J. Arthur MacNumpty

Every Start Requires An End

2010-09-05T18:20:00.000+01:00

For 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.

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.

Well, I have my move.

It's Southbound.

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.

I'm pulling the plug, killing off J. Arthur MacNumpty.

It seems foolish to press ahead with it.

However, that's not the same as quitting the blogosphere. Instead, I'll be blogging from The Will Patterson Notebook, 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.

Cheers for the ride, guys, but now, I'm changing lanes...

Selection Box: West Scotland

2010-08-22T17:36:00.002+01:00

The 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.

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...

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.

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.

Selection Box: South Scotland

2010-08-22T17:10:00.005+01:00

South Scotland isn't devoid of a few interesting contests.

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.

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.

(Incidentally, a correspondent who, sadly, didn't leave a name assures 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?)

Meanwhile, we have the re-match between Tory MSP John Lamont and the man he defeated, LibDem Euan Robson, in Ettrick, Roxburgh & Berwickshire.

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.

Selection Box: North East Scotland

2010-08-22T16:43:00.004+01:00

This 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.

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.

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.

Selection Box: Lothian & Mid Scotland & Fife

2010-08-22T16:33:00.006+01:00

Moving 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.

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.

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.

Selection Box: Highlands & Islands

2010-08-22T16:13:00.008+01:00

In 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 QIB 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.

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.

The Return of the Selection Box: Central Scotland and Glasgow

2010-08-22T15:18:00.010+01:00

Despite 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 Malc's post on retiring MSPs, I thought I'd take a look.

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.

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.

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.

Bringing It Together: Why All This Matters

2010-08-01T17:38:00.003+01:00

The New Reform Package - TOC

1. Is There No Alternative?
2. A Swift Kick in the Ballots
3. Does Size Matter?
4. Bringing It Together: Why All This Matters

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.

I disagree.

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.

When I argued my case for independence, 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.

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.

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.

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.

This wonkery, this geekery, this process story that only excites the political village? It's at the heart of everything. It all matters.

Does Size Matter?

2010-08-01T17:14:00.005+01:00

The New Reform Package - TOC

1. Is There No Alternative?
2. A Swift Kick in the Ballots
3. Does Size Matter?
4. Bringing It Together: Why All This Matters

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.

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.

But the boundaries?

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.

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.

So already, the idea that size isn't the only thing that matters has crept in, but still the Tories persist.

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.

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.

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.

Maybe things do need to be changed, but in this case, it's the wrong change to make.

A Swift Kick in the Ballots

2010-08-01T16:42:00.003+01:00

The New Reform Package - TOC

1. Is There No Alternative?
2. A Swift Kick in the Ballots
3. Does Size Matter?
4. Bringing It Together: Why All This Matters

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

But whichever date has to change, there is, for me, a major practical reason why the two polls cannot be on the same day.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Is There No Alternative?

2010-08-01T15:43:00.003+01:00

The New Reform Package - TOC

1. Is There No Alternative?
2. A Swift Kick in the Ballots
3. Does Size Matter?
4. Bringing It Together: Why All This Matters

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.

Indeed, I was amused to note that Tom Harris 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.

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.

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.

That, at least, is progress.

The State of the Secretary

2010-07-25T15:09:00.003+01:00

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

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

What exactly is Michael Moore doing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Precedent Set - Well, Sort of...

2010-07-21T20:02:00.004+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Florence and Precious must stay

2010-07-19T17:15:00.000+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She must let Florence and Precious Mhango stay in Glasgow.

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

2010-07-18T14:14:00.002+01:00

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

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

Naturally who gets what will depend on:

A. Who runs for Shadow Cabinet, and;

B. Who’s supporting the ultimate winner.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calling All Bloggers: Florence and Precious Need You

2010-07-18T13:48:00.003+01:00

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

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

So what does this mean?

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

In practice this means one of two things.

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

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

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

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

Rumours of the Scottish Blogosphere's Death are Premature

2010-07-11T10:49:00.003+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Summer Whip

2010-07-10T08:55:00.002+01:00

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

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

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

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

The big absentees

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

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

SNP

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservatives

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

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

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

Liberal Democrats

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

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

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

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

Greens and Margo

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

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

The Sunday Whip

2010-07-04T23:03:00.003+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sunday Whip

2010-06-27T20:54:00.003+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sunday Whip

2010-06-20T09:56:00.002+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frank McAveety's Mouth

2010-06-16T21:37:00.002+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sunday Whip

2010-06-13T11:51:00.002+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three Lions, Two Nations and a Headache

2010-06-06T13:55:00.002+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And my answer is this: who cares?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sunday Whip

2010-06-06T13:22:00.003+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New appointments

2010-05-31T10:52:00.003+01:00

Congratulations to Michael Moore, the new Secretary of State for Scotland. In many ways, he's probably more suited to the job than his predecessor Danny Alexander, who goes down in history as the shortest-serving Secretary of State, having been moved to replace David Laws at the Treasury. Moore comes with the kudos of being Deputy Leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, so has an outside chance of at least appearing like Scotland's man in the Cabinet. Of course, Alistair Carmichael, as the LibDems' Shadow Scotland Secretary before the election, was a logical choice as well, but has clout as the Coalition Deputy Chief Whip and, accordingly, Senior LibDem Whip. Besides, who would want to pass up such a cool title as 'Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household'?

Anyway, Alexander was noted for being a close aide to his Leader Nick Clegg, and was effectively rendered mute during David Cameron's visit to Scotland. He was never going to look like anything other than the Cabinet's man in Scotland. And with his "I don't have anything to add" line during the PM's public appearances, I can't see him enjoying his role as George Osborne's Number 2. Where Laws took on the role with relish, I can't see Alexander bringing the same zeal to a tough role. Particularly when George Osborne described his predecessor as "put on earth to do the job". Alexander strikes me as more of a back-room man. He'll probably form a good working relationship with the Chancellor, but it'll be clear that Osborne is top dog, as opposed to Osborne and Laws effectively being joint Chancellors (and, it seems, with Laws being the stronger and more confident performer). With the spotlight now back on Osborne, there's now major pressure on the Government. Osborne does not do well in the spotlight.

But the real pressure, I suspect, is on Tavish Scott. We know that the Government has to make unpopular decisions. We know that spending cuts are going to have to come, and that the only questions are what gets cut, and when. Fine. But that doesn't mean we have to like it.

The LibDems' federal structure and the intricacies of devolution are such that the Scottish LibDems could have sidestepped the bulk of the criticism. Indeed, they were adept at that in the old Lab-LD Executive, with Dunfermline & West Fife By-Election winner Willie Rennie successfully campaigning on, among other things, the Forth Road Bridge tolls, the local hospital, and job losses at Kyocera. But tolls, the health service and enterprise were and are all devolved. Moreover, of those three subjects, the NHS was the only one which didn't have a LibDem in charge of it! But they got away with this - Rennie was seeking to be an MP, and an opposition one at that. He could afford to criticise the then Executive: he wouldn't be a part of it, he wouldn't have to back it.

Had David Laws been in a position to remain in situ, or had Vince Cable or Chris Huhne been moved to the Treasury, the Scottish LibDems, as a broadly autonomous section of the party, could have kept their distance from the nastiest of the budget cuts when they came. And Tavish Scott could have focused on devloved issues, and how Holyrood spent the money it had.

But there's a problem now. It is a Scottish Liberal Democrat making the cuts now. And Tavish Scott's Deputy Leader is now in the Cabinet, bound by collective responsibility for the decisions it takes. Alex Salmond will have a field day with this. Patrick Harvie can make his appeal to disaffected LibDems. Even Iain Gray can - in theory, at least - capitalise on this.

A Scottish LibDem will be responsible for cutting the Scottish Budget, and will have the agreement of Tavish Scott's Deputy Leader, Michael Moore. Devolution or no devolution, federal structure or no federal structure, it will be harder for the LibDems to get away from the tough decisions now, and far easier for their critics to make their mark. This set of appointments is what will cost the LibDems dear in next year's Holyrood elections.

The Cautionary Tale of David Laws

2010-05-31T09:34:00.003+01:00

Having had the weekend to reflect on the downfall of David Laws, I still can't pin down what my actual feelings on the matter are. I think at the heart of it, there's a bafflement that such a clearly intelligent man can allow such a situation to build up that his rise and fall are so swift.

I suppose, first, there's the scandal. Let's be clear: the rules say that you can't claim back rent paid to your partner. Laws claimed rent paid to his partner. He broke the rules, and he wouldn't admit that he was doing so. He may have been driven by a desire for privacy (and I'll come back to that point), but still, whatever the intentions, a deception did take place. And if that deception were to be committed by an ordinary member of the public, then the best they could hope for would be a disciplinary hearing at work, and likely dismissal. In some cases, a criminal record and perhaps even jail. Welcome to our world, Davy boy. On that basis, it's incredibly difficult to feel sympathy for him.

That said, it's clear that he's punishing himself more than we could punish him: he quickly realised that his position was untenable, and sought to stand down quickly, to get things over with. That's just realism. But the nasty bit is that he now sees all the structures he built in his life, the divisions between the public life and the personal, come crashing down around him. More galling, he sees the man he loves being dragged through the press. Neither of them sought this, but this must put special pressure on Laws: of course there'll be an element of guilt in his mind that Laws is going to have to deal with. No one should have to go through that. On that basis, it's quite easy to feel empathy for him.

All the same, has David Laws been living under a rock for the past year? Since the Telegraph began its campaign to root out dodgy expense claims, surely Laws must have realised that he was on borrowed time, that this had the potential to emerge eventually? Did he think that, having been overlooked a year ago, he was out of the woods? Was he that foolish? Surely a man as intelligent as he obviously is would realise that this was a ticking timebomb? Where was the risk management? And, most importantly of all, what was he thinking taking the Chief Secretary to the Treasury post when he had this politically compromising threat lurking in the distance?

And this, for me, is the problem. I just can't weigh up why such an intelligent, capable politician could allow this situation to unfold. He could even have used the lax rules to his advantage: it would have made more sense to flip his homes, to declare the flat he rented as his primary residence - and there would be a case for this as a national LibDem spokesman - then to keep claims on his original home to the bare minimum. In a strange way, it would have been the honest thing to do: of course he'd be spending the most time there, so of course it becomes his first home. It would have meant no expense claims, no forms, no questionable arrangements, and no problem. All the paperwork would have shown is that on such-and-such a date, he changed his addresses. He might have had a line or two in the Telegraph, and a small rebuke from the local newspaper in Yeovil, but he could have ridden the storm. Why didn't he realise this?

Then there's the personal side. I understand his motivations here: the drive for privacy is a powerful one, and it's not confined to gay people. It's natural for people to keep their cards close to their chest, not to advertise private details. Friends learn these details about each other over time. Other people don't find out all if it can be helped. Why? Because it's none of their business. What you or I get up to in our spare time, and who we get up to it with, is no one's business but our own (and the other people involved). Of course we'll tell our friends. But we won't want other people sticking their oar in.

And in the case of David Laws, that's even more understandable. There's been a lot of preaching from gay Labour politicians that Laws could, and should, have been himself, that he should have been open about his sexuality and that he must obviously be ashamed of who he is. And let's be honest, it's a sad reflection that in 2010, there are people who still don't feel confident enough about either themselves or the people around them to be open. But that's not the fault of David Laws. Rather, it's proof that despite all the massive strides towards equality, despite that people in general seem more accepting of homosexuality than they did, say 20 years ago, there's still a long way to go. And let's face it, Laws would have been coming of age just as the AIDS crisis was gaining momentum, along with the new wave of anti-gay hostility that saw Section 28 appear on the statute books. While there are plenty of openly gay men of a similar age to Laws, it's clear that he did not consider himself in a position where he could be one of them. That says a lot of things about a lot of people, but it's not something for which we can judge him, and we certainly can't judge him harshly.

But entering politics creates a new set of variables, and sadly, the normal rules don't apply. Being an MP or a member of the Cabinet (or even just the LibDem front bench when they were in opposition) isn't just a full-time job; it's a 24/7 job. You are always on call. You are a prominent figure. Your personal life gets sucked into that. More than ever, political partners are scrutinised even though they're not standing. In the recent election campaign, Sarah Brown, Samantha Cameron and Miriam González Durántez were public figures, with almost as much attention lavished upon them as their husbands. We remember Margaret Thatcher, but we also remember Denis. We remember John Major (albeit vaguely), and we also remember Norma. We think of The Blairs - not just Tony, but Cherie as well. Even at the local level, there'll be talk of the local MP and their partner.

So once again, we have to ask: did Laws think he could keep his private life private forever? I don't like this culture where the partner is basically dragged along for the political ride, but that's where we are and if you're involved in elected politics, then it's become a necessary evil. I know that if I were standing, I'd consider that I'd have no choice but to be clear about my domestic arrangements, and at least mention any hypothetical partner. I wouldn't try to compartmentalise things as I currently can, because it wouldn't work. David Laws did try, and failed. Again, he's an intelligent man - why didn't he see this coming?

I understand his predicament, and it's easy to see things both from the outside and with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight. But even so, I just can't understand why David Laws didn't spot the very obvious warning signs dotted along his career path, whether it was all the publicity received (whether willingly or not) by political partners, or the series of revelations on MPs' expenses in the Telegraph. On this occasion, his intelligence clearly failed him.

And sadly, he and his loved ones are now paying the price.

The Sunday Whip

2010-05-30T23:05:00.002+01:00

This would have been a successful week for the Government, had it not been for one solitary defeat. Sadly, it came on arguably the most important vote of the week. If you don't already know what I'm talking about, read on. And if you do, then stay anyway.

Anyway.

Wednesday was almost consensual, and was missed by Margaret Curran (Lab, Glasgow Baillieson), Rhoda Grant (Lab, Highlands & Islands), Labour Group Leader Iain Gray (East Lothian), Cathy Jamieson (Lab, Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley), Jack McConnell (Lab, Motherwell & Wishaw, doubtless at Ede and Ravenscroft for a robe fitting), Margaret Mitchell (Con, Central Scotland), John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West), Mike Pringle (LD, Edinburgh South), Education Secretary Mike Russell (South of Scotland) and Tory Rural Affairs Spokesman John Scott (Ayr).

They missed the passage of the Business Motion, and the Education Committee's motion:

That the Parliament agrees that the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee's 3rd Report, 2010 (Session 3): Report on supporting children's learning code of practice (SP Paper 436), together with the Official Report of the Parliament's debate on the report, should form the Parliament's response to the Scottish Government on its revised code of practice, supporting children's learning.

Stage 1 of the Forth Crossing Bill passed by 113 votes to three - the three being the Greens and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill (Edinburgh East & Musselburgh), who I assume pressed the wrong button - with two abstentions: Margo MacDonald and LibDem Education Spokesperson Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West). The Financial Resolution passed by 115 to 2 with one abstention, and everyone voting with their parties this time. This was followed by a waving through of a Labour committee reshuffle.

Thursday was far busier, and there were only two absentees: Tom McCabe (Lab, Hamilton South) and Jack McConnell. Even John Farquhar Munro made it.

First came a Tory motion on relations with the UK Government. An SNP amendment passed by 81 (SNP/Con/LD/Green) to 45 (Lab/Margo), but a Labour amendment fell by 80 (SNP/Con/LD/Margo) to 44 with the two Greens abstaining, and a LibDem amendment falling by 94 to 32, with only the two Coalition parties supporting it. The amended motion passed by 79 (SNP/Con/LD) to 45 (Lab/Margo) with two Green abstentions:

That the Parliament welcomes the commitment of HM Government to establish a positive and constructive working relationship with the Scottish Government and Parliament to tackle the problems facing the country and, in particular, welcomes the commitment in the Queen's Speech to introduce legislation to implement recommendations from the final report of the Commission on Scottish Devolution and the willingness to consider matters in relation to the Fossil Fuel Levy and fiscal responsibility issues.

Then came the Climate Change (Annual Targets) (Scotland) Order 2010, which fell by 64 votes - Labour, the LibDems, Greens, Margo and Margaret Mitchell - to 62.

This was followed by a near outbreak of consensus, thanks to a Government motion on 18-week referral to treatment. The Labour amendment was adopted by 109 (SNP/Lab/LD/Green) to 16 (Con) with one abstention (Margo), the Tory amendment was accepted without a vote. However, regular service was resumed when the LibDem amendment fell by 91 (SNP/Labour) to 34 (Con/LD/Green) with Margo abstaining. The amended motion was, however, backed by 109 (SNP/Lab/LD/Green) votes to 0, with 17 abstentions (Con/Margo):

That the Parliament welcomes the progress that has been made in reducing waiting times for patients; applauds the commitment, dedication and hard work of all NHS staff who have contributed to delivering significant improvements for the people of Scotland, and acknowledges that NHSScotland is on track to deliver the Scottish Government's challenging whole-journey waiting time target of 18 weeks by the end 2011; welcomes the progress made by the previous Labour/Liberal Democrat administration in setting a new approach in Fair to All Personal to Each whereby waiting is considered in terms of the overall patient journey and further welcomes the commitment to treat inpatients within 18 weeks being achieved a year ahead of schedule, paving the way for Labour and SNP 2007 manifesto commitments of an 18-week referral to treatment target and notes that this compares with a waiting time target of 18 months set by the last Conservative administration, and urges the Scottish Government to ensure that such progress is not compromised by either reductions in its budget or by efficiency savings within NHS boards.

After that, in stark contrast to the previous SSI, the Climate Change (International Aviation and Shipping) (Scotland) Order 2010 was approved by 123 votes to two (the Greens) with Margo abstaining, and the following other Statutory Instruments were waved through:

Climate Change (Limit on Carbon Units) (Scotland) Order 2010

Carbon Accounting Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2010

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exclusions and Exceptions) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2010

Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 (Removal of Barred Individuals from Regulated Work) Regulations 2010

So that's another week. Next week, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee takes the floor, there's Labour business on Thursday morning, and a Government debate on student fees after Question Time. So Thursday, at least, looks set to be lively.

Those Peerages

2010-05-28T18:53:00.002+01:00

We now have the Dissolution Honours. I note that John Prescott and Ian Paisley are being ennobled, as are Floella Benjamin and Mike German, the former leader of the Welsh LibDems.

But the Scottish list makes for interesting reading. I can't help but feel that the Tories have missed an opportunity of sorts to augment their Scottish contingent at Westminster on the Red Benches, their attempts to do so on the Green Benches having failed so miserably three weeks ago. But the list of Scottish political figures making their way to the House of Lords is, in its way, compelling, particularly as it includes three former Secretaries of State for Scotland:

Of course, Tommy McAvoy, the former Whip, and John McFall, the former Treasury Select Committee Chairman, never held the post, but were big hitters in the Parliamentary Labour Party. But then there's Des Browne, the part-time Secretary of State, Helen Liddell, who was sent to Australia because Tony Blair couldn't think of anything else to do with her, and the man she made way for in Airdrie and Shotts when his own constituency was dismantled, John Reid. I wonder what the Celtic fans will make of their Chairman entering the Lords!

But the most notable for me is Jack McConnell. McConnell is the first sitting MSP to be ennobled, and, of course, is the first former First Minister to enter the Lords. He is, however, not the first former Minister to do so. Technically, that goes to former Solicitor General Neil Davidson, but the first former member of the Scottish Cabinet to gain a peerage was, of course, the current Advocate General (and Baron Davidson's successor in that role), Jim Wallace.

Incidentally, this means that there are more former First Ministers in the Lords than former Prime Ministers: Lords McConnell and Paisley join Lord Trimble, while the only Peer to have occupied 10 Downing Street was Baroness Thatcher.

Now, this peerage has been dangled in front of McConnell on and off for the last three years, and he's finally got it. But we can't yet judge from this whether or not he'll stand down from Holyrood next year.

After all, Holyrood-HoL dual mandates (if you can call a Peerage a mandate) aren't new. Even Lord Foulkes of Cumnock MSP isn't a trailblazer. The first Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament was Lord Steel of Aikwood, though in referring to himself as 'Sir David Steel' obviously decided that being a Knight of the Realm as opposed to a Peer afforded him more of the common touch. Until 2007, the Tory benches were supplemented with Lord Selkirk of Douglas, or James Douglas-Hamilton, as we remember him. And there was even a Peer in Jack McConnell's Cabinet, former Tourism Minister Mike Watson. When he was convicted for wilful fireraising, the Daily Record remembered that his full title was Lord Watson of Invergowrie.

So today's announcement that McConnell will be donning the ermine isn't necessarily the end of his Scottish Parliamentary career. But nevertheless, despite my caution, it's hard not to imagine that the end of it is but a year away.

Finally, congratulations to Presiding Officer Alex Fergusson, who can celebrate his long overdue accession to the Privy Council. A shame it comes so late into his term of office!

Have I instigated this?

2010-05-23T14:24:00.003+01:00

This is what I said about the Scottish Tory reshuffle:

And what happened to Mary Scanlon? Has she irked Ms Goldie? Or is she standing down like her fellow 1947 baby Bill Aitken, who is after all only six weeks older than her? If he's going, then you can see why she'd be going too. Incidentally, if this is the case, can we expect Ted Brocklebank and Nanette Milne, both born in 1942, to depart as well? If so, this would represent a relatively major infusion of new blood for the Tory Group.

This was in the Sunday Herald:

There is speculation Ted Brocklebank, MSP for Mid-Scotland and Fife and Nanette Milne, MSP for North East Scotland, may also step down in 2011.

Brocklebank, 67, and Milne, 68, have both been MSPs since 2003.

After her demotion in a Tory reshuffle last week, former Tory health spokeswoman Mary Scanlon, 62, is also under pressure to go.

Now, we should note that Mary Scanlon has voiced an intention to seek re-election, and Nanette Milne is inclined to do the same, but the Sunday Herald couldn't get hold of Brocklebank. Incidentally, they went further and queried Sir Jamie McGrigor's position, and he didn't get back to them either.

Nevertheless, it's telling that out of 16 MSPs, the retirement of one has prompted allegations of fustiness for a further four members. This isn't helped in Scanlon's case by her demotion from the front bench so that Murdo Fraser can take her portfolio. It's telling as well that in Scanlon's Parliamentary career, she was Health Spokesperson all through her first term, and Communities Spokesperson in her second until her resignation to fight the Moray By-Election. Then, after the 2007 election, her return to Holyrood and the reorganisation of the Tory front bench to map onto the new Scottish Government Ministerial structure, she returned to Health. Now, in a small group, there's a versatility expected of members (Ross Finnie spent eight years as Rural Affairs Minister: when the LibDems went into Opposition, he became Health Spokesman), and you'd expect that a trusted frontbencher would just move to a different, vacant portfolio in a reshuffle - in this case, Education in a straight swap with Murdo Fraser, or Justice. But not this time. Clearly, there has been an expression of only limited confidence in Mary Scanlon on the part of Annabel Goldie, and one has to wonder what the future holds for Scanlon if she does seek, and win, re-election in 2011.

But what about the fustiness or otherwise of the Tories? Well, in the first place, it depends on how you define it. If you're linking it to age, and you shouldn't, then you have to define at what age one does cease to be fit to serve. And it's interesting that Kenneth Clarke, seven years the retiring Bill Aitken's senior, has just been appointed to the post of (funnily enough) Justice Minister and Lord Chancellor. So if he's fit for that, then Bill Aitken and all the Tory MSPs mentioned above are fit to carry on. Similarly, next month, Clarke will reach his 40th Anniversary of being elected to Parliament for the first time. The Scottish Parliament is only eleven years old. Again, if he's fit to carry on, so are the MSPs.

And besides, with one known retirement, with boundary changes basically gifting the Tories two extra seats, and with uncertainty about whether or not Presiding Officer Alex Fergusson will seek re-election and if so, with what styling (his two predecessors quit Parliament at the end of their term) then there are three, possibly four potential new faces who will be tasked with defending a Conservative seat.

In Central Scotland, Margaret Mitchell has been the Party's sole MSP since 2003, so can hardly be described as a 'bed-blocker'. And despite having no portfolio at all and being exiled to Convenership of the Equal Opportunities Committee, it's hard to think of a credible local replacement.

We know that Bill Aitken is standing down as an MSP for Glasgow in 2011 after 12 years.

The Highlands & Islands cohort is in need of the most renewal: Mary Scanlon was an MSP since 1999, save for a year out of Parliament following her attempt to win Moray, and her replacement, Dave Petrie, ended up ranked fifth on the Tory list in 2007. Jamie McGrigor has been in situ continuously since the formation of the devolved Parliament. If new blood is needed, it's here.

In Lothian, it's a different story: David McLetchie has been an MSP since 1999 but is something of a big hitter in the Scottish Tories, while up-and-coming Gavin Brown was only elected in 2007. That's a reasonable mix.

In Mid Scotland and Fife, none of the sitting MSPs were elected in 1999: Murdo Fraser came in two years later, following the resignation of Nick Johnston; Ted Brocklebank was third in the 2003 rankings (when sitting MSP Keith Harding was ranked fifth and ended up defecting to the People's Alliance), and remained there in 2007, where he was overtaken by Liz Smith, who was able to capitalise on Brian Monteith's departure from the party. So this region has had some pretty high Tory turnover anyway.

North East Scotland has Alex Johnstone, MSP since 1999, Nanette Milne, MSP since 2003, and a vacant Regional slot thanks to the extra SNP Constituency in Angus North & Mearns. So there is, unless the Tories go backwards, scope for new blood anyway.

South Scotland sees the Presiding Officer Alex Fergusson as the only remaining Tory member of the Class of 1999 (Phil Gallie stood down in 2007, Murray Tosh failed to be re-elected that year and David Mundell headed to Westminster in 2005), with his elevation to the Chair making John Scott in Ayr the longest-serving Tory MSP in the South, having won the 2000 By-Election. Derek Brownlee replaced Mundell in 2005, while John Lamont entered Holyrood in 2007 having won Roxburgh & Berwickshire. Assuming the PO stands down, there's a Tory vacancy in Galloway & West Dumfries. The thing is, former MP Peter Duncan is probably the likeliest candidate given the fact that a return to Westminster isn't on the cards until the day of the 2015 Holyrood election, so he won't exactly be a breath of fresh air either. But Brownlee and Lamont provide the youth anyway.

West Scotland, meanwhile, may well have Annabel Goldie as a member since 1999, but as Leader, she's obviously untouchable. Jackson Carlaw only took a seat in 2007, but the redrawn Eastwood sees the Tories gain a seat in the Region overall, creating a vacancy.

So there is still some freshness in Tory ranks, and plenty of scope for new blood. But to get at it in any major way, they'll need to shed some of the old blood. The question is, if the sitting tenants won't leave, will the members evict them?

In the Highlands especially, they may have to.

The Sunday Whip

2010-05-23T13:48:00.002+01:00

This was a relatively tranquil week, with the sweet-smelling flowers of consensus blooming around Holyrood. So much so that no votes at all were taken on Wednesday: MSPs noted the Local Government & Communities Committee's Report on the Local Government Finance Inquiry, then agreed four SSIs: the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 (Automatic Listing) (Specified Criteria) Order 2010, the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 (Relevant Offences) (Modification) Order 2010, the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 (Modification of Regulated Work with Children) Order 2010 and the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 (Modification of Regulated Work with Adults) Order 2010.

Even Thursday was relatively harmonious, and there were thirteen absentees: Wendy Alexander (Lab, Paisley North), Shadow Health Secretary Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton), Margaret Curran (Lab, Glasgow Baillieston), Rhoda Grant (Lab, Highlands & Islands), Cathy Jamieson (Lab, Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley), Shadow Finance Secretary Andy Kerr (East Kilbride), Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians), LibDem Local Government Spokesperson Alison McInnes (North East Scotland), John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West), LibDem Leader Tavish Scott (Shetland), LibDem Education Spokesperson Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West), Nicol Stephen (LD, Aberdeen South) and Jamie Stone (LD, Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross).

Anyway. First came Labour's motion on the Protection of Workers. The SNP amendment was waved through, but the Tory amendment was defeated by 59 (SNP, LibDems and Greens) to 16, with the 40 Labour MSPs abstaining. The LibDem amendment passed by 73 (SNP, Tories and LibDems) to 0 with 42 abstentions. The amended motion then passed on the nod:

That the Parliament believes that further measures need to be taken to deter violence against shop workers and other workers delivering a service to the public; notes with concern the finding of the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey 2008-09 that, of those adults who had jobs involving contact with the general public, 35% had experienced either verbal abuse or physical abuse; recognises that there has been a 78% increase in violence and abuse against Scottish shop workers over the last three years, according to Retailers Against Crime; welcomes the Freedom from Fear campaign organised by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW), which seeks to make shops and shopping areas safer for staff and customers; acknowledges the efforts of the trade union movement as a whole to highlight the continuing problems of violence for those workers with direct contact with the public; recognises that there have been year-on-year increases in prosecutions under the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005; believes that the Parliament and the Scottish Government should take further action to ensure that workers can carry out their duties without facing violence or intimidation by accepting that a comprehensive approach to changing Scotland's relationship with alcohol is required, which includes effective enforcement of existing laws and innovative, evidence-based policies; recognises that attacks on public sector workers are treated with gravity under existing law, and believes that effective prosecution through the courts of such offences and the further development of non-legislative measures, including evidence sharing and partnership working, are an appropriate response to violence against workers delivering a public service.

Then came the Government motion on High Speed Rail. A Labour amendment passed by 99 (everyone but the Tories) to 16, which pre-empted the Tory amendment. A LibDem amendment then fell by 87 (SNP/Labour) to 28 (Tories/LibDems/Greens). The motion itself passed without dissent:

That the Parliament welcomes the work of High Speed Two, Greengauge21, the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee and Network Rail, among others, which have developed the case for high-speed rail in the United Kingdom during the last year; notes the strong economic and environmental case for extending high-speed rail to Scotland; notes the opportunity to engage with the new Westminster administration to secure Scotland's place in a UK high-speed rail network, and supports work to bring high-speed rail to Scotland at the earliest opportunity, as well as supporting interim steps to reduce rail journey times between Scotland and London.

Finally, MSPs agreed to an SNP Committee reshuffle.

And that was that. Next week, we see Stage 1 of the Forth Crossing Bill, Tory Business (a chance for the new frontbenchers to step up, perhaps?) and a Government debate on Progress Towards 18 Week Referral to Treatment.

A Vision of the Scottish Tory Frontbench

2010-05-20T20:35:00.003+01:00

As Andrew notes, word has got round that Annabel Goldie has reshuffled her Frontbench in advance of the election.

Murdo Fraser remains as Deputy Leader, but moves to the Health portfolio, replacing Mary Scanlon. Liz Smith takes over as Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Education having been a junior spokesperson on the subject.

Bill Aitken, who has announced his intention to stand down from Holyrood in 2011 - and if the Tories select anyone other than Ruth Davidson as his prospective replacement then they deserve to lose their Regional seat in Glasgow - has left his front bench role in the Justice portfolio, to be replaced by John Lamont, who was a junior Justice spokesperson and only a fortnight ago was trying to change Parliaments.

Derek Brownlee remains at Finance, John Scott is still at Rural Affairs, David McLetchie remains Chief Whip and is confirmed as Campaign Manager (perhaps unwise, given that he held that post for the election just passed, which was not a roaring success for the Scottish Conservatives), while Gavin Brown becomes "Political Adviser to the Leader".

So what can we say, aside from wondering quite what Gavin Brown's role actually entails (or who was advising the Leader beforehand)? Firstly, Fraser's appointment to Health perhaps suggests that this will be a key campaign issue for the Tories - why else would Goldie appoint the Deputy Leader to the portfolio if it weren't? And what happened to Mary Scanlon? Has she irked Ms Goldie? Or is she standing down like her fellow 1947 baby Bill Aitken, who is after all only six weeks older than her? If he's going, then you can see why she'd be going too. Incidentally, if this is the case, can we expect Ted Brocklebank and Nanette Milne, both born in 1942, to depart as well? If so, this would represent a relatively major infusion of new blood for the Tory Group.

Liz Smith's elevation to the Shadow Cabinet for a subject on which she has been speaking anyway makes sense. And on that basis, it makes sense to appoint John Lamont to Justice as well: he has been speaking on that brief anyhow. Nevertheless, on the basis that Lamont was seeking to head South earlier on this month, this is a little embarrassing, and it speaks volumes about the Group as it is presently composed that Goldie had to bite the bullet, perform the straight promotion and appoint him. Was there no one else? Apparently not. Clearly that infusion is more of a transfusion, and is needed urgently.

One final point: this is a screenshot of the Scottish Tories' MSPs' page, taken this evening:

You'll notice, as I did, that it still has Fraser in the Education portfolio, Aitken at Justice and Scanlon at Health. While the news release was posted on the website, the rest of the pages have not yet been updated.

How embarrassing it is for the Scottish Tories, that not even their Webmaster notices a frontbench reshuffle!

Two Visions of the Scottish Tories

2010-05-16T19:24:00.003+01:00

Was there an election on the other week? If you were a Scottish Tory, you'd have struggled to notice. They went into the campaign with one seat, and 15.8% of the Scottish vote at Westminster. They go into this Parliament with one seat and 16.7% of the vote. Oh dear.

David Mundell managed to increase his majority, but the Tories did have 11 seats on their shopping list. Their vote actually went down in neighbouring seat (and top target) Dumfries & Galloway. John Lamont, who fought Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk in 2005 and has been the MSP for Roxburgh & Berwickshire since 2007 couldn't even manage a 1% swing against Michael Moore. Their hope of moving from third to first in Edinburgh South was dashed when they lost votes there, and they at least managed an increase in their vote in Edinburgh South West, but still saw a net swing to Alistair Darling there, and with a net 3.2% swing to Jim Murphy in East Renfrewshire, the Tories in East Renfrewshire failed to produce a 'Portillo Moment'. There was even a swing against the Tories in Stirling (how many disabled people did Anne McGuire have to sack to lose this seat?), while the SNP increased its majority in Angus and Perth & North Perthshire. It was the LibDem-held seats - Argyll & Bute and West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine - that provided the Tories with their best results on the 'hit list': swings of 2.7% and 4.9% respectively. Not great.

But then, the premise of the Tory campaign was - and let's not mince words here - utter shite. Its basis appeared to be that England was going to vote in a Tory Government, so the Scots might as well jump on the bandwagon.

But Scotland chose not to jump on the bandwagon. Scotland's support for Labour may have waned somewhat in recent years, but it seems as though there was a collective decision to hold onto Nurse for fear of something worse. And so, with the LibDems coming third in Scotland, England and Wales, and the Tories coming first in England, second in Wales but fourth in Scotland (and with UCUNF coming fourth in Northern Ireland with a sum total of no seats), it's clear that Scotland has been decidedly less enthusiastic than other parts of the UK about the coming Government. And those suggesting that the Coalition has an enhanced mandate when you add the LibDem and Tory figures together might do well to bear in mind that the combined total of the two parties' votes in Scotland is still less than Labour's total poll. The combined votes of the Coalition might well have come first in England and indeed in Wales, but it still came second in Scotland, so the 64% of Scottish voters who voted for someone other than the governing parties might well have differing views of the constitutional niceties of the UK, but you can, I think, forgive them some wariness at what they see emerging from Westminster.

And, let's face it, the Cameron-Goldie combination has not set the heather alight: its vote increased by a paltry 1% in the Westminster elections; it went down 1% in the European elections; barely moved on the Holyrood Constituency vote and fell by 1.6% on the Regional vote. So it's a given that the Tories as they are presently constituted do not resonate in Scotland.

So the Tories have not got off on the right foot with Scotland. And given the circumstances we find ourselves in, the Tory-led Government has to take some ugly, ugly decisions which will reverberate. A government that isn't popular anyway is going to have to take steps which will make it even less popular.

Which brings us neatly to 2011. With Annabel Goldie not setting the heather alight, and with the sole Tory MP David Mundell being given the job of Minister of State at the Scotland Office - essentially the guy who gets Danny Alexander's coffee, and remember that Alexander was basically Nick Clegg's typist (well, I'm applying some dramatic licence there, but probably not all that much) - the Tories are surely in real trouble to hold on to what they have next year.

For example, the Tories have three seats in Mid Scotland & Fife. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that they could lose one of them. Boundary changes in the North East given them an extra Regional seat there - an unpopular Tory Government at Westminster could put that at risk. And Ken McIntosh's re-election prospects in Eastwood probably look a little brighter now than they did a fortnight ago. And if the Tories were to lose their seats in either Central Scotland or Glasgow - it's not impossible - then it would be a calamity: they'd be the first of the Big 4 parties to find themselves with full Regional gaps in their Parliamentary team. Until now, all of the Big 4 have managed at least one seat in every region, in every election. A growing hostility to David Cameron could end that next year.

But there's one problem with that analysis: it's based on the Coalition being a disaster.

What if the Coalition exceeds expectations? And let's be honest, that isn't hard.

We all talk about the hostility to Margaret Thatcher, but we forget that one month after she entered Downing Street for the first time (though in those days she had 22 Scottish MPs), the Tories 'won' the European Election in Scotland, and despite losing a seat overall in 1983, it was 1987 when they lost half their Scottish seats and the slow death of Tory Scotland began, culminating in the 1997 annihilation. In short, it took eight years for real hostility to creep into proceedings. Perhaps the first sign of trouble was surely the 1984 European election, but even that served only to bring Tory support down to the level that would have been reasonably expected at that time.

What if the Coalition makes itself look responsible? What if that gives the Tories new credibility?

Then it's a whole new ball game. An extra set in Lothian? Why not? Finally unseating Roseanna Cunningham? Why not? Coming through the middle in Stirling? Why not? Winning Dumfriesshire? Again, why not? A relevant Tory party? It's not impossible.

The Coalition that poses so many risks for the Tories also affords so many opportunities if they know how to act on them.

But despite the noises made by David Cameron on Friday, I don't think they will. The Tories have been out of office for 13 years, the Labour Government looked tired and out of ideas, yet the best reaction the Tories have had in Scotland over the last few years appears to be, "Ummm... Naaahhhh!"

Even if they don't turn it into outright hostility, I just don't think the Tories are capable of advancing. The Scottish HQ is moving into the Edinburgh North & Leith Constituency Association. The candidate in East Renfrewshire is talking about the party changing. Norman Tebbit wants to cut it loose from the UK organisation altogether.

That's not a party that's ready for any advance. I suspect the darker vision for the Tories is closer to the immediate future.

The Sunday Whip

2010-05-16T11:38:00.002+01:00

A quiet-ish week, doubtless as attention was still turned to the shenanigans at Westminster, and the formation of the Coalition Government there.

Anyway. Wednesday was mostly consensual, with only one vote taken. There were twenty absentees: Rhona Brankin (Lab, Midlothian), Ted Brocklebank (Con, Mid Scotland & Fife), Margaret Curran (Lab, Glasgow Baillieston), Helen Eadie (Lab, Dunfermline East), George Foulkes (Lab, Lothians), Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale), Cathy Jamieson (Lab, Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley), Bill Kidd (SNP, Glasgow), Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians), Tricia Marwick (SNP, Central Fife), Enterprise Minister Jim Mather (Argyll & Bute), LibDem Local Government Spokesperson Alison McInnes (North East Scotland), Ian McKee (SNP, Lothians), Margaret Mitchell (Con, Central Scotland), John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West), Mike Pringle (LD, Edinburgh South), LibDem Leader Tavish Scott (Shetland), Shadow Public Health Minister Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland & Fife), Jim Tolson (LD, Dunfermline West) and Shadow Children's Minister Karen Whitefield (Airdrie & Shotts).

They missed the passage of the Business Motions without dissent, of course. And a European and External Affairs Committee motion on the European Commission's Work Programme:

That the Parliament welcomes the European Commission Work Programme, published by the European Commission on 31 March 2010; notes that it is likely to inform European Union policy for the next five years, and supports in particular the proposals for delivering a new economic strategy (Europe 2020) and allied platform to combat poverty, the commitment to further develop renewable energy and the energy grid, the recognition of the need to reform both the Common Fisheries Policy and the Common Agricultural Policy and the desire to restructure the European Union's budget.

Then came the Government motion on the Zero Waste Plan: Labour and Tory amendments were passed without quibble, but a LibDem amendment went to a vote, and passed by 49 (Lab/LD) votes to 43 (SNP) with 16 (Tory/Green) abstentions. The amended motion was waved through:

That the Parliament notes the need for a coherent zero-waste policy approach to encourage waste prevention and efficient use of all resources; supports measures to increase recycling and deliver high-quality recycled materials, to ensure resources are recovered and treated in the most environmentally beneficial way and to minimise the disposal of resources into landfill; looks to the forthcoming Zero Waste Plan for Scotland to provide clear long-term policy stability for the necessary investment to deliver a zero-waste Scotland and to address the concerns raised in the Audit Scotland report, Protecting and improving Scotland's environment, that councils need additional waste management facilities to meet national landfill and recycling targets; considers that greater encouragement to recycle and reuse must be given to the commercial and industrial sector and that a focus must be placed on ensuring that the necessary infrastructure is created and put in place in moving toward a zero-waste society; regrets the delay in the publication of the Zero Waste Plan, and recognises the necessity of meeting EU landfill diversion targets in order to avoid potentially punitive fines.

The General Principles of the William Simpson's Home (Transfer of Property etc.) (Scotland) Bill were approved on the nod, and the Bureau motions were waved through.

Thursday had a little more meat, and fewer absentees: Karen Gillon, Rhoda Grant (Lab, Highlands & Islands), Hugh Henry (Lab, Paisley South), Margo MacDonald, Alison McInnes, Ian McKee, John Farquhar Munro, Mike Pringle and Labour Chief Whip David Stewart (Highlands & Islands).

First came Stage 1 of the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill. A Labour amendment to the motion fell by 64 (SNP/Tory/Green) votes to 55, but the motion itself passed by 64 votes to 0 with 55 abstentions, and the Financial Resolution passed on the nod.

Finally, there was the Government motion on the NHS Scotland Quality Strategy. A Labour amendment fell by 62 (SNP/Tory) votes to 55 (Lab/LD) with two Green abstentions, the Tory amendment was waved through and the LibDem amendment fell by 62 to 57. The motion itself was passed without further dissent:

That the Parliament commends The Healthcare Quality Strategy for NHSScotland as the right approach, at the right time, to delivering the highest quality healthcare to everybody in Scotland, responding to what they want, need and deserve and, through this, to ensuring that the quality of healthcare services across NHS Scotland becomes recognised as among the best in the world, and calls on the Scottish Government to report back to the Parliament by the end of summer recess on how it intends to respond to the needs highlighted in the report, The Healthcare Quality Strategy for NHSScotland, in order to protect NHS frontline services.

Though, had I been there, I would have challenged the absence of a space in "NHSScotland".

And that's it for another week. Next week, there's a Local Government Committee debate on Local Government Finance, Labour Business on Thursday morning, and a Government debate on the High Speed Rail Link.

The Magic Roundabout

2010-05-10T19:53:00.003+01:00

This seems to sum up the state of politics at the moment. The Prime Minister - for that is what he is, remember - has announced that he is continuing merely in a caretaker capacity regardless of the outcome of coalition talks. He has announced his resignation of the Leadership of the Labour Party. However long it takes to find a new Leader, it's clear that whatever happens, the UK will have a new Prime Minister in time for the Conference season.

It's clear that, just as Con-LibDem talks have inevitably reached impasse at discussions of electoral reform, Lab-LibDem talks weren't going to seriously get off the ground if the successful outcome of such negotiations kept Gordon Brown in Downing Street. Brown has come to the same conclusion as others in his party did months, even years ago: that he is the primary barrier to continued office for the Labour Party. There will, I suspect, be more than a handful of defeated former MPs who wish that this epiphany had visited their Leader a year ago.

But still, we are where we are, and the outgoing Prime Minister (as he now is) produced a statement that was measured and dignified. I've noticed that it's often the closing moments of a Leader's tenure that brings out their best. Perhaps it's the feeling of freedom that comes with knowing that no matter what they do, the outcome is pre-determined. No one wants to breathe down your neck when you're heading for the exit. Perhaps it's the reverse, the sense that this is their last chance to make an impact. Go out with a bang. Leave them wanting more.

In any case, there appear to be four permutations of Government.

The first is the combination for which we've been bracing ourselves for the past couple of days, until the events of the past few hours blew it out of the water - the Tory-LibDem Coalition. This would (in England, at least) come with the perceived legitimacy of involving the first-placed party. But then, it smacks of a traditional first-past-the-post approach to politics: why would the LibDems support the Tories just because they're first? It would, however, be the only pairing (save a highly improbable Grand Coalition) with a majority in the Commons: 362 seats. The problem, however, is that although the maths favour this arrangement, the relations between the parties do not. It's clear that on electoral reform alone, it's been a massive stretch just to get the Tories to propose a referendum on Alternative Vote - which is still not far enough for LibDem tastes. Besides, this isn't like the Lab-LibDem Coalition in Scotland from 1999 to 2007. In that case, Labour's primary challengers in most of its constituency contests were the SNP. For the LibDems, they faced off against the Tories in their main battles. There were few Labour/LibDem contests. This time, there were a wave of battles where the Tories and LibDems were locked in combat. These contests were dotted all around Britain, but they were concentrated in the West Country and along the South Coast. Did, for example, LibDem voters in Wells just eject a sitting Tory MP to see their successful candidate support a Tory Government? I doubt it. And of course, many Tories will be horrified that the LibDems were flirting with Labour while dating the Tories. Whatever trust, whatever rapport, has been built up over the past week has surely been eroded. While expedient, this combination would not be stable and would not contain natural bedfellows.

Then there's the alternative, the First Past the Post approach: a Tory minority Government. It would be ideologically pure, and neither the Tories nor the LibDems would need to debase themselves too much in negotiations. At least, not this week. But the Tories only have 305 seats and they need 326. And while LibDems would have influence, it's questionable how well they'd be able to implement their policies from the Opposition benches - membership of a Coalition would surely get the chance to make some progress... wouldn't it? This is the dilemma the LibDems face.

But there's perhaps another way: a Labour-LibDem Coalition. The two parties are undoubtedly closer: they have clashed on matters such as civil liberties, foreign affairs and defence but the crazy thing is that most Labour supporters probably favour the LibDem approach in the first place! And on the main point of contention - electoral reform - Labour's starting point is the Tories' final offer: the referendum on AV. The party could go further (though Coalition Whips could do to lock Tom Harris in a cupboard somewhere). The scope is there. But Clegg has effectively determined who is (or at lest, who is not) Leader of the Labour Party. That ain't right: members of political parties announce who they want to lead rival parties as a joke (e.g. Labour MSPs supporting Dorothy-Grace Elder as SNP Leader, SNP Members wanting George Foulkes to lead Labour, and so on). But it's not great for the LibDems either: the person in charge when they negotiate isn't the person who'll be in charge four months down the line. And they don't know who that person is. Who will they be working with? They don't know. That ain't good. Besides, Labour and the LibDems only have 315 seats - also short of a majority. Even if you factor in the SDLP and Alliance, that comes to only 319. It's not ideal and it won't get the majority needed.

To get that, you need the so-called 'Progressive Alliance', as floated by Alex Salmond. Assume that 319 seats are in the bag: add the SNP and Plaid and you get 328. And it's certainly in the interest of the two parties to back a Lab-LibDem Coalition. At least, it's in the interest of the SNP to do so: if after 13 years in Government the Labour vote share in Scotland can increase by more than the Tory vote, then when forced to choose which side they're on, the SNP have only one way to go and this is it. Caroline Lucas would almost certainly prefer this to the alternative. So would Sylvia Hermon. Even the DUP would see this as preferable to a Tory Government given the likelihood that Northern Ireland could be on the wrong end of particularly hefty budget cuts, but on the other hand, there have been talks between the Tories, UUP and DUP before now and with both Peter Robinson and Sir Reg Empey having a bad night on Thursday, the path is clear for new leaders who might make the first tentative steps towards Unionist unity. Given UCUNF's poor showing, however, what links such a movement would have with the Conservatives is unclear. Whatever happens, the votes for such an alliance are there, but the amount of negotiation involved would make it unwieldy. It surely wouldn't last very long: it wouldn't take much for one part of the grouping to get pissed off and trigger its downfall. Then there's the principle: if you argue that the Tories don't have a mandate to govern Scotland and Wales on the grounds that they didn't come first there (there's that FPTP politics again), you have to accept that Labour don't have a mandate to govern in England. Then there's the sight of a wave of parties who have spent the last 13 years opposing the Labour Government jumping on board to support it, particularly when the Labour Party is sufficiently weak that its Leader announces his intention to resign four days after polling day. It seems... off, somehow.

So we have four options, all of which have strengths and weaknesses. It's going to be a while before this gets sorted out, and we know who's in charge - at least for the Spring. But by Parliamentary standards, it's not going to be long at all before we do this all over again.

And that's another calculation: 18 months in opposition for Labour could see them back in Government if the Tories struggle on. An 18 month Progressive Alliance could end up ushering in another 18 years of Tory Government at the end. Whatever the parties decide now, they should surely understand that what plans they make for this Parliament will impact on the course of the next one.

But then, under the circumstances, perhaps we should be grateful that one leader at least is looking as far ahead as this year's Party Conferences.

The Sunday Whip

2010-05-09T17:21:00.002+01:00

Well, this one is easy. There were no substantive motions up for a vote this week on account of there being no meeting on Thursday and Wednesday being taken up mostly with Question Time - in fact, the only decisions MSPs needed to take were on the Business Motions, which were waved through.

So for the record, next week, we'll see a European and External Relations Committee Debate on the European Commission Legislative Work Programme, Government Debates on the Zero Waste Plan and NHS Quality Strategy, and the initial stages of the William Simpson's Home (Transfer of Property etc.) (Scotland) Bill and Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill.

Maybe, just maybe, MSPs' minds will be concentrated on their own mandates now. Well, except for Margaret Curran and Cathy Jamieson, who I think under the circumstances, can probably be forgiven for heading to Westminster and attending to the confusion there...

So what about this 'Progressive Alliance' then?

2010-05-08T22:12:00.003+01:00

Alex Salmond has today floated the possibility of a 'Progressive Alliance', which basically would involve everyone but the Tories.

It would, of course, involve Labour (258 seats) and the LibDems (57). They still wouldn't command a majority (they'd have only 315), but it wouldn't obviously involve the SNP and Plaid, with nine seats together: that would yield a total of 324: enough under the circumstances, but would also involve the SDLP's three MPs, pushing it over the line. It would probably involve Caroline Lucas and the Alliance's Naomi Long as well. That makes 329 MPs.

And each of the parties involved has a precedent for working with others. The SDLP take the Labour Whip. I have it on the most excellent authority that Naomi Long will take the LibDem Whip. The SNP and Plaid are in close co-operation and sit together in the European Free Alliance Group in the European Parliament, which is tied up with the Greens so will have been working alongside Caroline Lucas for nearly eleven years.

As well as that, Labour are in coalition with Plaid in the Welsh Assembly, while they have been in Coalition with the LibDems in both Scotland (1999-2007) and Wales (2000-03). And as a result of the vote on the new Northern Irish Justice Minister, the SDLP's Margaret Ritchie now finds herself working with the Alliance's David Ford.

So the precedents are there. But really, it's not going to happen. And it shouldn't happen.

For this to work, it needs a massive array of parties to get round a table and negotiate - it's far too unwieldy. And it also requires a lot of people to get over a lot of psychological barriers due to the mutual hostility between some of the parties that's accumulated over the years. Plus which, as Jonathan Calder notes, Labour have basically laughed the idea out of the room and by extension, laughed themselves onto the Opposition benches. Well, after spending the campaign warning of the dangers of a Tory Government, if they would prefer to usher one in rather than work with the SNP, that's their circle to square!

But more importantly, it just doesn't seem right to keep Labour in office: they've been in office for thirteen years, and now find themselves shorn of their majority by the electorate. They may well be in first place in Scotland and Wales, and the alternative may well have come a poor fourth in Scotland and Northern Ireland - but the bottom line is that overall, Labour have lost first place in the UK as a whole.

Besides, I just argued in favour of a minority Government and I can't change my tune just because this Coalition wouldn't involve the Tories. A minority Government is the best solution and a Labour minority Government, under the circumstances, just isn't credible.

And I hate to say this, but how would the First Minister have liked it if, two days after the 2007 Holyrood Election, Annabel Goldie or Nicol Stephen had come out in favour of a 'Unionist alliance' which would have come together to deny him office as this proposal would deny David Cameron? He'd be sick, and rightly so.

So no, I don't see this idea working or beneficial. I don't want a Tory Government either, but sadly, there comes a time where we have to just bite the bullet and accept firstly that it's coming, and secondly that it has to come now, like it or not. And let's face it, if Labour arrogance is going to help bring it about anyway, then what else can we do?

Memo to LibDems: RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!

2010-05-08T19:48:00.003+01:00

This started life as a comment on Caron's post about her attitude to a Con-LD Coalition, and her preference for no deal and a minority Government. I have to say that if I were a LibDem, I would agree with her.

Firstly, it's political suicide. It's my observation that the party probably views Labour as its preferred partner, if it has one. That's certainly been the case when it's had to choose between the SNP and Labour, and I'd be very surprised if it were not the case in the UK context where the choice is between the Tories and Labour. To see their party ally itself with the Conservatives would be a sore one for many supporters, I suspect.

Moreover, my feeling is that many of the converts to the LibDems over the last decade went there because they saw the party as one (or both) of two things: a viable, progressive alternative to Labour (so left-leaning voters), and a change that wasn't the Conservative party (people who might not like Labour anymore, but can't stomach the Tories). Neither of these groups would be overly chuffed if the LibDems joined a David Cameron Government. By my reckoning, that could call anything up to one fifth of the LibDem vote into question.

But they might put up with it, right? Don't bank on it. Because for the LibDems, there is now a ticking time-bomb on the green benches, and her name is Caroline Lucas. The SNP know all too well that one Green MSP in 1999 led to seven in 2003 (and indeed, that one SSP MSP in 1999 led to six in 2003). And indeed, what marked the start of the SNP's advance to the mainstream of Scottish politics? Winnie Ewing's win in Hamilton in 1967, augmented by Donald Stewart, the first SNP MP elected in a General Election in 1970. That was the sign that the SNP had 'made it' and provided the foothold for Margo MacDonald's win in Glasgow Govan in 1973, then the election of seven MPs going up to eleven in 1974. As the SNP gained its foothold four decades ago, so the Greens have their foothold now. If the LibDems start looking right, the left-leaning voters, and the ones who want a real change and wish to 'break the mould' as the saying went, might, in their eyes, have a new, credible destination should they feel that the LibDems, in dealing with the Tories, no longer offer what they expected. In short, it's a big political risk.

And I advise LibDems rationalising that a Coalition with the Tories is less bad than the alternative - to whit, a Tory minority Government with DUP support - that this has only 313 seats (doubtless 314 after the Thirsk & Malton By-Election). That's still short of a majority (with the Speaker not usually voting, but backing the Government in a tie, and with Sinn Fein boycotting the chamber, the required number is 322). The SNP have, sensing that anyone who touches the Tories will be severely punished at the ballot box in next year's Holyrood election, ruled out any deal with the Conservatives and have proposed a progressive alliance which basically encapsulates everyone else. Plaid, on the other hand, have not ruled out a Tory deal, but their three seats take the Tories only up to 316-7. Sylvia Hermon ruled out working with the Tories, and Carolne Lucas won't fancy the idea either. Even if they did, that would still be 318-9. The Tories need the LibDems for a majority. End of.

But more importantly, what about the principle? And this was the basis of the comment I would have left for Caron. By accepting the 'national interest' line of these talks, the LibDems are in real danger of accepting the Cameron-Osborne premise that 'strong government' is the answer. I see three flaws with this.

A Coalition is not necessarily a 'strong' government. Obviously, there's always the possibility of backbench rebellions in two parties, but more than that, in the rush to chew over the state of the Commons, we are all overlooking the current state of the Lords: out of 707 members of the Upper House, 186 are Tories and 72 are LibDems. That makes a total of 258, putting a Coalition some 96 seats short of a majority unless David Cameron and Nick Clegg agree to create a lot of peerages. That means we still have a minority Government in one House and I'm not sure how the Salisbury Convention would stand up to a Coalition agreement. Budgets won't be a problem but every other piece of legislation would be at risk. It would get on the statute books eventually, but would require the use of the Parliament Act so delaying the passage of any controversial legislation by a year. As a consensus-based, issue-by-issue approach is going to be needed in the Lords whatever happens, so it may as well be the default option for the Commons.

And even if the Coalition is 'strong', is it a 'strong' government that's best, or a stable one? The reason Coalitions worked in Scotland, the reason the One Wales Government looks to be capable of reaching the end of its term next year, the reason they work so well in Germany, is that the Parliamentary term is fixed so the Government can set out a clear, detailed, four-year (or however long) work programme, and where there is an impasse, the parties get that they have a clear mandate to respect and either a mid-term change of government or early election seems improper unless (as in Germany in 2005 when the SPD-Green Coalition lost its majority in the Bundesrat) there is no viable way forward. As elections can be called (or not called) on Prime Ministerial whim in the UK system, the obvious concern is that any impasse could be broken with the nuclear option, either by Cameron going to the Palace or Clegg and his colleagues crossing the floor, tabling a No Confidence Motion and forcing an election. As snap elections called by Prime Ministers (and, as we know all too well, ones forced by opposition parties) over just one issue are not without precedent, there's no guarantee that Coalition will lead to a sustainable Parliament or enduring Government. By contrast, a minority Government can be stable as Scotland again has shown, as it forces opposition parties to be responsible and act in the national interest rather than cynical opportunism. When they don't live up to that expectation, they're the ones at risk of punishment at the ballot box. In short, a minority Government that can reach deals with other parties on individual pieces of legislation might be more stable than a Coalition existing in a system that wasn't designed for them.

Next, even if a Coalition is both strong and stable, is it a strong government that's best, or a strong Parliament? Let's face it, strong governments gave us the Poll Tax, tuition fees and worst of all, the Iraq War. A government that can simply take unilateral action and just Whip legislation through Parliament is a government destined to make wrong decisions: one that has to either persuade others of its case or makes compromises has a better chance of taking the people with it and retaining their support over tough decisions, while one that isn't capable of, or interested in, agreement from outwith its own camp surely shouldn't be allowed to press ahead with its plans.

In short, if I were a LibDem, the everything would be telling me to back out of this. The only thing is, to walk away and retain credibility, the LibDems need to do so with a positive approach. The circumstances that are leading us to where we are look remarkably similar to the circumstances surrounding the LibDems in 2007: Labour have lost votes and seats; the LibDems expected real progress only to be disappointed in the end; a Labour-LibDem majority isn't possible. There are only two different factors: this time, the leading party is the Tories and not the SNP (obviously), and the LibDems can actually form a majority with the Tories, whereas barring a Grand Coalition of the SNP and Labour, a three-party Coalition was needed in Scotland. And the negativity that came out of the LibDems the weekend after that election was staggering: Tavish Scott unilaterally dismissed a deal with Labour as out of hand on the Politics Show, and his party decided to demand a major policy U-turn from the SNP before negotiations had even begun. I always thought the point of negotiations was that you used them as tool of settling the big issues, either with a compromise or a quid pro quo arrangement, but the LibDems apparently had other ideas.

So instead of the huff that they went into in 2007, they need a different approach, as I argued then. This time, something along the lines of the following should do it:

"Although the electoral system has obviously distorted the views of the electorate, it's clear that they have expressed a view for a balanced Parliament and a new approach to politics. We have come to the conclusion that the best way to honour and respect the wishes of the people is the formation of a minority Government, held to account by a stronger House of Commons. Although we will take our place on the Opposition benches, we pledge not to oppose Government measures simply because we sit on the other side of the House. By remaining outside the Government, we will be free to support it where we agree, and challenge it where we do not. In these difficult times, the Government has a duty to build consensus and work with others across the political spectrum; a Coalition will make this less likely and will serve only to sustain the confrontational politics that has served the country so badly for so long. A minority Government will force all parties - whether in Government or Opposition - to raise their game, see beyond partisan advantage, and work together for the good of the people. We believe that is the way forward."

See? Broadly positive, stressing the advantages of minority Government. It can be done, and for the LibDems, it would be a sight better than either risking being branded "Dave's Little Helpers" or letting negotiations get so far, then flouncing off in a huff.

But let's see what happens...

Where We Are Now

2010-05-07T20:56:00.002+01:00

That's it. Save for Thirsk & Malton, which we'll hear from later in the month, the votes are cast and counted. We have a result. Well, after a fashion.

The Tories have 305 seats (the BBC erroneously count Buckingham in the Conservative column - it does not belong there), and a UK-wide swing from Labour of 5%. But most of this is confined to England and Wales. They have 296 seats in England and enjoyed a 5.6% swing. The same swing secured them eight seats in Wales as well as second place in both votes and seats. Scotland, however, remained resistant: the vote increased but by less than 1%, resulting in a net swing to Labour, and David Mundell remains the Tories' sole Commons representative from Scotland. Worse still, their project in Northern Ireland has been a disaster: the UCUNF vote went down (to the extent that the UUP-Tory pact has fallen to fourth place in terms of votes), Sylvia Hermon remains opposed to the Tories and in Westminster, and the one agreed Unionist Unity candidate still couldn't defeat Sinn Fein's Michelle Gildernew in Fermanagh & South Tyrone, though her majority was reduced to just four votes.

Labour have 258 seats, so I think they've held off the worst of what's happened, but while Gordon Brown remains in office on the grounds of constitutional technicality, I don't see him remaining there for long. There would need to be, by my reckoning, five parties involved in any 'progressive' coalition and I just don't think that's sustainable. Labour go down to 191 seats in England (though regain Bethnal Green & Bow from Respect and Chesterfield from the LibDems), but still retain their lead in Wales despite a swing against them: they have 26 seats there and gained Blaenau Gwent. Moreover, the performance in Scotland - increasing their share of the vote, retaining all of their seats and regaining their By-Election losses, is nothing short of staggering. They retain first place not just in Scotland and Wales, but also in London (something Boris Johnson might want to bear in mind) and retain their pre-eminence in Northern England, despite the heavy swings against them. It's the losses in the Midlands - West and East - which appear to have damaged them the most.

What to make of the Liberal Democrats? On a UK level, they have a right to feel cheated: they gained votes, yet lost seats, ending up with a total of 57. The progress in support, yet loss of MPs, took place in England and Wales, but the result is Scotland was surely grim for them. They were the only one of the Big 4 parties to go backwards in terms of votes, and found that bright chapter in their recent history - the Dunfermline & West Fife By-Election - had been unwritten. More significantly, they lost second place in votes to the SNP - despite retaining second place in seats. The one ray of light, bizarrely, comes from Northern Ireland, where the LibDems' sister party, the Alliance, managed to unseat the DUP Leader in Belfast East. If Naomi Long takes the LibDem whip in the Commons (I imagine Stephen will know what's what here), then the LibDems actually have closer links with Northern Ireland than the Tories do.

And as for the SNP? This was, I think, a frustrating night. The SNP gained votes on 2005, and regained second place (though, obviously, the result was some way away from the excellent 2007 and 2009 results), but the advance was less than I had hoped and it didn't result in any gains and Glasgow East reverted to Labour. I think there'll need to be reflection on the campaign - and the result proved that if the TV debates did have an effect, it was limited. Nevertheless, there are bright spots: if some of the swings seen in the Highlands and North East are repeated next year then there'll be a number of key constituency gains and with the politics of Scotland being so clearly distinct from approaches in the rest of the UK, there are a few more philosophical questions to be asked about the nature of Scotland's relationship with Westminster. Unfortunately, philosophical questions don't have votes in the House of Commons, but still, it's not all bad.

Then came the others: this was the end of George Galloway's Parliamentary career, and Respect now have no MPs. Meanwhile, Richard Taylor and Dai Davies lost their seats and Esther Rantzen did not even keep her deposit. However, this was all swept under the carpet with the Green victory in Brighton Pavilion: Greens are now present in the Scottish Parliament, the UK delegation to the European Parliament, the London Assembly and the House of Commons. Winning a First Past the Post election isn't such a shock - they've been doing that on local Councils for years - but this is a massive achievement, especially as the Greens came from third place to first in the process.

So what now? We know that the Tories and LibDems are in preliminary talks, and that William Hague, George Osborne and Oliver Letwin met with Danny Alexander and David Laws tonight, but nothing was agreed. A 'rainbow' deal involving practically everyone but the Tories seems far too unwieldy to work, so to me, it's either this Con-LD Coalition or a Tory Minority Government. Frankly, I am as yet sceptical that a deal can be done, particularly when the Tories offered a deal on issues where the two parties agree, but insisted that those points where the two have different positions were non-negotiable. Trying to negotiate about what you can negotiate about before negotiations have even opened doesn't work - as the Scottish LibDems learned to their cost in 2007.

So the Tories will be in Downing Street, alone, and facing a hostile House of Commons. And on that basis, there'll most likely be another election within the next 12 months: either after the Party Conferences, in March 2011, or in May. And that last possibility suggests that voters in Scotland will face elections to two Parliaments in a year's time. Oh, my...

2010-05-06T19:41:00.002+01:00

For the record, there's a Scottish Roundup election special on the way (hopefully to be published at 10pm), and I'll plan to focus my energies on Twitter tonight - with more expansive notes on here as required.

I Kick Men's Asses, and I Vote

2010-05-05T19:21:00.004+01:00

The waiting is over. After almost three years of uncertainty, since Brown's ascension to the Premiership, it is the turn of the people to register their opinion. It looks as though it will not be favourable to him, or indeed to many Labour candidates.

Prior to attaining his goal - Leadership of the Labour Party - Brown spent 13 years planning for The Day, when Brown would walk into 10 Downing Street as Prime Minister. But judging by the way the Government has hiccuped from one fiasco to another, it seems that no thought was given to The Day After, when Brown would have to start work. We've seen promises made and broken, we've even seen stark, cold reality denied. Yet somehow, there was surprise that he might have been - surely not! - insincere to a senior citizen last week. He's been insincere to every one of us for years.

Alas, the alternative is less palatable. I can't help but hum the opening bars to Let's Face The Music And Dance: I am still not satisfied that I know what the entry of David Cameron into Downing Street will mean for, well, anyone.

Then there's the dire deception of the Liberal Democrats - "It can be different! Vote for what you believe in!" says Nick Clegg. "Only we can beat the Keep Clackmannanshire Smiling Party! Vote for anyone else, and they won't win!" crow local candidates. "Vote for someone new, vote for change, but not those bastards because they're not relevant to the result!" Vacuous, yet vicious.

So it's a point of frustration that on my ballot paper, there won't be an SNP option: candidates willing to stand up for their constituents rather than roll over to their leadership; a party with clear principles and policies designed to keep the country moving. I would urge those readers (and that's most of you) who have the SNP option on your ballot paper to use it. The SNP Government has spent three years delivering real, positive change at Holyrood as opposed to the stagnation of the previous Executive. That progress needs to be augmented by a solid team of SNP MPs to act as their constituents' voice at Westminster rather than their party's voice in the constituencies.

As for me, I still haven't decided. The three big UK parties don't resonate with me and I don't have a Green candidate to vote for either. My choices are limited and I must reflect on how to act. I take my vote seriously.

And that's why I oppose all calls for tactical voting. Where possible, it's best to vote for what you believe in, otherwise you perpetuate the 'two-horse race' with a pair of nags you didn't really like, the same Hobson's Choice that exasperated you when you looked at the last results. There might be hundreds, perhaps even thousands of people who believe as you do, but vote for something else simply on the strength of a bar chart. Not this time. If you believe in a party, in a policy, or if you simply believe that out of the choice you have, one party's views are closest to your own, then vote for it. With the outcome as uncertain as it is, and a worldwide climate as grim as it is, we need a clear bedrock of principle on which to build a programme. That doesn't mean that we need a clear majority. It does mean that we need candidates whose presence is derived from concrete policies rather than the performance of their party in 2005. We need belief, not barcharts.

But ultimately, my main call is simply to vote. It's easy to say, "Don't vote, it only encourages them" but the reverse is true: could the expenses scandal have spun so wildly out of control had we been paying attention to our politicians? Did the falling turnout tell our representatives that few people were bothered anymore, and they could get away with anything they wanted but no matter how angry we got, we wouldn't do anything about it? I believe that it did: our apathy led to their complacency. Whoever we vote for, by turning up and placing an X in a box, we do send a message: that we are watching. That we are interested. That they will put us first or they will face the consequences. I ask all of you who haven't voted by post already to send that message tomorrow.

My mantra is as it was last year.

I Kick Men's Asses, and I Vote.

The Sunday Whip

2010-05-02T15:58:00.002+01:00

One gets the feeling that our MSPs are a little distracted, given how much of this post is going to be taken up by a list of absences rather than anything more substantive. I can't think why.

Anyway. Wednesday saw a huge 34 absences, to the extent that I'm going to have to break them down:

For the SNP: Schools Minister Keith Brown (Ochil), Angela Constance (Livingston), Bob Doris (Glasgow), Culture Minister Fiona Hyslop (Lothians), Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead (Moray), Public Health Minister Shona Robison (Dundee East), Andrew Welsh (Angus) and Sandra White (Glasgow).

For Labour: Wendy Alexander (Paisley North), Shadow Rural Affairs Secretary Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central), Margaret Curran (Glasgow Baillieston, not having cast a single vote since Parliament returned from its Spring recess), Marlyn Glen (North East Scotland), Rhoda Grant (Highlands & Islands), Hugh Henry (Paisley South), Cathy Jamieson (Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley, and like Ms Curran, absent from any vote since the Easter break), Deputy Leader Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok), Marilyn Livingstone (Kirkcaldy), Shadow Sport Minister Frank McAveety (Glasgow Shettleston), Tom McCabe (Hamilton South), Shadow Culture Minister Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin), Shadow Housing Minister Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow), Shadow Environment Minister Elaine Murray (Dumfries), Shadow Cabinet Secretary Without Portfolio John Park (Mid Scotland & Fife), Peter Peacock (Highlands & Islands) and Shadow Finance Minister David Whitton (Strathkelvin & Bearsden).

Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) and John Lamont (Roxburgh & Berwickshire) were absent for the Tories. Both are prospective dual mandate politicians (funny, that), though unlike their Labour counterparts, they did at least manage to put in some form of appearance as recently as last week.

For the LibDems: Local Government Spokesperson Alison McInnes (North East Scotland), John Farquhar Munro (Ross, Skye & Inverness West), Hugh O'Donnell (Central Scotland), Education Spokesperson Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West), Nicol Stephen (Aberdeen South) and Jim Tolson (Dunfermline West).

Both Greens were present (making Robin Harper the only Westminster candidate MSP to turn up this week), but Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians) was not.

Along with the usual quiet agreement to the Business Motion, they missed the amendments to, and passage of, the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Bill. This was an exercise in consensus with no votes being required. However, Stage 1 of the Legal Services (Scotland) Bill did face a vote, but passed by 92 votes to 2, with only the Greens against.

Following that, we had the usual unspoken agreement to an SSI:

That the Parliament agrees that the Census (Scotland) Order 2010 to the extent that it relates to the following particulars in Schedule 2—

(a) item 1;

(b) in item 2, the words "and, as the case may be, where there are 5 or fewer persons in the household, the relationship of each of the previous persons mentioned in the return and where there are 6 or more persons in the household, the relationship of the sixth and subsequent persons to the two previously mentioned persons in the return";

(c) item 7;

(d) in item 8, the words "and, if not born in the United Kingdom, month and year of most recent arrival to live in the United Kingdom";

(e) items 9,10,12,14,17,18,19,20;

(f) in item 21, the words "on a Government sponsored training scheme;"

(g) items 22,27,28,30,31,33,34;

and items 1,2,3 and 4 of Schedule 3 to the Order, be approved.

Thursday's programme was more crowded, even if the Chamber wasn't. The absences were as follows.

For the SNP: Willie Coffey (Kilmarnock & Loudoun), Angela Constance, Joe FitzPatrick (Dundee West), Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North), Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland), Fiona Hyslop, Richard Lochhead, Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow), FM Alex Salmond (Gordon) and Andrew Welsh.

For Labour: Wendy Alexander, Rhona Brankin (Midlothian), Cathie Craigie (Cumbernauld & Kilsyth), Margaret Curran, Helen Eadie (Dunfermline East), Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow Maryhill), Shadow Rural Development Minister Karen Gillon (Clydesdale), Marlyn Glen, Rhoda Grant, Hugh Henry, Cathy Jamieson, Shadow Community Safety Minister James Kelly (Glasgow Rutherglen), Marilyn Livingstone, Shadow Enterprise Minister Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central), Peter Peacock, Shadow Climate Change Minister Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East) and Shadow Public Health Minister Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland & Fife).

For the Tories, Alex Johnstone and John Lamont were joined on the absentee list by Rural Affairs Spokesman John Scott (Ayr). For the LibDems, the absentees were Environment Spokesman Liam McArthur (Orkney) and John Farquhar Munro. Neither of the Greens were absent, and Margo made an appearance today.

Anyway, onto the actual business. Today we saw two of those rare beasts, Green motions (typical - you wait ages, then two come along at once).

The first was on a Living Wage. An SNP amendment was rejected by 45 (Lab/LD/Green/Margo - John Park missed this one) to 37 with 13 Tory abstentions, while a Labour amendment fell by 67 to 29. A Tory amendment fell by 83 to 13 but the LibDem amendment passed by 64 (SNP/Tory/LD) to 32 (Lab/Green/Margo). The amended motion passed by 68 (SNP/Tories/LibDems/Greens/Margo, plus Labour's Pauline McNeill) to 28:

That the Parliament recognises that unacceptable levels of poverty and income inequality continue to blight Scotland; notes that the income of the richest 10% of people in Scotland is approximately the same as the total income of the poorest 50%; further notes that, among working-age adults, in-work poverty is still on the increase; believes that a more equal society would be a happier, healthier, safer and greener society and that this must become a core objective of government at all levels, and believes that, during the tight financial climate, public sector pay policy should be structured to ensure that those on lower incomes benefit more than those on higher incomes from pay changes.

Next came the motion on democratic reform. A Labour amendment fell by 67 to 29 while a Tory amendment fell by 54 (SNP/LD/Green/Margo) to 13 with 29 abstentions. The motion passed by 54 (SNP/LD/Green/Margo) to 41 (Lab/Tory) with Ted Brocklebank (Con, Mid Scotland & Fife) abstaining:

That the Parliament believes that the current UK general election must be the last to use the discredited first-past-the-post electoral system and that the single transferable vote is the best way to ensure that the public receive the democratic representation that they deserve in future.

Finally, there was a Government motion on changing lives: a confident, competent social care workforce. The Labour amendment was waved through, but a Tory amendment fell by 38 (the SNP plus Labour's Frank McAveety) to 13, with the remaining 45 MSPs (including Margo, who has to do this at least one whenever she's in) abstaining. The motion, however, passed unanimously:

That the Parliament recognises the significant contribution made to the lives of the people of Scotland by all those who work in social services, often in difficult and complex circumstances; agrees the need for a confident, competent and valued social services workforce to deliver safe, effective and personalised practice; notes the work that has been done following the review of social work services, Changing Lives; notes the finding from the performance inspections of the Social Work Inspection Agency that leadership is of critical importance in the performance of social work services; welcomes the focus on leadership being jointly taken forward by the Scottish Social Services Council and the four social services learning networks; endorses the need for political, operational and professional leadership and engagement to support and develop the social services workforce; while acknowledging the important role of the social work and social care workforce in supporting and protecting people across the whole age spectrum, notes the impact of changing demographics and, in particular, the increase in the older population on the demand for services, as indicated by the Social Work Inspection Agency report, Improving Social Work in Scotland, which estimates that by 2018 the number of people aged 85 and over will have increased by 40%, and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that social care services are sufficiently prepared and resourced accordingly, taking into account the fact that many older people are themselves carers.

And that was the week that was. Next week, business has been cleverly arranged to the extent that it will consist of no debates, save Members' Business, and Question Time has been moved to Wednesday. They're all too busy to show up on Thursday, apparently...

The Problem with the Scotland Debates

2010-04-26T21:31:00.003+01:00

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

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

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

But think about the other three.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are we getting too outraged too soon?

2010-04-26T20:42:00.002+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sunday Whip

2010-04-25T15:20:00.002+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this the New Politics?

2010-04-22T19:50:00.001+01:00

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

A Hawkish Case for Scrapping Trident?

2010-04-19T19:13:00.004+01:00

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

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

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

Threat #1: The Old Foes

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

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

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

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

In dealing with the Rival Powers, Trident fails.

Threat #2: The Rogue States

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Threat #3: Terror

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

Junk it.

The Sunday Whip

2010-04-18T22:08:00.002+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debate #1

2010-04-15T20:01:00.002+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

Debate Prep

2010-04-12T21:46:00.002+01:00

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

Brown: Be more confrontational

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

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

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

Cameron: Think on your feet

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

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

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

Clegg: Be less emotional

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

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

The others: Better off out of it?

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

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

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

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

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

In Which Alistair Carmichael undermines LibDem campaigns

2010-04-11T14:35:00.004+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Which I Take No Pleasure In Being Right

2010-04-09T16:56:00.004+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, this is where it's got him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next time, it could be you.

Irony

2010-04-08T20:07:00.005+01:00

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

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

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

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

I'll leave that one to the philosophers.

Nag, nag, nag...

2010-04-07T19:25:00.003+01:00

Nick Clegg, yesterday:

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

The Scottish LibDem website:

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

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

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

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

Andrew Reeves, March 30th:

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

Andrew Reeves, April 3rd:

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

Andrew Reeves, today:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Day 1

2010-04-06T20:17:00.005+01:00

We're off and running.

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

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

The Scottish Tories, meanwhile, have gone with this:

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

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

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

Compare all that with this:

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

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

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

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

Let the Frenzy Begin!

2010-04-05T22:32:00.004+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow

2010-04-05T16:11:00.002+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are a few early calls:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, let the drama begin...

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

2010-04-04T14:54:00.004+01:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Spring Whip

2010-04-02T11:01:00.003+01:00

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

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

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

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

SNP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservatives

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

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

The Tories have experienced no rebellions.

Liberal Democrats

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

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

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

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

Greens and Margo

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

Scenes from a Campaign

2010-03-31T20:24:00.006+01:00

Jeff is not the only one turning his attention to Livingston today.

Livingston enjoys a fascinating presence in UK political history: for the first 22 years of the constituency's existence, it was represented by Robin Cook, until his death just a few months after the 2005 Election. Now, it should be possible to eulogise and not idolise someone, and Cook was by no means a saint, but he was an impressive performer and of course, presented the most effective case against the Iraq War that anyone could have done during his speech announcing his resignation from the Cabinet. And that departure, incidentally, marked the last principled resignation from the UK Government: the only ones to come close to being based on principle were Clare Short's delayed reaction to the Iraq War and James Purnell's prediction that Gordon Brown would hand the upcoming General Election to the Tories. So Robin Cook, MP for Livingston, former Foreign Secretary and the last member of the Cabinet to resign on principle, enjoys a special place in the books. Whatever his faults, he'll be remembered as an intelligent, high-powered politician and an independent mind. And Livingston will be associated with him.

How tragic, then, that his successor, Jim Devine, should end up in the dock for fraud. That he should have falsified receipts for his expense claims, and worst of all, that he should have defended his actions by claiming that a Whip told him to do that (if the Tommy McAvoy had told him to lie face down on the Westbound carriageway of the M8, would he have done that?).

Yet now we come to the man who would be his successor, Graeme Morrice. Now, he will probably avoid the complete downfall suffered by Devine, but the omens are not good if this leaflet is anything to go by:

Now, it looks like standard fare: the memories of the Thatcher years, and the carping about the SNP - nothing unusual for a Labour leaflet. Nothing positive, nothing hopeful, a quick CV and then the usual attempts to dismiss the SNP as irrelevant while at the same time devoting a large part of the missive to slating them.

But then there's this:

Ah, yes, those memories of the Thatcher/Major years. Such a shame that a Labour Chancellor and Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury have both come out and said that they'd be far more brutal with the Budget than any of Thatcher and her Chancellors were. How ironic: he could stop George Osborne, but would he even try to stop Alistair Darling or Ed Balls when they start wielding the red pen?

And the rest? Well, see for yourself:

In short, two pages in which he misrepresents who's in charge of West Lothian Council by describing it as an SNP/Tory Council (which will be news to COSLA, who see West Lothian as an SNP/Independent Coalition: the independents in question being Action to Save St. John's Hospital, who have been airbrushed out of political history by Councillor Morrice) and poses for photos on issues which either relate to Holyrood (so he'll be able to do nothing about it) or the local Council (so he'll actually be able to do more about it if he loses and stays on the Council).

It's strange. In a way, Devine is more impressive: he, like his predecessor, has become an icon of the big political question of the day, albeit for all the wrong reasons. And Morrice's photo might not be a police mugshot, but still, his leaflet really ought to be gracing the pages of Glum Councillors. Maybe Livingston could use some anonymity, an MP who won't make waves in the Commons but will turn up at railway stations with an MSP, a placard and a photographer.

Or maybe not...

I had the pleasure of reading Lis Bardell's guest post on Jeff's blog. Lis is the SNP candidate for Livingston and managed to sum up quite exquisitely just how the scandal has hit the area. As it happens, I had the good fortune of meeting Lis at the SNP Spring Conference and found someone who knows her area and knows the people, and clearly relishes chewing over the big issues. She's clearly someone who'll be at ease with local campaigns, but will be incredibly adept at handling the wider questions that go beyond Livingston and affect all of us. In short, I spent an evening at Conference in the company of an intelligent, articulate person with an independent mind. Remind you of anyone?

Maybe a spell out of the limelight isn't what Livingston needs. Maybe, instead, what's needed is a return to the things that connected that part of West Lothian to the wider political scene for all the right reasons.

That, I think, is where Lis comes in.

The Sunday Whip

2010-03-28T15:56:00.002+01:00

This was a busy and rather successful Parliamentary week for the Government, and saw one of the most vote-heavy days in since the election.

Wednesday was its quiet, borderline-consensual self, and there were a number of absentees: Bill Butler (Lab, Glasgow Anniesland), Margaret Curran (Lab, Glasgow Baillieston), Patricia Ferguson (Lab, Glasgow Maryhill), LibDem Health Spokesman Ross Finnie (Lab, West of Scotland), Marlyn Glen (Lab, North East Scotland), Shadow Transport Minister Charlie Gordon (Glasgow Cathcart), Cathy Jamieson (Lab, Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley), John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West), Shadow Climate Change Minister Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East) and Elaine Smith (Lab, Coatbridge & Chryston).

They missed the waving through of the Business Motion and Stage 1 of the Scottish Parliamentary Commissions and Commissioners etc. Bill. The main substantive piece of business came in the Government motion on Double Jeopardy: the LibDems had an amendment but had requested to withdraw it. However, they were thwarted by David McLetchie, who decided to force it to a vote just, it seems, to show that he was obviously the sort of child who pulled the wings off insects for his own amusement: the amendment fell by 104 votes to 0 with the 14 LibDems abstaining on their own amendment. The motion itself passed by 115 to 2, with the Greens being the only opponents:

That the Parliament agrees that, although double jeopardy must continue to provide an important safeguard, it needs to be reformed to fit with a fair and modern criminal justice system; agrees that persons who confess after an acquittal or who undermine trials by threats or corruption should be retried; supports reform to allow a second trial in very serious cases where important new evidence emerges and for this to apply retrospectively, and welcomes the Scottish Government's consultation on this issue.

There then came a motion from the Corporate Body, which was waved through probably because just reading the motion would have taken half an hour:

That the Parliament recognises that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body ("the SPCB") commissioned and received a report from Sir Neil McIntosh on the Reimbursement of Members' Expenses Scheme and in implementation of those recommendations therefore agrees to:

(a) Amend the Resolution of 12 June 2008 ("the Resolution") agreeing to the Reimbursement of Members' Expenses Scheme ("the Scheme") annexed as Annex 1 to the Resolution by—

(i) adding after "appropriate" at the end of paragraph (iv) "and in particular, and without prejudice to the generality—

(a) entering into arrangements with those members who, in relation to Edinburgh accommodation, are claiming and have claimed reimbursement of mortgage interest allowance in accordance with paragraph 4(5)(b) of Part B of the Previous Scheme and paragraph (v) of the Resolution. In respect of paragraph 2.1.6 of the Scheme as amended by this Resolution, the entitlement to the costs in paragraph 2.1.3 (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the Scheme will not apply to those members who have not entered into such an arrangement with the SPCB; and

(b) making provision for termination payments to members' staff who are close family members of the member (as defined in paragraph 9.1.1 of the Scheme), where the costs of employing such close family members is reimbursed in accordance with Section 3 of the Scheme and termination of the employment of such close family members on or before the 31 July 2015 is due to the effect of paragraph 3.1.8 of the Scheme as inserted by this Resolution, and paragraph (a)(ii) of this Resolution. Such termination payments shall be calculated in accordance with the principles for determining redundancy payments provided for in Section 3.6 of the Scheme";

(ii) adding after "31 March 2011" at the end of paragraph (v) "except that (i) the entitlement to reimbursement of staff costs under Section 3 of the Scheme in respect of close family members (as defined in paragraph 9.1.1 of the Scheme) whose employment by a member commenced before 1 April 2010, and (ii) the requirement to declare such relationships to the SPCB in accordance with paragraph 3.7 of the Scheme as it read prior to the amendment made by this Resolution, shall end not later than 31 July 2015";

(b) Amend the Scheme with effect from 1 April 2010 by—

(i) substituting for existing paragraph 1.6.2—

"On no more than two occasions in any financial year, a member may transfer in total an amount which does not exceed in aggregate one half of the limit on that member's entitlement to reimbursement of office costs to that member's entitlement to reimbursement of staff salary costs. A member making such a transfer shall notify the SPCB in advance of incurring any costs in respect of the sum transferred";

(ii) deleting from paragraph 2.1.4 the words "and 2.1.6";

(iii) substituting for existing paragraph 2.1.6(b)—

"(b) the member also owns another residence in Edinburgh which the member uses in connection with the performance of Parliamentary duties, the member is entitled to claim reimbursement of the actual costs specified in paragraph 2.1.3 (b), (c), (d) and (e) in respect of that other residence.";

(iv) inserting as new paragraph 2.3—

"2.3 SHARED RESIDENTIAL LEASED ACCOMMODATION

2.3.1 Section 2.3 shall only apply to a member with a main residence in a constituency listed in Group Three of Annex A.

2.3.2 Subject to paragraph 2.3.3, where more than one member leases the same residential property in Edinburgh together with another member or members, those members are entitled between or amongst them to reimbursement of the costs of leasing the residential property in accordance with paragraph 2.1.3.

2.3.3 The limit on the entitlement of each member to reimbursement of costs reimbursed under paragraph 2.3.2 is the limit in each financial year specified in the Schedule of Rates plus one third of that amount in respect of each additional member, apportioned equally between the members.

2.3.4 A member who submits a claim in respect of the cost of shared residential leased accommodation shall declare that arrangement to the SPCB. The declaration shall be in writing, include the name(s) of the other member or members with whom tenancy is shared, a copy of the letting agreement and/or lease, and such other information as the SPCB shall determine.";

(v) inserting new paragraph 3.1.8—

"Section 3 does not apply in relation to the employment of a close family member by a member, whether individually or through a pool;

(vi) substituting for existing paragraphs 3.7 and 3.7.1—

"3.7 EMPLOYMENT OF CLOSE FAMILY MEMBERS OF ANOTHER MEMBER

3.7.1 A member who submits a claim in respect of the costs of employing a close family member of another member, whether individually or through a pool shall declare that relationship to the SPCB. The declaration shall be in writing and shall include the name of the close family member, the name of the other member, the relationship to that other member and such other information as the SPCB may determine" ;

(vii) substituting for existing paragraph 8.4—

"8.4 ACCOMMODATION, OFFICE AND ASSOCIATED COSTS

8.4.1 A former member is entitled to reimbursement of the costs reasonably incurred—

(a) in the closing down of a parliamentary office;

(b) in connection with the termination of any agreement pertaining to leasing residential property within Edinburgh under paragraph 2.1.2(b);

(c) in connection with any ancillary obligations arising from paragraph 8.4.1(b);

(d) for the purpose of travel within Scotland undertaken in connection with (a) (b) or (c);

8.4.2 The reimbursements in paragraph 8.4.1 are subject to a limit equivalent to one third of the office cost provisions set out in section 4";

8.4.3 Any costs reimbursed under paragraph 8.4.1 may include the costs of travel of the former member's staff provided that such costs are incurred for the purpose of paragraphs 8.4.1(a), (b) or (c).".

Then came another waved through motion on nominations to the European Economic and Social Committee:

That the Parliament endorses the Scottish Executive's proposal to nominate Mr George Traill Lyon, nominated by CBI Scotland and the Institute of Directors Scotland, Mr Sandy Boyle, nominated by the STUC, and Ms Maureen O'Neill, nominated by the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Poverty Alliance, to the UK delegation on the Economic and Social Committee of the European Union for the forthcoming mandate from September 2010 to September 2015.

Finally, MSPs approved the Advice and Assistance and Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions and Contributions) (Scotland) Regulations 2010, the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2010 and the National Bus Travel Concession Scheme for Older and Disabled Persons (Scotland) Amendment Order 2010.

Thursday, meanwhile, saw a staggering thirty votes taken, all revolving around the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill. John Farquhar Munro was the only day-long absentee, and apart from that, there was the usual revolving door of MSPs, though Iain Gray did miss eleven of the votes, ten of which in the morning, when he doubtless would have been rehearsing for FMQs. And of course, the Deputy Presiding Officers Trish Godman (Lab, West Renfrewshire) and Alasdair Morgan (SNP, South of Scotland) were alternating in the Chair and seem to have a permanent pairing arrangement whereby whichever is in the Chair, the other also refrains from voting, so could only vote on three occasions.

Green Amendment 1 fell by 64 (SNP/Con/Margo) votes to 63 (Lab/LD/Green).

Labour Amendment 24 fell by 63 to 62 (same party balance), while Labour Amendments 25 and 27 fell by 63 to 61 (same balance again), while Shadow Children's Minister Karen Whitefield (Airdrie & Shotts) voted against her own party's Amendment 28, which fell 64 to 60.

Labour Amendments 29, 30 and 32 to 36 were taken together, as were Amendments 38 to 41 and 43. Both blocs fell by 63 to 61.

The Government had a series of amendments which all passed convincingly: Amendment 60 passed by 120 to 2, Amendment 61 by 122 to 2, Amendment 68 by 121 to 2 and Amendment 69 by 122 to 2 again. In each case it was the Greens opposing the amendments, though it's worth noting that we can only guess at what Margo MacDonald would have done for Amendment 68: she missed that one.

Tory Amendment 44 fell by 64 (SNP/LD/Green/Margo) to 16 (Con) with 44 Labour abstentions, Labour Amendment 73 fell by 62 (SNP/Con) to 61 (everyone else), and Amendment 74 fell by 64 (SNP/Con/Green/Margo) to 60 (Lab/LD). Government Amendment 51 passed by 77 (SNP/Con/LD/Margo) to 46 (Lab/Green).

Tory Amendment 77 fell by 47 (SNP/Margo) to 32 (Con/LD/Green) with 45 Labour abstentions, while LibDem Amendment 78 fell by 63 (SNP/Con/Margo) to 17 (LD/Green) with 45 abstentions. The Tories could only muster LibDem support for Amendments 84 and 85, which fell by 94 to 30 and 94 to 31 respectively.

Labour's Amendment 52 fell by 63 (SNP/Con/Margo) to 62 (Lab/LD/Green) while Tory Amendment 91 passed by 77 (SNP/Con/LD/Margo) to 48, where Labour and the Greens were joined in opposition by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill (Edinburgh East & Musselburgh), who had clearly pressed the wrong button.

Labour Amendment 26 was voted down by Alasdair Morgan's casting vote, with MSPs tied at 62 votes each: Labour, the LibDems and Greens in favour, the SNP and Tories against. Labour Amendments 31 and 42, however, both fell by 63 (SNP/Con/Margo) to 62 (Lab/LD/Green).

Government Amendment 97 itself had two amendments, both lodged by the Tories. 97A fell by 109 to 16 when no one but the Tories supported it, but 97B passed by 108 to 17 with the LibDems and Greens opposed. The amendment Amendment 97 then passed by 125 to 2, with only the Greens voitng against it.

Alasdair Morgan had to use his casting vote again to reject Labour Amendment 26, which tied at 62 votes each with Labour, the LibDems and Greens in favour, but the SNP, Tories and Margo against. Amendment 55, however, fell by 63 to 61 (the same party breakdown).

So finally, after all that, the Bill itself was passed, by 109 (SNP/Lab/Con/Margo) to 16 (LD/Green), with Ted Brocklebank (Con, Mid Scotland & Fife) and Jamie Stone (LD, Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross) the only MSPs not around at Decision Time to see the fruits of their day of labour.

So that's the last Whip now until the 18th, though I'll have the Spring Whip ready soon enough to check up on MSPs' overall records this term. With the General Election around the corner, it'll be a good opportunity to see how much parliamentary bang the parties deliver for your electoral buck.

Counting the Beans

2010-03-24T15:05:00.003Z

I have to confess - my plan to sit down and digest the Budget in full were disrupted somewhat when my LibDem Councillor decided to come round canvassing, and also to attempt to convince me that flattening a beauty spot for the sake of two houses and the neighbours' ability to watch Cash in the Attic is worth the loss of a pleasant green space. He also said that he wasn't bothered about how I voted in a General Election - showing how much (or how little) respect the LibDems have for voters in areas where they can't print out one of those bloody bar charts.

Anyway, before I was rudely interrupted, I have to say that I wasn't expecting much from the Budget but still ended up disappointed.

It didn't help that at PMQs, Gordon Brown protested that the Tories kept going back over past decisions and should talk about the future, only for Alistair Darling to open his speech with a lengthy passage which involved going back over past decisions. Oh dear.

And I noticed that their was a plan to jack up duty on cider and alcopops, as the Treasury had spotted that they weren't making enough money out of it. Think about it: it's not about tackling binge drinking, it's about spotting that cider drinkers are paying less tax than beer or wine drinkers. And fuel duty is still going up, but in stages.

And there was the moment where Tories celebrated the adoption of one of their few ideas - lifting the stamp duty threshold - only for Labour to celebrate when an increase in the stamp duty rate for £1m+ houses.

And of course, the claim that they're helping first time buyers seems hollow when the Government axed the Ownhome shared equity scheme months ago (though at least the ISA threshold is going up).

Meanwhile, with easy credit being the source of the present financial crisis, the Government wants to gain make it easier to lend money. I found myself humming History Repeating by Shirley Bassey at that one. And gloating that the Bank Bonus Tax has netted more than double the Treasury expected to only serves to underline just how much money the banks are still dishing out in bonuses.

Then there was the real laugh: lines about how you can't cut your way out of recession and how making cuts too soon could prove disastrous, only near the end of the speech for Darling to announce that they'd already found cuts to make and that the next Comprehensive Spending Review is going to be ugly.

And at the end, a very lengthy passage about how they'd managed to rub the Tories' oses in Lord Ashcroft's mess.

So basically, the statement was riddled with contradictions and we have no idea of how a Labour Chancellor after the Election would behave. Unfortunately, David Cameron's speech was equally devoid of content - it was basically a rant about how Labour are rubbish and he should be in charge now - so we're left utterly lost. We're told that this election sees us forced to choose between two competing visions, but with just a few weeks until the election, we haven't a clue what those visions are. How dismal.

The Celebrity Hate Meme

2010-03-23T20:34:00.004Z

Thanks to Yousuf and Caron, I've been tagged in the latest fashionable meme: to name a celebrity who you hate with a passion, which started with this basic premise from the Telegraph's Bryony Gordon:

I have a theory that almost everybody loathes one person in the public eye with such passion that the mere mention of their name is enough to make you combust with rage. This person has to be someone famous, someone you have never met before, someone who can pop up on the television for 30 seconds yet make you feel apoplectic for hours afterwards.

For Yousuf, it's Robbie Williams (who would have been on my shortlist). For Caron, Gary Rhodes. I had a shortlist: Robbie would have been on it had Yousuf not got there first and done such an excellent job. Jordan would have been on it, but I decided that was like shooting fish in a barrel (well, two ridiculously large fish in an ill-fitting barrel, to be precise), as would Victoria Beckham. Peter Scudamore is probably just short of 'celebrity' status, so was ruled out, and Rafa Benitez nearly got on there, but the sole reason would have been his hypocrisy at complaining when Wigan Athletic Chairman Dave Whelan reflected on the sorry internal state of Liverpool FC, stating that Whelan should focus on his own club, just a week after he himself ripped the piss out of Sam Allardyce's tactics at Blackburn.

Instead, I've gone for the obvious choice: Steve Bruce, with the help of this image from Bobbing Along, the Cardiff City fanzine (that's a thought, I could have done Peter Ridsdale):

The Wales fans above have summed up my feelings admirably. So let me explain why it is that Brucie Bonus makes be want to hurl a Size 10 boot into the TV set.

We begin our story in the 2000-01 season, back when Wigan were in what was then Division 2 (now League 1, of course). Steve Bruce had been sacked by Huddersfield Town for sending them on something of a death spiral, while Bruce Rioch had been summarily dismissed from the Latics gig for looking at Dave Whelan the wrong way. The Chairman brought Steve Bruce in as his successor with only a handful of games left, and he steadied the ship, securing us a place in the Play-Offs.

Then, almost as soon as we got knocked out of the play-offs, he buggered off to Crystal Palace.

He didn't stay there long either - by the end of the year, he'd moved on again, this time to Birmingham, and I seem to recall that it didn't initially occur to Bruce to let Palace know that he was quitting. He did at least stay in the Midlands for a decent stint, but in 2007, when it first looked like Carson Yeung was going to take over Birmingham City and rumours were flying around that Bruce would be one of the first dismissed by the new owner (it was two years later when Yeung finally bought the club and he has kept Alex McLeish on up to now), Bruce was complaining to anyone who'd listen that he was being treated unfairly, that he had a contract with Birmingham which should be seen out, and that he deserved to know where he stood. For the rest of us, it seemed like what had gone around was now finally coming around for Bruce.

Luckily, he found an escape route: by then, Wigan were of course in their third season in the Premier League and after the tense 2006-07 season ended up driving Paul Jewell out of the managerial post, Dave Whelan opted not to learn from former Bradford City Chairman Geoffrey Richmond's mistake and duly appointed Jewell's deputy, Chris Hutchings, as his successor. Consequently, Whelan was the only person surprised when results started gong badly wrong and relegation was beginning to look increasingly likely. In came Bruce, returning like the Prodigal Son, and Wigan fans founded themselves revising the last six years of their lives, claiming that, actually, they'd always liked Bruce.

Then, last Summer, he did it again. Despite being a Newcastle United fan, Bruce opted to succeed Ricky Sbragia at rivals Sunderland. Now, Sunderland and Wigan are very similar in terms of status. Let me explain - there are two criteria to a good signing for a club: 1) you have to have heard of the player, and 2) the player has to be quite decent. The problem when you're at a club like Sunderland or Wigan, however, is that on the whole, you're generally only capable of signing players who meet only one of those criteria. Chris Hutchings focused on the former (hence Titus Bramble), but Bruce, to his credit, was and is adept at getting the latter right instead. Hence signings like Amr Zaki (who was good for two months), Wilson Palacios (who now plies his trade with Spurs), Maynor Figueroa (who at least had a flash of brilliance against Stoke this season) and Hugo Rodallega (who has endured being partnered with Jason Scotland and Marcelo Moreno - South America's answer to Kyle Lafferty - upfront without going insane) initially read like a "Who's That?" of world football but all have made a mark. It seemed, therefore, that he'd go down a similar route at Sunderland. Instead, his first act was to declare that signing players for the Black Cats was like Harrods, comparing his former employers to Tesco.

This ludicrous declaration was rendered even more barking when he then spent the entire close season letting it be known that he wanted to sign Tesco product Lee Cattermole and proceeded to conduct negotiations through the press.

Then he spent the January transfer window bleating that Liverpool were tapping up Kenwyne Jones.

On another note, there's the tactics: they were, to a degree, effective, often brutally so - especially with a Midfield combination of Lee Cattermole and Michael Brown (and a team with both of those in it is guaranteed to reach full time with 10 men or fewer). But they were Allardycean in nature and it speaks volumes that Bruce's slog 'n' clog approach was the only one to thrive when the pitch at the then JJB Stadium was at its worst, with the scorch mark running from goalmouth to goalmouth, and churned up by the egg-chasers' abuse of the surface. We did manage to grind out a fair few results, but when we didn't, when both the process and the outcome were dire, it was absolutely soul-crushing.

So the charge sheet is as follows: he's a mercenary, a money-grabbing Judas who'll go anywhere and say anything if he smells the cash; he's a hypocritical gobshite; his tactics owe more to Wigan Warriors than Wigan Athletic. But there's another thing.

I hate Steve Bruce for what I turn into when he's involved.

I should have nothing against Sunderland. They aren't below Wigan in the table (so do not currently pose a threat to the Latics' Premiership status in the way that West Ham, Wolves, Hull and Burnley need to keep losing), and they aren't local rivals. There's an odd chain of rivalry in the North West: Burnley and Blackburn Rovers are arch-rivals (to the extent that my usually quiet Rovers-supporting workmate's only rant in the office up to now has been "Why is Burnley even a Borough?! It's just a crappy little town that belongs in Yorkshire!") , but Bolton consider Blackburn their main rivals. When Blackburn either aren't available or are pre-occupied with Burnley, Bolton turn to Wigan in an emergency. Wigan see Bolton as emergency rivals as well, when Preston North End aren't available (and in any case, the Latics' real hate figures are Wigan Warriors Rugby League) and Preston fans see Blackpool as their main foes. The Black Cats don't form part of that chain at all and yet I want them to suffer.

And it's all because of Brucie Bonus.

I want to see Sunderland relegated. They're not local rivals, it's not a "them or us" situation, and they're not one of those clubs like Newcastle or Leeds (or, at the nicer end of the table, Man United) who just manage to piss everyone off, mainly because of the way the fans project themselves, but I want to see them go down.

And it's all because of Brucie Bonus.

Every time Sunderland come into the equation I turn into a creature of pure malevolence.

And it's all because of Brucie Bonus.

And that, really, is why I hate him.

As always, I choose to swallow the meme - it looks like it's starting to double back on itself anyway...

The Sunday Whip

2010-03-21T20:10:00.002Z

Every now and then, Parliament throws up a bizarre event that makes it difficult to categorise what's going on. This was one of those weeks.

Wednesday wasn't great for the Government. There were eight absences: Shadow Further and Higher Education Minister Claire Baker (Mid Scotland & Fife), Margaret Curran (Lab, Glasgow Baillieston, who has made only two Decision Times in the past month), Alex Johnstone (Con, North East Scotland), Labour Deputy Leader Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok, who ought not be confused with John Lamont), John Lamont (Con, Roxburgh & Berwickshire, who ought not be confused with Johann Lamont), John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West, who is now genuinely worrying me as he hasn't cast a vote in Parliament since two months ago today) Shadow Cabinet Member Without Portfolio John Park (Mid Scotland & Fife) and Nicol Stephen (LD, Aberdeen South).

They missed a Government debate on Tourism. The Labour amendment passed by 70 (Lab/Con/LD) votes to 50 (SNP/Green/Margo), and the Tory amendment passed by 70 to 47 with three abstentions, but the LibDem amendment fell by 64 (SNP/Con/Green/Margo) to 56 (Labour/LD). The amended motion passed by 71 (Lab/Con/LD/Margo) to 49 (SNP/Green):

That the Parliament supports the Scottish tourism industry as it works toward the shared growth ambition set out in the Tourism Framework for Change (TFFC) strategy; commends the commitment shown by the industry in establishing the new TFFC Leadership Group to drive an industry-led approach to improvements in quality, skills, innovation and investment across the sector; believes, however, that the Scottish Government must also take responsibility for meeting the skills gaps; notes that, in spite of the efforts made by tourism businesses and local communities as part of Homecoming Scotland 2009, overseas visitor numbers and economic activity in the hotels and catering sector fell in the first three quarters of 2009; regrets that, in spite of that fall in earnings in the sector, many Scottish tourism businesses are facing significant increases in non-domestic rates with immediate effect; notes the recent announcement that a focus on Scotland's food and drink will start in 2010; recognises tourism as a key sector with a vital contribution to make to the Scottish Government's strategic objectives and economic recovery plan; notes the importance of continuing to promote Scotland as a place to visit, stay, live and work; further notes that in its 2008 report, Growing Pains - can we achieve a 50% growth in tourist revenue by 2015?, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee recommended unanimously that the Scottish Government should set up a review group of leading industry specialists to make recommendations on the type and number of tourism education, skills and training courses in the future; notes that the committee's report suggested that the starting point for the review group should be a wholesale rationalisation into a model that suits Scottish needs and has industry buy-in; calls on the Scottish Government to implement the committee recommendation as soon as possible, and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that all press releases and announcements that it issues regarding tourism statistics paint a clear and wholly accurate picture of the industry.

Following that, the Renewables Obligation (Scotland) Amendment Order 2010 was waved through.

Thursday, meanwhile was missed by Margaret Curran, LibDem Health Spokesman Ross Finnie (West of Scotland), Cathy Jamieson (Lab, Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley), Johann Lamont, Margo MAcDonald (Ind, Lothians), John Farquhar Munro, Peter Peacock (Lab, Highlands and Islands), Public Health Minister Shona Robison (Dundee East), LibDem Leader Tavish Scott Shetland), Elaine Smith (Lab, Coatbridge & Chryston) and Andrew Welsh (SNP, Angus).

It was bloody complicated, thanks to the Labour motion on Climate Change. Now the SNP, Tory and LibDem amendments were all waved through, but the Green amendment caused a problem. It related to a live planning application for a new coal power station at Hunterston, so Ministers couldn't take a position on it. Accordingly, when the Green amendment came up (do take a look at this commentary from James), it passed by 66 to 26 with ten abstentions. Labour, the LibDems and Greens voted in favour, the Tories against, but the 30 SNP MSPs who voted split equally in three ways:

Alasdair Allan (Western Isles), Aileen Campbell (South of Scotland), Willie Coffey (Kilmarnock & Loudoun), Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North), Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland), Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow), Stuart McMillan (West of Scotland), Shirley-Anne Somerville (Lothians), Dave Thompson (Highlands & Islands) and Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) all voted in favour.

Brian Adam (Aberdeen North), Angela Constance (Livingston), Joe FitzPatrick (Dundee West), Christine Grahame (South of Scotland), Christopher Harvie (Mid Scotland & Fife), Bill Kidd (Glasgow), Michael Matheson (Falkirk West), Alasdair Morgan (South of Scotland), Gil Paterson (West of Scotland) and Sandra White (Glasgow) voted against.

Nigel Don (North East Scotland), Bob Doris (Glasgow), Linda Fabiani (Central Scotland), Rob Gibson (Highlands & Islands), Tricia Marwick (Central Fife), Stewart Maxwell (West of Scotland), Ian McKee (Lothians), Christina McKelvie (Central Scotland), Maureen Watt (North East Scotland) and John Wilson (Central Scotland) all abstained.

And all the Ministers didn't even dare touch the abstain button, so sat on their hands. Am I the only one who thinks that this whole 10:10:10 thing is too neat, that it prevents there being a majority (or even plurality) SNP Group position on an issue where the Government (made up of members of that SNP Group) can't be seen to take a position? It seems clever, though a little contrived.

Anyway. The motion passed, by 66 (Lab/LD/Green + a third of the SNP) to 10 with 26 (Tories and a third of the SNP) abstentions:

That the Parliament notes the publication of the UK Climate Change Committee Report, Scotland's path to a low carbon economy; believes that the Scottish Government needs to review its Climate Change Delivery Plan to take into account the passing of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009; believes that there are economic opportunities to be gained from investment in low-carbon technologies and that the Scottish Government needs to take a lead through public procurement, particularly in the fields of transport and construction, and specifically calls on the Scottish Government to put in place a programme to replace its own fleet with low-carbon or electric vehicles, to bring forward the planning and development of a national vehicle battery-charging infrastructure and to enable the public and businesses to make the practical changes required to meet the targets set out in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009; urges the European Union and UK Government to take action to support Scotland's ambitious plans and targets; notes that, while preserving the environment must not be seen as being in conflict with economic growth, it is vital that current economic circumstances are recognised and that all public expenditure offers value for money to the taxpayer; also opposes new unabated coal power capacity, and therefore calls on the Scottish Government to reject plans to build a new coal-fired power station at Hunterston, given that large-scale carbon capture and storage at existing coal or gas plants has never been successfully demonstrated.

Then came the Labour motion on building better buses, and Ministers could take part in this: an SNP amendment was waved through and a LibDem amendment passed by 101 to 16 (the Tories voted against), while Shadow Culture Minister Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) missed the final vote, on the amended motion, which passed by 100 to 0 with 16 Tory abstentions:

That the Parliament notes that some transport authorities have secured better value for money when tendering for bus services by purchasing vehicles themselves rather than incurring costs that include a vehicle supplied by the bidders; further notes the flexibility and efficiency of the five Alexander Dennis Limited (ADL) ALX 300 buses operating in the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport area, which are fully compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) and which have variable numbers of seats in various configurations enabling one vehicle to be used for demand-responsive services, school services and local scheduled bus services in the course of a single day; considers that to the proven efficiency and social benefits of such buses should be added the environmental and jobs benefits of increasing production of ADL's new hybrid bus, which is compliant with both DDA requirements and with emissions targets, but notes with concern that over 900 workers at ADL, Scotland's sole bus manufacturer, are on a three-day week; calls on the Scottish Government, as a matter of urgency, to fund grants for acquisition of ADL buses by transport authorities and by commercial bus operators to ensure a new generation of bus-build that secures Scottish jobs and skills, world-class bus manufacturing in Falkirk and the provision of world-class transport for the Scottish public; notes changes to the Bus Services Operators Grant scheme promoted by the Scottish Government that will promote more environmentally friendly buses; notes that a number of UK cities, including Aberdeen and Glasgow, did not meet EU air pollution targets in 2009; further notes that poor air quality causes tens of thousands of premature deaths across the UK each year; believes that a bus scrappage scheme, making grants available to bus operators to replace old, polluting buses, would have a serious impact on reducing air pollution and carbon emissions, and further believes that the benefits to the environment and the economic boost to bus manufacturers will be considerably greater if the UK Government announces funding for a bus scrappage scheme in the Budget on 24 March 2010.

Finally, MSPs agreed to set up a Committee for the William Simpson's Home (Transfer of Property etc.) (Scotland) Bill.

So that's another week. Next week, we have a slew of motions, and Stage 3 of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill to contend with.

Getting women into Parliament

2010-03-19T11:01:00.002Z

I think, after last year's stooshie, readers will know where I stand on All-Women Shortlists. I'm opposed to them, but one question that was posed to me (and I didn't answer at the time) was, what would I do?

Well, you know that I don't like centrally-planned lists. I think they defeat the purpose of a Parliamentary system where an individual is elected to represent constituents. I don't think that jamming a candidate down people's throats is necessarily the way forward. Similarly, planning doesn't work: the upcoming General Election isn't one poll, but 650 sub-polls. A party could draw up a list of 217 women candidates for various seats but there's no guarantee that they'll get in. That, incidentally, is why extrapolations of opinion polls aren't great: they give you the national picture, but don't tell you precisely what's happening in, say, Airdrie. Every election produces surprises that the polls and extrapolations weren't prepared for.

Now, the Indian solution would get round that: the plans are for the Lok Sabha to have a quota of women MPs (on third of members), and that each constituency will have a woman MP for at least one term over a three-term cycle. When it's a constituency's turn, it will only be able to elect a woman.

Except this is open to abuse: it would be easy for parties to bundle three constituencies together, and have the candidates rotate depending on who had to move and when (similarly, had this been in place at Westminster, the Wintertons could have switched back and forth between Macclesfield and Congleton for years). Further, I'm horrified at the thought of voters' potential choice of candidate being restricted by 50% simply because of whose turn it is. That defeats the object of liberation movements, surely?

So, that's what I don't want - what do I want?

Two words: electoral reform.

Think about it. You could very easily insert into the rules for electing MSPs a section specifying each gender must comprise at least one third of each regions' MSPs. So Highlands and Islands has 15 MSPs - that would be a minimum of five women. The others have either 16 or 17, and as you can have a third of a woman, that would be six women in each. A guaranteed minimum of 47 women every time.

And the legislation would effect only Regional MSPs, the only part of the current electoral process subverted would be the parties' list making process: it might be necessary, for example, to skip a few names and go straight from, for example, number three to number five to meet the quota. But as things stand, most of the Regions meet it already: Central Scotland has seven women MSPs (4 constituency, 3 list); Glasgow elected six and now has seven; Lothians elected seven and now has eight; Mid Scotland & Fife has six; and South of Scotland has six. Highlands & Islands woefully elected a sum total of no women Constituency MSPs and only two Regional, so three of the male Regional MSPs would have to be displaced (Dave Thompson would make way for Mhairi Will; David Stewart for Christine Conniff; and Jamie McGrigor for Helen Gardiner). And West of Scotland has only four, so would need to exchange Stuart McMillan for Fiona McLeod. In real terms, Bill Wilson would have to be replaced as well, but somehow, the SNP in the West of Scotland managed to select only one woman on a list of twelve (now, that is a problem), so instead, Jackson Carlaw would have to stand aside for Stephanie Fraser.

So no change to the result, only party organisations seeing their plans subverted, and a five extra female MSPs. If Westminster were to adopt AMS, they could write this in and it could work.

Similarly, you could insert a clause into legislation for STV stating that registered parties fielding candidates in a division had to field at least two: one of each gender. That might be a pain for smaller parties trying to conserve precious deposits, but the legislation could also provide for a discount for the second candidate (so, say, £500 for an independent, £800 for a party pair, £1,000 for a group of three). So whereas it takes 59 candidates (and £29,500) to cover Scotland in its entirety, it would take no more than 20 pairs (so 40 names and £16,000) to do the same.

If you were feeling particularly ambitious, legislation could also be written specifying that each division had to elect both genders (so a minimum of one of each gender). Now, again, this might mean that voters' higher preferences would have to be skipped over, but they would simply transfer to the next applicable ranking, so voters would have shown at least some level of support - a more open situation than now, where voters would be able to express a preference between different candidates of the same party, and it would guarantee somewhere between 25% and 33% representation for women. That may not be great, but it's a sight better than the status quo, and of course, there's nothing putting voters off from increasing that percentage without any further input.

So there you have it. An AMS system that preserves the freedom of constituencies to vote for whomever they wish of whichever gender they wish and promotes a closer gender balance, or an STV approach that ensures voters aren't forced to choose between gender and party, and can set up a guaranteed level of representation using voters' stated preferences rather than centrally planned lists or cycles.

We can achieve a modern-looking Parliament. But not by stapling rules onto an outdated electoral system.

The Sunday Whip

2010-03-14T20:46:00.003Z

Another quiet week, and largely a decent one for the Government. I'd have thought that by now, things would be getting ultra-confrontational in advance of the General Election (I still think that in the next few weeks we should stand by for Parliament failing to take positions on anything as everyone retreats to 'attack' mode and motions or amendments fail to attract any support beyond the party submitting them), but that hasn't started yet. And MSPs didn't have to cross a picket line for the Chamber sessions on Wednesday and Thursday.

Anyway. There were 12 absentees on Wednesday: Gavin Brown (Con, Lothians), Margaret Curran (Lab, Glasgow Baillieston), Hugh Henry (Lab, Paisley South), John Lamont (Con, Roxburgh & Berwickshire), Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead (Moray), Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians), Jack McConnell (Lab, Motherwell & Wishaw), Duncan McNeil (Lab, Greenock & Inverclyde), Shadow Housing Minister Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow), John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West), Mike Pringle (LD, Edinburgh South), and Alex Salmond (Gordon).

They missed the Government motion on aquaculture. A Labour amendment fell by 58 - SNP and Tory votes; Ian McKee (SNP, Lothians) missed this one - to 43 (Lab/Green) with 14 abstentions. A Tory amendment passed by 73 (SNP/Con/LD) to 43 (Lab/Green), while a Green amendment fell by 114 to 2. The amended motion passed by 113 - Shadow Education Secretary Des McNulty missed this one - to 0 with two Green abstentions:

That the Parliament notes the continued development of an ambitious and sustainable Scottish aquaculture industry; recognises the economic importance of the industry to Scotland as a whole and many coastal communities in particular; calls on the Scottish Government to clarify what action it is taking to develop and retain a skilled and qualified workforce in the sector; supports industry calls for greater clarity about the food consumers buy through country of origin labelling, and invites ministers to make clear their intentions regarding any moves to amend protected geographical status for Scottish farmed salmon; notes the considerable work being carried out under the auspices of A Fresh Start - the renewed Strategic Framework for Scottish Aquaculture, published on 21 May 2009; notes the continuing need to consult with industry stakeholders on the development of the industry in Scotland, and further notes that ways must be found to streamline the planning process and remove barriers to the development and growth of the fish farming industry such as the lack of affordable housing and available sites for fish farms in order to allow the industry to grow to its full potential.

Following that, MSPs waved through the following SSIs:

Budget (Scotland) Act 2009 Amendment Order 2010

Community Care (Personal Care and Nursing Care) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2010

Public Appointments and Public Bodies etc. (Scotland) Act 2003 (Treatment of Office or Body as Specified Authority) Order 2010

Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 2010

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2010

Local Government Investments (Scotland) Regulations 2010

Thursday went along much the same lines. There were 13 absentees: Gavin Brown, Angela Constance (SNP, Livingston), Tory Deputy Leader Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland & Fife) and his boss Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland), Shadow Enterprise Minister Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central), Mary Mulligan, John Farquhar Munro (whose last vote in Parliament was on 21 January, this is not a good sign at all), Housing Minister Alex Neil (Central Scotland), Shadow Climate Change Minister Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East), Public Health Minister Shona Robison (Dundee East), LibDem Leader Tavish Scott (Shetland), Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson (Banff & Buchan) and Jamie Stone (LD, Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross).

First came the Tory motion on the management of schools: the SNP amendment passed without quibble, but the Labour amendment fell by 69 (SNP/Con/LD) to 44 - Labour/Greens again: Wendy Alexander (Lab, Paisley North) missed this one - with one abstention. And you know who that was by now. Anyway, the LibDem amendment was waved through while the amended motion passed by 67 to 3 with 43 abstentions. Christine Grahame (SNP, South of Scotland) and Margo MacDonald gave this vote a miss, while SNP Chief Whip Brian Adam voted against the motion along with the Greens; the rest of his party voted in favour with the Tories and LibDems (as he's the Whip, was he the rebel, or were the other 41 rebelling?):

That the Parliament agrees with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning that "choice and diversity are the hallmarks of a mature and confident society" in the provision of state-funded education and that it is now time to explore alternative models for delivery of school education with a view to empowering head teachers, raising standards and increasing parental choice; welcomes the community trust model for schools put forward by East Lothian Council as worthy of further examination and believes that this and other models to be found elsewhere in Europe should be the subject of detailed consideration and debate; recognises that Scottish education is generally of good quality with many important strengths; believes that any alternative models that are considered should build on these strengths and preclude academic selection as a legitimate criterion for school entry, and calls on the Scottish Government to publish an options paper on models of school organisation to facilitate this; believes that any changes to the model of school organisation should be motivated by raising attainment and improving pupil outcomes rather than profit and dogma; recognises the benefits of greater community and parental involvement in the management of schools; notes that the implementation of a new curriculum, falling teacher numbers and straitened budgets remain key areas of concern for education professionals, and recognises the cross-party consensus behind the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee's examination of the management of schools.

Following that was the SNP motion on serious and organised crime. A Labour amendment passed by 56 (Lab/Con) to one - John Wilson (SNP, Central Scotland) with 58 (the rest of the SNP along with the LibDems, Greens and Margo) abstaining. Tory and LibDem amendments were waved through, as was the actual motion:

That the Parliament recognises that serious organised crime can have a devastating impact on communities and businesses in Scotland; further recognises that tackling this menace should be a key priority for a Safer and Stronger Scotland; supports the role of the Serious Organised Crime Taskforce in spearheading Scotland's commitment to address this type of crime; supports Scottish law enforcement in implementing the taskforce's serious organised crime strategy, Letting our Communities Flourish and supports the view that serious organised crime cannot be seen to pay; believes that the Scottish Government should ensure that there are no further delays in the construction of the Scottish Crime Campus at Gartcosh, which was originally due for completion this year but is now not expected to be fully operational until mid-2013; supports the crucial role played by the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency in ensuring that there is a co-ordinated strategy to tackling serious and organised crime in Scotland, and also believes that the Scottish Government must make progress in implementing the findings of the Joint Thematic Report on the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, published by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland and the Inspectorate of Prosecution in Scotland, to ensure that there is greater success in seizing and recovering the assets of those who profit from crime and asks the Scottish Government to keep the entire issue of serious and organised crime under review in order that any further measures that may be deemed necessary can be considered; believes that, while good progress has been made on the recovery of assets under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the Serious Organised Crime Taskforce must ensure that police and prosecutors use the Act to its full extent; notes with concern that there are no current convictions for human trafficking in Scotland, despite Glasgow being considered to be second only to London for the extent of people trafficking, and calls on the Scottish Government to take urgent, concerted and properly resourced action to break the misery of sex trafficking and to identify and support women being trafficked to Scotland, particularly in the lead up to the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow in 2014.

So that's another week passed. Next week, I'll be in Aviemore, running the rule over debates on Tourism and Malawi (those are two separate debates, MSPs will not be mulling over the merits of Lilongwe as a potential jaunt for their hollybobs), and Labour business.

Slogans and Actions

2010-03-13T14:32:00.002Z

We now know what banners the parties will fight under for the upcoming election.

Labour have A Future Fair for All (Freud kicked in as I was typing this and it initially came out as A Future Fail for All), which is bland and inoffensive (Who ever campaigned for unfairness? Well the Republican Party seem to, but even they try and dress it up), but it also reeks of "Jam Tomorrow". Let's face it, they've been in power for 13 years so have had plenty of time to deliver a present fair for all.

The Tories have gone for Year For Change. It's vague (changing what to what?), and if anything, it's worse than the Labour slogan: 'change' is one of those concepts that sends otherwise rational human beings into a state of frenzy. Some people dive on change as exactly what's needed, without stopping to think what's being changed or why, and want to get rid of things just because they're old. Other people freak out at change - they want things to stay the same, however crap things are. Why? "Because this is how we've always done it!" Again, no one stops to think about what's being changed and why. Trust me, if change were automatically a good thing, Obama's already solid margin of victory against John McCain would have been far, far bigger.

The SNP have sought to repeat the message that served the party well in Glasgow East: More Nats, Less Cuts. Now I agree, it should be Fewer Cuts, but the message has a zing about it, and conveys an idea in the way that the other two don't: SNP MPs will be able to prevent cuts to the Scottish Budget. It's leaving a hostage to fortune, perhaps, but it offers a clear marker. It's short, it's sharp, it's a stark message. In short, it's effective.

By contrast, the Liberal Democrat message is anything but. Change that Works for You: Building a Fairer Britain. Firstly, it's a rip off of the Labour and Tory slogans (though it implies that their change would be better than Tory change, and in fairness, I would be inclined to believe that), and they aren't all that good. Secondly, it goes to highlight two things that the LibDems' critics love to flag up: that they're part of the consensus and don't find it easy to stand out (they've gone with two ideas that are already in use) and they're trying to face both ways (it's the Labour slogan AND the Tory slogan). And from a communications point of view, it's dreadful.

Firstly, and I can't stress this enough: slogans should not have subheaders. Ever. That misses the point of a slogan.

Secondly, it's overly long at nine words. It's longer than the Labour and Tory slogans put together and it conveys no more information than either of them. Obama's Change You Can Believe In was five words and worked. The SNP's It's Time was only two words (and could be customised, as in: It's time... to put more police on the streets, for example) and worked. Labour's New Labour, New Britain was four words, conveyed a message (that Labour had changed for the better and was in a position to change the country for the better). The Tories' Labour Isn't Working was horrendously negative, but conveyed a serious message in only three words.

But there's a broader point: it's looking like a Hung Parliament. And that means the LibDems will have a real influence. But I'm not convinced that they're capable of doing anything meaningful with it. Remember 2007? They went in a sulk in Scotland, and ended up cut out of the political process, having ruled out a Coalition (and so influence) with everyone. In Wales, they had the choice of being in a Labour-LibDem Coalition, or a Plaid-Tory-LibDem Coalition, but indecision crippled them, the other parties ran out of time and a Labour minority Government was formed leading to a Grand Coalition with Plaid. The LibDems would have had to be a part of any majority Coalition in Scotland and blew it. They should have been the kingmakers in Wales and they blew it.

Now, at Westminster, even their slogan is indecisive. It might be that they're trying to hedge their bets (always wise), but it's generating even more uncertainty and if that mindset carries on for very much longer after the election, however important the LibDems are to the overall outcome, then they could find themselves cut out of the process. Again. Their voters will want their policies to bear fruit. Their activists will want a result that gets them somewhere, doing something, to prove that their work wasn't in vain. But their MPs, like their MSPs and AMs before them, could end up chucking it away either in a fit of pique or a fug of indecision. They will deserve what happens to them. The rest of the party will not.

Bo, Selecta!

2010-03-11T20:20:00.002Z

Well, you have to admire Labour's eagerness. At a time when there are still vacancies unfilled (and a situation in East Lothian where the local party is seeking to create a vacancy) for an election this Spring, some activists are looking forward to next year's Holyrood elections. Well, the ones with the potentially messy selection contests.

And the one for Renfrewshire South did have the capacity for a mess: the seat is effectively a new one, created with offcuts from West Renfrewshire, Paisley South and Eastwood. Now, the sitting MSP for the first of these, Trish Godman, is probably in a wiser position to stand in Renfrewshire North & West. The sitting MSP for the second, Hugh Henry, could have easily fought Paisley but that would have involved a selection contest with Wendy Alexander if she is a mind to stand again, so Renfrewshire South perhaps seemed the better bet. And the MSP for the third, Ken Macintosh, could stand again in Eastwood, but that seat sees some very unfortunate (for him) boundary changes, which mean he has to be sure of a 3.15% swing from the Tories to Labour just to hold onto his job. So Renfrewshire South was always going to be a battle between Messrs Henry and Macintosh.

Hugh Henry has won that battle.

This is significant, not least for Ken Macintosh, whose wish to get re-elected has become considerably more difficult (remember also that the notional Tory majority of 2,018 in Eastwood is, if anything, lower than it ought to be thanks to the intervention of an independent, former Tory, candidate in the last election, who prevented Jackson Carlaw from winning the seat on the old boundaries).

But more importantly, everyone likes to talk about Jim Murphy swooping to Holyrood like an avenging angel should he be beaten by the Tories' Richard Cook in a few weeks' time. But where? With Trish Godman in Renfrewshire North & West, Wendy Alexander in Paisley, and Hugh Henry in Paisley South, there ain't no room, particularly with Ken Macintosh's plans for a chicken run thwarted.

And the Regional List is no help to either of them: Labour's constituency performance means that the party is, notionally, over-represented in West Scotland: by rights, they ought to have seven seats rather than eight, and the SNP ought to have six seats rather than five. That means that any Labour hopeful on the List needs a swing from Labour to the SNP of 4.63% on the Constituency Vote (enough for the SNP to win Dumbarton and Cunninghame South, taking out Irene Oldfather and Jackie Baillie in the process) yet at the same time, has to hope that Labour's Regional vote losses are minimised. A difficult position to be in.

So, before we have the Westminster election out of the way, we have the opening, internal manoeuvres in the Holyrood election. And they aren't good for the Shadow Minister for Schools and Skills.

The Strange Case of Steven Purcell

2010-03-07T19:20:00.003Z

I'll start by going through what we all know:

We know that Steven Purcell has resigned as Leader of Glasgow City Council. We know that despite early indications to the contrary, he has now taken the step of resigning as a Councillor altogether.

We know that Purcell has left the country, though we do not know where. The tabloids can't decide if he's on the other side of the North Channel (in Donegal), the other side of the Atlantic (Florida) or the other side of the world (Australia).

We know that Purcell attended a rehabilitation clinic. We know that he briefly went missing from there last weekend. We know that he was being treated for 'chemical addiction' and we now know that he has taken cocaine. Further, we know all this despite the initial statement citing 'stress and exhaustion' as the reasons for his departure.

We know that Council Deputy Leader Jim Coleman is in charge temporarily. We now know that Coleman refused to put his name to the statement drafted by Purcell's lawyers and PR firm as the Council (or at least, the Labour group) had drafted a different statement referring to the addiction.

We know that the police, specifically the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, turned up at the City Chambers to discuss the risk of blackmail to him, and that following that discussion, Purcell upped sticks to the West End.

We also know that Labour were made aware of the situation in the run-up to the Glasgow East By-Election, but chose to do nothing, save prevent him from being the candidate.

And that's where we are. When it was stress, everyone was wishing him well, singing his praises and hoping for a speedy recovery. Now, it's like they're all talking about someone different. Was this not the same guy who helped to bring the 2014 Commonwealth Games to Glasgow? Apparently not, that was a team effort. Was this not the same guy who was tipped to be a future Labour Leader and First Minister? Apparently not, because we say this about every Leader of Glasgow City Council. Granted, the precedents are Frank McAveety (who got into trouble for choosing eating a pie over Parliamentary duties) and Charlie Gordon (whose approach to fundraising ended up causing the downfall of Wendy Alexander), so if we were shooting for the moon beforehand, we didn't even manage to hit a star on those occasions.

But Purcell was different: he did secure the Games and he did have something about him. While a number of the decisions taken on his watch were unpopular (the school closures spring most readily to mind), he was capable and was highly adept at banging the drum for Glasgow in the way that we expect Alex Salmond to bang the drum for Scotland.

Plus which, I have to confess to a respect for Purcell which I'd imagine not many of you will be surprised by: while there are a good number of 'out' politicians these days, there are very few who would make decent role models - who wants to emulate Peter Mandelson, for heaven's sake? Purcell, on the other hand, managed to navigate the rapids of Glasgow Labour, get to the top there, and seemed more than ready to go to the next level. Even though he attained the Leadership before he came out, he sought and won re-election as himself, and the actual announcement seemed to come and go without any big thing. So of course seeing someone like Purcell getting there and staying there is a boost, a cause for optimism and a reason to be ambitious. After all, if he can get there, why not anyone else? Speaking from my own perspective, there are a couple of practical barriers (being 100 miles away from the border is the primary obstacle) to my wanting to put myself forward for something in the short to medium term, but thanks to people like Purcell, sexual orientation isn't one of them.

So what happened?

Well, at the risk of understatement, it looks like Purcell made some bad choices. Most of us do, but then, most of us don't lead Scotland's largest local authority. So when they caught up with him, as happens to everyone, then they were absolutely going to hit him harder and heavier than usual. And let's face it, a sequence of events which, if some reports are accurate, leads to you leaving the Northern Hemisphere altogether is pretty earth-shattering.

And of course, it seems that Labour were sitting on a timebomb for eighteen months. There was never going to be a good time for this one to go off, but having had that long to draw something up, they've contrived to destroy Purcell when they were seeking to protect him. We've gone from "Leave the man alone!" to "What the hell has happened here?" in one move and it's exasperating, but it's not hard to see why. In fact, the two aren't mutually exclusive: there is nothing that can be achieved by hounding Purcell except prolonging the agony that he's surely in. Rather, the questions are to be asked of his colleagues and basically boil down to, "Who knew what? When did they find it out? What did they do about it?" The answer to the last one is, apparently, naff all. Bravo.

And it was the silence that did it in the end: when the story did finally break, the instinct to circle the wagons took over, but it was done to such extremes that rather than leading everyone to believe that Purcell just needed time, it led everyone to reckon that there was more going on than we were being told. And so it proved. It's like trying to move up (or, indeed, down) a flight of stairs quietly: the steps seem to be creakier and you end up making more noise tiptoeing than if you'd just blundered up normally.

The result? A few days ago, everyone was talking about there being nothing more than a temporary vacancy in the City Chambers, now Purcell is out of politics altogether and probably for good. The Lazarus act required for anything else to happen would have to go beyond even Mandelsonian proportions.

And of course, Glasgow Labour is starting to turn in on itself, with people jockeying for position and various figures looking to hang Purcell out to dry. This suggests that the outlook for the Labour Group could have been ugly whether the former Leader's trajectory was the upward vector we were expecting or the downward vector we got: there doesn't seem to be an obvious successor and given Jim Coleman's caretaker status, Scotland's largest local authority is left basically rudderless for three months, plenty of time for a lot of in-fighting and back-stabbing. Moreover, this happens in the run-up to what has, of late, been a rare beast: a Westminster General Election where Glasgow has the potential to surprise. Can John Mason succeed where Robert McIntyre, Winnie Ewing, Margo MacDonald and Jim Sillars all failed and consolidate a By-Election win against Labour? Can Osama Saeed beat the Labour machine and the hostile press coverage to win Glasgow Central? Can either the SNP or the LibDems get that breakthrough against Labour in Glasgow North? You have to go all the way back to 1992 to find even one reason to be at the count in Glasgow, but this time, we have at least three, and now we're going there against the backdrop of a Council likely to eat itself.

And of course, a potential Scottish Labour leader is now out of the picture, which has broader ramifications at Holyrood: either they have to hope that Jim Murphy loses East Renfrewshire but manages to sweep into the Scottish Parliament next year like an avenging angel, or they have to find the personality that Iain Gray left down the back of a couch somewhere. The former isn't ideal as a) he actually has to lose his seat, which isn't set in stone; b) he would then come in as a loser rather than as a winner, and c) the last person to switch like this was Alex Salmond, and he got the Party Leadership first having announced he was seeking not just to be SNP Leader but also First Minister, then getting step 1 achieved, had more than two years to find and win a seat at Holyrood. Jim Murphy, on the other hand, would have to get elected to Holyrood before even being eligible to stand in a contest to be Labour Leader, which means finding and winning a seat (not easy when the equivalent seat to his own is, notionally, already in the hands of the party he would have lost to by then and the other seats are likely to have sitting Labour tenants), then there has to be a vacancy for the group leadership, which requires Labour to lose the 2011 Election, and only then can he stand, and before he can utter the words 'First' and 'Minister', would have to endure a lengthy period as Leader of the Opposition. So unless Labour manage to pull something out of the bag this Spring, then in three months time, Iain Gray will basically be the uncontested Leader of Scottish Labour. And I really don't think that's good for them.

One last thing: am I just being insecure/paranoid about some of the press reporting? My hackles were raised when the Scotsman used the word 'lifestyle' in one of its pieces - the L word is one of those god-awful euphemisms and seems like a decent corroboration of the "nudge nudge wink wink you do know he's a poof" approach described in an excellent post by Clairwil. Maybe I'm just seeing a demon that isn't there, but if I'm not, then it seems the press have learned nothing from the outcry following Jan Moir's attempts to dance on Stephen Gately's grave.

I hope Purcell is in Australia because I know that if I were in his shoes it would be excruciating to watch what's now unfolding. The spotlight has been shone on his personal demons, and in the melee that's developing, we're in danger of giving into our own.