The State of the Secretary

Following on from last week's Guest Post by Socialist Animal on who might emerge as Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland once the Labour Leadership and Shadow Cabinet elections have been and gone, I thought I'd take a look at the state of the actual Secretary's role as it stands, and its ramifications for Labour and the SNP.

So the first part of this post, then, the actual role as it stands, is going to be rather short.

What exactly is Michael Moore doing?

We're seeing that there are more direct interventions from the actual subject portfolios: Danny Alexander has, arguably, engaged more with the Scottish Parliament as Chief Secretary to the Treasury than he did in his brief spell as Secretary of State for Scotland, when his only notable public utterance was to confirm that he had nothing to add following David Cameron's words, and Nick Clegg has got into a direct row over the timing of the AV referendum and its clash with next year's Holyrood election. Even David Cameron and William Hague have got in on the act with their entrance into the Lockerbie row, and the Scottish Affairs Select Committee has resolved to discuss the end of the video gaming industry tax break with George Osborne directly. Michael Moore appears to be cut out of the process.

It may be that a lot of this is owed to bad timing: we know that he wants to push Calman forward, but this has been overshadowed with the continuing row with the US Senate over al-Megrahi, so he is, perhaps, just unfortunate. But even so, his interventions have been fewer in number and of a lower profile than those of Jim Murphy, whose spell in Dover House saw him pretty much everywhere, or indeed, Moore's counterpart in the Welsh Office, Cheryl Gillan, whose first act was to get into a row with the Welsh Assembly Government over the timing of the referendum on more powers for the Assembly.

Compared with Murphy and Gillan, Moore looks positively Trappist. And that means that Dover House is out of the picture.

And this spells trouble for the LibDems: with Clegg unilaterally scheduling a referendum to clash with the Holyrood poll, and with Alexander being put up to make the argument for budget cuts, it's LibDem ministers who are being forced to fight the main battles, and they're being forced onto the wrong side of the argument. This could spell disaster next year: five LibDem constituencies are vulnerable to just 5% swings; they risk losing their regional seat in Central Scotland altogether; even factoring in extra regional seats to balance out Constituency loses, the LibDem Group could find itself reduced to just thirteen members next year if the Party can't find its mojo again.

Meanwhile, it just highlights the irrelevance of the Scottish Tories: David Mundell is not helping matters by being mired in a row over his election expenses and an accusation that he planned a smear campaign against his current boss, but despite being the sole Tory MP in Scotland, he is subordinate to a Secretary of State who appears to have been drowned out of matters himself. Mundell is at best an insignificant member and at worst a liability in a Department which few appear to care about at this time.

Yet this, perversely, makes things harder for the Shadow Secretary of State. Now, the previous occupant of the post had difficulty making waves but I'd put that down to 1) the occupant being a Tory, and 2) the occupant being David Mundell, whose impact has been low. However, even Jim Murphy appears to have fallen down a black hole of late which suggests that the job is not all that big a draw. And it's not hard to see why: the occupant isn't in the Westminster Government; they aren't in the Scottish Government; they aren't the Leader of either Opposition and the Department they're shadowing isn't getting in the papers. The only Shadow Cabinet portfolio worse in that respect would be Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. So it's hard to shape the news agenda, and on that basis, it hardly matters who gets the Shadow job - it's currently worthless.

Of course, this means it's Iain Gray's big moment: Jim Murphy stole the show in Dover House, leaving Gray out of the picture. Now, it's his time to shine, and with the Holyrood elections next, and Gray effectively a First Ministerial candidate, that's the way it should be. But it's only a good thing if Gray and his people use the limelight well and there seem to be echoes of Labour's post-2007 behaviour at the moment. The party seemed to get its act together, and became more professional and effective when Murphy was at the front, but under Gray it seems to have gone back to form. When in a position to make common cause with the SNP on the timing of the referendum, Gray could only be grudging, noting that he agreed with Alex Salmond "for once". George Foulkes opted to use Nicola Sturgeon's wedding as a vehicle for a venomous press release about how she ought to change her name. And Richard Baker has now told the press that it is perfectly proper for politicians to kowtow to foreign legislatures, on the basis of his protests against Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill not being willing to travel to Washington DC just to say something that they've already said about a thousand times over. So the Scottish Parliamentary Labour Party is centre-stage, but on the basis of early performances, the show doesn't deserve to last too long.

In short, without Jim Murphy sitting in Dover House, Labour has gone back three years. That's not a good thing.

So this, then, is the SNP's big chance: the Scotland Office has been neutered, the UK Government ministers discussing policy in Scotland appear to be on the wrong side of an argument, and Labour have gone back to their worst. Moreover, with this being a Holyrood election, the Tory stick isn't quite as effective and besides, despite what we were told in this year's campaign, voting Labour did not keep the Tories out anyway.

But more importantly, with UK ministers directly involved, we're back to where we were before Jim Murphy's appointment. For me, a major contributing factor to the SNP's victory in the Glasgow East By-Election (though I accept that with such a close result, all factors were major contributing factors) was the party's ability to frame the contest as a tale of two governments, with each promoting and defending its record. The SNP came out on top as it had an effective frontman for that purpose, whereas the UK Government did not. It took the appointment of Murphy to spike those guns, as we saw in Glenrothes, Glasgow North East and the General Election. Although the Coalition Government has someone in Murphy's job, it doesn't have anyone performing his role as he did.

In short, Labour need a lot of creativity at Westminster and a more mature approach at Holyrood if they're to make any progress. Conversely, with a weakened Scotland Office and the Shadow Secretary of State role reduced to an irrelevance, there is a major opportunity for the SNP to seize the initiative.

But with only a little over nine months left until polling day (barring any last minute panic-driven changes to the Scotland Act), the party must move quickly.

A Precedent Set - Well, Sort of...

It's now official: Presiding Officer Alex Fergusson has been selected as Tory candidate for Galloway & West Dumfries next year. We were expecting this, but it still rankles: we've got it in our heads that a Presiding Officer needs to be above the fray, and here he is standing as a Conservative candidate.

But then, this is uncharted territory: unless he changes his mind between now and next April, this will be the first time since devolution that the Presiding Officer at Dissolution has been on the ballot paper at the subsequent election. Fergusson is now setting the precedent.

And it's because he's setting the precedent of seeking re-election as an MSP that his decision to stand again as a Tory, when he's supposed to be above the political fray, rankles so. But that's understandable: it rankled when it emerged that David Steel continued to take the LibDem Whip in the Lords. He set a precedent that the Presiding Officer's impartiality extended only as far as his duties as PO. As Steel's duties in the Chair did not go as far as Westminster, so Fergusson's duties don't go as far as the stump once Parliament is dissolved. But Steel also set the precedent of the commentariat being offended that a Presiding Officer wouldn't shed his political allegiances completely (a predecent backed up when George Reid was overheard commenting on Nicola Sturgeon's performance at FMQs once), and Fergusson has already had to face this. Indeed, his campaign leaflets will make for interesting reading.

But before the hysteria starts, let's consider a few things: firstly, does the affiliation (or lack of it) of a Presiding Officer make the blindest bit of difference? If they chair a meeting fairly, then it does not. After all, except in exceptional cases, the PO only speaks to say 'Order' and 'We now come to Decision Time', and he does not vote, except to break a tie when convention now effectively dictates that he must vote for the status quo. And not only can the Deputies speak and vote when they're not in the Chair, but they have stood for re-election to Parliament on a partisan ticket. George Reid was elected Deputy PO in 1999, and stood for the SNP in Ochil and in Mid Scotland and Fife in 2003. Murray Tosh was elected Deputy PO in 2001 and stood for the Tories in Dumbarton and the West of Scotland two years later, then was re-elected DPO and stood again for the Tories in Dumfries and the South of Scotland in 2007. Trish Godman was elected Deputy PO in 2003, and stood again for Labour in West Renfrewshire four years later. So it's perhaps a little harsh that Fergusson shouldn't have the same rights as his deputies (though we know that one of them, Alasdair Morgan, will not be exercising those rights as he is standing down).

Of course, we're spoiled by Westminster convention, where the Speaker sheds his Party and stands for re-election as 'Mister Speaker Seeking Re-Election', but we might want to note the convention in the Welsh Assembly, where Dafydd Elis Thomas was elected as Presiding Officer in 1999, then stood as a Plaid candidate in 2003, when he was re-elected to the Chair, and stood again for Plaid in 2007, and retained his post as PO.

But there's another factor, which means that Fergusson is not setting a full and clear precedent: he is standing for re-election as an MSP, but not as Presiding Officer: indeed, he was reluctant to take the post the first time round and has no wish to take it again.

So he is standing as a Tory Candidate because he wishes to be a Tory MSP. Fair do's, I suppose, though it does start to generate speculation as to who might succeed him. Do Labour have anyone this time? They're the only one of the Big 4 not to have supplied one yet, despite having had a total of 67 different MSPs since the Parliament first sat (and who'd have thought back when the referendum campaign was being fought that a Tory would be the Presiding Officer of a Scottish Parliament before a Labour member?). Is LibDem Ross Finnie thinking of throwing his hat into the ring, as is rumoured? We shall see.

But again, Fergusson's decision still leaves a basic question unanswered: what happens when a Presiding Officer decides to seek re-election as Presiding Officer?

We won't know the answer to that one for another four years.

Why Florence and Precious must stay

Do you remember when Jack Straw decided that the Chilean despot General Pinochet should not have to stand trial for the thousands of deaths he ordered?

Do you remember when Kenny MacAskill came to the conclusion that he had to show compassion to the terminally ill Lockerbie Bomber, and release him from HMP Greenock?

Did you spot the news story saying that gay men seeking asylum in the UK should no longer be told to go home and not make it so obvious that they were gay?

Did you notice the news story over the weekend, where Home Secretary Theresa May told a Women's Aid conference that the UK Government wanted to end violence against women and girls?

Think about that: we showed compassion to a dictator; we showed compassion to the man convicted of blowing up PanAm Flight 103 (a story that still reverberates today); judges have made it clear that we must protect vulnerable gay men who face at best persecution and at worst death if they are sent back to their home countries; and the UK Government wants to protect vulnerable women and girls from domestic violence.

So more and more, compassion is the watchword, and we're increasingly driven by a need to protect the vulnerable from harm.

Yet the UK Border Agency appear not to have got that particular memo.

Why else would they be looking to deport Florence and Precious Mhango? Florence and Precious came to the UK from Malawi with Florence's husband, Precious' father, in 2003, when he came to study. But Florence found herself a victim of domestic abuse, so in 2006, did the only thing she could. She got out: she and Precious came to Glasgow, and stayed with friends.

Now, for having done that, the two face deportation. Worse still, they have already received threats from the husband's family, and under Malawian law, children are effectively the "property" of the father and his family (and I'm trying not to be horrified by that concept). So if they are sent back, Florence has nothing to look forward to but persecution, while Precious - who has been in the UK since she was 4, will be torn away from her mother, and forced to live her life with people she doesn't know, in a country and culture she doesn't remember, speaking a language - Chichewa - she doesn't understand.

And even more perversely, the father has been granted leave to remain in the UK. Think about that: a wife-beater gets permission to stay in the country. A woman and her daughter, looking for nothing more than freedom from violence and the right to take a full part in the community they now calls home face forcible deportation, and now leave in fear of the same state they hoped would protect them.

The conclusion is inescapable: we are not meeting our own standards.

So this is what I hope Theresa May understands: her predecessor Jack Straw showed clemency to General Agosto Pinochet; her counterpart in the Scottish Government Kenny MacAskill showed clemency to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi; legal opinion is now of the view that we should not send vulnerable people back to a life of violence; and her own policy is to protect vulnerable women and children from domestic abuse. All of these signs point one way, and one way only.

She must let Florence and Precious Mhango stay in Glasgow.

Guest Post: Shadow Scottish Secretary: who’s in the running?

A Guest Post from an old sparring partner of mine, Socialist Animal, one of the authors at Political Scrapbook, with a Labour-eye view of who the runners and riders are for the post of Shadow Scottish Secretary once the dust has settled and the Labour Party has a permanent Leader. I'll be producing my own thoughts on the parties' Leadership structures very soon.

As though the Labour Leadership election wasn’t enough fun, shortly afterwards we’ll have the fun of shadow Cabinet elections, jostling for which is already well underway. With the Scottish elections just months away the post of Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland is likely to be a crucial one.

Naturally who gets what will depend on:

A. Who runs for Shadow Cabinet, and;

B. Who’s supporting the ultimate winner.

It’s likely that most of the candidates for Shadow Cabinet will be either present or former front-benchers. Additionally the leader can top-up the Shadow Cabinet with 4 others, though that number is amongst a number of rules currently being reviewed by a committee headed up by Margaret Beckett.

ALL of the present Scottish Shadow Cabinet members have been Secretary of State for Scotland and would therefore likely view the post as a demotion, which leaves people who’ve held lesser ministerial posts before. Of the David Miliband supporters these are Tom Harris, Frank Roy, David Cairns, and Anne McGuire. Ed Miliband is being supported by the immediately previous PUSS for Scotland Ann McKechin, as well as former Scottish Cabinet Minister Margaret Curran. Ed Balls is being supported by former Defence Minister Eric Joyce, while Andy Burnham is backed by former Culture Minister Tom Clarke and former Scottish Cabinet Minister Cathy Jamieson.

Assuming the victor is one of the Milibands the Shadow Secretary will likely be one of their supporters. Margaret Curran has made it known she is not interested in climbing the greasy pole so that leaves Ann McKechin in the Ed camp. However it could well also be that if Miliband junior emerges victorious then Jim Murphy (who’s managing David’s campaign) may not get the promotion he covets and be forced to stay put.

The more likely scenario however is a David Miliband victory. Tom Harris has probably burned his bridges with his blog, and David Cairns has proved a problematic front-bencher. Cairns’ stint as Minister of State for Scotland wasn’t exactly a stellar success either. Frank Roy, though privately very charming, is probably too abrasive a character to be Labour’s man in Scotland, especially with the Scottish elections just months away. That leaves Anne McGuire, who is a thoroughly likeable individual who could play well against Alex Salmond, while not over-shadowing Iain Gray in the way that Jim Murphy did. I would question whether or not McGuire would actually run for Shadow Cabinet, though Scotland could well be one of those posts that are filled by an appointed Shadow Cabinet member rather than an elected one.

So what about outsiders? Glasgow North East by-election victor Willie Bain stepped up to Shadow Transport Minister after the election, and is a Miliband supporter. Dumfries MP Russell Brown, another David Miliband supporter, is presently chair of the Scottish Labour group of MPs and is certainly an affable figure. While I can’t see Brown running for Shadow Cabinet he could potentially be another one of those appointees.

In any case with the Scottish elections coming up next year whoever the new Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland is has a big task ahead of them.

Calling All Bloggers: Florence and Precious Need You

I'm taking a rare step here: as I've probably ranted on previous occasions, I tend to resist request posts. There are, however, times where an exception is required and this is one of them.

To tie in with the vigil being held tomorrow at 5:30 on Buchanan Street in Glasgow (that Monday. 1730, Buchanan Street, Glasgow) for Florence and Precious Mhango, the mother and child facing deportation on the grounds that being forcibly separated almost as soon as they go back to Malawi doesn't meet Home Office interpretations of the word 'vulnerable', Anne McLaughlin and I are hoping to arrange a 'Blog-In' between 1700 and 1900.

So what does this mean?

Essentially, the aim is for everyone who has taken an interest in the subject to post about it between 1700 and 1900 tomorrow, creating a series of posts across a number of blogs which we hope will occupy the blogosphere's attention.

In practice this means one of two things.

If you have already blogged on the subject, we're asking you for your time again, for another post to help keep up the attention that you've kept bringing to this matter.

If you have been interested in the case but haven't yet posted anything on it (and I'm in this camp), then please, please, please make the move and post your thoughts (and I'll reveal my thoughts - as if you can't guess them - in my post tomorrow).

Of course, we're hoping that as many people as possible make their way to the Vigil at Buchanan Street tomorrow. But if you can't, then we'd like as many bloggers as possible to join in the Blog-In. And if you're in the Glasgow area, then of course, you can always have your cake and eat it, by drafting a post set for publication at 5pm and heading to the Vigil.

If you'd like to take part, then please let me know, so I have an idea of the numbers involved.

Rumours of the Scottish Blogosphere's Death are Premature

It's seems fitting that, with changes afoot to the Scottish Roundup, there are reflections on the state of the Scottish blogosphere and its future, with a particularly considered and typically thoughtful (albeit pessimistic) post on the matter from Stuart. So I thought I'd chip in.

Basically, in terms of the Roundup, something has happened that I don't think Duncan or I envisaged. Duncan's been putting shedloads of effort into the Roundup since its inauguration in 2006, and since he invited me onto the bandwagon just under three years ago, it's usually been the case that when one of us is tied up with more pressing matters, the other one can pick up the slack one way or the other. At any given moment, one or both of us had a fair amount of time and energy to devote both to our own blogs and to the wider blogosphere, and I guess that as a result of that, neither he nor I anticipated that real life was capable of kicking both of us squarely in the nuts at the same time. However, it would seem that this is what has happened.

For my part, the work-life balance seems to be getting skewed to the point that it's harder and harder to be bothered even switching the computer on, let alone blogging of an evening, and the energy I do have is going into other social commitments such as being a needlessly violent left back on the 5-a-side pitch. And the World Cup hasn't helped: total political apocalypse could have taken place, but frankly, I've been talking with people more about the latest prediction by Paul The Psychic Octopus. So with the World Cup almost over, and a few days off booked to recharge the batteries, I'm hoping that soon enough, I'll be back to what passes for normal service.

And there seems to be an air of general blog fatigue setting in, but I'd say that's down more to the post-election comedown, particularly as we all adjust to the new circumstances we all find ourselves in.

But there's something I want to pick up on that Stuart said - and I'm not just quoting this for the flattering reference:

It would take someone with a longer term view of things to put that into perspective, but perhaps it's instructive to consider who might replace or supplant the likes of Will, Duncan, Scottish Unionist, Scottish Tory Boy, IoC, Malc, Yousuf and James.

The short answer is probably no one really. I'm not sure if the frequency of new blogs is decreasing, but there certainly seem little sign of a Scottish Guido or Iain Dale appearing.

Well, I've always said that an Iain Dale-type figure for the Scottish blogosphere might not be the worst thing, but despite that, I'm sceptical at the thought that a Scottish Guido, or even a direct Scottish equivalent of Iain Dale is the answer. Imagine the combination of the political landscape, the media and the blogosphere as what we'll refer to for want of a better term as a 'nexus'. The Scottish political nexus is, thanks to the different institutions, parties, states of parties, newspapers and bloggers, a massively different beast to its Westminster-focused equivalent. Accordingly, I can't help but question whether simply importing concepts and approaches from the latter will be of any use to the former. Of course, that's not to say that just because Guido or Iain Dale are successful in the Westmnister blogosphere, they wouldn't work in the Scottish context and that we shouldn't try, but for me, the wiser course of action is to bear in mind the distinct political landscape and the differences in the MSM, and to take advantage of the near-total autonomy that the blogosphere offers to come up with new ideas and new faces. And while having a blogger who can cross over into the MSM with such ease would be a bonus, probably it's more important to have a couple of 'go-to' bloggers that people can rely on.

But that brings me to my next point, which Stuart himself acknowledges:

Another counter-argument to my basic thesis is, of course, that plenty of prominent blogs have come and gone in the past, but the MacBlogosphere generally has survived.

And quite so. The blogosphere is constantly changing and evolving in a way that the MSM can't, as old bloggers quit and new ones take up the reins. Which is why Stuart's reflections on who might replace current bloggers, while based on a valid concern, seem a little out of place. No blogs are ever 'replaced', but they can be succeeded, in a way.

After all, if a journalist at the Scotsman were to fall under a bus tomorrow, the paper could advertise for a new staff member, and hire someone to take their place, who would of course be expected to comply with the house style and editorial guidelines as their predecessor did. If I were to fall under a bus tomorrow, J. Arthur MacNumpty would end, and if someone out there were crazy enough to tackle the same matter I do, they'd have a different perspective to mine and a different style, so even a Sunday Whip feature wouldn't look the same. That new blog wouldn't be MacNumpty, but despite inevitably being very different in look and feel, it could and would occupy the same space and perform a similar role. Not a replacement, but a successor, and it goes without saying that the fluid nature of the blogosphere makes it completely impossible to identify successors, until they actually emerge. By the way, to put it bluntly, as I have no intention of falling under a bus tomorrow or any other day, the aim is that there will neither be nor will there need to be a successor to MacNumpty at any point in the foreseeable future.

Nevertheless, let me just take a look at one final point:

Of course, there may be personal factors in all of this, but overall there does seem to be a trend evident. Equally, there are undoubtedly short-term factors in play - post-election fatigue and disillusionment, most obviously - but with an unprecedented period in UK politics in the last few weeks, not to mention things being teed up nicely for a tough Holyrood vote in ten months time, there does seem to be plenty for Scottish bloggers to get their teeth into.

Stuart is 100% bang on the money here. There's plenty for us to talk about, but it doesn't seem to be happening. Of course, if we don't have time to blog, we can't, and if we're too tired or pissed off to blog, we won't. Here's one thought, which is certainly the case for myself: might we still be trying to make sense of it all ourselves? The changed Westminster landscape is an entirely new beast, but I suspect that we'd have a better time of analysing it and making comments if it were Holyrood, and besides, the actual process of change was fast-moving, but lasted only a couple of days. It took less than a week to get from polling day to the establishment of the Coalition Government. It took a week and a half for Holyrood to find a Presiding Officer in 2007. Events were moving quickly, with all sorts of developments to comment on, but the sheer number of twists and turns meant that they went on for a while. For Westminster, it was all over by the Tuesday after polling day and rather than having to make snap judgements about a rapidly shifting landscape, we're now reflecting on a landscape that has already changed, and what those changes mean in the long term. Three years ago, we had no time to think, and we were all flying by the seat of our pants, waiting for the next twist. Now, we know how Westminster's going to map out and we have time to analyse and reflect on what's happening. Even the Labour Leadership Election is a long, drawn-out affair, and I suppose Parkinson's Law has kicked in: our ruminations are expanding to fill the time available, and with the Summer around the corner, I can't see that changing.

For me, the key period is September to January. The Party Conferences will be fascinating this time around; the Labour Leadership Contest will reach its conclusion; we'll have the continuing row over the timing (and then the question) of the AV referendum; the return to work of MSPs and with that, the beginning of the 'long' election campaign, as the final selections are made and candidates put their own local affairs in order. Including, I daresay, some of them taking to their keyboards. There'll be plenty of things to discuss, and plenty of people wanting to make their point. There'll of course be the Christmas lull, so it will be interesting to see, once everything is lined up, how people will pick up from that.

So Stuart's comment are perceptive and he may yet be proven right, but it's too early to say: the blogosphere is an unpredictable medium at the best of times, so even in this admittedly lean spell, I think there are still plenty of us with tricks up our sleeves.

The Summer Whip

MSPs are now off on their hollybobs, after a chaotic term which saw the General Election campaign and its aftermath dominating proceedings, to the extent that two key pieces of legislation were crammed into the last week, as discussed at Scots Law News:

The procedure in the Scottish Parliament last week means that those affected by legislation in their day to day lives can take little comfort in the scrutiny of legislation given by parliamentarians. That the 230 Stage 3 amendments to the Crofting Bill were dealt with in under 3 hours; and the nearly 200 amendments considered at Stage 3 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill were dealt with in similar time; and that speeches on what can be technical and important amendments are limited to 1 minute duration, with divisions taking either 30 seconds or 1 minute, does not reflect well on the Scottish Parliament - and it is astonishing that in those circumstances that problems of the type that arose in relation to Peter Peacock's amendment 93 do not occur more frequently.

More worryingly, I fear that this phenomenon could get worse as we are now less than nine months away from dissolution (unless the next election gets moved to avoid clashing with Nick Clegg's AV referendum). Is this Parliament simply going to peter out, or should we be braced for Lidl Legislation, with laws passed at the speed expected of cashiers scanning goods at the budget supermarket's checkout? We shall see.

But for now, let's look at the figures from the term just gone.

The big absentees

As always, we begin by reviewing the Top 5 absentees, and it comes as no surprise that John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West) comes first, having missed 104 votes. I've said it before and I'll say it again: ill health is ill health, but the people of his constituency who voted for him (or at least for a Liberal Democrat representative) have lost out here: they've had no one representing their interests. But Munro cannot be blamed - rather, the system that can allow this to happen has once again been shown up as deficient. Second is Mike Pringle (LD, Edinburgh South) having missed 49 votes, most of them last week.

In joint third place are new Westminster Labour MPs Margaret Curran (Glasgow Baillieston in Holyrood, Glasgow East in Westminster) and Cathy Jamieson (Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley and now Kilmarnock & Loudoun as well), who missed 43 votes in the process of seeking or exercising their new mandates. Fifth was Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale), missing forty votes.

SNP

The SNP have, as usual, the best attendance rate of the Big 4, at 96.5%. Leaving aside Alasdair Morgan's Deputy Presiding Officer duties, the First Minister missed 18 votes, Stewart Maxwell (West of Scotland) missed 16, while Joe FitzPatrick (Dundee West) and Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) missed 14.

Culture Minister Fiona Hyslop (Lothians) missed 13 votes, Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson (Banff & Buchan) missed 12, while Parliamentary Business Minister Bruce Crawford (Stirling), Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead (Moray) and Andrew Welsh (Angus) missed 11.

Angela Constance (Livingston) and Public Health Minister Shona Robison missed ten votes, Willie Coffey (Kilmarnock & Loudoun), Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) and Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow) missed nine.

Ian McKee (Lothians) and Dave Thompson (Ross, Skye & Inverness West) missed six votes, Linda Fabiani (Central Scotland) missed three and Education Secretary Mike Russell and Finance Secretary John Swinney (North Tayside) missed two.

Schools Minister Keith Brown (Ochil), Bob Doris (Glasgow), Bill Kidd (Glasgow), Tricia Marwick (Central Fife), Enterprise Minister Jim Mather (Argyll & Bute), Gil Paterson (West of Scotland), Shirley-Anne Somerville (Lothians) and Sandra White (Glasgow) all missed one vote.

Also, the SNP have the highest cohesion rate, at 99.91%: Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) differed from the group on two occasions, with Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill (Edinburgh East & Musselburgh), Alasdair Morgan (South of Scotland) and Gil Paterson doing so on one occasion.

Labour

Labour's record is grim, though by no means the worst, with an attendance rate of 89.14%.

Aside from their presence in the Top 5, Marlyn Glen (North East Scotland) has missed 35 votes, Wendy Alexander (Paisley North) has missed 28 and Tom McCabe (Hamilton South) has missed 26.

Shadow Enterprise Minister Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central) has missed 24 votes, while Rhona Brankin (Midlothian), who will be standing down next year, and Jack McConnell (Motherwell & Wishaw) who now has a peerage (though most of his absences pre-date it) missed 23. Rhoda Grant (Highlands & Islands) missed 20 votes.

Irene Oldfather (Cunninghame South) missed 17 votes, Group Leader Iain Gray (East Lothian) missed 16, while Cathie Craigie (Cumbernauld & Kilsyth), Helen Eadie (Dunfermline East), Shadow Community Safety Minister James Kelly (Glasgow Rutherglen), Peter Peacock and Chief Whip David Stewart (both Highlands & Islands) all missed 15 votes.

Hugh Henry (Paisley South) missed 14 votes, while Deputy Leader Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok) and Frank McAveety (Glasgow Shettleston) missed 13. Shadow Schools Minister Ken Macintosh (Eastwood) and Shadow Cabinet Secretary Without Portfolio John Park (Mid Scotland & Fife) missed 11 votes.

Marilyn Livingstone (Kirkcaldy) and Shadow Public Health Minister Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland & Fife) missed ten votes, while Shadow Further & Higher Education Minister Claire Baker (Mid Scotland & Fife), Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow Maryhill) and Shadow Climate Change Minister Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East) missed nine. Shadow Transport Minister Charlie Gordon (Glasgow Cathcart) and Duncan McNeil (Greenock & Inverclyde) missed eight.

Shadow Rural Affairs Secretary Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central), Shadow Finance Secretary Andy Kerr (East Kilbride) and Shadow Children's Minister Karen Whitefield (Airdrie & Shotts) missed seven votes; Shadow Sport Minister Bill Butler (Glasgow Anniesland), Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh North & Leith) and Shadow Education Secretary Des McNulty (Clydebank & Milngavie) missed five, while Shadow Health Secretary Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton), Shadow Justice Secretary Richard Baker (North East Scotland) and Shadow Culture Minister Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) missed four votes.

This left George Foulkes (Lothians), Shadow Housing Minister Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow), Shadow Environment Minister Elaine Murray (Dumfries), Elaine Smith (Coatbridge & Chryston) and Shadow Finance Minister David Whitton (Strathkelvin & Bearsden), who missed one vote.

The cohesion rate wasn't good either, but again, wasn't the worst, at 99.77%. Frank McAveety and Pauline McNeill have both broken with the group on two occasions, while Wendy Alexander, Malcolm Chisholm, Helen Eadie, Business Manager Paul Martin (Glasgow Springburn), Mary Mulligan, Peter Peacock and Karen Whitefield have all done so once.

Conservatives

They have a solid attendance rate this term - 96.22%. Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland), who was trying to unseat Sir Robert Smith in West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine a couple of months ago, was the most absent Tory, having missed twenty votes. Next came new Justice Spokesman John Lamont (Roxburgh & Berwickshire) - who was trying to unseat Michael Moore (I wonder how he feels about Moore being Secretary of State for Scotland in the Coalition government?) - and Rural Affairs Spokesman John Scott (Ayr), who missed fifteen votes. Gavin Brown (Lothians) and Leader Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland) missed seven.

Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) missed four votes, new Education Spokesperson Liz Smith (Mid Scotland & Fife) missed two, while Ted Brocklebank (Mid Scotland & Fife) and Jamie McGrigor (Highlands & Islands) missed one.

The cohesion rate is also quite decent, at 99.78, with Bill Aitken (Glasgow), Ted Brocklebank, Jamie McGrigor and Margaret Mitchell voting against their Whip on one occasion.

Liberal Democrats

The LibDems have the worst attendance rate of any party at 83.25%, though in fairness to them, that is skewed by John Farquhar Munro's absence and Mike Pringle missing the bulk of last week's business didn't help matters. Nevertheless, attendance across the board isn't great: Education Spokesperson Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West) missed 31 votes, while Tavish Scott (Shetland) is the Party Leader most likely to be absent, having missed 21 votes, a number matched by his predecessor Nicol Stephen (Aberdeen South). Business Manager Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine) has missed twenty.

Environment Spokesman Liam McArthur (Orkney) has missed 16 votes, Jim Tolson (Dunfermline West) has missed 12 and Local Government Spokesperson Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) has missed ten.

Culture Spokesperson Iain Smith (North East Fife) and Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross) missed eight votes; Health Spokesman Ross Finnie (West of Scotland) and Hugh O'Donnell (Central Scotland) missed seven; Justice Spokesman Robert Brown (Glasgow) missed four votes and Jim Hume (South of Scotland) missed one.

Their cohesion rate is also the lowest, at 99.68%, though again, this is sensitive due to the comparatively small size of the group and the level of absenteeism. Alison McInnes voted against the whip twice, while Jim Hume, Finance Spokesman Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale) and Margaret Smith did so once.

Greens and Margo

The Greens may lose their normal 100% attendance but retain overall top spot, with an attendance rate of 97.9%, generated by Robin Harper (Lothians) missing three votes and Co-Convener Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) missing two. They haven't split with each other at any point this term.

Meanwhile, a first: Margo MacDonald (Lothians) is not in the Top 5 absentees. Her 35 missed votes put her in joint 6th place with Marlyn Glen. And the 70.59% attendance rate, while rather low, is higher than average for her, but being around for the big Stage 3 debate on Wednesday probably helped. She's like the Parliamentary equivalent of the good crockery - only out on special occasions.

The Sunday Whip

You know how when you have a deadline, you tend to put things off until the last minute, then run around like a blue-arsed fly trying to get everything done in time? Well, that was this week at Holyrood, the last before the Summer Recess.

Indeed, there was so much to get through that they had to spend Wednesday morning in the Chamber in addition to the customary Wednesday afternoon and all of Thursday pattern that we're all used to by now.

Anyway. Wednesday was taken up almost in its entirety with the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill, and the 26 amendments that went to a vote.

12 of those amendments came from the SNP. Of those, two fell: Amendment 198 couldn't get any support beyond the SNP, while Amendment 171 found backing from the Greens but only them. Amendments 54 and 166 passed with only Labour opposing, while Amendment 62 passed with Labour abstaining and everyone else in support. Amendment 2 squeaked through with backing only from Margo MacDonald, but Labour abstention basically handed the SNP a majority. Amendments 61, 3 and 172 overcame opposition from Labour and the Tories (though Margo abstained on 172), Amendments 70 and 71 had support from all of the Big 4, with only the Greens and Margo forcing a vote, while Amendment 63 saw the SNP, Labour, Greens and Margo comfortably overcome opposition from the Tories and LibDems.

A further six amendments came from Labour, none of which passed. Amendment 199 got LibDem support, but that wasn't enough for it to be carried, and Amendments 164 and 165 saw the LibDems abstain but everyone else oppose. The other three, Amendments 6, 79 and 4 saw Labour isolated in the Chamber.

That left the eight LibDem amendments, of which only one passed, with only the SNP and Margo opposing Amendment 11. Amendment 9 came close, with Labour and the Greens in support but blocked by the SNP, Tories and Margo. Amendment 13 got the backing of the Tories, Greens and Margo, but that was never enough to overcome the combined voting strength of the SNP and Labour, well except Labour's Business Manager Paul Martin, who abstained. Oops! Amendment 12 secured Tory backing but nothing more, and Amendment 14 got support from the Greens and Margo. This left Amendments 190, 191 and 16, where only the Greens would come to the LibDems' aid.

Still, at Decision Time, the Bill passed, by 64 (SNP/LibDem/Green/Margo) votes to 61, with John Farquhar Munro (Ross, Skye & Inverness West) and Business Manager Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine) missing for the LibDems, and Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) absent for the Tories.

And just to add to the overload, there was that rare beast a vote on an SSI, with the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts (Scotland) Order 2010 passing by 65 (SNP/Con/Green/Margo) to 60 (Lab/LD).

This was followed by the waving through of the National Health Service (Reimbursement of the Cost of EEA Treatment) (Scotland) Regulations 2010, the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 2010, the Applications by Creditors (Pre-Action Requirements) (Scotland) Order 2010 and the Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2010.

Thursday saw the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill reach its conclusion with 17 amendments going to a vote, and a fiasco whereby Amendment 93 should have gone to a vote, but Deputy Presiding Officer Trish Godman failed to hear Roseanna Cunningham and others voice their disagreement to its passage and all hell broke loose. Never mind video replays in football, this week there were calls for it in the Scottish Parliament!

Anyway, of the 17 amendments that saw a vote, the SNP had one, Amendment 107, which passed with Tory support, against Labour and LibDem opposition. Margo had wandered off at this point and the Greens had either gone for an early lunch or opted to do a runner.

LibDem Amendment 198 fell when they could only get Labour to back it, and the remaining amendments all came from Labour and all fell as they could only muster LibDem support.

The Bill itself passed by 66 votes to none, with 59 Labour and LibDem abstentions: John Farquhar Munro, Mike Pringle (LD, Edinburgh South) and LibDem Culture Spokesman Iain Smith (North East Fife) missed the final vote, though Smith was back in for a vote on a Labour amendment to a Finance Committee motion on the Budget Strategy Phase 2011-12.

The amendment fell by 64 votes to 62 (SNP, Tories and Margo in favour; Labour, LibDems and Greens against), but the motion itself, which simply noted the Committee's report and suggested that the Government ought to have a look at it, passed without dissent, as did a minor Committee reshuffle.

So that's Holyrood for the Summer. I'm hoping to sum up the term tomorrow, and later in the week, I'll join the latest wave of blogosphere navel-gazing...