The Celebrity Hate Meme

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And it's all because of Brucie Bonus.

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

And it's all because of Brucie Bonus.

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

And it's all because of Brucie Bonus.

And that, really, is why I hate him.

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

Gary McKinnon and Iris Robinson

There's something that's been bothering me this week, and with the questions into Gary McKinnon's health now being raised, I have to air it now.

Gary has a recognised condition - Asperger's Syndrome. Public opinion recognises this (how fortunate we are that we live in a society that recognises mental illness and takes it into account) and the general view is one of revulsion that the Home Office should be happy to ship him to the US to stand trial for a crime that he didn't even commit on US soil, but in US cyberspace, if there is such a thing (though if there is, you can bet that the Pentagon networks are a part of it). You can hear the voice of the public:

This isn't right! Protect this man! What hell must he be going through? What torture must this be for his parents? How can you send him to the US, how can the Home Office make him suffer so?

And that's fair enough, particularly as one of the Home Secretary's predecessors, Jack Straw, was happy to let the mass murderer General Pinochet walk free without being called to account for his actions because he was looking a bit peaky. But it's not the UK Government's hypocrisy that I'm concerned with right now.

By contrast, Iris Robinson suffers from depression - a recognised mental illness. Now, I'm not seeking to defend the adultery, the yawning age chasm in her affair, the corruption or the hypocrisy - far from it. Though I do wish people would stop enjoying it - particularly the LGBT community. What she said about homosexuality was nothing short of despicable, but we do ourselves no favours by enjoying - and being seen to enjoy - the sight of her world crashing down around her. We have an opportunity to be the better people and to show the forgiveness, tolerance and compassion that her faith is supposed to teach (but she has hitherto disregarded), but instead, those voices of understanding and reason are replaced with mockery and Schadenfreude. Though in fairness, it goes beyond the LGBT community. For once, Northern Ireland politics has got people talking - the UK is titillated. And there's a nasty edge to this: there's a genuine contempt for her condition and the understanding and respect we have for Gary McKinnon's condition has not transferred into any consideration of what Iris Robinson (and indeed, Peter Robinson - I have a huge amount of sympathy for him, for reasons I will go on to explain). There's that voice of the public again:

What did she do? Make the bitch suffer! Depression? Who gives a shit?! Stick the boot in, twist the knife, pile it all on, give her Hell! Being treated? Well that must be bullshit, depression isn't a real illness, she'll be ski-ing! Attempted suicide? Aye right! Who'd miss her?

You ever have a time when you want to opt out of society altogether? Well, I'm having one now. Yes, Iris Robinson is a hypocrite, a cradle-snatcher, an adulterer, another snout in the trough. But Gary McKinnon is a computer hacker, and he did break US law on a US network (and as I said, surely the fact that he was on UK soil when he did it must muddy the legal waters somewhat?). Yes, Gary McKinnon's condition is such that he cannot endure the suffering that the state is presently putting him through. But Iris Robinson's condition is such that she surely cannot endure the situation that she is now in. We slag off Iris Robinson for hypocrisy, and then go on to be guilty of it ourselves. That's why I'm posing this point: those who support the release of Gary McKinnon should ask themselves how they feel about Iris Robinson, and why they feel that way.

So why am I, of all people, speaking in what could almost be termed a defence of the bigot Iris Robinson? As I mentioned before, it's because I have an understanding of what Peter must be going through. Not the Northern Ireland peace process or the row over concealed information, obviously, but I know what it's like to live with someone with depression - my father suffers from it as well. And believe me, when I say suffers, I mean it.

The sufferer is in their own personal hell. And despite not intending to, despite not wanting to, you're stuck with them. You have to ride with their moods, you don't know what mood their going to be in when you're going home and you're constantly walking on eggshells, almost paranoid that you may be doing or saying the wrong thing. You want to help them, to make them feel better, but you don't know how. And they say things that hurt you, but they don't realise they're doing it: on the one hand, you want to hit back; on the other, you know that it's not fair to do so, so you bite your lip. And you don't feel like you can get out - well, you could, but your conscience kicks in, and tells you that you can't leave someone in that position on their own. You don't know why you're tolerating the situation you're in, but you know that you can't forgive yourself if you do the only thing you can do to change it - walk away.

All in all you feel frustrated: frustrated at the situation, frustrated at yourself for not being able to make it right and for just putting up with things, frustrated at the world for neither realising nor caring what exactly is going on and frustrated at your loved one for putting you and keeping you in what seems like an impossible position. Then you realise that you're angry with someone for something that isn't their fault, and they didn't ask for. And that makes you feel even worse. But despite that, you can't show it to anyone - you have to keep a brave face on and try to convince the world that no matter what excruciating pain you might be going through (especially because you know it's just a fraction of what your loved one has to deal with), Everything is Absolutely Fine. Even when - no, especially when - it most definitely isn't. Trust me: trying to look after someone else's mental health doesn't do your own any favours.

This means Peter Robinson has to deal with the scandal enveloping his family, the many unanswered questions regarding his own conduct, the devolution of policing and justice powers to Northern Ireland, a DUP that despite the formal statements appears to be wondering if it's time to drop the pilot, a six-week time limit to tie up all the loose ends, and then at the beginning and end, the small matter of his wife, who he loves and has done so for so long, destroying herself and, unwittingly, everyone who cares about her while he can do nothing to make that situation better.

So I hope you'll excuse me, then, if I don't join in with the Please, Mrs Robinson singalong.

Gary McKinnon made a mistake, but the treatment that someone in full mental health might, with some support and inner strength just be able to withstand, is blatantly too much for him. We know this (even if the Home Office doesn't), and we're willing to defend him where he can't defend himself. We want to make things better for him.

Why do we want to make things worse for Iris Robinson?

Tom Harris MP: Patronising Buffoon

Tom Harris on PR:

All sorts of claims are made by the supporters of proportional representation, along the lines of “it would push up voter turnout” and “it would increase representation among ethnic minorities”.

Not the experience of PR when it’s been tried in the UK already. Take the Scottish Parliament, elected on an “additional member” or “assisted places scheme” system. Turnout at both UK general elections held since devolution in 1999 have seen significantly higher turnours than those for the three Holyrood elections, with up to ten per cent higher voter participation in some constituencies. And in all three Holyrood elections, only one non-white candidate has ever been elected.

Similarly in elections to the European Parliament: turnout has been derisory. The more complicated you make it to vote, the fewer people will do so.

Complicated? For European Elections, you have to put an X in a box, just as you do for Westminster. What's complicated about that?

For Holyrood Elections, you have to put two X's in two boxes, one in each column (and before that, one on each paper). With the exception of the last election, where the goalposts were moved and the one-in-each-column aspect wasn't clearly spelt out on the day, how is that so complicated that it stops people heading to the polls? And even then, when voters had to deal with an unfamiliar ballot paper and two different voting systems, more people actually showed up in 2007 than 2003, when they merely had to contend with three sheets of paper, all of which they wrote an X on, just like they'd done in every election they'd ever voted in.

For Council Elections, you rank candidates in order of preference. Unless you dropped out of Primary School, what's hard about 1, 2, 3?

No. Voting isn't complicated. Voting is never complicated, and PR doesn't make the actual act of casting a vote complicated as it involves doing broadly the same things that you would do in a First Past the Post election. But since something different happens to the votes either while they're being counted or afterwards, Tom Harris has decided that you, the voter, must be too thick to understand it and so won't bother to vote. I'm sorry, Tom, there are lots of reasons for apathy but not being able to place an X in a box isn't one of them.

And if we want to talk about incomprehensible systems, how about we question the simplicity of a system where 36% of the vote translates into a Parliamentary majority?

On Unemployment

I feel the need to get this off my chest, given that people are starting to bandy employment (and, more to the point, unemployment) statistics around to prove a political point. The Tories point to the unemployment figures as A, then note the 1997 figures as B (where A > B). Labour might attempt to point to 1981 or 1991 unemployment figure C (where C > A) and if that doesn't work, highlight current employment figure D and compare it with 1997 figure E (where D > E).

But all of this - on both sides - misses the point. Having been armed with bitter experience, let me tell you what it's like to be one of those statistics.

Unemployment is not a figure on a page. It's not an interesting statistic. It's not a point for party political debate.

It's death.

It's a slow, lingering death, during which your mind, your soul and even your body weaken.

Your family can try and make things easier but can't tackle the root cause.

Your circle of friends appears to shrink.

You begin to doubt yourself, and your capabilities to function as a normal member of society.

You have - for a time - your Dole money. You have the ridiculous, bureaucratic hoops that you're expected to jump through as you tick all the JobCentre Plus boxes yet still seem no closer to finding, as they put it, "they work you want, and the help you need". You have ridiculous courses like "Life Balance", and a two-week programme not unlike the "Restart" course in The League of Gentlemen, in which you're led to believe that spending an afternoon in a kayak on a canal with three other unemployed people (one of whom keeps hitting himself where it hurts with the oar and screaming), then left in a room with ten other people and two copies of the Lancashire Evening Post.

All you have left - and that too is always on the brink - is hope. Hope that yes, you can beat this. After all, you have to.

I look back on that particular time and find few redeeming features. One of them, as it happens, is this blog, which was born as a result of the desperate need to keep my mind active, an urge to feel like I was doing something with my time. Many others don't even find that outlet.

Which is why I bristle at the thought of the unemployed being reduced to the status of mere numbers in the House of Commons.

But every one of those numbers represents a story, a real human being, with needs and aspirations of their own - as yet unmet.

So here's something to think about: what happens when this group of exasperated, frustrated people with aims, dreams and ambitions, all of which have been held at bay, find their hope turn to despair, and then on to anger?

Then, and only then, will it be wise to think of them in terms of numbers.

Season of Goodwill, unless you're the Pope

I think everyone knew that sooner or later, I was going to say something on this. I'm going to try to be restrained.

Now, the Pope has attacked homosexuality, saying that we are putting the human race at risk. Well, it's estimated that around 6% of the population are LGBT, so that's a worldwide LGBT community membership of just over 400 milion by my reckoning. The old estimates put the LGBT community at one out of every ten humans - around 675 million. More conservative estimates put it at 2% - just under 135 million. So traditioanlists make the gay community more populous than Japan. For everyone else, if the LGBT community decided to form its own country, it would be the third largest in the world, smaller only than China and India. Now you can, in a way, see why the Pope might be spooked if population growth is what he's about.

However. Even if you took the ten percent figure, that still leaves around 6.1 billion heterosexuals (so just over 3 billion potential couples, in theory) to get making babies. And they aren't doing too badly at that: it's estimated that there will be 9 billion humans on the planet by 2042. So the facts show that the Pope is overstating the threat that we pose, and in fact saving the rainforest should be a higher priority as the degradation of the environment is the biggest threat to the quality of life that those nine billion people will face. Aside from the usual threats such as war, famine and poverty. So I think in that context, the Pope needs to re-assess his priorities.

So whether you look at the facts, or the challenges facing the human race in the future, one conclusion emerges, and I can say it as I'm not Catholic: the Pope is wrong.

But even if the Pope had a point, if population growth was the #1 target right now, and homosexuality was in a position to turn growth into decline - and let's face it, 6.7 billion of us are struggling to make the planet's resources work, how are nine billion people going to cope? - two points spring to mind.

First, if we all have to get out there and start making babies, why are priests celibate?

Second, if homosexuality is so sinful, why is the Catholic Church so adept at putting its head in the sand over cases where priests have got round the celibacy rules by buggering the altar boy?

That's my beef with the Catholic Church: the people at the top want us all to live by what they preach (and so complain about me having rights which don't affect their lives one iota but involve doing things that they officially disapprove of, so must be stamped out despite my not being Catholic). But at the top, different rules apply, and blind eyes are turned where necessary. And that's before you factor in the massive gulf between a man or woman engaging in a consensual, mutually-fulfilling relationship that involves someone of the same gender, and a man in a position of authority ruining the life of a vulnerable youngster. Apparently, Catholic doctrine makes the first a sin but brushes the second aside. Make of that what you want.

Frankly, what the Pope says or does matters very little to me - I'm not Catholic, so I'm happy to disagree with him. But time and again, his Church has made it clear that it is not a fan of homosexuals, so I imagine that gay Catholics have some thinking to do, and a very large circle to square.

But for now, I'm fortunate in that I can just sit here and reflect on how what the Pope said was bullshit. Many do not: this or similar sentiments will affect them directly - they do every day. And for the rest of us, remember that people actually listen to this man, and believe him.

And they will let him continue the grim tradition (not unique to the Catholic denomination by any means, but they have played a major part in it) of turning what was a faith of free will, love, peace and tolerance into a monstrosity of hatred and enforced uniformity, where you sub-contract all moral decisions to a doddery old git in Rome. It's not just Christmas that's becoming less Christian - Christianity itself is becoming less Christian, whether it's through the outdated dogma spewing forth from Rome or the evangelical hate-preachers who have been part of the Republican coalition that, thankfully, will have its hands removed from the levers of power in the United States in less than a month.

But, ultimately, they are entitled to their opinion, just as I am. Their opinion is that I am in thrall to the Devil. My opinion is that their institution is a hypocritical relic, trying desperately to cling on to some past glory day. There is room for both of us on this planet. It's just a shame the Pope doesn't see it that way.

By the way, while I'm here, seeing as we're all entitled to our opinion, why hasn't Mr. "I Hate Homophobia" voiced his yet? Oh, I forgot, Herr Ratzinger isn't a member of the SNP, so he can spew forth whatever bigotry he wishes and no one will mind. Give a Mormon student an internship in Holyrood, on the other hand, and we're returning to the dark ages...

Anyway, that should just about cover me now. EuroCountdowns will appear over the festive season to keep me busy and tide you over. Right now, all I have to say it that I wish everyone this a happy, joyous, peaceful festive season, unless you're one of the following:

The Pope
Terry Kelly
Gordon Strachan (nice four-point gap you've got there - shame if anything were to happen to it!)
Joe Kinnear and Gary Megson (I am hoping that Amr Zaki ruins your Christmas!)
Preston North End fans (it's going to take a Cup draw for there to be an A49 Derby ever again)
Simon Cowell (just because)

UPDATE: To Ewan Aitken, all I can say is 'Amen'!

Cardinal O'Brien and Godwin's Law

From BBC News, reporting Cardinal Keith O'Brien's comments on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill:

Cardinal Keith O'Brien described its implications as "grotesque" and akin to "Nazi-style experiments".

We assume from that, that the Cardinal is not a fan of the Bill, and not a fan of the Nazis. As he's the most senior member of the Catholic Church in Scotland, we can take that to be the position of the institution he represents.

This would be the Catholic Church that stuck its head in the sand regarding the Holocaust, despite warnings from the US, UK, Brazil, Uruguay and what was left of exiled governments in Belgium and Poland.

The Catholic Church that cut a deal with Mussolini that restored the Church's influence in his fascist state.

The Catholic Church which, in Spain, supported the Franquistas in the 1936-39 Civil War, along with, you guessed it, Germany and Italy.

So maybe, just maybe, if the Cardinal is going to make a stand about something, he might want to find a more secure footing than Nazi comparisons - the organisation he represents has a record that is less than pure on the matter of Nazism.

Because sometimes, friends need a telling

Today, Jeff reported the sad news that Kezia Dugdale has put her soapbox away. Her blog is no longer available for public consumption. Scottish Tory Boy offered a tribute to her. Stephen Glenn offered warm words. Kerron Cross offered understanding, and Jacq Kelly offered empathy. That elder statesman (in terms of length of service, I mean) of the Scottish blogosphere Bill Cameron offered exasperation, while Jess The Dog offered a conspiracy theory - refuted by Kez herself.

I've considered my reaction and I've opted for the only course of action that hasn't been explored and needs to be: I'm going to give her a bollocking. This is what I do to my friends, and up until now, I've always been able to get away with it - even if it isn't always taken on board.

Kez, I am absolutely baffled by your reasons for packing up:

"But I also think it's a very seedy environment - the vast majority of bloggers operate anonymously. And with anonymity, accountability completely evaporates..."

There is always accountability in the blogosphere. You can pre- and post-moderate comments on your blog. And you have the final say on what you read. Sub-standard blogs, full of rubbish that's plucked out of thin air, just won't get read. Or they'll get read a couple of times then people will move on. So weaker blogs get isolated, while stronger blogs gain a following. That way, every blogger is accountable to their readers.

"Blogging is no longer, in my view, a proper vehicle for debate. It's been saturated by partisan venom and that can be quite debilitating."

I've heard this lament before and I fail to see how it can possibly stand up, unless you actually view the blogosphere as some sort of cross between the Forum and the literary salon. While you do get some excellent, high-register, high-quality, well-considered blogs (see Ideas of Civilisation for a textbook example), the fact is that CMC as a whole is far less formal and stratified than F2F conversation. It's more like a chat over a coffee or a pint than a town-hall meeting. It's an online diary, where you put what you're thinking, not where you make a Parliamentary speech. That's the blogosphere's biggest strength, not its biggest weakness. And as for partisan venom being a turn-off, Kez, consider this: by my reckoning, you have produced 21 posts in the last month. Those 21 posts contain 18 primary attacks (by which I mean made by you, in your own words) on other parties or members of other parties, and a further four secondary attacks (producing an attributable, verbatim quote of someone else) on other parties or their members. That's 22 attacks in 21 posts. You can't just blame the blogosphere for that.

"I'll write a post and then 95% of the comments that follow will be negative. That doesn't mean I'm wrong every single time... but it does begin to feel that way when the blogosphere leans so heavily towards nationalism and/or a right wing agenda."

Understandable: people are more motivated to respond to something they disagree with than just to post "I agree!", unless they want to build on what you've said. And if you're worried that the blogosphere in Scotland leans towards the SNP (it does), or that the wider UK blogosphere points rightwards (it does), then in what way does it benefit the blogosphere, and in what way does it encourage other left-wingers and Unionists to start a blog, when one of their number pulls out?

"Blogging has become too much of a risk. I have an inclination that the vast majority of my readership are SNP activists just desperate for me to trip up spectacularly."

An inclination that you can't back up and way well be wide of the mark. You're in danger of disappointing those who want to see you succeed because of those people who you think want to see you fail. And if you're worried about tripping up, then here's my tip... don't trip up! Research your posts, check your facts and basically do what your doing now. You're good enough at this to have been doing it successfully and it's a mark of how good you are that I can't cast my mind back to a significant FUBAR moment on your blog. You've come too far to worry about failure and I don't understand where this doubt has come from.

"I'm not risk adverse and this is no act of cowardice but I have to make a judgement about whether or not blogging almost daily for the next three years..."

You know, I blame Iain Dale for this. Really, I do. I hate this whole, "Oh, you have to blog daily" nonsense. Blog when you're ready, when you're motivated, when you have the time. I always say that there are two ways of running a blog: posting because you have something to say and posting because you have to say something. The Dale approach is the latter and it's the poorer one. Now, frequent postings can still be top-notch (Jeff should change his name to Uncle Ben, such is his knack for producing perfect results every time), but lots of bloggers run successful sites despite letting things lie fallow for a time. If you have to pressure yourself to post, then don't post for a while. But don't stop blogging altogether.

"...in the run up to the next Scottish elections..."

When your presence in the blogosphere will be more valued than ever.

"...is good for me personally..."

How can having a place where you can get your thoughts off your chest be anything but good for you personally?

"...good for my career..."

Your blog does (or rather, did) what it says (or rather, said) on the tin. It is (or was) a Soapbox. What better way of raising your profile, and reaching a wider audience? And when you bear in mind your willingness to take on political opponents, when that's apparently something valued in the Labour Party, having a means of doing that, and showing that you're capable of it is absolutely crucial. Why kill off that opportunity to show what you can do? If it's done right, a blog can be a boost for your career. In your case, then, it's an advantage.

"...and good for the Labour Party."

Care to explain how Scottish Labour losing one of its most articulate and personable online voices benefits the party?

No, Kez, the reasoning seems thin. It doesn't seem to make sense and it's completely out of character. That means that at least one (and perhaps both) of the following statements is correct: it is the wrong decision completely, or there is more going on than you state. I'm not talking a conspiracy or pressure from other sources (you've ruled that out, and you're not a liar), but I believe you have your own reasons which are really behind this decision. Now that's your business, but I can't for the life of me figure those reasons out and by taking this course of action, you're wasting the not inconsiderable ability that you have at your disposal which lots of people would give their eye teeth to have.

You've found the button to lock your blog up. Please, please, please find the button to unlock it again... you know you want to.

Gays have a duty to vote for whomever we damn well want

"Gay people are net contributors to public services through their taxes, because very few of them have children.

"I think gay people have got more angst on this issue than anybody else because gay people are paying in, through their taxes and actually using far less of the NHS because they tend not to have families, less of the education system for the same reason and all the more reason to be angry with this government for the waste of their taxes.

"There is so much wrong with this government's policy, gay people should not just vote Conservative, they have a duty to vote Conservative."

Thus spake Margot James, Tory Prospective Candidate for Stourbridge, open Lesbian, and 100% bullshitter.

Gays do not have a duty to vote for any party.

This whole quote smacks of opportunism, with sweeping statements treating the LGBT Community as one great big fuckoff blob with exactly the same priorities and concerns. It smacks of complacency, that if the Tories trot out a Lesbian to say X, Y or Z, we'll all turn out on Election Day like good little gay boys and girls and vote Conservative. And it is far from unexpected.

As I've said before, the choice between Gordon Brown, whom I dislike, and David Cameron, whom I distrust, is like the choice between getting shot or getting stabbed. Neither appeals. I've rabbitted on enough about Labour (particularly on this issue, thanks to the pigeon-holing attitudes of a certain Renfrewshire Councillor); let me explain my beef with the pompous, self-centred arsehole that is Cameron.

I met the man once. On Platform 6 of Preston Railway Station, at the end of last year's Tory Party Conference in Blackpool. The station was crawling with Tory Party grandees (to get a train out of Blackpool to most places outside the North West of England, you have to change at Preston) and I was heading for the train to Chorley. I'm not sure where Cameron was heading (Manchester Airport, I'd imagine) but it was in the same direction. So I spoke to him. He asked one question, and one question only: "Where do you live?"

When I told him the answer (the aforementioned Chorley), his face lit up: "Fantastic! That's a key seat!" (some key seat, the Tories selected a Scouser as their PPC, who has since stood down) All he wanted to know was what constituency I lived in: nothing else seemed relevant. The man wants your vote. Bollocks to the rest of you.

As it is with residents of Lancashire's Market Town, so it is for the LGBT community: dragging out the Lesbian to yell, "ATTENTION HOMOS! VOTE CONSERVATIVE!" is basically par for the course. And she's a strange choice for the interview (why not any of the other openly gay Tory PPCs?). Why? I spotted this in a feature about her in the Observer, from January 2006:

The influences that shaped her political thinking were never based around her sexual identity. Last year, she told lesbian magazine Diva: 'If you live like that, you live in a ghetto - and probably vote Labour - and I don't.' She says she's had nothing but support from the party but there's no pressure on her to make being gay any more of an issue than she wants to. In fact, she acknowledges a little wearily, it would be nice to be asked about policy for a change.

So she doesn't want to talk about sexual identity, and she says that there's no pressure on her to make her sexuality an issue. But 30 months later, she's telling the BBC that the Tories should be the default choice for gay people. Is something wrong there?

There fucking well is.

I'm in the SNP because I agree with the SNP's policies. Not because I'm gay. (Having said that, I do see a parallel between the equality struggle and the cause of independence, but that's another post for another time, and it's certainly not a justification for all gays to just vote SNP automatically).

I'm not anti-Labour because I'm gay. Rather, I accept that the equality cause has taken massive strides since 1997 - though I'd prefer to consider Labour's next move rather than their last. No, it's Labour's policies I dislike.

I care about things like health (we still need an NHS, despite what Margot says), education (we might want to go to college or uni at some point, you know), the economy (we use the same currency as you), the environment (we breathe the same air as other people and we're just as screwed by rising sea levels as everyone else) and transport (we do occasionally need to get from A to B... we don't all just spend our entire lives on Broughton Street). To say nothing of foreign policy and defence matters (Oh wow, thanks to the Blair Government, I have the right to jump into the quagmires that are known as Iraq and Afghanistan... whoop-de-fucking-doo!).

No, being gay isn't the be-all-and-end-all of me. It's one part of the very finely-woven tapestry that is my life and my outlook on life, politics and the universe.

Two years ago, Margot got that.

What happened?

The Political Twilight Zone

Mild-mannered blogger Will Patterson takes a trip up to Edinburgh for a job interview. At that moment, David Davis resigns from the House of Commons. Little does Patterson know that this event will send him on a one-way trip into... The Political Twilight Zone!

Yes, folks, I'm backing David Davis. Is his decision to resign as an MP a publicity stunt? Perhaps. Is he as mad as a ferret on acid? Probably. Is he incredibly selective on the issues where he chooses to be liberal? Yes. But does that mean he's wrong to take any sort of action in protest at the vote in the House of Commons, supporting 42-day detention? No, it does not.

Are David Davis and I strange political bedfellows? Yes, but not quite as strange as the twisted alliance of 90% of Labour MPs, Ann Widdecombe, UKIP's Bob Spink (who is in an odd posiiton considering the rest of his party have come out in favour of Davis) and the DUP, who tipped the balance in Gordon Brown's favour. Now the list of people and parties backing Davis isn't particularly comfortable either, but 1) it is being opposed by the being of pure spite that is Kelvin McKenzie (so it isn't all that bad) and 2) I agree with his stance, so I'll have to take my chances.

And incidentally, Nick Robinson refers to Davis's decision as unprecedented. It isn't. In 1985 fifteen UUP and DUP Members of Parliament quit the Commons and sought re-election in protest at the signing of the Anglo-Irish agreement, so Davis is following an example set by, among others, Peter Robinson, the DUP Leader, who supports the 42-day legislation. Or at least, voted for it. What do the DUP get for it?

Anyway, the LibDems were the first to stand aside, saying they agree with Davis. Labour aren't standing either, because they don't like what he's doing so aren't going to play. McKenzie is now the ex-Shadow Home Secretary's most credible opponent, thanks to Rupert Murdoch's money, which will be filtered through several different people and companies until it becomes legal for them to donate it to a campaign. And what of Labour's reaction? Mr Eugenides has gone through it:

JACQUI SMITH, HOME SECRETARY
Faced with a crucial decision on the safety and protection of the British public, the Conservatives have collapsed into total disarray on what is their first big policy test since they have come under greater scrutiny. David Cameron must come clean on what has really happened and why David Davis has really resigned.

Total disarray? One MP has decided to put his money where his mouth is and put his opinion to a public vote in his constituency. And why else would Davis resign and stand again, unless he thought he could win?

DAVID BLUNKETT, FORMER HOME SECRETARY
David Davis's behaviour is a pure piece of political theatre, even more bizarre than John Major resigning as leader of the Tory Party in order to stand again against his own colleagues. This is childish and immature and it is not worthy of a major political party to engage in such theatre.

But it is worthy of another major political party to try and reduce civil liberties to 'pork barrel' politics?

HAZEL BLEARS, COMMUNITIES SECRETARY
The Tories are plainly in disarray and confusion over the serious issue of national security. Behind Cameron's facade are the same old Tories fighting like ferrets in a sack. This forced by-election is a farce - and an insult to the voters in Haltemprice and Howden.

Remind me how many Labour MPs rebelled, and how many Tory MPs rebelled? Remind me how Brown needed the votes of another political party to get the idea through? And if we're talking about insulting voters, why don't we talk about setting the date for the Crewe & Nantwich By-Election while Gwyneth Dunwoody's body was still warm, picking her daughter as the candidate, and offering nothing except "The Tory guy's a toff" as an election message?

CAROLINE FLINT, HOUSING MINISTER
It clearly shows a dispute at the top of the Tory Party as to their approach to dealing with issues around countering terrorism. I think there'll be a lot of questions being asked at the Tory high command today and over the weekend about just what is going on... I think this is a waste of public money, David Davis taking this action, but that's his call and he'll have to answer for that.

Funny how Labour find largesse with public money when they want to win a vote in the Commons, but suddenly take their hands out of their pockets when their policy becomes the subject of an election campaign, isn't it?

DENIS MACSHANE, LABOUR MP
It's like something out of Italian comic opera. We all get issues where we get angry, but we don't resign over them. I hope the other parties don't dignify what is clearly a one-man stunt... I think David will be re-elected and people will see straight through this.
And in that one comment, we see precisely what is wrong with politics: it's become a machine industry, with politicians swallowing any principles they have for a wage, a generous expenses system, a title and a shot at power. This comment is an insult to the likes of the late Robin Cook, who quit as a Minister because he opposed the War in Iraq. He (and many others) were angry, and resigned in protest. Just because MacShane doesn't have the cojones to put what he believes in (what does he believe in, other than continued office for the Labour Party?) ahead of his salary, shouldn't mean that all politicians are the same.

David Davis has marked himself out as different to Denis MacShane.

And in my opinion, David Davis has marked himself out as more deserving of a place in politics than MacShane, who has made clear that he values positions more highly than principles.

Donors kebabbed

I'm coming to this late - this has been a week where I've had time or a network connection but not both - and ASwaS and Malc have got here already (for a contrasting view, try Jeff).

Nevertheless, let me make some points on the rules preventing gay men from giving blood.

I have Type O blood, which if I can remember my biology classes correctly (admittedly, I remember very little from Biology except hiding at the back of the room and looking away on the day the teacher dissected the rat), is the Universal Donor. I practice safe sex (on the rare occasions that the other party hasn't run away screaming before items of clothing have been removed, that is) and I am free of all the major STIs. In short, my blood is useful, particularly when Scotland alone requires 1,000 donations of blood per day to meet the needs of patients - that factoid comes from the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service website.

However, the SNBTS, which needs 1,000 donations, does not need my clean, Type O blood to be one of them. Why?

The website lists those circumstances in which you cannot give blood. Among them is this delightful line: "If your lifestyle puts you at risk of HIV or hepatitis".

Don't you just love that circumlocution? And it's wrong. As a part of my personal "lifestyle" I take every step to avoid the risk of transmission. But by "lifestyle" they mean "sexual orientation" and you'd think that an arm of the health service would know better than to dismiss HIV as a "gay" disease. It's not. Practicising homosexuality is not, in and of itself, a passport to HIV. But practicising unsafe sex can be. And that is true regardless of whether it's being practised between two men or a man and a woman. Nevertheless, the rules suggest an inherent presumption on the part of the SNBTS that gay and bisexual men are vessels of infection, while women and heterosexual men are not.

And the most galling part is that the donations are actually screened anyway, so the actual vessels of infection are not used. But still the Service is worried not that the gay potential blood donor is infected, but that he might be, and while a guy who's never even considered a relationship with another guy but has still managed to pick up every STI going will see his blood get as far as the testing lab, a gay man who has picked up nothing at all gets turned away at the door. And this comes at a time when so many dontations are needed!

But frankly, even if that were not the case, the status quo is so flawed, so completely and utterly ridiculous, that it should be scrapped.

And while it's still in place, can I suggest that the SNBTS ditch their cosy little line about "lifestyle", and change their line about how many donations they require to, "1,000 donations needed, but no poofters, please!"

That's no less homophobic but it's a lot more honest.

Devolution in Action

Declaration of interest: my father suffers from a mental illness and is in sheltered employment, working at the Remploy Depot in Preston. As such, this story touches a nerve.

Wendy Alexander is calling on Alex Salmond to force Aberdeen City Council to reconsider its plan to close the Glencraft factory, which employs blind and disabled workers.

She is quite right to make the call - at a time when the UK Government wants people off Incapacity Benefit and in work (not a totally unreasonable viewpoint), to close down any option of sheltered employment would be a huge mistake.

However, the UK Government owns Remploy, a nationwide sheltered employment scheme. Remploy have unveiled plans to close 28 factories, at a cost of 2,000 jobs for disabled workers. The plan is to get these 2,000 onto Interwork, basically an employment agency for the disabled. The problem is that while Interwork is supposed to find jobs for the disabled in mainstream employment, but that no assurances have been given that disabled employees will be able to actually get those jobs. The Unions - naturally - are spitting mad, and the only saving grace in the current situation is that the plans originally saw 43 factories close.

It's also worth noting that in the original plans, the Remploy factory in Aberdeen would close as well, along with plants in Hillington and Wishaw. Remply Aberdeen has since won a reprieve, as has Wishaw. Plants in Clydebank, Cowdenbeath, Dundee, Edinburgh and Stirling were never under threat.

Nevertheless, the revision of the plans came after huge pressure on the DWP from Trade Unions, particularly the GMB. And what has Wendy Alexander had to say on behalf of disabled workers in Hillington? What did she have to say on behalf of those in Wishaw, and the Remploy workers in Aberdeen? That#s right, not a dickie bird. While the GMB were busy driving this issue home at the Labour Conference, she was too busy grovelling for Labour's defeat in May. While she is no doubt right to put pressure on the First Minister in this instance, any attempts to lobby Gordon Brown to protect Scottish workers were either far too subtle for the likes of me, or completely non-existent.

Now, this could be that Remploy is in the hands of the UK Government, so Wendy Alexander has opted to leave it in Westminster's capable(?) hands, and pursue a line more conducive to social justice and full employment in the case of Glencraft, where the Scottish Government could help change Aberdeen City Council's mind. Or it could be that Remploy's owners are the Labour UK Government, while Glencraft's are the LibDem-SNP Aberdeen City Council.

I would just love to believe that the former were the case, but I can't. I think she's turning a blind eye to Labour closures and still screaming blue murder when someone else is doing them.

She's saying the right things, but far too late, and for all the wrong reasons.

And you can find out more about the GMB's campaign to defend Remploy, and fight the UK-wide closures, here.

We can all do vitriol, can't we, Bishop Devine?

"The homosexual lobby has been extremely effective in aligning itself with minority groups. It is ever-present at the service each year for the Holocaust memorial, as if to create for themselves the image of a group of people under persecution."

This forms part of a long, virtriolic attack on the gay community from Bishop Joseph Devine, who claims to be a man of God but whose mouth is a gateway to Hell. Of the lengthy, pointless rant, this is the bit that jumps out.

So let's take a look:

Firstly, the LGBT community has nothing to gain from looking like a weak, vulnerable, persecuted, downtrodden underclass. It wants to present itself as confident, proud, outward-looking and comfortable in its own skin. It usually succeeds.

However, Devine overlooks the fact that homosexuals suffered the same fate as the six million Jews butchered by Hitler's regime during the Holocaust. To dismiss that, as Devine tries to, puts Devine in the same league as that other religious zealot-cum-holocaust denier, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.

And Devine's spite shows precisely why the LGBT Community has to be on its guard, ready to defend itself against persecution. These are the Bishop's words:

"I saw actor Ian McKellen being honoured for his work on behalf of homosexuals, when a century ago Oscar Wilde was locked up and put in jail."

So Devine supports continued persecution, performs an act of verbal persecution, then wonders why the LGBT community is trying to align itself with persecuted groups!

The Bishop sees a homosexual conspiracy attempting to destroy Christianity. I don't believe that this conspiracy exists, nor does any sane, rational person. However, if I may be blunt (and sweary) for a second, if Devine's comments are a reflection on Christian teachings, then that conspiracy fucking well should exist.

Devine turned 70 last August, and they say that those who the gods love die young. As a result, I am disappointed to suggest that it may yet be a very long time before he snuffs it.

PS I am rarely upset when party politics are brought into, well anything. But a line has to be drawn at the continued struggle against homophobic bigotry. This should not be split on partisan lines, particularly by members of a party who have their own demons on the matter though try to avoid talking about them. I am therefore disappointed in one blogger tonight: I know her personally and can say that I have never bought into the idea that she is a female Terry Kelly. She isn't: she's smarter than him and fairer than him. But she has headed very close to Terrydom tonight and I am disgusted by her comments, attempting to make the party of Ruth Kelly, Dennis Goldie, Jim Dobbin, Michael McMahon and Alasdair Morrison look saintly whilst condemning my party. I've considered her a friend for years now, but I'm sorry to say that tonight, I feel it quite necessary to re-assess that.

Scotland according to the Liberal Democrats

I'm sure the LibDem web designers - you can send the above image as an e-postcard to someone on the UK LibDem website - think this is hilarious, but I don't see the funny side.

In fact, it just goes to show the contempt the UK LibDem establishment seems to have for Scotland. The fact that the party's Federal Leadership colluded with Gordon Brown to bounce MSPs into a third coalition with Labour, and actually succeeded in
stopping a pact with the SNP - though Jack McConnell effectively put an end to any Grand Unionist Coalition - shows that they view Scotland as nothing more than LibDem lobby fodder.

Hopefully Alastair Carmichael's flounceout of the LibDem frontbench will have educated them further, but their claim to be the real opposition in Scotland, and to double their haul of MPs in Scotland? Well, it all looks a little hollow now. I would hope the MSPs take a leaf out of Carmichael's book and show a bit more independence from the Westminster group - they're supposed to be a federal party after all - but I fear that they'll stay wrapped around the UK Leadership's finger.

A UK Party that sees Scotland like this. I'm quite relieved at the Menzies Campbell/Gordon Brown machinations now, and relieved that my wish for an SNP/LD Coalition didn't come true - people who see the country - and Scottish nationalism - like this would have continued influence in an SNP-led Scottish Government. What a disaster that would be!

Some thoughts on the Hain resignation

Firstly, it should have come sooner: why did Hain wait for Police involvement before deciding that clearing his name was more important (and more time-consuming) than his two Ministerial posts?

However, I'll still nod in respect to the man for taking the decision. It had to be taken, and it was the right one. Labour ministers have shown an extraordinary bouncebackability since Mandelson so he won't be out for long, but he can't fight this and do his two jobs at the same time. Late, but right.

Meanwhile, what now for Wendy Alexander? The police received a complaint regarding her liberal interpretation/timely ignorance of party fundraising law, so if Peter Hain feels it right to go, so he can fend off the allegations, why is she still Leader of the Scottish Opposition? This puts her in a very difficult position. Could Hain be the first domino? Even Nicol Stephen - who has hitherto been quiet on the issue - has talked about "storm clouds" gathering over Labour.

And finally, the re-shuffle: James Purnell is now Work & Pensions Secretary. Andy Burnham replaces him at Culture, and Yvette Cooper becomes Chief Secretary to the Treasury. But interestingly, Paul Murphy is brought back to the Cabinet as Secretary of State for Wales, and Murphy has no other ministerial titles...

Consider: there is a full-time Secretary of State for Northern Ireland - Shaun Woodward. And a full-time Secretary of State for Wales - Murphy. Scotland, however, still has a part-time Secretary of State, with Defence Secretary Des Browne nominally in the post. Why should the Scotland Office be the odd one out?

Has Gordon Brown thought this one through: did he consider re-instating the full-time post, only to reject it because of at least one of the following two reasons: a) he could find no suitable holders; b) he was scared of the inevitable hostile reaction to such a move in the right-wing London-based press? Or, more likely, did he simply fail to consider the role of the Scotland Secretary when he revised the role of the Wales Secretary so quickly?

And what does it say about the state of the UK, that the last conclusion is the most palatable?

Let he who is without sin...

Interesting, isn't it, how senior Labour apparatchik John McTernan criticised Scotland for being narrow, and for racism and "Presbyterianism", in a six-year-old e-mail to Karen Gillon?

Last time I checked, Presbyterianism was a denomination of the Christian faith, and the Church of Scotland - whose members account for 42% of Scotland's population according to the last census - is a Presbyterian Church.

I don't wish to get into the 'talking Scotland down' debate - Scotland is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, (no country can ever be perfect) and bigotry of all forms, including racism, is a problem.

But to dismiss an important part of Scotland's religious (and so cultural) life as a problem holding Scotland back is one of the most appalling examples of sectarian bigotry I can think of from someone who has played such a key role in public life. The irony is that his own narrow views prove his point: he reveals his own prejudices in his patronising rant. He displays aspects of the problems he identifies with Scotland - except the Presbyterianism, of course - in that message.

I'm not a Christian myself, and I'll be happy to attack any Christian leaders who spout utter rubbish (that would be quite a few of them), but to attack an entire Church?

No, this cannot stand. McTernan is wrong: he is just as narrow-minded as the rest, and a hypocrite to boot. Why is it OK to dismiss the religious views of more than 42% of the population - the Kirk is not the only Presbyterian game in town - and at the same time attack the rest of the country for bigotry?

One more point: has anyone else seen this row in this light? And if not, why not?

A Brief Sense of Humour Bypass

A number of bloggers - Mr. Eugenides, the ever-readable Reactionary Snob, Holyrood Watcher, everyone's favourite Tartan Hero Grant, and Clairwil over at TerryWatch - have read Terry's latest outburst, which managed to get him in the papers. The consensus appears to be for bloggers to be paralysed with laughter.

I'm afraid to be the one to break the consensus, but I'm feeling po-faced tonight, so here goes.

Firstly, Terry claims, and asserts that most other people accept, that he was joking. I don't dispute that: it probably was a joke. But jokes aren't necessarily funny. And jokes can be sexist. Take the late Bernard Manning: he was a comedian, but he was also a bigoted Neanderthal. And if this is Kelly's idea of humour, then it shows him to be the vicious little bastard that we all knew him to be anyway.

Secondly, I've always said that his claim to oppose all forms of discrimination - and he names sexism specifically (though not homophobia, but that might simply be because it doesn't end in 'ism') - is complete and utter shite. The only time he can bring himself to attack homophobia is when he's accusing Brian Adam of it, and he appears to find sexist humour appropriate. Neither of those is opposing discrimination. The first is the attempted exploitation of the LGBT Community for party politics, and the second is actual support and encouragement of sexism. Lawyers, can I sue him for false advertising?

I feel vindicated this week. But I'm not laughing.

And I bet the women of his ward (to say nothing of LGBT residents, and maybe even members of ethnic minorities in the area) aren't laughing either. They're stuck with the knuckle-dragging bastard representing them (when he can be bothered to show up for Council meetings, that is) until the next election, after all.

A Constitutional Pork Barrel

I've been following the Comments thread in my last post very carefully, and I've been mulling over my response. I've opted to start a new thread for it, and compare it with an additional development.

So firstly, I'm afraid I must disappoint Julie: there is little in the way of 'totty' in Holyrood. John Lamont (Con, Roxburgh & Berwickshire) is quite striking but tottydom requires the presence of one clear, visible chin - no more (unfortunately for your blogger) and, unfortunately for Mr. Lamont, no less.

Anyway. One of the key points of the discussion is whether or not Labour feeling free to introduce legislation in committee would lead to a rise in 'pork barrel' politics, where MSPs take locally-popular decisions in a bid to get re-elected over and over again, and whether that would lead to a decline in principle and ideology.

To be honest, I see anything that reduces the apparent strength of party whips - as any such development would - as a good thing. And I would also suggest that Holyrood's electoral system mitigates against the fear raised that such a move would make give certain MSPs a job for life. Take Glasgow Anniesland: yes, Bill Butler could stand for re-election to the seat claiming that he'd voted in his constituents' interests. But Bill Kidd was the SNP Candidate here, and he's now a Regional MSP for the city. He could claim the same thing as Butler. So could Bill Aitken, the Tory Candidate for the seat, and the Conservatives' Regional MSP for Glasgow. Constituency MSPs, therefore, could still be unseated, albeit by Regional MSPs. And woe betide any MSP who did listen to the Whips more than any of his or her neighbours: he or she would be at great risk at a subsequent election.

However, there are some occasions where principle has to win out: the debate over Scotland's constitutional position has to be one of them. Which is why I am unimpressed by Nick Clegg's support for further powers for Holyrood. Clegg argued that: "by just blocking further progress to devolution you strengthen the hand of the Nationalists."

Well, firstly, that may or may not be true, but the reverse certainly is not: by advancing such progress, you do not weaken the SNP's hand. Remember that George Robertson predicted that devolution would kill the SNP stone dead - some death!

And secondly, the small matter of how a country is governed ought to be beyond party political considerations. To gerrymander Council, Holyrood or Westminster electoral boundaries is bad enough, and to gerrymander an entire electoral system is worse still. But an entire constitutional system?

How can a party seriously advocate any changes to how Scotland is governed based on wishing to shaft the SNP?

And on that basis, his willingness to attack "the often highly opportunistic siren call for full independence" has no credibility at all. It's also rich for him to say that politicians should "show devolution is a process which is ongoing and not shut the door and in effect say we have gone as far as we want.", when his party opposes independence - and eventually will have to say that they have indeed gone as far as they want.

He says he wants to leave the debate to Nicol Stephen and Scottish politicans. That may well be the smartest thing he's said on the matter.

Though his viewpoint on British constitutional change ought to be left to someone else as well, given that his own - and his party's - approach to the Scottish constitution, makes this line look a little bit hollow:

"If Brown and Cameron are interested in holding cross-party talks... which would really lead to root-and-branch reform of the political system, no one would be more delighted than me. "But if they're not interested in that and only interested in playing games or picking off one or two issues that would be convenient to them and would ruin the rest, I'm simply not interested in that whatsoever."

So party political self-interest is good enough for the future of Scotland, but not the future of Britain as a whole?

Not a good start to Scottish affairs.

On Foregone Conclusions

Of course John Swinney will, after following the processes set out, approve the Trump plans for the mega-golf resort. This outcome will have absolutely nothing to do with Alex Salmond's constituency interests, though (mind you, perhaps Nigel Don, an SNP Regional MSP for the area involved would have made a better point of contact, and could have a 'local representative' hat but no 'Minister' hat to wear, unlike the FM himself, though Mark explains why the FM is not able to affect matters anyway). In fact, Alex Salmond could be the MSP for Dumfries and the outcome would be the same.

Why? Simple: John Swinney is the Finance Secretary, and Trump's proposals will guarantee a very large boost to the local economy. If I were the First Minister, and my Finance Secretary rejected any proposal that would do that, I would sack him on the spot, citing gross incompetence. Indeed, the probability of Swinney being stupid enough to throw the plans out is about 1 in 10 to the power of ten million, not just because of the financial aspect, but also because tourism is a function in his department as well, and rejection would make Jim Mather - the Minister responsible - a very unhappy chappie.

But would another Minister be in a position? How about the Communities Minister? No, he's also Minister for Sport, so he'd have to say yes - this is a golfing resort, after all.

The Environment Minister? He'd be duty bound to say no - owing to the environmental impact.

And why would any other Minister touch planning?

So, no Minister is really in a position to make an impartial decision. The Councillors themselves had to consider both the economic and the environmental impact of the plans, which probably explains why the vote was tied, and it came down to a casting vote in favour of the status quo.

But consider this: surely the local environment would be one of the selling points of a resort in Aberdeenshire? Surely, therefore, a man with the business sense of Donald Trump would want to make the resort fit into that environment rather than spoil it? On that basis, you'd think it was an open and shut case, but then, I don't live in Aberdeenshire, and the proposals obviously had planners uneasy enough that they rejected the application, even on a casting vote.

Having said that, there is one compelling reason why, unless the Finance Secretary were involved, I would personally take a decision to reject Trump's plans. It's not financial, or environmental, but it has to do with this Venn diagram based on my own personal experience (OK, it's based mostly on various male relatives and teachers at school, but still) - with a margin of error considered of course:

Now, I'm not saying that every golfer is a complete and utter twat - otherwise the 'golfer' circle would be completely within the other one - and there must be exceptions even if I have yet to discover one. But there is a enough of a link for me to be uneasy about anything that attracts golfers. Invite the golfers, and you have to face an influx of complete and utter twats to Aberdeenshire. No one should have that on their conscience.

A saga rumbling on, a leader trundling off?

As things stand, Charlie Gordon is in even more trouble: it transpires he received warnings about donations from Paul Green two years ago, it seems that the Daily Record - Labour's voice on Earth - has turned on him, possibly because he yelled at their reporter, and he is making a statement on his future later in the week. As he appears not to have one, the general conclusion - which I subscribe to - is that he is to resign his seat, presenting Glasgow Cathcart's voters with their second By-Election since September 2005. What else could he announce?

Wendy Alexander, meanwhile, has received criticism from Sir Alastair Graham - a former public standards supremo - and the donor in question, who has described events as "bad management". However, this is counterbalanced by news that the meeting of the Labour Group of MSPs gave Wendy "unanimous backing". But this is in turn contradicted by claims that a couple of MSPs have spoken anonymously to the press, calling for her to go. Now, one or two MSPs muttering to the Herald is not the same as a full-scale revolt, but if it's true, it still damages claims of unanimity. Therefore, we can deduce one of the following: either Duncan McNeil, the Convener of the Labour Group at Holyrood, was stretching the truth, or The Herald was. Neither is impossible. But a stronger possibility is that both tales are correct, that a handful of Labour MSPs have spoken to the press in less than flattering terms about their current leader but are too chickenshit to come into the open. The current theory is that Wendy is waiting until after PMQs to resign - so that there is no scalp with which to taunt Gordon Brown then - but before FMQs on Thursday - so that she doesn't take pelters then.

It's a credible theory, primarily because, as with most of Labour's response to the concurrent scandals, it appears to be backfiring. The Labour Party lost its General Secretary to the scandal, but the press dug further into the story and turned up Harriet Harman's name. Harman tried to attach herself to Brown over this and that has only dragged him down rather than kept her safe. Alexander was supposed to saty to avoid the resignation bug spreading to Westminster. Instead, it has led Wendy Alexander to claims that she is being programmed by Brown, incapable of making decisions for herself and for the benefit of the Labour MSPs who she leads (remember that she only leads the MSPs, of course), and it has given the Scottish scandal more publicity in England, allowing more eggs to be thrown at the PM. This approach would stil give David Cameron and Vince Cable (as well any SNP MPs that the Speaker happens to call, but don't hold your breath for that) extra ammo on Wednesday, and give Alex Salmond the perfect opportunity to rip Labour on Thursday. It is the worst of all worlds, and given Labour's headless-chicken-esque response to events, it is probably their plan.

Should she go? In my mind, she most certainly should: she has broken electoral law and therefore her campaign for Leader was flawed, even though she had no challengers (can you imagine the mess if she had?). Is it partisan to say this? Not really. Let's try and sketch out the next few weeks depending on whether or not she goes.

If she goes, other parties will claim the scalp and celebrate for a little while, citing a Labour Party in disarray. But this story will die down, Labour will find its next Leader over the following weeks and regroup, ready for the challenges ahead, most notably the Budget process. And should there be a By-Election in Glasgow Cathcart, Labour people nervous about a leaderless party trying to defend the seat might want to speak to Liberal Democrats in Dunfermline & West Fife, where the Party won a By-Election despite being in the middle of a leadership contest following Charles Kennedy's clumsy departure.

If she stays, other parties - to say nothing of the press, which now appears to have it in for her - will harass and harangue her. Every policy announcement will be ignored: the questions will be all about sleaze, and the role of her closest colleagues in this affair. Muck will be raked, and Wendy Alexander will continue to be the story, until she goes. And this would even colour Cathcart: this would be the By-Election caused by corruption, and Labour would be painted as the party of sleaze, and with Wendy still in charge, Gordon would be presented as a scapegoat. The claim would be that any Labour candidate would be supporting a corrupt Leadership, and unless the SNP select the weakest candidate in Scottish electoral history, the likely outcome would be for Labour to end up one MSP down, which would all but force Wendy out. The Labour group would, as a result, attempt to lock the stable door despite the fact that the horse hadn't so much bolted as run halfway across the country before its absence was noticed.

So the partisan approach would be for me to want Wendy to stay and drag Labour down ever further. But Wendy Alexander is colouring, even poisoning, politics, a subject that got me excited enoguh to start blogging about it, so you can tell how much value I place on politics. Today, she has dismissed resignation as the easy way out. It is, but it gives Labour a chance at a clean break. So for her to talk about it being wrong - surely it's a bit late to start talking about right and wrong? - is to miss the point: her actions determine not just her future, but the future of forty six MSPs (herself included), to say nothing of Labour's Scottish MPs, MEPs and Councillors. That in turn has a knock on effect for every individual community in which the Labour plays (or could play) some role; it affects Scotland and its people; it could, potentially, affect the future of the entire UK, particualrly in the event of a close election, where every vote, every seat, may count.

And, at least ostensibly, Wendy has reduced all of that to a matter of her pride. The right thing is to go, and give us all a chance to start again.

Time is the greatest healer

In the midst of the party funding row, the SNP has decided that local Councillors are free to form formal Coalitions with any party or individuals they wish to. While the word 'Conservative' is not mentioned, that is the implication: hitherto, pacts with the Tories have been banned by the SNP, at every level. This raises the possibility that joint SNP/Tory administrations will, in the future, emerge in some Council chambers. As far as I am aware, it will apply only to Council chambers.

The reaction from Labour and the LibDems will be predictable: "Tartan Tories!" they will scream. They forget that both parties have been more than happy to team up with the Tories if it nobbles another party. They forget that Blair required Tory support for his last set of education proposals in England, and also for Trident. They forget that Labour won in 1997, 2001 and 2005 by looking Tory, sounding Tory and acting Tory. But that won't stop them.

And the SNP have little in the way of alternatives: there is the deal with the Greens, but that amounts to two MSPs, so the support of another party is still needed. And the only places where there are Green Councillors are Glasgow (where Labour has a majority anyway), and Edinburgh (where the only mathematically viable pacts are either LibDem-SNP, with the Lord Provost's casting vote - which is what has happened - or LibDem-Labour). Meanwhile, the SNP and Labour have developed an attitude bordering on mutual contempt so pacts between them at any level are unlikely and very, very rare, and at Holyrood, the LibDems still think they are in Coalition wih Labour, though Councils are, of course, a different story.

So on that basis, the SNP were always going to have to consider lifting that ban on working with the Tories, as it was cutting off one of the few potential avenues. As you can probably tell, I'm a supporter of this being made possible (though I reserve the right to go 'Unnhh?' if and when it happens somewhere), mainly as this was brought in during the Thatcher years, 20 years have passed since then, and the world is a different place.

I am not a fan of Thatcher: I remember - just - her time in power: I was born a few months before her second win in 1983 and remember vividly her loss of power. I remember very little of the actual Government, but I do recall what life was like. I remember us switching between my father having a job, but us still struggling to make ends meet, and him not having one, in which case my mother would walk an hour to a call centre for an eight hour shift (when the others would only need to work for four), then walk an hour back and have to buy enough food to sustain three of us on a meagre budget while my father walked the fifteen minutes to the pub, where he would proceed to drink his giro money. Thatcher talked about how everyone should own their own home; we lost ours in 1986. So readers will excuse me for not being well-disposed to Margaret Thatcher.

But here's the thing: the grounds for the ban was that Thatcher and the Tories were 'anti-Scottish'. I have always found that short-sighted, and it conjures up images of Thatcher kicking off her Cabinet meetings with the question: "Right, boys, how can we stick it to the Scots this week?" But I was in Northern England at the time, and I wonder if those that brand Thatcher anti-Scottish forget that England, Wales and Northern Ireland were all hit too. I don't think she set out to "stick it" to anyone, and I don't think she was 'anti' anyone. The problem wasn't hatred or vindictiveness, it was ignorance and indifference, she governed for her people and her places. Scots were not her people, and Scotland was not one of her places, but many others weren't either. Now, the inability to govern for everyone in the countries she governed is awful, but I just don't buy anti-Scottishness. Scotland was hurt. Everyone was hurt. Industries died everywhere. Jobs were lost everywhere.

Poll Tax riots were not simply a Scottish phenomenon, either, and the fact that she still pressed ahead with the introduction of the Poll Tax in England and Wales after its disastrous reception in Scotland is the most damning indictment of her Premiership: the inability to realise that a mistake has been made and it's time to hit the brakes. Either she was that out of touch by that point that she just didn't understand why the Poll Tax wasn't working, or she just didn't care. Whichever is true, it should tarnish her reputation forever.

So, given that, why am I pro the possibility of SNP-Tory pacts in local Councils? Because time has moved on. 20 years ago, the Tories look unassailable, in Government forever, no matter how much Scots wanted them out, and willing to inflict their own disastrous policies on a nation that simply didn't want them. In 2007, the possibility that the Tories may once again form a Westminster government is only just beginning to re-emerge after ten years (well, since Black Wednesday and Maastricht, really, but they had already formed and were in a Government, so we'll start from when that ended). Twenty years ago, there wasn't a Scottish Parliament, so whoever had power in Westminster had power over Scotland. Now, the most the Tories can hope for at Holyrood is a chance to tip the balance one way or another from time to time - as they do now, and it'll probably be another twenty years at least, if that, before we can consider the possibility of a Tory First Minister.

And in local government now, only two Councils have Tory Leadership: Dumfries & Galloway - a Tory/LibDem Coalition - and South Ayrshire - a minority administration. Though Tories do form part of administrations in other places: they support the LibDems in Aberdeenshire, they're part of the "Angus Alliance" (everyone but the SNP), they support Labour in East Dunbartonshire, Falkirk (with Independent support) and South Lanarkshire. They support Independents in Moray and the Borders (with LibDem backing). And they vote to prop up the minority Labour/LibDem administration in Dundee.

In any case, the fact this has been raised shows that SNP Councillors feel they can make common cause with their Tory counterparts. There is no way that would have been possible twenty years ago.

I will never have time for Thatcher or her cronies, but they are not the Tories we have to deal with now. Thatcher, for instance, is a shadow of her former self, rumoured to be on the bottle, rumoured to be half-mad, with failing health. The rest of her people have simply sunk without trace, save the odd appearance on Question Time. Why hark back to them, when they are not there to deal with anymore?

It's time to move on.