The Sunday Whip

This has been a busy week for the Parliament – it always is when legislation gets to Stage 3. What next Wednesday will be like, I dread to think.

Anyway. The Wednesday just gone saw the usual waving through of the many Business Motions, and besides that, saw the passage of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill and its amendments (both links PDFs), so this was a busy one.

We'll start with the absentees. Missing the entire day's proceedings were Jamie McGrigor (Con, Highlands & Islands), John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West), LibDem Leader Tavish Scott (Shetland) and his predecessor Nicol Stephen (Aberdeen South). Tory Leader Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland) missed the amendments but was around at Decision Time.

So let's start with the various amendments that went to a vote. The first one was Amendment 4, and came from the Tories. As well as the four all-dayers, this vote was missed by Parliament Minister Bruce Crawford (Stirling), George Foulkes (Lab, Lothians), Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians), Shadow Schools Minister Ken Macintosh (Eastwood), LibDem Environment Spokesman Liam McArhur (Orkney) and Shadow Public Health Minister Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland & Fife). The amendment fell by 103 to 14, with only the Tories in favour.

Then came Labour's Amendment 29 (which had already been amended by 29A). Bruce Crawford, Ken Macintosh, Liam McArthur and Richard Simpson were back in the Chamber for this one (which is a good thing as it was Richard Simpson moving the amendment), but George Foulkes and Margo MacDonald were still elsewhere and Christopher Harvie (SNP, Mid Scotland & Fife) missed this vote. It was a tie at 60-60, with the Labour, LibDem and Green MSPs in favour, and the SNP and Tories against. This forced the Presiding Officer to step in and use his casting vote against the amendment (remember, as the PO is obliged by convention to vote with the status quo, that means, in practice, voting everything down).

By the time Labour's Amendment 30 came up, Christopher Harvie was present and voting, so it fell by 61 votes (SNP/Tories) to 60 (Labour/LD/Greens). With the return of Margo, Labour's Amendment 31 fell by 61 votes to 60 with one abstention (it was a bit of a waste fo her time showing up for that one, really).

With Bruce Crawford moseying off again, and with Trish Godman (Lab, West Renfrewshire) and Alasdair Morgan (SNP, South of Scotland) withdrawing from voting to deputise for the Presiding Officer, Labour's Amendment 1 (4, 29, 30, 31, 1 – are these actually amendments or just Alex Fergusson's lottery ticket?) fared even worse, though in fairness, Labour wanted to withdraw it, but the Tories objected. It fell by 105 (everyone but the Tories) to 14. Before Tory Amendment 11, George Foulkes arrived and Margo MacDonald left again. The amendment fell by 104 votes to 15, with Rhona Brankin (Lab, Midlothian) joining the Tories momentarily. And, incidentally, if the Presiding Officer had put those numbers on a Lotto line for Wednesday night, he'd have won a tenner.

But I digress. At this point, Bruce Crawford and Margo MacDonald came back, in time for Labour Amendment 36, which fell by 76 votes (everyone but Labour) to 45, while Amendment 25, emanating from the SNP benches, fell by 61 (Lab/LD/Green) votes to 59, with one abstention. And surprisingly, the abstention wasn't Margo (she voted in favour), but the aforementioned Bruce Crawford. Now if he's getting confused by it all, then what hope do the rest of us have?

And for Labour's Amendment 46, Bruce Crawford and Margo MacDonald had left the Chamber again (oh, aye?). This time, Labour themselves weren't overly enthusiastic about it and tried to withdraw it, but again, the Tories dug their heels in and demanded a vote. Needless to say, it fell, by 105 votes to 14.

And those were the amendments. At Decision Time, Bruce Crawford was back and Annabel Goldie had deigned to show up (Margo, on the other hand, was still at large). The Bill passed, officially by 108 votes (everyone but the Tories) to 15, but LibDem Justice Spokesman Robert Brown (Glasgow) wasn't counted, as his voting console had started playing up, so it should, by rights, have been 109-15 instead) Good thing the vote wasn't close...

Anyway. With that, the Chamber was happy to wave through the Crofting (Designation of Areas) (Scotland) Order 2010, the Scottish Government Code of Practice for the Welfare of Dogs (SG 2009/279), the Scottish Government Code of Practice for the Welfare of Cats (SG 2009/280) and the establishment of the Forth Crossing Bill Committee, with a Tory (Jackson Carlaw) acting as Convener, and a LibDem (Hugh O'Donnell) deputising. The SNP's Joe FitzPatrick and Labour's David Stewart will also be there join in the fun.

And we still haven't got to Thursday yet! That saw a slightly less comfortable day for the Government, due in the main to a Labour motion on the Scottish newspaper industry. Missing for that were Ted Brocklebank (Con, Mid Scotland & Fife), who wasn't there to vote on his own amendment, Tory Deputy Leader Murdo Fraser (also Mid Scotland & Fife), John Farquhar Munro and Tory Health Spokesperson Mary Scanlon (Highlands & Islands). Incidentally, I find it interesting, and more than a little distasteful, that a handful of MSPs, specifically Jamie McGrigor, Tavish Scott and Nicol Stephen, were perfectly capable of turning up for a chance to lob an egg at the Government but had something more pressing than public health legislation to deal with the day before. Given that there were occasions were their presence could have changed the make-up of that Bill, and that their absences wouldn't have led to any major change of result on the Thursday, I'm tempted to suggest that those three got their priorities dead wrong this week.

Rant over - what happened was as follows. Throughout the newspaper industry votes, the SNP found themselves joined by Tom McCabe (Lab, Hamilton South) but by no one else, so the SNP amendment to the motion fell by 75 votes to 48 as Mike Pringle (LD, Edinburgh South) missed the first vote of the afternoon, while the Tory and LibDem amendments, and the amended motion passed by 76 to 48:

That the Parliament notes the important role played by local newspapers in Scotland; believes that, in the current economic climate, it is more important than ever to recognise the importance and value of community newspapers; notes that local newspapers provide a forum for expression that enables local people to deliberate on issues affecting their community; regrets that almost a year after the Glasgow Caledonian University seminar on 4 February 2009 on the newspaper industry, organised by the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism and involving newspaper proprietors, journalists, trade unionists and other stakeholders, there appears to have been little further dialogue between the Scottish Government and the sector; notes with concern the Scottish Government proposals to remove the legal requirement for local authorities to advertise public information notices in newspapers; believes that, if this proposal succeeds, it will deny the 38% of Scots who do not have internet access vital information currently available to them in newspapers, will create a democratic deficit and damage the local and national newspaper industry at a critical time; fears that a smaller newspaper industry will dilute quality journalism and training opportunities for young journalists, and calls on the Scottish Government to withdraw the draft Local Authority Public Information Notices (Electronic Publication) (Scotland) Order 2010.

Then came the Government motion on the Skills Strategy: Labour and Tory amendments were waved through, but it was the LibDems' turn to feel isolated as their amendment fell by 109 votes to 15, Tom McCabe either remembering what party he was in or being quite certain that whichever one it was, it wasn't the Liberal Democrats. Still, the LibDems didn't begrudge the defeat and were still happy, along with everyone else, to see the motion pass without further dissent:

That the Parliament agrees that flexibility and responsiveness to the needs of businesses and employees are critical elements of a successful skills strategy in helping tackle the challenges of the recession and the recovery and believes that the Scottish Government must maintain its focus on developing practical initiatives that help people and businesses with training for work, training in work and training from work to work and, to that end, calls on the Scottish Government to bring forward early publication of a refreshed Skills Strategy that takes account of the current economic climate and is backed by the resources necessary to provide appropriate places on Training for Work and Get Ready for Work programmes and the wide range of modern apprentice schemes; believes that pupils in secondary schools who wish to do so should have the opportunity to pursue formal vocational training, and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that the system is more demand-led and that publicly funded training matches far more closely the needs of employers.

Finally, a number of LCMs went through on the nod, relating to the Equality Bill, the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill and the Energy Bill.

And so came the end of a busy week. Next week, it's the biggie. Yes, it's Budget Time. Will John Swinney be celebrating, or could we find ourselves with not one but two impending elections? Time, as they say, will tell...

John McFall to stand down

The title is self-explanatory, the Chair of the Commons Treasury Select Committee, and MP for West Dunbartonshire has announced that he does not intend to seek re-election. And with the time remaining before the dissolution of Parliament now best measured in weeks, there is precious little time for his party to find a prospective successor.

Matters are complicated by West Dunbartonshire Labour's penchant for self-destruction, highlighted best by the Council group's implosion roughly this time three years ago, and rumours of various rows and even allegations of bullying and harassment being bandied about in the press on slow news days. In short, this is not an ideal place to start talking about AWS, under the circumstances.

However, the person best placed to step into a breach for Labour is a woman so an AWS may not be necessary in any case: with the Council group vulnerable to splits (though those Councillors most disenchanted with their colleagues split in 2007 and opted to co-operate with their former rivals in the SNP instead), Jackie Baillie, MSP for Dumbarton, is surely in a strong position: with time running out, it's probably either her or Des McNulty, MSP for Clydebank & Milngavie.

The problem is that both are members of the Shadow Cabinet: Baillie speaks on Health issues and McNulty on Education, and Iain Gray has already lost two Shadow Cabinet members to Westminster campaigns - Margaret Curran and Cathy Jamieson. To lose a third would be disastrous for him and for his credibility, but that may at this stage be a necessary evil for Labour, particularly as Curran and Jamieson have set the trend. It would, however, dig Labour at Westminster out of a hole and might be very tempting for Baillie, who is vulnerable to a mere 3% swing at Holyrood.

It is, of course, too early to tell what may happen, but with so little time left for things to pan out naturally as they might do had McFall announced his decision, say, two years ago, don't be too surprised if Jackie Baillie ends up on the list of prospective dual mandate parliamentarians this Spring.

On Tolerating Tolerance

The release of the British Social Attitudes Survey - and particular the increased levels of 'tolerance' (i.e. the fact that fewer people are willing to admit to homophobia) has been the subject of much debate recently, and Jeff's post, unsurprisingly, caught my eye. Now, as regular readers of one or both blogs will probably have realised by now, the specific aspect of tolerance that's got people talking - the LGBT question - is one of very few where he and I don't entirely see things from a unified perspective.

That said, in this case, there's a great deal he's said which I find thoroughly commendable: his point that tolerance isn't quite the same as what we should be aiming for - i.e. acceptance; the idea that if we're going to tolerate one outlook on life (the equality agenda), then we should be tolerant of others (more traditional, conservative ways of thinking); that the phrase 'gay community' is somewhat clumsy - I'm guilty of using this one and he has a point: there's enough diversity and distinct ways of approaching life within that community for it to actually be considered as the 'gay communities'. Let's be honest, the differing personal stories, experiences and attitudes of gay people across the world suggest that there's only really one point that unifies us. You could essentially argue that the LGBT movement is at its best when it's working for solidarity: mutual identification is never going to happen, just as heterosexual man and women don't necessarily form understandings with others simply because they too are heterosexual.

But I digress. What I particularly appreciate is his summation: "I prefer just getting along, with its omission of a better or a lesser side."

However (sorry, Jeff). What I don't particularly appreciate is this bit before it, which I fear undermines the noble and fair sentiments he expresses in that last sentence:

"While we're on the subject, it would be interesting to know what any British-wide survey concluded with regard teaching same sex relationships in schools. Yes, it would improve understanding and hopefully reduce unwarranted discrimination but I still think the majority of Brits would prefer primary school is an LGBT-free zone. Some things are for parents to teach and we should free up teachers to crack on with Science, English, Maths and Languages."

Now, again, I think there's scope for agreement. I'd be interested to see what Jeff (and indeed, the survey respondents) think about any sex and relationship education in primary schools. I'd suspect (though I can't say for sure) that he and the respondents would be wary. What I can say for sure is that I'd be wary too. Firstly, I think that there's merit in letting kids be kids for a while, and not making them worry about adult concerns. Let them enjoy their innocence, and their youth. Secondly, the amount of hand-wringing about STIs and teenage pregnancies shows that in an area where parents need 100% confidence in what is being taught, that confidence isn't there. The sex education approach currently in operation clearly isn't working, and simply bringing the same ham-fisted ways of doing things forward by a couple of years will do no one any good.

And yet. As I said, the current ways aren't working, so we need new approaches. better ways of thinking - if that involves teaching kids about sex and relationships sooner, then that's what it involves. Plus which, we live in a highly sexualised society: whether on TV, online (especially online), in films, in pop music, or even the clothes rack, sex is everywhere, and unless you keep kids locked in a darkened room for the first eleven years of their life, children are going to be subject to, at the very least, references which will provoke awkward questions to mortified parents. So from a utilitarian perspective, it might be better to find a way that it can be discussed in primary schools. I don't like the idea, but I'm not sure what choice we have: better they learn about sex from a textbook than a T-shirt.

So why the dissent? Fairly obviously, I think that same sex relationships have to be a part of that education, if it's to happen.

Firstly, there's the principle of diversity: religious education, for example, need not be about your own religion anymore - certainly mine included discussions of morality in the different major faiths and that's a good basis. Let's face it, a generation of young people from different backgrounds who learn and understand about each other's culture, faith and principles is something we should aim for - it would be the best way of achieving lasting, positive progress. That should be the same for the sexual orientation barrier: a cohort of school pupils who understand what being LGBT means for someone will do more for equality and acceptance than a thousand Russell T. Davies screenplays.

Secondly, this comes back to Jeff's point about equality. If the point about sex education is to give children the facts (and it should be: "Just don't do it" is not a successful message), then homosexuality, as a fact, has to be included in that. Moreover, if sex education plays a part in reducing teenage pregnancies and STIs (and if it's done well, it will), then of course LGBT relationships need to be discussed for the sake of the pupils who go on in later life to have a same-sex experience. Obviously, pregnancy isn't going to be an issue in that case, but STIs most definitely are and by arming young people with information and education, we prevent their spread. By not discussing what could literally be vital information for some of the pupils in the future, we hinder their chances of knowing what they need to know before it's too late. In so doing, we give homosexuality a lesser status. Again, from the utilitarian standpoint, if early, robust sex education prevents people from having to visit the GUM clinic in later life, then all aspects of the subject need to be covered.

Third, I have a kind of "walk a mile in my moccasins" approach to this. Now, it seems that being a gay young person in 2010 is easier than it was in 2000, which in turn was easier than in 1990. My experiences of it centre around the middle of those: as I was coming to terms with myself, Graham Norton was gaining fame, Queer as Folk was on the telly and the late Stephen Gately had just been dragged kicking and screaming out the closet by the News International paparazzi. But I didn't really identify with any of those - I have only the one unifying point in common with Norton, QAF was set in cosmopolitan Manchester whereas I was stuck on the arse-end of nowhere so couldn't exactly sneak off to Canal Street for a night (incidentally, if you recall the plot of that, being taken advantage of by a guy twice my age wasn't an idea that resonated with me, and it still isn't), and while I can sing, I wouldn't exactly be a successful Gately tribute act (plus which, to be blunt, Boyzone has never been on any of my playlists).

So in the media, there was nothing for me to latch onto in terms of role models. And locally? Well, how can I put this? If I were to discuss the upcoming election with some of my neighbours, and suggest that it was time for a change of government after 13 years, many of them would agree wholeheartedly, as it was time to give Harold Wilson a crack of the whip. And obviously, there was nowhere to ask or talk about it at school, particularly as Section 28 was still on the statute books then. So no role models, no advice, no support network. Just, by then, the understanding that I was different, how I was different and what that meant. But no way of expressing that, of discussing it. So I internalised it, I kept it to myself. That can't have been good for me and I cannot have been the only one.

That's not something that any young person should ever have to go through, and even though there are more role models (Gareth Thomas is the best thing that's ever happened to young gay people: all we need is for a footballer to be de-closeted and exorcise the demons left by Justin Fashanu's horrendous experience), even though being gay is seen as more tolerable in society, just a little teaching on the subject could provide support and re-assurance to a young person going through a traditionally difficult transition period in life, made all the more confusing by being, in effect, the odd one out. Particularly as Russell T. Davies still can't write a gay lead for toffee: Captain Jack Harkness, with his "if it moves, shag it" credo, is not who I'd like to see in anyone's first brush with homosexuality in popular culture.

So the sentiments expressed by Jeff are 100% right, but to turn them into a reality, homosexuality needs to be discussed as part of any sex education syllabus, whenever it's taught. If we want to build a community - and by that I mean the community of society as a whole, not an LGBT community - of well-adjusted, functioning people at ease with themselves and with others, that's inevitably going to be a part of how we do it.

More on the Telly Box

Thanks to Scott tweeting a link and suggesting that the contents were right up my alley (he is quite correct), I've clocked the draft BBC Editorial Guidance for the upcoming General Election.

Here's something interesting on Page 5:

In Scotland and Wales, the SNP and Plaid Cymru respectively gained substantial electoral support at the last General Election. UK-wide programmes must ensure that, on issues where they have distinctive policies, the SNP and Plaid are given appropriate levels of coverage in items to which the GB-wide parties contribute. In addition, UK-wide programmes should use SNP and Plaid spokespeople on other major election news stories, where appropriate.

Now, this is interesting: is the draft guidance arguing in favour of an SNP (and Plaid) presence in the Leaders' Debate?

UK-wide programmes must ensure that, on issues where they have distinctive policies, the SNP and Plaid are given appropriate levels of coverage in items to which the GB-wide parties contribute.

Here's the key: the word 'appropriate'. Is it 'appropriate' not to have a contribution from either the SNP or Plaid in such a debate? It seems not. Is it 'appropriate' to have an extra programme on the News Channel and BBC Scotland (and, of course, Wales) for the SNP and Plaid Leaders. Again, that's effectively the same as not having them in the UK-wide programme. It goes on:

In addition, UK-wide programmes should use SNP and Plaid spokespeople on other major election news stories, where appropriate.

So here's how I read it. The Debate will be UK-wide. The Debate will, in and of itself, be a major election news story. The SNP and Plaid do have distinctive policies on a number of issues that may, conceivably, be raised at that debate - unless the BBC stick solely to issues handled by both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Accordingly, it is entirely appropriate to have a place for one or both of the SNP and Plaid in that debate.

And, those lamenting that Alex Salmond isn't going to be a candidate in the General Election should note that it invites 'spokespeople' - not necessarily candidates! And who better to act as a spokesperson than the Party Leader?

Further, those concerned that inviting the SNP and Plaid means inviting the Greens, UKIP, the BNP, Respect and the entire Northern Irish political spectrum should take a look at the following. Firstly, also on Page 5:

In Great Britain, in the context of a General Election, no party other than those mentioned above [Labour, the Tories, LibDems, SNP and Plaid] has demonstrated that it has substantial electoral support.

Now, the Greens, UKIP and BNP may all have cause to dispute this, and the BBC does confer upon them a sort of "Best of the Rest" status, but the Corporation's attitudes are clear: on UK-wide issues where they have something to say, the SNP and Plaid are to be given a voice.

Similarly, this comes on Page 7:

UK-wide programmes which report on the election as it affects Northern Ireland should give similar levels of coverage to the four largest parties: the Democratic Unionists, Sinn Fein, the Ulster Unionist Party (standing as UCUNF with the Conservatives) and the SDLP. If British Conservative spokespeople are used to discuss issues directly relating to Northern Ireland, outlets should normally also ensure that the other three larger Northern Ireland parties (ie DUP, Sinn Fein and SDLP) are included.

Accordingly, if the Debate steers clear of NI-specific issues (or, one suspects, if the UCUNF pact breaks down), there's no need to invite the respective Leaders as they too are kept in a separate bracket to the others.

In short:

1. The BBC guidelines make it hard to justify the absence of the SNP and Plaid on the BBC Debate.

2. The BBC guidelines do not rule out the presence of Alex Salmond as the SNP's representative.

3. The BBC guidelines show that inviting the SNP and Plaid does not force them to push the number of participants into double figures.

Basically, this paper highlights a need for the two parties to be involved and sweeps the rug from under the key points of contention that may prevent that from happening.

However, another key word in all of this is 'draft'. It's possible that this thing could be re-drafted, particularly with a view to detailing the BBC's approach to the Debate. But if these are the guidelines adopted, then the BBC will in effect be in breach of its own rules if the participants in its Leaders' Debate are restricted to Messrs Brown, Cameron and Clegg.

The Sunday Whip

This was, arguably, a successful week for the Government, with a number of rare occurrences out there for seasoned Holyrood watchers.

Firstly, Wednesday saw Stage 1 of the Budget (Scotland) (No. 4) Bill and a full attendance (the first in almost a year). It passed the first hurdle by 64 (SNP/Con/Margo) votes to 46 (Labour) with 18 (LD/Green) abstentions. The Business Motions and Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007 (Modification of Enactments) Order 2010 were waved through.

Thursday, meanwhile, saw that other rare beast, the pre-empted amendment. There were five absentees: Rhona Brankin (Lab, Midlothian), George Foulkes (Lab, Lothians), Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale), Shadow Enterprise Minister Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central) and Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians).

They missed two votes, on the Tory motion on prescription charges. The SNP amendment passed by 49 (SNP/Green) votes to 32 (Con/LD) with 42 (Labour) abstentions. This blew the Labour and LibDem amendments out of the water (as they sought to alter text that had already been deleted by the SNP amendment), and the amended motion passed by the same figure:

That the Parliament recognises that the progress towards abolishing prescription charges is already benefiting all those patients with long-term conditions and on low incomes who are not entitled to exemption and ensuring that fewer patients face having to choose between buying their prescriptions or paying for other necessities and that total abolition is the simplest and fairest way of ensuring that nobody in Scotland has to make such a choice and that healthcare is free at the point of use.

Following that, a Government motion and Labour amendment on Scotland's water rescue review passed without dissent:

That the Parliament welcomes the findings of Paddy Tomkins' Independent Review of Open Water and Flood Rescue in Scotland, which examined the arrangements and protocols for inland water rescue in Scotland, and believes that the report's recommendations should be carefully considered and acted on in order to strengthen multi-agency arrangements and ensure that an effective and proportionate response capability exists across Scotland that includes adequate equipment and training being made available to staff required to attend water and flood incidents.

So that was that: a big week which could have been more dramatic than it turned out to be. Next week sees Stage 3 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill on Wednesday, followed by Labour business and a Government debate on the Skills Strategy the following day. The big kahuna, Stage 3 of the Budget, comes on 3 February. Squeaky bum time? We'll find out over the next two weeks...

Two Thoughts Occur

1. If a pair of footpaths around Balmoral are such a security risk that the Home Office doesn't want people to walk on them, why didn't it think to attempt to have them closed years ago?

2. And seeing as people hanging about near palaces pose a security risk, why didn't the Home Office kick up a stink about the Scottish Parliament being built across the road from one?

The Sunday Whip

This was another quiet week - as though MSPs are keeping their powder dry for the Budget - and, as such, there was very little to pick at, save a chance for all the parties to gang up on the Government. That's the UK Government, mind, as everyone has their eye firmly on the General Election.

Anyway, we're still holding Consensus Wednesdays as besides the traditional waving through of the Business Motions, there were only two matters requiring a decision and they were both backed unanimously: Stage 1 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Bill and a Legislative Consent Motion on the Financial Services Bill.

Thursday saw a little more dissent and ten MSPs missed Decision Time: LibDem Health Spokesman Ross Finnie (West of Scotland), Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale), Christine Grahame (SNP, South of Scotland), Rhoda Grant (Lab, Highlands & Islands), LibDem Local Government Spokesperson Alison McInnes (North East Scotland), Mike Pringle (LibDem, Edinburgh South), Tory Health Spokesperson Mary Scanlon (Highlands & Islands), LibDem Education Spokesperson Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West), Shirley-Anne Somerville (SNP, Lothians) and Jim Tolson (LibDem, Dunfermline West).

It started with a Labour Party motion, which unusually saw (near) consensus and also gave Labour the chance to get a little credit as well - not bad going for the Opposition. SNP and LibDem amendments were waved through but a Tory amendment fell by 102 (SNP/Labour/LD/Green) votes to 15 (the Tories on their own) with Margo abstaining. The motion itself went through without a vote:

That the Parliament welcomes the report of the Literacy Commission, set up by Labour, and its recommendations on actions needed to support the acquisition of basic literacy skills and the development of higher-order literacy-related skills; calls on the Scottish Government to bring forward as a matter of priority, following discussion with the Literacy Commission and all stakeholders, a literacy action plan within the context of the Curriculum for Excellence, which has the aim of raising standards of literacy at every level; notes also the successful role of trade unions in promoting literacy and numeracy among adults and the commission's support for nurture groups in primary schools in areas of disadvantage as pioneered by Glasgow City, North Lanarkshire, West Dunbartonshire, Clackmannanshire councils and others, and suggests that, in order to assist those children facing the biggest barriers, the Scottish Government work in partnership with local authorities serving areas with concentrations of socio-economic disadvantage to implement and assess pilot schemes that can provide continuous and systematic support for families with children in the birth to three age group and make sure that these efforts produce benefits for children from low-income families wherever they live in Scotland.

Then came the SNP motion on Attendance Allowance for people with disabilities. A Labour amendment fell by 75 votes - the other parties along with Peter Peacock (Lab, Highlands & Islands) to 43, while the motion itself passed by 73 - most of the SNP, as well as the Tories, LibDems, Greens and Margo - to 45 - Labour plus the Enterprise Minister Jim Mather (Argyll & Bute), who, given that he remains the Enterprise Minister, must have pressed the wrong button. And not for the first time. Anyway, despite Jim Mather getting mixed up, the motion passed was as follows:

That the Parliament notes that the UK Green Paper, Shaping the Future of Care Together, published in June 2009, may have long-term implications for vulnerable older and disabled people in Scotland who are eligible for attendance allowance and disability living allowance as it proposes to remove the universal benefits of attendance allowance and disability living allowance and instead redesign the benefit system to meet English social policy objectives and redirect funding to pay for the provision of a National Care Service in England, while failing to give adequate consideration to the position in Scotland, and calls on HM Government to consult fully with the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament, local authorities, NHS boards and other interested parties before proceeding any further.

And so ended another week. Next week is the start of the biggie: Stage 1 of the Budget Debate. The upshot of this is that Consensus Wednesdays will be put on hold...

Gary McKinnon and Iris Robinson

There's something that's been bothering me this week, and with the questions into Gary McKinnon's health now being raised, I have to air it now.

Gary has a recognised condition - Asperger's Syndrome. Public opinion recognises this (how fortunate we are that we live in a society that recognises mental illness and takes it into account) and the general view is one of revulsion that the Home Office should be happy to ship him to the US to stand trial for a crime that he didn't even commit on US soil, but in US cyberspace, if there is such a thing (though if there is, you can bet that the Pentagon networks are a part of it). You can hear the voice of the public:

This isn't right! Protect this man! What hell must he be going through? What torture must this be for his parents? How can you send him to the US, how can the Home Office make him suffer so?

And that's fair enough, particularly as one of the Home Secretary's predecessors, Jack Straw, was happy to let the mass murderer General Pinochet walk free without being called to account for his actions because he was looking a bit peaky. But it's not the UK Government's hypocrisy that I'm concerned with right now.

By contrast, Iris Robinson suffers from depression - a recognised mental illness. Now, I'm not seeking to defend the adultery, the yawning age chasm in her affair, the corruption or the hypocrisy - far from it. Though I do wish people would stop enjoying it - particularly the LGBT community. What she said about homosexuality was nothing short of despicable, but we do ourselves no favours by enjoying - and being seen to enjoy - the sight of her world crashing down around her. We have an opportunity to be the better people and to show the forgiveness, tolerance and compassion that her faith is supposed to teach (but she has hitherto disregarded), but instead, those voices of understanding and reason are replaced with mockery and Schadenfreude. Though in fairness, it goes beyond the LGBT community. For once, Northern Ireland politics has got people talking - the UK is titillated. And there's a nasty edge to this: there's a genuine contempt for her condition and the understanding and respect we have for Gary McKinnon's condition has not transferred into any consideration of what Iris Robinson (and indeed, Peter Robinson - I have a huge amount of sympathy for him, for reasons I will go on to explain). There's that voice of the public again:

What did she do? Make the bitch suffer! Depression? Who gives a shit?! Stick the boot in, twist the knife, pile it all on, give her Hell! Being treated? Well that must be bullshit, depression isn't a real illness, she'll be ski-ing! Attempted suicide? Aye right! Who'd miss her?

You ever have a time when you want to opt out of society altogether? Well, I'm having one now. Yes, Iris Robinson is a hypocrite, a cradle-snatcher, an adulterer, another snout in the trough. But Gary McKinnon is a computer hacker, and he did break US law on a US network (and as I said, surely the fact that he was on UK soil when he did it must muddy the legal waters somewhat?). Yes, Gary McKinnon's condition is such that he cannot endure the suffering that the state is presently putting him through. But Iris Robinson's condition is such that she surely cannot endure the situation that she is now in. We slag off Iris Robinson for hypocrisy, and then go on to be guilty of it ourselves. That's why I'm posing this point: those who support the release of Gary McKinnon should ask themselves how they feel about Iris Robinson, and why they feel that way.

So why am I, of all people, speaking in what could almost be termed a defence of the bigot Iris Robinson? As I mentioned before, it's because I have an understanding of what Peter must be going through. Not the Northern Ireland peace process or the row over concealed information, obviously, but I know what it's like to live with someone with depression - my father suffers from it as well. And believe me, when I say suffers, I mean it.

The sufferer is in their own personal hell. And despite not intending to, despite not wanting to, you're stuck with them. You have to ride with their moods, you don't know what mood their going to be in when you're going home and you're constantly walking on eggshells, almost paranoid that you may be doing or saying the wrong thing. You want to help them, to make them feel better, but you don't know how. And they say things that hurt you, but they don't realise they're doing it: on the one hand, you want to hit back; on the other, you know that it's not fair to do so, so you bite your lip. And you don't feel like you can get out - well, you could, but your conscience kicks in, and tells you that you can't leave someone in that position on their own. You don't know why you're tolerating the situation you're in, but you know that you can't forgive yourself if you do the only thing you can do to change it - walk away.

All in all you feel frustrated: frustrated at the situation, frustrated at yourself for not being able to make it right and for just putting up with things, frustrated at the world for neither realising nor caring what exactly is going on and frustrated at your loved one for putting you and keeping you in what seems like an impossible position. Then you realise that you're angry with someone for something that isn't their fault, and they didn't ask for. And that makes you feel even worse. But despite that, you can't show it to anyone - you have to keep a brave face on and try to convince the world that no matter what excruciating pain you might be going through (especially because you know it's just a fraction of what your loved one has to deal with), Everything is Absolutely Fine. Even when - no, especially when - it most definitely isn't. Trust me: trying to look after someone else's mental health doesn't do your own any favours.

This means Peter Robinson has to deal with the scandal enveloping his family, the many unanswered questions regarding his own conduct, the devolution of policing and justice powers to Northern Ireland, a DUP that despite the formal statements appears to be wondering if it's time to drop the pilot, a six-week time limit to tie up all the loose ends, and then at the beginning and end, the small matter of his wife, who he loves and has done so for so long, destroying herself and, unwittingly, everyone who cares about her while he can do nothing to make that situation better.

So I hope you'll excuse me, then, if I don't join in with the Please, Mrs Robinson singalong.

Gary McKinnon made a mistake, but the treatment that someone in full mental health might, with some support and inner strength just be able to withstand, is blatantly too much for him. We know this (even if the Home Office doesn't), and we're willing to defend him where he can't defend himself. We want to make things better for him.

Why do we want to make things worse for Iris Robinson?

The Sunday Whip

Parliament re-assembled after the Christmas break this week, and it looks like regular service has been resumed, with Wednesday being the model of non-controversial motions and consensus, while Thursday displays a little more meat and poor Labour whipping doing more to affect the outcome of votes than anything else. Though, given the weather, the only surprise is that so many MSPs were in the right place at the right time.

Anyway, Wednesday saw no votes taken: the Business Motions were nodded through (though there was some chunnering on the amendment to this week's programme), MSPs acknowledged the Health & Sport Committee's report, Report on the Inquiry into child and adolescent mental health and well-being and the Economy, Energy & Tourism Committee has been lumbered with consideration of the Census (Scotland) Order 2010.

Thursday, however, saw the Stage 1 debate on the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill, and there were eight absentees: Wendy Alexander (Lab, Paisley North), Shadow Further and Higher Education Minister Claire Baker (Mid Scotland & Fife), Rhoda Grant (Lab, Highlands & Islands), John Lamont (Con, Roxburgh & Berwickshire), Marilyn Livingstone (Lab, Kirkcaldy), John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West), Peter Peacock (Lab, Highlands & Islands) and Labour Chief Whip David Stewart (Highlands & Islands). Now on the one hand, the weather conditions were such that to only have eight missing is not so bad; but on the other hand, there's nothing worse than phoning work to say that you can't make it in because of your inability to get to the office, only to find the next day that people who live in the same area successfully arrived after only a little extra effort. The reason I say that is that this is precisely what happened to those MSPs who were missing: John Lamont was the only Borders MSP not to make it in, while Wendy Alexander was the only one from the West who wasn't in the Chamber at 5:00. 11 out of 15 Highland & Island MSPs made it and 14 out of the 16 Mid Scotland & Fife MSPs found their way to the Chamber.

Anyway, back to the Bill, and a LibDem amendment to the motion (they can only amend the motion at Stage 1) fell by 62 (SNP/Tory) votes to 58 (Lab/LD/Green/Margo) - making the amendment a casualty of either bad weather or bad whipping. But the motion itself passed by 104 (SNP/Lab/Con/Green) votes to 16 (LD/Margo), and the Financial Resolution was waved through, so the Bill advances to Stage 2.

So all in all, a fairly light start to 2010. It looks like we're easing back into things.

The Boundaries are A-Changin' Again

While we've all been agog at the Snow Coup and the Iris Stew, the Boundary Commission set out their revised recommendations for the Scottish Parliamentary regions. Like the Constituency plans, the revisions are considerable when compared with the initial plans, but what they effectively mean is that the changes from current boundaries are considerably more limited than the Commission initially envisaged.

The bottom line is this: had the 2007 Election been fought on these boundaries, I believe that the result would have been SNP 46, Labour 44 (so they have most to lose from these changes), Conservative 19, LibDems 17, Greens 2 and of course, Margo on her own. Here's how I get there:

Central Scotland

The initial plans saw this referred to as East Central Scotland and were somewhat messy (no matter how many times you say it, nowhere in Dunbartonshire can be considered 'East Central Scotland'). The revised new region is effectively the old one minus Kilmarnock (with some fraying around the edges), consisting of Labour-held Airdrie & Shotts; Coatbridge & Chryston; Cumbernauld & Kilsyth; East Kilbride; Falkirk East; Hamilton, Larkhall & Stonehouse (formerly Hamilton South), Motherwell & Wishaw and Uddingston & Bellshill (formerly Hamilton North & Bellshill), as well as the SNP's Falkirk West.

The additional seats work out as 5 SNP seats, 1 Tory (a reprieve for Margaret Mitchell, who on the initial plans either had to move Constituency or go up against Annabel Goldie and Jackson Carlaw in the West selection) and 1 LibDem. Overall, then, there's a net loss of one seat for the SNP, which is unsurprising, given that an SNP seat moves out of the region. In effect, this region is no change.

Glasgow

This region wasn't altered by the revisions (no one complained about it), so still consists of the eight Glasgow seats plus Rutherglen. By my reckoning, that makes eight Labour seats and one SNP (Glasgow Southside). The list seats come to 4 SNP, 1 Tory, 1 LibDem and 1 Green, so no change there. Effectively a net Labour loss of one seat, coming about through the dismemberment of Glasgow Baillieston.

Highlands & Islands

Given what I can only imagine was a helluva lot of post on the matter, the Commission has reversed its earlier suggestion call Dumbarton a Highland seat, so again, this seat is now largely as it is, save a couple of minor adjustments around the edges, with four SNP seats (Argyll & Bute, Inverness & Nairn, Moray and Na h-Eileanan an Iar) and four LibDem seats (Caithness, Sutherland & Ross, Orkney Islands, Shetland islands and Skye, Lochaber & Badenoch). The list comes to 3 Labour, 2 SNP and 2 Tory, so status quo.

Lothian

A westward shift in this region has been averted: Linlithgow rejoins the fold, with East Lothian staying out of the region. That means there'll be three Labour seats (Edinburgh Northern & Leith, Linlithgow and Midlothian North & Musselburgh) three LibDem seats (Edinburgh Central - which is a notional LibDem seat on the new boundaries - Edinburgh Southern and Edinburgh Western). The SNP hold Almond Valley and Edinburgh Eastern, while the Tories retain Edinburgh Pentlands. Now, the LibDems still have an overhang (which the Scottish system can't correct), and the shift in boundaries sees the SNP stay ahead of Labour, and produces a List result like the current one: 3 SNP, 1 Labour, 1 Tory, 1 Green and Margo. That means a net loss of one for Labour and net gain of one for the LibDems.

If I were in Labour I'd be hopping mad at this one, and would feel cheated at the under-representation. Similarly, if I were a Tory, my eyebrow would be raised at the LibDems having more seats in the region than the Tories despite having (notionally) fewer votes in what is supposed to be a proportional system. Those less charitable to Labour than I would consider this change to be poetic justice, given the over-representation of Labour in the 1999 and 2003 Parliaments given their constituency haul, but two wrongs don't make a right and Labour have good reason to feel aggrieved.

Mid Scotland & Fife

Like Glasgow, this wasn't included in the inquiry, so there are no changes to the first proposals, and the only real change to the region is a chunk of North Tayside (the part in Angus) leaving for North East Scotland and a small bit of Angus (the part of the seat that's in Perth & Kinross Council) coming in. As on the old boundaries, it works out as five SNP seats, two Labour and two LibDem, with three Labour List seats, three Tory and one SNP. No change overall.

North East Scotland

This one wasn't in the inquiry either, so there are still ten constituencies including the new one straddling Angus and Aberdeenshire. It still works out as seven SNP constituencies, two LibDem and one Labour. The List still works out as 3 Tories, 2 Labour, 1 SNP and 1 LibDem, so that's a net gain for the Tories of one seat.

South Scotland

The initial plans envisaged this being the 'baby' region, but that has changed: it retains (Labour-held) East Lothian, along with Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley, Clydesdale and Dumfriesshire - the region still loses Cunninghame South. South still gains SNP-held Kilmarnock & Irvine Valley which is joined in the notional SNP column by Midlothian South, Tweeddale & Lauderdale, the successor seat to Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale. Three Tory seats - Ayr; Ettrick, Roxburgh & Berwickshire and Galloway & West Dumfries - complete the line-up.

The List sees the SNP with three seats (down two, but only as a result of there now being two SNP seats in the region, which will make next year's List ranking interesting reading), two LibDems (compensation for the conversion of Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale into an SNP seat), one Labour (as a result of a Labour seat being lost and an SNP one coming in) and one Tory. Overall, that means no change to the seat tally here.

West Scotland

The rather radical initial plans (which saw the constituencies north of the Firth of Clyde being shed) have been dropped, and now the only change to the current line up save some more fraying around the edges is the addition of Labour-held Cunninghame South, making this a ten-seat region. Cunninghame South joins the other Labour seats: Clydebank & Milngavie; Dumbarton; Greenock & Inverclyde; Paisley; Renfrewshire North & West; Renfrewshire South and Strathkelvin & Bearsden. The region is completed by SNP-held Cunninghame North and the altered Eastwood seat, which loses Barrhead and changes from a Labour to a Tory constituency.

The re-drawn region also keeps the List at four SNP seats, two Tories and one LibDem. So all in all, that makes a net gain of one for the Tories.

Summary

The winners in this review are the Tories, who gain a List seat in North East Scotland and whose gain of Eastwood isn't punished with the loss of a List seat in the West, along with the LibDems, who gain Edinburgh Central at no expense elsewhere, with the loss of a constituency in the Borders being compensated by an extra List seat in South.

The losers would be Labour, losing a Glasgow constituency and seeing Edinburgh Central change hands with no compensation on the Lothian List, and to a lesser degree the SNP, losing that seat in Central Scotland. However, seeing as that one-seat lead over Labour becomes a two-seat lead (and remember that the initial plans put the two parties neck-and-neck), I don't envisage SNP strategists being too disappointed.

And here's something else to think about: remember last year's Budget, which had to be re-submitted after the first attempt failed? On these boundaries, the SNP, Tories and Margo combined would have had 65 votes (assuming Alex Fergusson would still have been elected Presiding Officer, so costing the Tories a vote), an absolute majority. There would have been no need for a second Budget.

That's not a knife, that's a spoon!

This is what I said on Friday:

But what made the Tory wilderness years so bad, and the start of Labour's time as Scottish Opposition so cringeworthy wasn't the defeat itself, but the party's reaction to it. Firstly, the jockeying for positions began before the election took place, so the parties went into the contest divided. Secondly, the parties turned completely inward and started rowing with each other in the aftermath. If Labour can avoid that, they might be back on their feet by 2011.

This is what Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt have said today:

As we move towards a general election it remains the case that the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) is deeply divided over the question of the leadership.

Many colleagues have expressed their frustration at the way in which this question is affecting our political performance.

We have therefore come to the conclusion that the only way to resolve this issue would be to allow every member to express their view in a secret ballot.

This could be done quickly and with minimum disruption to the work of MPs and the government.

Whatever the outcome the whole of the party could then go forward, knowing that this matter had been sorted out once and for all.

Strong supporters of the prime minister should have no difficulty in backing this approach.

There is a risk, otherwise, that the persistent background briefing and grumbling could continue up to and possibly through the election campaign, affecting our ability to concentrate all of our energies on getting our real message across.

Equally those who want change, should they lose such a vote, would be expected by the majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party to devote all of their efforts to winning the election.

The implications of such a vote would be clear - everyone would be bound to support the result.

This is a clear opportunity to finally lay this matter to rest. The continued speculation and uncertainty is allowing our opponents to portray us as dispirited and disunited.

It is damaging our ability to set out our strong case to the electorate. It is giving our political opponents an easy target.

In what will inevitably be a difficult and demanding election campaign, we must have a determined and united parliamentary party. It is our job to lead the fight against our political opponents.

We can only do that if we resolve these distractions. We hope that you will support this proposal.

So Hoon and Hewitt have opted for the backbiting. And what an idiotic idea! Firstly, they've made up the procedure - it doesn't exist within any Labour party rules. Secondly, it's not just the MPs who are supposed have a say on who the Labour Party Leader should be - it's the affiliated organisations (trade unions, mostly) and individual members who have a vote in the process. Thirdly, there was a chance for all of them - Parliamentarians, affiliated groups and party members alike - to have a secret ballot on the Leadership. That was in the Spring of 2007, when there was an official vacancy. But instead of using that obvious time to put forward this idea - of people deciding who should be the Labour Leader - Hoon and Hewitt declined to do so, failing to nominate an alternative candidate. So they drop their little bombshell now.

And what a time to do it! I know it's a tired line, but there's truth in it: David Cameron really hasn't 'sealed the deal'. Look at the opinion polls from December 1991, when Neil Kinnock looked like ousting John Major (but, as we remember, failed to do so). Look at the opinion polls from December 1996, just five months before Tony Blair's Labour party routed the Tories, the polls projected a far more severe gubbing than the one that actually occurred. If you take a look at last month's polls, you see that the gap between what was expected in the 1991 and 1996 polls and what actually happened in 1992 and 1997 is the gap that could make the difference between the currently projected slim Tory majority and a finely hung Parliament in the Spring.

David Cameron does not have his majority yet and he knows it: that's why he's courting LibDem voters; that's why he's trying desperately to dismiss the governing party of Scotland as an irrelevance (way to foster cordial relations with Bute House, Dave); that's why they're unveiling the results of some very carefully massaged polls in Scotland; that's why Nick Bourne and Cheryl Gillan attempted to dress up the defection of Mohammed Asghar AM and his daughter from Plaid to the Conservatives as a major coup - it had a symbolic quality, given Asghar's status as the only non-white AM, and it gave the Tories a couple of column inches on the day Rhodri Morgan passed the Labour Leadership baton to Carwyn Jones, but significant? Well, not in the grand scheme of things. They still have a lot to do before they can persuade all the people they need to persuade, and they're trying everything. They're not necessarily succeeding as clearly as they would have hoped either.

Yet if Labour figures are willing to do this to their own party at this time, Cameron need do nothing as Hoon and Hewitt have decided to hand him a majority on a silver platter.

And then look at the attack: "It is damaging our ability to set out our strong case to the electorate. It is giving our political opponents an easy target." Nothing about the direction of the party. Nothing about its platform. Not a dickie bird about the policies needed (or not) to present. It's all about the delivery. It's about the medium. It's a McLuhanite approach to politics: the medium is the message. Or, in this case, the messenger is the message. The only principle Hoon and Hewitt seek to espouse is the principle of winning an election. They don't have any new ideas and they don't even appear to have an alternative leader-in-waiting.

This utterly lame attempt at backstabbing reminds me of that scene in The Simpsons, when the family are in Australia. While the family are eating a meal, a local looks at the knives they're using and says, "You call that a knife? THIS is a knife!" At which point he produces a spoon.

That sums up the Hoon-Hewitt attack: they don't want Brown out, but have dreamed up an entirely new mechanism to eject him; they want to win the election, but argue that the best way to do so is to have some sort of catharsis just a short while before an election; they're tired of leadership speculation being in the press all the time, but do something which catapults it back onto the front pages; they want to end the row once and for all, but do so with a suggestion that key Labour figures proceed to pour cold water on but do so in such a half-hearted manner that their real view is obvious: they're not happy either, but think that either the plan isn't the real deal, or its proponents aren't. It's not a knife - it's a spoon.

And Brown has played 'Knifey-Spoony' before. Since the Glasgow East result, Brown has faced all sorts of vituperation and attacks from his own side. But none of them have pushed him out, because every time the killer blow was supposed to come, it didn't. Every time someone was ready to move against him, they didn't. The challenge - or at least, the challenger - has not materialised and Brown stands alone: unloved, unwanted but unopposed. The time to get him out was before he got in, back in the 2007 Leadership election. But that came and went, and Labour are stuck with him until the Election.

People describe Brown as unlucky, but he's not. To oust him, his challengers have only had to be lucky once. To stay, Brown has to be lucky all the time. His luck has got him this far and it will see him stay in Downing Street until polling day.

But luck can only get you so far, and with Labour MPs willing to see the party rip itself to shreds just to prove a point, the furthest luck can get Gordon Brown is polling day. After that, there's nothing he can do.

2010: The Year of If

You know it's going to be an uncertain year when it starts with people arguing over whether or not we've started a new decade. So if we can't settle that, then any predictions are built on pretty shaky ground. Which is why I'm calling 2010 "The Year of If", as you'll be able to see things mapped out, but they'll all be conditional on less certain events.

SNP

So what does 2010 hold for the party of the Scottish Government? I'd say further progress, and the question is how much. You would expect the SNP to take advantage of Labour's decline - and it will - but Labour will attempt to paint the election as a choice between Brown and Cameron. Now, personally, I'd have thought that such a choice would have voters flocking to other parties in their droves, but a particularly polarising campaign could restrict the amount of opportunities open to the SNP. Similarly, you might expect the party's right flank (and seats in Tayside) to be vulnerable to the Cameron effect, but seeing as it hasn't materialised in Scotland, my money's on the SNP seeing off a Tory challenge. And on the one hand, the LibDems and SNP occupied similar political ground in 2005 but the LibDems had the benefit of a wider media profile, but the LibDem political ground has shifted and that gives the SNP a little more breathing room. So in the General Election, the SNP will advance, and the only question is how far. The 20-seat target set just under two years may have provided a hostage to fortune, but there's no doubt that SNP tails are still up.

At Holyrood, things may not go so smoothly. For the Budget, there's no hope of co-operation with Labour (they'll vote the Budget own over GARL) or the LibDems (regardless of what's in there, they'll do anything to annoy Alex Salmond). But the Tories will, for now, be amenable as their present consideration is that they do not want to put Labour into Bute House just as they're trying to eject Labour from Downing Street. That will stand, but once the Tories are in Downing Street, the landscape will change, relations may sour as the two Governments get into confrontations. So it will, once again, hinge on the Greens and it is in the interests of the SNP to listen to them very carefully.

However, with the exception of the Budget, co-operation will be thin on the ground as parties first get into Westminster election mode, then shift gears and get ready for the 2011 Election, so unless the SNP Whips know something the rest of us don't the Referendum Bill is vulnerable. But with a referendum enjoying popular support, and with the opposition policy of "Not this referendum Bill and not now" being vulnerable to fairly obvious cries of "What Referendum Bill and when?", a reverse will work in the SNP's favour.

Labour

Can you hear the ticking of the Great Clock? It's just a couple of minutes until midnight now. I see no way back for Labour and their only consolation is that the defeat might not be as bad as it might have been. But what made the Tory wilderness years so bad, and the start of Labour's time as Scottish Opposition so cringeworthy wasn't the defeat itself, but the party's reaction to it. Firstly, the jockeying for positions began before the election took place, so the parties went into the contest divided. Secondly, the parties turned completely inward and started rowing with each other in the aftermath. If Labour can avoid that, they might be back on their feet by 2011.

But the signs aren't good: Charles Clarke's trying to get Gordon Brown booted out again, there are rumours that Lord Mandelson is Unhappy. So it all hinges on a good clean Leadership contest after the election, with principles and policy at the heart of it. Unfortunately, it's going to boil down to cliques and the losing side will spend the next Parliamentary term huffing and sniping at the new Leadership, as now.

This will provide a double-edged sword for Labour at Holyrood. On the one hand, MSPs will get caught up in the in-fighting and if the new Leadership isn't enamoured with Iain Gray then he has a problem. On the other hand, if he backs the right horse, he might just cement his position. On the one hand, the departure of Jim Murphy as the effective Leader of Scottish Labour (he will either lose his seat or become Shadow Work & Pensions Secretary) will bolster Gray's profile and make him the face of Scottish Labour. On the other hand, that will force him to up his game, and if he messes up, he has no backup and no support. In a year when Iain Gray will be trying to convince us of his First Ministerial qualities (not starting sentences, "If I was First Minister..." would help), he won't need the chaos that will be going on all around him.

Conservatives

This should be a year to celebrate for the Tories, yet victory will come with a bitter aftertaste. Firstly, the enormity of the challenge they face will become very clear very quickly - I expect George Osborne's net approval rating to be something along the lines of -50% by Christmas. Secondly, the polls suggest that we're not heading for a 1997-style landslide (the Tory majority will be around 20 seats). Thirdly, this means that Cameron will have to choose between ignoring his right-wing backbenchers and losing votes in the Commons or losing the centre ground, costing the Tories votes and seats in the next Election, which may be sooner than we think - late Summer 2012 or early Spring 2013. So it will not be a happy return to Government for the Tories.

Of course, if the Tories at Westminster think they have it bad, try being a Scottish Tory! It's fairly obvious that David Mundell will not find himself Secretary of State and the words "Lord McLetchie of Morningside" appear to hove into view. Further, Scottish Tories will find themselves under pressure: on the one hand, relations between Cameron and Alex Salmond won't take long to degrade as the two Governments will blatantly wish to pull in opposite directions. On the other, the Tories will still want to keep Iain Gray out of Bute House.

This will have the greatest impact on the MSPs, who will be forced to pick one side or another: they'll either have to row with their own party, or be branded apologists for the new anti-Scottish Tory Government. But there is a way out: the election looks like yielding the slimmest of slim pickings and you will probably be able to count the Scottish Tory delegation to Westminster on one hand. The Cameron effect has never taken hold in Scotland and there are signs that Annabel Goldie's habit for keeping the ship steady and doing acceptably but no better than that is starting to wear. It may be that the Scottish Tories are de-merged with the UK Party and an arrangement not overly dissimilar to UCUNF in Northern Ireland is established, or it may be that Annabel Goldie is ditched and replaced with Murdo Fraser, with Derek Brownlee as his Deputy. Or, indeed, it may be both.

Liberal Democrats

This might be the year to be neither the Tories nor Labour, but the problem is that for too long, the only thing to stand out as far as the LibDems are concerned is Vince Cable's knack for prophesying economic doom. Aside from that, they've got nothing to go on and if the election polarises, it's the LibDems who have the most to lose, with their voters picking a side. How well they survive depends on how well they stand out and I don't have much hope of them doing that.

And at Holyrood? More obscurity, I'm afraid, and it'll be self-inflicted. At least their friends at Westminster do occasionally produce a distinctive policy or two, but Tavish Scott et al need to be told that hating Alex Salmond isn't a policy. What do the Scottish LibDems have to say on tax? "We hate Alex Salmond". Education? "We hate Alex Salmond". Health? "We hate Alex Salmond". Crime? "We hate Alex Salmond". The constitution? "We hate Alex Salmond". Fine, we get that you don't like the FM. But a political party needs to be based on something more than a visceral hatred of another man and with LibDems sounding more and more like they'd rather people voted Labour than LibDem just to dish out a bloody nose to the SNP, it does make you wonder if they could do to just merge with Labour and have done with it. But even Labour have the occasional flash of a policy. Tavish Scott offers nothing and I don't see a change in approach or emphasis a this year. Or, for those post-2011 optimists among us, next year either. They might, at some point, attempt to bring a Minister down. Then they'll blame the Tories for not playing when they fail.

Greens

This is the year of groundwork for the Greens, and with a very real possibility of Caroline Lucas entering Westminster this year, this is a chance for their profile to skyrocket. Of course, Robin Harper is to stand for the Greens in Edinburgh East - he won't be successful, but there's method in this: possibly a Green Constituency candidate in Edinburgh Central as well as Glasgow Kelvin in 2011, which is the year that counts for the Scottish Greens.

But it will come down to Patrick Harvie to back or bin the Budget, once again. After last year's fiasco, everyone will be wiser to proceedings and that will be to his benefit more than anyone else's. This will give him extra traction come 2011.

The one note of caution is this: beware another Green false dawn! In 2005, the Scottish Greens fielded 19 candidates and kept three deposits, so over-inflated expectations along the lines of every candidate keeping their deposit are to be avoided: that isn't likely to happen. The 2009 result became a disappointment when it shouldn't have been - that's the risk the Greens face this time as well. An otherwise respectable result may seem like a setback, simply because it seemed like momentum was building.