Ghosts of Blogs Past

You know, it's weird. In amongst all the news stories this weekend, all I can think about is one that made the headlines last June, when Right for Scotland was unmasked as former Tory candidate Ron Kane, had his reputation dragged through the mud, and ended up with some rather awkward explaining expected of him by his employers.

Remember that? It was caused, primarily, by TerryWatch (which I certainly do remember) but it wasn't even his own posts on that blog which caused the problem. Rather, it was the posts by Shotgun, whose particular role on the blog, other than making the rest of us look like complete and utter prats, is something I was never clear on. I never really figured out what his beef with Terry Kelly was - I could understand where Ron was coming on, and I sympathised totally with Clairwil's anger and we all know why he enraged me so, but I never really worked out what Shotgun was bringing to the party save our own undoing. Frankly, we should have seen the warning signs when his avatar displayed a figure making the 'wanker' gesture, but we didn't have the benefit of 20:20 hindsight on this matter at that time. Of course, when his posts arrived, and were as disgusting as they were, Clairwil decided to call it a day, with me following suit soon after.

But Ron didn't, and it was him that carried the can for Shotgun acting like a tosspot, it was him that ended up being exposed in the Sunday Herald and it was Terry Kelly who gained an easy - and undeserved - victory. Meanwhile, the real villain of the piece - Shotgun - is still free to maraud the internet acting like an arsewipe when it suits him. And it's now harder for anyone to challenge Terry Kelly's BS.

So why am I bringing that old chestnut up now, after so long? I think it's obvious really. What Ron's troubles showed us is that whether we like it or not, anonymous/pseudonymous blogging only shields your identity to a limited degree, and anyone with that bit of time and/or determination available to the professional journalist (one wonders what impact they could have if they turned their fire on politicians). Accordingly, however you refer to yourself online, you have to be very careful and 100% sure of that you say. Mark MacLachlan, who you used to know as Montague Burton, is someone I've met before and I can tell you that he is, in real life, one of the nice guys. Indeed, it's hard to believe that he's the one the papers are talking about. But he is, and the reason is that he didn't learn the lessons that were there for all of us when Ron was forced out of anonymity and into blogging retirement. Neither did Wardog, or Bruce Newlands, as we now refer to him.

And as with the RfS story, it all seems a tad warped. The really damaging posts - the allegations about other politicians - are, save the one about Colin Smyth, from ages back. And the Colin Smyth one can be corroborated or contradicted by something as simple as one eyewitness report. The so-called smear about Paul McBride QC is about one of his defence cases. The George Foulkes one, though, is something that has a tendency to amble its way through the Holyrood Village from time to time, as all sorts of racy gossip about all sorts of people has a way of popping up when a bunch of politicos are in the same room. Mark's mistake was to turn an idle rumour into a blog post. Frankly, we can all do better than that.

Firstly, if you're going to go with rumours, make them about political developments, not who boffs whom and where - that belongs in the tabloid tittle-tattle section. Secondly, if you're going to go ahead with anything lurid, make sure you have the full facts, and the evidence. a persistent rumour won't do, and the particular gem that Mark relayed to the blogosphere is one for which evidence is hard to come by. Mark would lament - as we all do these days - about the state and the standards of the Scottish MSM, but in referring to that particular tale didn't live up to the standards he was setting for the press. That's another lesson: don't attack anyone for something which you could be seen as guilty of yourself.

Then there's the insulting posts. I mean, let's face it, if saying something nasty about a politician means you have to be dragged through the streets and ritually humiliated, then what are we to do about all those politicians who have been rude to each other all these years? That last lesson I mentioned ought to apply to everyone if it's to apply to anyone. Let's all be nice, or let's all get a thick skin. Pick one, or pick the other.

That said, if you're going to insult someone, a bit of class wouldn't go amiss. Swearwords on their own are blunt instruments. A bit of charm, an element of wit or a dash of observational humour can go a long way - hell, they've made some of the nastier lines from sketch writers like Simon Hoggart some of the best to read. Just calling someone a c**t? Well, unless you're in the mother of all rages (I think I've been in one of those and done just that), it's best avoided. And if you are in the mother of all rages, it's best not to blog at all (something I've had to reflect on at times, as well).

Basically, we can do better if we think more carefully about what we're posting and why. A lot of the mistakes that have got both Mark and Bruce into such trouble could have been avoided simply by learning from the media's treatment of Ron. The worst part is that in Mark's case certainly, most of what he posted wouldn't fall foul of any of this, and he routinely ended up in the Roundup, which wouldn't touch anything overly ugly with a ten-foot pole. But he lapsed into the odd unfortunate post, and now we see the result. Yes, all this means that we have to be more careful bloggers. But that doesn't mean that we can't be better bloggers as well, putting more thought into what we say before we press 'Publish'. We could retreat into hand-wringing, we could man the barricades and blame the nasty media, we could say we're all awful people and give up, or we could take the middle path, use this difficult time to reflect on our own blogging practices, and revise them accordingly, lest the man from Johnston Press come a-knocking on our door. We could use him as proof of a conspiracy or as a political scalp, or we could, just for a minute, stop thinking like members of different, warring tribes and realise that, as I've said before, "There, but for the grace of blogs, go I". We need to cut the hysteria, ditch the hyperbole. This is a time for sobriety.

My mind also wanders back to that interview I did for Radio Scotland three years ago. They also interviewed Paul Staines - a.k.a. Guido Fawkes - who lamented that there wasn't a 'Guido McFawkes' in Scotland who could do what he did, i.e. aim a constant barrage of vitriol towards politicians, not overly dissimilar to (and, if anything, far uglier than) the one that Mark is being punished for and get away with it, on the grounds that he did very well at covering his tracks, and when he finally was unmasked, he was in a sufficiently strong position in both real life and the blogosphere that he could just continue as though nothing was going to happen. And when it does, he usually ends up winning.

What I should have said, but didn't think to at the time, was that just because the Westminster blogosphere has a Guido, it doesn't mean that the Scottish blogosphere had to copy it. That given the different political landscape, Scottish bloggers can't rely on the scene in the rest of the UK as a template and they have to find their own path. That's just as true today as it's ever been (even when Staines first floated the idea, the immediate attempt to implement it - Jenny's Stool - died a very quiet death, possibly as it was set up over the Christmas period when, frankly, nobody gave a shit) and the events of the past two Sundays prove that any attempt to emulate Guido now would be doomed to certain failure, and its architect guaranteed a rather public humiliation. There is no one who could be certain of either the power or the anonymity required to succeed, and as someone who finds the Guido approach distasteful, may I be the first to shout Hallelujah at that!

What I'm saying is this: with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight again (and let's stop using that - we've seen enough that way to get a good idea of what might be ahead), Mark was always heading for a fall, as was Bruce. And the signs were there, but they didn't see them. So those who follow that example, and go for the tittle-tattle, the gossip, the rage, should stop looking for a conspiracy, stop screaming about a plot and start looking at their own blog as well as recent history, and get to grips with the fact that they are the problem here - not the hostile MSM!

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

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

The Sunday Whip

A non-eventful week, really, as the only thing that really got people riled was a debate on teaching history. Makes sense, I suppose. He who controls the present controls the past, and so forth.

Anyway. The only substantive votes were taken on Wednesday and there were nine absentees (as well as two stragglers who showed up late). They were Margaret Curran (Lab, Glasgow Baillieston), Marlyn Glen (Lab, North East Scotland), Alex Johnstone (Con. North East Scotland), Michael Matheson (SNP, Falkirk West), John Farquhar Munro (LD, Ross, Skye & Inverness West), Shadow Climate Change Minister Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East), Nicol Stephen (LD, Aberdeen South), Maureen Watt (SNP, North East Scotland) and Shadow Finance Minister David Whitton (Strathkelvin & Bearsden).

As I mentioned, it was the SNP's motion on history that drew most discussion, so once the Business Motions were waved through, it was the turn of the Labour amendment. That vote was missed by Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians) and Elizabeth Smith (Con, Mid Scotland & Fife), and the amendment passed by 101 (SNP/Labour/LibDems) to 0 with sixteen abstentions (Tories/Greens). Have I mentioned how much it annoys me, that people should make such a fuss over abstention? Yes? Well, I'm mentioning it again.

Anyway. Next came the Tory amendment - Elizabeth Smith had shown up by this point but Margo was still at large - which fell by 46 votes - the SNP plus Patricia Ferguson (Lab, Glasgow Maryhill) to 29 (Con/LD) with 43 abstentions (the rest of Labour and the Greens). The LibDem amendment passed by 72 (Labour, the LibDems, Greens and most of the Tories) to one (Margo) with 46 abstentions: the SNP and Tory Finance Spokesman Derek Brownlee (South of Scotland). The amended motion passed by 104 (everyone but the Tories) to 0 with 15 Tory abstentions (gah!):

That the Parliament recognises the contribution of Scotland's children and young people in schools to a successful Year of Homecoming; acknowledges the importance of learning about Scotland's heritage, history and culture and place in the world, and welcomes the recent launch of Scotland's History online, a world-leading online resource from Learning and Teaching Scotland, which draws on resources from the National Galleries of Scotland, National Museums Scotland, the National Library of Scotland, the National Archives of Scotland and other sources; following concerns expressed by School Leaders Scotland and others over the Curriculum for Excellence, asks ministers to report to the Parliament on the place of history in the developing curriculum; reiterates its belief that history should be taught without political interference; recognises that the effective teaching of history and all other subjects requires teachers to be equipped with the necessary resources and training, and calls on the Scottish Government to provide urgent clarity over the substance and implementation of the Curriculum for Excellence and the changes to Scotland's national qualifications.

Next, a Labour amendment to the Government's LCM on the Child Poverty Bill fell by 74 (SNP/Tory/LD) to 44 (Lab/Green) with one abstention (well, Margo hadn't abstained on anything since the 5th, so she needed to get the urge out of her system!). But the LCM itself passed without argument.

On Thursday, meanwhile, it was smooth sailing: Stage 1 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill was waved through, as was the Financial Resolution, and MSPs were happy to set up a Committee to discuss the Ure Elder Fund Transfer and Dissolution Bill.

So another week passes: next week, there are Government debates on violence against women and "Getting It Right For Every Child", and there's also LibDem business on Thursday morning.

A fourth birthday

I should, in a way, be celebrating: this blog has reached its fourth anniversary. I'm proud of that: I've blogged the election of David Cameron; the resignation of Charles Kennedy and the election of Ming Campbell; his own resignation and his replacement with Nick Clegg, to say nothing of the coronation of Gordon Brown. I've posted on the fall of Jack McConnell, the demise of Wendy Alexander and the elevation of Iain Gray; the end of Nicol Stephen's leadership and the beginning of Tavish Scott's; I've written about Robin Harper standing down and Patrick Harvie taking his place.

I've seen a Holyrood election; a European election; a General Election that failed to materialise; the Dunfermline & West Fife By-Election, where the LibDems snatched the seat from under Labour's nose; Moray, where the SNP got back on the front foot; Glasgow East, where the SNP pulled off a sensational victory; and Glenrothes and Glasgow North East, where it didn't.

I've found time to write about the first SNP Government, the first Budget to fall, and the passing of the first Asian MSP. And I'm satisfied with most of what I've written.

Who knows what's around the corner?

I have to say, I'm going into the fifth year of this blog in a far warier state than previous years.

Firstly, there's the demise of Wardog's blog. I'll be the first to admit that I was wary of it when it was in operation: I think I'm right in saying that Wardog migrated to the blogosphere from the scotsman.com comments section. And like a lot of bloggers, I have never been a fan of that part of the website - there always seems to be too much venom, too much bile, too much spite. And those that made the crossing brought their baggage with them - particularly Scottish Unionist, an intelligent, thoughtful writer whose blog's demise I did not mark, as he tried to bill himself as supporting the Union but then fell back on attacking Nationalism, then on attacking Nationalists (so if I were to sum up his blog in two words, I'd say "wasted potential").

So I've always held Wardog's blog at arm's length. And I suspect I wasn't the only one to see his blog and those of others from the Scotsman site in that way, to the extent that he did leave a comment praising a recent Scottish Roundup, where he hailed that week's edition as: "At last a comprehensive Scottish blog selection rather than just the usual clique."

You can sense the frustration there and I totally accept and admit to my part in creating that frustration. I'll own up now to looking at the scotsman.com commenters' blogs with the same intellectual snobbery found in the MSM when discussing the blogosphere. Frankly, that section of the blogosphere doesn't appeal to me and my instincts are to keep away from it in the main. As you'd expect from someone blogging on Scottish politics from a distance away, I often have no more than my instincts to follow and I trust them. So I've missed a lot of Wardog's offerings.

But this week, I feel for him: clearly his posts cut close to the bone on a couple of occasions but the MSM tracked down his identity and decided to do a hatchet job on him, to the extent that his job was put at risk and Wardog wisely came to the conclusion that it might be best to call it a day for now. I don't see what else he could have done. But the idea that the identity of any of us is somehow worth the time of journalists is laughable. And the prospect that a job might be put at risk for what he wrote is just plain horrifying. Frankly, I thought we lived in a country where you were allowed to have strong opinions and a job. Apparently, that's no longer the case. Shame on the Scotsman for going to town on this, and shame on Wardog's employers for deciding that expressing strong opinions beyond the work environment should call his positions into question.

And as a result of this intimidation - for that's what it is - the blogosphere has lost yet another member.

But others are going, and they're going right now.

Bucket of Tongues has gone just this week. Malc suspended operations a fortnight ago. And that's not counting the others that, in recent weeks and months, have just fizzled out. Now, that's a part of life, but there's something more troubling going on, as bloggers are now starting to openly question if the medium has a future. Jeff is beginning to talk about the death of blogging. Even Duncan, one of the Scottish blogosphere's godfathers, notes there's something of a change, citing the rise of Twitter.

Now, I tweet, but I prefer the blogosphere. Mainly as - and this post is the proof - 140 characters just aren't enough for me.

And I think that's what will keep the blogosphere going. If you want to really get your teeth into something, this is the place to do it. Blogs will come, blogs will go - we'll see another spike next Spring in time for the Election, only for all the new blogs to fall away by the autumn. The same thing will happen in 2011. Look out for a lot of blogs on local Council issues popping up - then popping down again - in 2012. The blogosphere is constantly changing, adapting to new situations, as new people come into it for all sorts of different purposes, and others leave for their own reasons. While this makes the online medium vibrant, and exciting to follow - you don't know what's round the next corner - it means that there are few constants, there are few anchors or points of reference. The blogosphere doesn't have many things to hold onto.

Which is why I have to be honest: this blog is not one of them.

A number of people mentioned as the Total Politics awards were being discussed that they'd have given me a higher ranking if I posted more often. But as I've always said, I don't subscribe to the Iain Dale approach of blogging for the sake of it, every day. In a choice between speaking because I have something to say, and speaking because I have to say something, I go for the first option on most occasions. And today has been one of the rare occasions recently where I've had a lot to chew on and plenty of time to do so.

Firstly, real life is getting in the way: this blog started when I was on the Dole, and needed something to do with all the spare time I had. Then, when I finally got a job, this blog represented a welcome change of scene and pace (and a refuge from a current dragging me into accountancy). Now, to be frank, a change is no longer as good as a rest. I'm just tired.

Secondly, and more importantly, I'm going to 'fess up to something far more troubling. You could almost call it a crisis of confidence. And it was Glasgow North East that put the spotlight on it. Not the result, or the campaign - though as you can see, I was pretty quiet about most of that. No, it was the reaction that brought things into relief. After Glasgow East and Glenrothes, I blogged my reaction at the first available opportunity. After Glasgow North East, it took me around 60 hours from the result to get the post out. That should not be happening.

So what happened? It wasn't that I was too busy, or even too tired that weekend. It wasn't that I didn't know what to make of it. I had all the ideas in my head, but I just couldn't get them into words or onto a computer screen. It was only the fact that I was doing the Sunday Whip that forced me to do that at the same time.

And that's exactly what I produced - a forced post. It wasn't an analysis, it was a box-ticking exercise, getting my reactions on record, taking a look at the main parties. I've never posted simply because I felt I had to before. And I never wish to do it again. If I can't enjoy the writing, I don't know how you can enjoy the reading.

Basically, if the feeling is that there's a paucity of posts on here, I apologise for that, but it's not going to get any better any time soon. This is the first day in a long time that I've been chomping at the bit to get to my keyboard and I don't see another day like this for a while, unless something big happens. At least, not until the General Election.

To put it bluntly, I'm questioning my wish to continue. Do I have the time/energy/creativity/imagination for this at the moment? I'm not sure anymore.

Thankfully, in case I change my mind, I have a reason to press on for now: the Whip posts. These get a surprisingly positive reaction and I do think of them as a useful service, particularly given a minority government where every vote counts and it's worth tracking who actually shows up, and which parties are working with whom on which issues. So it's a project that I'm proud of and is worth pressing on with.

But here's something that's occurred to me: what if, after 2011, there's a Coalition? What if, after that election, someone manages to cobble together a majority? At that point, almost every vote becomes little more than a foregone conclusion, and the Whip is made redundant.

So once that election is out of the way, and all of the dust has settled, that might - might - just be it for MacNumpty.

Thanks to everyone for reading for the last four years. I can be reasonably confident enough to promise you a fifth anniversary, but after that? Hopefully I'll still be able to deliver. But we shall have to see. I only wish I could be far more celebratory.

Back to Jack?

The Sunday Herald is reporting that Jack McConnell, former First Minister and one-time prospective High Commissioner to Malawi has come to the conclusion that his future no longer lies in Lilongwe, but at Holyrood, and quotes "an MSP close to Mr. McConnell" as being unhappy with Iain Gray's leadership and reckoning that he could do better himself.

So could Jack be planning a return?

Well, let's look at this in context. This story comes in the wake of Labour asking its MSPs if they were planning to fight the 2011 Election. All but George Foulkes said yes, so if we're to believe this, 45 out of 46 of the Labour MSPs intend to seek re-election in less than 18 months time. This is common Labour practice: it allows the party enough time to get a selection process together where necessary. But it could be blown off course by deselection, events (such as the expenses crisis at Westminster) or a simple change of mind.

Take, for example, Margaret Curran. Given that only George Foulkes has voiced an intention to stand down, this assumes that she is seeking re-election. But she's standing in Glasgow East next year, and her Constituency is being abolished. So unless John Mason beats her again and another constituency is willing to take on a two-time loser, she's not coming back.

Then there's Wendy Alexander. Can she really face another four years on the backbenches after her torrid year at the helm put paid to any further advancement at Holyrood?

And Malcolm Chisholm, blackballed after siding with Kenny MacAskill over Lockerbie.

So can we really believe that 45 out of 46 Labour MSPs will seek re-election? Of course not, so to read anything into this list is madness.

Besides, even if Jack McConnell does seek re-election, does that mean he wants the Leadership back?

I think we're reading too much into this. After all, we've been spoiled by the post-Thatcher tradition of quitting after leaving the top job. Tony Blair took it to extremes by quitting the Commons the day he tendered his resignation as Prime Minister, but John Major stood down at the 2001 Election, having resigned as Tory Leader the day after the 1997 Election defeat. Margaret Thatcher stood down in 1992, having been forced out of office in 1990. At Holyrood, Henry McLeish stood down in 2003, though it was the Officegate scandal that did for him.

Firstly, it wasn't necessarily a given that McConnell would quit as Labour Leader following his election defeat and it took several weeks of pressure (as well as rumours that a number of figures including Wendy Alexander were jockeying for the position even before polling day) and the prospect of a diplomatic job to oust him. There is no real tradition of incumbent Heads of Government leaving the Party Leadership as soon as an election is lost: only John Major has done this in recent years. Jim Callghan remained Labour Leader for 18 months after losing the 1979 Election - something for those with their eye on the UK Labour Leadership to bear in mind. Ted Heath had to be forced out by Margaret Thatcher's Leadership challenge in 1975. Harold Wilson went on to fight - and win - the 1974 elections. Alec Douglas-Home lasted nine months, using that time to put in place rules for choosing a new Tory leader. Clement Attlee fought one more Election before retiring. Winston Churchill fought two, winning the second. In short, only one Head of Government has seen defeat as an instant trigger for resignation.

Secondly, the tradition of ex-Heads of Government (or in McConnell's case, Executive) standing down ASAP goes back only as far as Margaret Thatcher. Jim Callaghan stood down in 1987. Harold Wilson stood down in 1983, suggesting that Jack McConnell could stay at Holyrood until 2015. Ted Heath lost office in 1974 and the Leadership in 1975, but remained in the Commons until 2001, a precedent that would see McConnell representing Motherwell & Wishaw until 2031! Alec Douglas-Home remained in the Commons for ten years after losing office, and was even Heath's Foreign Secretary. Before Thatcher began the recent tradition, you have to go back to Harold MacMillan to find a PM who stood down at the first election following their departure from Downing Street. Why, therefore, it was a given that McConnell would quit Holyrood four years after leaving Bute House is beyond me, particularly now that his role as Our Man in Malawi is pretty much off the table.

So for once, I don't see anything more to this one than meets the eye. I see a newspaper trying to add two and two, but getting five, and I see a man who, no longer seeing the prospect of a better job round the corner, merely wishes to keep the one he has.

The Sunday Whip

A quiet, mostly consensual week, which was legislation-heavy, and generally successful for the Government - though there was one major missed opportunity on the opposition's part.

On Wednesday, the Business Motions were waved through, as were the Arbitration (Scotland) Bill (all its amendments having been passed earlier on in the afternoon) and the Water Environment (Groundwater and Priority Substances) (Scotland) Regulations 2009.

On Thursday, it was much the same, though a Labour Party motion on tackling Clostridium Difficile did bring some divergence. There were eight absentees: LibDem Justice Spokesman Robert Brown (Glasgow), Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead (Moray), Margo MacDonald (Ind, Lothians), Michael Matheson (SNP, Falkirk West), Tom McCabe (Lab, Hamilton South), Peter Peacock (Lab, Highlands & Islands), Shadow Climate Change Minister Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East) and LibDem Culture Spokesman Iain Smith (North East Fife). They missed the LibDem amendment to the SNP's amendment fall by 61 (SNP/Tory) votes to 59 (Lab/LD/Greens - had Labour and the LibDems mustered everyone, this amendment would have passed) and the SNP amendment itself, along with the amended motion pass by 77 (everyone but Labour) votes to 43:

That the Parliament agrees that tackling Healthcare Associated Infection (HAI) must continue to be a top priority for the Scottish Government; notes the range of actions that are now in place to drive down infections, backed by an investment in excess of £50 million; welcomes the establishment of an independent Healthcare Environment Inspectorate that has begun its programme of announced and unannounced visits to all acute hospitals over the next three years; acknowledges that the establishment of a public inquiry into the events at the Vale of Leven Hospital last year will ensure that any additional actions are identified to help prevent such a tragedy happening again; further acknowledges that the HAI Taskforce has fully considered the Labour Party 15-point action plan and has agreed to further consider those measures not already included in its current three-year work programme; recognises the progress that has been made on a national staff uniform for NHS Scotland; further notes that the Scottish Government has agreed to pilot approaches to electronic bed management and tracking infections and will fully evaluate these pilots and take whatever action is appropriate, and further notes that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing will continue to ensure that systems and processes for the notification and management of outbreaks are improved in light of experience.

Following that, the Schools Consultation (Scotland) Bill passed unanimously. Earlier in the day, the amendments had been considered: Amendments 1 to 12 passed without dissent, while Amendment 13 was not moved and Amendment 13A fell.

Finally, another minor Committee reshuffle was agreed to.

So all in all, another quiet week. Next week sees a motion entitled "Learning about Scotland and its History", an LCM on the Child Poverty Bill, and Stage 1 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill. Let's see what comes of those.

Sod Eton, Floreat Winstanley!

I have very little to say regarding the proposal of Herman van Rompuy as President of the European Council, primarily as I know very little of him, save that he is Prime Minister du jour of Belgium, a country whose fragile coalitions might appear to serve as a poster for opponents of PR, but in reality serve as a poster for opponents of multinational states.

But I am very excited at the proposal of Catherine Ashton, or Baroness Ashton of Upholland, as High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

Mainly, I'm thrilled for Upholland. My bus to College would, on occasion, pass through the place. Mostly (particularly when we had the old, clapped out bus that couldn't negotiate a particularly steep hill), we'd go from Coppull through Shevington, Gathurst and passing St. Joh Rigby (the Catholic 6th Form College) Orrell, before arriving in Billinge and dropping us off at Winstanley College. But if we had a newer bus that could handle steeper inclines without dying (the old bus even struggled through Gathurst), we'd go through Appley Bridge, Roby Mill and Upholland, then through Tontine and reaching Billinge. The route was longer, but there was less traffic. So I have vague memories of Upholland - or at least, one ugly, ugly junction, where the road effectively turned back on itself, and we would have to make the turnoff on that particularly sharp bend.

So despite a slightly barmy road layout, Upholland has reason to be chuffed. And so do I.

For you see, young Cathy attended Upholland Grammar back in her day. But by then, the school wasn't in Upholland, but in Billinge - on Winstanley Road. It eventually stopped taking pre-16 pupils and evolved into Winstanley College - the same College I got the bus to every day!

It remains to be seen how well she will do in her job. She hasn't made any major muckups as EU Trade Commissioner, but she's only been in that post for a year and her domestic ministerial career involved nothing to do with foreign policy.

Nevertheless, to see her attain such an important post is, however she performs, an inspiring sight for all Winstanley alumni.

If she succeeds in her new role, then we can argue that we can all succeed in this or any field.

If she performs badly, then another alumnus has the potential to be the first former Winstanley College student to do well.

So stuff Eton, sod Fettes and Loretto - as of now, Winstanley College is where it's at!

Glasgow North East: The aftermath

Well, we've had a few days to ponder the result. Congratulations are due to Willie Bain; clearly Labour have a lot to celebrate, and the SNP a lot to be disappointed about. One thing I would suggest though is that despite it being nigh-on-impossible to talk about swings and trends given the particular nature of this By-Election, and the sheer number of candidates, this is probably broadly in line with what you might expect in a General Election for a seat with Glasgow North East's history, twelve years into a Labour Government, so I don't envisage the result here next year being overly divergent from the result we've just seen.

Of course, the turnout is nothing short of appalling: less than one third of voters bothered to show up, a record low in Scotland for a Westminster By-Election, and the largest dip in turnout in four years. But should we be overly surprised? Firstly, Glasgow North East is not an area in which voters head to the polls in their droves so it's a bit rich for politicians of all hues to muse about voter engagement in places like this now: this is a long-standing problem and it says volumes about how places like Glasgow North East are viewed if they've only just noticed it. Besides, recent By-Elections - Glasgow East and Glenrothes - saw massive levels of interest and only very small reductions in turnout. But By-Elections before that - Dunfermline & West Fife, Livingston and the Glasgow Cathcart By-Election for Holyrood - saw double-digit drops in turnout. What we're seeing, therefore, is a reversion to type. Sadly, it's come in a place where voter interest is already low.

Then there's Labour: clearly their campaign hit all the right buttons. Remember Dunfermline & West Fife, when Labour dismissed the loss as a reflection of local issues? They've learned from that, finally. It's always about local issues and after their success in Glenrothes, Labour have learned to tap into that. The campaign may have been somewhat unsavoury, but it was successful, and to obtain a majority of votes - however few votes may have been cast - does represent a good result. It shows that in places like this, Labour still have a core vote that they can motivate to get out. Predictions that they can use this as a way of turning back the blue tide next year and win a fourth term do seem wide of the mark, and I would expect Labour to be toast in many of their key marginals. Nevertheless, their core supporters are still happy to show up, so a Labour apocalypse is not necessarily on the cards - something that may well worry the LibDems, who are hoping to make gains from Labour in the North of England.

And what of the SNP? Clearly the post-mortem is ongoing but for now, that 20-seat hope is receding into the distance: turnout was low and it's clear that many people saw a reason not to vote Labour, but the SNP did not offer sufficient reasons for those disaffected voters to back them, or indeed, anyone. This is why I disagree fundamentally with Gordon Wilson's analysis: going nasty won't serve any purpose and won't attract anyone. People who live in areas that seem to have been let down by their politicians already know the problems. They know the stats, because they live them. They know that 74 years of representation hasn't turned Springburn into a land of milk and honey. What they want to hear is, "What are we going to do about it?" That didn't come through. Gordon Wilson's idea of street-fighting Labour won't work as people aren't daft: they'll see the world around them and if they're still willing to vote Labour, slagging them off to high heaven won't change their minds. Nor will it attract those who are not: they already know that Labour hasn't delivered, but telling them what they already know won't work. The opposite of his suggestion is the right path: the SNP need to be relentlessly positive. The message in Glasgow East was bright: "Your vote will count!", "When the SNP wins, you win!", "Winning for Glasgow!" and so on. Labour responded with venomous attack after attack. Who won, Gordon? The party with the bright, positive message. Draw your own conclusions.

Then there's the Tories. They can be relieved to keep their deposit, but the message coming from a party that aspires to govern the whole UK has been horrifying: Scottish Tories saying that there just aren't that many Conservatives. What happened to reaching out to other people? George Osborne saying that this contest - and this seat - isn't relevant. What a disgusting message! That throwaway comment is probably the biggest recruiting sergeant that Scottish Labour could have hoped for. Still, despite the Leadership once again showing itself to be the biggest bunch of tosspots in politics, Ruth Davidson came out of this election with a great deal of credit, and should, if she wishes, be destined for progress. Bill Aitken may well have one or two more terms in him, but in the short term, the neighbouring regions to Glasgow might make an attractive prospect for an upwardly mobile, young candidate such as her: with the redrawn Eastwood notionally Tory, and the party only just missing out on a third regional seat this time, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that a third Western Tory seat is still on the cards for 2011, and that she could pick it up. Nor is it overly fanciful to suggest that Davidson could feasibly displace Margaret Mitchell in East Central Scotland. She is the positive of their campaign.

As for the BNP, remember that they already had a base here, and a sense of grievance to play on, so there's a danger in talking them up, particularly those muttering about a BNP MSP. The swing in Glasgow North East, if replicated in Glasgow region, still has them falling well short of picking up a seat. Of course, that hasn't prevented the usual BNP-related hysteria from springing up - firstly, blame has been heaped on the BBC for inviting Nick Griffin onto Question Time. Again, I think that viewers saw Griffin in the light that they wanted to see him anyway so that's not it. Rather, the BNP came forward with an anti-politician diatribe at a time when politicians are held in low regard. And what we had was both Willie Bain and Ruth Davidson almost apologising for seeking office, and going to all sorts of lengths to say how they weren't politicians. That probably played into the BNP's hands: if politicians are bad, the BNP were the full-fat, red meat option. In any case, talk once again has gone onto how to 'defeat' the BNP. Sadly, I don't think it's that simple: the BNP's message plays well with the darker side of the human psyche and prejudice and discrimination aren't new ideas thought up by the BNP. They've been around with us forever and Nick Griffin's cronies merely exploit them. Trying to 'defeat' human nature will fail: rather, actually doing constructive things for the area is the answer. if people think they've got a bad lot, if they see others who they think are doing better, then obviously parties like the BNP will flourish. Better to, you know, take positive action in areas like Springburn to imporve everyone's lives. Then the whole reason for voting BNP vanishes.

Tommy Sheridan, meanwhile, did surprisingly well, when you consider that he's not quite had the same traction of late and the combined Solidarity/SSP vote was at more or less the same level as the unified SSP vote share in 2005 so the rot may have been stopped for now. Of the leftist parties, it's Socialist Labour who have the least to celebrate, as it hit home just how artificial their performance of 2005 was. Nevertheless, for Sheridan, this is quite a coup: you would have expected the SSP to run him far closer here as his stomping ground was the other side of the city and this was Rosie Kane country once upon a time. So perhaps, just perhaps, reports of Solidarity's demise are, as yet, exaggerated. It all depends on the outcome of his perjury trial.

And what of the LibDems? Well, this was nothing short of a humiliation, and it's telling that once again, they have to rely on SNP-focused Schadenfreude to get them through this one. Of course, I've been through why I find it odd that they'd happily cheer the success of such an illiberal party as Labour over one with which they have so much common ground, but then, it's hard to make sense of spite and after all the crowing we've heard from them I have absolutely no qualms in saying that they deserve to be humiliated for the third By-Election in a row, with the ignominy of not even reaching half the required vote to retain their deposit and coming behind a bunch of swivel-eyed fascists proof positive of how they have nothing relevant to offer anyone. They have kept blaming the media for portraying this as a two-horse race: that didn't stop Ruth Davidson keeping her deposit. They'll blame the attention lavished on the BNP, but Eileen Baxendale was a presence on every major By-Election programme. Doubtless they'll refer to their lack of a candidate in the last Westminster election, overlooking the fact that they fielded candidates in this area in 2007, who kept their deposit. They have no excuses, and when they crow about the SNP's result in Dunfermline & West Fife, where the SNP talked up its chances only to come third, it's worth remembering that in the SNP vote actually went up there, to around 20%, so saying that parties outwith the Top 2 are doomed to humiliation in By-Elections doesn't wash - the LibDems couldn't even manage 3%. Rather than being smug at the SNP's failure to win in that By-Election, they should reflect on the fact that the SNP succeeded in doing something that has eluded the LibDems in every Westminster By-Election after that one: keeping its vote, keeping third place, and keeping its deposit. Granted, Dunfermline & West Fife represents a zenith in LibDem fortunes - they'd better hope for their sake that this was the nadir.

The Greens, meanwhile, should probably be disappointed that they've not manged to make further inroads, particularly after such a strong performance in Glasgow in the European elections. But I've said before and I'll say again that the Greens thrive on middle-class guilt (which can be a powerful motivator for positive changes so that's far from a criticism) and this would appear to be in short supply in Glasgow North East.

So to sum up: a good night for Labour, an OK night for Tommy Sheridan, a credible but not overly credible BNP result, something to hold onto for the Tories as long as they keep George Osborne away from any microphones in the future, nothing much to shout about for the Greens but solid under the circumstances, a disappointing night for the SNP and a humiliation for the LibDems.

One last thing, which I've been sitting on for weeks: John Smeaton was never going to give Labour a kicking. At no point were any Labour activists ablaze and jumping out of a burning jeep. Thank you very much, I'm here all week.