he was the third longest-serving England manager, behind only the first to occupants of the post, the wonderfully named Sir Walter Winterbottom and Sir Alf Ramsey. They lasted 16 and 11 years respectively; Sir Bobby was in the post for eight.

And take a look at his successors: Graham Taylor took over after Italia '90. His England team found itself propping up Group A at Euro '92 in Sweden, and didn't qualify at all for the USA '94. He left the job in November 1993.

Terry Venables didn't have to go through a qualifying round for Euro '96, but the story had a familiar ring to it: losing in a penalty shootout to Germany, in the Semi-Finals. He left after the tournament.

Glenn Hoddle took England to the Last 16 of France '98, where they were knocked out by Argentina on penalties. He began the qualifying campaign for Euro 2000, and would have finished it were it not for a rather unfortunate interview in which he suggested that (and I'm paraphrasing here) disabled people must have been bastards in a previous life. He lasted, in all, two and a half years.

After losing a Friendly under Howard Wilkinson, England then turned to Kevin Keegan, who got no further than the Group Stage of Euro 2000, and embarked on the qualifiers for World Cup 2002 only to resign after losing his first qualification match to Germany. He lasted 18 months.

Following this, England drew 0-0 with Finland under Howard Wilkinson, and lost to Italy under Peter Taylor, only for Sven-Goran Eriksson to take over. He lasted five years, taking England to the Quarter Finals of the 2002 World Cup, Euro 2004, and the 2006 World Cup, losing to Brazil, Portugal and Germany respectively - the latter two on penalties.

Basically, when you look at that record, Sir Bobby did very well indeed to work for the FA for as long as he did, and to get as far as he did in a World Cup.

But there are some who did not see his inconsiderable talents - not that you'd know it from this week's press:

"It's very sad, especially on Tyneside. The whole of Tyneside will be grieving. Sir Bobby Robson was a great man and will be sorely missed.

"I worked with him for five years every day. He was certainly the best manager I ever worked with at Newcastle. He never put me under pressure and always tried to see my side.

"He wouldn't put up with fools and didn't take any nonsense. He came across as a very kind guy but underneath was very tough. He thought about football 24 hours a day and he would ring me at all hours of the day and never stopped thinking about football."

That was Freddy Shepherd, the former Chairman of Newcastle United, Sir Bobby's former club. It's hard to believe that this was the same man who sacked Sir Bobby less than a month into the 2004-05 season. Shepherd sacked him because of results: just four games in to the season, which the Board has decided would have been Sir Bobby's last in charge anyway. And he had taken Newcastle to the Semi Finals of the FA Cup and UEFA Cup, the Top 3 in the Premiership and the Last 16 in the Champions' League - all unthinkable prospects now for a Newcastle side which will be playing in the Championship this season.

And now Shepherd has the gall to come out and sing the man's praises - the man he himself cut loose five years ago!

It would, of course, have been hugely inappropriate for Shepherd to stick the boot in this week of all weeks, but given his treatment of Sir Bobby, he could at least have had the decency to stay quiet, and let the people who showed respect for the man while he was alive pay their respects to him at his death.

Indeed, he could have done worse than to follow the example of Dennis Canavan, who found himself at loggerheads with Donald Dewar on a regular basis, and did not buy in to the reaction to the First Minister's death in 2000, but at least had the sense not to make any sanctimonious tributes at the time.

But for now, my general belief is that the gobshite Freddy Shepherd should, for once in his life, shut up, and let real football fans do the talking.