The Problem with the Scotland Debates

It's interesting how much time and energy has been spent by people lamenting why Alex Salmond wants to take part in the televised debates when there's perhaps another oddity staring them in the face, which was brought home to me yesterday.

Let's take the 'Prime Ministerial Debates' as a basis: the three platform speakers are the elected leaders of their respective parties (well, Gordon Brown was anointed rather than elected, but we'll park that issue for now) and their parties' Prime Ministerial candidates. If the party that was in the best position to form a government found itself without its leader in this election, we'd have one of those occasional 'Yeek!' moments that the UK system occasionally throws up and we'd find ourselves in a situation where the Prime Minister wasn't a member of Parliament. The last time this happened was when Sir Alec Douglas-Home renounced his Peerage on emerging as Leader of the Conservative Party. And the result would be that an MP for a safe seat would suddenly find themselves catapulted to the House of Lords to make way for the PM-designate to stand in a By-Election. Similarly, you have to go back to 1916 to find a time when an incoming PM wasn't actually leading his party. In short, one of those three not being in a position to lead his group of MPs on 7 May would be big news, and someone other than those three emerging to form a Government would be bigger news still.

Compare and contrast with Sunday's Scottish debate. Alex Salmond may not be a candidate, but he is the elected Leader of his Party - a party which is fielding candidates in every Scottish seat. He was the only elected Leader there. And Angus Robertson could have done it too (and did so on STV, remember): he was elected Leader of the Westminster Group by his colleagues and will doubtless be re-elected to that position after the election.

But think about the other three.

There is no Leader of Scottish Labour. Alastair Campbell used to rhetorically ask Tony Blair who the Leader of Scottish Labour was. Blair would reply that Donald Dewar was the Leader, to which Campbell would angrily point out that, no, Tony Blair was the Leader of Scottish Labour. There is a Leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament, but that's clearly a reduced scope. Jim Murphy is the representative, as Secretary of State for Scotland - but that's a political appointment issued by Gordon Brown. Even if he's re-elected a week on Thursday, then whatever side of the House Labour finds itself on, Murphy could find himself with any portfolio, and for some reason, when I look at him, I see the words 'Work and Pensions'. Murphy could be speaking on anything for Labour come May 7, and by the same token, anyone could be speaking on Scottish matters for Labour then.

Then we come to the Tories: there is a Leader of the Scottish Tories, but it's not David Mundell: it's Annabel Goldie. David Mundell's appointment as Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland is derived from his status as being the only Scottish Tory MP (though even that doesn't guarantee him the job - if representing a seat from the relevant nation is a qualification, then there were three candidates for Shadow Secretary of State for Wales, and David Cameron gave the post to none of them, opting instead for Cheryl Gillan). If he's joined by Peter Duncan, then his record as Mundell's predecessor and as a former Chairman of the Scottish Tories might give him the edge. And of course, there were those rumours bouncing around that David Cameron might prefer to ennoble an MSP who would take up the post from the Lords. Arise, Lord McLetchie?

Then there are the LibDems. Again, there is a Leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats: Tavish Scott. And it's written into the rulebook that the Leader has to be an MSP. But there is also a President of the Scottish Liberal Democrats: Malcolm Bruce. Instead, we got the LibDems' Shadow Secretary of State - Alastair Carmichael. Now, he had a good performance on Sunday and demonstrated that in the event of a Tory-LibDem Coalition, Messrs Cameron and Clegg could do far worse than to appoint him to the Scotland Office, but the point is that he also derived his presence on that stage from political appointment and nothing more.

And that's the point: three of the four men on the stage on Sunday morning were there because of an appointment by someone else, rather than the full approval of their party members or parliamentary colleagues.

The Party Leaders who put them there could just as easily decide to have someone else in their place tomorrow.

There would be no constitutional 'Yeek!' moment if any or all of them were to lose their seat.

It would not be a major departure if someone who wasn't on the stage at all became Secretary of State for Scotland.

And, come to think of it, there's no guarantee that there will even be a Secretary of State for Scotland at all once a new Government is formed.

So those complaining at Alex Salmond's presence might wish to reflect that he was the only one there with any sort of concrete mandate, the only one there that couldn't be ditched by someone else's whim, which makes it hard to personify the contest for the office: even if the office still exists in a fortnight, there's no guarantee that we saw the next holder.

After all, we're not really electing a Prime Minister in this election: we are electing the people who in effect determine who the PM should be.

So we're certainly not electing a Secretary of State for Scotland: we are electing the people who in effect determine the person who has the right to appoint one.

And there's a reason for independence, in that last paragraph: an independent Scotland could have a constitutional process that didn't descend into an existential discussion of who and what we're actually voting for. More Nats, Fewer Headaches.

Are we getting too outraged too soon?

There is one thing that troubles me in the discussions of hung parliaments, and the opinion polls putting Labour third, yet having the most Commons seats. It's not the fact that we're putting too much emphasis on the opinion polls.

It's the fact that we're reading too much into the polls, that we assume that a poll has put Labour on, say 270 seats to the Tories' 260. It hasn't. It's just put Labour's vote share at 28%, to the Tories' 34%.

Now, no one likes a good extrapolation more than I do, but we have to be careful. After all, despite the emphasis on the debates and the party leaders, the truth is that only the voters of Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath, Witney and Sheffield Hallam will be able to cast a vote for or against the men on their television screens. And even they will only be able to vote for or against one of them!

Because the reality is that this isn't one election. It's 650 elections held on the same day. Well, 649 elections held on the same day, and then Thirsk & Malton a few weeks later as a result of the death of the UKIP candidate there.

Despite that, reports of this one single election that doesn't exist tell us that we're facing three main parties, then a small, grey amorphous blob known as 'Others'.

But in 59 of those seats, there's a fourth major party, the SNP, and in one of those 59, Glasgow North East, any extrapolation is damaged by the fact that three of the major parties didn't stand in 2005 (with 'Mister Speaker Seeking Re-Election' topping the poll).

And in a further 40, there's also a fourth major party, Plaid. And again, one of those 40, Blaenau Gwent, an independent candidate, the late Peter Law (succeeded by his election agent Dai Davies) blew the party structure out of the water.

Then there are another 18 where the party landscape couldn't be more different from the one painted by the UK press. Only one of those 'UK major parties' is standing in Northern Ireland, and that's through an electoral pact with the Ulster Unionists, who supply 15 of the 17 UCU candidates. This pact has then agreed another pact with the DUP in the 18th seat, Fermanagh & South Tyrone, to have an Independent Unionist stand on behalf of both parties (well, all three parties, really). So you have the SDLP standing in 18 seats, Sinn Fein in 17 (all except Belfast South), the Conservatives and Unionists standing in 17 together, the DUP standing in 16, Rodney Connor standing as the Independent Unionist in Fermanagh and Sylvia Hermon standing against her former UUP colleagues (well, actually, he's one of the two Tories) in North Down. Then chuck in the Alliance Party and Traditional Unionist Voice and you realise that frankly, everything you've read about this election doesn't apply in Northern Ireland.

And even in the remaining 532 seats, there are quirks: the seats where the Greens or Respect (and even the BNP) are challenging the three established parties; Buckingham, a battle between Speaker Bercow and UKIP's Nigel Farage; Wyre Forest, home of the Independent Richard Taylor.

The point I'm making is this: common sense dictates that the election won't pan out the same way in all 650 seats. All sorts of local factors - including the presence and personalities of the candidates - cloud the picture. Yet despite that, we're treating the poll extrapolations as gospel. They're not: they're guesses. Educated ones, but guesses nonetheless.

Of course, that's not to say the extrapolations can't be right: of course it's possible that Labour might come third in votes but first in seats. But it's no use getting outraged now, when all that's happened is we've spotted an opinion poll in the papers and then gone on to play about with the BBC seat calculator.

We can't protest a hypothetical outcome based on an opinion poll. It makes no sense to protest against something that is little more than a guess.

Nevertheless, this might be a good time to get the placards ready for 7 May. We don't need them yet, but we might need them then. The truth is, we just don't yet know.

The Sunday Whip

It seems that the election is beginning to take its toll on proceedings at Holyrood, and I would like to take this opportunity to remind MSPs that it's no good asking for mandates for their colleagues, when they can't fulfil their own. Now, all parties are up to this at the moment, but some (and, yes, I am looking at Labour and the Liberal Democrats here) are up to it more than others.

Anyway. Wednesday saw the usual nodding through of the Business Motion and a host of absentees: Shadow Further & Higher Education Minister Claire Baker (Mid Scotland & Fife), Shadow Justice Secretary Richard Baker (North East Scotland), Rhona Brankin (Lab, Midlothian), LibDem Justice Spokesman Robert Brown (Glasgow), Margaret Curran (Lab, Glasgow Baillieston), Marlyn Glen (Lab, North East Scotland), Cathy Jamieson (Lab, Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley), Deputy Leader of the Opposition Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok), Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians), Shadow Sports Minister Frank McAveety (Glasgow Shettleston), Jack McConnell (Motherwell & Wishaw), John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West), Shadow Cabinet Secretary Without Portfolio John Park (Mid Scotland & Fife), Mike Pringle (LD, Edinburgh South), Public Health Minister Shona Robison (Dundee East), LibDem Education Spokesperson Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West), Nicol Stephen (LD, Aberdeen South), Jamie Stone (LD, Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross) and Jim Tolson (LD, Dunfermline West).

They missed an SNP motion on transmission charges. The Labour amendment - which was missed by Shadow Rural Affairs Secretary Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central) - fell by 71 (SNP/Con/LD) to 35 with two Green abstentions. The Tory amendment - which was missed by Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson (Banff & Buchan) - fell by 54 (SNP/LD) to 52 (Lab/Con) with two abstentions. The LibDem amendment passed by 71 (SNP/Con/LD) to 0 with 38 abstentions (did I mention that I get annoyed by this whole business of forcing a vote only to abstain?), and the motion passed by 57 (SNP/LD/Green) to 0 with 52 abstentions:

That the Parliament opposes the existing locational approach to charging electricity generators for access and use of the GB grid system applied by National Grid and Ofgem that results in areas with the greatest renewables potential facing the highest charges in the United Kingdom; agrees that locational charging is a barrier to delivering renewable energy generation from Scotland, impacts on investment decisions and the growth of the Scottish energy sector and undermines delivery of a balanced, diverse and sustainable energy mix that helps to meet the challenge of climate change through moving to a low-carbon energy generation mix; supports the Scottish Government in continuing to work with industry, utilities, academia and environmentalist and business organisations to address the issue of high transmission charges; welcomes the work now in hand to develop and deliver options for change to the transmission charging regime that will help deliver Scotland's energy potential and ensure security of energy supply; recognises also that the current system of charging threatens efforts to develop and deploy large-scale carbon capture and storage technology; believes that it now is essential that an urgent review of the locational charging regime be carried out, and urges the Scottish Government to work with any incoming UK administration to help ensure that such a review gets underway before the end of 2010.

Thursday, meanwhile, saw the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill reach its final stage, and a Labour motion on the Economy.

The whole day was missed by Wendy Alexander (Lab, Paisley North), Rhona Brankin, Bill Butler (Lab, Glasgow Anniesland), Cathie Craigie (Lab, Cumbernauld & Kilsyth), Margaret Curran, Joe FitzPatrick (SNP, Dundee West), Kenneth Gibson (SNP, Cunninghame North), Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale), Marlyn Glen, Cathy Jamieson, John Lamont (Con, Roxburgh & Berwickshire), Shadow Enterprise Minister Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central), Tom McCabe (Hamilton South), John Farquhar Munro, Peter Peacock (Highlands & Islands), Shona Robison, Margaret Smith, Nicol Stephen and Shadow Children's Minister Karen Whitefield (Airdrie & Shotts).

Only one amendment (appropriately titled 'Amendment 1', and raised by Labour) to the Bill went to a vote - the others were waved through. Trish Godman (Lab, West Renfrewshire) was in the chair for this, so Alasdair Morgan (SNP, South of Scotland) was paired for it, while Jim Hume (LD, South of Scotland), Alex Johnstone (Con, North East Scotland), Shadow Community Safety Minister James Kelly (Glasgow Rutherglen), Margo MacDonald, Jamie McGrigor (Con, Highlands & Islands), Mike Pringle, FM Alex Salmond (Gordon) and LibDem Leader Tavish Scott (Shetland) missed the vote. It passed, by 57 (everyone but the SNP) to 42. The Bill was waved through at Decision Time.

Then came the Economy motion, where the election reared its ugly head and everything was thrown out - I saw this coming: of course Parliamentary co-operation was going to be eroded! Anyway. The SNP amendment fell by 64 (Lab/Con/LD/Green) to 44 with Margo abstaining. The Tory amendment fell by 49 (Lab/LD/Green) to 15 with 45 abstentions (SNP & Margo). The LibDem amendment fell by 93 - the SNP, most of Labour, though Duncan McNeil (Greenock & Inverclyde) missed this one, the Tories and the Greens - to 14 - the LibDems plus Shadow Culture Minister Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) with Margo abstaining. And the Labour motion fell by 61 (SNP, Tories and Greens) to 34 with 14 abstentions (LibDems and Margo). So the Parliament took no position in the end.

And that was this week. Next week, the Parliament will take no position on the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Bill and the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill. MSPs will not vote in favour of anything relating to the Green Party Business on Thursday morning, or agree on the Government's Social Care debate.

Is this the New Politics?

Ironic is that the 800th post on this blog should be a plug for my Twitter feed, where I will, of course, be following the debate.

A Hawkish Case for Scrapping Trident?

One thing to emerge from the debate is the re-emergence of the Trident programme as an election issue and the differing positions on it. However, what I'm concerned about is that both sides have remained in their corners: the abolitionists cite the cost and, more importantly, the immorality of weapons of mass destruction; the retentionists cite the jobs created by its presence and the need to defend ourselves with the best tools that we can.

These arguments have been well-rehearsed. Indeed, far too well-rehearsed to be persuasive.

What's needed, then, is a foray onto 'enemy' territory: either a progressive, moral case for upgrading Trident, or a hawkish, utilitarian, military case for scrapping the thing. I believe the latter exists and, in this post, I'm going to attempt it. I'm going to take a look at what I perceive to be the threats to national security and assess whether or not Trident can handle them, looking in particular at three approaches: Deterrent, Response and First Strike.

Threat #1: The Old Foes

I do, of course, mean Russia and China, upon whom David Cameron nearly declared war last Thursday. Back in the Cold War, the threat came almost exclusively from them, and came in the form of The Bomb. Neither of these are the case anymore: both powers now rely on the West for trade and investment, and reducing your target market to radioactive cinders is bad for business. Money is the key, and to win any battle with the West, it follows that Russia and China (doubtless along with their fellow BRICs, Brazil and India) will use international trade negotiations to stiff the West. Cut Trident, and there's money for more and better negotiators.

Then there's China's latest wheeze in the ongoing quest to control key natural resources: lovebombing Africa. And, in particular, not being overly squeamish about who they give their cash to - hence contacts with the regime in Sudan. It's not a new idea: both sides in the Cold War saw Africa as an extra front, and sought to build and support favourable regimes. The difference appears to be that despite continued investment in international development, we stopped looking at the international politics. China didn't stop, so it's gaining a foothold. How do you respond to this? Simple. Fight lovebomb with lovebomb. More aid, more money, more contact with (and development of) friendly governments. If the West doesn't do that, China will. Then, when we need to start looking to Africa for resources, we're screwed. Act now: cut Trident, and pump money into the DFID.

Finally, if a confrontation does occur, it would be very easy for either Russia or China to bring us to our knees quickly, without firing a shot. Russian hackers brought down the online infrastructure of the Estonian Government over a row about a war memorial. Given our reliance on the Internet, those same hackers - or their counterparts in China - could do untold damage, and indeed, this is now a feature of modern warfare, to the extent that the brief war in South Ossetia was marked by hacking attempts on both sides, including Georgian hackers briefly bringing down the Russian government's main publicity mouthpiece, Russia Today - echoes of NATO's targeting of the RTS infrastructure in Belgrade during the Kosovo Crisis. This is where the hit's going to come. Prevent this, and you defend the country. Cut Trident, and invest in cyber-security.

So let's take a look at our three pillars: Trident is not going to be a factor in trade negotiations and we certainly can't nuke Shanghai if they stiff us in the next round of talks. Nor is Trident preventing China from investing in places like Sudan, and again, a bomb on Beijing is surely not an option. Similarly, Trident won't deter hackers and nuking Moscow is a disproportionate response to a DOS attack.

In dealing with the Rival Powers, Trident fails.

Threat #2: The Rogue States

This is a far more pressing threat: North Korea has the Bomb and seeks to use it as some sort of geopolitical penis extension; Iran wants it and its President has suggested wiping Israel off the map for a lark. Make no mistake: we do have to do something here, before Tokyo or Tel-Aviv find themselves on the wrong end of a lunatic's weapon.

And imagine, if you will, that you're Kim Jong-Il. You're ready. You've had enough. It's time: you're going to press the button and destroy the capitalist pigs surrounding your nation. So long, Seoul. Toodle-oo, Tokyo. It's nuke time. But just as you're about to press The Button, an aide pipes up:

"Dear Leader! The UK has Trident missiles based on submarines! Should we reconsider?"

Of course, the answer is no. And you resolve to have the aide shot for insubordination.

The bottom line is this: Trident is no deterrent to these people and never will be. You're not dealing with the old two- or three-way contest between wily old leaders trying to gain advantages over one another. These people are nutjobs: an over-promoted taxi driver clinging onto power in Tehran and a pampered Mummy's Boy with insecurities about his height (or lack of it) in Pyongyang. If they want to nuke someone, they're going to nuke them. Deterrence is doomed.

That leaves action. A nuclear first strike is out of the question, and may end up provoking the very thing we want to avoid. A conventional first strike to take out nuclear capabilities is not necessarily out of the question but we have certainly missed that boat where North Korea is concerned. As for Iran, a certain near-neighbour who has good cause to be worried by Ahmedinejad's rhetoric provides a precedent (albeit an uncomfortable one) for dealing with a threat like this. If a strike becomes necessary, is should resemble Operation Opera, the strike against the Osirak reactor. Even that may be considered too much for some, but it's less unacceptable than nuking Iran for what it might or might not have developed.

And in the case of North Korea, it's believed that the time for first strike has been and gone, and that the DPRK already has nuclear capability. If they do use it, can they use it against UK interests? Are there any within range? Probably not, and this is likely to be the case for Iran as well. So were Trident used against them, then the UK's "independent nuclear deterrent" becomes a nuclear retribution on behalf of (or even in the hands of) someone else. This is surely not acceptable on any level.

Again: Trident is no deterrent, it's not suitable for a first strike and its use in a revenge attack is limited. Cut Trident, and beef up conventional and special forces, should it become necessary to put North Korean or Iranian infrastructure beyond use.

Threat #3: Terror

What if 9/11 or 7/7, already devastating attacks, had involved 'dirty bombs'? The nature of 9/11 would have made that highly unlikely, but certainly the case of 7/7 or the Madrid Train Bombings, it wouldn't have been hard to use radioactive material in the bombs had those involved been able to acquire it.

Would Trident have deterred the 7/7 bombers in that case? Of course not: they weren't deterred in the first place and in any case, they were suicide bombers: threats of counter-strikes don't wash.

Would it deter the wider al-Qa'ida network from launching attacks? Of course not. If it did, 9/11, 7/7 and the Glasgow Airport Attack would never have happened.

So what about as a response, or a pre-emptive strike? Well, as a response, the ones who launched the attack would be dead already so any counter-blow would be futile. And whether before or after, the collateral damage of nuking an entire area for the sake of a handful of people would be absolutely unacceptable.

And using against Osama bin Laden is out: we don't even know for sure if he's dead or alive, let lone where to bomb if he is still out there.

Similarly, a bomb against the 7/7 terrorists is out of the question as they were born in the UK: bombing Dewsbury is out of the question. I might be a Lancastrian, but the thought of nuking Yorkshire makes even me go white.

Here, again, Trident doesn't pass the test. In the first instance, we need more support for conventional forces on the ground in Afghanistan: that's more useful in combating extremists like the Taliban. More importantly, while we must always remember to protect our civil liberties, domestic intelligence services are, at times, a necessary evil - as long as its directed against the right people. And even if that's a step too far, then a decent external service with a strong human intelligence resource would be a bonus. Cut Trident, and there's money in the pot for MI5 and MI6 to up their game.

Conclusions

What I've tried to argue is that besides being a moral abomination and a drain on the public purse, Trident simply isn't up to dealing with the threats we face. Trident did have its place in the last century, when the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine was in force, when the world was divided into two armed camps, not too dissimilar from the century before that, when the Great European Powers treated the world as their chessboard. But the game has changed, there are different pieces, different players and different rules. Those who used to understand and follow the deterrence principle themselves can find other ways of hitting us and hitting us hard; those who look to nuclear weaponry or any sort of WMD won't be deterred by the UK's arsenal. And in any case, it's not appropriate either for a military response, let alone a first strike. It's not the best at all - it's not even good enough. It has outlived its usefulness.

In short, Trident is an attempt to handle the 21st Century World Order with 20th Century technology and a 19th Century mindset.

Junk it.

The Sunday Whip

Well, it's back to the action - of a sort. Attendance seemed a little sparse. I can't think why.

Anyway. Wednesday saw the usual waving through of the Business Motion, and a host of absentees: Shadow Rural Affairs Secretary Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central), Malcolm Chisholm (Lab, Edinburgh North & Leith), Parliamentary Business Minister Bruce Crawford (Stirling), Margaret Curran (LAb, Glasgow Baillieston), Helen Eadie (Lab, Dunfermline East), Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale), Marlyn Glen (Lab, North East Scotland), Shadow Transport Minister Charlie Gordon (Glasgow Cathcart), Cathy Jamieson (Lab, Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley), Shadow Community Safety Minister James Kelly (Glasgow Rutherglen), Labour Deputy Leader Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok), Shadow Schools Minister Ken Macintosh (Eastwood), Stewart Maxwell (SNP, West of Scotland), Tom McCabe (Lab, Hamilton South), Shadow Education Secretary Des McNulty (Clydebank & Milngavie), John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West), Hugh O'Donnell (LD, Central Scotland), Irene Oldfather (Lab, Cunninghame South), Shadow Cabinet Secretary Without Portfolio John Park (Mid Scotland & Fife) and Jim Tolson (LD, Dunfermline West).

Now, it looks there like around a third of the Labour MSPs have skipped the session which does beg the question: if Labour can't be trusted to exercise the mandates they have properly, can they be trusted to exercise mandates in the Commons?

But I digress. What the MSPs who could be arsed to do what we pay them for were up to was the passage of the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Amendment Order 2010 by 95 to 0 with 13 LibDem abstentions, and a Government motion on the economic recovery plan.

First came the Labour amendment, which fell by 65 - SNP, Tory, Green, Margo and Peter Peacock (Lab, Highlands & Islands) to 43 (Lab/LD). A Tory amendment fell by 78 - SNP, Labour, Margo and LibDem Finance Spokesman Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale) - to 18 (Tory/Green) with the remaining 12 LibDems abstaining. Incidentally, I've said it before and I'll say it again: the LibDems put their credibility at risk when their Finance Spokesman votes differently to the rest of the party on a motion about the economy. However, the LibDems got it back together for their amendment, which passed by 63 (everyone but the SNP) to 45. The amended motion passed by 61 (Labour/Tories/LibDems - what was that about the LibDems being different from the other two? - along with Margo) to two (Green) with 45 SNP abstentions:

That the Parliament notes the Scottish Government's response to the global recession through the Economic Recovery Plan and notes the three core themes of investing in innovation and industries of the future, strengthening education and skills, and supporting jobs and communities, and regrets that unemployment continues to rise in Scotland while falling in the United Kingdom as a whole.

Thursday, meanwhile, was a mixed bag. There were fewer absentees (though that wasn't difficult): Wendy Alexander (Lab, Paisley North), Bruce Crawford, Margaret Curran, Karen Gillon, Marlyn Glen, Cathy Jamieson, Shadow Enterprise Minister Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central), Ken Macintosh, Stewart Maxwell, LibDem Environment Spokesman Liam McArthur (Orkney), Tom McCabe, John Farquhar Munro, Irene Oldfather, Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson (Banff & Buchan) and Labour Chief Whip David Stewart (Highlands & Islands).

First came that rare fiasco: the outright collapse of the LibDems' motion on supporting business. An SNP amendment fell by 68 (Lab/Con/LD/Green) votes to 44 (SNP) with Margo abstaining. A Tory amendment fell by 96 to 16 with Margo abstaining. So far, so grim: neither party with an amendment managed to get support beyond their party. The LibDem motion did succeed in doing so, but still fell by 62 (SNP/Con/Green) to 50 (Lab/LD) with Margo abstaining. Accordingly, MSPs voted not to tke any position on supporting business.

Then came the LibDem motion on fuel prices: an SNP amendment passed by 60 (SNP/Con) votes to 38 (Labour/Green) with 15 (LD/Margo) abstentions. The Tory amendment fell by 96 to 16 with Margo abstaining (not a good dy for Tory amendments, it seems), while the amended LibDem motion passed by 73 (SNP/Con/LD) to 38 (Lab/Green) with Margo abstaining:

That the Parliament notes the AA report of 8 April 2010 that indicates that the average price of petrol in the United Kingdom has reached an all-time high and is likely to rise still further; recognises the high premium over the national average paid for fuel at filling stations in remote rural and, particularly, island communities; regrets the damaging financial and social impact that this has on individuals and businesses in these areas; further regrets the lack of progress that has been made on efforts to find a mechanism to reduce the price of fuel in specified remote rural and island areas of Scotland, and calls on the Scottish Government to hold urgent discussions with the UK Government and the European Commission to construct a mechanism, including consideration of a fair fuel regulator, under the EU energy products directive or otherwise, to reduce the fuel price differential between remote rural and island communities and urban areas of the UK.

Finally, there was consensus achieved with the SNP motion on an action plan for Gaelic, with a Labour amendment, a Tory amendment (so some joy for them) and the amended motion all being waved through:

That the Parliament recognises that Gaelic is more than a language and, as such, it strengthens and enriches many aspects of Scotland's social, cultural and economic life; also recognises that the current condition of Gaelic needs urgent attention; welcomes the programme of action provided by Bòrd na Gàidhlig, which is designed to achieve the outcome of increasing the number of Gaelic speakers and bring renewed attention to the important place that Gaelic holds in Scotland; calls on the Scottish Government to keep the funding for Bòrd na Gàidhlig under review in light of the Gaelic language targets, and recommends that the Parliament and Bòrd na Gàidhlig pay close attention to the New Zealand Government's successful initiatives to increase the numbers of Maori language speakers.

And that's another week gone. Next week includes a Government debate on transmission charging (a change to lob eggs at Labour), Labour business (a chance to lob eggs back at the SNP), the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill (sod the dogs, what about the owners?) and a debate on progress towards 18-week referral to treatment.

Debate #1

For all the relevance it has for my main readership and subject matter (i.e. strictly limited), the TV debates are something new and deserve to be tracked, even if the devolved bits are of no use to Scotland and the absence of a representatives from key political players in Scotland and Wales (aren't we meant to be in a Union of some sort?) doesn't help.

Amd I maintain that, with the uncertainty of the outcome and the possibility of a hung parliament, SNP and Plaid MPs have a major part to play: after all, a majority Labour Government had to rely on the nine DUP votes to get its terror detention policy through the Commons, while a three-figure majority was whittled down to just five on top-up fees.

Given the close outcomes of votes in Parliaments with solid majorities, it follows that on current projections, even a small band of SNP and/or Plaid MPs could end up affecting important - and contentious - aspects of UK policy. Accordingly, it is and it will remain in the public interest of everyone to be aware of the SNP and Plaid approach. By withholding a place on the stage for one or both of those parties, the broadcasters are placing England and the English public in a difficult position as well.

That's why, on Twitter, as well as #scotlandspeaks, I'll be tagging #letenglandlisten where I can.

And speaking of which, that's where I'll be following the debate - so you can follow me @WillPMacNumpty to join in.

Debate Prep

In which I take a look at what the performers in the upcoming Prime Ministerial Debates need to do to get the edge.

Brown: Be more confrontational

This one sounds counter-intuitive, even after I explain that I don't mean 'aggressive'. But I'm not suggesting that he be confrontational towards the other candidates, but towards the issues. When someone heckles Gordon Brown, he just sweeps past them - he can surely hear them, but he's rather good at pretending that he doesn't. When someone asks him a question he doesn't like, he ignores it. When someone presents him with a fact, a truth, a reality that isn't convenient to him, he completely dismisses it no matter how ridiculous it makes him look (I recall how David Cameron brought up Wendy Alexander's infamous, "Bring It On" moment, and Cameron quoted verbatim, only for Brown to reply "that was not what she said" despite the fact that Cameron was quoting the transcript).

So Gordon, if you're reading this, when a question comes, answer it. When a point is made, respond to it. When a fact is brought up, address it. Don't avoid it. Don't sidestep it. Don't ignore it. And only deny it if it's patently untrue. You'll gain respect by being honest (let's face it, Blair's masochism strategy worked to an extent), and the papers will pan you more if you brush anything uncomfortable aside than if you try to tackle it.

After all, this is a debate: that means engaging with the other side's points.

Cameron: Think on your feet

For someone who likes to pace around the stage without notes, David Cameron is a highly programmable speaker. His Conference performances don't show a man who's speaking from the heart and doesn't need notes, but a man with a good memory, who can recite lines on cue. One may as well stick a parrot in front of the ITV cameras. The downfall comes when everything's committed to memory, Cameron has learned what points and lines he wants to get in and when, but the argument moves in an unexpected fashion or the other side's response was not what he planned (rather like how Paul Le Guen appeared to plan how the opposition team would play, then couldn't understand how Falkirk wouldn't stick to that plan and would win 1-0), and he's been caught cold like this a few times.

So he should try a more free-form approach. OK, the lines might be less polished and there may even be the odd 'Um' and 'Ah' in there but that's not as bad a mess-up as trying to steer a debate back to territory it left a while ago, or trying to make a point that's already been shot to pieces by the other side. One error like that, where his over-preparedness makes him look semi-detached from the debate, and it's an open goal for Brown and Clegg.

Again, this is a debate, go with the flow.

Clegg: Be less emotional

Again, this may seem counter-intuitive, but bear with me. Remember last week's PMQs, where Nick Clegg opened with that disdainful "He and he...", and it sounded like a cross between a hissy fit, and an exasperated Eric Morecambe introducing Ernie Wise and Andre Previn's interpretation of Greig's Piano Concerto for the fifth or sixth time (the point at which he gave up naming them and exclaimed, "With him and him!". Now, it may well be that it's a matter that genuinely frustrates Clegg, but the truth is he doesn't seem to render them in a natural way. Perhaps because, at times, it looks like he's getting narky about procedure rather than policy. But whatever the reason, his anger, however genuine it may actually be, appears contrived, synthetic. So, don't do anger!

Besides, there'll be plenty of heat exchanged between the other two, so there's scope for Clegg to be the Voice of Reason, leaving the playground to the children and actually making serious points. That'll set him out as being different in a good way, rather than just appearing to be a crap actor.

The others: Better off out of it?

Imagine. It's 10:01 on Thursday night. The debate was inconclusive. No one was the winner. The losers were the unfortunate viewers who did their best to stay tuned in to the end but ended up watching the commercials and making a brew during the programme instead of the other way around. The bulk of the debate centred around England-only issues (or even issues that might be reserved but seem to matter more in England than in Scotland, or perhaps where the perspective is different in any case) and the three candidates tore into each other without actually discussing relevant points.

It's possible that these debates might put people off all three parties, especially as Nick Clegg's "the other two are the same, we are different" line can't be sustained in the programme. The minute the other parties disagree - which they will - his line about them being the same is blown out of the water. The minute he agrees with either Brown or Cameron - and he will have to on something sooner or later - his line about the LibDems being different is undermined. And if he just disagrees with everything anyone else, he'll look like a complete muppet. Plus which, if the other two parties do agree on something, his choice is to either join the grey, cosy consensus, or be the one who breaks that consensus and creates division. The "Labservative" line will look increasingly shaky come Friday morning and advantage will fall to a party that wasn't on the platform. And one party in particular - the SNP, of course - will have a spot on BBC Scotland which will provide a window to go through all the material gathered on the Thursday night debates.

Basically, if this debate turns out to be a damp squib, if neither leader satisfies people's expectations, if there's no clear winner or loser, that generates a massive opportunity for the SNP, for Plaid and for the Greens - even for UKIP in Tory areas.

If Brown, Cameron and Clegg can't conquer their demons, they can't conquer each other. If they can't conquer each other, they can't capture votes. And if they can't capture votes, there are others who can.

By the end of April, they may all rue these debates.

In Which Alistair Carmichael undermines LibDem campaigns

In discussing the football at the tail end of the Politics Show today, LibDem Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland Alistair Carmichael pointed out that pundits said that Ross County couldn't win yesterday so we shouldn't dismiss the Liberal Democrats.

The irony, it seems, was lost on him. I wonder if it was lost on their candidate in Aberdeen South:



Neither the Tories or the Nationalists can possibly win here. Voting for them now will only help Labour hold on in Aberdeen South. Only by voting for the Liberal Democrats can we stop Labour taking our area for granted.

What will it take for the LibDems to get that you can't keep doing this?! You can't keep dismissing the whole 'two-horse race' notion when you're not one of the horses nationally, only to beat that drum over and over again on the strength of a local result!

And of course, it's leaving a massive hostage to fortune: time and again we're told that only they can win in X. But what if they don't? Then, you haven't managed to eject a candidate you dislike, and you haven't voted for the party you actually agree with. Now, that really is a wasted vote.

Every party produces the bar charts, but most parties have beliefs that accompany them.

The lesson here is that if you don't use policies as the key to your campaign, the only horse metaphor worth using is the one involving the words 'flogging' and 'dead'...

In Which I Take No Pleasure In Being Right

This is what I said in November, when it was Open Season on SNP bloggers:

However, those sneering at the Cybernats, those calling this the SNP's Drapergate should realise that the loudest SNP voices in the blogosphere are a standing rebuttal to every allegation thrown at the SNP (well, I would say that, wouldn't I?) and that we are the first to wonder how to deal with those who (rightly) draw the criticism. And we should all realise that when the original Drapergate scandal hit, we all got tarnished. Every blogger, regardless of party. So if I were them, I wouldn't be dancing on the graves of these blogs or any other. Instead, I'd be standing beside them, in quiet reflection.

Why? Because we don't know which one of us could be next. Let's clean up our own houses first, before we slag off other people's.

Well, that's where Stuart MacLennan, now ex-Labour candidate for Moray comes in, and probably ex-researcher for Pauline McNeill (will Iain Gray expect her resignation as he did Mike Russell's for what Mark had written?) with a bewildering array of tweets, using assorted swearwords to describe David Cameron and Nick Clegg, but also party colleague Diane Abbott (he also talked of a 'good day to bury Stephen Byers'). He also referred to being 'stuck' in the constituency he was standing in, described people as 'chavs' (flying in the face of the class war strategy, perhaps?), referred to people who were basically his neighbours as 'Teuchters' and described the elderly as 'coffin dodgers'.

Now, I'll be honest, if politicians being called rude words is the worst thing that's ever happened to them then they've led sheltered lives. If it needs all this hysteria then frankly, our politicians do need to grow a thicker skin. You are public figures. You are not universally popular. Some people will use naughty words about you. Some will do so on the internet. Get over it.

But to slag off the elderly, and to slag off your neighbours, that's something else. And for a Parliamentary candidate to do it is beyond the pale.

As it happens, Stuart went to university around the time I did and had other foul mouthed pals (including one who was so foul-mouthed that he scarred a friend of mine for life). I also seem to recall him being in the Diagnostics Society. Now when I was at Uni, I was the Debates Convener who had to fend off accusations that the Debates Union was out of touch with... well, the rest of the universe. The Diagnostics Society, however, was in another dimension altogether. And I have to confess, my first encounter with MacLennan did not go well: he was backing a student election candidate who'd make the mistake of announcing in advance his plan to piss all over the election rules and regulations (then complained about being disqualified), a man was also the first student election candidate not to take his own nomination form around for support, having a lackey do it for him. MacLennan was the lackey in question and I, who was not well disposed to his chosen candidate anyway, sent him away with a flea in his ear. Other encounters, however, were affable enough, and I can only assume that he saw the internet in a way that so many people do, as a chance to unleash your inner tosspot.

Well, this is where it's got him.

And look at where it's got Labour: all that protesting about those nasty CyberNats, when they were harbouring their own vicious online attack dogs for far longer - and making them candidates! What will George Foulkes do now?

All that calling on Alex Salmond - who has repeatedly called on the SNP's online supporters to think about what they're posting - to crawl on his hands and knees across Scotland, begging forgiveness for what someone else with a bad mood and a laptop did when they combined the two, when Jim Murphy and Iain Gray instantly dismiss any calls for MacLennan's resignation - until they realise just what a row it's turned into!

All that demanding Mike Russell should be punished for something written by an employee who had a blog of his own - will Iain Gray punish Pauline McNeill in the way he expected the FM to punish the Education Secretary?

I take no pleasure in seeing the torpedoing of Stuart MacLennan's career. He was, at the end of it, a young, daft guy, doing a daft thing, and a wave of utterly idiotic comments have basically ruined his life. That's not something to gloat about.

And I take no pleasure in being right in my warnings that every party should be careful both in its own online dealings and how it deals with the mistakes of other parties.

Stuart thought he could carry on with his daft tweets indefinitely.

Labour thought they could carry on preaching about other people's shortcomings without any of their own coming to light. They saw the various 'CyberNats' as justification to brand the whole SNP as the nasty party - now they're tarred with their own brush. Nasty and hypocritical.

They were both proven wrong, so let me say this again, before anyone else is stupid enough to head for the pulpit about their party's online purity, or daft enough to mouth off when so many people have come a cropper for doing so:

Next time, it could be you.

Irony

Now, I know there's a trend for parties ripping off each other's poster ideas (memo to all party campaign managers, if I see another 'Fire Up The Quattro' variant, I will hunt you down and beat you up with my laptop), but this one has particular zing.

It was, I suppose, only a matter of time (though 18 years is a little much) that this 1992 effort would come back to haunt the Tories:


Well, today we discovered that what goes around comes around. Though I didn't expect the LibDem view to be that to attack the Tories, they must pay homage to the Tories:


There's irony in here somewhere: the Tories getting hoist by their own petard is one possible source. The LibDems deciding that the best way to attack a Tory idea is to use, er, a Tory idea is perhaps another.

I'll leave that one to the philosophers.

Nag, nag, nag...

Nick Clegg, yesterday:

"This isn't the old politics of a two-horse race..."

The Scottish LibDem website:



In many parts of Scotland, the Liberal Democrats are the only alternative to Labour for the Westminster elections.

In these areas the Conservatives and the SNP are in a poor third or even fourth place and cannot win. Only the Liberal Democrats can deliver real change.

John Sleigh, LibDem Candidate for Aberdeen South, on a page entitled 'Two Horse Race':

Neither the Tories or the Nationalists can possibly win here. Voting for them now will only help Labour hold on in Aberdeen South. Only by voting for the Liberal Democrats can we stop Labour taking our area for granted.

Andrew Reeves, March 30th:

Finally the Conservatives in Aberdeen South have realised that the general election is a two horse race between the Labour MP and Liberal Democrat John Sleigh.

Andrew Reeves, April 3rd:

Well, David Cameron has admitted what we already know in Scotland, that the forthcoming general election is not a fight between Labour and the Conservatives, but in fact between the Liberal Democrats and Labour, who have the most Scottish MPs between them.

Andrew Reeves, today:

So, the battle on May 6th in East Lothian is between Fiona and Stuart Ritchie, the Liberal Democrat candidate as it is we who are in second place here.

So we have Nick Clegg announcing the end of a two-horse race, and Scottish LibDems, most notably Andrew Reeves, still peddling the two-horse race idea. Perhaps there is only a two-horse race when the LibDems are one of the horses.

But this is what we're used to from them - the same old hypocrisy from those charlatans of Scottish politics. The people who claim to be the only relevant challengers to Labour, despite having lost their deposits in the last three By-Elections.

The people who claim to be democrats, then refuse to support a referendum on Scotland's future, despite wanting one on, well, just about everything else.

The people who in 2005 claimed to be 'winning for students' while one of their candidates was calling for a limit on the number of student flats.

The people who claim to want transparent government, then reject an inquiry into the goings-on in Glasgow City Chambers.

The people who say they're against the Iraq War, then celebrate when the party who got us into it win By-Elections, just because they're not the SNP.

The people who say they're against ID cards, then celebrate when the party who wants to introduce them win By-Elections, just because they're not the SNP.

The people who say they're against detention without trial, then celebrate when the party who brought us 42-day detention win By-Elections, just because they're not the SNP.

The people who say they want fairer local government tax, then celebrate when the party who wants to keep the regressive Council Tax win By-Elections, just because they're not the SNP.

Well, they'd better hope that people don't realise that the LibDems are trying to con them. Far from representing a real, positive change, the LibDems are the party of chicanery, of deceit, of saying anything just so one day they can junk actual policies and just tell you to vote for them because the bar chart with the wonky scale says so.

Because when people do find out, and they inevitably will, then this is where the LibDem horse will end up:

Day 1

We're off and running.

Jim Murphy is telling us that "This is game on and we are going to fight from now until 10pm on polling day to re-elect Labour and stop the Tories winning back power."

Which shows that Labour's first priority is stopping the Tories from taking office. Once again, they're for winning, nothing more. They're against someone else winning, nothing more. And, worse still, they've emphasised the second. Wouldn't it be nice if, just once, and for the first time since 1997, a reason Labour gave for voting for them wasn't in actual fact a reason for not voting for someone else?

The Scottish Tories, meanwhile, have gone with this:



Barack Obama, it ain't. Yes, he wanted change, as do they. But he also wanted hope, and that's in short supply here.

The LibDems, on the other hand, have their Four Steps to a Fairer Britain, which includes this rather prominent feature:



So the key to fairness, apparently, is that there happen to be LibDem MPs in Parliament already, and they happen to be in second place in various constituencies. The key point here is, "If you can't stand Labour, vote for us". Which sort of undermines the rest of it. In any case, much of the content on that part of the Scottish site relates to devolved issues which aren't at stake in this election, so it might be four steps to a fairer Britain, but only half a step to a fairer Scotland. And incidentally, the "only we can get Labour out" claim has been undermined today by Chris Huhne, who'd be favourable to a deal with Labour, as long as Gordon Brown was no longer Prime Minister. Dire, dire, dire.

Compare all that with this:

"The SNP are going into this campaign with a clear message for Scottish voters: more votes means more Nats, and more Nats means less cuts. The Westminster system is discredited, and only SNP champions can protect and promote Scotland’s interests.

We can protect jobs, recovery and important local services and instead cut things like the £100,000 million replacement for Trident, identity cards, the House of Lords or the Scotland Office.”

"On polling day the people of Scotland can do more than just vote for a politician, they can elect a local champion with the SNP.”

A positive message, with a real reason to vote for the SNP, rather than against someone else. Already, the SNP stand out.

Let the Frenzy Begin!

Well, after what seems like years (and in fairness, it was years), the campaign is to get underway tomorrow, and Polling Day will be 6 May.

There will, I fear, be limited scope for humanity, as we all go into Battle Mode. On the other hand, there will, I hope, be ample scope for a decent quip. Not from me, of course, but still...

I'm tempted to say good luck, but there are only 59 people who I want to get that. And hopes for a good, clean fight seem, well, doomed.

So instead, here's hoping that everyone involved in the electoral process can get to 2200 on 6 May and be content that whatever the result, they did the best that they could. The rest will take care of itself.

Now, isn't [insert name of rival party leader of your choice] a #@$%?!

Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow

She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.

We are, of course, nearing the Final Act, and over the next few weeks, across the UK, the last scenes will be played out. Will the curtain fall, or will there be a sequel that few of us were expecting?

I'm in a dramatic mood today (hence the rejig and the culling of the blogroll) and there are times when such urges just have to be indulged. After all, tomorrow Gordon Brown will almost certainly go to the Palace and seek a dissolution of Parliament. It's going to be tomorrow: it's either then, or next month, anyway.

I was never convinced by the wave of expectation, sweeping us all towards an early General Election back in Autumn 2007. Let's face it, Brown had spent thirteen long, agonising years plotting and scheming to eject his colleague Tony Blair, and having had all sorts of golden opportunities over the period, never quite managed it: Blair went of his own accord, having announced of his own initiative that the 2005 Election would be his last. Brown's acolytes got the concession that the 2006 Conferences would be his last, but again, Brown himself was not in a position to land the final blow, and it was Blair who set his final departure date and somehow, despite everything, left the stage with the audience wanting an encore.

No, Brown had spent the time waiting, plotting and hoping, but never quite having the bottle to make the ultimate decisive move that would bring about his move next door at a time when he wanted. Why, then, having waited so long, would he risk it all in an election that could have seen him leave 10 Downing Street before his feet were properly under the desk? Why, after 13 years of cautious inaction, would he blow it on one massively reckless move? That wasn't his style and that election was never going to happen. Still, we all planned for it - just in case.

Then 2009 came. And went again. That's how it was always going to be: after an ugly git of a 2008 for the Government, and Labour (not completely fairly) getting the blame for the expenses scandal, he was never going to go last year. Again, it wasn't his style.

So why, then, am I sure that, with a choice between going to the Palace tomorrow, and leaving it a month, he'll go tomorrow?

Image. It's what did for Callaghan in the end: he thought Prime Minister 1976-79 looked better in the history books than 1976-78. Similarly, Brown didn't want the 2007 Election as he didn't want to have the shortest term of office since George Canning, who had the excuse of dying in office. Of course, Brown has metaphorically died in office many times over, but that's beside the point. Image counts, and going tomorrow gives Brown at least some dignity and credibility. Wait another month and he'll spend the next four PMQs getting filleted.

Besides, there are elections anyway on 6 May, to local Councils (including the London Boroughs), and recent history is very clear: the polls will be timed to co-incide. It used to be that Governments tried to avoid that at all costs, it was a factor in the timing of Polling Day when the Callaghan Government fell; Margaret Thatcher went to the country just over a month after local elections in 1983 and did the same in 1987; John Major's re-election took place just four weeks before local elections and European elections, until 2004, always fell a few weeks after council contests.

But it was John Major's departure from office when the approach changed: the 1997 General Election coincided with County Council elections in England; and Blair repeated the process in 2001 (delaying both due to Foot and Mouth) and 2005. He even brought forward Northern Irish local elections so they'd take place concurrently with the Westminster campaign. The 1999 Council Elections in Scotland coincided with the first elections to the Scottish Parliament, and the Parliament passed the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Act 2002, which changed the terms of office for local Councillors from three years to four so that they would continue to coincide (and thanks primarily to the Gould Report, that decision will be undone soon). Local elections were moved back in 2004 and 2009 to coincide with the European Elections, and even the London Mayoral and Assembly elections were moved back in 2004 for the same reason. Indeed, the last time two sets of major contests were held just a few weeks apart was 1999, when the European elections took place just five weeks after elections to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly (as well as local elections).

It would be a major break with this recent approach, and an act of cowardice to delay any longer.

And what of the outcomes? One gets the feeling that Gordon Brown spent so long plotting to be Prime Minister that he never actually bothered to work out what he'd do once he got the job, and we've had platitudes where there should have been a plan, as the Government has spent the last few years bouncing from fiasco to crisis, like a ping pong ball in a tumble dryer. But still, the polls aren't as unfavourable as they could be - or indeed, have been. The Tories lost half of their seats in 1997, while Labour lost just under a sixth of their seats in 1979. The reality, I guess, will be somewhere between the two and the marker for Labour is 237 seats, a loss of 119 seats or one third of the 2005 actual total. Anything higher than 237, and they can claim to have held off the worst (though as Labour found out to its cost in 1983, the worst could still be to come). Anything lower, and Labour are in disaster territory.

By contrast, you get the feeling that all the Tories stand for is winning elections and there's still no real sense as to what a Tory Government will mean. It seems that David Cameron has been trying so hard to get into Downing Street that he doesn't really know what he'll do when he gets there either - that the Party seems to face both ways on - well, basically everything - makes the sense of uncertainty even greater and that might explain the blip in the polls. Voters like policies they can reach out and touch, and the Tory Government still has this intangible quality that doesn't help its cause. The electoral maths aren't helpful either: a net increase of 107 seats on the Tories' actual 2005 total would be broadly equivalent to the gains made by Tony Blair. That increase would still deliver a Hung Parliament. With a Hung Parliament increasingly likely, 274 (an increase halfway between those of Thatcher and Blair) is the target and anything short of that would be an embarrassment. Anything higher, and the Tories are at the very least on track, and would have the necessary momentum to get their majority in 2011.

For the LibDems, the actual numbers are irrelevant: it's their position relative to everyone else that matters and their requirements are frighteningly specific. There has to be a Hung Parliament, and they - and only they - should be able to carry one party or (preferably) both over the line. If the Tories get a majority, it doesn't matter whether there are nine LibDems or ninety: it's all been for nought. And their campaign doesn't inspire confidence: vote for us, because our spokesman successfully predicted economic doom (I won a bet on Saturday that Bristol City would draw with Nottingham Forest - does that make me an ideal candidate to be Minister for Sport?). Vote for us, and our clunky slogan that's a mishmash of everyone else's. Vote for us, because the other parties are actually drawing up a manifesto specifically designed to make your life a living hell (that's the upshot of "We are the only people who believe in fairness" line). Vote for us, because, really, you shouldn't give a shit about that other lot (that's the upshot of all the SNP-bashing, despite their apparently being irrelevant, and in any case, that's a rather daft claim from party that lost its deposit in the last three Westminster By-Elections in Scotland). And I still haven't forgiven my local LibDem Councillor for saying that he's "not bothered" how I vote in a General Election as long as I vote for him to keep his seat on the Council and get a pretty community garden across the road from his house while a current beauty spot gets flattened for just two houses.

Then there's the SNP. Again, the numbers shouldn't matter too much, but the number 20 does still loom large. It's some way off in the distance, but the number is there. The SNP premise is a clear one: it won't be the Government but it can influence the Government better than its own backbenchers can. And the slogan ("More Nats, Less Cuts") is simple and effective, albeit ungrammatical. The big problem is, with the party basically cut off from the UK-wide media, how does it make sure that its message gets across to the maximum number of people? That's the challenge.

And what of the other parties? Can the Greens make the breakthrough? They can. Will they? We don't know. Can UKIP's Nigel Farage oust John Bercow? I doubt it. Can Nick Griffin get into the House of Commons? Well, if press reports are to be believed he'll have done well getting to polling day without his publicity officer murdering him.

Here are a few early calls:

1. The Tories will have the most votes, and will probably have the most seats. But unless David Cameron is capable of going without oxygen for a fortnight, he shouldn't hold his breath before getting into Downing Street. He will have to wait a while.

2. Nick Clegg will find himself with a lot of explaining to do, either to his Party not getting the result they wanted, or to the press and the public for a cack-handed reaction to getting the result he wanted.

3. No more than 1,000 votes will determine whether or not Caroline Lucas enters the House of Commons.

4. Esther Rantzen's challenge will come to nothing: the main reason Martin Bell won in Tatton in 1997 was that the opposition to Neil Hamilton coalesced around him. That isn't happening in Luton and the vote will be too badly split for her.

5. Nigel Farage will still be an MEP at the end of it all. He'll accuse the main three parties of a 'cosy European consensus' that prevented a fair fight.

6. The SNP will make a real progress in votes and seats, but Labour will attempt to portray the result as a personal disaster for Alex Salmond.

7. This is as much hope as expectation, but if there's any justice, Anne McGuire will have done to her by the people of Stirling what she did to thousands of disabled workers at Remploy.

Now, let the drama begin...

Why can't the Tories be straight on gay rights?

I think we need to allow people to have their own consciences. I personally always took the view that, if you look at the case of should a Christian hotel owner have the right to exclude a gay couple from a hotel, I took the view that if it's a question of somebody who's doing a B&B in their own home, that individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn't come into their own home.

Thus spake Chris Grayling, in a conversation taped on the sly by the Observer. Needless to say, it's sparked a row.

After all, we were told that the Tories were no longer the party of Section 28, that they'd changed, that they were gay-friendly and could wheel out gay supporters (and openly gay frontbenchers) as proof of this. Then they formed a group in the European Parliament with a gaggle of homophobes and fans of the Waffen SS. Their MEPs also refused to condemn Lithuania's answer to Section 28. This is coloured by the fact that Chris Grayling voted in favour of the regulations that prevent B&B owners from banning gay couples on the grounds of their sexuality. Mixed messages? You bet.

As for the argument itself - I don't think it's as clear cut as we'd like to believe. On the one hand, yes, this is meant to be based on a religious principle and I'm not comfortable with the idea of two groups being in a position where if one is to get its way, it has to trample on the right of the other one to live as it would wish. On the other hand, let's nail this deeply-held religious belief thing once and for all. These people claim they are acting in accordance with the Christian faith. This is the same faith which teaches its followers "Judge not, lest ye be judged" (Matthew 7). Well, I am sorry, but I can't think of anything more judgemental than saying, "No, you can't stay in my guest house as a paying customer like everyone else because I'm afraid that you might get up to something that I find sick and wrong!". In short, to say that it's an honest, legitimate religious belief is bullshit: it's nothing less than a complete inversion of one of the key principles of Christianity.

But what about the LGBT position? I can't help but wonder if maybe we've got so used to having to shout and fight for our rights that we can't get it into our heads that there might be other ways of doing things. After all, in cases like this, we're only a vulnerable minority if we allow ourselves to be vulnerable: we, ultimately, are the consumers, the ones with the cash. And that gives us the power. So the owner of the Shangri-La doesn't like gay couples? Fine, there's another B&B down the road that's conveniently located in the 21st Century. We'll take our money there. We get our room for the night, the guest house owners who see us as paying customers first and anything else second gets our money, and bigots who shut the door on us might have a room unfilled but can rest easy in the knowledge that they've done what they think is God's work. Everyone gets something.

Or do they? Obviously, the bigoted owners don't get the money, but there's another factor: word of mouth. We'll tell our friends: "Can you believe it? They wouldn't let us book a room!" and our friends will be horrified. They'll tell their friends, and so on, ad infinitum. Add to that online reviews: we can now go on tourist and hotel review websites, and make our point there. That puts off other consumers, which hits the B&B owners. This doesn't need a legal ban, it needs concerted and organised consumer action and the message should be a fairly clear one: get with the times, or get out of the business. We have the power to hit them where it really hurts, not on the statute book, but on the balance sheet.

On the other hand, discrimination is discrimination and we're supposed to be beyond that as a society. More worryingly, sympathy for this bigoted position has been expressed by a man who could be a member of the Cabinet in just a few weeks. To put it bluntly, if it's got to the point where businessmen and businesswomen are willing to put their own personal prejudices above a clear business opportunity in the name of a corrupted view of a religion which, quite frankly, has bigger fish to fry than this, and if they're backed up in this restriction of the market with medieval dogma by a senior member of a party that claims to support free enterprise, then something is very, very wrong. While legislation shouldn't be the answer, if this is what we have to contend with, it might be the only way forward.

Meanwhile, we're left with a Tory party whose Spokesman voted for the Equality Act Regulations but doesn't actually agree with them, that doesn't want hotel owners to discriminate but is fine with B&B owners being as bigoted as they wish in the name of God, that claims to have turned its back on Section 28 but then refuses to condemn its Lithuanian equivalent, that happily parades around people like Nick Herbert and Margot James as proof that they've changed, then shacks up with the Polish Law & Justice Party, whose leaders have argued that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to be teachers.

In an ideal world, none of this would be necessary: Christianity wouldn't have picked up all this extra baggage that runs counter to the teachings of the Gospels, B&B owners would realise that they're the ones who lose out by not opening their doors to everyone, and LGBT campaigners would get that in cases like this, we can win simply by acting like consumers rather than protesters.

But in this far from ideal world, I'd settle for at least knowing where the Government-in-waiting of the United Kingdom actually stands on gay rights, for good or for ill. Even if it's anti, I'd rather we all knew for sure... before the election!

The Spring Whip

As promised on Sunday, here's the now traditional report card of the parties' attendance and cohesion in Parliament.

We start with what this time around we might consider to be a top five-and-a-half absentees. John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West) has missed 108 of the 114 votes to take place in Parliament since the new year - hardly surprising as the last vote he cast was on 21 January. It's been generally understood for some time that JFM is unwell and it was suggested the last time he was off for a sustained period that he didn't particularly wish to seek re-election and had to be cajoled into doing so. Questions really ought to be asked as to whether or not JFM is well enough to continue for the year of his term that he still has to serve: it's not fair on him that he should be in this position, and it's not fair on the people in the Western parts of the Highlands who find themselves, in effect, without a constituency MSP.

Second is Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians), who missed 52 votes; third is LibDem Leader Tavish Scott (Shetland), who missed 35; Labour's Margaret Curran comes fourth (Glasgow Baillieston) with 31 votes, which does beg the question: if she can't attend to her first mandate effectively enough, what on earth is she playing at seeking a second mandate at Westminster?

Now let me explain the five and a half: we have a tie for fifth place, with Tom McCabe (Lab, Hamilton South) and Trish Godman (Lab, West Renfrewshire) both missing 28 votes (barring the 20 for which Godman was chairing proceedings). However, as we discussed on Sunday, there appears to be a convention by which if one Deputy Presiding Officer is in the chair for a vote, the other DPO takes no part in it, and all of Godman's missed votes are in accordance with that convention. In effect then, while she was neither in the chair nor voting, she can be accounted for and she was, ironically, discharging her duties effectively by staying above the fray.

SNP

The SNP have the best attendance rate of the four main parties at 97.52%.

Alasdair Morgan (South of Scotland) missed the most votes (20), all of which were on account of the convention which saw Trish Godman out of action. Next came FM Alex Salmond (Gordon), who missed 16, and Public Health Minister Shona Robison (Dundee East) who missed 14.

Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson (Banff & Buchan) missed nine votes, Parliamentary Business Minister Bruce Crawford (Stirling) missed seven, while Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead (Moray) missed six.

Christine Grahame (South of Scotland), Culture Minister Fiona Hyslop (Lothians), Housing Minister Alex Neil (Central Scotland) and Gil Paterson (West of Scotland) all missed five votes, while Andrew Welsh (Angus) missed four.

Schools Minister Keith Brown (Ochil), Angela Constance (Livingston), Community Safety Minister Fergus Ewing (Inverness East, Nairn & Lochaber), Stewart Maxwell (West of Scotland) and Shirley-Anne Somerville (Lothians) all missed three.

Environment Minister Roseanna Cunningham (Perth), Christopher Harvie (Mid Scotland & Fife), Children's Minister Adam Ingram (South of Scotland), Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill (Lothians), Enterprise Minister Jim Mather (Argyll & Bute), Education Secretary Mike Russell (South of Scotland), Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon (Glasgow Govan) and Finance Secretary John Swinney (North Tayside) all missed two votes.

Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North), Michael Matheson (Falkirk West), Ian McKee (Lothians), Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow) and Stuart McMillan (West of Scotland) all missed only one.

In terms of cohesion, it makes sense to discount the contrived split on the climate change motion the other week and apart from that act of political sidestepping, the SNP achieved a cohesion rate of 99.77% - lower than usual, as there have been twelve votes against the party line. Kenneth Gibson and Christopher Harvie have gone against the whips twice, while Chief Whip (!) Brian Adam (Aberdeen North), Angela Constance, Bruce Crawford, Kenny MacAskill. Jim Mather, Stuart McMillan, Alasdair Morgan and John Wilson (Central Scotland) have all done so once. Given the lack of resignations, I'd suspect that most of those were accidental.

Labour

Labour's attendance rate is a grim 93.38%. Aside from Curran, McCabe and Godman, there's a lengthy list of absences, most of which are multiple. Irene Oldfather (Cunninghame South) missed 21 votes, George Foulkes (Lothians), Group Leader Iain Gray (East Lothian) and Duncan McNeil (Greenock & Inverclyde) all missed 19.

Shadow Housing Minister Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow) missed 16, Cathy Jamieson (Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley) missed 15, Elaine Smith (Coatbridge & Chryston) missed 13, Deputy Leader Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok), missed 11 and Shadow Enterprise Minister Lewis Macdonald missed ten.

Rhona Brankin (Midlothian), Bill Butler (Glasgow Anniesland), Shadow Transport Minister Charlie Gordon (Glasgow Cathcart) and Jack McConnell (Motherwell & Wishaw) all missed nine votes while Shadow Further & Higher Education Minister Claire Baker missed eight.

Shadow Health Secretary Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton), Marlyn Glen (North East Scotland) and Marilyn Livingstone (Kirkcaldy) missed seven votes; Peter Peacock (Highlands & Islands) missed six.

Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale), Rhoda Grant (Highlands & Islands), Shadow Cabinet Secretary Without Portfolio John Park (Mid Scotland & Fife), Shadow Climate Change Minister Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East) and Shadow Finance Minister David Whitton (Strathkelvin & Bearsden) all missed five votes.

Wendy Alexander (Paisley North) and Hugh Henry (Paisley South) both missed four votes while Shadow Public Health Minister Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland & Fife) missed three.

Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow Maryhill), Chief Whip David Stewart (Highlands & Islands) and Shadow Children's Minister Karen Whitefield (Airdrie & Shotts) missed two votes; Shadow Schools Minister Ken Macintosh (Eastwood), Shadow Culture Minister Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) and Shadow Education Secretary Des McNulty (Clydebank & Milngavie) all missed one.

Labour's cohesion rate is 99.84%, with a total of eight rebellions, four of which were undertaken by Tom McCabe, who was at odds with the party's motion the Scottish newspaper industry. The other four one-time rebels were Rhona Brankin, Peter Peacock, Richard Simpson and Karen Whitefield.

Conservatives

The Conservatives' usually decent attendance record has slipped somewhat to 91.89% this time around. Party Leader Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland) missed the most votes (23), with Gavin Brown (Lothians) missing 21, John Lamont (Roxburgh & Berwickshire, and another prospective dual mandate parliamentarian who isn't doing his first mandate any justice) missing 19 and Ted Brocklebank (Mid Scotland & Fife) missing 17. Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) missed 16 votes while Jamie McGrigor (Highlands & Islands) missed 14.

Deputy Leader Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland & Fife), Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) and Health Spokesperson Mary Scanlon (Highlands & Islands) all missed eight votes, while Chief Whip David McLetchie (Edinburgh Pentlands) missed seven. Jackson Carlaw (West of Scotland) missed four votes, and Finance Spokesman Derek Brownlee (South of Scotland), Nanette Milne (North East Scotland) and Rural Affairs Spokesman John Scott (Ayr) all missed one.

The Tories have experienced no rebellions.

Liberal Democrats

The presence (or rather, lack of it) of John Farquhar Munro in the LibDem group was always going to warp the party's attendance rate, which comes in at a dire 87.45%, though even if he were discounted, it still comes in at a distinctly uninspiring 92.92%.

Besides JFM and Tavish Scott, Mike Pringle (Edinburgh South) has missed 16 votes, Nicol Stephen (Aberdeen South) has missed 15, Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross) has missed 12 and Education Spokesperson Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West) has missed 10.

Health Spokesman Ross Finnie (West of Scotland) has missed nine votes, Environment Spokesman Liam McArthur (Orkney) and Chief Whip Mike Rumbles have missed six, while Finance Spokesman Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale) and Jim Tolson (Dunfermline West) have missed four. Local Government Spokesperson Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) has missed three votes, while Hugh O'Donnell (Central Scotland) has missed one.

The LibDems have experience four rebellions, giving them a cohesion rate of 99.75%. Hugh O'Donnell, Mike Pringle, Iain Smith and Nicol Stephen are the one-time rebels.

Greens and Margo

The Greens have a 100% attendance and cohesion rate, while Margo's attendance rate comes in at 54.39%. Of course, she has something of a mission in the remaining twelve months of her term: the End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill. Her record for turning up might look pretty patchy, but she's obviously getting ready for a last throw of the parliamentary dice. Whatever the outcome, it's difficult to see her wanting to carry on beyond 2011.