tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-192081832024-03-19T10:18:23.311+00:00J. Arthur MacNumptyWillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10978812670312106107noreply@blogger.comBlogger814125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19208183.post-8632852366686247172010-09-05T18:20:00.000+01:002010-09-05T19:33:53.257+01:00Every Start Requires An EndFor some time now (for which, read a year), I've been questioning the future of my blog, mainly as I've just felt uninspired, and at times just too tired to continue with it. I now have the answer.<br /><br />You all know that I studied in Scotland, then went back to Lancashire, and that I've been aiming for a move back to Scotland.<br /><br />Well, I have my move.<br /><br />It's Southbound.<br /><br />So a blog that started life as a way of keeping my mind active while I was looking for work, then became an extra activity while I was in work can still be that, but seeing as my life is basically about to change radically, I've taken what I view as the logical decision.<br /><br />I'm pulling the plug, killing off <i>J. Arthur MacNumpty</i>.<br /><br />It seems foolish to press ahead with it.<br /><br />However, that's not the same as quitting the blogosphere. Instead, I'll be blogging from <a href=http://pattersonnotebook.wordpress.com/>The Will Patterson Notebook</a>, where I'll be looking at politics both of the Holyrood and Westminster variety, and maybe throwing in a few more football-based posts, and other stuff besides. I dare say I'll still be posting with variable frequency, but hopefully, once the move's completed (by this time next month), the mojo will be back and I'll welcome the new start. Though of course, The Sunday Whip and Selection Box posts will remain.<br /><br />Cheers for the ride, guys, but now, I'm changing lanes...Willhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10978812670312106107noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19208183.post-4794949703784647312010-08-22T17:36:00.002+01:002010-08-22T17:57:59.595+01:00Selection Box: West ScotlandThe final region, West Scotland, has one major eye-opener: the emerging contest in Renfrewshire North & West. Sitting MSP, Trish Godman, is standing down here, and her replacement is Stuart Clark. Up against him are Derek MacKay, the Leader of Renfrewshire Council, and Tory Leader Annabel Goldie. Now, this throws up a few interesting questions. Firstly, how well will Cllr MacKay's candidacy be received? His position will make him a well-kent face, but is this good or bad? Renfrewshire Council have, like many others, had to take some tough decisions even before the recession, so there's the possibility that he could well end up as a Peter Grant-type figure. Or his profile could carry him to top spot.<br /><br />But breathing down his neck is the Tory leader, Annabel Goldie, the only sitting MSP to be standing in the seat (unless Ross Finnie decamps), and let's not forget, reasonably high-profile as the Leader of her Party. QIB would potentially turn this seat into a clear three-way marginal (it's possible that just 6% could end up separating first and third). Who will prevail? This one is worth watching next May...<br /><br />Meanwhile, Jackson Carlaw is the Tory candidate tasked with 'defending' the re-drawn Eastwood, but thanks to Cunninghame South entering the region, there are still two notional Tory Regional seats, so even if Carlaw gets ranked second on the List, the big question is, who'll get third? An early figure to watch is Maurice Golden of the Glenrothes By-Election, who has been selected for Cunninghame North, but it's early days yet.<br /><br />Of course, all of these, in this and the previous five posts, are just the tip of the iceberg and there are many more selections now in place. But even so, there are all sorts of twists and turns that could take place between now and next April, when the candidacies will be formalised. Anything could happen.Willhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10978812670312106107noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19208183.post-17574875648138654002010-08-22T17:10:00.005+01:002010-08-23T19:32:20.855+01:00Selection Box: South ScotlandSouth Scotland isn't devoid of a few interesting contests.<br /><br />For Labour, there's the vexed question of who to replace Cathy Jamieson as candidate in Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley, particularly as a QIB would make this seat highly marginal. But there's another interesting decision for the party. With Cunninghame South leaving the region, and SNP-held Kilmarnock & Irvine Valley coming in, there's now a notional Labour Regional seat, and a vacancy to fill. Moreover, the theory that the spot might prove tempting for a defeated Labour MP has been blown part by the somewhat frustrating failure on the part of any Labour MP to be defeated, so unless Lord Browne fancies doing a Foulkes, it's not clear who might come forward.<br /><br />But in terms of constituencies, all eyes should be on the Borders: the new boundaries of Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale are favourable to SNP candidate Christine Grahame (suggesting that Jeremy Purvis might have to decamp to the List), while the Tories have, somewhat surprisingly, selected former Tory MP Peter Duncan ahead of Derek Brownlee, who stood in the old Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale seat. Brownlee will have to make do with fighting East Lothian instead, but this throws up another intriguing battle: with only one Regional seat (and even that's in doubt if Gillian Dykes succeeds where Murray Tosh failed and beats Elaine Murray in Dumfriesshire), and two strong candidates for it, what will the Tories do? Will they opt for old standard-bearer Peter Duncan, the former Party Chairman and Shadow Secretary of State, who quite literally put the Tories back on the map in Scotland back in 2001? Or will they choose the up-and-coming Derek Brownlee, whose negotiation during the budget process has delivered the implementation of Tory policies for the first time since devolution? It's a tough call, and there's going to be one hell of a bloody nose for someone.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">(Incidentally, a correspondent who, sadly, didn't leave a name <a href="http://macnumpty.blogspot.com/2010/08/selection-box-south-scotland.html?showComment=1282554126850#c6496305958315816831">assures</a> me that in fact, Brownlee secured the East Lothian selection before Duncan was chosen in Midlothian South, Tweeddale & Lauderdale. I must confess to being surprised by that particular alignment of events: while neither seat is a particularly appealing prospect, respectively being the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition and an SNP-LibDem marginal with the Tories shut out, but Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale was Brownlee's base for the last two elections. Does he just fancy a pop at Iain Gray?)</span><br /><br />Meanwhile, we have the re-match between Tory MSP John Lamont and the man he defeated, LibDem Euan Robson, in Ettrick, Roxburgh & Berwickshire.<br /><br />Finally, there's the SNP List, with Kilmarnock & Irvine Valley coming into the region but being absorbed into the SNP's current total of five seats in the South, and with five Regional MSPs currently, this could have been ugly for the Party. But with Mike Russell heading north, and Alasdair Morgan standing down, the SNP goes from having more candidates than slots to defend, to having a vacancy for a new face.Willhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10978812670312106107noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19208183.post-81328236465887777712010-08-22T16:43:00.004+01:002010-08-22T17:09:57.581+01:00Selection Box: North East ScotlandThis region has a few fascinating contests in store, mainly as this is the region with the truly new seat, in the shape of Angus North & Mearns. It looks like we can expect a battle between two sitting Regional MSPs: the SNP's Nigel Don, and the Tories' Alex Johnstone. And of course, it remains to be seen what effect Andrew Welsh's retirement will have in Angus South.<br /><br />Meanwhile, there's also speculation that the LibDems' Nicol Stephen will stand down, leaving the LibDems with a vacancy to fill in Aberdeen South & North Kincardine.<br /><br />But again, check out the list. The extra (notional) SNP constituency creates a new Tory seat on the List, so there's a question now of who might fill it, especially as no obvious name springs to mind, on account of the candidate in the one top target seat the Tories had in the area in May being a certain Mr. A. Johnstone.Willhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10978812670312106107noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19208183.post-61773637834399659932010-08-22T16:33:00.006+01:002010-08-22T16:38:46.475+01:00Selection Box: Lothian & Mid Scotland & FifeMoving to the Lothians, Alex Cole-Hamilton has been selected by the LibDems to 'defend' Edinburgh Central (I say this as, on the notional figures, this seat moves into the LibDem column). Cole-Hamilton was first on the Mid Scotland & Fife List last time at the expense of sitting MSP Andrew Arbuckle, who came second, and would have got in had Jim Tolson not been so inconsiderate by winning Dunfermline West. For shame! Elsewhere, Labour have a vacancy to fill in Midlothian North & Musselburgh, with the retirement of Rhona Brankin.<br /><br />But the List is where the action is: for the SNP, Ian McKee is standing down (and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that Shirley-Anne Somerville may cross the Forth to Mid Scotland & Fife) so there's a vacancy there. George Foulkes is standing down so there's a vacancy for Labour. And Robin Harper is standing down so we see the first ever Green vacancy, with Councillor Maggie Chapman being tipped in some quarters to fill it. And of course, we don't yet know if Margo MacDonald will wish to continue.<br /><br />Across the Forth, again, the Mid Scotland & Fife List is where the action may be, with Christopher Harvie retiring (affording an opportunity for Shirley-Anne Somerville to make that crossing), along with Tory Ted Brocklebank, creating a vacancy on the Tory list, perhaps for Bob Dalrymple, who came fourth on the List last time and was the Tory candidate in Stirling (designated a key seat) in May.Willhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10978812670312106107noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19208183.post-45726132579795654852010-08-22T16:13:00.008+01:002010-08-22T16:32:48.140+01:00Selection Box: Highlands & IslandsIn the Highlands and Islands, there are a wave of retirements on the way, with Jim Mather, John Farquhar Munro and Jamie Stone all leaving in 2011. In Argyll & Bute, Education Secretary and current MSP for the South of Scotland Mike Russell will replace Jim Mather as the SNP candidate, with Alison Hay looking to win the seat back for the LibDems and current Regional MSP Jamie McGrigor making the pitch for the Tories. Now, at this point, I'd usually mention the <a href="http://macnumpty.blogspot.com/2010/02/introducing-qib.html">QIB</a> here, but the fact that Mike Russell, who lives in this constituency, is a sitting MSP and a Cabinet Secretary to boot, probably neutralises it, along with the fact that for Holyrood, this seat is an SNP/LibDem marginal and the Tories are some distance off the pace. However, QIB would certainly apply in Caithness, Sutherland & Ross (where Regional MSP Rob Gibson will be having a go), and Skye, Lochaber & Badenoch (where LibDem Alan MacRae will be hoping to defend the seat against SNP MSP Dave Thompson). And the average bonus of a quasi-incumbent equates to a 6% swing, which would put both seats in the SNP column.<br /><br />Meanwhile, it's worth flagging up that Mary Scanlon has been selected in Inverness & Nairn. If I were feeling uncharitable, I would mention that she attempted to present herself as "A New Bonnie Fechter for Moray" following the death of Margaret Ewing, but that wouldn't be like me at all, would it? In fact, she was never a bonnie fechter for Moray: she'd stood in Inverness East, Nairn & Lochaber in 1999 and 2003, and doubtless only stood in the Moray By-Election as she'd already been selected for the seat for the 2007 Election. I mention this simply to point out to those who remember that campaign that she has not been ejected from her base, she is actually returning to it.Willhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10978812670312106107noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19208183.post-5309041768933044592010-08-22T15:18:00.010+01:002010-08-22T16:13:26.807+01:00The Return of the Selection Box: Central Scotland and GlasgowDespite the hysteria over the 100-day of the Coalition, and the excitement over Charles Kennedy doing nothing, the Scottish political parties are in the midst of selecting their candidates for next year's elections. So, inspired by <a href="http://malcintheburgh.blogspot.com/2010/08/retiring-msps-updated.html">Malc</a>'s post on retiring MSPs, I thought I'd take a look.<br /><br />In Central Scotland, all eyes are on Motherwell & Wishaw, not because there's a vacancy (yet), but because there's pressure on Jack McConnell to stand down after taking a peerage. It should be noted that McConnell is the fifth MSP Peer: Lords Douglas-Hamilton, Foulkes, Steel and Watson all went before him and Lord Watson (despite his fall from grace) provides something of a precedent in that he too was a Constituency MSP, and successfully sought election and re-election as a Peer of the Realm. However, McConnell is the first to become an MSP while sitting in the Scottish Parliament (normally the reverse is the case), and he is the first one to consider keeping a foot in both camps after 2011. This is significant for the Kelly Review, which proposed the end of dual mandates from the date of the next devolved elections. Now, the review referred only to "Westminster MPs", which suggests that only membership of the Commons was considered, but combining a working peerage with the Scottish Parliament would be dubious in the spirit of Kelly if not the letter. He may, therefore, end up feeling pressured to stand down. We shall see.<br /><br />In Glasgow, keep your eye on Glasgow Shettleston, where John Mason (of the Glasgow East By-Election) has been selected for the SNP. Now, Mason is not seeking a place on the Regional List, and does require an 11.22% swing to win the seat. Of course, that's a considerable increase on the swing he achieved in Glasgow East in the General Election in May, but it's only about half what he pulled off in the By-Election in 2008, so it's not completely beyond the realms of possibility. But of course, this will have a knock-on effect for the List, and assuming that Nicola Sturgeon takes #1 billing, then none of the sitting Regional MSPs will want to come fifth.<br /><br />Meanwhile, for Labour, a pressure has been eased with Margaret Curran's transfer to Westminster: they are no longer trying to fit nine MSPs into eight notional seats, and have already selected Stephen Curran as their candidate for Glasgow Southside. Then there are the Tories, who find themselves with a vacancy at the top of their List given the retirement of Bill Aitken. Malcolm Macaskill has been chosen as his replacement for the Glasgow Anniesland candidacy, but the actual list is yet to be determined. It's still possible that Ruth Davidson might enter the fold, but I understand that the Tories' one Councillor in Glasgow, David Meikle, has been selected in Southside, so he is one to watch.Willhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10978812670312106107noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19208183.post-57029447887137385342010-08-01T17:38:00.003+01:002010-08-01T18:51:50.896+01:00Bringing It Together: Why All This Matters<span style="font-weight:bold;">The New Reform Package - TOC</span><br /><br />1. <a href="http://macnumpty.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-there-no-alternative.html">Is There No Alternative?</a><br />2. <a href="http://macnumpty.blogspot.com/2010/08/swift-kick-in-ballots.html">A Swift Kick in the Ballots</a><br />3. <a href="http://macnumpty.blogspot.com/2010/08/does-size-matter.html">Does Size Matter?</a><br />4. <a href="http://macnumpty.blogspot.com/2010/08/bringing-it-together-why-all-this.html">Bringing It Together: Why All This Matters</a><br /><br />The last three posts have all been about plans for electoral reform: voting systems, Constitutional processes, electoral boundaries. To many, it's dry stuff. It's dull, it's pointless. It's a distraction from the real issues.<br /><br />I disagree.<br /><br />Because these things are the foundations of politics, and if you get these details wrong, you get the structures wrong, and if you get the structures wrong, you get the policies wrong.<br /><br />When I argued <a href="http://macnumpty.blogspot.com/2007/02/case-for-independence-part-2.html">my case for independence</a>, I argued that while where we are governed shouldn't be the be-all-and-end-all of politics, it has a direct impact on how we are governed. Think of all the policy areas where Scotland has gone a different way since devolution, or the areas where there would be a differnece if Holyrood had more or ll possible powers. While the many new public spending commitments might now be under threat, try telling a student who no longer has to pay tuition fees, or an OAP receiving free personal care, or the fishing fleet exasperated at the UK Government performance in the last set of CFP negotiations, or the families of troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, that the constitution is irrelevant. It isn't: the present constitutional state that has contributed to the position they are in. Where things are done affects what things are done.<br /><br />The same is true of the voting system. had PR been in place, the final outcome of, well, pretty much every Parliamentary election would have been different: there would have been fewer - if any majorities in the Commons and that would have had a profound effect on the Governments formed and what they could have done. Blair at the head of a Labour-LibDem Coalition would be remembered differently to the one in our history books. Imagine a Tory-led Government in the 1980s with the worst excesses of Thatcherism curbed, or perhaps a 1980s run by a Coalition of Labour and the Alliance. Even the end of this inconclusive election would have been different: a mathematically viable Labour-LibDem Coalition would have been possible, and the LibDems would have had greater bargaining power with more seats. Even if the votes cast were the same - which we know wouldn't be the case as voting behaviour would be altered: no need for tactical voting, more and more viable options to choose from - Parliament would be different, so the Government would be different, so Government policy would be different and that would affect everyone.<br /><br />And even with FPTP, the boundaries matter. We know this as we know that Labour notional majority, based on the 2005 result applied to the new boundaries, was smaller than their actual majority on based the constituencies in place. nd we see it at Holyrood: the proposed boundary changes, if applied in 2007, would have cost the SNP one seat and Labour two, with the LibDems gaining one and the Tories two. Now with the outcome so finely balanced, that would have changed the direction of the Parliament, particularly in 2009, when the Budget that was rejected on the Presiding Officer's casting vote would have been passed by a majority of two votes, so the Scottish Government's spending priorities would have been different and that would again have affected all sorts of policy.<br /><br />And that's what I'm trying to say: the Constitution, the voting system, the boundaries, they all affect who represents and governs us, so all affect what our Government does. And that affects nearly all of us.<br /><br />This wonkery, this geekery, this process story that only excites the political village? It's at the heart of everything. It all matters.Willhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10978812670312106107noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19208183.post-34338267730065856542010-08-01T17:14:00.005+01:002010-08-01T18:51:29.351+01:00Does Size Matter?<span style="font-weight:bold;">The New Reform Package - TOC</span><br /><br />1. <a href="http://macnumpty.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-there-no-alternative.html">Is There No Alternative?</a><br />2. <a href="http://macnumpty.blogspot.com/2010/08/swift-kick-in-ballots.html">A Swift Kick in the Ballots</a><br />3. <a href="http://macnumpty.blogspot.com/2010/08/does-size-matter.html">Does Size Matter?</a><br />4. <a href="http://macnumpty.blogspot.com/2010/08/bringing-it-together-why-all-this.html">Bringing It Together: Why All This Matters</a><br /><br />What do the Tories get in exchange for electoral reform? They get a smaller Parliament, with the Commons reduced to around 600 from 650 (yet it's funny: they object to the SNP's proposal to reduce the number of MP's by 59!), a new boundary review with the focus on near-total electoral parity at the expense of everything else, and, in effect, a 'rolling review' with boundaries constantly subject to change and with less time to reflect on proceedings.<br /><br />Now the size issue is one thing, and given that Germany, for example, has a larger population but a smaller Bundestag (and seeing as they use AMS, that means constituencies more than twice the size of those in the UK, and the Germans don't seem to mind), while the US House of Representatives is about two-thirds the size of the Commons but the US has a population about five times the size of the UK, one could argue that this isn't the worst idea in the world.<br /><br />But the boundaries?<br /><br />The Tories complain that the current boundaries see smaller-than-average electorates (coupled with smaller-than-average turnouts) in Labour seats than in Tory ones, and want to see total parity. But if you want to see where that gets you, look at the initial proposals for the Scottish Parliament: Clydebank being tied with Renfrewshire springs to mind as a particularly crazy proposal from that draft, but also spare a thought for the Lanark, Shotts & Whitburn constituency which never made it off the drawing board. Had it done so, its hapless MSP would have had to deal with three different local Councils, and the initial plans for the regions saw the drive for equality drop Dumbarton in with the Highlands and see the other Dunbartonshire constituencies lumped in 'East Central Scotland'. That's where the obsession with equality gets you.<br /><br />And the Tories have already accepted that it can only go so far: Orkney & Shetland and Na h-Eileanan an Iar will be protected (yet the Isle of Wight, will be carved up only to see one part of it lumped in with the mainland - that MP's going to have a hard time for sure) and there are plans for there to be a maximum land area restricting the size of Highland constituencies, with a knock on effect that seats in urban Scotland will have to be even larger.<br /><br />So already, the idea that size isn't the only thing that matters has crept in, but still the Tories persist.<br /><br />And the new approach to reviews is equally dotty: effectively the boundaries would be in a state of semi-permanent flux. Now I agree that the current system isn't ideal: the boundaries that only just came in this year for Westminster are based on electorate figures from 2002 if I recall correctly, so by the time they're out of use they'll be based on population patterns that are older than some of the people on the electoral roll.<br /><br />But at least there's a chance that a community will have a fighting chance of knowing who their MPs is: it allows Parliamentarians, candidates and their parties to develop lasting local links and given the nature of the system, that's surely a good thing, and it can't be achieved if the boundaries are subject to constant change.<br /><br />And by streamlining the review, you enhance the possibility that seats like North Renfrewshire & Clydebank, or Lanark, Shotts & Whitburn do get off the drawing board: combinations and divisions that no one except Boundary Commissioners would ever think viable would become the norm. Again, one MP represents an entire community, so it really does help if they're representing an actual community.<br /><br />Maybe things do need to be changed, but in this case, it's the wrong change to make.Willhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10978812670312106107noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19208183.post-61707220753895499712010-08-01T16:42:00.003+01:002010-08-01T18:51:02.920+01:00A Swift Kick in the Ballots<span style="font-weight:bold;">The New Reform Package - TOC</span><br /><br />1. <a href="http://macnumpty.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-there-no-alternative.html">Is There No Alternative?</a><br />2. <a href="http://macnumpty.blogspot.com/2010/08/swift-kick-in-ballots.html">A Swift Kick in the Ballots</a><br />3. <a href="http://macnumpty.blogspot.com/2010/08/does-size-matter.html">Does Size Matter?</a><br />4. <a href="http://macnumpty.blogspot.com/2010/08/bringing-it-together-why-all-this.html">Bringing It Together: Why All This Matters</a><br /><br />Leaving aside the row over the electoral system to be used, there is the fiasco regarding the referendum to consider. For one, I find it amusing that after years of opposing a referendum on independence the Tories are willing to have a vote on something else they don't like and just campaign for a 'No' vote. Consistency, much?<br /><br />Then there's the timing, with the poll intended to clash with the elections to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. A number of reasons have been given to lament this, but in a lot of cases, they are flawed.<br /><br />Firstly, the fear on the right is that the devolved elections would drive turnout up in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland while England would have nothing else to vote for and stay at home, so England would be forced by its neighbours into a policy it didn't want (*cough* poll tax *cough*). This is bonkers. Firstly, turnout for the Scottish Parliament has never been higher than 58.16%. So a record high Holyrood turnout would be delivered by about 2.3 million voters. A record high in Wales would be 1.1 million. Add in around 800,000 Northern Irish voters. That's 4.2 million votes for a record high showing. The electorate of England is just over 38.1 million. Bearing in mind that local elections tend to get a turnout of about 30% - and local elections will be taking place in large parts of England anyway - so even those measly levels of participation would see England outvote the others by about three to one. At that level, opinion in England would have to be massively more finely balanced than in the other nations for them to have the 'casting vote'. And that's assuming you need another poll to get you out to the polls anyway (if anything, I'd expect the referendum to drag turnout up for the Council elections in England): in both Scotland and Wales, turnout for the referendum creating a Parliament and Assembly actually outstripped turnout at any election for the bodies themselves. So I don't buy this line.<br /><br />Nor do I buy the line that the issues at stake will all get conflated. Firstly, people can vote different ways in different polls taking place on the same day. Witness the Glasgow Anniesland By-Election following the death of Donald Dewar: his successor as an MP, John Robertson, secured a majority of 6,337; his successor as an MSP, Bill Butler, secured a majority of 5,376. And the cross-ballot figures from the last Scottish elections show that people vote differently for the two components of the same election. And even if they are conflated, this is nothing new. Issues cross over all the time: in the last two Westminster By-Elections to be fought in Scotland, the hot-button issues were dealt with by Fife Council or the Scottish Parliament, for instance. Local, devolved, UK and European politics have a habit of getting in each other's way, no matter what you're voting for.<br /><br />And combined polls are nothing new: the last four General Elections have co-incided with local Council polls, as have the last three Scottish polls and the first Welsh Assembly elections. Local Council elections were moved back a month in 2004 and 2009 (and in the first case, the London Elections were moved back as well) to co-incide with the European elections. So why is this one a shocker?<br /><br />Firstly, Scotland's politicians agreed after the 2007 fiasco that combined polls are not as great as we once thought. Secondly, Wales is already awaiting a date for the referendum on new powers for the Welsh Assembly. Thirdly, the Coalition has already agreed to fix the next Westminster election to clash with the devolved elections in 2015.<br /><br />And here's the frustrating thing: the dates of the 2011 and 2015 elections have been enshrined in law since 1998. The 2015 Westminster date emerged three months ago from a rushed agreement, and the 2011 referendum date has just popped out of Nick Clegg's head, it seems. Yet rather than fitting their plans around what's already there, they're suggesting that if Scottish and Welsh politicians feel so strongly, they'll pass legislation allowing them to change the date of the devolved elections.<br /><br />Now in a way, you might expect that: given the UK's present constitutional landscape, you'd assume that a UK-wide national poll would take precedence over the devolved bodies, but it does rather knacker the respect agenda.<br /><br />But whichever date has to change, there is, for me, a major practical reason why the two polls cannot be on the same day.<br /><br />According to the precedence I've already pointed out, it's the national poll whose ballots have to be counted first. That means that the devolved ballots won't be counted until the Friday morning after the poll at the very earliest. Factor in any recounts and it would be later still.<br /><br />Now this is important: the same laws that enshrine the dates of the election also make clear that MSPs and AMs have 28 days after the election - not after the results are out - to find a First Minister. Moving the counting back means a waste of a day in a period when parties have to move quickly.<br /><br />And that's the key - there is no clock ticking at the end of a referendum, and no legislation currently sets time limits on a Prime Minister being appointed. But MSPs and AMs do have a tight schedule to work to and a nationwide poll would interfere with that schedule.<br /><br />And I'm surprised that the Advocate General for Scotland, a certain Lord Wallace who had to work to that schedule when his name was just Jim, hasn't borne that in mind.Willhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10978812670312106107noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19208183.post-9046671310855415802010-08-01T15:43:00.003+01:002010-08-01T18:50:35.248+01:00Is There No Alternative?<span style="font-weight:bold;">The New Reform Package - TOC</span><br /><br />1. <a href="http://macnumpty.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-there-no-alternative.html">Is There No Alternative?</a><br />2. <a href="http://macnumpty.blogspot.com/2010/08/swift-kick-in-ballots.html">A Swift Kick in the Ballots</a><br />3. <a href="http://macnumpty.blogspot.com/2010/08/does-size-matter.html">Does Size Matter?</a><br />4. <a href="http://macnumpty.blogspot.com/2010/08/bringing-it-together-why-all-this.html">Bringing It Together: Why All This Matters</a><br /><br />It was, of course, only a matter of time before I took a look at the Coalition Government's package of reforms for elections to the House of Commons, and weighed in. And I'll be honest: of course I'm not happy with the Alternative Vote system. I would have preferred the Single Transferable Vote to strike that balance between the voter having a wide choice of candidates and representatives, and the ability to create a Parliament that actually reflects to a far greater degree the balance of opinion in the UK.<br /><br />Indeed, I was amused to note that <a href="http://www.tomharris.org.uk/2010/07/28/the-new-politics-part-18/">Tom Harris</a> was once again pooh-poohing STV by working out that as a Glasgow MP, if Glasgow were one big seven-member STV constituency, he'd only need 37,501 votes on a 70% turnout to be elected. The irony here is that he himself was elected to Westminster with 20,736 votes on a turnout of just under 62%. Had he received the same vote share on a 70% turnout, he'd have got around 23,525 votes and some of those would have been surplus to his needs to get back in. So rather than being a way of losers sneaking in to Parliament, STV would in Tom Harris's case at least, require him as the candidate to work harder over a larger area to secure votes. That's a good thing.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I choose to be fair to Tom Harris while at the same time hold my nose and support AV as a step in the right direction. Why? Well, if we must stick with a system where each voter and each constituency has only one MP who is the sole voice for the entire seat, then it's right that MPs should, at the very least, command the support of more than half of the people who expressed an opinion at the ballot box. Tom Harris does meet that standard, but in Scotland, he's very much in the minority: out of 59 MPs, 37 owe their position not to their popularity - more people voted against them than for them - but to the fact that support for opposition candidates broke down in such a manner that they got in by default.<br /><br />They complain that PR lets losers in? First Past the Post is doing it right now. 37 MPs out of 59 could not command the support of half of those who cast a valid vote, and so were rejected by voters, but got in because no one had a majority and the split in opposition votes allowed them to come through the middle. Moreover, in one case, Argyll & Bute, Alan Reid got in despite being voted against by more than two to one - the more than twice as many people voted for someone other than Reid as voted for him - but because of the system, Reid was indeed first past the post, and was elected. This isn't meant as a personal go at Alan Reid, but this system cannot be right: it must be changed, and while Alternative Vote doesn't address full concerns about proportionality, it does at least guarantee that MPs will go to Westminster with some level of support from a majority of those who expressed their view.<br /><br />That, at least, is progress.Willhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10978812670312106107noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19208183.post-10280801980845007502010-07-25T15:09:00.003+01:002010-07-25T16:07:31.238+01:00The State of the SecretaryFollowing on from last week's <a href="http://macnumpty.blogspot.com/2010/07/guest-post-shadow-scottish-secretary.html">Guest Post by Socialist Animal</a> 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.<br /><br />So the first part of this post, then, the actual role as it stands, is going to be rather short.<br /><br />What exactly is Michael Moore doing?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Compared with Murphy and Gillan, Moore looks positively Trappist. And that means that Dover House is out of the picture.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />In short, without Jim Murphy sitting in Dover House, Labour has gone back three years. That's not a good thing.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Willhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10978812670312106107noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19208183.post-55299222264894126682010-07-21T20:02:00.004+01:002010-07-21T20:53:23.139+01:00A 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />And it's because he's setting the precedent of seeking re-election as an MSP that his decision to stand again <span style="font-style:italic;">as a Tory</span>, 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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />But there's another factor, which means that Fergusson is not setting a full and clear precedent: he is standing for re-election <span style="font-style:italic;">as an MSP</span>, but <span style="font-style:italic;">not</span> as Presiding Officer: indeed, he was reluctant to take the post the first time round and has no wish to take it again.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />We won't know the answer to that one for another four years.Willhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10978812670312106107noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19208183.post-58773190933802724332010-07-19T17:15:00.000+01:002010-07-19T17:15:00.290+01:00Why Florence and Precious must stay<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdf_aidkhyWaR0Gp5reeCLrhrPnc95So56PIkyoZVoi8Nl6qWZEZbqRjBD-92SOUgxbJlw-eKVsn0CbQ_nqGaR9LlesZFzb7JKUaBsG_-OCaGe8gUWdCzLjM96wTgNGJYhzSXRFw/s1600/Vigil.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 326px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdf_aidkhyWaR0Gp5reeCLrhrPnc95So56PIkyoZVoi8Nl6qWZEZbqRjBD-92SOUgxbJlw-eKVsn0CbQ_nqGaR9LlesZFzb7JKUaBsG_-OCaGe8gUWdCzLjM96wTgNGJYhzSXRFw/s400/Vigil.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5495549958426175778" /></a><br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />So more and more, compassion is the watchword, and we're increasingly driven by a need to protect the vulnerable from harm.<br /><br />Yet the UK Border Agency appear not to have got that particular memo.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The conclusion is inescapable: we are not meeting our own standards.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />She must let Florence and Precious Mhango stay in Glasgow.Willhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10978812670312106107noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19208183.post-72203101549338508102010-07-18T14:14:00.002+01:002010-07-18T14:22:54.670+01:00Guest Post: Shadow Scottish Secretary: who’s in the running?<span style="font-style:italic;">A Guest Post from an old sparring partner of mine, <a href="http://twitter.com/socialistanimal">Socialist Animal</a>, one of the authors at <a href="http://politicalscrapbook.net/">Political Scrapbook</a>, 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.</span><br /><br />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.<br /><br />Naturally who gets what will depend on:<br /><br />A. Who runs for Shadow Cabinet, and;<br /><br />B. Who’s supporting the ultimate winner.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">ALL</span> 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 <span style="font-weight:bold;">Tom Harris, Frank Roy, David Cairns,</span> and <span style="font-weight:bold;">Anne McGuire.</span> Ed Miliband is being supported by the immediately previous PUSS for Scotland <span style="font-weight:bold;">Ann McKechin</span>, as well as former Scottish Cabinet Minister <span style="font-weight:bold;">Margaret Curran</span>. Ed Balls is being supported by former Defence Minister <span style="font-weight:bold;">Eric Joyce</span>, while Andy Burnham is backed by former Culture Minister <span style="font-weight:bold;">Tom Clarke</span> and former Scottish Cabinet Minister <span style="font-weight:bold;">Cathy Jamieson</span>.<br /><br />Assuming the victor is one of the Milibands the Shadow Secretary will likely be one of their supporters. <span style="font-weight:bold;">Margaret Curran</span> has made it known she is not interested in climbing the greasy pole so that leaves <span style="font-weight:bold;">Ann McKechin</span> in the Ed camp. However it could well also be that if Miliband junior emerges victorious then <span style="font-weight:bold;">Jim Murphy</span> (who’s managing David’s campaign) may not get the promotion he covets and be forced to stay put.<br /><br />The more likely scenario however is a David Miliband victory. <span style="font-weight:bold;">Tom Harris</span> has probably burned his bridges with his blog, and <span style="font-weight:bold;">David Cairns</span> has proved a problematic front-bencher. Cairns’ stint as Minister of State for Scotland wasn’t exactly a stellar success either. <span style="font-weight:bold;">Frank Roy</span>, 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 <span style="font-weight:bold;">Anne McGuire</span>, 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.<br /><br />So what about outsiders? Glasgow North East by-election victor <span style="font-weight:bold;">Willie Bain</span> stepped up to Shadow Transport Minister after the election, and is a Miliband supporter. Dumfries MP <span style="font-weight:bold;">Russell Brown</span>, 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.<br /><br />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.Willhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10978812670312106107noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19208183.post-24438907678930709752010-07-18T13:48:00.003+01:002010-07-18T14:06:33.683+01:00Calling All Bloggers: Florence and Precious Need You<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhI2LTgIn1AzDbYr92mv-IB8tIF_xn0iIw8TiiBz3bdUTfLPgWkL_xJvwS1WE2diTpPaitqGFt6bTswXSNMmDjSrqnKjMXxG48gcG14PniyAVNLoG6Z2qD6NUuMRZ2pj4gC8ZTQLg/s1600/Vigil.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 326px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhI2LTgIn1AzDbYr92mv-IB8tIF_xn0iIw8TiiBz3bdUTfLPgWkL_xJvwS1WE2diTpPaitqGFt6bTswXSNMmDjSrqnKjMXxG48gcG14PniyAVNLoG6Z2qD6NUuMRZ2pj4gC8ZTQLg/s400/Vigil.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5495227491387394882" /></a><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />So what does this mean?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />In practice this means one of two things.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />If you'd like to take part, then please let me know, so I have an idea of the numbers involved.Willhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10978812670312106107noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19208183.post-368547893488007082010-07-11T10:49:00.003+01:002010-07-11T12:59:42.803+01:00Rumours of the Scottish Blogosphere's Death are PrematureIt's seems fitting that, with changes afoot to the <a href="http://scottishroundup.co.uk/">Scottish Roundup</a>, 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 <a href="http://planet-politics.blogspot.com/2010/07/macblogosphere-in-decline.html">Stuart</a>. So I thought I'd chip in.<br /><br />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 <span style="font-style:italic;">at the same time</span>. However, it would seem that this is what has happened.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />But there's something I want to pick up on that Stuart said - and I'm not just quoting this for the flattering reference:<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">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.<br /><br />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.</span><br /><br />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.<br /><br />But that brings me to my next point, which Stuart himself acknowledges:<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">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.</span><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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, <span style="font-style:italic;">J. Arthur MacNumpty</span> 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 <span style="font-style:italic;">Sunday Whip</span> 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.<br /><br />Nevertheless, let me just take a look at one final point:<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">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.</span><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Willhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10978812670312106107noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19208183.post-26448986164769754612010-07-10T08:55:00.002+01:002010-07-10T16:07:29.459+01:00The Summer WhipMSPs 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 <a href="http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/sln/blogentry.aspx?blogentryref=8309">Scots Law News</a>:<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">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.</span><br /><br />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.<br /><br />But for now, let's look at the figures from the term just gone.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">The big absentees</span><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">SNP</span><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Labour</span><br /><br />Labour's record is grim, though by no means the worst, with an attendance rate of 89.14%.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Conservatives</span><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Liberal Democrats</span><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Greens and Margo</span><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Willhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10978812670312106107noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19208183.post-64812283500146021342010-07-04T23:03:00.003+01:002010-07-04T23:35:18.151+01:00The Sunday WhipYou 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Anyway. Wednesday was taken up almost in its entirety with the <a href="http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/24-CrimJustLc/index.htm">Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill</a>, and the 26 amendments that went to a vote.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />This was followed by the waving through of the <span style="font-style:italic;">National Health Service (Reimbursement of the Cost of EEA Treatment) (Scotland) Regulations 2010</span>, the <span style="font-style:italic;">Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 2010</span>, the <span style="font-style:italic;">Applications by Creditors (Pre-Action Requirements) (Scotland) Order 2010</span> and the <span style="font-style:italic;">Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2010</span>.<br /><br />Thursday saw the <a href="http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/35-CroftReform/index.htm">Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill</a> 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!<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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...Willhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10978812670312106107noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19208183.post-52066912809700287372010-06-27T20:54:00.003+01:002010-06-27T21:14:09.207+01:00The Sunday WhipA quiet week, one that sums up that coming-towards-the-end-of-term-but-not-quite-there-yet-oh-look-is-there-footy-on-today?-ooh-yes-so-there-is-let's-do-a-bunk atmosphere that's pervading, well, most of Western society, I daresay.<br /><br />Anyway. Wednesday saw only one vote, on Stage 1 of the <span style="font-style:italic;">Housing (Scotland) Bill</span>, which passed by 96 (SNP/Lab/LD/Green) votes to 16 with no abstentions and a longish absentee list: Rhona Brankin (Lab, Midlothian), Margaret Curran (Lab, Glasgow Baillieston), Cathy Jamieson (Lab, Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley), Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead (Moray), Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians), Jack McConnell (Lab, Motherwell & Wishaw), Shadow Culture Minister Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin), John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West), Irene Oldfather (Lab, Cunninghame South), Mike Pringle (LD, Edinburgh South), LibDem Leader Tavish Scott (Shetland), Elaine Smith (Lab, Coatbridge & Chryston), Shirley-Anne Somerville (SNP, Lothians), Finance Secretary John Swinney (North Tayside), Andrew Welsh (SNP, Angus) and Shadow Children's Minister Karen Whitefield (Airdrie & Shotts). The Financial Resolution was then waved through, along with the <span style="font-style:italic;">Budget (Scotland) Act 2010 Amendment Order 2010</span>.<br /><br />Thursday was pretty easy-going as well, and there were nine absentees: Wendy Alexander (Lab, Paisley North), Rhona Brankin, Linda Fabiani (SNP, Central Scotland), Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale), Culture Minister Fiona Hyslop (Lothians), Labour Deputy Group Leader Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok), Jack McConnell, John Farquhar Munro and the FM (Gordon).<br /><br />They missed a LibDem motion on tourism, which faced SNP and Labour amendments. The Tories lodged an amendment to the SNP amendment, which passed by 76 (SNP/Con/LD/Margo) to 41 (Lab) with two Green abstentions. The amended amendment then passed by 61 (SNP/Con/Margo) to 58 (Lab/LD/Green) and this pre-empted the Labour amendment. The amended motion then passed, again by 61 to 58:<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">That the Parliament notes that tourism is among the largest contributors to the Scottish economy and is defined as a key sector; believes that the industry needs clear direction and support in order to achieve sustainable, long-term growth; welcomes the initiative of the industry to establish the Tourism Leadership Group as a positive step in working collaboratively toward growth and prosperity; notes that extending the small business bonus scheme will mean that half of all businesses, including many tourism-related businesses, will receive a discounted bill this year and well over a quarter of business properties will pay no rates at all and that the introduction of a transitional relief scheme would increase taxes for small and medium-sized private companies by £77 million, meaning that eight out of 10 ratepayers, including many in the tourism and hospitality industry, would be worse or no better off, which would be extremely damaging for Scotland in this period of fragile economic recovery, and welcomes the UK Government's decision not to repeal the special tax rules for furnished holiday lettings, as had been proposed by the previous administration led by Labour.</span><br /><br />Then came a LibDem motion on free personal care for the elderly. This saw an outbreak of consensus, with SNP and Tory amendments waved through, along with the motion itself:<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">That the Parliament believes that free personal and nursing care for the elderly has widespread support and continues to deliver real benefits for tens of thousands of Scotland's most vulnerable older people, allowing them the dignity and independence of growing old in the comfort of their homes; recognises that budget constraints and demographic change present challenges for Scotland's social care and health services, but, in order to protect the elderly, reaffirms its commitment to free personal and nursing care for the long term so that Scotland's elderly population can continue to receive the care to which it is entitled; welcomes the wide-ranging Reshaping Care for Older People programme, which is developing innovative and practical ideas for change to meet the needs of Scotland's population that are sustainable, deliverable and fair; urges the Scottish Government to continue to identify savings in administrative costs that can be reinvested in frontline services, and, in this context, calls on the Scottish Government to give serious consideration to the proposal from Lord Sutherland to merge health and social care budgets.</span><br /><br />This consensus was carried forward into the Government motion on the <span style="font-style:italic;">Independent Review of Sheriff and Jury Procedure</span>, where Tory and LibDem amendments (along with the motion itself) were passed on the nod:<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">That the Parliament welcomes the report on the </span>Independent Review of Sheriff and Jury Procedure<span style="font-style:italic;"> conducted by Sheriff Principal Edward F Bowen CBE TD QC and believes that the people of Scotland deserve a modernised sheriff and jury procedure that promotes the interest of justice in an efficient way, serves the interest of victims, witnesses and jurors and is fit for purpose in the 21st century; further recognises that, with constraints on the public expenditure, it is vital to ensure that justice continues to be delivered swiftly and in a cost effective manner, and calls on the Scottish Government to work with the courts and other stakeholders to implement the reforms as a matter of urgency.</span><br /><br />Finally, a Labour Committee reshuffle was passed without argument. That leaves one week before the summer break, and it's a bit of a rush job, with Stage 3 of the <span style="font-style:italic;">Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill</span> and the <span style="font-style:italic;">Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill</span> due. Talk about leaving your work until the last minute!Willhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10978812670312106107noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19208183.post-58781478275826028982010-06-20T09:56:00.002+01:002010-06-20T10:37:10.871+01:00The Sunday WhipIt's been a while since we've had a week that adheres so tightly to the general Holyrood formula: total consensus on a Wednesday, followed by the opposition building a consensus around the common interest of lobbing a quick egg at the Government. But this is what we got this week.<br /><br />Wednesday saw no votes taken at all: the Business Motion was waved through, as were the general principles of the <span style="font-style:italic;">Children's Hearings (Scotland) Bill</span> and its accompanying financial resolution, a motion putting the Education Committee in charge of the <span style="font-style:italic;">Autism (Scotland) Bill</span> at Stage 1 and a Tory committee substitute reshuffle. Move along, folks, nothing to see here.<br /><br />Thursday was busier, and saw only five absentees: LibDem Health Spokesman Ross Finnie (West of Scotland), Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians), a disgraced Frank McAveety (Lab, Glasgow Shettleston and now, it seems, Manila West), John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West) and LibDem Culture Spokesman Iain Smith (North East Fife).<br /><br />First came the Labour motion on Schools. The SNP amendment fell by 74 (Lab/Con/LD) votes to 49 (SNP/Green), while the Tory amendment fell by 107 to 16. The LibDem amendment passed by 74 to 47 with two Green abstentions, as did the amended motion:<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">That the Parliament notes with concern the reduction in the numbers of teachers and classroom assistants since 2007 and the sharp rise in the proportion of newly qualified teachers who cannot obtain permanent or even temporary employment; further notes the widespread disquiet that exists among teachers and parents over the lack of preparedness for implementation of the Curriculum for Excellence and, in particular, the lack of clarity over new qualification arrangements; recognises that the Curriculum for Excellence is a wide-ranging reform with significant resource implications; calls on the Scottish Government to reach an early agreement with local authorities and teachers organisations that guarantees the necessary preparation time and resources for successful implementation of the Curriculum for Excellence, and notes that the Scottish Government's package of education failures includes the abandonment of SNP election commitments to reduce class sizes in P1 to P3 to 18, dump student debt and match brick for brick the previous administration's school building programme.</span><br /><br />Then came the Government's Poverty Framework motion. A Labour amendment fell by 76 (SNP/Con/LD) votes to 45 with two abstentions, while the LibDem amendment passed by 59 - most of the Labour group, the LibDems and Greens to one - Labour's Shadow Housing Minister Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow) - with 63 SNP and Tory abstentions (Margo, it seems was in the Chamber in spirit, at least). The amended motion then passed by 60 (Labour/LD/Green) votes to one - Bill Aitken (Con, Glasgow) with 62 SNP and Tory abstentions:<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">That the Parliament notes the continuing approach set out in the Scottish Government's poverty and income inequality framework, Achieving our Potential, to take long-term measures to tackle drivers of poverty and income inequality in Scotland, to maximise the potential for people to work, to make work pay for those who can and to support those who cannot work and those who are experiencing poverty now; recognises the need to focus on those people and communities who experience longer-term persistent poverty; supports the need to streamline the welfare system while ensuring that reforms provide better protection for, and do not further disadvantage, vulnerable people, particularly in these challenging times, and believes that the Scottish Government should introduce a fairer pay policy that gives a real-terms pay increase to those on the lowest wages in the public sector while paying no bonuses to higher earning staff in 2010-11 and 2011-12.</span><br /><br />So that was another week. Next week, there's Stage 1 of the <span style="font-style:italic;">Housing (Scotland) Bill</span>, LibDem business and a Government debate on the Independent Review of Sheriff and Jury Procedures.Willhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10978812670312106107noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19208183.post-89739063444039924172010-06-16T21:37:00.002+01:002010-06-16T22:33:12.271+01:00Frank McAveety's Mouth<span style="font-style:italic;">There's a very attractive girl in the second row, dark... and dusky. We'll maybe put a wee word out for her. She's very attractive looking, nice, very nice, very slim... The heat's getting to me... She looks kinda... she's got that Filipino look... You know... the kind you'd see in a Gauguin painting. There's a wee bit of culture.</span><br /><br />And with those words, what was left of Frank McAveety's political career came crashing down around him. To be honest, I'm reluctant to join the line of people criticising him. Yes, it's pervy, yes, it's creepy, but the truth is that most of us have, at one time or another, perved on someone we spotted. However, we don't usually do it when a) we're Convener of the Public Petitions Committee and b) we're standing in front of an open mic.<br /><br />As it happens, David Steel got caught out the same way back in 2003: when chairing the session to determine his replacement as Presiding Officer, Steel was faced with the sight of Rosie Kane and Carolyn Leckie approaching his desk to cast their votes, clad in their low-cut TK Maxx tops. Steel was heard to remark, "I tell you, the view's a lot better in <span style="font-style:italic;">this</span> Parliament!"<br /><br />But that was just a fly-away comment, and Steel was retiring anyway. McAveety is still an active politician and was overheard engaged in a borderline-stalky ramble. Nevertheless, this is what happens when we ask our politicians to be human: they get caught displaying a human weakness (in this case, the horn) and we condemn them. Then we get politicians who won't even go for a dump unless a focus group approves and we bemoan the lack of independent thought and the absence of real characters from the political scene. We can't have it both ways.<br /><br />Mind you, this low-level fiasco is yet another hiccup on McAveety's CV. Having become Leader of Glasgow City Council, he then got elected to Holyrood in 1999, and was appointed Deputy Housing Minister. So far so good.<br /><br />But then he miscalculated: at the time of Donald Dewar's death, in the ensuing Leadership contest between Henry McLeish and Jack McConnell, the McConnell-supporting McAveety changed horses mid-stream and backed McLeish. It was therefore no longer necessary for McLeish to keep him in the Ministerial team as a sop to his rival, and so McAveety was dismissed. Then, when McConnell entered Bute House a year later, and purged the Cabinet, McAveety was overlooked, until Richard Simpson's resignation in 2002, when he finally returned as a Deputy Health Minister. Back on track.<br /><br />Indeed, promotion beckoned in 2003, when he was appointed Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport. But even then, there was a catch: yes, he was called a Minister, and yes he was given a seat at the Cabinet table, but he was considered a Deputy Minister, allowing opposition parties to ask whether he was a senior junior minister, or a junior senior minister.<br /><br />Then came Piegate, when he failed to show up when expected in the Chamber, and later claimed that he'd been 'unavoidably detained at the Arts Council Book Awards' when in fact he'd been having his lunch at the time he was supposed to be answering a Parliamentary Question. This put him in the wilderness until 2007, when he re-appeared as a junior spokesman, for Sport. Though getting the Public Petitions Committee Convenership wasn't a bad gig at all.<br /><br />Still, this sums up McAveety's post-Glasgow career: getting relatively minor posts and ending up losing them on the basis of a relatively minor error. His career as Deputy Housing Minister ended because he made a political miscalculation; his career as Sport Minister ended because he couldn't just grab a quick sandwich then have something more substantial later; and his career on the Labour opposition frontbench has gone up in smoke because for one minute, his mouth opted to speak on behalf of his cock rather than his brain.<br /><br />But what does this mean for Labour? With less than 12 months until a Holyrood election, Labour need to look like a Government-in-waiting. This is far more important at Holyrood than at Westminster: yes, people were fed up with Labour in 2007, but what pushed the SNP over the line was that the party appeared to be a credible alternative government - they say that oppositions don't win elections, but governments lose them: there's something in that, but always remember that governments have to have someone to lose an election to, and this was definitely the case in 2007. Conversely, last month, people in Scotland were fed up with Labour, but they still didn't trust the Tories, and of course, a basic point of both Labour and Tory campaigns - that the SNP couldn't form the Westminster government - was basically correct. So credibility counts, and just when Iain Gray's team needs to look competent, business-like, even statesman-like, McAveety makes himself look like a complete and utter perv. Oh dear.<br /><br />But with this problem, comes an opportunity: one of the big problems with the Labour frontbench is that where most parties try and advance quality, Labour at Holyrood has gone for quantity, to the extent that an SNP ministerial team of 16 is shadowed by a Labour frontbench of 24. Now, in 2007, the SNP really pushed Alex Salmond to the forefront - even putting his name on the ballot paper - but the other key figures got their moments: Nicola Sturgeon was prominent; John Swinney and Jim Mather did their business presentations; the SNP's final election broadcasts basically gave us a glimpse of the key members of the next government. We don't get the same sense from Iain Gray's unwieldy, amorphous blob of a Shadow Cabinet and that will damage Labour. It doesn't have to reflect Government portfolios - at this stage in the political cycle, better for everyone that it look like Iain Gray's vision of a prospective Labour Government than a mirror of the current SNP Government - but it has to look like the team that will come in if, somehow, Iain Gray ends up in Bute House. You can't do that with a frontbench consisting of so many people. So McAveety's departure gives Gray a chance to wield a bigger axe, and cut his Shadow Cabinet down to size... if he dares.<br /><br />That said, I don't see him doing so, which will serve only to highlight Iain Gray's weaknesses as Labour Group Leader.<br /><br />And frankly, those weaknesses - a reliance on far too many people, an unwillingness to respond to change, a failure to address a clear problem and worst of all, a complete failure to present an alternative Government so close to the next election - will prove far more costly than Frank McAveety's weakness for dusky-looking women.Willhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10978812670312106107noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19208183.post-40695413923323776842010-06-13T11:51:00.002+01:002010-06-13T12:09:49.496+01:00The Sunday WhipA broadly consensual week, though with a harbinger of a row to come, and that rare beast, an SNP-Labour link-up.<br /><br />Anyway. Wednesday saw no votes taken: the Business and Bureau motions were waved through, as were the <a href="http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/40-WSimpsonHome/index.htm">William Simpson's Home (Transfer of Property etc.) (Scotland) Bill</a> and the <a href="http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/39-SPCC/index.htm">Scottish Parliamentary Commissions and Commissioners etc. Bill</a> and its two amendments. And to complete proceedings, MSPs acknowledged the Transport Committee's <span style="font-style:italic;">Report on the Inquiry into Active Travel</span>. Bish, bash, bosh, sorted.<br /><br />Thursday was a little busier, though there were a handful of absentees: Shadow Further & Higher Education Minister Claire Baker (Mid Scotland & Fife), Margaret Curran (Lab, Glasgow Baillieston), Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale), Marlyn Glen (Lab, North East Scotland), Cathy Jamieson (Lab, Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley), Stewart Maxwell (SNP, West of Scotland), John Faruhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West), Irene Oldfather (Lab, Cunninghame North), LibDem Leader Tavish Scott (Shetland), his predecessor Nicol Stephen (Aberdeen South), Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson (Banff & Buchan) and David Stewart (Lab, Highlands & Islands).<br /><br />The first matter was Stage 1 of the <span style="font-style:italic;">Alcohol etc. (Scotland) Bill</span>. First came a Tory amendment to the motion calling on the Government to drop the section on minimum pricing, which passed by 54 - most of Labour and all the Tories - to 49 - the SNP, the Greens, Margo and Malcolm Chisholm (Lab, Edinburgh North & Leith) with 13 LibDem abstentions. The amended motion then passed by 98 (SNP/Lab/LD/Margo) to 0 with 18 Tory and Green abstentions, and the Financial Resolution passed without dissent.<br /><br />Then came the Government motion on violence against men. A Labour amendment passed by 85 - most of the SNP group, all of the Labour MSPs present, the Greens and Margo - to 27 - the Tories and most of the LibDems with three abstentions: Christine Grahame (SNP, South of Scotland), LibDem Local Government Spokesperson Alison McInnes (North East Scotland) and Alasdair Morgan (SNP, South of Scotland). Hugh O'Donnell (LD, Central Scotland) missed that vote.<br /><br />The Tory amendment fell by 42 - most of the Labour group, the Greens, Margo and Gil Paterson (SNP, West of Scotland) - to 28 - the Tories and most of the LibDems - with 46 abstentions - the rest of the SNP plus Shadow Children's Minister Karen Whitefield (Airdrie & Shotts) and Alison McInnes.<br /><br />The amended motion then passed by 85 - most SNP and Labour MSPs, the Greens and Margo - to 17 - the Tories and Helen Eadie (Lab, Dunfermline East), with 14 abstentions - the LibDems plus Christine Grahame:<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">That the Parliament recognises that domestic abuse is a very serious and totally unacceptable problem in Scottish society; notes in particular that all victims, whether they be women, men or children, deserve appropriate support; therefore welcomes the Scottish Government's provision of funding for a support helpline for male victims, which will provide the further information about their needs that is required before any future decisions about services are made, and reaffirms that domestic abuse is rooted in gender inequality, that overwhelmingly victims are women and that eradicating domestic abuse will only succeed where that pattern is acknowledged.</span><br /><br />So that was it for another week. Next week we have Stage 1 of the <span style="font-style:italic;">Children's Hearings (Scotland) Bill</span>, Labour business and a debate on the Poverty Framework. Stand by for egg-throwing, and lots of it.Willhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10978812670312106107noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19208183.post-58380167621690533952010-06-06T13:55:00.002+01:002010-06-06T15:35:42.581+01:00Three Lions, Two Nations and a HeadacheWell, it's World Cup time again. Or at least, it will be on Friday. And with it being 1998 since Scotland last made it to an international tournament, and with England making every one since then with the exception of Euro 2008, we once again face that vexed question: who should Scots support? And for me personally, who am I supporting?<br /><br />Now, I suspect that most of you know my background by now: born and raised in Northern England, went to study in Scotland, felt at home there, found the arguments put forward by the SNP persuasive, went back to England for work and I'm still working there now. So, being English, in England, surrounded by English people, you'd think this'd be a no-brainer for me, right?<br /><br />Wrong. Because the bit I skipped in that potted history was my Dad, who's from Paisley, and my Mum, who tolerates football only becuse it's in the family's life anyway. So that's a Scotland fan and a woman who wouldn't shed a tear if football were abolished tomorrow.<br /><br />Now this is important. Remember the Tebbit Test, when Norman Tebbit suggested deporting anyone of Pakistani descent living in the UK if they supported Pakistan rather than England in the cricket? Well, of course they're going to support Pakistan. In fact, it's probably easier for them to do so when you factor in that most people don't give a toss about cricket except when the Ashes are on, whereas football is absolutely everywhere. But I know why they would because what I do is the broad equivalent: the house is physically in England, but behind the front door, it's a different story. The family got the Daily Record. We'd just about get a Radio Scotland signal. Then when BBC Scotland and STV came on Sky, that was an absolute boon. Generally, though, in my family, we usually know and care more about what's happening in Scotland than a couple of miles down the road. So I grew up supporting Scotland.<br /><br />And that means that supporting England is a decision I have to take rather than an automatic reaction.<br /><br />Here's another factor that I consider: it's easier for me to support England in this World Cup than at any other time in my life because of the people I'll be sharing it with. Where I'm from, and where I'm back living now, is just far enough away from Manchester to get the first Man U fans. There are a lot of Wigan fans (and I count myself among them), some Bolton fans, a few Preston North End fans (and PNE fans be warned: if Trevor Hemmings gets his hands on your club, Deepdale will be a housing development by Christmas), a couple of City fans and the odd Everton and Liverpool fan. There's also a family of Arsenal fans. They have no connection at all with London, so we're still trying to figure that one out. But they're all partisan to a fault, to the extent that if Man U are on at the local pub, it'll be full at kick-off, but if Man U aren't ahead by half-time, the place will have cleared. And apparently, Sir Alex Ferguson is incompetent. Well, he is if you listen to my neighbours. They don't look at the wider game. They don't see the other team on the pitch. They're the exact people the tabloids manage to whip up into a frenzy and who go around looking for a scapegoat when it inevitably goes wrong. They're the ones who blame Ronaldo for getting Wayne Rooney sent off after he attempted to perform a vasectomy on a Portuguese player using his football boots. And let me tell you, they didn't take kindly when I pointed out that attempting to kick someone's bollocks off would meet any reasonable definition of violent conduct and that as such, the one player on the pitch who got Wayne Rooney sent off was - get this - Wayne Rooney. But they're the stereotype: the ones who swallow the tabloid view that a scrappy 1-0 win against Algeria with Algeria having a goal disallowed for reasons known only to the Assistant Referee is the stepping stone that was needed, and the trophy surely beckons! Under those circumstances, it's hard not to wish for the penalties to come and end the madness around me.<br /><br />But this time is different, in that I'm work alongside a group of guys who actually enjoy football for football's sake, and they're more realistic. They'll cheer on England with the best of them, they want England to win the title but they're not ignorant of the other 31 teams in the tournament: they see the bigger picture. Hell, it was one of them who suggested to me that the USA might be a decent bet to win Group C (and having secured odds of 4.8/1 at Betfair, it's hard to disagree)! They're England fans, but they're football fans as well, so it'll be hard not to enjoy the games with them, and if we do end up going to watch a game in a group, it'll be hard not to get caught up in the atmosphere and cheer with them.<br /><br />But the truth is, I'll support the players I have in my fantasy football team and the countries I have money on. So I'll be cheering every goal scored by Peter Crouch against Slovenia and Algeria, but not against the USA as I have Carlos Bocanegra in my squad as well. So I'll be cheering for Uruguay, who I wagered would top Group A (Forlan's in my squad too), the USA (sorry guys, there's money on it), and Germany and Brazil, who I've taken to meet in the Final at 20/1. I might not have an emotional interest in any of the teams, but I do have a financial interest in some of them and that now comes to the fore.<br /><br />So, having basically confirmed that I'm a cold-hearted greedy bastard, here's my two cents on the whole should-Scotland-support-England question.<br /><br />And my answer is this: who cares?<br /><br />I remember when the UK press latched onto this debate in 2006 - not helped by Jack McConnell announcing his support for Ecuador in a triumph for relations within the Union - and there was a point that baffled me at the time: England has fifty million people, one of the most famous football leagues in the world, a decent club honours list at European level, and of course, the 1966 World Cup. Scotland has just five million people, an SPL that is seen as a basket case by most observers, an ever-decreasing UEFA co-efficient and a national team that hasn't reached an international tournament since 1998 and whose sole international honour is the 2006 Kirin Cup. So why was England so worried about what its neighbours think? Of course, this time, they don't seem to mind either way, but we'll see if that changes as the tournament progresses. But frankly, if I were an England fan, I'd lose no sleep whatever over what Scotland fans thought.<br /><br />As to Scotland, it's embarrassing that this has become a political issue. I tire of fellow Nationalists discussing this seriously. After all, the whole point of civic nationalism is to see Scotland come forward as an independent nation in its own right on its own merits. So why keep looking at things in terms of England? Why does it matter?<br /><br />But the Unionist position is equally baffling. First, I don't get why anyone would want to see support a political union with a country that they wanted to see fall flat on its face. Then those that do support England, well fine, that makes sense. But here's another thought: if you're supporting England because we're in a political union, then bear in mind that we're also in one with ten other teams besides England in this World Cup: it's called the EU. Will these political fans cheer on France, who cheated their way into the tournament? Will they support Portugal against Brazil? Will they support Germany against Ghana and Serbia? If you're going to choose a national team to support because of politics, then you have to see it through. If you can't, then the notion of supporting one team in particular looks shaky.<br /><br />Now, this is, as usual, a ridiculously long post about a subject that doesn't really merit it. But it's telling that this has become enough of an issue that it takes up this much time and thought.<br /><br />It's amazing how many people - both in Scotland and England - enjoyed Euro 2008, because they could afford just to sit back and watch the football for its own sake. Maybe it's time to reclaim that spirit, and either pick a team to adopt for whatever reason we fancy, whether it's for personal connections or the wager we've put on, or just not bother cheering for or against specific teams and simply enjoy the games.<br /><br />As I said, I'm fortunate in that I'll be enjoying this World Cup relaxing with friends, talking about the games and putting a couple of daft bets on (which reminds me, I'm running the office sweepstake). I can afford to chill out and have a laugh for a month.<br /><br />And that, I think, is the best way to watch one game of football, never mind 64!Willhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10978812670312106107noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19208183.post-9996005550535966072010-06-06T13:22:00.003+01:002010-06-06T13:55:37.255+01:00The Sunday WhipThis was a quiet, successful week for the Government, with the usual Consensus Wednesday and Minor, Inconsequential Ding-Dong Thursday.<br /><br />All Wednesday saw was a debate on and acknowledgement of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee's <span style="font-style:italic;">Report on the way forward for Scotland's banking, building society and financial services sector</span> and the traditional waving through of the Business Motions.<br /><br />Thursday was a little busier, and there was only one absentee: Dave Thompson (SNP, Highlands & Islands). Indeed, you have to go back to the 100% attendance for the vote on Stage 1 of the Budget in January to find when the Chamber was this full at Decision Time. Things began with a Labour motion on the NHS. This faced an SNP amendment which itself faced two amendments. Of these, the Tory one passed by 77 (SNP/Tory/LD) votes to 48 (Lab/Green) with one abstention (Margo, of course), and a protestation that Housing Minister Alex Neil's console wasn't working. This isn't the first time this has happened: I seem to recall something similar happening to Robert Brown a couple of months ago and it may be time to run a proper diagnostic on the Parliament's equipment. For what it's worth, six years isn't a bad innings for electronic equipment - assuming that a) it hasn't been replaced already and b) new machines came with the building rather than just shipping the old consoles from Assembly Hall. If that's actually what happened, then the Parliament's gadgetry is 11 years old and I'd hope that the Corporate Body is finding time to discuss replacement and upgrades. In fact, I'd start doing that anyway if I were on it: what if the equipment fails during a key piece of legislation? What if a defective console makes the difference between something passing or falling? This is always a risk with electronic voting but the risk is increasing with the consoles' age, failures are taking place anyway (but luckily haven't caused a major problem yet) and the SPCB needs to step in as soon as possible.<br /><br />But I digress. The LibDem amendment was waved through and the amended SNP amendment passed by 80 - the SNP, Tories, LibDems, Margo and Wendy Alexander (Lab, Paisley North) to 47 - the rest of the Labour group and the two Greens. The amended motion then passed by 79 to 48, with Wendy Alexander remembering which party she was in:<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">That the Parliament notes the real-terms increase for the NHS budget in 2010-11 despite the previous UK administration cutting the Scottish Government budget by £500 million; notes the commitment by the new UK coalition government to real-terms increases in the NHS budget in future years and agrees that all resultant Barnett consequentials should be applied to the NHS in Scotland; understands that, notwithstanding the above, NHS budgets are tight as a result of Labour's economic mismanagement and that all NHS boards require to deliver services more efficiently, but welcomes the commitment that quality of patient care will be the paramount consideration, that there will be no compulsory redundancies in the NHS and that there will be more staff in the NHS at the end of this parliamentary term than there were when Labour left office in 2007; also welcomes the commitment from the UK coalition government to reverse Labour's increase in national insurance, which would have cut £40 million from the budget of the NHS in Scotland, and calls on the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing to publish immediately NHS boards' workforce projections and to carry out robust scrutiny, including risk assessment, of the impact on the safety and quality of patient care and the provision of frontline NHS services.</span><br /><br />Then came a Government motion on student fees. A Labour amendment fell by 64 - the SNP, most of the LibDems, the Greens and Margo - to 63 - Labour, the Tories and Jim Hume (LD, South of Scotland), while a LibDem amendment passed by 65 (SNP/LibDems/Greens/Margo) to 17 - the Tories plus Shadow Sport Minister Frank McAveety (Glasgow Shettleston) with the rest of Labour abstaining, and the amended motion passed by 65 to 16 with all 46 Labour MSPs abstaining:<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">That the Parliament notes the ongoing review of higher education and student finance in England and Wales; recognises that the Scottish Government will need to consider any outcomes of this review and the potential impact on Scottish universities; commends the National Union of Students' student fee pledge, and welcomes that, thanks to the actions of the previous and current administrations in Scotland, full-time Scottish higher education students studying in Scotland do not pay tuition fees or top-up fees.</span><br /><br />Following that, MSPs waved through the <span style="font-style:italic;">Advice and Assistance and Civil Legal Aid (Transfer of Tribunal Functions) (No. 2) (Scotland) Regulations 2010</span> and the <span style="font-style:italic;">Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2010</span>, as well as a reshuffle of the SNP's Committee Substitutes.<br /><br />So that's it for another week. Next week sees Stage 1 of the <span style="font-style:italic;">Alcohol etc. (Scotland) Bill</span>, so should be a good one.Willhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10978812670312106107noreply@blogger.com0