A Good Day for the Daily Record

Why, you might ask, is the following front page in the UK edition of the Sun, displaying the headline Labour's Lost It, good news for the Daily Record, the Scottish Sun's bitter rival, which seems to have been fighting a losing battle against the Murdoch title in recent years?

Simple.

The Sun in London is now anti-Labour, and pro-Tory.

But who will the Scottish Sun back?

It can't credibly stick with Labour: if it does, the home-grown articles will be pro-Labour but they'll jar against the UK content, which will be looking at things from the opposite angle.

It can't go Tory: the Scottish political landscape at present reflects a Labour-SNP battle. The Tories just aren't at the races, and likely Sun readers in Scotland aren't likely potential Tory voters.

It can't go SNP when just two and a half years ago, it depicted the SNP logo as a hangman's noose.

Now, there's a school of thought that says, "So what?", best outlined by that line in Yes, Minister:

Sun readers don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big tits.

But I don't think that's true. Remember "It was the Sun wot won it?". I don't think that's true either. What The Sun is good at is acting almost as an echo chamber, not instilling readers with its views but giving to them what they want to read. Murdoch tapped into lingering doubts about Neil Kinnock in 1992, he didn't create them. He tapped into the massive unpopularity of the Tories in 1997, he didn't generate it. The public opinion was already there: the Sun merely reflected it and perhaps, at most, pushed a few undecudeds into the popular camp. Why? Because first and foremost, Murdoch likes to make money, and he does this by selling papers. If people don't agree with what's in your papers, they won't buy them. It's a no-brainer, so the Sun will always reflect what Sun readers think, rather than challenge it.

Now, with the UK edition going anti-Labour, it hardly makes sense for the Scottish edition to remain supportive. The editorial team will realise this.

But, of course, the Scottish Sun can't go Tory like the UK edition: it will lose far more readers than it could gain by doing so.

It can't go SNP either: the dyed-in-the-wool Labour voters (they do still exist) will be appalled, and SNP supporters have long memories: they won't be overly thrilled to buy a paper that depicted their party in such a charming way a couple of years ago. Again, it will lose more readers than it could gain.

So where will those readers go? Answer: the paper that hasn't changed its position and still supports the same party as those floating readers now looking for a new paper. The Daily Record.

If the Scottish Sun takes a pro-SNP line, the writers who've been hostile for so long will find themselves in an odd position and the Record could poach some of them. The same editorial, a more popular line-up of writers and columnists. A more attractive paper for some. Result for the Record!

If they go Tory, expect the Record to crank up the small-n nationalism. Scotland's champion, the paper that's still loyal to Labour but still loyal to you. I can see it now. Again, it'll play well with the punters. Still hostile to the Tories, still very much with a clear, Scottish identity but not pro-independence. And a large chunk of the audience that feels the same - a captive audience. Again, result for the Record!

So we'll wait and see how the Sun plays this tomorrow, but I'll bet that it's champagne and cigars at the Record tonight.

In Defence of Grammar Fascism

I thought that after reading this post by Yousuf, I should put my tupp'orth in. Now, it seems that people have been haranguing him about his use of grammar and the occasional typo - as an inattentive typist myself, let me tell you that typos are a fact of life, and whining about them serves only to set you up for one hell of a fall - but I rather think there's a wider issue of Yousuf's self-deprecation that needs clearing up. So let me begin this post by looking at his opening paragraph:

One of the oddities of being a blogger is that people occasionally harbour under the illusion that you are a good writer. I'm not particularly, I'd like to think it's what I say rather than the way I say which sustains this blog.

His second part is broadly right: it's what he says that sustains his blog. But that's true of all blogs. You could get every comma, every apostrophe, every mark, every grammatical nuance correct but if your content is horse shite then no one will read it. Yousuf, by contrast, engages his audience, gets them thinking, gets them challenging him and gets them writing something of their own. That is exactly what good writing is supposed to do, so Yousuf meets the essential criteria for a good writer. Hell, this post is proof of that.

Similarly, I'm not sure why people feel the need to go to the trouble of dragging him over the coals for the occasional typo. That's just petty, and if it helps him, I could point him in the direction of an army of linguists, who would testify not only that it's OK to split infinitives, but that you're actually supposed to. This is the nature of the beast that is language: everyone has an opinion and there's so much variation within languages and dialects that it's hard to nail the 'right' form.

Nevertheless, I'd suggest cutting grammar fascists some slack. I can think of a few reasons why they have a part to play.

1. A good grammar makes us more easily understood. This is especially true in a language like English, that has a relatively rigid grammar but an absolutely crap morphology. English nouns do have, at the very least, a Nominative, Accusative and a Genitive case, but only two phonetic forms and an orthographical practice that relies heavily on the writer knowing how to use the apostrophe. Similarly, most other languages have all sorts of ways of marking their verbs according to person and number; while some even factor in gender and the relative social status of the subject. English has only two verb endings in the regular present tense, and only one in the preterite. Other languages have a variety of ways of marking tense, mood and aspect in the grammar. English doesn't, so we start at a disadvantage to many other languages. Take, for example, Russian: semantically (though not necessarily stylistically), Mal'chik ljubit devochku, Devochku ljubit mal'chik, Mal'chik devochku ljubit and Ljubit mal'chik devochku all mean the same thing: the boy loves the girl. In English, the girl loves the boy means the reverse (Devochka ljubit mal'chika, or any similar ordering of those words, in Russian), while the boy the girl loves and the girl the boy loves aren't even complete sentences and any other combination is basically a meaningless jumble.

That's a major point in English: many of the grammatical rules are rigid and stylistic conventions have to be applied in different ways (more often than not with stresses on particular words in speech and the use of italics and underlining in writing). However, the orthography is very confusing: the same combination of letters can have all sorts of different pronunciations, while several words can be pronounced in exactly the same way, but have different spellings depending on their meaning. In short, English has a very rigid external structure, but on the inside, it's a complete mess. Better, then, to hold on to the clear markers that grammar offers. A good grammar isn't essential to making yourself understood, and it's certainly not worth beating yourself (or others) up about, but it does make things easier.

2. There's a kind of romantic, quixotic thing going on. For some, good grammar is like a relic of a more civilised past, when we were nicer to each other and knew how to use apostrophes. For others, there are particular bugbears, or things that they love to see done right and hate to see mangled.

Take, for example, my newly enlarged hostility to Iain Gray. It's based on this phrase: "If I was First Minister..." To me, if I was just sounds wrong. That's because English has a subjunctive mood, and was isn't in it. If I were just sounds better. If I was just sounds like Gray needs to fire his speech writer. It's not that I'm trying to put Iain Gray down for this - it just genuinely winds me up. We all have our niggles.

There's another point that Yousuf raised:

From my English teachers until today I can't help but feel that people use grammar like they use classical music or the theatre, not for any passion for the subject but as a way of showing some sort of superiority over others.

There may be some who do feel that way. I, for one, see myself in a different category. I don't listen to classical music much and I can't remember the last time I set foot in a theatre, but it's nice to know they're there. I can listen to classical music if I want to, I can go and see a play if I want to. Good grammar needn't be for snobs and other elitists: it can be for everyone and anyone.

And so, I try to use it. But that's my particular style of reading and writing. You know who my all-time favourite blogger is? Andy Sharp, a.k.a. Justified Spinner. It's the way he has of putting things, the turn of phrase, the writing style, that I just love. One way or another, he'll rev his readers up, and use some downright brilliant way of describing things and people that just seem to work. But that's my taste. I'm a sucker for stylistics. Hell, when I'm posting something here, or on the Roundup, I'll emit audible cheers when I nail a phrase or a sentence. When something's written just right, it's magical. The fact is, I love words and I love writing: that why this blog began as that act of boredom back in 2005. It wasn't just that I'm into politics, or that I'm an opinionated little gobshite, it's that I get something out of putting words together, and seeing them take shape on the screen or on paper. That's why I love producing 800 words for these chaps. A shame that I can't understand the translation word for word, or the other articles. So you see, even I have my hidden romantic streak, and it comes out in my appreciation for good language.

3. Knowing the ins and outs of our own language helps us understand others. There's something bizarre in the way we teach English: you have to learn another language to really understand it, as you suddenly realise that actually, yes, we do have a case system and we do have a subjunctive.

Let's take the former: anyone learning German will be absolutely freaked out by the difference between 'der', 'den' and 'dem'. They're all the masculine definite article, but they are the forms in the Nominative, Accusative and Dative cases. Now, the Dative works differently - I'm not even sure if English even has a Dative - but to explain Nominative and Accusative, you have to get into all sorts of theory about the subject and object. The reality is that English has the same and we don't even realise it. It's in the pronouns: it's the difference between 'I' and 'me', or 'we' and 'us'. But we don't understand the language we were brought up with, and the mechanics behind it, well enough to spot that connection.

Again, let's look at the subjunctive: anyone with experience of any of the main European languages at Higher or A-Level will probably have come across it. And when I looked at it in French, German and Spanish, my teachers had to produce convoluted style guides to explain how and when to use it. Now, the precise usage will vary from language to language, but understanding that it exists in English will prevent students of another language from a nasty 'WTF?' moment later on. They'll know how to recognise one. They may even ask about it. But more importantly, they'll already have the understanding of what it is and why it's used that foreign language teachers have to instil in them. And with it not being popular to learn a language at all, much less to a decent level, anything that makes learning a language easier is a good thing.

What I'm trying to say it this: if the best you can do is rub someone's nose in a grammatical mistake then, frankly, you need to get a life. But good grammar is still a good thing, it makes communication easier, it makes learning other languages easier, and it's something that people can take pride in. So cut the grammar fascists some slack.

The Sunday Whip

A Could-Be-Worse week at Holyrood for the Government, with a bloody nose on teacher numbers, but otherwise generally quite quiet and broadly successful.

Wednesday saw the usual waving through of the Business Motion, with a Committee motion getting noted through as well: everyone was happy to note the Public Petitions Committee's Third Report: Inquiry into the Public Petitions Process.

Thursday saw a little more meat, but there were nine absences: Margaret Curran (Lab, Glasgow Baillieston), Charlie Gordon (Lab, Glasgow Cathcart), Jamie Hepburn (SNP, Central Scotland), Labour's Shadow Health Secretary Cathy Jamieson (Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley), Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothian), LibDem Environment Spokesman Liam McArthur (Orkney), Hugh O'Donnell (LD, Central Scotland), LibDem Leader Tavish Scott (Shetland), and Jim Tolson (LD, Dunfermline West).

They missed a rather predictable outcome to Labour's motion on teacher numbers: the SNP amendment feel by 73 (everyone else) to 46. The Tory amendment passed by 70 - most of Labour, the Tories and LibDems - to 49 - the SNP, Greens and Elaine Smith (Lab, Coatbridge & Chryston). The LibDem amendment passed by 73 (everyone but the SNP) to 46, and the amended motion passed by 70 (Labour - minus Smith - the Tories and LibDems) to 48 (SNP and Greens) with one abstention (Smith):

That the Parliament notes the most recent reduction in the number of teachers employed in Scotland revealed by the September 2009 public sector employment figures; further notes that this follows on from the Teachers in Scotland 2008 census, which showed that the number of teachers fell by nearly 1,000 on the previous year, and asks how this can be reconciled with the SNP's manifesto pledge and concordat commitment to maintain teacher numbers in the face of falling school rolls in order to cut class sizes; raises concern about the implementation of the Curriculum for Excellence in the face of falling teacher numbers; acknowledges that the previous administration increased the number of teachers by 4,600 between 1999 and 2007; notes the continued reduction in the number of full-time equivalent nursery teachers as shown in the Scottish Government's Pre-school and Childcare Statistics 2009; highlights with concern the Times Educational Supplement Scotland survey, published in August 2009, suggesting that only 15% of this year's newly qualified teachers had secured full-time permanent work at the start of the school term as well as the General Teaching Council Scotland follow up survey suggesting that, even half way through the 2008-09 school year, only around a third of the previous year's probationary teachers had found full-time permanent posts; believes that the Scottish Government has precipitated a teacher jobs crisis, forcing many of the most qualified new teachers in Scotland's history to look elsewhere in the United Kingdom or beyond for suitable employment; believes that this represents an appalling loss of talent to Scotland's education system and a gross betrayal of those enticed to train as teachers as well as those who voted SNP due to its election pledges on schools, and therefore calls on the SNP government to publish detailed plans of how it will deliver on its manifesto and concordat commitments on teacher numbers; considers that the universal provision of free school meals in P1 to P3 will impact on the ability of councils to recruit and retain teachers, and believes that head teachers should have much greater say in the recruitment of teachers and other staff in their schools.

Following this came the motion on Child Protection. A LibDem amendment to the SNP amendment was waved through, and the amended amendment passed by 58 (SNP/LibDems) to 43 (Labour) with 18 (Tory/Green) abstentions. The Tory amendment was then waved through, and the amended motion passed by 74 (SNP/Tory/LD) votes to 43 (Labour) with two Green abstentions:

That the Parliament notes with concern the 23% of local authority child protection services in Scotland that scored weak or unsatisfactory in at least one of the reference quality indicators, reported in the Summary of Indicative Quality Indicator Results from HMIE Inspections, published on 17 September 2009; welcomes the fact that 77% of authorities have achieved positive child protection reports; recognises the immensely valuable contribution made by those professionals working in frontline child protection services; recognises that further improvement is necessary and will be informed by the second round of inspections now underway; looks forward to HMIE's summary report that will provide the most comprehensive national picture of child protection that Scotland has ever had, which, taken together with the findings of the recent significant case review into the death of Brandon Muir, will feed into the national review of child protection guidance; encourages measures to address the increasing prevalence of substance misuse and its impact on children within the framework of Road to Recovery; encourages the promotion of the Getting it Right for Every Child approach, and looks forward to public consultation on the review of national child protection guidance that will address assessment of risk and information sharing for all children, including those suffering from parental substance misuse, domestic abuse and other risks to their safety and wellbeing; recognises the initiative taken by the previous administration in tackling this problem by bringing together a series of actions contained in the Hidden Harm report; calls on the Scottish Government to take effective action to identify and focus on those children who are at risk, particularly as a result of living with parents or carers who are alcohol or substance abusers; calls on the Scottish Government to report to the Parliament within three months and thereafter periodically on the progress made on this, in building on the recommendations of Hidden Harm and in the follow-up inspection work by HMIE, and looks for a child-centred approach to child protection that has the welfare and best interests of children at its heart, and further calls on the Scottish Government to acknowledge the concern about the growing number of parents in society who lack the necessary skills to bring up their children responsibly and to address this issue as a matter of urgency.

After that, Stage 1 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill was passed by 102 (SNP, Labour, most of the LibDems and the Greens) to 16 (Tories) with one abstention: John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West), and the Financial Resolution was waved through.

So another week in Holyrood passed. Next week looks to be relatively stable as well.

LibDem Conference: Terrible or Groznyy?

Well, that was the LibDem Conference. Certainly the press had their view of it, and it's a negative one. The activists, I daresay, will think differently.

For the Scottish arm of the Liberal Democrats, this week truly was a massive bowl of ugly: the Leadership's stated policy on independence ripped apart, PPCs in target seats slapped down, MSPs muttering anonymously to the press, Mike Rumbles insisting that all MSPs discuss conversations with the press with him first, if the referendum is to come up. They could have done without all that, especially as the uncertainty they all hope to avoid by opposing a referendum only increased with these internal squabbles. Remember: if the LibDems vote in favour of a Bill, then there is majority Parliamentary support for it - 47 SNP MSPs, 16 LibDems and the two Greens - 65 in favour, no more than 63 against.

So this has been an uncertain week for them.

And in many ways, it has been uncertain for many in the Party. The Leadership - without consulting, well, anyone - has gone from tax-and-spend to slash-and-burn. And while such sacred cows as tuition fees may not have necessarily been slaughtered, they have certainly been locked away in a very remote barn. This has perturbed some supporters; it has perturbed some MPs; even some frontbenchers appear unhappy at how things have unfolded this week.

Now, this is the last Conference before the General Election; and there have been some radical shifts in policy. For major changes in direction to be undertaken, especially with such apparent reluctance, at such a time, has an almost kamikaze feel to it. So the pundits, therefore, see this as a Terrible Conference.

But there's a reason why I chose that adjective. It's the name English Speakers give to Tsar Ivan IV - Ivan the Terrible. The Russians themselves refer to him as Ivan Groznyy. Now, I know what you're wondering: firstly, you're wondering why the Russians decided to call the capital of Chechnya 'Terrible'; and secondly. you're baffled as to what this has to do with anything.

Let me tackle the first of those: 'Groznyy' doesn't quite mean terrible as we would understand it: rather it has a menacing quality, and it describes storms. 'Cleansing storm' is how it was translated for me.

This brings me to your second question. This may not have been Terrible for LibDems at all: it may simply have been Groznyy - the party's very own cleansing storm, when they (as Russia did under Ivan IV) really get their act together and start behaving like a serious, credible player. It's all to tempting right now to see the LibDems as a sort of social club for ideological fellow-travellers, or a glorified pressure group. Clegg took tough, yet in a way realistic, decisions and has potentially started a chain reaction which may well generate much internal strife for the LibDems but maybe leave them stronger at the end of it.

Why do I say that? Look at the historical evidence. Labour's Groznyy took place from roughly the Winter of Discontent to the rewriting of Clause IV, with Derek Hatton's walkout from Conference after a more-effective-than-usual tongue-lashing from Neil Kinnock marking the turning point.

For the Tories, it started with the fall of Thatcher and the row over Maastricht, and ended in the election of David Cameron, with the defenestration of Iain Duncan Smith as the key point.

For the SNP, it started with the 1999 Election confirming the party as Scotland's Official Opposition, and was completed by the Glasgow Spring Conference in 2007 when the SNP really started to appear to be a Government-in-waiting. The turning point, of course, being Alex Salmond's entry into the 2004 Leadership Contest, declaring his candidacy not only for that post, but also for the First Minister-ship. That's the turning point because he won both.

So you can see that these things can have profound effects for the parties that experience them. And with the possibility of a Hung Parliament, the LibDems may well have an impact and so need to be taken seriously. But for that, they need to act seriously and this Conference heralded that very behaviour. This Terrible Conference might be the best thing to ever happen to the LibDems at the UK Level.

There is, of course, a downside. The timing is far from perfect: if the party looks divided, or half-hearted, or uncertain going into the Election, they are absolutely 100% screwed, and the aftermath of what would surely be an electoral disaster were that the case would be grim. Quite simply, if this backfires, the Party find itself mired in ridiculously ugly infighting (see the Tories after 1997 and 2001, and the SNP after 2003).

Similarly, there's no guarantee that this one will end happily for the party, as the other examples did: the modernists could find their wings clipped and the pressure group mentality could kick in again. In which case, the LibDems could find themselves completely shorn of credibility by allowing a 180 to turn into a 360.

The one sign that that might not happen, however, is this: there's no organisation or prominent, charismatic figure on the 'anti' side. Nor are there other parties snapping at their heels, as the Alliance were out to get Labour in 1983. The internal challenge is weak, and so is the external challenge.

So this wasn't a Terrible Conference for the LibDems at all, but a Groznyy Conference. The question is, what state will the Party be in when the winds die down?

Tavish Scott's 'Call It Off' Moment

Following on from my earlier post regarding calls at the LibDem Conference to support the 2010 Referendum, Tavish Scott has entered the debate, and opted to play the man and not the ball:

"I remember what it's like to be a young, thrusting, energetic parliamentary candidate and you were desperate to get your face on the television.

"I can well understand the need to say something which commentators and television reporters are very, very, keen to talk about, but I don't really think the people are."

Well, pity poor Kevin Lang, slapped down in such a patronising fashion by Tavish Scott.

Except... George Lyon made the same call.

That's George Lyon, former Holyrood Junior Minister and Party Whip, MSP for Argyll & Bute for eight years and recently elected Member of the European Parliament. He won't be quite so easy to brush off.

So you have PPCs, the MEP and a large percentage of LibDem supporters backing a referendum. Tavish Scott won't budge.

You have LibDem supporters backing the decision to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. Tavish Scott wanted him to rot in prison.

Two big issues of this political year, and Tavish Scott is on the other side of the argument to his own party.

Perhaps his title ought to be "Leader of the Liberal Democrats in the Scottish Parliament"?

The Sunday Whip

This was broadly consensual, as I suspected last week, though the Road Safety Framework did produce dissent. Don't you just love party politics?

Anyway. Wednesday was fairly quiet. Following the traditional waving through of the Business motions, members were happy to note the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Health & Sport Committee's 5th report: Pathways into Sport and Physical Activity. They then proceeded to nod through the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2009, and a minor reshuffle of the Tory committee substitutes.

Thursday saw a number of absentees - a mark of the fact that nothing was going to be decided on a knife-edge. Absent were Labour's Shadow Further and Higher Education Minister Claire Baker (Mid Scotland & Fife), Hugh Henry (Lab, Paisley South), Marilyn Livingstone (Lab, Kirkcaldy), Michael Matheson (SNP, Falkirk West), Tom McCabe (Lab, Hamilton South), Jack McConnell (Lab, Motherwell & Wishaw), Labour Shadow Parliament Minister Michael McMahon (Hamilton North & Bellshill), Labour's Shadow Housing & Communities Minister Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow), Mike Pringle (LD, Edinburgh South), Elaine Smith (Lab, Coatbridge & Chryston), Shirley-Anne Somerville (SNP, Lothians) and Jamie Stone (LD, Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross).

began with the SNP motion on Diageo, which saw Tory and LibDem amendments, all of which were carried unanimously:

That the Parliament believes that major commercial decisions in Scotland should be made in the context of sustainable economic development; regrets that the proposals by Diageo to close Port Dundas Distillery in Glasgow and the Kilmarnock packaging plant abandoned long-standing workforces and plants while taking little responsibility for the consequent public costs of their decisions; urges the Scottish Government to ensure that government support of communities faced with major job losses is applied consistently across all communities in Scotland; recognises the work of the Diageo Taskforce to safeguard jobs in the west of Scotland; notes with real disappointment that the taskforce and Diageo were unable to agree a way forward; recognises that support for the individuals and communities affected is a major priority; calls on the Scottish Government to support the trades unions in their efforts to ensure that an extension on the proposed closure of Port Dundas is fully considered, that the proposed new jobs in Leven are permanent and high quality in nature and the formal consultation process between Diageo and trades unions is extended to ensure that all necessary steps are taken to mitigate the closure of the Kilmarnock packaging plant; supports the continued work of taskforce members to tackle the devastating impacts that the job losses will have on the affected communities; calls on the Scottish Government to work together with the UK Government, local authorities and relevant agencies to encourage new job creation and new business start-ups in the affected communities and elsewhere in Scotland; recognises that Scotland must compete in a global market for the investment necessary to create and safeguard jobs, and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that its actions are aimed at maximising such investment.

Following that came the Government motion on the Road Safety framework. The Labour amendment passed without dissent. The Tory amendment passed by 77 (SNP/Tory/LD/Green) votes to 39 (Labour/Margo). The LibDem amendment passed by 98 (SNP, all but one of the Labour MSPs present, the LibDems and Greens) to 18 - the Tories, along with Margo MacDonald and Labour's Shadow Economy & Skills Minister John Park (Mid Scotland & Fife). The final motion passed by 100 (everyone but the Tories) to 16:

That the Parliament welcomes the publication on 15 June 2009 of Scotland's Road Safety Framework to 2020; notes the significant reductions in the numbers of children and young people killed and seriously injured in the period 1997 to 2007; calls on the Scottish Government to prioritise making streets safer for cyclists and for vulnerable groups of pedestrians such as visually impaired and partially sighted people; notes the road safety vision for Scotland, which is in line with other leading road safety countries, and further notes the road safety targets, priorities and commitments and the support of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland to tackle road casualty reductions in Scotland over the next decade; notes that ongoing investment in the road network is crucial to making our roads safer; believes that road spending should be prioritised on the most dangerous black spots and those roads with the highest numbers of accidents and fatalities; reiterates its support for a reduction in the drink-driving limit from 80 mg to 50 mg per 100 ml of blood; expresses deep concern at the disproportionately high incidence of fatalities and serious injuries on rural roads, and calls for greater emphasis on specific, targeted action to improve the safety of Scotland's rural roads.

So that's another week gone. Wednesday looks to be fairly quiet - the business is limited to a statement on broadcasting and a Public Petitions Committee debate on the petitions process. Thursday, meanwhile, sees the first Labour business of the new term (that'll trigger more than a few votes, I'd imagine), and Stage 1 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill. Given that the Health & Sport Committee was broadly happy to give its approval to the General Principles of the Bill - but that its report refers to a 'majority' of members - I'd imagine that it'll pass, but it'll go to a vote.

Is this the LibDems' 'Bring It On' moment?

A couple of weeks ago, I noted that while a number of prominent Scottish LibDem supporters were broadly in favour of Megrahi's release, the Parliamentary group - with the exception of John Farquhar Munro who ended up falling into line for possibly the first time in his life - were out and out hostile to the decision.

Now, another fissure between the LibDems at Holyrood, and the wider party appears to be opening:

Tavish Scott, in the Legislative Programme Debate on 3 September:

We will not support the Government when the SNP's internal party politics are more important than the country. The referendum is about the SNP. The recession and jobs are about Scotland. We will put Scotland before the SNP.

Margaret Smith, in the same debate:

The Government's programme should have been a programme to re-energise Scotland's economy. Instead, in the face of continued recession, our nationalist Government puts party before country and focuses on a doomed referendum bill. Alex Salmond says that his Government was elected with a popular mandate for a referendum. The Opposition parties, which represent the majority of seats in this Parliament, stood on manifestos that made clear our opposition to that referendum, so the majority of representatives in Scotland's Parliament were elected on a popular mandate of Opposition to a referendum. The issue is quite simple.

Mike Rumbles, the same debate:

The SNP knows that it will lose a vote on the referendum. After all, it has done so already. Less than six months ago, our Parliament voted by a clear majority for an amendment that I lodged calling on the Scottish Government to concentrate its efforts on economic recovery and abandon its divisive plans for a Referendum Bill for the remainder of its term of office.

It is a matter of sincere regret and disappointment that the minority SNP Administration has, once again, chosen to disregard the clear will of Parliament.

Iain Smith, later that day:

There was more support in the Parliament for a local income tax and abolishing the council tax than there is for a referendum. Parliament has already expressed its opposition to a referendum, so the Government should stop wasting its time and the time of its officials, the Parliament and its committees and civic Scotland and ditch now a bill that has no chance of being passed.

But today at the LibDem Conference, we have both George Lyon MEP and Kevin Lang, the LibDem PPC in Edinburgh North & Leith, arguing that it's time to take on the SNP and have the referendum. Further, reaction to them appears to be broadly positive.

So on the issue of the Constitution, which has been a theme of Scottish politics since, well, 1603 when you think about it, the LibDems at Holyrood, and more importantly the Leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, seem to be detached from the wider party.

This, like Labour's Week of Indecision, will come back to haunt the LibDems. I look forward to their reaction when the Referendum Bill is published.

Conversation Conservation?

In my last post, I mentioned an SNP policy which, if I were John Swinney, I'd be looking to draw a line under. Now, it would, I have to say, be categorised as a 'courageous' move, and it would perhaps cost friends. It might even look like I intended to lead a sacred cow to slaughter, but the reality is rather different. One aspect of SNP policy is not working anywhere near as well as it should, and despite being seen as the way forward, is in fact doing nothing to help realise SNP aims.

I am talking, I'm afraid, about the National Conversation.

Now, of course, the Unionist parties want it scrapped because it dares to refer to the 'I' word, and decry the use of taxpayers' money to meet SNP aspirations. To me, this is an odd criticism: I thought it was the idea that governments used the powers they had to put their principles into practice, and that this was the point of, you know, standing for election in the first place. Of course, the SNP finds this somewhat easier than the other mainstream parties as it actually has ideas, aims and beliefs that go beyond winning an election, but there you go. And that's not why I'm suggesting that it be brought to an end.

Rather, I believe that it's not advancing SNP aims at all.

Of course, the official story behind the Conversation is that it's a consultation on the future of Scotland and the constitution, and that other options can be discussed as a part of it. So far, only one alternative has come forward and it's emerged from a different process. The Referendum Bill 2010 is still on course to be tabled after Christmas, the timing of the vote - should the Bill pass - is already known, and we can assume that we know what the question is. No changes or alternatives have emerged from the Conversation, and any other proposals will only get discussed at Stages 2 and/or 3 of the Bill, which that renders any further discussion academic: unless one of the other parties stages the mother of all turnarounds, it'll get killed at Stage 1. So frankly, the Conversation isn't delivering.

So what else is it about?

Getting the meat and drink of independence discussed? Papers are coming out, ideas about what an independent Scotland are coming forward, but they're getting swallowed. The press will occasionally run with a proposal, with a view to taking it to pieces. Seeing as the press is generally anti-independence, this is to be expected and should really cause no surprise or alarm. To get a clear message across, independence supporters require an actual referendum campaign: this pre-referendum approach isn't working, as readers opening their copy of the Scotsman and seeing Mike Russell's proposals for a post-independence foreign policy being derided by the copywriters can surely testify. The quick headlines are getting printed, but the actual mechanics aren't getting through.

Getting a suitable platform for Ministers to put the case across to members of the public? This could be done without the National Conversation brand: it is the policy of the Government to advocate Scottish independence. Therefore, Ministers doing that are carrying out Government policy, whether they have a National Conversation banner behind them or not. Putting the banner there is akin to the McLeish Executive adding the slogan "Making it Work Together". What, precisely, did that achieve?

Persuading people of the merits of independence? On this yardstick, the Conversation can't rank as anything other than a dismal failure. In only one poll (carried out last year) since the Conversation's inauguration has even a plurality of respondents favoured independence, and that was 42%:40% - nowhere near the high watermark of 2006 where there was an actual majority of poll respondents in favour. If the opinion polls are a barometer of the National Conversation's efficacy, then the signs are poor.

Forcing the hand of the other parties, to put forward viable proposals for a stronger Holyrood, which would serve as a suitable milestone on the road to independence? We have, of course, had the Calman Commission, but it's doubtful whether this required the actual framework of the National Conversation for it to be established. Rather, it was simply an attempt to spike the SNP's guns. In terms of viability, it seems to have dropped of Labour's radar altogether, the Tories (unsurprisingly) appear decidedly cool on the proposals and the LibDems in Scotland are banging their head against a brick wall trying to get it moving forward, even though it stops short of their own Constitution policy. Ironically, it's the Scottish Government who is the keenest to get it (or at least, parts of it) implemented right now. And as a measure of the seriousness of the Calman proposals, an SNP offer to include them as an option in the referendum has been spurned by opposition parties. The Calman process presently appears to have been an even bigger waste of time, money and effort than the National Conversation, and it's a process which could just as easily have taken place without the Conversation being there.

So on five different measures of success, the National Conversation falls short on all five. Now, for me, this is frustrating: I want independence and I want the real consultation and conversation that comes with a referendum on the matter (I also want to know why asking the electorate a direct, formal question and then taking the answer on board is showing contempt for public opinion, but I don't see me getting an answer to that one).

In short, the National Conversation's failure to achieve any of those objectives and so move the SNP and the Scottish Government closer to their policy is nothing short of exasperating. We need to draw a line under it right now, and we need to find a better way of getting the idea across.

A Dagger in the Heart?

Much has already been written about the proposal to take the Glasgow Airport Rail Link off the table, as made in John Swinney's initial budget announcement.

Now, in many ways, it's hard to blame Stephen Purcell's cry that this is 'a dagger in the heart for Glasgow'. Well, it's somewhat hyperbolic (the correct term is 'slap in the face'), but otherwise, he's doing what you'd expect any Council Leader to do when they've just found out that a major project in their area has just been cancelled. He's supposed to complain bitterly, he's supposed to try and get the project back on track (no pun intended), and he's supposed to get himself in the papers demanding that it be re-instated. And with Glasgow punching above its weight in terms of its representation in the Labour group at Holyrood (17% of Labour MSPs, when the city comprises 11% of the total Scottish electorate), it's no wonder that they would be in favour of the project. However, for those who see some anti-Glasgow bias at work in the Government, consider this: the last Executive axed bridge tolls on the West Coast but not on the East - was that anti-Fife bias?

(And why are the Greens complaining? I'd have thought that given their hostility to air travel, far from making it easier to get to Glasgow Airport, they'd be campaigning for it to become the most inaccessible place in Scotland!)

All the same, cut Purcell and Labour some slack - they're doing what's expected of them. Nothing more, nothing less.

All the same, is it a project worth saving?

The truth is, I'm not sure. I do know that it can't really be a dagger in Glasgow's heart: like all of these projects, it's only of benefit to those who'll actually use it, and would have had noting in place beforehand. So you'd actually have to get to the railway station - and get to the right one at that (I know well the ridiculousness inherent in tearing around Glasgow City Centre as you cart your luggage between Central Station and Queen Street). The reality is that for most Glaswegians, GARL would make little or no difference to their daily lives. Things like the Council Tax freeze, however, do have an impact.

That said, the Commonwealth Games arrive in 2014 and GARL was a part of the successful bid for them. But again, it's only of real use if it connects the Airport directly with the Athletes' village and the East End, where the event's focus will be.

My point is this: these big projects are never as big or as fantastic as they look. On taking office as Finance Secretary, John Swinney looked at the plans for the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link and was horrified by what he saw, and as for the trams? Well, even when they get up and running (estimated time of completion: approximately the date when the Sun is reduced to a dark chunk of coal the size of my forehead), they're only going to benefit certain parts of the city - and, dare I say it, the some of the better heeled ones at that. The initial proposals called for three lines: one to Victoria Quay, one to the Airport, and one passing the Royal Infirmary. When the congestion charge plans were rejected, it was the third line - to the hospital - that got the axe. Think about it: a line to the airport (when there was also the EARL plan on the drawing board) and the well-to-do West of the City got the nod; the line for Civil Servants and the upwardly mobile Waterfront got the nod; the line serving hospital patients and the less affluent South East of the City got the chop. Wow, what a boost for the City of Edinburgh!

As for Edinburgh, so for Glasgow. Let's be clear: there's only a finite pot of money and in the eyes of the Finance Secretary, it's shrinking. We have to look at some of the fripperies and with the exception of a couple of weeks in 2014, GARL is basically a frippery. Something has to give - and later, I'll be looking at something that maybe ought to give on the SNP side.

In any case, the scrapping of GARL is merely a proposal - not a fait accompli. There is time for it to be saved in future revisions, particularly as the Budget Bill wends its way through Parliament, and particularly with the Glasgow North East By-Election due later in the year.

That's another thought: announcing the end of a major scheme in Glasgow in the run-up to a By-Election in the City surely blows out of the water any further accusations of the SNP chickening out of tough decisions in favour of naked populism. But still, we'll hear moans about that.

It might be possible - though whether it's desirable is another matter - to save the scheme. But we have to wise up to the possibility that it might not. And neither Stephen Purcell nor John Swinney deserve too many pelters on this one: the former is kicking up a fuss for his City when it needs him to; the latter is taking the tough decisions required of a Finance Secretary during a recession. Both are doing what they're supposed to.

Shoot the Fox

Today saw a very rare occasion for me: in an idle moment, I ended up watching Sky News. This is rare for me as I prefer the BBC News Channel. Being a news junkie, I also watch CNN, EuroNews, NHK World, NDTV 24x7 and al-Jazeera English. Occasionally, something will catch my eye on France 24. If I'm in the mood for blatant propaganda, I can dip into Russia Today, Press TV or of course, Fox News. And in one of my few nods to male stereotyping, I'm drawn to Sky Sports News like a moth to a flame.

But today, I was watching that channel's front page equivalent, Sky News. They were discussing the German election, and how incumbent Chancellor Angela Merkel and her SPD rival (and Vice-Chancellor) Frank-Walter Steinmeier are going head-to-head in a TV debate. Well, they weren't actually discussing that. They were using that fact as a vehicle to flag up Sky's campaign for a Leaders' Debate in the UK.

This is now part of a trend for Sky News. This is their baby, it's their campaign and they're trying to get our attention and support for it. They've also jumped on the Save Election Night bandwagon.

It makes sense: their Leaders' Debate would draw in viewers to Sky News and, having gone it alone on this one, would put one over on the BBC and ITV, while the time of election counts and declarations will affect their coverage of events (media coverage will be disrupted when there are still so many counts on Thursday night, but enough on Friday morning to lengthen the result process considerably).

And, in one way, it's not all that bad: it's getting people engaged and interested not just in politics but in the political process, the sort of stuff that has for so long been the preserve of geeks and wonks like myself. Any discussion of how campaigns are fought and how results are declared that involves the public has to be a good thing, right?

Right?

Well, in this case, wrong. Very wrong! This is a broadcaster, a television news service, crossing the boundaries from fact to opinion, from news to editorial. Now, claims of media bias are a familiar feature of television news, and it's inevitable that a journalist's political feelings will come through from time to time. Also, the BBC has occasionally run 'awareness' days and telethons like Children in Need and Comic Relief which do cross into editorial country. But this is a first: a concerned, dedicated overt effort by a news provider - not a TV station but specifically its news provider - to organise a specific campaign and garner public support for its viewpoint.

This is a dangerous precedent.

Of course, the only surprise is that it's taken this long for them to try it: look at some of Sky's corporate relatives.

Take The Sun, for instance. Does Luscious Lisa, 22, really believe that we should have a referendum on EU membership? Can we believe that "the busty brunette" actually said "I'm fed up being told how to live by Brussels bureaucrats and it's time the British people had their say"?

Or are they the words of the family Murdoch?

Look into the tits, don't look around the tits, look into the tits. You're under. When you turn the page, you'll believe that the EU has been devised by the devil himself and you'll demand that Gordon Brown finally grow a pair and give us the referendum on withdrawl that will allow us to junk all those pesky social, employment and health and safety laws that piss off Rupert Murdoch. By the way, don't forget to shell out a tenner on our Fantasy Football game. Three, two, one, and... you're back in the room.

Then there's their American TV news stablemate, Fox News, the network that, in their words, America trusts for "fair and balanced" news. Ha! This would be the same station that, when they were reporting another suicide bombing in Iraq, the female anchor sighed and said, "You know, it's a shame that all those foreigners are going into Iraq and destabilising it.", to grunts of agreement from her co-presenters and without even the merest hint of irony. This would also be the station that gives the blustering Bill O'Reilly (who makes George Foulkes look like Gandhi) and the tin-foil-hat-wearing Glenn Beck.

Is Fox the future of Sky News? Is Jeff Randall just the thin end of a very nasty, right-wing wedge?

If you ask me, it's time to shoot the Fox.

The Sunday Whip

This was a quiet week, with consensus being a broad part of proceedings. Indeed, there were only two exceptions all week, both of which fell on the Wednesday - a reverse of the way things tend to pan out in Holyrood.

After the quiet passage of the Business Motions came the motion from the Education Committee to annul the Children's Hearings Legal Representation (Scotland) Amendment Rules 2009. This had only just come through the Committee by a vote of four (the Labour and LibDem members) to three (the SNP members, with Andrew Welsh sitting in for Kenneth Gibson), with one abstention, in the form of the Tory member. Things took a different turn in the Chamber, however: with Labour's Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) and Jamie Stone (LD, Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross) both absent, the motion fell (and so the SSI was saved) by 65 (SNP, Tory, Green) votes to 60 (Labour and the LibDems) with one abstention (Margo).

Following that came the Government motion on dementia strategy (those more churlish than I would suggest that MSPs ought to be subject to a dementia strategy rather than devising one). The Labour amendment saw the challenge: it saw a tied vote at 62 to 62 with two abstentions. Voting in favour were Labour, the LibDems, Margo, and strangely, Tory Leader Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland), who - probably by accident (serving only to strengthen those churlish folks' case) - found herself at odds with the rest of her party. The SNP and the remaining Tories voted against, and the Greens abstained. With the vote tied, the Presiding Officer was obliged to use his casting vote in favour of the status quo and against the amendment. It therefore fell.

The LibDem amendment was waved through, as was the motion:

That the Parliament recognises the work that is being taken forward by the Scottish Government to establish dementia as a national priority, working in partnership with the NHS, local government, voluntary sector organisations such as Alzheimer's Scotland, the Scottish Dementia Working Group, regulatory and scrutiny bodies including the Mental Welfare Commission, the Social Work Inspection Agency and the Care Commission and experts from the Dementia Services Development Centre at the University of Stirling, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Nursing to improve the care, treatment and support available to those with dementia and their carers and calls on the Scottish Government to work with these stakeholders to ensure that the highest standards of care are achieved for those with dementia in care homes, in the community and in hospital and to publish a dementia strategy for Scotland no later than April 2010.

Thursday saw a return to consensus. A Government motion on the fire and rescue framework was nodded through along with accompanying Labour and LibDem amendments:

That the Parliament welcomes the Scottish Government's commitment to a fire and rescue service that is modern and effective, with the principal aim of reducing risk, effectively responding to incidents and improving the safety of local communities; notes that the consultation document, Draft Fire and Rescue Framework for Scotland 2009, has been developed in a spirit of partnership with COSLA and all key stakeholders, and notes that the Scottish Government is committed to working with local government to protect the public from fire and to reduce Scotland's poor record of fire fatalities and recognises the tremendous contribution and crucial role played by firefighters in Scotland and the need for consistent and rigorous enforcement of health and safety standards in fire and rescue services right across Scotland; recognises the vital work of fire and rescue services across Scotland, including the contribution of those firefighters on the retained duty system who provide a flexible and cost effective community service, particularly in rural, remote and island parts of Scotland; welcomes local flexibility in service delivery but notes the concerns of the Fire Brigades Union Scotland at the lack of strategic direction for the fire and rescue services, supported by clear and enforceable standards and responsibilities, and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that the Fire and Rescue Advisory Unit and the Ministerial Advisory Group work effectively with fire and rescue authorities to deliver effective compliance with agreed and consistent objectives under the national framework.

And the Finance Committee's motion was also passed without dissent:

That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Finance Committee's 2nd Report 2009 (Session 3): Strategic Budget Scrutiny (SP Paper 283).

Next week, I'm expecting more of the same: there's a Health & Sport Committee report being discussed on Wednesday, and a Scottish Road Safety Framework debate on Thursday afternoon. Thursday morning sees a debate on Diageo, and one would hope for consensus. If it's not forthcoming, then that would reflect poorly on politicians, I suspect.

Careless talk costs jobs

So, Alan Duncan, he of the now infamous expenses whinge, has been demoted from the Shadow Cabinet, to the post of Shadow Prisons Minister, in punishment for, well, being arsey on the subject of expenses.

But here's the odd thing. According to Iain Dale:

"One thing worth noting is that yet again David Cameron has displayed the same streak of ruthlessness we have seen before."

No he hasn't! Duncan's rant entered the public domain more than three weeks ago. If David Cameron sees this as an offence that should cost him his present Shadow Cabinet rank and title, then that was surely the case three weeks ago. And if this gaffe makes Alan Duncan a liability who needs to be removed from the Shadow Cabinet, then really, he ought not be trusted in any Shadow Ministerial post. If it was worth doing anything, the thing to do was act fast and act fully - have him out by the Sunday papers at the very latest and sent to the Backbenches to cool his heels for a period. This action just reeks of compromise, and in reality suits no one: Duncan can no longer count on Cameron to defend him - something he should now bear in mind for the remainder of Cameron's leadership - yet his detractors will be in no way appeased by this move. It's the politician's syllogism once again:

1. We must do something.

2. This is something.

3. Therefore we must do this.

Sadly, it's the wrong something: it's a half-assed thing to do and it's taken too long to do it (probably timed to slip under the radar while Brown is on the ropes about Lockerbie). This is not ruthless, this is, well, just pathetic.

Save Election Night!

I find myself signing up to a strange Coalition, involving Tom Harris (whose post drew my attention to the issue), Jonathan Isaby of ConservativeHome and LibDem Blogger Mark Pack: the classic Thursday night Election count is under threat, as a raft of local Councils have opted to switch to Friday morning.

Now, logistical concerns, and the mental and physical fitness of the counting staff have been raised. Of course, it's quite unfair to expect a Returning Officer to work a 24-hour day (or longer), but it strikes me that local Councils are rarely understaffed and enough administrative and authoritative cover could be provided by any Democratic Services Department to keep things ticking over during the day and have the RO do what he needs to at night. And the idea that working nights makes you crap at your job may or may not be echoed by night-shift workers across the UK, but it's a bit of a slap in the face to them. Lots of people are perfectly capable of doing a night-shift. Many of those people have no choice but to go nocturnal.

So while they're reasonable concerns to raise, I don't buy them. Particularly when the arguments put by this Coalition of the Unwilling are as appealing as they are.

The Coalition points out that we want to know who won as soon as possible, and you probably have to go to the 1970s to find an election where the identity of the next PM was not known by the time people were sitting down to breakfast (or coming home, if they're on nights), and even then, that was more down to the closeness of the result than any lack of logistical advances. So here's something to bear in mind: in the 1997 Election, which saw one of the most convincing victories in electoral history, Labour had their overall majority confirmed by official results at around 3:30 a.m - five and a half hours after polls had closed. Under these proposals, that would move back to any time between 2:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. (if you factor in a lunch break as well) - later than even the narrow results of the 1970s!

And there's another factor: combined polling days. It's often common when there are two elections on the same day (as there have been on the last three UK election days and all Holyrood polling days) to leave the counting for the local Councils until the following day. Push the General Election count back to Friday, and those counters then potentially have to come in on Saturday (or defer the count until Monday) for the Councils. That's not on: particularly for Councils with all-out elections or where the result could change who runs the Council. The same administrators who are complaining of election nights now will be rightly complaining that they've missed out on extra time to prepare for new Leadership.

And in terms of preparing for a new UK administration, let's say that you find out who's won reasonably quickly. We're now used to the announcements as to who's filling the key Cabinet positions that day. If counts move en masse to Friday, it won't be until Saturday - and perhaps later than that - that we know, for example, who'll be entering 11 Downing Street. And that has a knock-on effect. A working Friday, filled with uncertainty about who'll be calling the shots, will lead to one ugly hoor of a day on the markets, with the FTSE bouncing up and down with every marginal seat, every shock result, every smaller (or larger) than expected swing. Quite frankly, we can do without that.

Where I dissent is the idea that TV coverage will merely shift to Friday morning. Of course it won't. They'll still have something on Thursday night: bloody exit polls. Remember 1992? My parents went to bed thinking as many of us did that Neil Kinnock was going to be leading the largest Party in the Commons, and probably forming the Government. The next morning, my Dad was weeping into his corn flakes. Move counts back and they'll just do what they do in the US (and what they did last week in Japan), and have whole results shows devoted to the outcome of an exit poll. We know what that means: we'll go into work on Friday morning thinking we know what's going to happen, when the reality is that we don't know anything more than we did 24 hours earlier. If anything, that's worse than uncertainty.

There are many things wrong with how elections are conducted. The voting system is more than a century out of date. This obsession with voting on a Thursday and not at the weekend causes all sorts of needless disruption. And the sooner the present fashion of holding two elections at the same time comes to an end (as it is doing in Scotland), the better. But of all the problems, the Thursday night count is not on that list.

What I'm saying is, why not change the things that actually need changing, rather than getting rid of something that works well?

PS If you agree, you can join the Facebook Group here.

The Sunday Whip

The return to Holyrood - well, the full return to business, following the other week's recall - was both a rather heavy and yet a rather simple affair, and the only motions up for debate (Thursday was taken up with the legislative programme) fell on Wednesday.

The Business Motions were, of course, nodded through, and the only challenge came on the motion for the Lockerbie debate - that in itself was no surprise, and neither was the outcome, with all parties having nailed their colours to the mast weeks in advance. It was, in a way, Parliament at its worst: everyone simply regurgitating the lines they'd rehearsed ad nauseam in the press.

Obviously, in Kenny MacAskill's case, a change in position isn't really an option, and there having been so dissent among SNP MSPs prior to Wednesday, their unanimous support for the Justice Secretary was a given.

For Labour, Malcolm Chisholm's dissent was also a given, having spoken out in favour of Kenny MacAskill's decision in the last debate. The absence of Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) was also a given, on account of her having contracted swine flu (and I, for one, wish her a speedy recovery). And their position is commendable, bearing in mind that it now seems to be contradicted more and more by the UK Government. We're always deriding Scottish Labour for simply being a subset of the UK Party, accusing Iain Gray of being Gordon Brown's lickspittle and not showing any independence. Well, there it is - even if it could have ended up provoking a furious row between the two Governments if Iain Gray was [sic] First Minister (I cannot bring myself to show any respect for someone who doesn't use a proper subjunctive), and even though the depressing sight of saltires being waved in Tripoli (which seems to be the main point of contention now) would doubtless have been replaced with the far more chilling sight of those same flags being burned.

For the Tories, the absence of Deputy Leader Murdo Fraser was inevitable, with his wife having given birth to their second child, but the absence of Ted Brocklebank (Mid Scotland and Fife) was slightly off. He had already made a supportive intervention during Malcolm Chisholm's speech, so the veneer of Tory unanimity was already torn apart, and one more vote in the SNP's favour would have made no difference whatsoever. Instead, he was posted missing at Decision Time - all the more pathetic seeing as he was present for the Members' Debate on Diageo afterwards. Nevertheless, the Tory position has always been that a Scottish hospice ought to be fortified by police and surrounded by the press for a couple of months, and with the exception of Ted Brocklebank's impression of the Invisible Man, they stuck to that.

For the LibDems, the absence of Jim Tolson (Dunfermline West) has not been explained, but John Farquhar Munro (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) seems to have revised the position he expressed on Radio nan Gaidheal and voted with the Leadership to support the incredibly Liberal position of letting a dying man spend his final weeks in jail, as effectively blurted out by Jeremy Purvis on Newsnight Scotland and stuck to rigidly ever since (despite the fact that the position does not sit well with LibDem supporters outside the Scottish Parliament - including LibDem MPs and Peers).

The Greens, as one would have expected under the circumstances, voted with the SNP, and Margo MacDonald reverted to her usual abstentionist habit.

So the outcome was inevitable: the SNP motion on the matter faced a Labour amendment, which in turn faced amendments from the Tories and LibDems. Those amendments, the amendment they amended, and the amended motion, all passed by 73 votes (Labour minus Malcolm Chisholm, Tories, LibDems) to 50 (SNP, Greens, Chisholm) with one abstention (Margo):

That the Parliament notes the decisions by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to reject the application by the Libyan Government to transfer Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi under the prisoner transfer agreement between the United Kingdom and Libya and to release Mr Al Megrahi on compassionate grounds; believes that the process of making this crucial decision was mishandled by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice; believes that it was wrong for the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to meet Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi in prison while considering his application for compassionate release to Libya and that this potentially sets an inappropriate precedent; also believes that it was unacceptable that the media was made aware of the decision a week before it was formally announced; does not accept that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice received or sought sufficient medical advice to make his judgement on Megrahi's prognosis; further believes that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice did not sufficiently explore options to take account of Megrahi's illness other than compassionate release to Libya, in particular the opportunities for compassionate release within Scotland; believes that the announcement should have been made to the Parliament rather than to a press conference; considers that justice and compassion for the victims' families have not been served by this process; recognises the ability of both the Scottish police and the NHS in Scotland on the basis of past performance to have supported the release of Mr Al Megrahi to an appropriate location and regrets that this was not adequately explored; recognises that Scotland's international reputation has been damaged not simply by the decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds to Libya but also because of the way that taking the decision was mishandled, and, given the mishandling of this process by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, does not agree with his decision to return Megrahi to Libya on compassionate release.

Following that, the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Bill was waved through Stage 1. Finally, there was another motion from the Bureau, which sailed through:

That the Parliament endorses the Scottish Government's proposal to nominate, as a representative of the Parliament, Jamie Hepburn MSP as a full member on the UK delegation to the regional chamber of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe, and Stewart Maxwell MSP and Irene Oldfather MSP as full members and Nicol Stephen MSP and Ted Brocklebank MSP as alternate members on the UK delegation to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current session to 2012, and notes that the representation from local government to the Committee of the Regions will be Councillors Corrie McChord and Roger Knox as full members and Councillors Graham Garvie and Sandy Park as alternate members.

So with no votes on Thursday, we await next week's business, which is split between Government motions and Committee business. Oh joy.

TV or not TV?

Eyebrows are being raised at Alex Salmond's suggestion that, should there be a televised Party Leaders' Debate during the course of the next election campaign, he ought to get an invite. On the one hand, it does appear highly irregular that someone who isn't even going to be a candidate in that poll should be invited; on the other, the SNP is a Parliamentary party, and a viable electoral force in one part of the UK and consequently, it ought to play a part in matters.

Now I am by and large sceptical of the TV debate anyway: it's a longstanding lament that UK politics is becoming too presidential, so screening a televised debate between the Prime Ministerial candidates isn't exactly going to buck that trend, especially in a system where a PM can quit and his party can simply find a replacement to enter Downing Street without a General Election (or, in the case of Gordon Brown's accession, even an internal party election) even being considered. Ideas like this simply push the UK political system down roads that it wasn't designed for. Nevertheless, in the words of Diamond Joe Quimby, if that is the way the wind is blowing, let it not be said that I do not also blow. Let's take a look at the potential debate, and the SNP's prospective part in it.

Of course, the biggest argument we'll hear is that if the SNP want in, then an array of parties, such as Plaid, the DUP, the Greens (of at least one variety) and UKIP should get in either. Now, the Greens and UKIP are, in typical considerations, 'minor parties', and if you look at the SNP's vote (and the others') in a Westminster Election, it's hard not to assign the same description.

But there's a problem with that analysis: in Scotland, the only area in which the party puts candidates forward, the SNP is far from a minor party. It's come first in the last two Scotland-wide polls, and came third in the one before those (I mention that because it's seen as a given that the leader of the third party in UK terms should get an invite). In Scotland, the SNP is a major party. Now, in the case of the BBC or ITV, the alternative is simple: have one debate on the UK network, with Messrs. Brown, Cameron and Clegg, and another specifically on BBC Scotland or STV with Jim Murphy, David Mundell, a leading figure from the Scottish LibDems (Alistair Carmichael as Shadow Secretary of State, or Malcolm Bruce as Scottish LibDem President). But Sky is leading the running. Sky News does not have a separate service for Scotland. As far as I'm aware, it doesn't even run the opt-out bulletins that it used to offer for the Republic of Ireland anymore. That means that Sky either has to make time in its UK schedules for the SNP (and Plaid, and Northern Irish parties), or deny major political parties in three of the four nations of the UK a presence.

This, I suspect, is the SNP's calculation. Enough Scots get their news from a UK-wide operation (the network news, UK papers which have at most only a limited Scottish edition, and of course, Sky) to handicap the SNP in any UK-wide election race. Therefore, if Sky start to make the running on any election coverage, then without even the possibility of additional or opt-out programming which the BBC and STV have open to them, the SNP is dealt a major broadcasting blow. That is what Alex Salmond is trying to prevent. And going in all guns blazing and demanding far more than is realistic (a place in the main debate for a man who isn't even a candidate) increases the ability to haggle to a far more reasonable conclusion for all concerned: a prime-time interview with Angus Robertson, for example.

Of course, we all know - and I'd have to have gone gaga to claim otherwise - that Angus Robertson will not be Prime Minister of the UK except in the most outlandish of circumstances (i.e. the SNP somehow ending up as the largest group in Westminster - that would require the presence of at least eleven, maybe even twelve political parties all with broadly equal Parliamentary strength and the SNP winning almost every seat in Scotland, then being both able and willing to form a governing Coalition... so his probability of becoming PM is roughly equal to mine of being the next Scotland manager).

But we all know that Nick Clegg's mathematical probability of becoming PM is just that - mathematical. The reality is that Clegg is not going to be Prime Minister and in fact, even the gloomiest predictions for Labour don't have Clegg even coming close to being Leader of the Opposition. Which is why the hostile reception Alex Salmond's call has got from the Scottish LibDem blogosphere (and up to now, only they have made a point of commenting in any great detail) is intriguing.

If they are the only other party to have such strong feelings on the matter, then what is their calculation? Again, I have nothing more than suspicions, but it's a given that Charles Kennedy did a great deal of good work in making the LibDems look like The Alternative to Labour and the Tories, particularly at a time when one was badly needed. Certainly in that regard, the LibDems succeeded in outshining the SNP come the 2005 Elections. However, things have since gone pear shaped: take a look at some of the 2007 results: a 9% LD-SNP swing in Argyll & Bute; swings of roughly 10% in Aberdeen North and South; even higher than usual swings (though nowhere near enough to make a difference) in places like Ross, Skye & Inverness West, Fife North East and Edinburgh West. An SNP televisual presence would offer a message, for Scottish voters at least, the LibDems would rather not let out: that the SNP represent An Alternative Alternative. And, if recent Scotland-wide election results and opinion polls (to say nothing of both Glasgow East and even Glenrothes) are anything to go by, a more appealing one than the LibDems at that. Even if the LibDems are not consciously basing their hostility on that, it must surely be a factor that concerns them on some level. At least, it ought to.

But there's another matter that needs to be considered: the actual state of politics. Although a Conservative majority looks like the likely outcome, we cannot yet rule out any kind of Tory screwup which hampers them, or for that matter, just a simple change of opinion which points us in the direction of a Hung Parliament. I suspect a Labour majority is now borderline impossible, but they said that about the Tories in 1992.

Which makes this assertion by Andrew Reeves incredibly questionable:

However, in the event that we have a hung Parliament, it will be Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats who will have the balance of power not the SNP or the MSP Alex Salmond!

If we can't be 100% certain of the outcome of the election, then we can't know that either! There could yet be a LibDem implosion, an SNP surge, or a 2007-esque outcome where not even a viable two-party pact can secure a majority. Or - and this is a Hung Parliament scenario which I do consider the most likely of all of them - a situation where one party or another is close to a majority that support from any one of four parties would take the main party over the line, and there are certain issues in which that party finds it advantageous to deal with the SNP ahead of the LibDems or, say, the DUP.

Now I fully accept that if current trends continue, a Tory majority will look ever likelier and the SNP's position will become irrelevant in terms of the UK dimension. But then, so will Nick Clegg's position in a Prime Ministerial context, so LibDem objections will look even more out of place. In fact, by that point, it would even be a waste of Gordon Brown's time and effort for him to show up. However, for the moment there exists the strongest possibility of a Hung Parliament since 1992, and the SNP, under those circumstances, has a chance to influence at least some aspects of UK reserved policy.

And if there exists that possibility, where SNP viewpoints could end up influencing even a small part of people's lives across the UK, then the UK public has an absolute right and necessity to know what those viewpoints are.

That is why there needs to be at least stronger coverage for the SNP. One way or another.