The Sunday Whip

A quiet week, one that sums up that coming-towards-the-end-of-term-but-not-quite-there-yet-oh-look-is-there-footy-on-today?-ooh-yes-so-there-is-let's-do-a-bunk atmosphere that's pervading, well, most of Western society, I daresay.

Anyway. Wednesday saw only one vote, on Stage 1 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which passed by 96 (SNP/Lab/LD/Green) votes to 16 with no abstentions and a longish absentee list: Rhona Brankin (Lab, Midlothian), Margaret Curran (Lab, Glasgow Baillieston), Cathy Jamieson (Lab, Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley), Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead (Moray), Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians), Jack McConnell (Lab, Motherwell & Wishaw), Shadow Culture Minister Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin), John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West), Irene Oldfather (Lab, Cunninghame South), Mike Pringle (LD, Edinburgh South), LibDem Leader Tavish Scott (Shetland), Elaine Smith (Lab, Coatbridge & Chryston), Shirley-Anne Somerville (SNP, Lothians), Finance Secretary John Swinney (North Tayside), Andrew Welsh (SNP, Angus) and Shadow Children's Minister Karen Whitefield (Airdrie & Shotts). The Financial Resolution was then waved through, along with the Budget (Scotland) Act 2010 Amendment Order 2010.

Thursday was pretty easy-going as well, and there were nine absentees: Wendy Alexander (Lab, Paisley North), Rhona Brankin, Linda Fabiani (SNP, Central Scotland), Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale), Culture Minister Fiona Hyslop (Lothians), Labour Deputy Group Leader Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok), Jack McConnell, John Farquhar Munro and the FM (Gordon).

They missed a LibDem motion on tourism, which faced SNP and Labour amendments. The Tories lodged an amendment to the SNP amendment, which passed by 76 (SNP/Con/LD/Margo) to 41 (Lab) with two Green abstentions. The amended amendment then passed by 61 (SNP/Con/Margo) to 58 (Lab/LD/Green) and this pre-empted the Labour amendment. The amended motion then passed, again by 61 to 58:

That the Parliament notes that tourism is among the largest contributors to the Scottish economy and is defined as a key sector; believes that the industry needs clear direction and support in order to achieve sustainable, long-term growth; welcomes the initiative of the industry to establish the Tourism Leadership Group as a positive step in working collaboratively toward growth and prosperity; notes that extending the small business bonus scheme will mean that half of all businesses, including many tourism-related businesses, will receive a discounted bill this year and well over a quarter of business properties will pay no rates at all and that the introduction of a transitional relief scheme would increase taxes for small and medium-sized private companies by £77 million, meaning that eight out of 10 ratepayers, including many in the tourism and hospitality industry, would be worse or no better off, which would be extremely damaging for Scotland in this period of fragile economic recovery, and welcomes the UK Government's decision not to repeal the special tax rules for furnished holiday lettings, as had been proposed by the previous administration led by Labour.

Then came a LibDem motion on free personal care for the elderly. This saw an outbreak of consensus, with SNP and Tory amendments waved through, along with the motion itself:

That the Parliament believes that free personal and nursing care for the elderly has widespread support and continues to deliver real benefits for tens of thousands of Scotland's most vulnerable older people, allowing them the dignity and independence of growing old in the comfort of their homes; recognises that budget constraints and demographic change present challenges for Scotland's social care and health services, but, in order to protect the elderly, reaffirms its commitment to free personal and nursing care for the long term so that Scotland's elderly population can continue to receive the care to which it is entitled; welcomes the wide-ranging Reshaping Care for Older People programme, which is developing innovative and practical ideas for change to meet the needs of Scotland's population that are sustainable, deliverable and fair; urges the Scottish Government to continue to identify savings in administrative costs that can be reinvested in frontline services, and, in this context, calls on the Scottish Government to give serious consideration to the proposal from Lord Sutherland to merge health and social care budgets.

This consensus was carried forward into the Government motion on the Independent Review of Sheriff and Jury Procedure, where Tory and LibDem amendments (along with the motion itself) were passed on the nod:

That the Parliament welcomes the report on the Independent Review of Sheriff and Jury Procedure conducted by Sheriff Principal Edward F Bowen CBE TD QC and believes that the people of Scotland deserve a modernised sheriff and jury procedure that promotes the interest of justice in an efficient way, serves the interest of victims, witnesses and jurors and is fit for purpose in the 21st century; further recognises that, with constraints on the public expenditure, it is vital to ensure that justice continues to be delivered swiftly and in a cost effective manner, and calls on the Scottish Government to work with the courts and other stakeholders to implement the reforms as a matter of urgency.

Finally, a Labour Committee reshuffle was passed without argument. That leaves one week before the summer break, and it's a bit of a rush job, with Stage 3 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill and the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill due. Talk about leaving your work until the last minute!

The Sunday Whip

It's been a while since we've had a week that adheres so tightly to the general Holyrood formula: total consensus on a Wednesday, followed by the opposition building a consensus around the common interest of lobbing a quick egg at the Government. But this is what we got this week.

Wednesday saw no votes taken at all: the Business Motion was waved through, as were the general principles of the Children's Hearings (Scotland) Bill and its accompanying financial resolution, a motion putting the Education Committee in charge of the Autism (Scotland) Bill at Stage 1 and a Tory committee substitute reshuffle. Move along, folks, nothing to see here.

Thursday was busier, and saw only five absentees: LibDem Health Spokesman Ross Finnie (West of Scotland), Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians), a disgraced Frank McAveety (Lab, Glasgow Shettleston and now, it seems, Manila West), John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West) and LibDem Culture Spokesman Iain Smith (North East Fife).

First came the Labour motion on Schools. The SNP amendment fell by 74 (Lab/Con/LD) votes to 49 (SNP/Green), while the Tory amendment fell by 107 to 16. The LibDem amendment passed by 74 to 47 with two Green abstentions, as did the amended motion:

That the Parliament notes with concern the reduction in the numbers of teachers and classroom assistants since 2007 and the sharp rise in the proportion of newly qualified teachers who cannot obtain permanent or even temporary employment; further notes the widespread disquiet that exists among teachers and parents over the lack of preparedness for implementation of the Curriculum for Excellence and, in particular, the lack of clarity over new qualification arrangements; recognises that the Curriculum for Excellence is a wide-ranging reform with significant resource implications; calls on the Scottish Government to reach an early agreement with local authorities and teachers organisations that guarantees the necessary preparation time and resources for successful implementation of the Curriculum for Excellence, and notes that the Scottish Government's package of education failures includes the abandonment of SNP election commitments to reduce class sizes in P1 to P3 to 18, dump student debt and match brick for brick the previous administration's school building programme.

Then came the Government's Poverty Framework motion. A Labour amendment fell by 76 (SNP/Con/LD) votes to 45 with two abstentions, while the LibDem amendment passed by 59 - most of the Labour group, the LibDems and Greens to one - Labour's Shadow Housing Minister Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow) - with 63 SNP and Tory abstentions (Margo, it seems was in the Chamber in spirit, at least). The amended motion then passed by 60 (Labour/LD/Green) votes to one - Bill Aitken (Con, Glasgow) with 62 SNP and Tory abstentions:

That the Parliament notes the continuing approach set out in the Scottish Government's poverty and income inequality framework, Achieving our Potential, to take long-term measures to tackle drivers of poverty and income inequality in Scotland, to maximise the potential for people to work, to make work pay for those who can and to support those who cannot work and those who are experiencing poverty now; recognises the need to focus on those people and communities who experience longer-term persistent poverty; supports the need to streamline the welfare system while ensuring that reforms provide better protection for, and do not further disadvantage, vulnerable people, particularly in these challenging times, and believes that the Scottish Government should introduce a fairer pay policy that gives a real-terms pay increase to those on the lowest wages in the public sector while paying no bonuses to higher earning staff in 2010-11 and 2011-12.

So that was another week. Next week, there's Stage 1 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, LibDem business and a Government debate on the Independent Review of Sheriff and Jury Procedures.

Frank McAveety's Mouth

There's a very attractive girl in the second row, dark... and dusky. We'll maybe put a wee word out for her. She's very attractive looking, nice, very nice, very slim... The heat's getting to me... She looks kinda... she's got that Filipino look... You know... the kind you'd see in a Gauguin painting. There's a wee bit of culture.

And with those words, what was left of Frank McAveety's political career came crashing down around him. To be honest, I'm reluctant to join the line of people criticising him. Yes, it's pervy, yes, it's creepy, but the truth is that most of us have, at one time or another, perved on someone we spotted. However, we don't usually do it when a) we're Convener of the Public Petitions Committee and b) we're standing in front of an open mic.

As it happens, David Steel got caught out the same way back in 2003: when chairing the session to determine his replacement as Presiding Officer, Steel was faced with the sight of Rosie Kane and Carolyn Leckie approaching his desk to cast their votes, clad in their low-cut TK Maxx tops. Steel was heard to remark, "I tell you, the view's a lot better in this Parliament!"

But that was just a fly-away comment, and Steel was retiring anyway. McAveety is still an active politician and was overheard engaged in a borderline-stalky ramble. Nevertheless, this is what happens when we ask our politicians to be human: they get caught displaying a human weakness (in this case, the horn) and we condemn them. Then we get politicians who won't even go for a dump unless a focus group approves and we bemoan the lack of independent thought and the absence of real characters from the political scene. We can't have it both ways.

Mind you, this low-level fiasco is yet another hiccup on McAveety's CV. Having become Leader of Glasgow City Council, he then got elected to Holyrood in 1999, and was appointed Deputy Housing Minister. So far so good.

But then he miscalculated: at the time of Donald Dewar's death, in the ensuing Leadership contest between Henry McLeish and Jack McConnell, the McConnell-supporting McAveety changed horses mid-stream and backed McLeish. It was therefore no longer necessary for McLeish to keep him in the Ministerial team as a sop to his rival, and so McAveety was dismissed. Then, when McConnell entered Bute House a year later, and purged the Cabinet, McAveety was overlooked, until Richard Simpson's resignation in 2002, when he finally returned as a Deputy Health Minister. Back on track.

Indeed, promotion beckoned in 2003, when he was appointed Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport. But even then, there was a catch: yes, he was called a Minister, and yes he was given a seat at the Cabinet table, but he was considered a Deputy Minister, allowing opposition parties to ask whether he was a senior junior minister, or a junior senior minister.

Then came Piegate, when he failed to show up when expected in the Chamber, and later claimed that he'd been 'unavoidably detained at the Arts Council Book Awards' when in fact he'd been having his lunch at the time he was supposed to be answering a Parliamentary Question. This put him in the wilderness until 2007, when he re-appeared as a junior spokesman, for Sport. Though getting the Public Petitions Committee Convenership wasn't a bad gig at all.

Still, this sums up McAveety's post-Glasgow career: getting relatively minor posts and ending up losing them on the basis of a relatively minor error. His career as Deputy Housing Minister ended because he made a political miscalculation; his career as Sport Minister ended because he couldn't just grab a quick sandwich then have something more substantial later; and his career on the Labour opposition frontbench has gone up in smoke because for one minute, his mouth opted to speak on behalf of his cock rather than his brain.

But what does this mean for Labour? With less than 12 months until a Holyrood election, Labour need to look like a Government-in-waiting. This is far more important at Holyrood than at Westminster: yes, people were fed up with Labour in 2007, but what pushed the SNP over the line was that the party appeared to be a credible alternative government - they say that oppositions don't win elections, but governments lose them: there's something in that, but always remember that governments have to have someone to lose an election to, and this was definitely the case in 2007. Conversely, last month, people in Scotland were fed up with Labour, but they still didn't trust the Tories, and of course, a basic point of both Labour and Tory campaigns - that the SNP couldn't form the Westminster government - was basically correct. So credibility counts, and just when Iain Gray's team needs to look competent, business-like, even statesman-like, McAveety makes himself look like a complete and utter perv. Oh dear.

But with this problem, comes an opportunity: one of the big problems with the Labour frontbench is that where most parties try and advance quality, Labour at Holyrood has gone for quantity, to the extent that an SNP ministerial team of 16 is shadowed by a Labour frontbench of 24. Now, in 2007, the SNP really pushed Alex Salmond to the forefront - even putting his name on the ballot paper - but the other key figures got their moments: Nicola Sturgeon was prominent; John Swinney and Jim Mather did their business presentations; the SNP's final election broadcasts basically gave us a glimpse of the key members of the next government. We don't get the same sense from Iain Gray's unwieldy, amorphous blob of a Shadow Cabinet and that will damage Labour. It doesn't have to reflect Government portfolios - at this stage in the political cycle, better for everyone that it look like Iain Gray's vision of a prospective Labour Government than a mirror of the current SNP Government - but it has to look like the team that will come in if, somehow, Iain Gray ends up in Bute House. You can't do that with a frontbench consisting of so many people. So McAveety's departure gives Gray a chance to wield a bigger axe, and cut his Shadow Cabinet down to size... if he dares.

That said, I don't see him doing so, which will serve only to highlight Iain Gray's weaknesses as Labour Group Leader.

And frankly, those weaknesses - a reliance on far too many people, an unwillingness to respond to change, a failure to address a clear problem and worst of all, a complete failure to present an alternative Government so close to the next election - will prove far more costly than Frank McAveety's weakness for dusky-looking women.

The Sunday Whip

A broadly consensual week, though with a harbinger of a row to come, and that rare beast, an SNP-Labour link-up.

Anyway. Wednesday saw no votes taken: the Business and Bureau motions were waved through, as were the William Simpson's Home (Transfer of Property etc.) (Scotland) Bill and the Scottish Parliamentary Commissions and Commissioners etc. Bill and its two amendments. And to complete proceedings, MSPs acknowledged the Transport Committee's Report on the Inquiry into Active Travel. Bish, bash, bosh, sorted.

Thursday was a little busier, though there were a handful of absentees: Shadow Further & Higher Education Minister Claire Baker (Mid Scotland & Fife), Margaret Curran (Lab, Glasgow Baillieston), Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale), Marlyn Glen (Lab, North East Scotland), Cathy Jamieson (Lab, Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley), Stewart Maxwell (SNP, West of Scotland), John Faruhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West), Irene Oldfather (Lab, Cunninghame North), LibDem Leader Tavish Scott (Shetland), his predecessor Nicol Stephen (Aberdeen South), Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson (Banff & Buchan) and David Stewart (Lab, Highlands & Islands).

The first matter was Stage 1 of the Alcohol etc. (Scotland) Bill. First came a Tory amendment to the motion calling on the Government to drop the section on minimum pricing, which passed by 54 - most of Labour and all the Tories - to 49 - the SNP, the Greens, Margo and Malcolm Chisholm (Lab, Edinburgh North & Leith) with 13 LibDem abstentions. The amended motion then passed by 98 (SNP/Lab/LD/Margo) to 0 with 18 Tory and Green abstentions, and the Financial Resolution passed without dissent.

Then came the Government motion on violence against men. A Labour amendment passed by 85 - most of the SNP group, all of the Labour MSPs present, the Greens and Margo - to 27 - the Tories and most of the LibDems with three abstentions: Christine Grahame (SNP, South of Scotland), LibDem Local Government Spokesperson Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) and Alasdair Morgan (SNP, South of Scotland). Hugh O'Donnell (LD, Central Scotland) missed that vote.

The Tory amendment fell by 42 - most of the Labour group, the Greens, Margo and Gil Paterson (SNP, West of Scotland) - to 28 - the Tories and most of the LibDems - with 46 abstentions - the rest of the SNP plus Shadow Children's Minister Karen Whitefield (Airdrie & Shotts) and Alison McInnes.

The amended motion then passed by 85 - most SNP and Labour MSPs, the Greens and Margo - to 17 - the Tories and Helen Eadie (Lab, Dunfermline East), with 14 abstentions - the LibDems plus Christine Grahame:

That the Parliament recognises that domestic abuse is a very serious and totally unacceptable problem in Scottish society; notes in particular that all victims, whether they be women, men or children, deserve appropriate support; therefore welcomes the Scottish Government's provision of funding for a support helpline for male victims, which will provide the further information about their needs that is required before any future decisions about services are made, and reaffirms that domestic abuse is rooted in gender inequality, that overwhelmingly victims are women and that eradicating domestic abuse will only succeed where that pattern is acknowledged.

So that was it for another week. Next week we have Stage 1 of the Children's Hearings (Scotland) Bill, Labour business and a debate on the Poverty Framework. Stand by for egg-throwing, and lots of it.

Three Lions, Two Nations and a Headache

Well, it's World Cup time again. Or at least, it will be on Friday. And with it being 1998 since Scotland last made it to an international tournament, and with England making every one since then with the exception of Euro 2008, we once again face that vexed question: who should Scots support? And for me personally, who am I supporting?

Now, I suspect that most of you know my background by now: born and raised in Northern England, went to study in Scotland, felt at home there, found the arguments put forward by the SNP persuasive, went back to England for work and I'm still working there now. So, being English, in England, surrounded by English people, you'd think this'd be a no-brainer for me, right?

Wrong. Because the bit I skipped in that potted history was my Dad, who's from Paisley, and my Mum, who tolerates football only becuse it's in the family's life anyway. So that's a Scotland fan and a woman who wouldn't shed a tear if football were abolished tomorrow.

Now this is important. Remember the Tebbit Test, when Norman Tebbit suggested deporting anyone of Pakistani descent living in the UK if they supported Pakistan rather than England in the cricket? Well, of course they're going to support Pakistan. In fact, it's probably easier for them to do so when you factor in that most people don't give a toss about cricket except when the Ashes are on, whereas football is absolutely everywhere. But I know why they would because what I do is the broad equivalent: the house is physically in England, but behind the front door, it's a different story. The family got the Daily Record. We'd just about get a Radio Scotland signal. Then when BBC Scotland and STV came on Sky, that was an absolute boon. Generally, though, in my family, we usually know and care more about what's happening in Scotland than a couple of miles down the road. So I grew up supporting Scotland.

And that means that supporting England is a decision I have to take rather than an automatic reaction.

Here's another factor that I consider: it's easier for me to support England in this World Cup than at any other time in my life because of the people I'll be sharing it with. Where I'm from, and where I'm back living now, is just far enough away from Manchester to get the first Man U fans. There are a lot of Wigan fans (and I count myself among them), some Bolton fans, a few Preston North End fans (and PNE fans be warned: if Trevor Hemmings gets his hands on your club, Deepdale will be a housing development by Christmas), a couple of City fans and the odd Everton and Liverpool fan. There's also a family of Arsenal fans. They have no connection at all with London, so we're still trying to figure that one out. But they're all partisan to a fault, to the extent that if Man U are on at the local pub, it'll be full at kick-off, but if Man U aren't ahead by half-time, the place will have cleared. And apparently, Sir Alex Ferguson is incompetent. Well, he is if you listen to my neighbours. They don't look at the wider game. They don't see the other team on the pitch. They're the exact people the tabloids manage to whip up into a frenzy and who go around looking for a scapegoat when it inevitably goes wrong. They're the ones who blame Ronaldo for getting Wayne Rooney sent off after he attempted to perform a vasectomy on a Portuguese player using his football boots. And let me tell you, they didn't take kindly when I pointed out that attempting to kick someone's bollocks off would meet any reasonable definition of violent conduct and that as such, the one player on the pitch who got Wayne Rooney sent off was - get this - Wayne Rooney. But they're the stereotype: the ones who swallow the tabloid view that a scrappy 1-0 win against Algeria with Algeria having a goal disallowed for reasons known only to the Assistant Referee is the stepping stone that was needed, and the trophy surely beckons! Under those circumstances, it's hard not to wish for the penalties to come and end the madness around me.

But this time is different, in that I'm work alongside a group of guys who actually enjoy football for football's sake, and they're more realistic. They'll cheer on England with the best of them, they want England to win the title but they're not ignorant of the other 31 teams in the tournament: they see the bigger picture. Hell, it was one of them who suggested to me that the USA might be a decent bet to win Group C (and having secured odds of 4.8/1 at Betfair, it's hard to disagree)! They're England fans, but they're football fans as well, so it'll be hard not to enjoy the games with them, and if we do end up going to watch a game in a group, it'll be hard not to get caught up in the atmosphere and cheer with them.

But the truth is, I'll support the players I have in my fantasy football team and the countries I have money on. So I'll be cheering every goal scored by Peter Crouch against Slovenia and Algeria, but not against the USA as I have Carlos Bocanegra in my squad as well. So I'll be cheering for Uruguay, who I wagered would top Group A (Forlan's in my squad too), the USA (sorry guys, there's money on it), and Germany and Brazil, who I've taken to meet in the Final at 20/1. I might not have an emotional interest in any of the teams, but I do have a financial interest in some of them and that now comes to the fore.

So, having basically confirmed that I'm a cold-hearted greedy bastard, here's my two cents on the whole should-Scotland-support-England question.

And my answer is this: who cares?

I remember when the UK press latched onto this debate in 2006 - not helped by Jack McConnell announcing his support for Ecuador in a triumph for relations within the Union - and there was a point that baffled me at the time: England has fifty million people, one of the most famous football leagues in the world, a decent club honours list at European level, and of course, the 1966 World Cup. Scotland has just five million people, an SPL that is seen as a basket case by most observers, an ever-decreasing UEFA co-efficient and a national team that hasn't reached an international tournament since 1998 and whose sole international honour is the 2006 Kirin Cup. So why was England so worried about what its neighbours think? Of course, this time, they don't seem to mind either way, but we'll see if that changes as the tournament progresses. But frankly, if I were an England fan, I'd lose no sleep whatever over what Scotland fans thought.

As to Scotland, it's embarrassing that this has become a political issue. I tire of fellow Nationalists discussing this seriously. After all, the whole point of civic nationalism is to see Scotland come forward as an independent nation in its own right on its own merits. So why keep looking at things in terms of England? Why does it matter?

But the Unionist position is equally baffling. First, I don't get why anyone would want to see support a political union with a country that they wanted to see fall flat on its face. Then those that do support England, well fine, that makes sense. But here's another thought: if you're supporting England because we're in a political union, then bear in mind that we're also in one with ten other teams besides England in this World Cup: it's called the EU. Will these political fans cheer on France, who cheated their way into the tournament? Will they support Portugal against Brazil? Will they support Germany against Ghana and Serbia? If you're going to choose a national team to support because of politics, then you have to see it through. If you can't, then the notion of supporting one team in particular looks shaky.

Now, this is, as usual, a ridiculously long post about a subject that doesn't really merit it. But it's telling that this has become enough of an issue that it takes up this much time and thought.

It's amazing how many people - both in Scotland and England - enjoyed Euro 2008, because they could afford just to sit back and watch the football for its own sake. Maybe it's time to reclaim that spirit, and either pick a team to adopt for whatever reason we fancy, whether it's for personal connections or the wager we've put on, or just not bother cheering for or against specific teams and simply enjoy the games.

As I said, I'm fortunate in that I'll be enjoying this World Cup relaxing with friends, talking about the games and putting a couple of daft bets on (which reminds me, I'm running the office sweepstake). I can afford to chill out and have a laugh for a month.

And that, I think, is the best way to watch one game of football, never mind 64!

The Sunday Whip

This was a quiet, successful week for the Government, with the usual Consensus Wednesday and Minor, Inconsequential Ding-Dong Thursday.

All Wednesday saw was a debate on and acknowledgement of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee's Report on the way forward for Scotland's banking, building society and financial services sector and the traditional waving through of the Business Motions.

Thursday was a little busier, and there was only one absentee: Dave Thompson (SNP, Highlands & Islands). Indeed, you have to go back to the 100% attendance for the vote on Stage 1 of the Budget in January to find when the Chamber was this full at Decision Time. Things began with a Labour motion on the NHS. This faced an SNP amendment which itself faced two amendments. Of these, the Tory one passed by 77 (SNP/Tory/LD) votes to 48 (Lab/Green) with one abstention (Margo, of course), and a protestation that Housing Minister Alex Neil's console wasn't working. This isn't the first time this has happened: I seem to recall something similar happening to Robert Brown a couple of months ago and it may be time to run a proper diagnostic on the Parliament's equipment. For what it's worth, six years isn't a bad innings for electronic equipment - assuming that a) it hasn't been replaced already and b) new machines came with the building rather than just shipping the old consoles from Assembly Hall. If that's actually what happened, then the Parliament's gadgetry is 11 years old and I'd hope that the Corporate Body is finding time to discuss replacement and upgrades. In fact, I'd start doing that anyway if I were on it: what if the equipment fails during a key piece of legislation? What if a defective console makes the difference between something passing or falling? This is always a risk with electronic voting but the risk is increasing with the consoles' age, failures are taking place anyway (but luckily haven't caused a major problem yet) and the SPCB needs to step in as soon as possible.

But I digress. The LibDem amendment was waved through and the amended SNP amendment passed by 80 - the SNP, Tories, LibDems, Margo and Wendy Alexander (Lab, Paisley North) to 47 - the rest of the Labour group and the two Greens. The amended motion then passed by 79 to 48, with Wendy Alexander remembering which party she was in:

That the Parliament notes the real-terms increase for the NHS budget in 2010-11 despite the previous UK administration cutting the Scottish Government budget by £500 million; notes the commitment by the new UK coalition government to real-terms increases in the NHS budget in future years and agrees that all resultant Barnett consequentials should be applied to the NHS in Scotland; understands that, notwithstanding the above, NHS budgets are tight as a result of Labour's economic mismanagement and that all NHS boards require to deliver services more efficiently, but welcomes the commitment that quality of patient care will be the paramount consideration, that there will be no compulsory redundancies in the NHS and that there will be more staff in the NHS at the end of this parliamentary term than there were when Labour left office in 2007; also welcomes the commitment from the UK coalition government to reverse Labour's increase in national insurance, which would have cut £40 million from the budget of the NHS in Scotland, and calls on the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing to publish immediately NHS boards' workforce projections and to carry out robust scrutiny, including risk assessment, of the impact on the safety and quality of patient care and the provision of frontline NHS services.

Then came a Government motion on student fees. A Labour amendment fell by 64 - the SNP, most of the LibDems, the Greens and Margo - to 63 - Labour, the Tories and Jim Hume (LD, South of Scotland), while a LibDem amendment passed by 65 (SNP/LibDems/Greens/Margo) to 17 - the Tories plus Shadow Sport Minister Frank McAveety (Glasgow Shettleston) with the rest of Labour abstaining, and the amended motion passed by 65 to 16 with all 46 Labour MSPs abstaining:

That the Parliament notes the ongoing review of higher education and student finance in England and Wales; recognises that the Scottish Government will need to consider any outcomes of this review and the potential impact on Scottish universities; commends the National Union of Students' student fee pledge, and welcomes that, thanks to the actions of the previous and current administrations in Scotland, full-time Scottish higher education students studying in Scotland do not pay tuition fees or top-up fees.

Following that, MSPs waved through the Advice and Assistance and Civil Legal Aid (Transfer of Tribunal Functions) (No. 2) (Scotland) Regulations 2010 and the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2010, as well as a reshuffle of the SNP's Committee Substitutes.

So that's it for another week. Next week sees Stage 1 of the Alcohol etc. (Scotland) Bill, so should be a good one.