The Sunday Whip

MSPs are back after their half-term break - we find it best to give them one: they concentrate less and start behaving badly if we don't.

Anyway, Wednesday could, in the scheme of things have gone better for the Government, but could have gone worse. Certainly, Nicola Sturgeon's speech was a morale-booster, but the votes didn't go completely as the SNP would have liked.

The Business Motions were waved through as usual, so MSPs were left to chew the fat (so to speak) on a Government motion on preventing obesity in Scotland.

Skipping this one were Shadow Further & Higher Education Minister Claire Baker (Mid Scotland & Fife), Bill Butler (Lab, Glasgow Anniesland), Margaret Curran (Glasgow Baillieston), Tory Leader Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland), Culture Minister Fiona Hyslop (Lothians), John Lamont (Con, Roxburgh & Berwickshire), Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians), Tom McCabe (Lab, Hamilton South), Jack McConnell (Lab, Motherwell & Wishaw), John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West), Irene Oldfather (Lab, Cunninghame South) and Shadow Children's Minister Karen Whitefield (Airdrie & Shotts).

They missed a Labour amendment being passed by 70 (everyone but the SNP) votes to 46, and the LibDem amendment being waved through. The amended motion passed by 70 to 1 - Chris Harvie (SNP, Mid Scotland & Fife) - with 45 abstentions (the rest of the SNP Group):

That the Parliament, while recognising the role of individual responsibility and choice, welcomes the Scottish Government's commitment to take action to prevent overweight and obesity as set out in the recent publication, Preventing Overweight and Obesity in Scotland: A Route Map Towards Healthy Weight, to support a cross-government approach that will guide future work and to welcome the establishment of a joint governmental leadership group to ensure and oversee progress, but regrets that the Scottish Government is failing to meet the SNP manifesto pledges to ensure that every pupil has two hours of quality PE each week delivered by specialist PE teachers and for children to be given free, year-round access to council swimming pools.

Thursday went better for the Government, however, though the Chamber was far quieter, with the following MSPs missing: Gavin Brown (Con, Lothians), Bill Butler, Margaret Curran, Marlyn Glen (Lab, North East Scotland), Labour Group Leader Iain Gray (East Lothian), Cathy Jamieson (Lab, Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley), Marilyn Livingstone (Lab, Kirkcaldy), Shadow Enterprise Minister Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central), Margo MacDonald, Shadow Housing Minister Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow), John Farquhar Munro, Irene Oldfather, Gil Paterson (SNP, West of Scotland), LibDem Chief Whip Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine) and Shadow Finance Minister David Whitton (Strathkelvin & Bearsden).

The first thing they missed was a LibDem motion on education. The SNP amendment was waved through, but the Labour amendment fell by 77 (everyone but Labour) votes to 35. The Tory amendment and the amended motion then passed without dissent:

That the Parliament supports the full and effective implementation of the Curriculum for Excellence; notes the ongoing concerns of teaching unions, education academics and parents' organisations about the lack of clarity and the impact of education budget cuts and reduced teacher numbers and training places on implementation plans; agrees that it is essential that the new curriculum and assessment arrangements, including literacy and numeracy tests, are properly resourced over the full four years and that teachers are given the required continuing professional development and support; believes that if this cannot be guaranteed then the Scottish Government must be prepared to give the implementation process more time; recommends that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning take advice about the timetable from the Curriculum for Excellence Management Board with a view to making a final decision about the timetable for the introduction of the new curriculum within a reasonable timeframe over the next few months, and further seeks an assurance from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning that the reform of the exam system accompanying the Curriculum for Excellence will provide sufficient academic rigour and skills-based testing so as to ensure the highest possible standards of attainment in Scottish schools.

Then came a second LibDem motion, this time on justice. A Tory amendment to the SNP amendment - this vote was missed by Kenneth Gibson (SNP, Cunninghame North) - passed by 60 (SNP/Con) to 16 (LD/Green) with 35 Labour abstentions, and the amended SNP amendment passed by 61 to 16 with 35 abstentions. This pre-empted the Labour amendment so we went straight to the amended motion, which passed by 61 to 16 with 35 abstentions:

That the Parliament recognises that firearms legislation is reserved and that Strathclyde Police is entitled to exercise operational discretion over the use of Tasers under this reserved legislation and notes the role of local police authorities and joint boards in scrutinising Scottish police forces; further notes that in 2006-07 there were 12,974 recorded assaults on police officers across Scotland, which was an increase of 58% between 2000-01 and 2006-07; believes that Tasers provide a less lethal option than firearms where police officers are facing violent or armed suspects and need to incapacitate them, and awaits the results of the pilot being run in Strathclyde, which sees 30 police officers being armed with Tasers after appropriate training.

Finally, there came a Government motion on the Brian Pack inquiry: Labour and Tory amendments went through without argument, but the LibDem amendment fell by 98 (everyone but the LibDems) to 14, though the motion was still nodded through:

That the Parliament notes the publication of the Interim Report by the Inquiry into Future Support for Agriculture in Scotland; acknowledges the considerable work that has gone into producing this comprehensive and considered report, and welcomes the inquiry's continuing commitment to extensive stakeholder engagement on the future application of the Common Agricultural Policy in Scotland; recognises the need for any future framework to ensure a sustainable farming sector within vibrant rural communities; acknowledges the challenges posed by climate change and food security, and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that there is a clear focus on the supply of healthy, affordable food produced as locally as possible with good environmental stewardship, while noting that as Scotland moves to an area-based payment scheme there will be redistribution of existing support, and therefore encourages the Scottish Government to ensure that the process of redistribution is as equitable as possible and takes particular account of the Less Favoured Areas.

And that was this week. Next week sees the Final Stage of the Ure Elder Fund Transfer and Dissolution Bill, Government debates on regeneration and education, and Labour business. Let's see what comes up...

A Thirst Unquenched

One of the most fascinating aspects of this Scottish Parliament is the SNP Government's unerring ability to pull rabbits out of the deepest hats. For a while, it looked as though that skill had deserted the leadership, but today, fortune opted to smile on the SNP. And I'm not talking about the reaction to Jim Murphy's "We do do God" speech, which managed to piss off everyone, of all faiths and none, by alarming the secularists who want religion not to come within five miles of politics and government, and the religions themselves, who find the idea of a Government which has ignored a fair number of their teachings preaching to them somewhat sickening.

No, what I'm talking about is the basic smothering of two '-gate' scandals.

First, we learn that the Standards Commissioner has decided that there is, in effect, no case to answer regarding Lunchgate:

"Having fully considered the terms of the complaints and the terms of your own response (jointly with Ms Sturgeon) and other evidence, I have concluded that – for the purposes of the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Act 2002 – the complaints, as submitted and insofar as within my jurisdiction, are not relevant and that there is no evidence of sufficient substance warranting further investigation. I have, therefore, dismissed the complaints for the reasons set out in the attached Note of Decision."

Now, I said at the time that in politics, facts take second place to appearances. The reality is that the lunch auctions are basically a whisky roll writ large but they looked like some sort of Cash for Access scandal, and as I said, I'm stunned that no one thought to look at how auctioning off time with a Minister would look, regardless of the good intention and target audience - who basically want lunch with someone they respect and support. Nevertheless, the background doesn't matter: what matters is the Standards Commissioner sees nothing worth looking into. The appearance now favours the SNP. Lunchgate is now pretty much off the menu (so to speak) though I suspect that a new fundraising approach may well be developed anyway - just in case.

Secondly, Nicola Sturgeon came before Holyrood today to account for her part in Lettergate, or Nicolagate, or whatever this one was called:

"In short, I assisted a constituent in good faith and for what I considered to be the right reasons, but in doing so I did get some things wrong and for that I am sorry."

It would appear that most took her statement of contrition for what it was and were content to leave it there: they were happy to accept her good faith, that she made a mistake. And I think it's cheering for a politician to admit to being human, and to hold their hands up for doing things wrong. It's now hard to see where this one can actually go, so it too is off the menu.

Except that while the Tories and LibDems opted for magnanimity (though couldn't resist a pop at Alex Salmond's characteristically boisterous defence of his Deputy), Labour still tried to go on the attack. Well, it doesn't seem to have worked, if Caron's reaction is any indicator:

So, would her gracious words have dragged the Labour Party up to a decent standard of debate. Nah. I think they realised that she had done enough to keep her job but many of them insisted on sticking the knife in to both her and Alex Salmond. I'll tell you what, I'm so glad Johann Lamont isn't my MSP. It seems that if I went to her I'd have to fill in a disclosure form at the door of her surgery. She seems to only want to represent the blameless. She asked if Nicola had performed background checks. I'm sure her staff have enough to do without turning into private detectives.

In a way Johann Lamont's words seem to sum up Labour's attitude to people. Most people who seek help from elected representatives are good people who tell the truth. Many are really vulnerable and desperately need help. Unless you have a good reason to doubt it, you have to take people's word for what they're telling you.

Iain Gray then asked her to withdraw the letter - which seems a bit daft seeing as she'd just publicly said that she'd change things and that the hearing was over and done with anyway. How can you take something off the public record as if it had never existed? A bit strange.

And there we go - everyone else is happy to draw a line under an unfortunate incident, but Labour still try to find a fight to pick, even if it means taking things to the ridiculous extent of insisting on background checks on constituents before taking up their case. But, as we already know, personal attacks are OK as long as a) they're made by Labour, or b) they're aimed at someone other than Labour politicians.

Here's something else to consider. This is what Yousuf said almost two weeks ago, as Lettergate was brewing:

And I would advise any Nationalists who feel she is being hounded to look back to what happened with Wendy Alexander.

And there it is. For Yousuf has, I fear, rather hit the nail on the head (albeit inadvertently). It speaks volumes that whatever Nationalists and others were looking at - probably the case in question on its own merits or otherwise, I'd imagine - Labour people were looking at what happened to Wendy Alexander.

That the Electoral Commission took the view that Wendy Alexander broke the law doesn't come into it.

That she was found to have breached rules on the declaration of gifts doesn't come into it.

That the only sanction she faced for breaking the law and breaching what are in effect anti-corruption rules was a one-day suspension from Parliament proposed by the Standards Committee which was subsequently quashed in the Chamber (compare and contrast that with Frances Curran, Colin Fox, Rosie Kane and Carolyn Leckie being banned for a month for acting like prats and one can't help but feel that MSPs' sense of proportion is somewhat skewed) doesn't come into it.

The only real punishment was the one she inflicted on herself: she chose to resign as Labour Leader. She was pushed out not by other people, not by procedures, but by circumstances, nothing more.

But as far as Labour are concerned she was taken down, and that's all that matters.

And they have to see someone else taken down in revenge.

After all, their attempts to lever themselves back into office in the wake of last year's Budget debacle fell apart almost within minutes, and their attempts to use Lockerbie as a crowbar with which to prise Kenny MacAskill out of office failed, but after a year and a half of searching they thought they had it. But Lunchgate, it transpires, doesn't even merit a serious investigation. So comparisons with Wendy Alexander - who endured several investigations (though was fortunate to escape prosecution) - don't hold. And Nicola Sturgeon's response to Lettergate was to stand up, apologise, and admit that she got it wrong. Again, comparisons with Wendy Alexander - who dug in and ended up surrounded by acolytes who expressed horror that anyone might want to criticise their Dear Leader for, you know, breaking the law until her position became untenable - simply don't stack up.

But that doesn't matter - since Wendy Alexander's resignation, Labour have had a thirst for blood.

It's the same petty, vindictive personal politics that they've been playing at for years. The same mean-spirited vitriolic ad hominem attacks that they're crying foul over in this, the week when Gordon Brown is on the receiving end of them.

Yet even when they're saying how appalling it is when these things happen to their man, they're still trying them on others.

Quite simply, they deserve to fail.

Let this thirst of theirs continue to go unquenched!

A Bitter Taste in the Mouth

It's been an ugly weekend for Gordon Brown. First, details of Andrew Rawnsley's book emerge, including passages alleging that Brown bullies his staff. And then everyone goes doolally.

First, Iain Dale publishes art by Louis Sidoli comparing Brown with Hitler.

Then, attempts to counter the allegations of bullying on Labour's part backfire spectacularly when the head of the National Bullying Helpline declares that staff members at Number 10 have accessed her service.

Now, Labour figures are apoplectic and I have to be honest here: it's hard to disagree.

Firstly, let me make this absolutely 100% clear for the avoidance of doubt: it's not cool to compare your opponent to Hitler. Whatever you think about Gordon Brown, he has not tried to annex half of Europe and has not sent six million Jews to an early death. Let's get a sense of perspective here.

Second, like many others, I'm disturbed that Christine Pratt decided to blow the whistle as to where some of her service's users work. It's a confidential helpline. It has to be. And she's blown that confidentiality out of the water for what? To make a point? It's an ill wind: I know for sure that I wouldn't want personal details like that, particularly over something so distressing as a feeling of harassment strewn out across the media, used to pick over by the commentariat: I wouldn't want my anguish to become a piece of a political puzzle. Yet that is what Pratt has turned the stress of those workers into. Sickening.

And indeed, the reaction of the media resembles the same bullying that we're accusing Brown of and condemning him for. Not a good way to make a point.

Nevertheless, I find it hard to be sympathetic.

After all, it was a Labour MP (Anne Moffat) who said this:

"Proportional representation gave Germany Adolf Hitler and in Scotland to a lesser degree we've had the member for Banff and Buchan".

So it's a little rich for Labour to cry foul at comparisons with Hitler when they've been only too happy to dish them out in the past.

Further, while the current campaign against Brown leaves a bitter taste, consider this.

Which party superimposed the faces of Michael Howard and Oliver Letwin on a pair of pigs with wings? Labour.

Which party's Holyrood campaign included a cartoon of another party's leader as a petulant (and somewhat slow) child? Labour.

Which party arranged for an activist to follow a rival By-Election candidate around in a top hat and tails? Labour.

Which party bizarrely sent out leaflets accusing an SNP candidate of - heaven forfend! - supporting independence?! Labour.

Which party criticised a By-Election candidate for being a member of the same religious sect as a former Minister from their own party? Labour.

Which party lost a spin doctor as he planned to make up stories about the opposition for an attack blog? Labour.

Which party has, in government, seen ministers and aides brief against each other in a ridiculous display of political chicanery and pisspoor attempt at machismo? Labour.

Which party saw one of its Councillors describe his then-Ministerial namesake (and party colleague!) as the 'runt of the litter'? Labour.

Which party saw another of its Councillors deride women as 'thick' on his blog? Labour.

I don't like this new political culture, where spite and bile replace debate, where personal insult is used as a substitute for policy discussions. It's the style of tabloids like the Sun, and politicians should steer well clear of it. So I take no joy in the current pelting Gordon Brown is getting as it's needlessly vitriolic and turns attention away from some of the real catastrophic points of the present Government: Trident, the erosion of civil liberties, the 10p tax debacle, tuition fees, foundation hospitals, PFI, the continuation of Thatcherite housing policies and worst of all, Iraq. Those are the real attack points, not the fact that Gordon Brown behaves in a manner similar to, for example, Sir Alex Ferguson.

But it's a culture brought to us by the same people who are now complaining about it, and I had to laugh at this post by Terry Kelly who has a reputation for being hostile to anyone who has the temerity to be in another party than Labour, and who only ever described the First Minister as "Salmond (the Spiv)". But slag off Gordon Brown, and my, doesn't he get precious?

As I said, I don't like what politics is becoming, and on that, I agree with those in Labour who have thrown their arms up in dismay at the events of the past few days. But it's their colleagues who have set us all on this awful, awful course.

Labour have spent years happily dishing it out, but now it's being thrown back, they can't take it. And that appalling display of hypocrisy and cowardice is what leaves the bitterest taste in my mouth.

Introducing the QIB

I referenced this in my last post, but as it's a factor we may keep coming back to, it may be time to put some flesh on the bones. It's time to discuss the QIB.

So what is the QIB? It's the 'quasi-incumbency bonus'. Say what?

The QIB, as the present electoral systems at work in Scotland apply, can only operate to any real extent in Scottish Parliamentary elections. As we know, anyone who can be a candidate can stand both in a constituency, and on the regional list as well. And as we know, sitting MSPs who have been elected on the list can and do seek election to constituencies at the next election, much to the consternation of the sitting Constituency MSPs.

But that doesn't stop the Constituency MSPs amassing their own personal vote: Regional MSPs can build up some traction, but a strong Constituency MSP can counteract that.

The question is, what happens when the Constituency MSP stands down, and the Regional MSP is seeking election again?

And that's where QIB comes in: the extra kudos that the outgoing MSP had evaporates and the defending party has to start from is base level with a new candidate. Meanwhile, increasing numbers of voters start looking to the well-kent face of the Regional MSP, who's had 4, 8 or by the next election, 12 years to build up a profile and organisation in the community. They become, in effect, quasi-incumbents. And up to now, the figure suggest that they get a bonus for that. Hence, quasi-incumbency bonus.

So far, there have been five instances of the QIB, and we can quantify four of them. The one we can't put a figure on is the Falkirk West campaign in 2007, when Independent Dennis Canavan stood down and was replaced not by Labour's Dennis Goldie, but by the SNP's Michael Matheson, who had been Regional MSP for Central Scotland for eight years. Although Matheson had outpolled the Labour candidate in 2003, there was now the matter of the 14,703 Canavan votes whose preferred option was no longer available. Now, we know that when Canavan quit Westminster in 2000, Labour squeaked the subsequent By-Election by 705 votes. But we also know that that mushroomed to 8,532 a few months later in the 2001 General Election (though still considerably less than Canavan's own levels of support at Westminster). We also know that on the 2003 Regional vote in Falkirk West, Labour secured 10,719 votes to the SNP's 6,474. Even with Michael Matheson winning the seat in 2007, Labour still had a lead (albeit a small one - 504) over the SNP on the Regional vote.

Nevertheless, Matheson secured 7,000 more votes in 2007 than in 2003, but we don't know how many of them would have voted for him had Canavan not been on the ballot paper back then. So we can see that he has a QIB, but we can't derive an accurate figure.

So what about the other four?

In 2003, Henry McLeish stood down as Labour MSP for Central Fife, with Christine May looking to succeed him, but the SNP's Tricia Marwick stood in her way. Labour's share of the vote fell by 15.93% points, while the SNP's fell by just 0.32%. Nationwide, Labour's vote share fell by 3.92% - roughly a quarter of the loss suffered by May - but the SNP's vote fell by 4.97% in what was a grim showing. While the scandal enveloping Henry McLeish must have exacerbated the situation, the bottom line is that a national swing from the SNP to Labour of 0.53% turned in Central Fife to a swing in the other direction of 7.81%. Not only was this a springboard for Tricia Marwick to win in 2007, it also represented a QIB of 8.13%. Now, we don't know how much of that was a reflection of the Marwick v. May battle, and how much was based on McLeish's downfall, but would Labour have done quite so badly had Henry decided to carry on? Probably not. Could Tricia Marwick have stemmed the flow of votes from the SNP to the SSP had she not been a Regional MSP? It would have been far more difficult.

The same year, Ian Jenkins stood down as LibDem MSP for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, having served just one term. In what was a decent night for the Libems across Scotland, with the Party picking up an extra 0.98% - an increase is an increase - Jeremy Purvis saw the LibDem vote share drop by 8.86%, and Jenkins had barely had time to get his feet under the desk! By contrast Christine Grahame turned that 4.97% fall into a 2.40% increase: not only did she stem the flow, she reversed it. Would she have been able to do that, had she not been a Regional MSP? Again, not necessarily. Nevertheless a national swing from the SNP to the LibDems of 2.98% turned into a swing the other way of 5.63%. Christine Grahame picked up a QIB of 8.61%.

Four years later, Janis Hughes stood down in Glasgow Rutherglen. In 2007, Labour's Constituency vote share across Scotland fell by 2.74%. In Rutherglen, it fell by 3.62%. Not much of an effect, but it's notable that James Kelly shared a ballot paper with Robert Brown, LibDem Regional MSP for Glasgow. That year, the LibDem vote increased nationally by 1.04%. In Rutherglen, Robert Brown's went up by 3.67%. A Lab-LD swing of 1.89% was augmented to 2.33%. Brown secured the lowest QIB of the four: 0.44%.

The big one came in Edinburgh East & Musselburgh, where Susan Deacon stood down and Norman Murray was tasked with defending the seat for Labour against the SNP's Kenny MacAskill. That nationwide fall of 2.74% became 10.60%. The SNP nationwide increase of 9.16% went up to 15.53%. In short, a swing of 5.95% (which shouldn't have been anywhere near enough for the seat to fall) became a local swing of 13.07% - a QIB of 7.12%.

That makes, up to now, an average QIB of 6.08%. In effect, if these trends play out again in 2011, any Regional MSP seeking election wherever the sitting Constituency MSP is standing down has a head start of a 6% swing right from the get-go.

So if Tom McCabe stands and wins in the Westminster contest in Rutherglen & Hamilton West, that sees a vacancy emerge in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse, the successor seat to Hamilton South, where Christina McKelvie challenged McCabe in 2007. If she secures the average QIB, she needs only a further 0.2%.

If - as is likely - John Farquhar Munro declines to seek re-election, but Dave Thompson stands in Skye, Lochaber & Badenoch, QIB puts Thompson in pole position.

If Cathy Jamieson wins Kilmarnock & Loudoun this Spring, and Adam Ingram again seeks election in Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley, he'll need a further swing of only 0.57%.

So now, all that remains is to check who is, and who isn't, standing where: it's well worth factoring this into predictions for 2011.

Brown: "The Future is Ours To Win" - McAvoy: "I'm Offski!"

It's surely embarrassing that as Gordon Brown was trying to turn this year's contest into a "Them" and "Us" election, blow as many dog-whistles as he can through the repeated use of buzzwords like "progressive" (remind me how well the 'dog-whistle' strategy did for Michael Howard?), while talking in his peroration of how the future belongs to Labour (a slightly creepy mantra, I feel), it's reported that Labour Whip Tommy McAvoy (Rutherglen & Hamilton West) has opted not to be a part of that future.

Now, McAvoy was blamed is some circles for Janis Hughes standing down as MSP for Glasgow Rutherglen, so I imagine she'll be pretty hacked off: all she needed to do was hang in there for three more years. And Iain Dale refers to the Jim Devine affair: Devine told Channel 4 that a Whip told him how to fiddle his expenses, and an internal inquiry has been launched into which member of the Whips' Office it was. Although we can't yet say for certain, it's not hard to join the dots: McAvoy is the likely candidate.

And now he's not a candidate at all.

Still, with March being pretty much ruled out as an election date (Brown may as well have stood there in Warwick and started singing Waiting at the Church as one of his predecessors did at the 1978 TUC Conference), Labour have around two month to find a candidate.

Surely, with time so short, and little or no time available to put an AWS in place, the likeliest figure is Tom McCabe, the former Finance Minister. McCabe is no longer on the Opposition frontbench at Holyrood (though he is Labour's representative on the Corporate Body) so while he's a big-hitter and it would be grim for Iain Gray to lose him as well, it won't be as embarrassing as losing yet another member of the Shadow Cabinet. It would, however, further drain the pool of talent open to Gray in the most important year of an Opposition's life: the year when it has to start looking like a Government. And no matter what optimistic Labour figures would say, when Labour MSPs start to opt for the Westminster back benches over the Holyrood front bench, as they have done, there is no way on Earth that those remaining can look like anything other than the "Second XI". They certainly can't look like a credible alternative government.

But I digress. McCabe is presently MSP for Hamilton South, which has an electorate overlap of around 31,000 with Rutherglen & Hamilton West (focusing mainly around Blantyre), so will know a decent sized part of the area, and was rumoured to be looking for selection to Airdrie & Shotts when it was announced that John Reid was standing down. He would, therefore, be the logical choice: in the short term, his move south creates a vacancy for the SPCB, which is neither earth-shattering nor a major blow, he's relatively local and he knows the area. And the new Hamilton, Larkhall & Stonehouse constituency at Holyrood - roughly analogous to Hamilton South - requires a Labour-SNP swing of 6.28% for it to be lost (especially tempting and achievable if, as is likely, the SNP candidate is a sitting Regional MSP and Tom McCabe seeks and wins the Rutherglen candidacy), while the Westminster seat requires either a 16% Lab-LibDem swing or a 21% Lab-SNP swing. McCabe would be daft not to go for it.

And that too is good news for the SNP: leaving aside the Dennis Canavan result (which, given his status as an Independent, defied swing projections), there have been four instances of a sitting Constituency MSP standing down and a Regional MSP from another party vying to take their place. The aforementioned Janis Hughes was one (Robert Brown of the LibDems stood in Rutherglen); the others being Susan Deacon in Edinburgh East & Musselburgh (where Kenny MacAskill was the SNP's challenger); Henry McLeish stood down from Central Fife in 2003 (the SNP's Tricia Marwick was seeking that one); and Ian Jenkins in Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale, standing down in 2003 (the SNP's Christine Grahame sought to succeed him). On average, the four Regional quasi-incumbents picked up a 'bonus' swing of 6.08%. That effect, if borne out in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse, turns the seat into a supermarginal, before a single vote has been cast.

Scotland's Co-Inefficient

Disaster! As if Scotland losing its automatic Group stage spot in next season's Champions' League (though it will be restored should the winners of this season's tournament have gained Group Stage qualification anyway), we now learn that for the 2011-12 Champions' League, there will be only one Scottish entrant, starting in the Second Qualifying Round (though should Scotland remain in 16th place on the rankings, that will, again, move to the Third Qualifying Round if the 2011 winners have already qualified), and that further to that, fourth place in the SPL won't qualify for European competition.

Of course, this all stems from the catastrophic campaigns this season. Motherwell did manage to live up to their seeded status in the First and Second Qualifying Rounds of the Europa League, only to meet stronger opposition in the Third. Aberdeen failed miserably to live up to their seeded status, while Hearts lived down to their unseeded status in the Fourth Qualifying Round. Celtic did at least win the Champions' League Third Qualifying Round tie against Dinamo Moscow as expected to on paper, but Arsenal were always going to prove a bridge too far. However, had they lived up to their Europa League Pot 2 status, they would have been playing a game on Thursday. Similarly, had Rangers lived up to their Champions' League Pot 2 status, they'd have a Last 16 tie to get excited about. Instead, they couldn't even get third place, and a spot in the Europa League knockout stages.

So in theory, while it may mean more games, the down-grading of Scotland's status looks like a temporary setback: for 2010-11, both sides of the Old Firm would most likely be seeded in the Third Qualifying Round, while the SPL winners will be seeded in the Fourth Qualifying Round. The runners-up would not be, but would be guaranteed a Group Stage of some description by then. By winning those games, they would add vital points to the all-important co-efficient.

The SPL winners would almost certainly be in Pot 3 of the Champions' League (Rangers may still be able of nipping into Pot 2, but it's too early to know for sure) and the SPL runners-up would be in Europa League Pot 2: both good for post-Christmas European football and yet more co-efficient points. The remaining teams - are probably in a position to get a favourable draw for the Second Qualifying Round of the Europa League, and may get one for the following round depending on who qualifies and at what stage. The Fourth Qualifying Round may be a bridge too far, but with at least one team likely to win at least one tie, that again sees the co-efficient creep up a little.

Similarly, for 2011-12, one would expect the SPL winners to walk the three Qualifying Round ties and reach the Group Stage in Pot 3 - so a spot in the Europa League Round of 32, and perhaps even Round of 16, beckons on paper. The SPL runners-up would be expected to sail through their two Europa League Qualifiers and reach the Group Stage in Pot 2. Again, good for the Round of 32. While the team joining the SPL Runners-Up in the Third Qualifying Round has a chance of getting a good draw and advancing one stage, and whoever qualifies for the Second Qualifying Round must surely get past that, and maybe a stage more, depending again on who reaches Europe.

So on paper, the reduced ranking may actually be good for Scotland: more games against easier teams, so more wins and more co-efficient points.

But as the cliche goes, games aren't played on paper. Firstly, no Scottish club managed to exceed expectations this season. Rangers fell well short of what the draw projected; Celtic initially ticked the necessary boxes but still missed out on the likely final target of the Europa League Round of 32; Hearts weren't really expected to progress out of the EL Fourth Qualifying Round and didn't; Aberdeen failed to get past an unseeded team; Falkirk couldn't beat a team relegated from the Swiss League (which now overtakes Scotland on the rankings) while Motherwell went as far as the seeding structure allowed them. On average, therefore, one would expect a Scottish club to fall one level short of what's expected.

So next year, the SPL Champions might well get to the Group Stage even without the aid of a technicality, but they'll be lucky to be playing in the Europa League after Christmas. The Runners-up will fall into the Europa League and, again, will be unlikely to get past the Group Stage. As for the others, the most positive likely outcome that can be projected is that the team joining proceedings in the Fourth Qualifying Round will lose with dignity to a team considerably higher up the rankings.

The bottom line is this: unless Scottish clubs can start meeting expectations, and in the current financial climate that looks difficult, then those expectations are bound to be lowered. It might be a lean couple of years...

The Sunday Whip

A surprisingly humdrum week, really, given the various stushies regarding who MSPs are supposed to represent. Indeed, the usual arrangement of consensus Wednesdays followed by ugly Thursdays was broken, and the only votes were taken on Wednesday. And even that day saw a fair amount of consensus.

So we'll start with the absentees: Margaret Curran (Lab, Glasgow Baillieston) was missing: was she trawling the blogosphere for sources of synthetic rage? I'm sure she'll let us know what she was doing in a press release...

But I digress. The other absentees were Deputy Leader of the Opposition Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok), Stewart Maxwell (SNP, West of Scotland), LibDem Environment Spokesman Liam McArthur (Orkney), Tom McCabe (Lab, Hamilton South - he hasn't cast a Parliamentary vote in a fortnight now, is he OK?), Duncan McNeil (Lab, Greenock & Inverclyde), John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West - he hasn't cast a vote for three weeks, so I'm guessing that he is indeed unwell again), Irene Oldfather (Lab, Cunninghame South) and LibDem Leader Tavish Scott (Shetland).

Anyway. Before the votes, the Business Motions were waved through, as were the General Principles of the Ure Elder Fund Transfer and Dissolution Bill (a Private Bill), and Stage 1 of the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill. The Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2010 passed by 106 (everyone but the LibDems) to one - Nicol Stephen (LD, Aberdeen South) - with 12 abstentions.

Next came the establishment of the Committee to handle the End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill. An amendment submitted by the Bill's author, Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians) would have had the Bill referred to the Health & Sport Committee instead, but that amendment fell by 69 - Labour/Tory/LD: LibDem Finance Spokesman Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale) opted not to hang around for this - to 49 (SNP/Greens/Margo). The motion itself then passed by 69 votes to 48, with Alasdair Morgan (SNP, South of Scotland) abstaining. So the Committee was formed, will be convened by Ross Finnie, deputised by a member of the SNP, and Parliament agreed to the Labour, LibDem and Tory members of the Committee.

Following that, Parliament waved through the Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc. (Scotland) Act 2003 (Amendment of Specified Authorities) Order 2010, the Health Board Elections (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2010, the recess dates for October and when the Clerk's Office will be open in the Autumn.

Thursday, meanwhile, saw lots more nodding: An amended Business Motion was agreed; The Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Bill and its amendments were waved through, as were an SNP motion on BBC Alba and amendments from Labour, the Tories and LibDems:

That the Parliament welcomes the contribution made by BBC Alba to Scottish culture and the promotion of the Gaelic language since its launch in September 2008; believes that BBC Alba's growing viewership, along with the direct employees and the independent broadcasters working for the channel, requires assurances about its long-term economic and cultural future; believes that this contribution would be even greater if BBC Alba was available on a wider variety of broadcasting platforms; and therefore calls on the BBC management and Virgin Media to resolve the ongoing dispute regarding carrying BBC channels on the cable network to ensure the widest possible access to BBC Alba; urges the BBC Trust to decide to make BBC Alba available on Freeview following its recent consultation on this issue, however the removal of existing BBC radio stations from the digital terrestrial TV platform in Scotland should not have to be a consideration in that decision; further believes that all Scottish residents should have access to the full range of broadcasting following digital switchover, and calls on the UK Government to require that all relay transmitters in Scotland are capable of transmitting the full range of Freeview channels by the 2010 and 2011 launch dates.

Parliament also boted the Equal Opportunities Committee's report: Female offenders in the criminal justice system, agreed an LCM for the Crime and Security Bill, and appointed the SNP members of the End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill Committee.

So a busy, but largely consensual week, despite the row over Nicola Sturgeon's representation of her constituents. Next week will be even more consensual.

They're in recess.

Talking the Talk

For those of you who don't know, Cathy Peattie MSP (Lab, Falkirk East) has a WordPress site where she - or one of her staffers - copies all her press releases. Now, I'm not keen on this approach to bloggery: if you're going to have a blog, put some actual posts on it. If you just want somewhere to stick press releases, sort out a website.

Last week, she posted a copy of this release about a Post Office Diversification Fund:

Speaking in the Scottish Parliament, Falkirk East MSP Cathy Peattie has called for a Diversification Fund to be set up in Scotland to help post offices improve and diversify during the recession.

Such a fund has already been introduced by the Welsh Assembly and similar support could be provided to the post office network in Scotland.

“There are opportunities to develop such a fund in Scotland,” said Cathy.

“Post offices and sub-post offices are crucial to our communities. They provide support in the form of benefits and pensions. In many communities, they provide support for small businesses. In communities that do not have banks, people have the opportunity to use the post office instead...

“The proposed post bank would provide another reason for folk to use their post office and would deal with the issue of communities not having access to a bank. It is all very well suggesting that people get benefits and so on through their bank, but if they do not have access to a bank — if there is no bank in their community, perhaps no bank for miles — the idea of a post bank could make some difference. That could support credit unions within the post office’s radius, as credit unions also need access to banks.

“I hope that we can look forward to the possible development of a diversification fund similar to the one in Wales, which illustrates what we could do in Scotland. It does not involve a lot of money, but such a fund recognises the value of post offices in our communities and the importance of making them more sustainable.”

The Scottish Government is “keeping an eye” on the Welsh scheme, but their hand may be forced in budget negotiations, where the idea has backing from other parties, leading Minister Jim Mather in his reply to note that based on the support “from all parts of the chamber this evening, I am sure that that argument will now have extra weight behind it.”

Well, she was right, the Post Office Diversification Fund did find its way into the Budget last week.

So, having called for a fund, and with a fund being offered in the Budget, guess how she voted?

She voted against it.

Oh, dear...

On the teams I support

If you'll indulge me, I'd like to begin this post by reviewing a football match. And I'll do so from a biased perspective: the match in question is Tuesday night's English Premier League tie between Wigan and Stoke, for which I put my Latics' Season Ticket to use, and saw from my usual vantage point of the East Stand (now known as the Boston Stand).

And what a bizarre game it was! The first half was amazing, with lots of open play, attacking football and good creative manoeuvres. Moreover, the bulk of the excellent play was coming from Wigan, who were doubtless playing according to Roberto Martinez's philosophy of playing one's way out of trouble. For once, the formula was working, and Wigan were rewarded when Paul Scharner scored. Indeed, the Latics were unfortunate not to add to their tally before the break, but the performance was a good one: Emmerson Boyce was solid in defence, Chris Kirkland pulled off some excellent saves when required, Charles N'Zogbia and Hugo Rodallega were both marvellous and even Jason Scotland was putting a good shift in: a Premiership goal still eludes him but his shots were, at least, on target. Stoke offered a few meaty challenges and had the occasional spell of pressure which they couldn't do anything with, so the Wigan players went back to the dressing room with their tails up and at that point, the Wigan fans were the loudest - that doesn't happen very often.

Then came the second half, and Wigan had a decent shout early on - including an overhead kick by Hugo Rodallega that missed the target by a whisker - but that, I'm afraid, was that. I have no idea what Martinez said in the dressing room, but whatever it was, it was bad advice. Maynor Figueroa's now routine abysmal performance - plenty of dicking around to no real consequence save the increased likelihood of the opposition winning the ball - served only to prove to me why he is, barring the amazing goal he scored against Stoke at the Britannia Stadium earlier on in the season, is the Most Overrated Player in England. Titus Bramble appeared to have left his brain in the dressing room (and why has Martinez made that idiot Captain in the absence of Melchiot?), alongside that of the manager's, who decided that to make room for Victor Moses, he needed to take off James McCarthy, who is having a decent spell. Right player to bring on, wrong player to take off. Then he compounded that error by replacing Jason Scotland with the dire Jordi Gomez, who clearly has bags of potential but is patently never going to realise it in a Wigan shirt. Sensible player to take off, but if Gomez is the answer, then I shudder to think what the question was. The only one that springs to mind is, "Who can we bring on to turn a perfectly competent midfield into a sack complete and utter shite?".

Similarly, Stoke were no great shakes either until the introduction of Ricardo Fuller, and it looked like they were going to squander every opportunity Wigan gave them to play well and get something from the game. And believe me, Wigan gave them far too many opportunities. We may as well have wrapped the ball in a ribbon and affixed a tag reading, "To the Stoke players, loadsa luv, the Latics xxx".

So it was no surprise that after almost half an hour of my life that I wanted back, Ricardo Fuller breezed through a gap between the hapless Figueroa and Bramble, and crossed the ball into the box, where it met the head of Tuncay and sailed past Chris Kirkland, who wasn't expecting it to come anywhere near him. Well, it did, but he didn't get to it and it landed in the back of the net.

This meant that a game which Wigan should have won convincingly was turned into a draw, and it was the team's good fortune that Fulham and Burnley both lost while Sunderland could only draw against Portsmouth.

So why I am telling you all this?

Simple. We are now well into the second half of the Scottish Parliamentary session. The first half saw the SNP victory, the Glasgow East win, the European election victory, the abolition of bridge tolls and the Graduate Endowment, the passage of the first minority budget and the eventual passage of the second when the opposition's initial tactics backfired, while the potential bunfight over Trumpton was deflected, but targets were missed: had the funds been there, perhaps more could have been done on student debt; the Local Income tax had to be dropped; and the success in Glasgow East was not followed up with comparable results in Glenrothes and Glasgow East. But still, the SNP were on an upturn, and opposition attacks weren't coming to anything.

We're now back on the pitch for the second half. And that organised performance appears to have evaporated: an attempt to raise party funds in response to a party that has Union backing and another which has Lord Ashcroft bankrolling it has turned into a '-gate' because before we get into a discussion of what's within the rules and what isn't, it never occurred to anyone to question what selling a lunch date with the First Minister would look like in the press, thereby forgetting the Basic Rule that in politics, facts take second place to appearances. Losing John McNamee might not be the worst thing in the world, but losing an exasperated Alex Dingwall, an SNP member of 31 years' standing, to the Liberal Democrats is not news you want to wake up to. This morning we discover that the Referendum Bill is to go no further than the limbo that is draft stage for the time being. And now, in an honest attempt to do the decent thing by a constituent, Nicola Sturgeon has ended up tethered by the press to a benefit fraudster, and will be expected to turn up in Parliament after the recess to explain herself simply for trying to be a good constituency MSP but by doing right thing with the wrong person.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this - and I apologise to those of you who don't like fruity language but it needs airing: What the fucking hellfire is going on in the Party?!

The need for the SNP to keep up the strong performances of the last two years is greater than ever: we're going into a Westminster election where the choice is clear. There are Labour representatives whose only priority is to stay in power at any cost, whose Whips advise new MPs to falsify receipts (that is, if we are to believe Jim Devine, the man elected as a Labour candidate, who admitted on Channel 4 that if he had thought that he'd broken the law, he'd try to cover it up), and who has seen Scotland as little more than a source of vote fodder. There are prospective Tory MPs, whose party has somehow contrived to have even fewer ideas as to how to improve people's lot than Labour presently do and whose Scottish Leader has basically told Scotland that it'll have to get what it's given (some respect agenda, that). There are those under the LibDem banner, who have given us no indication as to what lengths they'd go to to implement their programme should the opportunity arise, whose idea of liberal democracy is to deny people self-determination and whose idea of the new, consensus politics is to slag off Alex Salmond at every opportunity. In short, an SNP providing clarity and principle is just what Scotland needs right now.

And the ability to deliver on that is still there: the people are the same ones who delivered those early successes and their commitment is as strong as ever. Meanwhile, Iain Gray looks no more credible as an alternative FM than he did a year ago and is not helped by his frontbench - which strikes me as the political equivalent of an oversized novelty cheque: it might look good for display or PR purposes, but has no practical value whatsoever. That two of its members wish to look for alternative opportunities at Westminster is also damning. Annabel Goldie's comments regarding Scotland having to just put up with a Tory government that it didn't want proves that for all her bluster about the Labour Group at Holyrood, the "apologist for Whitehall" tag will simply pass to her when David Cameron enters Downing Street. And Tavish Scott? Well, somehow, he's ended up as the most constructive and mature of the three main opposition leaders in Holyrood. And he still wants to kill SNP Ministers simply to watch them die!

So the opposition, like Stoke on Tuesday night, is still playing a fairly dire game. And yet for reasons passing understanding, the SNP - just as Wigan did - is letting them in to proceedings, and giving them the chance to take a few shots. Wigan fans once again saw, as the team should have learned by now, what happens if one of those shots hits the target. Let the SNP learn from the Latics' mistakes.

The Sunday Whip

This was another big week, with the Budget on Wednesday, and the Marine (Scotland) Bill on Thursday, which saw 21 votes taken in the Chamber.

So to start off with Wednesday, I think we all know what happened here: following the usual nodding through of the Business Motions, a Labour amendment to the motion passing the Bill (effectively Parliamentary graffiti) calling for GARL to be re-instated fell by 66 votes (SNP/Tory/Green/Margo) to 59 (Labour/LD), and the Budget (Scotland) (No. 4) Bill (PDF) passed by 66 votes to 45 (Labour) with 14 LibDem abstentions: the absentees were Tom McCabe (Lab, Hamilton South), John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West) and LibDem Education Spokesperson Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West).

What you might not have spotted was that the Loch Ryan Port (Harbour Empowerment) Order 2009 was waved through.

On Thursday, proceedings were dominated by the epic Marine (Scotland) Bill and its many, many, amendments. Tom McCabe and John Farquhar Munro missed the whole thing, and there were 21 amendments which faced votes. In the morning, MSPs voted on: Amendments 6 (LD), 24 (Lab), 25 (Lab), 106 (Green), 107 (Lab), 35 (LD), 16 (Lab), 41 (Lab), 43 (Lab), 52 (LD), 115 (Green), 60 (LD), 116 (Lab), 117 (Lab), 68 (LD) and 118, raised by Kenneth Gibson (SNP, Cunninghame North). Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians) and Margaret Mitchell (Con, Central Scotland) missed all of these votes.

Amendment 6 fell by 62 (SNP/Con) to 59 (Lab/LD/Green). Labour's Shadow Public Health Minister Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland & Fife), Margaret Smith and Nicol Stephen (LD, Aberdeen South) all missed this one.

Amendment 24 passed by 62 (Lab/Con/Green) to 60 (SNP/LD). Anne McLaughlin (SNP, Glasgow) missed this one, as did Margaret Smith.

Amendment 25 also passed 62-60. This one was missed by Parliament Minister Bruce Crawford (Stirling) and Margaret Smith.

Amendment 106 fell by 62 (SNP/Con) to 61 (Lab/LD/Green). Margaret Smith was still AWOL at this time.

Amendment 107 passed by 106 to 17 (LibDems, Greens and Kenneth Gibson). Margaret Smith still hadn't got in.

At this point, the Chair was occupied by the two DPOs: Trish Godman (Lab, West Renfrewshire) and Alasdair Morgan (SNP, South of Scotland) and remained so for most of the proceedings relating to the Bill - neither of them were involved in any further voting for the rest of the day.

Amendment 35 fell by 104 to 15 (LibDems alone). Gavin Brown (Con, Lothians), Tory Leader Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland) and Christine Grahame (SNP, South of Scotland) were missing.

Amendment 16 fell by 60 (SNP/Con/Green) votes to 58 (Lab/LD). Gavin Brown, Annabel Goldie, Christopher Harvie (SNP, Mid Scotland & Fife) and LibDem Leader Tavish Scott (Shetland) were all absent.

Amendment 41 fell by 63 (SNP/LD/Green) votes to 59 (Lab/Con).

Amendment 43 fell by 60 (SNP/LD) votes to 59 (Lab/Con/Green). Tory Finance Spokesman Derek Brownless (South of Scotland), Alex Johnstone (Con, North East Scotland) and Hugh O'Donnell (LD, Central Scotland) all gave this one a miss.

Amendment 52 fell by 61 (SNP/Con/Green) votes to 59 (Lab/LD). Gavin Brown and Annabel Goldie were still missing.

Amendment 115 passed by 116 to 2: the sole dissenters were Mike Pringle (LD, Edinburgh South) and Richard Simpson. Gavin Brown, Annabel Goldie, Liam McArthur (LD, Orkney) and Jamie Stone (LD, Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross) were absent.

Amendmet 60 fell by 61 (SNP/Con/Green) votes to 59 (Lab/LD). Again, Gavin Brown and Annabel Goldie were absent.

Amendment 116 fell by 61 (SNP/Con/Green) to 58 (Lab/LD), Gavin Brown, Annabel Goldie and Tavish Scott all AWOL.

Amendment 117 fell by 60 (SNP/Con/Green) to 56 (Lab/LD). Gavin Brown, Annabel Goldie, Nanette Milne (Con, North East Scotland), LibDem Finance Spokesman Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale), Tavish Scott and Jim Tolson (LD, Dunfermline West) were all missing.

Amendment 68 passed by 60 (Lab/LD/Green) to 59 (SNP/Con). Gavin Brown, Annabel Goldie and Tavish Scott were all still out of the Chmaber.

Then came Amendment 118, which fell by 115 to 4, the amendment's sole supporters being the Greens, Kenneth Gibson and Hugh O'Donnell. Again, Gavin Brown, Annabel Goldie and Tavish Scott were still absent as MSPs headed towards Question Time.

Members returned to the Bill in the afternoon, where they handled Amendment 20 (Green), 121 (Green), 7 (LD), 90 (LD) and 5 (Lab).

Amendment 20 fell by 120 to 3, the only supporters being the Greens and Margo. Labour's Shadow Cabinet Secretary Without Portfolio John Park (Mid Scotland & Fife) missed the vote.

Amendment 121 fell by 121 to 3, again with the Greens and Margo being its only backers. At this point, Margo left, perhaps in disgust. Leader of the Opposition Iain Gray (East Lothian), former FM Jack McConnell (Motherwell & Wishaw) and his successor Alex Salmond (Gordon) also quit the Chamber, doubtless to argue over 'Piegate'. It's finally happened: we've attached the '-gate' suffix to so many words that we've had to start reusing them: 'Piegate' was originally the fiasco that saw Frank McAveety telling a white lie in the Chamber as to his whereabouts.

But I digress. Amendment 7 fell by 62 (SNP/Con/Green) votes to 57 (Lab/LD). Alex Johnstone also missed this one.

Amendment 90 fell by 63 to 57 - the same parties voting the same way.

Finally, Amendment 5 fell by 61 (SNP/Con) to 58 (Lab/LD/Green). George Foulkes (Lab, Lothians) missed this one.

So that was that: after all that, the Marine (Scotland) Bill passed without dissent, along with an LCM regarding the Flood and Water Management Bill.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to lie down in a darkened room.

A Good Day for John Swinney

Well, that's it, with surprisingly little fuss, Scotland has a Budget for 2010-11, with the SNP, Tories, Greens and Margo MacDonald combining to pass the Bill by 66 votes to 45, with 14 abstentions.

Of course, it was a difficult time for Labour - but then, their caught once again in the Opposition Paradox. They've latched on (as any good opposition should) to the Scottish Government decision to withdraw funding for GARL, but have added a little extra hyperbole to paint the Government as having an East Coast bias. Of course, that overlooks the fact that this very same Government baulked at both EARL and the Edinburgh Trams, but had the projects basically foisted upon it by the collective will of the opposition parties. That doesn't sound like a Government with a bias towards the East Coast to me, but there you go.

The problem was, having nailed their trollies to the mast on GARL, Labour couldn't climb down, but couldn't draw up alternative spending plans which included it either, a situation which the LibDems found themselves in last year with their income tax cut demand. This time, the LibDems engaged, and got enough for them not to oppose the Budget. A lesson for Labour.

So today, Labour voted against £20million extra funding for further and higher education, which they continually seek. They voted against the new modern apprenticeships they sought last year. And they opposed the boiler scrappage scheme which their colleagues in Whitehall introduced, and they demanded. Three things which Labour have sought in the past, and all of them good ideas (along with the Greens' eminently reasonable call for the home insulation scheme, also in the Budget opposed by Labour) - and all of them not worthy of Andy Kerr's backing on the grounds that they didn't come with a white elephant railway line on the side.

So when your local Labour MSP campaigns on any of those issues, ask them why they voted against that extra money in today's Budget.

When your local Labour MSP campaigns to save your local post office, ask them why they opposed the Post Office Diversification Fund (and full credit is due to the LibDems for a great idea - I slag them off mercilessly, but they have their moments and this is one of them).

When they brag about how they've made housing a priority, ask why they voted against the extra £31million extra allocated to the housing budget.

When they talk about their green credentials, ask them why they opposed not only the home insulation scheme but also the extra £10million for wave and tidal energy.

When they criticise the Government's support for business, ask them why they opposed the increased threshold for Small Business Rates Relief.

Those are the measures opposed by Labour today. And all because they couldn't keep GARL going and balance the books.

Whither Scottish Labour?

There are two contrasting pieces on the state of Scottish Labour at the moment, the first by Peter Thomson, which strikes a negative note, and the second by Yousuf which is far more optimistic. The reality, I suspect, is somewhere in between.

And the truth is that the UK opinion poll sub-samples (there's a paucity of actual Scotland-wide opinion polls these days) do make reasonably pleasant reading for Labour, but as Yousuf himself agrees, opinion polls aren't the real gauge: elections are, and Labour can at least point to the Glasgow North East result.

The problem is, even real election results don't help: using them as a campaign tool in subsequent polls "Vote for us, because some people in another seat decided to indulge us for another few months" is a bit of a crappy slogan, much like the underlying message behind those dreadful bar charts: "Vote for us, because we came second last time so have a better chance of beating the other guy". Forget policies, or even personalities. Just stick a graph on your leaflet and all will be well. I'm not singling any particular party out for that either: all parties do it and I wish, I wish, I wish they'd stop. But that's another matter.

The problem with using past results is that it makes you a massive hostage to fortune. Take the LibDems' good run, which was confirmed by the party's second-place showing in Scotland in the 2005 Westminster Elections. It was an impressive set of results: second in seats and in votes, more than a fifth of the vote (the only party besides Labour to manage that) and second in a shedload of other seats (more bar charts, please!). And to improve matters, they won the Dunfermline & West Fife By-Election despite not having a leader. That's not bad. Even in Moray, where they came third, they notched up a 10% increase in their vote. They were "The Party of Real Momentum".

And what happened in 2007? They lost a seat.

By then, momentum had shifted to the SNP, having endured a dismal period of results since 2001 - the loss of Galloway & Upper Nithsdale at Westminster, the catastrophic 2003 results, the grim 2004 European election figures, the fall to third place in 2005, and the embarrassing failure to manage anything major in Glasgow Cathcart, where the events leading up to that By-Election should have made it a gift for the SNP. But with a credible performance in Livingston that same day, a small upward movement in Dunfermline & West Fife (despite coming third), and a consolidation of the party's position in Moray, the SNP was set for 2007. And it delivered: winning a nationwide election for the first time in the party's history, and nearly doubling the number of MSPs it had at dissolution a month previously. After that, the good times kept rolling: Glasgow East, Labour's third-safest seat in Scotland fell to the SNP campaign the following summer. So Glenrothes should have been a walk in the park, right?

Wrong. It stayed Labour. In fact, Labour strengthened on its 2005 position, while the SNP campaign just couldn't translate into a result. So now, surely, it was Labour's turn, 2007 would be exposed as a flash in the pan and first place for Labour was guaranteed going into the European elections.

Except they didn't come first. The SNP did, and in the end, Labour were spinning that they did well to hold onto their two seats and in any case, it was a bad night for the party across the UK. So once again, there were clouds of doom over Labour. David Kerr was a shoo-in to do in Glasgow North East what John Mason had done in the neighbouring constituency.

But he didn't. In fact, the result suggests that what we had was a complete damp squib. Very little of note had changed.

The lesson here, for all of us, is that while we all love to talk about momentum, the reality is that it's a great big steaming mound of BS. You are not as good as your last result. You are only as good as your next. If anything, the pattern is that the SNP do well, then Labour do well, then the SNP have a good result, then it's Labour turn again. By that logic, with the next test of public opinion being the Westminster election, the SNP are going to have a field day, but will need a By-Election to happen at some point between then and the 2011 Holyrood Elections. After Glasgow East, no one has put two good results together. It's not unlike following Wigan Athletic.

So what else can we discern? We know that Jim Devine has been forced out, and that Nigel Griffiths is out the door. We know that Scottish Labour at Westminster will soon be without stalwarts Gavin Strang and John McFall. We know that Anne Moffat is staring ejection in the face. We know that Des Browne, who isn't exactly an old man, has decided that there are better things to do with his time than being an MP. Mohammed Sarwar is standing down. As is Adam Ingram, and Rosemary McKenna. And so is John Reid. That's ten Scottish Labour MPs that we know are leaving out of 39. That is not a good sign.

It's compounded by the fact that MSPs are, for the first time in the case of Scottish Labour, seeking to fill the breach, with Margaret Curran and Cathy Jamieson selected as Labour PPCs in Glasgow East and Kilmarnock & Loudoun respectively, and still the possibility that Jackie Baillie may join them (though it's too early to offer anything more than speculation at this stage). Now Curran's departure actually eases a headache for Labour in Glasgow with there being nine incumbent MSPs but only eight notional Labour constituencies on the new boundaries, but Jamieson's departure creates a selection headache for Labour in Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley, and were Baillie to go, the same would be true in Dumbarton.

And worse still, we're not losing small fry, but big hitters: Margaret Curran had been Communities Minister, Parliament Minister and Shadow Health Secretary before the Glasgow East By-Election. She was effectively locked in a darkened room by Iain Gray, but still had Shadow Cabinet status. Cahty Jamieson was a former Education Minister, a former Justice Minister, and the former Deputy Labour Group Leader at Holyrood. And she'd been given the all-important Housing brief until getting her nomination in Killie. That means that the Shadow Cabinet, the government-in-waiting if we're to believe Iain Gray, is being drained, with key players heading for the Westminster backbenches.

So the polls look good, actual results look mixed, but the underlying trend - people wanting to stand and stand again for Labour - is still one of decline. And unless a whole wave of new talent comes forth to fill those voids in less than a year, ready for Holyrood, I'm struggling to see when it'll be arrested.

A scalp's a scalp, I suppose

Yousuf was rather looking forward to today's papers last night, expecting as he was that they would contain news of an SNP elected representative jumping ship to Labour. Jeff, meanwhile, reckoned that the defector would be in local government rather than at Parliamentary level. And so it proved, with South Lanarkshire Councillor John McNamee switching sides. Here's today's Herald:

Mr McNamee, who represents the Blantyre area, cited the decision to axe the proposed Glasgow Airport Rail Link as a crucial factor in his jumping ship, as well as the impact of the global financial collapse on small nations such as Ireland and Iceland, and the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.

Sounds fair enough. After all, if you don't agree with anything your party has done, then you should leave the party rather than make a continued tired effort to defend what you consider to be the indefensible on the doorstep. Which is why I left Labour, the party of the Iraq War, the preservation of the NHS internal market in the shape of foundation hospitals (Nye Bevan must have been spinning in his grave at that one), the continued defence of Thatcherite housing policies and the advocate of commercialised higher education in the shape of top-up fees, to join the SNP back in 2004. So while I went in the other direction, I can understand why, in those circumstances, he might wish to move. But there's more:

He has also criticised what he describes as the lack of leadership and talent within the SNP at town hall level, describing the two years he has been an elected member as being riddled with in-fighting and that he has been “operating in a political vacuum”.

Hmm. The throwing of the egg. Happens, I suppose. Though the last person to deride former colleagues for lack of talent was David Mundell, the Shadow (or should that be Overshadowed?) Secretary of State for Scotland, in a dossier about the Tory MSP group for David Cameron. That's the same David Mundell who's likely to be passed over for the actual Secretary of State job in favour of one of his apparently talentless colleagues at Holyrood. So it's not a wise move to make, and in any case, what happened to being the change you wished to see? But wait! I'm missing something! This is how the Herald introduces us to Councillor McNamee:

South Lanarkshire councillor John McNamee has quit the party, which had initiated disciplinary procedures against him over concerns over his expense claims and were investigating him over alleged “inappropriate behaviour” at a social function.

Oh dear! Surely Labour are a little bit nervy about taking him on then? Here's the man himself:

“I have spoken to the Labour Party nationally and at local level about what is essentially an internal SNP group matter with no other ramifications and they are easy with that.”

Really? Here's the Herald again:

But the SNP said that Mr McNamee was the subject of “disciplinary procedures” by the South Lanarkshire SNP Group after “concerns were expressed over his expense claims and use of council travel allowances”.

The group was also investigating allegations of “inappropriate behaviour” which Mr McNamee says involved alcohol at a Strathclyde Fire Board event before Christmas, which he attended in an official capacity.

So apart from the fact that he's been accused of fiddling his Council expenses - or taxpayers' money as they are more commonly known - and getting pissed on behalf of South Lanarkshire Council at the Strathclyde Fire Board, basically his problems are, in the world of Labour, for the SNP to sort out. Even though they're problems occurring as a result of his holding public office. Yet still Labour are willing to take this guy on - what would it take for them to get nervy? A Standards Commission investigation? Suspension from public office?

Frankly, I'm staggered that in the wake of the many scandals affecting politicians at the moment, and the Labour 'Star Chamber' that saw MPs deselected for fiddling their expenses, the party is not only willing to welcome him in with no questions asked, but to celebrate the fact. As Stephen says, this isn't news to be joyful about.

But still, when the party is on a downward track (and I'll blog about that later on), a scalp, any scalp, is to be cheered. I hope Cllr McNamee finds himself at home in the Labour Party, and I hope they find themselves comfortable with him.