Light Blogging...

...this week for a variety of reasons, none of which need detain us here. However, I do urge you to take a look at this post from Scottish Tory Boy, which leaves Nicol Stephen looking rather silly, after giving his synthetic 'Mr Angry' act another outing at First Minister's Questions.

Also due for a mention is Kezia Dugdale, who is effusive in her praise for Wendy Alexander's performance this week. In all honesty, apart from her from not being completely dreadful this week, I don't see what Labour really have to cheer about. It all seemed pretty ho-hum to me. Maybe it's the equivalent of applauding wildly, just because your team wins a throw-in deep in their own half when they're already 6-0 down... :-)

Re-Stating The Obvious

I’d like to begin by stating something which seems to have been forgotten in much recent discourse on the subject – by accepting an impermissible overseas donation, Wendy Alexander’s leadership campaign broke the law. Period.

The Labour Party line until now has been that Wendy is confident that she will be cleared, not of breaking the law, but of any ‘intentional wrongdoing’. This despite the fact that she can’t be cleared by anyone of any such thing. Either the law is broken or it is not - intent is something which is neither here nor there, except in determining the degree of culpability when judging what, if any, sanction should result.

Being cleared of ‘intentional wrongdoing’ is therefore entirely a subjective and worthless measure. But today, on Good Morning Scotland, we heard key Alexander ally Jackie Baillie MSP go even further, claiming that even if Alexander was not ‘cleared of intentional wrongdoing’, she should still stay in post to try and clear her name. “She would have even more reason to stay and fight for her reputation”, said Baillie, before delivering the killer line: “Wendy has been getting on with the job she was elected to do and I think she should be given the opportunity to do so”. Really, how can you argue with steamroller ‘logic’ like that?

Alexander’s reputation for honesty and personal integrity is proclaimed longest and most loudly by herself and her supporters. Now, I’m sure she is a fine, upstanding person, but citing a reputation, deserved or not, serves no more as a defence than it would as an indictment. It is a diversionary tactic, just as is Baillie’s rather distasteful and demeaning attempt to spread the funding muck of Labour’s own making in the direction of every other party.

From what we do know, at best, Team Wendy unwittingly accepted an impermissible donation, which was returned as soon as this became apparent to them. At worst, a donation was solicited in the full knowledge that it was impermissible, and kept deliberately below the £1,000 reporting threshold so that this information would not become public.

It is for others to assess whether the truth lies closer to the first, the second, or perhaps somewhere in between. No doubt the detail can, and will, be tussled over - the one unmoveable, unbendable, unspinnable fact is that the law was broken and that as the regulated donee, Wendy Alexander bears ultimate responsibility for this.

Looking ahead, if the Electoral Commission decline to report matters to the police, you can be certain that someone, somewhere will make a complaint of their own. However, even if the Procurator Fiscal, after being asked to consider matters, did decide that there was insufficient evidence to mount a prosecution or that further proceedings would not be in the public interest, this still would not represent the end of her difficulties.

Throughout, Team Wendy has been guilty of arrogance, hubris and arguably, a severe lack of attention to detail. While I’m not convinced myself that the law courts are the best place for this sorry saga to end up, with Peter Hain now gone, it’s hard to see how she can stay in post. The first burning timber has fallen…

In The Soup

Ouch - bet that hurt.

Best wishes for a speedy recovery, Aileen. I always knew you'd make the consommé politician...

Going Soft On Independence

One of the main arguments deployed against Scottish independence is loss of influence. Scotland would be trading being part of a big country to be a small country, we are told. Influence in the world is all about willingness to use armed forces; having a permanent seat on the UN security council; having Trident - the implication being it's only the big boys that count when it comes to making friends and influencing people.

On the surface, it's a tricky one to argue against. For centuries, it was the countries which were most successful at mustering power on land and on sea which were best able to secure resources and influence over others. However, with the rise of 20^th century nationalism, the decline of the British empire and the rise of the USA, we began to see that it was not necessary to threaten or occupy a country in order to gain access to its resources or influence its people.

We learned that free trade could be mutually beneficial; that countries could expand their influence by working together in alliance. We even began to see that the brute military power of countries with the ability to destroy the planet, brought no guarantee of success even when brought to bear against smaller and supposedly 'inferior' forces. Admittedly, some of our recent leaders may not have learned very much from this, but the lesson was there for those prepared to see it.

Today, the world, as ever, is in flux. As US power wanes, we are heading for a multipolar world. Declining US influence means declining UK influence, at the same time as we see the rise of China and India. It's hard, for me at least, to avoid the conclusion that engaging effectively and winning influence in the world's emerging countries, is going to require a humility and openness for which even a century of steady British decline has failed to prepare our Westminster elites.

Whatever Lyndon B Johnson may have had to say about influence, hearts and minds are seldom won over these days by hard power alone. This is where 'soft power' comes in – the ability to influence others through culture, values and ideology rather than threat, violence or other forms of coercion. Yet for a state which was once described as having lost an empire but had not yet found a role, paradoxically, the UK has actually been remarkably effective post-1945 at building up its soft power around the world.

Respect for British institutions waxes and wanes. However, the institutions which work most effectively overseas are often not the traditional outlets of diplomacy, but those such as the BBC World Service and the British Council. While refusals to accept the limitations of hard power - such as the Iraq misadventure - alongside Labour's blatant attacks on the independence of the BBC, have helped undermine British standing in the world, the reputation of those institutions endures as a result of being built up over many years and the lives they have touched over that time.

Independence would mean Scotland leaving these institutions behind, at least in their present form. This gives us a tough act to follow in many respects, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. In fact, in many ways, Scotland is already well placed to build up a soft power which reaches the parts that no British institution can.

Firstly, independence would force a fundamental reappraisal for everyone on the British archipelago of who they are and who they want to be, but that is also a process which would demand great honesty. For better or for worse, Scots have had a huge and disproportionate impact on the way our modern world has been shaped. We can't, after all, re-write our history – we're as much a part of the history of the British Empire and recent ill-advised military adventures as our larger neighbours to the south.

Scotland is firmly part of the English speaking world. Nearly 9 out of 10 schoolchildren in the EU learn English, with at least 2 billion people around the world having either full or at least some understanding of the language. Our universities help teach the world, both by bringing students to live in Scotland and through distance learning. People around the globe are as curious about us as we are about them, which gives us a huge potential audience for our cultural output.

We also have the Edinburgh Festival, which has for decades been much, much bigger than the city or even the country which spawned it and gives us a cultural profile which any independent country would envy. Whether its to do with television, film, theatre, music, books or politics, for one glorious month, the world comes to us. As if this embarrassment of riches weren't enough, our three weeks in the sun means that whatever we happen to be thinking, planning, doing economically, socially or culturally in Scotland, is at the same time brought to the attention of the rest of the world.

Blessed may be the peacemakers, but they can through their actions achieve more influence than the warmongers. Previous SNP manifestos have committed the party to the establishment of a Scottish peacekeeping college, as well as a European Peace & Reconciliation Centre. The opportunity to enhance the global diplomatic capital which already exists is there if we wish to take it. None of this can physically stop a tank rolling across a border of course, but by opening minds, building links, by helping people to understand that they each have a stake in the future of each other, such approaches can be far more effective in building peace, security and prosperity than any number of nuclear warheads or Security Council resolutions.

With independence, we won't be starting from year zero. We will have a set of institutions, ideas, outlooks, values and histories which our forbears have built up, and which we ourselves will continue to build upon. Taking the narrative of a small, prosperous, socially-just, peaceful, culturally rich nation which is respectful of difference, democracy and international law, and which has resolved its political status peacefully, could provide no more compelling example to the rest of the world.

With our history, experiences of empire building and retrenchment, centuries-long exposure to industrialisation and 'globalisation', history of immigration and emigration, outlook, culture, philosophical, religious and epistemological traditions, we have a truly unique voice and perspective we can bring to bear. Set alongside our intimate understanding of the Anglosphere, who in reality could argue that Scotland wouldn't be a soft power superpower if she chose to become so?

Laugh if you like. These days, you don't need to be a military giant or even have pretensions of being a military giant to have influence. When it comes to power and influence it's no longer about the size of the dog in the fight - it's the size of the fight in the dog that counts.

Olympic Financial Control? Fallen At The First Hurdle

Some folk may remember that shortly after Christmas, my goat was got by the Labour Party. Specifically, their repeated and tedious claims that the SNP was somehow trying to deprive vulnerable groups of public money, through a reduction in the amount of 'ringfencing' in local government finances.

Never mind that this is also what the Labour Government was doing in England. Never mind that Labour Councillors in Scotland have been queueing up to support the initiative. Homelessness; mental health services; children's services; disabled children and families; Hogmanay celebrations; flood prevention... all at risk from the SNP Barbarians at the gate. Truly, in her desperation to seize the agenda, Wendy Alexander's campaign of scaremongering left no shroud unwaved or ambulance unchased.

How ironic, then, than within the last half hour, Scottish Labour MPs have voted through a measure to divert £675m of further Lottery funding towards the financial black hole that is the London Olympics. Note that that this isn't a hypothetical reallocation of money, but an actual diversion of resources which would otherwise have gone to benefit some of our most needy communities.

Scottish Labour's claim to a monopoly of concern in matters of social justice has always been a complete fraud. Hopefully, it's now there for all to see. And how sad that in backing the government on this matter, the Tories and Lib Dems have elected to hide behind the flimsiest of figleaves - a government 'assurance' that this will be the last raid on Lottery cash to pay for the Olympics.

Hmmm. And the band played believe it if you like...

Sterling Efforts

Another story from the slow, festive news period was the synthetic outrage from the Lib Dems, as they learned that Scottish Bank notes were not legal tender in England. Stop the press! Hold the front page! Lib Dems pick fight with London shock!

You have to wonder where the Lib Dems have been, though. Scottish banknotes have never been ‘legal tender’ - that which is acceptable in settlement of a debt - even in Scotland. In fact, not even Bank of England notes are classed as being ‘legal tender’ in Scotland.

That said, the term ‘legal tender’ doesn’t have any influence over the acceptability or otherwise of bank notes as a means of exchange between interested parties. It really comes down to whether or not you have confidence in being able to redeem the note for its stated value, and therefore continue to enjoy the ‘double coincidence of wants’ which bank notes are supposed to provide.

Everyone has their own horror story to tell about a surly London cabbie refusing to take Scottish notes, many of which I dare say grow a bit in the telling. As it happens, most places in the centre of London are quite happy to take any kind of note you proffer. Vending machines can be a bit temperamental, although that applies every bit as much in my experience to many of those installed in Scotland too.

My only outright refusal to accept Scottish notes came a few months ago from a Polish barman in deepest, darkest Beckenham (Kent commuter land), who complained very obnoxiously about my ‘funny money’. He then became particularly aggressive when I then enquired if his refusal to accept my money meant that the already poured pints in front of me were therefore free. However, with a wee bit of initiative, you can sometimes make it work both ways.

Flying out of Muscat Airport a few years ago, I had a wallet-full of Omani Rials, which I didn’t fancy trying to get changed back in Scotland. The guy at the Bureau de Change obviously recognised my Scottish accent, and knowing the reluctance of some English people to accept Scottish notes, pronounced with regret that the only Sterling notes he had were Clydesdale Bank twenties.

Primed from a few days bargaining in the various Souks, I sucked on my teeth, shook my head and told him that I didn’t get such a good exchange rate for Clydesdale notes when I took them back home. To which he smiled, offered them to me commission free and agreed to round the transaction up in my favour. Sold!

Sure, it’s annoying when Scottish notes get knocked back. Yes, people outside Scotland should be better aware that these are also sterling notes and yes, sometimes we need to be more assertive than we might feel comfortable with to get them accepted. This is hardly a new phenomenon, but it’s going to take more than a publicity-seeking Lib Dem spokesman to ensure Scottish banknotes get the recognition and acceptance they deserve.

You'll Have Had Your Holidays, Then?

Well, if that was my holiday, I suppose I've had it. It's been great to have some time off, and I dare say I've even managed to use some of it fairly productively: a Christmas seeing a range of aunties, uncles and cousins; a night out with my mate Brian - a friend from school whom scarily I've known for 21 years, but who is seldom around when I am nowadays; a night out in Edinburgh with some old workmates from Scottish Widows; an extended New Year away with SNP friends involving good food, good wine, good chat, good song and the chance to play my fiddle for the first time in months... I even got some of my 'homework' for Westminster done into the bargain.

I'm off back south tomorrow, so I'm spending the morning at my flat in Edinburgh, cleaning up my clutter of the last two weeks to get it ready for a new tenant. I'll go out for the papers in a bit, and maybe try and sneak in a quick couple of pints in the afternoon with Richard the catsitter. Then it'll be time to get my case packed up, and sort out what train I plan to leave on tomorrow morning. Hopefully the journey will be a little bit smoother than last time, but the travel stories haven't been getting any better with the New Year...

Anyway, personal musings and trivia aside, this blog is supposed to be about politics. Since I'm still feeling nice and chilled and full of the spirit of goodwill, I'm not really in the mood for expressing huge enthusiasm for the righteousness of my chosen cause, or for pointing out the folly of all others (give it a couple more days!). Instead, here's an article from the Seattle Times on the state of the (British) union. If you forgive the clumsy metaphor about traffic islands at the start, it's a reasonably astute and fair-minded assessment of where Scotland stands, from a long-time overseas observer.

To see ourselves as others see us indeed. A happy and prosperous 2008 to all.

A Public Service Announcement

I interrupt this interruption in blogging to bring you a public service announcement. This is for the benefit of the Scottish Labour Party, as they seek some publicity over this slow, festive news period.

Right, here goes. See when the government decides not to ring-fence local council budgets for specific purposes? It doesn't mean there's less money available, or that people care less about the issue concerned. It just means councils now have the freedom to spend the money as they wish subject to some outcome agreements reminding them of their obligations, and to be held accountable for that by the voters at election time. Got that?


No? Ok, then - while the councils might spend more, less or the same as before, the point is they can now decide for themselves what to spend and on what, according to the needs of those they represent. It's exactly the same as telling people it would be good for them to spend more of their income on fruit and veg, but without feeling the need to ring-fence their money to make sure that they do, then making them buy more sprouts and spinach when what they really want is more oranges and carrots, or even the odd bar of chocolate. Treating people like adults rather than children, in other words.

That is all. I just hope I haven't given them any ideas with the bit about the ring-fencing of people's own income.

Merry Christmas

Why does Irn Bru make all the best adverts? ;-)

Homeward Bound

The Christmas rush to get out of London is in full swing, not helped by a number of flights out of Gatwick being cancelled last night due to the fog.

I'd taken care of my plans last week by booking a train ticket, or so I thought. After getting zero joy from the self-serve ticket machine at King's Cross, I was then informed by a harassed, if civil, member of National Express staff that there was no reservation for me. He could sell me a ticket for travel today for the same price which would let me travel on any train, but there'd be no seat.

So it was that I found myself packed in with twenty-seven others (I counted) in the space between carriages B & C of the 15:00 to Glasgow Central. It did calm down after York, but even so, it's not going to rank as one of the more pleasant journeys I've ever made. Still, only half an hour to go now.

Honourable mentions? An apology to the Geordie guy squeezed in next to me who lost some of his beer when I lost my balance at one point after Doncaster. To everyone who had to stand upright like that for over two hours for never once complaining and for staying good-humoured throughout. Also, to National Express, for letting those of us in 2nd class use wi-fi for free (GNER used to charge a tenner).

However, a special shout out must go to the lady at King's Cross, who thought that the way to get those already unable to move within the carriage to grant her an instant and unhindered path to her seat, was to complain loudly that people without reservations shouldn't be on the train in the first place. If they haven't already secured her services, I fear that the worlds of diplomacy and motivational speaking may not be mourning their loss, somehow.

Anyway, that's the holidays started for me, so blogging may be intermittent over the next couple of weeks. In common with Brian Taylor, for those who can, a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. For those who can't for whatever reason, my sympathies.

"Happy Christmas"

In the end, it was clinical and decisive show of attacking power, which saw the challenger sent home with their tail between their legs and left the home fans cheering for more.

I refer, of course, to Aberdeen's 4-0 victory over FC Copenhagen, which sees them in the latter stages of a European competition for the first time in over 20 years.

A "Happy Christmas" to one and all, then!

UPDATE: Highlights of the game are now available here.

A Letter to the Press and Journal

The Editor
Press and Journal
Lang Stracht
Mastrick
Aberdeen AB15 6DF

17 December 2007

Sir,

I am astounded at the idiocy being shown by Scottish Lib Dem Leader, Nicol Stephen MSP, over the proposed Trump development.

This is a project which enjoys overwhelming public support, and which has the potential to bring much good to the North East. It is a project on which Nicol Stephen himself has said he would like to see progress. Why, then, apart from as a desperate bid to seem relevant and score cheap points off the SNP government, is he now calling for an enquiry which would delay the project planning process, perhaps fatally?

It’s been clear since May that senior Lib Dem noses in Edinburgh have been put out of joint following their return to the backbenches. However, with his silly anti-SNP posturing, Stephen is playing fast and loose with the future prosperity of the North East. Lib Dem voters must be wondering just how their party has managed to fall so far from grace and relevance in such a short space of time.

Stephen accused First Minister Alex Salmond of acting with ‘cleverness’ at Holyrood last week. On recent evidence, that’s not a tag voters will be attaching to the Scottish Lib Dem leader any time soon.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Thomson
SNP Westminster Candidate
Gordon Parliamentary Constituency

Result For Lib Dems? Split Down The Middle

So, after a bitter battle where personality seemed to play a greater role than policy difference, the Lib Dems have wound up completely split down the middle.

Clegg: 20,988
Huhne: 20,477

The wounds from the knifing they gave Charlie Kennedy show no signs of starting to heal any time soon...

Surely Not?

Alastair Darling was asked twice today to confirm to the House of Commons exactly how the password protecting the data on the missing HMRC disks was sent between HMRC and the NAO. Twice, he refused to do so.


Why so shy? Surely it wasn't just written on a post-it note and shoved into the envelope along with the discs. Was it?

Trumped Up

A rich investor; an upscale development; the chance to immerse oneself in bureacratic procedure; the opportunity to snipe at people simply trying to do their best... Frankly, I'm hard pushed to think of a mix which could more effectively bring out the parochial, petty minded and vindictive worst in some Scots politicians. And the proposed Trump development at Menie really does seem to have it all.

Journalist Kenny Farquarson hit the nail on the head in last week's Scotland on Sunday, when he pointed out that if Trump were a Swedish tycoon famed for his Renaissance art collection, it wouldn't have caused half this much fuss. However, what's starting to bother me is the way that those who claim to support the project are now trying to turn this into an issue with which to try to smear the government.


Some facts. Local opinion is strongly in favour; the Formartine area committee of Aberdeenshire Council was in favour, as indeed is the full council. However, due to the decision of its planning committee, Aberdeenshire Council found itself prevented by standing orders from resurrecting the application. As such, you would think there might be widespread support amongst those claiming to be in favour of the project, for the government decision to 'call in' the application.

I've seen at first hand the way that Alex Salmond has prefaced his comments on the development, with a statement that as First Minister, he is debarred from making any public statement which could be construed as being either in favour or against the development. As the local MSP, though, he is bound to meet with interested parties both for and against the development. A difficult tightrope to walk, but one which he has managed to negotiate with absolute probity.

However, that hasn't stopped the suggestion. 'A government car was used to transport the First Minister to meet Trump representatives!' - yes, but this is within the rules. 'A government adviser was present at the meeting!'- er, no, it was his constituency office manager. 'John Swinney went to a function at a Trump resort, just before he called the appplication in!' - yes, he attended a GlobalScot function to promote Scottish/US business links, at which no members of the Trump organisation were present.


When the smoke clears, though, all we seem to be left with is the cheap innuendo of nonentities like Richard Baker MSP. On Scotland at Ten last night, after claiming that questions remained unanswered in this affair, he was then singluarly unable under challenge from Alex Neil MSP to say what those unanswered questions might be, or even what rules he believed may have been broken. Good to see that Baker's lost none of the political skills he picked up in his time as President of NUS Scotland. However, I can't let this pass without reference to Lib Dem leader Nicol Stephen, and his slur yesterday on the Scottish Government's Chief Planner.

Stephen chose to suggest in Parliament yesterday that there was some impropriety in the fact that the planner had met with representatives of the Trump organisation to explain how matters might develop in the event that the decision was called in, and in the fact that they were present during the early stages of a phone call between the Chief Planner and the Chief Exec of Aberdeenshire Council. The Chief Planner has no right of reply to such allegations, so the prompt confirmation from Aberdeenshire Council that the Trump representatives had been asked to leave the room before any substantive discussion took place will have come as a welcome relief I am sure.

You'd think that someone like Nicol Stephen, who's faced his own difficulties with the ministerial code over previous planning issues and who has himself faced accusations of personal financial impropriety in the very recent past, might be a bit more careful before throwing the mud around. Well, apparently not. Were people really suggesting only a year ago that Stephen was a suitable candidate to be First Minister? Good grief...

Anyway, I hope common sense eventually prevails in this frenzy, and that everyone claming to have the best interests at heart of the North East, whether they care for Alex Salmond and the SNP or not, allows the planning procedure to run its course without further distraction. Frankly, this nonsense is doing nothing to improve our image around the world as a place where you can come and and get sound and sober decisions taken promptly by politicians and officials.

Press and Journal Editorial - 14 December

Aberdeen Evening Express Editorial:

END THIS TIRESOME HECKLING

'First Minister Alex Salmond is spot on in his assessment of yesterday's sleaze row as a descent into gutter politics. 'It is tiresome that Nicol Stephen is hijacking attempts to get the Trump bid back on course to score cheap political points. 'As a North-east MSP we expect him to represent the interests of his constituents, not sling mud at the expense of efforts to rescue the Menie proposals. 'Mr Stephen is hardly the one to indulge in such heckling. People in the North-east still haven't forgiven the way he presided over the bypass farce. 'Mistakes have been made, but work is now going on at the highest levels to ensure the Trump proposal is feasible. We expect our MSPs to support that'.

From The Lobby...

LOBBY BRIEFING - DECEMBER 12:

She [the Downing Street Spokeswoman] was asked when the Prime Minister would arrive in Lisbon tomorrow - the day of the signing of the EU Treaty. (The Prime Minister will arrive too late for the signing ceremony but will sign the Treaty. He is appearing before the Liaison select committee).

Would there be 'footage' of the Prime Minister signing the Treaty, she was asked. She replied, " I would be very surprised if there is no photographic evidence, "


What time would the Prime Minister arrive for the summit, she was asked. " He will arrive for part of the lunch. We will update people tomorrow," she said.

Did we know what was for 'pudding', she was asked. " Humble pie, " said a correspondent. The Downing Street spokeswoman did not reply.

(From Gallery news)

In Brussels

I've been in Brussels for the past few days, for a bit of Xmas shopping and to visit SNP colleagues at the European Parliament. Given that Belgium has, as of today, been run by a caretaker government for precisely six months, I must report that it seems to be coping remarkably well. The shops are busy, the Grand Place is packed with tourists, the restaurants are full - and all this at the beginning of a week when the European Parliament is about to up sticks to Strasbourg.


The only hint you might get that something might be up is the (modest) number of Belgian flags hanging from windows in the capital. This is primarily a demonstration from the Francophone administrative elite - and not really a gesture to be found repeated in the Flemish speaking areas outside of Brussels.

I've spent most of the last couple of days in the company of Lachie Muir - a friend since we were in the SNP Students together in the mid-nineties. Lachie's been working in Brussels for variously the SNP and the European Free Alliance, for nigh-on six years now, and a shrewder observer of the Scottish and European political scenes you would struggle to find. His take on it all is that we're unlikely to see Belgium dissolve into its constituent parts any time soon, but that the problems of how to deal with Brussels notwithstanding, it is still happening slowly.

What does a state coming apart feel like? I have to confess, I'm not all that sure. Disagreements between the central and devolved governments are par for the course around the world, as are disagreements over policy and resources - what matters more is how they are dealt with. There'd also likely be, or have been, some major change in the circumstances which gave rise to the existence of the state. There would be low grade bickering over politics and proxy matters like sport, which would occasionally bubble over to take on a significance which they scarcely deserve. I suspect you'd also start to see a greater assertion of the sub-state identity, counterbalanced with demonstrations of support for the status quo.


Belgium ticks most of these boxes, as indeed increasingly does the UK. In fact, today saw the Daily Telegraph carry a lengthy interview with Conservative leader David Cameron, to mark the launch of its campaign to 'Call Yourself British'. Very sensibly, he points out to the Telegraph's largely English readership that the union provides Scotland with no financial pot of gold, and urges caution amongst those south of the border who would rail against perceived Scottish advantages. However, he shied away from any concrete proposal to resolve the West Lothian Question, and when asked to set out what the Union meant to him, chose not to look forward, but instead fell back on the imagery of WWII.

Rather insultingly, the Telegraph editorial disparages English nationalism. Yet its definition of Britishness was also backward looking and full of bombast. In a sign that it just didn't get it at all, it hinted that what had put the Union under threat was the temerity of the Scots in opting for self-government, our support for whoever was playing England in sport (not guilty-never have been), and in our 'apparently favourable' financial treatment.

According to the paper, us Brits possess a shared temper and outlook, which 'many across the world find admirable, even enviable'. And our Britishness is rooted also in 'our shared institutions and values - the sovereignty of Parliament (what happened to sovereignty of the people?), the primacy of the law and the independence of the judiciary (as opposed to all those lawless foreign Johnnies you find over the Channel, I suppose), the proud traditions of our regiments (even those recently disbanded, you presume), and the freedom and vigour of our media (ha!).

In fairness, I think I'd find difficulty in coming up with a list of things which made someone distinctively Scottish. However, even John Major would have struggled to express it in a more spirit crushing and hackneyed way than the Telegraph has managed. Fundamentally, I'm attracted by the civic notion that anyone can be Scottish no matter where they come from, providing that they want to be. I'm uncomfortable instinctively with the notion that to be Scottish or English is to be in an ethnic state of mind, and that we can only be inclusive toward others when we see ourselves as British.

That to me seems to be holding out a second-class identity to those who choose to make their lives here - that an immigrant who comes to London from overseas can become British, but can never be English. Englishness is there, it is latent, it is tangible. If Britishness is on the way out the door, it strikes me that the process is not going to be reversed by trying to suppress people's sense of Englishness.

At present, Englishness is being ceded by default to a ragbag on the political right. It needs to be reclaimed, and to become synonymous with some of the virtues being claimed currently for Britishness. I'm happy getting on with building a new and more confident Scotland, but a more reflective Englishness, shorn of the baggage of Britain, would have an invigorating part to play in helping people on both sides of the border decide both who they are and what they want to become.

Turn On, Tune In

Now this does sound interesting. Tune in to BBC Radio 4 tonight at 8.30pm GMT to hear how Scotland and rUK might go their different ways, in 'A Beginner's Guide to Separation'.

I don't care much for the title (separation from what other than governance from Westminster, for goodness' sake?). Nonetheless, if this BBC 'Magazine' article preview is anything to go by, the actual content promises to be as neutral as it gets.

"If You Want Blood, You've Got It"

I gave blood this morning for the first time in about 3 years. However, I'm sorry to report to all those Mail and Telegraph readers out there, that the experience of giving blood in Scotland is far, far more agreeable than it is in England.

How so, when the staff are every bit as professional, the procedures are identical and the facilities exactly the same? Well, the difference is in the quality of the refreshments afterwards. There's nothing wrong with orange juice and chocolate bourbons, but where's the Tunnocks teacakes and caramel logs that you get back home?

Very disappointing... I feel like someone's run off with my last wine gum... ;-)

"The Roof, The Roof, The Roof Is On Fire..."

So. Wendy Alexander's Labour leadership campaign team accepted an illegal payment from property developer Paul Green, one of several donations which came in suspiciously below the £1,000 threshold at which the identity of a donor would have to be revealed by law. Initially, Wendy claimed not to have known about this until 1pm on Thursday last week. Once the details were revealed, the man who had solicited the donation, Charlie Gordon MSP, did the decent thing and took a tumble for his troubles.

And that was supposed to be that. However, the donation was illegal because it had come in the form of a personal cheque from Mr Green, who was not actually eligible to vote in the UK. Nonetheless, Wendy was in the clear, we were told, because she had been informed (incorrectly) that the donation had come via a UK based company, which would have made the donation legitimate had this been the case.

It then emerged on Friday that she had written a 'thank you' note to Mr Green back in October. Given that she wrote to him personally rather than via the company he was said to be donating "under the auspices" of, and that she did so to an address outside the UK, this gave us the first hint that we perhaps weren't being told the whole truth by Team Wendy.

Today, it emerged that her letter to Mr Green notwithstanding, she may have known at least three weeks ago that the donation was illegal. As a regulated donee, she bears ultimate responsibility for the donations she has received. As such, she has broken the law, and is now looking down the barrel of a criminal investigation, a prison sentence and potentially, an unlimited fine. Regardless as to the outcome of any deliberations by the Electoral Commission, her credibility is shot through entirely. Press statements might not be delivered under oath, but if she thinks the Scottish press pack has been merciless, just wait until Strathclyde CID come knocking on her door.

Yet in spite of this tissue of lies and deceit, Wendy is going to stay on as Leader of the Labour Group in the Scottish Parliament, because there was no "intentional wrongdoing" and she is "confident" of being exonerated. In fact, you get the feeling that she feels a duty - an obligation even - to stay on. In her own words:

"I offered myself to lead Labour in the Scottish Parliament in the autumn because I believed and continue to believe I have a contribution to make to improve the lives of my fellow Scots".


Now, I don't want to kick someone when they're down, but this really is complete and utter humbug. The pressure to stay has nothing to do with her much-vaunted sense of mission, and everything to do with her loyalty to Gordon Brown. Consider - Wendy's timbers are now well alight, but if she falls, she'll take Harriet Harman crashing down with her (who knowingly accepted an illegal donation 5 times larger than the one causing Wendy so much difficulty just now). If that happens, the part of the barn currently sheltering Gordon Brown will quickly catch light also. And if that comes to pass, the government will be consumed in an inferno so intense that Labour will be able to salvage nothing - nothing - from the remains.

Tough choice - resign and bring your political mentor down with you, or hang on in post to try and protect him, and destroy your party's credibility in the eyes of Scottish voters? Like I said, I don't want to kick someone when they're down, but I do find it hard to feel much sympathy for her. The rules on political donations brought in by Labour are simple to follow, and were, in the main, designed with no higher principle in mind other than to stuff their political opponents. 'To be hoist by one's own petard', is, I believe, le mot juste.

TIMELINE: Courtesy of BBC News Online