Bringing It Together: Why All This Matters

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?

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

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?

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

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.

Why Florence and Precious must stay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She must let Florence and Precious Mhango stay in Glasgow.

Rumours of the Scottish Blogosphere's Death are Premature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three Lions, Two Nations and a Headache

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 Cautionary Tale of David Laws

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.

Two Visions of the Scottish Tories

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.

Where We Are Now

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...

I Kick Men's Asses, and I Vote

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 Problem with the Scotland Debates

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

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

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

But think about the other three.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are we getting too outraged too soon?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Hawkish Case for Scrapping Trident?

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

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

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

Threat #1: The Old Foes

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

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

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

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

In dealing with the Rival Powers, Trident fails.

Threat #2: The Rogue States

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Threat #3: Terror

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

Junk it.

Let the Frenzy Begin!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Getting women into Parliament

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.