New appointments

Congratulations to Michael Moore, the new Secretary of State for Scotland. In many ways, he's probably more suited to the job than his predecessor Danny Alexander, who goes down in history as the shortest-serving Secretary of State, having been moved to replace David Laws at the Treasury. Moore comes with the kudos of being Deputy Leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, so has an outside chance of at least appearing like Scotland's man in the Cabinet. Of course, Alistair Carmichael, as the LibDems' Shadow Scotland Secretary before the election, was a logical choice as well, but has clout as the Coalition Deputy Chief Whip and, accordingly, Senior LibDem Whip. Besides, who would want to pass up such a cool title as 'Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household'?

Anyway, Alexander was noted for being a close aide to his Leader Nick Clegg, and was effectively rendered mute during David Cameron's visit to Scotland. He was never going to look like anything other than the Cabinet's man in Scotland. And with his "I don't have anything to add" line during the PM's public appearances, I can't see him enjoying his role as George Osborne's Number 2. Where Laws took on the role with relish, I can't see Alexander bringing the same zeal to a tough role. Particularly when George Osborne described his predecessor as "put on earth to do the job". Alexander strikes me as more of a back-room man. He'll probably form a good working relationship with the Chancellor, but it'll be clear that Osborne is top dog, as opposed to Osborne and Laws effectively being joint Chancellors (and, it seems, with Laws being the stronger and more confident performer). With the spotlight now back on Osborne, there's now major pressure on the Government. Osborne does not do well in the spotlight.

But the real pressure, I suspect, is on Tavish Scott. We know that the Government has to make unpopular decisions. We know that spending cuts are going to have to come, and that the only questions are what gets cut, and when. Fine. But that doesn't mean we have to like it.

The LibDems' federal structure and the intricacies of devolution are such that the Scottish LibDems could have sidestepped the bulk of the criticism. Indeed, they were adept at that in the old Lab-LD Executive, with Dunfermline & West Fife By-Election winner Willie Rennie successfully campaigning on, among other things, the Forth Road Bridge tolls, the local hospital, and job losses at Kyocera. But tolls, the health service and enterprise were and are all devolved. Moreover, of those three subjects, the NHS was the only one which didn't have a LibDem in charge of it! But they got away with this - Rennie was seeking to be an MP, and an opposition one at that. He could afford to criticise the then Executive: he wouldn't be a part of it, he wouldn't have to back it.

Had David Laws been in a position to remain in situ, or had Vince Cable or Chris Huhne been moved to the Treasury, the Scottish LibDems, as a broadly autonomous section of the party, could have kept their distance from the nastiest of the budget cuts when they came. And Tavish Scott could have focused on devloved issues, and how Holyrood spent the money it had.

But there's a problem now. It is a Scottish Liberal Democrat making the cuts now. And Tavish Scott's Deputy Leader is now in the Cabinet, bound by collective responsibility for the decisions it takes. Alex Salmond will have a field day with this. Patrick Harvie can make his appeal to disaffected LibDems. Even Iain Gray can - in theory, at least - capitalise on this.

A Scottish LibDem will be responsible for cutting the Scottish Budget, and will have the agreement of Tavish Scott's Deputy Leader, Michael Moore. Devolution or no devolution, federal structure or no federal structure, it will be harder for the LibDems to get away from the tough decisions now, and far easier for their critics to make their mark. This set of appointments is what will cost the LibDems dear in next year's Holyrood elections.

The Cautionary Tale of David Laws

Having had the weekend to reflect on the downfall of David Laws, I still can't pin down what my actual feelings on the matter are. I think at the heart of it, there's a bafflement that such a clearly intelligent man can allow such a situation to build up that his rise and fall are so swift.

I suppose, first, there's the scandal. Let's be clear: the rules say that you can't claim back rent paid to your partner. Laws claimed rent paid to his partner. He broke the rules, and he wouldn't admit that he was doing so. He may have been driven by a desire for privacy (and I'll come back to that point), but still, whatever the intentions, a deception did take place. And if that deception were to be committed by an ordinary member of the public, then the best they could hope for would be a disciplinary hearing at work, and likely dismissal. In some cases, a criminal record and perhaps even jail. Welcome to our world, Davy boy. On that basis, it's incredibly difficult to feel sympathy for him.

That said, it's clear that he's punishing himself more than we could punish him: he quickly realised that his position was untenable, and sought to stand down quickly, to get things over with. That's just realism. But the nasty bit is that he now sees all the structures he built in his life, the divisions between the public life and the personal, come crashing down around him. More galling, he sees the man he loves being dragged through the press. Neither of them sought this, but this must put special pressure on Laws: of course there'll be an element of guilt in his mind that Laws is going to have to deal with. No one should have to go through that. On that basis, it's quite easy to feel empathy for him.

All the same, has David Laws been living under a rock for the past year? Since the Telegraph began its campaign to root out dodgy expense claims, surely Laws must have realised that he was on borrowed time, that this had the potential to emerge eventually? Did he think that, having been overlooked a year ago, he was out of the woods? Was he that foolish? Surely a man as intelligent as he obviously is would realise that this was a ticking timebomb? Where was the risk management? And, most importantly of all, what was he thinking taking the Chief Secretary to the Treasury post when he had this politically compromising threat lurking in the distance?

And this, for me, is the problem. I just can't weigh up why such an intelligent, capable politician could allow this situation to unfold. He could even have used the lax rules to his advantage: it would have made more sense to flip his homes, to declare the flat he rented as his primary residence - and there would be a case for this as a national LibDem spokesman - then to keep claims on his original home to the bare minimum. In a strange way, it would have been the honest thing to do: of course he'd be spending the most time there, so of course it becomes his first home. It would have meant no expense claims, no forms, no questionable arrangements, and no problem. All the paperwork would have shown is that on such-and-such a date, he changed his addresses. He might have had a line or two in the Telegraph, and a small rebuke from the local newspaper in Yeovil, but he could have ridden the storm. Why didn't he realise this?

Then there's the personal side. I understand his motivations here: the drive for privacy is a powerful one, and it's not confined to gay people. It's natural for people to keep their cards close to their chest, not to advertise private details. Friends learn these details about each other over time. Other people don't find out all if it can be helped. Why? Because it's none of their business. What you or I get up to in our spare time, and who we get up to it with, is no one's business but our own (and the other people involved). Of course we'll tell our friends. But we won't want other people sticking their oar in.

And in the case of David Laws, that's even more understandable. There's been a lot of preaching from gay Labour politicians that Laws could, and should, have been himself, that he should have been open about his sexuality and that he must obviously be ashamed of who he is. And let's be honest, it's a sad reflection that in 2010, there are people who still don't feel confident enough about either themselves or the people around them to be open. But that's not the fault of David Laws. Rather, it's proof that despite all the massive strides towards equality, despite that people in general seem more accepting of homosexuality than they did, say 20 years ago, there's still a long way to go. And let's face it, Laws would have been coming of age just as the AIDS crisis was gaining momentum, along with the new wave of anti-gay hostility that saw Section 28 appear on the statute books. While there are plenty of openly gay men of a similar age to Laws, it's clear that he did not consider himself in a position where he could be one of them. That says a lot of things about a lot of people, but it's not something for which we can judge him, and we certainly can't judge him harshly.

But entering politics creates a new set of variables, and sadly, the normal rules don't apply. Being an MP or a member of the Cabinet (or even just the LibDem front bench when they were in opposition) isn't just a full-time job; it's a 24/7 job. You are always on call. You are a prominent figure. Your personal life gets sucked into that. More than ever, political partners are scrutinised even though they're not standing. In the recent election campaign, Sarah Brown, Samantha Cameron and Miriam González Durántez were public figures, with almost as much attention lavished upon them as their husbands. We remember Margaret Thatcher, but we also remember Denis. We remember John Major (albeit vaguely), and we also remember Norma. We think of The Blairs - not just Tony, but Cherie as well. Even at the local level, there'll be talk of the local MP and their partner.

So once again, we have to ask: did Laws think he could keep his private life private forever? I don't like this culture where the partner is basically dragged along for the political ride, but that's where we are and if you're involved in elected politics, then it's become a necessary evil. I know that if I were standing, I'd consider that I'd have no choice but to be clear about my domestic arrangements, and at least mention any hypothetical partner. I wouldn't try to compartmentalise things as I currently can, because it wouldn't work. David Laws did try, and failed. Again, he's an intelligent man - why didn't he see this coming?

I understand his predicament, and it's easy to see things both from the outside and with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight. But even so, I just can't understand why David Laws didn't spot the very obvious warning signs dotted along his career path, whether it was all the publicity received (whether willingly or not) by political partners, or the series of revelations on MPs' expenses in the Telegraph. On this occasion, his intelligence clearly failed him.

And sadly, he and his loved ones are now paying the price.

The Sunday Whip

This would have been a successful week for the Government, had it not been for one solitary defeat. Sadly, it came on arguably the most important vote of the week. If you don't already know what I'm talking about, read on. And if you do, then stay anyway.

Anyway.

Wednesday was almost consensual, and was missed by Margaret Curran (Lab, Glasgow Baillieson), Rhoda Grant (Lab, Highlands & Islands), Labour Group Leader Iain Gray (East Lothian), Cathy Jamieson (Lab, Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley), Jack McConnell (Lab, Motherwell & Wishaw, doubtless at Ede and Ravenscroft for a robe fitting), Margaret Mitchell (Con, Central Scotland), John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West), Mike Pringle (LD, Edinburgh South), Education Secretary Mike Russell (South of Scotland) and Tory Rural Affairs Spokesman John Scott (Ayr).

They missed the passage of the Business Motion, and the Education Committee's motion:

That the Parliament agrees that the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee's 3rd Report, 2010 (Session 3): Report on supporting children's learning code of practice (SP Paper 436), together with the Official Report of the Parliament's debate on the report, should form the Parliament's response to the Scottish Government on its revised code of practice, supporting children's learning.

Stage 1 of the Forth Crossing Bill passed by 113 votes to three - the three being the Greens and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill (Edinburgh East & Musselburgh), who I assume pressed the wrong button - with two abstentions: Margo MacDonald and LibDem Education Spokesperson Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West). The Financial Resolution passed by 115 to 2 with one abstention, and everyone voting with their parties this time. This was followed by a waving through of a Labour committee reshuffle.

Thursday was far busier, and there were only two absentees: Tom McCabe (Lab, Hamilton South) and Jack McConnell. Even John Farquhar Munro made it.

First came a Tory motion on relations with the UK Government. An SNP amendment passed by 81 (SNP/Con/LD/Green) to 45 (Lab/Margo), but a Labour amendment fell by 80 (SNP/Con/LD/Margo) to 44 with the two Greens abstaining, and a LibDem amendment falling by 94 to 32, with only the two Coalition parties supporting it. The amended motion passed by 79 (SNP/Con/LD) to 45 (Lab/Margo) with two Green abstentions:

That the Parliament welcomes the commitment of HM Government to establish a positive and constructive working relationship with the Scottish Government and Parliament to tackle the problems facing the country and, in particular, welcomes the commitment in the Queen's Speech to introduce legislation to implement recommendations from the final report of the Commission on Scottish Devolution and the willingness to consider matters in relation to the Fossil Fuel Levy and fiscal responsibility issues.

Then came the Climate Change (Annual Targets) (Scotland) Order 2010, which fell by 64 votes - Labour, the LibDems, Greens, Margo and Margaret Mitchell - to 62.

This was followed by a near outbreak of consensus, thanks to a Government motion on 18-week referral to treatment. The Labour amendment was adopted by 109 (SNP/Lab/LD/Green) to 16 (Con) with one abstention (Margo), the Tory amendment was accepted without a vote. However, regular service was resumed when the LibDem amendment fell by 91 (SNP/Labour) to 34 (Con/LD/Green) with Margo abstaining. The amended motion was, however, backed by 109 (SNP/Lab/LD/Green) votes to 0, with 17 abstentions (Con/Margo):

That the Parliament welcomes the progress that has been made in reducing waiting times for patients; applauds the commitment, dedication and hard work of all NHS staff who have contributed to delivering significant improvements for the people of Scotland, and acknowledges that NHSScotland is on track to deliver the Scottish Government's challenging whole-journey waiting time target of 18 weeks by the end 2011; welcomes the progress made by the previous Labour/Liberal Democrat administration in setting a new approach in Fair to All Personal to Each whereby waiting is considered in terms of the overall patient journey and further welcomes the commitment to treat inpatients within 18 weeks being achieved a year ahead of schedule, paving the way for Labour and SNP 2007 manifesto commitments of an 18-week referral to treatment target and notes that this compares with a waiting time target of 18 months set by the last Conservative administration, and urges the Scottish Government to ensure that such progress is not compromised by either reductions in its budget or by efficiency savings within NHS boards.

After that, in stark contrast to the previous SSI, the Climate Change (International Aviation and Shipping) (Scotland) Order 2010 was approved by 123 votes to two (the Greens) with Margo abstaining, and the following other Statutory Instruments were waved through:

Climate Change (Limit on Carbon Units) (Scotland) Order 2010

Carbon Accounting Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2010

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exclusions and Exceptions) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2010

Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 (Removal of Barred Individuals from Regulated Work) Regulations 2010

So that's another week. Next week, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee takes the floor, there's Labour business on Thursday morning, and a Government debate on student fees after Question Time. So Thursday, at least, looks set to be lively.

Those Peerages

We now have the Dissolution Honours. I note that John Prescott and Ian Paisley are being ennobled, as are Floella Benjamin and Mike German, the former leader of the Welsh LibDems.

But the Scottish list makes for interesting reading. I can't help but feel that the Tories have missed an opportunity of sorts to augment their Scottish contingent at Westminster on the Red Benches, their attempts to do so on the Green Benches having failed so miserably three weeks ago. But the list of Scottish political figures making their way to the House of Lords is, in its way, compelling, particularly as it includes three former Secretaries of State for Scotland:

Of course, Tommy McAvoy, the former Whip, and John McFall, the former Treasury Select Committee Chairman, never held the post, but were big hitters in the Parliamentary Labour Party. But then there's Des Browne, the part-time Secretary of State, Helen Liddell, who was sent to Australia because Tony Blair couldn't think of anything else to do with her, and the man she made way for in Airdrie and Shotts when his own constituency was dismantled, John Reid. I wonder what the Celtic fans will make of their Chairman entering the Lords!

But the most notable for me is Jack McConnell. McConnell is the first sitting MSP to be ennobled, and, of course, is the first former First Minister to enter the Lords. He is, however, not the first former Minister to do so. Technically, that goes to former Solicitor General Neil Davidson, but the first former member of the Scottish Cabinet to gain a peerage was, of course, the current Advocate General (and Baron Davidson's successor in that role), Jim Wallace.

Incidentally, this means that there are more former First Ministers in the Lords than former Prime Ministers: Lords McConnell and Paisley join Lord Trimble, while the only Peer to have occupied 10 Downing Street was Baroness Thatcher.

Now, this peerage has been dangled in front of McConnell on and off for the last three years, and he's finally got it. But we can't yet judge from this whether or not he'll stand down from Holyrood next year.

After all, Holyrood-HoL dual mandates (if you can call a Peerage a mandate) aren't new. Even Lord Foulkes of Cumnock MSP isn't a trailblazer. The first Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament was Lord Steel of Aikwood, though in referring to himself as 'Sir David Steel' obviously decided that being a Knight of the Realm as opposed to a Peer afforded him more of the common touch. Until 2007, the Tory benches were supplemented with Lord Selkirk of Douglas, or James Douglas-Hamilton, as we remember him. And there was even a Peer in Jack McConnell's Cabinet, former Tourism Minister Mike Watson. When he was convicted for wilful fireraising, the Daily Record remembered that his full title was Lord Watson of Invergowrie.

So today's announcement that McConnell will be donning the ermine isn't necessarily the end of his Scottish Parliamentary career. But nevertheless, despite my caution, it's hard not to imagine that the end of it is but a year away.


Finally, congratulations to Presiding Officer Alex Fergusson, who can celebrate his long overdue accession to the Privy Council. A shame it comes so late into his term of office!

Have I instigated this?

This is what I said about the Scottish Tory reshuffle:

And what happened to Mary Scanlon? Has she irked Ms Goldie? Or is she standing down like her fellow 1947 baby Bill Aitken, who is after all only six weeks older than her? If he's going, then you can see why she'd be going too. Incidentally, if this is the case, can we expect Ted Brocklebank and Nanette Milne, both born in 1942, to depart as well? If so, this would represent a relatively major infusion of new blood for the Tory Group.

This was in the Sunday Herald:

There is speculation Ted Brocklebank, MSP for Mid-Scotland and Fife and Nanette Milne, MSP for North East Scotland, may also step down in 2011.

Brocklebank, 67, and Milne, 68, have both been MSPs since 2003.

After her demotion in a Tory reshuffle last week, former Tory health spokeswoman Mary Scanlon, 62, is also under pressure to go.

Now, we should note that Mary Scanlon has voiced an intention to seek re-election, and Nanette Milne is inclined to do the same, but the Sunday Herald couldn't get hold of Brocklebank. Incidentally, they went further and queried Sir Jamie McGrigor's position, and he didn't get back to them either.

Nevertheless, it's telling that out of 16 MSPs, the retirement of one has prompted allegations of fustiness for a further four members. This isn't helped in Scanlon's case by her demotion from the front bench so that Murdo Fraser can take her portfolio. It's telling as well that in Scanlon's Parliamentary career, she was Health Spokesperson all through her first term, and Communities Spokesperson in her second until her resignation to fight the Moray By-Election. Then, after the 2007 election, her return to Holyrood and the reorganisation of the Tory front bench to map onto the new Scottish Government Ministerial structure, she returned to Health. Now, in a small group, there's a versatility expected of members (Ross Finnie spent eight years as Rural Affairs Minister: when the LibDems went into Opposition, he became Health Spokesman), and you'd expect that a trusted frontbencher would just move to a different, vacant portfolio in a reshuffle - in this case, Education in a straight swap with Murdo Fraser, or Justice. But not this time. Clearly, there has been an expression of only limited confidence in Mary Scanlon on the part of Annabel Goldie, and one has to wonder what the future holds for Scanlon if she does seek, and win, re-election in 2011.

But what about the fustiness or otherwise of the Tories? Well, in the first place, it depends on how you define it. If you're linking it to age, and you shouldn't, then you have to define at what age one does cease to be fit to serve. And it's interesting that Kenneth Clarke, seven years the retiring Bill Aitken's senior, has just been appointed to the post of (funnily enough) Justice Minister and Lord Chancellor. So if he's fit for that, then Bill Aitken and all the Tory MSPs mentioned above are fit to carry on. Similarly, next month, Clarke will reach his 40th Anniversary of being elected to Parliament for the first time. The Scottish Parliament is only eleven years old. Again, if he's fit to carry on, so are the MSPs.

And besides, with one known retirement, with boundary changes basically gifting the Tories two extra seats, and with uncertainty about whether or not Presiding Officer Alex Fergusson will seek re-election and if so, with what styling (his two predecessors quit Parliament at the end of their term) then there are three, possibly four potential new faces who will be tasked with defending a Conservative seat.

In Central Scotland, Margaret Mitchell has been the Party's sole MSP since 2003, so can hardly be described as a 'bed-blocker'. And despite having no portfolio at all and being exiled to Convenership of the Equal Opportunities Committee, it's hard to think of a credible local replacement.

We know that Bill Aitken is standing down as an MSP for Glasgow in 2011 after 12 years.

The Highlands & Islands cohort is in need of the most renewal: Mary Scanlon was an MSP since 1999, save for a year out of Parliament following her attempt to win Moray, and her replacement, Dave Petrie, ended up ranked fifth on the Tory list in 2007. Jamie McGrigor has been in situ continuously since the formation of the devolved Parliament. If new blood is needed, it's here.

In Lothian, it's a different story: David McLetchie has been an MSP since 1999 but is something of a big hitter in the Scottish Tories, while up-and-coming Gavin Brown was only elected in 2007. That's a reasonable mix.

In Mid Scotland and Fife, none of the sitting MSPs were elected in 1999: Murdo Fraser came in two years later, following the resignation of Nick Johnston; Ted Brocklebank was third in the 2003 rankings (when sitting MSP Keith Harding was ranked fifth and ended up defecting to the People's Alliance), and remained there in 2007, where he was overtaken by Liz Smith, who was able to capitalise on Brian Monteith's departure from the party. So this region has had some pretty high Tory turnover anyway.

North East Scotland has Alex Johnstone, MSP since 1999, Nanette Milne, MSP since 2003, and a vacant Regional slot thanks to the extra SNP Constituency in Angus North & Mearns. So there is, unless the Tories go backwards, scope for new blood anyway.

South Scotland sees the Presiding Officer Alex Fergusson as the only remaining Tory member of the Class of 1999 (Phil Gallie stood down in 2007, Murray Tosh failed to be re-elected that year and David Mundell headed to Westminster in 2005), with his elevation to the Chair making John Scott in Ayr the longest-serving Tory MSP in the South, having won the 2000 By-Election. Derek Brownlee replaced Mundell in 2005, while John Lamont entered Holyrood in 2007 having won Roxburgh & Berwickshire. Assuming the PO stands down, there's a Tory vacancy in Galloway & West Dumfries. The thing is, former MP Peter Duncan is probably the likeliest candidate given the fact that a return to Westminster isn't on the cards until the day of the 2015 Holyrood election, so he won't exactly be a breath of fresh air either. But Brownlee and Lamont provide the youth anyway.

West Scotland, meanwhile, may well have Annabel Goldie as a member since 1999, but as Leader, she's obviously untouchable. Jackson Carlaw only took a seat in 2007, but the redrawn Eastwood sees the Tories gain a seat in the Region overall, creating a vacancy.

So there is still some freshness in Tory ranks, and plenty of scope for new blood. But to get at it in any major way, they'll need to shed some of the old blood. The question is, if the sitting tenants won't leave, will the members evict them?

In the Highlands especially, they may have to.

The Sunday Whip

This was a relatively tranquil week, with the sweet-smelling flowers of consensus blooming around Holyrood. So much so that no votes at all were taken on Wednesday: MSPs noted the Local Government & Communities Committee's Report on the Local Government Finance Inquiry, then agreed four SSIs: the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 (Automatic Listing) (Specified Criteria) Order 2010, the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 (Relevant Offences) (Modification) Order 2010, the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 (Modification of Regulated Work with Children) Order 2010 and the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 (Modification of Regulated Work with Adults) Order 2010.

Even Thursday was relatively harmonious, and there were thirteen absentees: Wendy Alexander (Lab, Paisley North), Shadow Health Secretary Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton), Margaret Curran (Lab, Glasgow Baillieston), Rhoda Grant (Lab, Highlands & Islands), Cathy Jamieson (Lab, Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley), Shadow Finance Secretary Andy Kerr (East Kilbride), Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians), LibDem Local Government Spokesperson Alison McInnes (North East Scotland), John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West), LibDem Leader Tavish Scott (Shetland), LibDem Education Spokesperson Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West), Nicol Stephen (LD, Aberdeen South) and Jamie Stone (LD, Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross).

Anyway. First came Labour's motion on the Protection of Workers. The SNP amendment was waved through, but the Tory amendment was defeated by 59 (SNP, LibDems and Greens) to 16, with the 40 Labour MSPs abstaining. The LibDem amendment passed by 73 (SNP, Tories and LibDems) to 0 with 42 abstentions. The amended motion then passed on the nod:

That the Parliament believes that further measures need to be taken to deter violence against shop workers and other workers delivering a service to the public; notes with concern the finding of the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey 2008-09 that, of those adults who had jobs involving contact with the general public, 35% had experienced either verbal abuse or physical abuse; recognises that there has been a 78% increase in violence and abuse against Scottish shop workers over the last three years, according to Retailers Against Crime; welcomes the Freedom from Fear campaign organised by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW), which seeks to make shops and shopping areas safer for staff and customers; acknowledges the efforts of the trade union movement as a whole to highlight the continuing problems of violence for those workers with direct contact with the public; recognises that there have been year-on-year increases in prosecutions under the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005; believes that the Parliament and the Scottish Government should take further action to ensure that workers can carry out their duties without facing violence or intimidation by accepting that a comprehensive approach to changing Scotland's relationship with alcohol is required, which includes effective enforcement of existing laws and innovative, evidence-based policies; recognises that attacks on public sector workers are treated with gravity under existing law, and believes that effective prosecution through the courts of such offences and the further development of non-legislative measures, including evidence sharing and partnership working, are an appropriate response to violence against workers delivering a public service.

Then came the Government motion on High Speed Rail. A Labour amendment passed by 99 (everyone but the Tories) to 16, which pre-empted the Tory amendment. A LibDem amendment then fell by 87 (SNP/Labour) to 28 (Tories/LibDems/Greens). The motion itself passed without dissent:

That the Parliament welcomes the work of High Speed Two, Greengauge21, the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee and Network Rail, among others, which have developed the case for high-speed rail in the United Kingdom during the last year; notes the strong economic and environmental case for extending high-speed rail to Scotland; notes the opportunity to engage with the new Westminster administration to secure Scotland's place in a UK high-speed rail network, and supports work to bring high-speed rail to Scotland at the earliest opportunity, as well as supporting interim steps to reduce rail journey times between Scotland and London.

Finally, MSPs agreed to an SNP Committee reshuffle.

And that was that. Next week, we see Stage 1 of the Forth Crossing Bill, Tory Business (a chance for the new frontbenchers to step up, perhaps?) and a Government debate on Progress Towards 18 Week Referral to Treatment.

A Vision of the Scottish Tory Frontbench

As Andrew notes, word has got round that Annabel Goldie has reshuffled her Frontbench in advance of the election.

Murdo Fraser remains as Deputy Leader, but moves to the Health portfolio, replacing Mary Scanlon. Liz Smith takes over as Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Education having been a junior spokesperson on the subject.

Bill Aitken, who has announced his intention to stand down from Holyrood in 2011 - and if the Tories select anyone other than Ruth Davidson as his prospective replacement then they deserve to lose their Regional seat in Glasgow - has left his front bench role in the Justice portfolio, to be replaced by John Lamont, who was a junior Justice spokesperson and only a fortnight ago was trying to change Parliaments.

Derek Brownlee remains at Finance, John Scott is still at Rural Affairs, David McLetchie remains Chief Whip and is confirmed as Campaign Manager (perhaps unwise, given that he held that post for the election just passed, which was not a roaring success for the Scottish Conservatives), while Gavin Brown becomes "Political Adviser to the Leader".

So what can we say, aside from wondering quite what Gavin Brown's role actually entails (or who was advising the Leader beforehand)? Firstly, Fraser's appointment to Health perhaps suggests that this will be a key campaign issue for the Tories - why else would Goldie appoint the Deputy Leader to the portfolio if it weren't? And what happened to Mary Scanlon? Has she irked Ms Goldie? Or is she standing down like her fellow 1947 baby Bill Aitken, who is after all only six weeks older than her? If he's going, then you can see why she'd be going too. Incidentally, if this is the case, can we expect Ted Brocklebank and Nanette Milne, both born in 1942, to depart as well? If so, this would represent a relatively major infusion of new blood for the Tory Group.

Liz Smith's elevation to the Shadow Cabinet for a subject on which she has been speaking anyway makes sense. And on that basis, it makes sense to appoint John Lamont to Justice as well: he has been speaking on that brief anyhow. Nevertheless, on the basis that Lamont was seeking to head South earlier on this month, this is a little embarrassing, and it speaks volumes about the Group as it is presently composed that Goldie had to bite the bullet, perform the straight promotion and appoint him. Was there no one else? Apparently not. Clearly that infusion is more of a transfusion, and is needed urgently.

One final point: this is a screenshot of the Scottish Tories' MSPs' page, taken this evening:

You'll notice, as I did, that it still has Fraser in the Education portfolio, Aitken at Justice and Scanlon at Health. While the news release was posted on the website, the rest of the pages have not yet been updated.

How embarrassing it is for the Scottish Tories, that not even their Webmaster notices a frontbench reshuffle!

Two Visions of the Scottish Tories

Was there an election on the other week? If you were a Scottish Tory, you'd have struggled to notice. They went into the campaign with one seat, and 15.8% of the Scottish vote at Westminster. They go into this Parliament with one seat and 16.7% of the vote. Oh dear.

David Mundell managed to increase his majority, but the Tories did have 11 seats on their shopping list. Their vote actually went down in neighbouring seat (and top target) Dumfries & Galloway. John Lamont, who fought Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk in 2005 and has been the MSP for Roxburgh & Berwickshire since 2007 couldn't even manage a 1% swing against Michael Moore. Their hope of moving from third to first in Edinburgh South was dashed when they lost votes there, and they at least managed an increase in their vote in Edinburgh South West, but still saw a net swing to Alistair Darling there, and with a net 3.2% swing to Jim Murphy in East Renfrewshire, the Tories in East Renfrewshire failed to produce a 'Portillo Moment'. There was even a swing against the Tories in Stirling (how many disabled people did Anne McGuire have to sack to lose this seat?), while the SNP increased its majority in Angus and Perth & North Perthshire. It was the LibDem-held seats - Argyll & Bute and West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine - that provided the Tories with their best results on the 'hit list': swings of 2.7% and 4.9% respectively. Not great.

But then, the premise of the Tory campaign was - and let's not mince words here - utter shite. Its basis appeared to be that England was going to vote in a Tory Government, so the Scots might as well jump on the bandwagon.

But Scotland chose not to jump on the bandwagon. Scotland's support for Labour may have waned somewhat in recent years, but it seems as though there was a collective decision to hold onto Nurse for fear of something worse. And so, with the LibDems coming third in Scotland, England and Wales, and the Tories coming first in England, second in Wales but fourth in Scotland (and with UCUNF coming fourth in Northern Ireland with a sum total of no seats), it's clear that Scotland has been decidedly less enthusiastic than other parts of the UK about the coming Government. And those suggesting that the Coalition has an enhanced mandate when you add the LibDem and Tory figures together might do well to bear in mind that the combined total of the two parties' votes in Scotland is still less than Labour's total poll. The combined votes of the Coalition might well have come first in England and indeed in Wales, but it still came second in Scotland, so the 64% of Scottish voters who voted for someone other than the governing parties might well have differing views of the constitutional niceties of the UK, but you can, I think, forgive them some wariness at what they see emerging from Westminster.

And, let's face it, the Cameron-Goldie combination has not set the heather alight: its vote increased by a paltry 1% in the Westminster elections; it went down 1% in the European elections; barely moved on the Holyrood Constituency vote and fell by 1.6% on the Regional vote. So it's a given that the Tories as they are presently constituted do not resonate in Scotland.

So the Tories have not got off on the right foot with Scotland. And given the circumstances we find ourselves in, the Tory-led Government has to take some ugly, ugly decisions which will reverberate. A government that isn't popular anyway is going to have to take steps which will make it even less popular.

Which brings us neatly to 2011. With Annabel Goldie not setting the heather alight, and with the sole Tory MP David Mundell being given the job of Minister of State at the Scotland Office - essentially the guy who gets Danny Alexander's coffee, and remember that Alexander was basically Nick Clegg's typist (well, I'm applying some dramatic licence there, but probably not all that much) - the Tories are surely in real trouble to hold on to what they have next year.

For example, the Tories have three seats in Mid Scotland & Fife. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that they could lose one of them. Boundary changes in the North East given them an extra Regional seat there - an unpopular Tory Government at Westminster could put that at risk. And Ken McIntosh's re-election prospects in Eastwood probably look a little brighter now than they did a fortnight ago. And if the Tories were to lose their seats in either Central Scotland or Glasgow - it's not impossible - then it would be a calamity: they'd be the first of the Big 4 parties to find themselves with full Regional gaps in their Parliamentary team. Until now, all of the Big 4 have managed at least one seat in every region, in every election. A growing hostility to David Cameron could end that next year.

But there's one problem with that analysis: it's based on the Coalition being a disaster.

What if the Coalition exceeds expectations? And let's be honest, that isn't hard.

We all talk about the hostility to Margaret Thatcher, but we forget that one month after she entered Downing Street for the first time (though in those days she had 22 Scottish MPs), the Tories 'won' the European Election in Scotland, and despite losing a seat overall in 1983, it was 1987 when they lost half their Scottish seats and the slow death of Tory Scotland began, culminating in the 1997 annihilation. In short, it took eight years for real hostility to creep into proceedings. Perhaps the first sign of trouble was surely the 1984 European election, but even that served only to bring Tory support down to the level that would have been reasonably expected at that time.

What if the Coalition makes itself look responsible? What if that gives the Tories new credibility?

Then it's a whole new ball game. An extra set in Lothian? Why not? Finally unseating Roseanna Cunningham? Why not? Coming through the middle in Stirling? Why not? Winning Dumfriesshire? Again, why not? A relevant Tory party? It's not impossible.

The Coalition that poses so many risks for the Tories also affords so many opportunities if they know how to act on them.

But despite the noises made by David Cameron on Friday, I don't think they will. The Tories have been out of office for 13 years, the Labour Government looked tired and out of ideas, yet the best reaction the Tories have had in Scotland over the last few years appears to be, "Ummm... Naaahhhh!"

Even if they don't turn it into outright hostility, I just don't think the Tories are capable of advancing. The Scottish HQ is moving into the Edinburgh North & Leith Constituency Association. The candidate in East Renfrewshire is talking about the party changing. Norman Tebbit wants to cut it loose from the UK organisation altogether.

That's not a party that's ready for any advance. I suspect the darker vision for the Tories is closer to the immediate future.

The Sunday Whip

A quiet-ish week, doubtless as attention was still turned to the shenanigans at Westminster, and the formation of the Coalition Government there.

Anyway. Wednesday was mostly consensual, with only one vote taken. There were twenty absentees: Rhona Brankin (Lab, Midlothian), Ted Brocklebank (Con, Mid Scotland & Fife), Margaret Curran (Lab, Glasgow Baillieston), Helen Eadie (Lab, Dunfermline East), George Foulkes (Lab, Lothians), Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale), Cathy Jamieson (Lab, Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley), Bill Kidd (SNP, Glasgow), Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians), Tricia Marwick (SNP, Central Fife), Enterprise Minister Jim Mather (Argyll & Bute), LibDem Local Government Spokesperson Alison McInnes (North East Scotland), Ian McKee (SNP, Lothians), Margaret Mitchell (Con, Central Scotland), John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West), Mike Pringle (LD, Edinburgh South), LibDem Leader Tavish Scott (Shetland), Shadow Public Health Minister Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland & Fife), Jim Tolson (LD, Dunfermline West) and Shadow Children's Minister Karen Whitefield (Airdrie & Shotts).

They missed the passage of the Business Motions without dissent, of course. And a European and External Affairs Committee motion on the European Commission's Work Programme:

That the Parliament welcomes the European Commission Work Programme, published by the European Commission on 31 March 2010; notes that it is likely to inform European Union policy for the next five years, and supports in particular the proposals for delivering a new economic strategy (Europe 2020) and allied platform to combat poverty, the commitment to further develop renewable energy and the energy grid, the recognition of the need to reform both the Common Fisheries Policy and the Common Agricultural Policy and the desire to restructure the European Union's budget.

Then came the Government motion on the Zero Waste Plan: Labour and Tory amendments were passed without quibble, but a LibDem amendment went to a vote, and passed by 49 (Lab/LD) votes to 43 (SNP) with 16 (Tory/Green) abstentions. The amended motion was waved through:

That the Parliament notes the need for a coherent zero-waste policy approach to encourage waste prevention and efficient use of all resources; supports measures to increase recycling and deliver high-quality recycled materials, to ensure resources are recovered and treated in the most environmentally beneficial way and to minimise the disposal of resources into landfill; looks to the forthcoming Zero Waste Plan for Scotland to provide clear long-term policy stability for the necessary investment to deliver a zero-waste Scotland and to address the concerns raised in the Audit Scotland report, Protecting and improving Scotland's environment, that councils need additional waste management facilities to meet national landfill and recycling targets; considers that greater encouragement to recycle and reuse must be given to the commercial and industrial sector and that a focus must be placed on ensuring that the necessary infrastructure is created and put in place in moving toward a zero-waste society; regrets the delay in the publication of the Zero Waste Plan, and recognises the necessity of meeting EU landfill diversion targets in order to avoid potentially punitive fines.

The General Principles of the William Simpson's Home (Transfer of Property etc.) (Scotland) Bill were approved on the nod, and the Bureau motions were waved through.

Thursday had a little more meat, and fewer absentees: Karen Gillon, Rhoda Grant (Lab, Highlands & Islands), Hugh Henry (Lab, Paisley South), Margo MacDonald, Alison McInnes, Ian McKee, John Farquhar Munro, Mike Pringle and Labour Chief Whip David Stewart (Highlands & Islands).

First came Stage 1 of the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill. A Labour amendment to the motion fell by 64 (SNP/Tory/Green) votes to 55, but the motion itself passed by 64 votes to 0 with 55 abstentions, and the Financial Resolution passed on the nod.

Finally, there was the Government motion on the NHS Scotland Quality Strategy. A Labour amendment fell by 62 (SNP/Tory) votes to 55 (Lab/LD) with two Green abstentions, the Tory amendment was waved through and the LibDem amendment fell by 62 to 57. The motion itself was passed without further dissent:

That the Parliament commends The Healthcare Quality Strategy for NHSScotland as the right approach, at the right time, to delivering the highest quality healthcare to everybody in Scotland, responding to what they want, need and deserve and, through this, to ensuring that the quality of healthcare services across NHS Scotland becomes recognised as among the best in the world, and calls on the Scottish Government to report back to the Parliament by the end of summer recess on how it intends to respond to the needs highlighted in the report, The Healthcare Quality Strategy for NHSScotland, in order to protect NHS frontline services.

Though, had I been there, I would have challenged the absence of a space in "NHSScotland".

And that's it for another week. Next week, there's a Local Government Committee debate on Local Government Finance, Labour Business on Thursday morning, and a Government debate on the High Speed Rail Link.

The Magic Roundabout

This seems to sum up the state of politics at the moment. The Prime Minister - for that is what he is, remember - has announced that he is continuing merely in a caretaker capacity regardless of the outcome of coalition talks. He has announced his resignation of the Leadership of the Labour Party. However long it takes to find a new Leader, it's clear that whatever happens, the UK will have a new Prime Minister in time for the Conference season.

It's clear that, just as Con-LibDem talks have inevitably reached impasse at discussions of electoral reform, Lab-LibDem talks weren't going to seriously get off the ground if the successful outcome of such negotiations kept Gordon Brown in Downing Street. Brown has come to the same conclusion as others in his party did months, even years ago: that he is the primary barrier to continued office for the Labour Party. There will, I suspect, be more than a handful of defeated former MPs who wish that this epiphany had visited their Leader a year ago.

But still, we are where we are, and the outgoing Prime Minister (as he now is) produced a statement that was measured and dignified. I've noticed that it's often the closing moments of a Leader's tenure that brings out their best. Perhaps it's the feeling of freedom that comes with knowing that no matter what they do, the outcome is pre-determined. No one wants to breathe down your neck when you're heading for the exit. Perhaps it's the reverse, the sense that this is their last chance to make an impact. Go out with a bang. Leave them wanting more.

In any case, there appear to be four permutations of Government.

The first is the combination for which we've been bracing ourselves for the past couple of days, until the events of the past few hours blew it out of the water - the Tory-LibDem Coalition. This would (in England, at least) come with the perceived legitimacy of involving the first-placed party. But then, it smacks of a traditional first-past-the-post approach to politics: why would the LibDems support the Tories just because they're first? It would, however, be the only pairing (save a highly improbable Grand Coalition) with a majority in the Commons: 362 seats. The problem, however, is that although the maths favour this arrangement, the relations between the parties do not. It's clear that on electoral reform alone, it's been a massive stretch just to get the Tories to propose a referendum on Alternative Vote - which is still not far enough for LibDem tastes. Besides, this isn't like the Lab-LibDem Coalition in Scotland from 1999 to 2007. In that case, Labour's primary challengers in most of its constituency contests were the SNP. For the LibDems, they faced off against the Tories in their main battles. There were few Labour/LibDem contests. This time, there were a wave of battles where the Tories and LibDems were locked in combat. These contests were dotted all around Britain, but they were concentrated in the West Country and along the South Coast. Did, for example, LibDem voters in Wells just eject a sitting Tory MP to see their successful candidate support a Tory Government? I doubt it. And of course, many Tories will be horrified that the LibDems were flirting with Labour while dating the Tories. Whatever trust, whatever rapport, has been built up over the past week has surely been eroded. While expedient, this combination would not be stable and would not contain natural bedfellows.

Then there's the alternative, the First Past the Post approach: a Tory minority Government. It would be ideologically pure, and neither the Tories nor the LibDems would need to debase themselves too much in negotiations. At least, not this week. But the Tories only have 305 seats and they need 326. And while LibDems would have influence, it's questionable how well they'd be able to implement their policies from the Opposition benches - membership of a Coalition would surely get the chance to make some progress... wouldn't it? This is the dilemma the LibDems face.

But there's perhaps another way: a Labour-LibDem Coalition. The two parties are undoubtedly closer: they have clashed on matters such as civil liberties, foreign affairs and defence but the crazy thing is that most Labour supporters probably favour the LibDem approach in the first place! And on the main point of contention - electoral reform - Labour's starting point is the Tories' final offer: the referendum on AV. The party could go further (though Coalition Whips could do to lock Tom Harris in a cupboard somewhere). The scope is there. But Clegg has effectively determined who is (or at lest, who is not) Leader of the Labour Party. That ain't right: members of political parties announce who they want to lead rival parties as a joke (e.g. Labour MSPs supporting Dorothy-Grace Elder as SNP Leader, SNP Members wanting George Foulkes to lead Labour, and so on). But it's not great for the LibDems either: the person in charge when they negotiate isn't the person who'll be in charge four months down the line. And they don't know who that person is. Who will they be working with? They don't know. That ain't good. Besides, Labour and the LibDems only have 315 seats - also short of a majority. Even if you factor in the SDLP and Alliance, that comes to only 319. It's not ideal and it won't get the majority needed.

To get that, you need the so-called 'Progressive Alliance', as floated by Alex Salmond. Assume that 319 seats are in the bag: add the SNP and Plaid and you get 328. And it's certainly in the interest of the two parties to back a Lab-LibDem Coalition. At least, it's in the interest of the SNP to do so: if after 13 years in Government the Labour vote share in Scotland can increase by more than the Tory vote, then when forced to choose which side they're on, the SNP have only one way to go and this is it. Caroline Lucas would almost certainly prefer this to the alternative. So would Sylvia Hermon. Even the DUP would see this as preferable to a Tory Government given the likelihood that Northern Ireland could be on the wrong end of particularly hefty budget cuts, but on the other hand, there have been talks between the Tories, UUP and DUP before now and with both Peter Robinson and Sir Reg Empey having a bad night on Thursday, the path is clear for new leaders who might make the first tentative steps towards Unionist unity. Given UCUNF's poor showing, however, what links such a movement would have with the Conservatives is unclear. Whatever happens, the votes for such an alliance are there, but the amount of negotiation involved would make it unwieldy. It surely wouldn't last very long: it wouldn't take much for one part of the grouping to get pissed off and trigger its downfall. Then there's the principle: if you argue that the Tories don't have a mandate to govern Scotland and Wales on the grounds that they didn't come first there (there's that FPTP politics again), you have to accept that Labour don't have a mandate to govern in England. Then there's the sight of a wave of parties who have spent the last 13 years opposing the Labour Government jumping on board to support it, particularly when the Labour Party is sufficiently weak that its Leader announces his intention to resign four days after polling day. It seems... off, somehow.

So we have four options, all of which have strengths and weaknesses. It's going to be a while before this gets sorted out, and we know who's in charge - at least for the Spring. But by Parliamentary standards, it's not going to be long at all before we do this all over again.

And that's another calculation: 18 months in opposition for Labour could see them back in Government if the Tories struggle on. An 18 month Progressive Alliance could end up ushering in another 18 years of Tory Government at the end. Whatever the parties decide now, they should surely understand that what plans they make for this Parliament will impact on the course of the next one.

But then, under the circumstances, perhaps we should be grateful that one leader at least is looking as far ahead as this year's Party Conferences.

The Sunday Whip

Well, this one is easy. There were no substantive motions up for a vote this week on account of there being no meeting on Thursday and Wednesday being taken up mostly with Question Time - in fact, the only decisions MSPs needed to take were on the Business Motions, which were waved through.

So for the record, next week, we'll see a European and External Relations Committee Debate on the European Commission Legislative Work Programme, Government Debates on the Zero Waste Plan and NHS Quality Strategy, and the initial stages of the William Simpson's Home (Transfer of Property etc.) (Scotland) Bill and Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill.

Maybe, just maybe, MSPs' minds will be concentrated on their own mandates now. Well, except for Margaret Curran and Cathy Jamieson, who I think under the circumstances, can probably be forgiven for heading to Westminster and attending to the confusion there...

So what about this 'Progressive Alliance' then?

Alex Salmond has today floated the possibility of a 'Progressive Alliance', which basically would involve everyone but the Tories.

It would, of course, involve Labour (258 seats) and the LibDems (57). They still wouldn't command a majority (they'd have only 315), but it wouldn't obviously involve the SNP and Plaid, with nine seats together: that would yield a total of 324: enough under the circumstances, but would also involve the SDLP's three MPs, pushing it over the line. It would probably involve Caroline Lucas and the Alliance's Naomi Long as well. That makes 329 MPs.

And each of the parties involved has a precedent for working with others. The SDLP take the Labour Whip. I have it on the most excellent authority that Naomi Long will take the LibDem Whip. The SNP and Plaid are in close co-operation and sit together in the European Free Alliance Group in the European Parliament, which is tied up with the Greens so will have been working alongside Caroline Lucas for nearly eleven years.

As well as that, Labour are in coalition with Plaid in the Welsh Assembly, while they have been in Coalition with the LibDems in both Scotland (1999-2007) and Wales (2000-03). And as a result of the vote on the new Northern Irish Justice Minister, the SDLP's Margaret Ritchie now finds herself working with the Alliance's David Ford.

So the precedents are there. But really, it's not going to happen. And it shouldn't happen.

For this to work, it needs a massive array of parties to get round a table and negotiate - it's far too unwieldy. And it also requires a lot of people to get over a lot of psychological barriers due to the mutual hostility between some of the parties that's accumulated over the years. Plus which, as Jonathan Calder notes, Labour have basically laughed the idea out of the room and by extension, laughed themselves onto the Opposition benches. Well, after spending the campaign warning of the dangers of a Tory Government, if they would prefer to usher one in rather than work with the SNP, that's their circle to square!

But more importantly, it just doesn't seem right to keep Labour in office: they've been in office for thirteen years, and now find themselves shorn of their majority by the electorate. They may well be in first place in Scotland and Wales, and the alternative may well have come a poor fourth in Scotland and Northern Ireland - but the bottom line is that overall, Labour have lost first place in the UK as a whole.

Besides, I just argued in favour of a minority Government and I can't change my tune just because this Coalition wouldn't involve the Tories. A minority Government is the best solution and a Labour minority Government, under the circumstances, just isn't credible.

And I hate to say this, but how would the First Minister have liked it if, two days after the 2007 Holyrood Election, Annabel Goldie or Nicol Stephen had come out in favour of a 'Unionist alliance' which would have come together to deny him office as this proposal would deny David Cameron? He'd be sick, and rightly so.

So no, I don't see this idea working or beneficial. I don't want a Tory Government either, but sadly, there comes a time where we have to just bite the bullet and accept firstly that it's coming, and secondly that it has to come now, like it or not. And let's face it, if Labour arrogance is going to help bring it about anyway, then what else can we do?

Memo to LibDems: RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!

This started life as a comment on Caron's post about her attitude to a Con-LD Coalition, and her preference for no deal and a minority Government. I have to say that if I were a LibDem, I would agree with her.

Firstly, it's political suicide. It's my observation that the party probably views Labour as its preferred partner, if it has one. That's certainly been the case when it's had to choose between the SNP and Labour, and I'd be very surprised if it were not the case in the UK context where the choice is between the Tories and Labour. To see their party ally itself with the Conservatives would be a sore one for many supporters, I suspect.

Moreover, my feeling is that many of the converts to the LibDems over the last decade went there because they saw the party as one (or both) of two things: a viable, progressive alternative to Labour (so left-leaning voters), and a change that wasn't the Conservative party (people who might not like Labour anymore, but can't stomach the Tories). Neither of these groups would be overly chuffed if the LibDems joined a David Cameron Government. By my reckoning, that could call anything up to one fifth of the LibDem vote into question.

But they might put up with it, right? Don't bank on it. Because for the LibDems, there is now a ticking time-bomb on the green benches, and her name is Caroline Lucas. The SNP know all too well that one Green MSP in 1999 led to seven in 2003 (and indeed, that one SSP MSP in 1999 led to six in 2003). And indeed, what marked the start of the SNP's advance to the mainstream of Scottish politics? Winnie Ewing's win in Hamilton in 1967, augmented by Donald Stewart, the first SNP MP elected in a General Election in 1970. That was the sign that the SNP had 'made it' and provided the foothold for Margo MacDonald's win in Glasgow Govan in 1973, then the election of seven MPs going up to eleven in 1974. As the SNP gained its foothold four decades ago, so the Greens have their foothold now. If the LibDems start looking right, the left-leaning voters, and the ones who want a real change and wish to 'break the mould' as the saying went, might, in their eyes, have a new, credible destination should they feel that the LibDems, in dealing with the Tories, no longer offer what they expected. In short, it's a big political risk.

And I advise LibDems rationalising that a Coalition with the Tories is less bad than the alternative - to whit, a Tory minority Government with DUP support - that this has only 313 seats (doubtless 314 after the Thirsk & Malton By-Election). That's still short of a majority (with the Speaker not usually voting, but backing the Government in a tie, and with Sinn Fein boycotting the chamber, the required number is 322). The SNP have, sensing that anyone who touches the Tories will be severely punished at the ballot box in next year's Holyrood election, ruled out any deal with the Conservatives and have proposed a progressive alliance which basically encapsulates everyone else. Plaid, on the other hand, have not ruled out a Tory deal, but their three seats take the Tories only up to 316-7. Sylvia Hermon ruled out working with the Tories, and Carolne Lucas won't fancy the idea either. Even if they did, that would still be 318-9. The Tories need the LibDems for a majority. End of.

But more importantly, what about the principle? And this was the basis of the comment I would have left for Caron. By accepting the 'national interest' line of these talks, the LibDems are in real danger of accepting the Cameron-Osborne premise that 'strong government' is the answer. I see three flaws with this.

A Coalition is not necessarily a 'strong' government. Obviously, there's always the possibility of backbench rebellions in two parties, but more than that, in the rush to chew over the state of the Commons, we are all overlooking the current state of the Lords: out of 707 members of the Upper House, 186 are Tories and 72 are LibDems. That makes a total of 258, putting a Coalition some 96 seats short of a majority unless David Cameron and Nick Clegg agree to create a lot of peerages. That means we still have a minority Government in one House and I'm not sure how the Salisbury Convention would stand up to a Coalition agreement. Budgets won't be a problem but every other piece of legislation would be at risk. It would get on the statute books eventually, but would require the use of the Parliament Act so delaying the passage of any controversial legislation by a year. As a consensus-based, issue-by-issue approach is going to be needed in the Lords whatever happens, so it may as well be the default option for the Commons.

And even if the Coalition is 'strong', is it a 'strong' government that's best, or a stable one? The reason Coalitions worked in Scotland, the reason the One Wales Government looks to be capable of reaching the end of its term next year, the reason they work so well in Germany, is that the Parliamentary term is fixed so the Government can set out a clear, detailed, four-year (or however long) work programme, and where there is an impasse, the parties get that they have a clear mandate to respect and either a mid-term change of government or early election seems improper unless (as in Germany in 2005 when the SPD-Green Coalition lost its majority in the Bundesrat) there is no viable way forward. As elections can be called (or not called) on Prime Ministerial whim in the UK system, the obvious concern is that any impasse could be broken with the nuclear option, either by Cameron going to the Palace or Clegg and his colleagues crossing the floor, tabling a No Confidence Motion and forcing an election. As snap elections called by Prime Ministers (and, as we know all too well, ones forced by opposition parties) over just one issue are not without precedent, there's no guarantee that Coalition will lead to a sustainable Parliament or enduring Government. By contrast, a minority Government can be stable as Scotland again has shown, as it forces opposition parties to be responsible and act in the national interest rather than cynical opportunism. When they don't live up to that expectation, they're the ones at risk of punishment at the ballot box. In short, a minority Government that can reach deals with other parties on individual pieces of legislation might be more stable than a Coalition existing in a system that wasn't designed for them.

Next, even if a Coalition is both strong and stable, is it a strong government that's best, or a strong Parliament? Let's face it, strong governments gave us the Poll Tax, tuition fees and worst of all, the Iraq War. A government that can simply take unilateral action and just Whip legislation through Parliament is a government destined to make wrong decisions: one that has to either persuade others of its case or makes compromises has a better chance of taking the people with it and retaining their support over tough decisions, while one that isn't capable of, or interested in, agreement from outwith its own camp surely shouldn't be allowed to press ahead with its plans.

In short, if I were a LibDem, the everything would be telling me to back out of this. The only thing is, to walk away and retain credibility, the LibDems need to do so with a positive approach. The circumstances that are leading us to where we are look remarkably similar to the circumstances surrounding the LibDems in 2007: Labour have lost votes and seats; the LibDems expected real progress only to be disappointed in the end; a Labour-LibDem majority isn't possible. There are only two different factors: this time, the leading party is the Tories and not the SNP (obviously), and the LibDems can actually form a majority with the Tories, whereas barring a Grand Coalition of the SNP and Labour, a three-party Coalition was needed in Scotland. And the negativity that came out of the LibDems the weekend after that election was staggering: Tavish Scott unilaterally dismissed a deal with Labour as out of hand on the Politics Show, and his party decided to demand a major policy U-turn from the SNP before negotiations had even begun. I always thought the point of negotiations was that you used them as tool of settling the big issues, either with a compromise or a quid pro quo arrangement, but the LibDems apparently had other ideas.

So instead of the huff that they went into in 2007, they need a different approach, as I argued then. This time, something along the lines of the following should do it:

"Although the electoral system has obviously distorted the views of the electorate, it's clear that they have expressed a view for a balanced Parliament and a new approach to politics. We have come to the conclusion that the best way to honour and respect the wishes of the people is the formation of a minority Government, held to account by a stronger House of Commons. Although we will take our place on the Opposition benches, we pledge not to oppose Government measures simply because we sit on the other side of the House. By remaining outside the Government, we will be free to support it where we agree, and challenge it where we do not. In these difficult times, the Government has a duty to build consensus and work with others across the political spectrum; a Coalition will make this less likely and will serve only to sustain the confrontational politics that has served the country so badly for so long. A minority Government will force all parties - whether in Government or Opposition - to raise their game, see beyond partisan advantage, and work together for the good of the people. We believe that is the way forward."

See? Broadly positive, stressing the advantages of minority Government. It can be done, and for the LibDems, it would be a sight better than either risking being branded "Dave's Little Helpers" or letting negotiations get so far, then flouncing off in a huff.

But let's see what happens...

Where We Are Now

That's it. Save for Thirsk & Malton, which we'll hear from later in the month, the votes are cast and counted. We have a result. Well, after a fashion.

The Tories have 305 seats (the BBC erroneously count Buckingham in the Conservative column - it does not belong there), and a UK-wide swing from Labour of 5%. But most of this is confined to England and Wales. They have 296 seats in England and enjoyed a 5.6% swing. The same swing secured them eight seats in Wales as well as second place in both votes and seats. Scotland, however, remained resistant: the vote increased but by less than 1%, resulting in a net swing to Labour, and David Mundell remains the Tories' sole Commons representative from Scotland. Worse still, their project in Northern Ireland has been a disaster: the UCUNF vote went down (to the extent that the UUP-Tory pact has fallen to fourth place in terms of votes), Sylvia Hermon remains opposed to the Tories and in Westminster, and the one agreed Unionist Unity candidate still couldn't defeat Sinn Fein's Michelle Gildernew in Fermanagh & South Tyrone, though her majority was reduced to just four votes.

Labour have 258 seats, so I think they've held off the worst of what's happened, but while Gordon Brown remains in office on the grounds of constitutional technicality, I don't see him remaining there for long. There would need to be, by my reckoning, five parties involved in any 'progressive' coalition and I just don't think that's sustainable. Labour go down to 191 seats in England (though regain Bethnal Green & Bow from Respect and Chesterfield from the LibDems), but still retain their lead in Wales despite a swing against them: they have 26 seats there and gained Blaenau Gwent. Moreover, the performance in Scotland - increasing their share of the vote, retaining all of their seats and regaining their By-Election losses, is nothing short of staggering. They retain first place not just in Scotland and Wales, but also in London (something Boris Johnson might want to bear in mind) and retain their pre-eminence in Northern England, despite the heavy swings against them. It's the losses in the Midlands - West and East - which appear to have damaged them the most.

What to make of the Liberal Democrats? On a UK level, they have a right to feel cheated: they gained votes, yet lost seats, ending up with a total of 57. The progress in support, yet loss of MPs, took place in England and Wales, but the result is Scotland was surely grim for them. They were the only one of the Big 4 parties to go backwards in terms of votes, and found that bright chapter in their recent history - the Dunfermline & West Fife By-Election - had been unwritten. More significantly, they lost second place in votes to the SNP - despite retaining second place in seats. The one ray of light, bizarrely, comes from Northern Ireland, where the LibDems' sister party, the Alliance, managed to unseat the DUP Leader in Belfast East. If Naomi Long takes the LibDem whip in the Commons (I imagine Stephen will know what's what here), then the LibDems actually have closer links with Northern Ireland than the Tories do.

And as for the SNP? This was, I think, a frustrating night. The SNP gained votes on 2005, and regained second place (though, obviously, the result was some way away from the excellent 2007 and 2009 results), but the advance was less than I had hoped and it didn't result in any gains and Glasgow East reverted to Labour. I think there'll need to be reflection on the campaign - and the result proved that if the TV debates did have an effect, it was limited. Nevertheless, there are bright spots: if some of the swings seen in the Highlands and North East are repeated next year then there'll be a number of key constituency gains and with the politics of Scotland being so clearly distinct from approaches in the rest of the UK, there are a few more philosophical questions to be asked about the nature of Scotland's relationship with Westminster. Unfortunately, philosophical questions don't have votes in the House of Commons, but still, it's not all bad.

Then came the others: this was the end of George Galloway's Parliamentary career, and Respect now have no MPs. Meanwhile, Richard Taylor and Dai Davies lost their seats and Esther Rantzen did not even keep her deposit. However, this was all swept under the carpet with the Green victory in Brighton Pavilion: Greens are now present in the Scottish Parliament, the UK delegation to the European Parliament, the London Assembly and the House of Commons. Winning a First Past the Post election isn't such a shock - they've been doing that on local Councils for years - but this is a massive achievement, especially as the Greens came from third place to first in the process.

So what now? We know that the Tories and LibDems are in preliminary talks, and that William Hague, George Osborne and Oliver Letwin met with Danny Alexander and David Laws tonight, but nothing was agreed. A 'rainbow' deal involving practically everyone but the Tories seems far too unwieldy to work, so to me, it's either this Con-LD Coalition or a Tory Minority Government. Frankly, I am as yet sceptical that a deal can be done, particularly when the Tories offered a deal on issues where the two parties agree, but insisted that those points where the two have different positions were non-negotiable. Trying to negotiate about what you can negotiate about before negotiations have even opened doesn't work - as the Scottish LibDems learned to their cost in 2007.

So the Tories will be in Downing Street, alone, and facing a hostile House of Commons. And on that basis, there'll most likely be another election within the next 12 months: either after the Party Conferences, in March 2011, or in May. And that last possibility suggests that voters in Scotland will face elections to two Parliaments in a year's time. Oh, my...

For the record, there's a Scottish Roundup election special on the way (hopefully to be published at 10pm), and I'll plan to focus my energies on Twitter tonight - with more expansive notes on here as required.

I Kick Men's Asses, and I Vote

The waiting is over. After almost three years of uncertainty, since Brown's ascension to the Premiership, it is the turn of the people to register their opinion. It looks as though it will not be favourable to him, or indeed to many Labour candidates.

Prior to attaining his goal - Leadership of the Labour Party - Brown spent 13 years planning for The Day, when Brown would walk into 10 Downing Street as Prime Minister. But judging by the way the Government has hiccuped from one fiasco to another, it seems that no thought was given to The Day After, when Brown would have to start work. We've seen promises made and broken, we've even seen stark, cold reality denied. Yet somehow, there was surprise that he might have been - surely not! - insincere to a senior citizen last week. He's been insincere to every one of us for years.

Alas, the alternative is less palatable. I can't help but hum the opening bars to Let's Face The Music And Dance: I am still not satisfied that I know what the entry of David Cameron into Downing Street will mean for, well, anyone.

Then there's the dire deception of the Liberal Democrats - "It can be different! Vote for what you believe in!" says Nick Clegg. "Only we can beat the Keep Clackmannanshire Smiling Party! Vote for anyone else, and they won't win!" crow local candidates. "Vote for someone new, vote for change, but not those bastards because they're not relevant to the result!" Vacuous, yet vicious.

So it's a point of frustration that on my ballot paper, there won't be an SNP option: candidates willing to stand up for their constituents rather than roll over to their leadership; a party with clear principles and policies designed to keep the country moving. I would urge those readers (and that's most of you) who have the SNP option on your ballot paper to use it. The SNP Government has spent three years delivering real, positive change at Holyrood as opposed to the stagnation of the previous Executive. That progress needs to be augmented by a solid team of SNP MPs to act as their constituents' voice at Westminster rather than their party's voice in the constituencies.

As for me, I still haven't decided. The three big UK parties don't resonate with me and I don't have a Green candidate to vote for either. My choices are limited and I must reflect on how to act. I take my vote seriously.

And that's why I oppose all calls for tactical voting. Where possible, it's best to vote for what you believe in, otherwise you perpetuate the 'two-horse race' with a pair of nags you didn't really like, the same Hobson's Choice that exasperated you when you looked at the last results. There might be hundreds, perhaps even thousands of people who believe as you do, but vote for something else simply on the strength of a bar chart. Not this time. If you believe in a party, in a policy, or if you simply believe that out of the choice you have, one party's views are closest to your own, then vote for it. With the outcome as uncertain as it is, and a worldwide climate as grim as it is, we need a clear bedrock of principle on which to build a programme. That doesn't mean that we need a clear majority. It does mean that we need candidates whose presence is derived from concrete policies rather than the performance of their party in 2005. We need belief, not barcharts.

But ultimately, my main call is simply to vote. It's easy to say, "Don't vote, it only encourages them" but the reverse is true: could the expenses scandal have spun so wildly out of control had we been paying attention to our politicians? Did the falling turnout tell our representatives that few people were bothered anymore, and they could get away with anything they wanted but no matter how angry we got, we wouldn't do anything about it? I believe that it did: our apathy led to their complacency. Whoever we vote for, by turning up and placing an X in a box, we do send a message: that we are watching. That we are interested. That they will put us first or they will face the consequences. I ask all of you who haven't voted by post already to send that message tomorrow.

My mantra is as it was last year.

I Kick Men's Asses, and I Vote.

The Sunday Whip

One gets the feeling that our MSPs are a little distracted, given how much of this post is going to be taken up by a list of absences rather than anything more substantive. I can't think why.

Anyway. Wednesday saw a huge 34 absences, to the extent that I'm going to have to break them down:

For the SNP: Schools Minister Keith Brown (Ochil), Angela Constance (Livingston), Bob Doris (Glasgow), Culture Minister Fiona Hyslop (Lothians), Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead (Moray), Public Health Minister Shona Robison (Dundee East), Andrew Welsh (Angus) and Sandra White (Glasgow).

For Labour: Wendy Alexander (Paisley North), Shadow Rural Affairs Secretary Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central), Margaret Curran (Glasgow Baillieston, not having cast a single vote since Parliament returned from its Spring recess), Marlyn Glen (North East Scotland), Rhoda Grant (Highlands & Islands), Hugh Henry (Paisley South), Cathy Jamieson (Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley, and like Ms Curran, absent from any vote since the Easter break), Deputy Leader Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok), Marilyn Livingstone (Kirkcaldy), Shadow Sport Minister Frank McAveety (Glasgow Shettleston), Tom McCabe (Hamilton South), Shadow Culture Minister Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin), Shadow Housing Minister Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow), Shadow Environment Minister Elaine Murray (Dumfries), Shadow Cabinet Secretary Without Portfolio John Park (Mid Scotland & Fife), Peter Peacock (Highlands & Islands) and Shadow Finance Minister David Whitton (Strathkelvin & Bearsden).

Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) and John Lamont (Roxburgh & Berwickshire) were absent for the Tories. Both are prospective dual mandate politicians (funny, that), though unlike their Labour counterparts, they did at least manage to put in some form of appearance as recently as last week.

For the LibDems: Local Government Spokesperson Alison McInnes (North East Scotland), John Farquhar Munro (Ross, Skye & Inverness West), Hugh O'Donnell (Central Scotland), Education Spokesperson Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West), Nicol Stephen (Aberdeen South) and Jim Tolson (Dunfermline West).

Both Greens were present (making Robin Harper the only Westminster candidate MSP to turn up this week), but Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians) was not.

Along with the usual quiet agreement to the Business Motion, they missed the amendments to, and passage of, the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Bill. This was an exercise in consensus with no votes being required. However, Stage 1 of the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill did face a vote, but passed by 92 votes to 2, with only the Greens against.

Following that, we had the usual unspoken agreement to an SSI:

That the Parliament agrees that the Census (Scotland) Order 2010 to the extent that it relates to the following particulars in Schedule 2—

(a) item 1;

(b) in item 2, the words "and, as the case may be, where there are 5 or fewer persons in the household, the relationship of each of the previous persons mentioned in the return and where there are 6 or more persons in the household, the relationship of the sixth and subsequent persons to the two previously mentioned persons in the return";

(c) item 7;

(d) in item 8, the words "and, if not born in the United Kingdom, month and year of most recent arrival to live in the United Kingdom";

(e) items 9,10,12,14,17,18,19,20;

(f) in item 21, the words "on a Government sponsored training scheme;"

(g) items 22,27,28,30,31,33,34;

and items 1,2,3 and 4 of Schedule 3 to the Order, be approved.

Thursday's programme was more crowded, even if the Chamber wasn't. The absences were as follows.

For the SNP: Willie Coffey (Kilmarnock & Loudoun), Angela Constance, Joe FitzPatrick (Dundee West), Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North), Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland), Fiona Hyslop, Richard Lochhead, Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow), FM Alex Salmond (Gordon) and Andrew Welsh.

For Labour: Wendy Alexander, Rhona Brankin (Midlothian), Cathie Craigie (Cumbernauld & Kilsyth), Margaret Curran, Helen Eadie (Dunfermline East), Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow Maryhill), Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale), Marlyn Glen, Rhoda Grant, Hugh Henry, Cathy Jamieson, Shadow Community Safety Minister James Kelly (Glasgow Rutherglen), Marilyn Livingstone, Shadow Enterprise Minister Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central), Peter Peacock, Shadow Climate Change Minister Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East) and Shadow Public Health Minister Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland & Fife).

For the Tories, Alex Johnstone and John Lamont were joined on the absentee list by Rural Affairs Spokesman John Scott (Ayr). For the LibDems, the absentees were Environment Spokesman Liam McArthur (Orkney) and John Farquhar Munro. Neither of the Greens were absent, and Margo made an appearance today.

Anyway, onto the actual business. Today we saw two of those rare beasts, Green motions (typical - you wait ages, then two come along at once).

The first was on a Living Wage. An SNP amendment was rejected by 45 (Lab/LD/Green/Margo - John Park missed this one) to 37 with 13 Tory abstentions, while a Labour amendment fell by 67 to 29. A Tory amendment fell by 83 to 13 but the LibDem amendment passed by 64 (SNP/Tory/LD) to 32 (Lab/Green/Margo). The amended motion passed by 68 (SNP/Tories/LibDems/Greens/Margo, plus Labour's Pauline McNeill) to 28:

That the Parliament recognises that unacceptable levels of poverty and income inequality continue to blight Scotland; notes that the income of the richest 10% of people in Scotland is approximately the same as the total income of the poorest 50%; further notes that, among working-age adults, in-work poverty is still on the increase; believes that a more equal society would be a happier, healthier, safer and greener society and that this must become a core objective of government at all levels, and believes that, during the tight financial climate, public sector pay policy should be structured to ensure that those on lower incomes benefit more than those on higher incomes from pay changes.

Next came the motion on democratic reform. A Labour amendment fell by 67 to 29 while a Tory amendment fell by 54 (SNP/LD/Green/Margo) to 13 with 29 abstentions. The motion passed by 54 (SNP/LD/Green/Margo) to 41 (Lab/Tory) with Ted Brocklebank (Con, Mid Scotland & Fife) abstaining:

That the Parliament believes that the current UK general election must be the last to use the discredited first-past-the-post electoral system and that the single transferable vote is the best way to ensure that the public receive the democratic representation that they deserve in future.

Finally, there was a Government motion on changing lives: a confident, competent social care workforce. The Labour amendment was waved through, but a Tory amendment fell by 38 (the SNP plus Labour's Frank McAveety) to 13, with the remaining 45 MSPs (including Margo, who has to do this at least one whenever she's in) abstaining. The motion, however, passed unanimously:

That the Parliament recognises the significant contribution made to the lives of the people of Scotland by all those who work in social services, often in difficult and complex circumstances; agrees the need for a confident, competent and valued social services workforce to deliver safe, effective and personalised practice; notes the work that has been done following the review of social work services, Changing Lives; notes the finding from the performance inspections of the Social Work Inspection Agency that leadership is of critical importance in the performance of social work services; welcomes the focus on leadership being jointly taken forward by the Scottish Social Services Council and the four social services learning networks; endorses the need for political, operational and professional leadership and engagement to support and develop the social services workforce; while acknowledging the important role of the social work and social care workforce in supporting and protecting people across the whole age spectrum, notes the impact of changing demographics and, in particular, the increase in the older population on the demand for services, as indicated by the Social Work Inspection Agency report, Improving Social Work in Scotland, which estimates that by 2018 the number of people aged 85 and over will have increased by 40%, and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that social care services are sufficiently prepared and resourced accordingly, taking into account the fact that many older people are themselves carers.

And that was the week that was. Next week, business has been cleverly arranged to the extent that it will consist of no debates, save Members' Business, and Question Time has been moved to Wednesday. They're all too busy to show up on Thursday, apparently...