“I Hope He Gives You Hell”

It’s not been a good week for Labour. A Prime Minister accused of bullying colleagues and staff, questions of his equilibrium under pressure going mainstream, and now a Cardinal saying that he ‘hopes the Pope gives Labour hell’ when he next visits Scotland.

Cardinal O’Brien might perhaps have been more inclined to keep his thoughts to himself, had it not been for Jim Murphy’s extraordinary and egregious attempt in a widely trailed speech to portray the Labour Party as being the natural political home for people of faith. Quite rightly, Murphy has taken an absolute kicking from opponents and in the press for his trouble.

In response to the speech, the Cardinal issued a statement which said:

"Any recognition of the role played by faith and religion in society is to be welcomed. However, a tangible example by the government over the last decade that it acknowledged or endorsed religious values would also have been welcomed. Instead we have witnessed this government undertake a systematic and unrelenting attack on family values."

Murphy has managed to provoke a fiercer reaction than even Margaret Thatcher managed with her infamous ‘Sermon on the Mound’ in 1988 to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. On that occasion, the Moderator merely confined himself to remarking to the Prime Minister that she had probably never before appeared in front of an audience which had so many members who were actively praying for her.


Although I’m uncomfortable with public declarations of faith when it comes to politicians, tending to be of the view that their faith or lack thereof is best kept as a private matter, I do not subscribe to the view that religion and politics do not mix, because they can scarcely do otherwise. The experiences which people have and the beliefs that they hold will always inform how they respond to the issues of the day and will always shape their views on how the world should be. While it’s plainly wrong to pretend that religious belief can lead only to one single ‘correct’ viewpoint or that someone's faith should lend their views any additional weight, it would be equally wrong to pretend that our public debate would be anything other than greatly diminished were no religious perspectives to be found.

However, Murphy here has crossed a line. Rather than acknowledge the strength and comfort which he doubtless finds personally in his faith, and explaining how he reconciles his faith with the need to represent others of different faiths and of none, he has tried to claim that his party is the natural home for people of any faith. Even allowing for the fact that we’re just weeks from an election, as political gambits go, it’s shoddy, shabby and sadly, entirely in keeping with Murphy’s MO.

The portrayal of Murphy in the Scottish press as some kind of political genius is something I’ve long puzzled over, probably because I remember him from his days as a hack in the NUS, busily selling the interests of students down the river while trying to secure a seat in parliament for himself. Of course, you could cite the very fact he managed to get away with it as evidence of a genius of a sort. Nevertheless, given his propensity to assert ‘that which is not’ and to continually misrepresent his opponents with any number of straw man arguments, I spent a good number of years trying to work out if he was serially dishonest, or simply lacking in his ability to understand what was really going on around him.

I remember barking him into an uncharacteristic silence during a debate at Stirling University shortly after he was elected in 1997. Banging on about priorities in politics, and explaining to the assembled studentry why it was a good thing that his government was about to withdraw their grants, he described Scotland’s universities as bastions of middle class privelige, to which access could only be widened if young people without financial means were prepared to go heavily into debt to pay their own way. There was, we were told, no money to pay for grants in future, and that the £150m which this move saved would be better spent elsewhere.

At this point, I interjected that just a week earlier, the MoD had agreed to spend £150m on upgrading Trident nuclear warheads. What, I wondered, did this tell us about Mr Murphy’s priorities?

With wisdom worthy of Confucius, the bold Jim pronounced that that money had already been spent, so wasn’t there any more. Indeed so, I acknowledged, but didn’t this show that the money had indeed been there; could have been used to maintain the grant had his government so wished; and that it was simply untrue for him to try and assert otherwise? To this, the answer came that it had already happened and that people needed to ‘move on’ – a plea we’ve heard many times since whenever his government has been caught in a lie.

In the end, I stopped puzzling over the nature of Mr Murphy’s dubious political attributes, and settled on his simply possessing a feral, mendacious cunning and a neck of brass; his inexplicable rise to the patronage of a Scottish Labour Party desperately short of talent, and to the support of a Scottish press corps with a curious willing to puff him up in public to a level of credibility well beyond that which his talents could tolerably sustain by themselves.

The brass neck is to some extent part of a politician’s DNA, of course, even if cunning and mendacity aren’t necessarily qualities to be admired. Having been given the bum’s rush by Cardinal O’Brien for his unsubtle attempts to equate his party with faith and morality, I wonder whether this rather dramatic falling to earth will lead to our inquisitors applying a little more rigour, and in taking a little less obvious pleasure in their own deception, where Mr Murphy is concerned.

It's Not Me, It's You

It may only be mid-February, but already we've got a contender for blogpost of the year. Take a bow then, SNP Tactical Voting, for a cool-headed, forensic and long overdue demolition of the Glasgow Herald and its recent political 'coverage'. As the man himself says: "Put simply, a lack of rigour has become de rigeur and when challenged for being sloppy our newspapers decide to just get stroppy."

The late Oliver Brown crafted a great many aphorisms in his time. His comment about the effect Winnie Ewing taking her seat in the House of Commons had on Scottish Labour MPs has entered legend. However, his remark that "All a man needs in life is a good cause, and the enmity of the Glasgow Herald, and he can be sure if he has the first then the second will automatically follow", has seldom in my lifetime seemed quite so apposite.

I'm not going to reel off an extended lament about how much better the Herald used to be than it is presently. Nor is it worthwhile rising to their tedious editorial whinge, in the aftermath of the past week, about “SNP-supporting bloggers and posters who attempt to colonise newspaper comment sections and letters pages”. It's nice to know where you stand, after all, and that your views are henceforth to be regarded by the newspaper as somehow unwelcome.

I don't ask for much in a newspaper. Political impartiality over the piece is preferred, as is a recognition that there's a world which exists beyond the City of London or Babbity Bowsters. Even just one or two interesting columnists will help me tolerate the blinkered shrillness of the others, whose main purpose in life seems to be to keep the letters editor busy rather than to dispense elucidation and enlightenment. A recognition that the SPL exists is always welcome, as is a realisation that it takes more than four teams – the Old Firm and whoever they happen to be playing next – to help make up our national game.

I can just about tolerate the relentless eulogising of Gordon Brown, in both print and picture, in which the Herald has seemed to specialise over the past two years. Its focus on Glasgow may be a betrayal of the broad vision which the late Arnold Kemp had for the title and out of place for a paper with pan-Scottish pretentions, but at least you can understand it in the context of a core readership comprised historically of the West coast mercantile classes. Even its relentless knocking of the SNP might be understandable – it is the government, after all, and it is there to be shot at. Nevertheless, no matter how much it pains me to say it, my patience is just about through with a title which I've read almost daily since I was a student.

The relentless cheerleading for an overpriced rail link to an airport, on the wrong side of the city, which would be isolated from the links which the majority of Scots enjoy to Queen Street rather than Central, and which would only save 5 minutes over the existing bus service, might be forgivable if it weren't dressed up in such an obvious political agenda. The 'Scarred Scotland' strapline over Beauly to Denny was simply a perversion of reality. But even the virulence, absurdity and histrionic self-justification in aspects of recent coverage pales into insignificance when considered beside the Herald's greatest and most debilitating flaw. Quite simply, and there's no way to sugar coat this - it has become deeply, soporifically, almost terminally boring.

It's become a sorry, if latterly infrequent ritual. Skip over the slanted page one lead. Flick past the crime stories. Ignore the Labour puff-piece on the politics page, strain your eyes for the much more important stories relegated to a couple of column inches, if you're lucky. Snooze through the lifestyle pages. Yawn at the banality of the editorial page. Skim past the usual suspects on the letters page. Remember how much funnier the Diary was when Tom Shields did it. Have a glance at the obituaries, see what's on telly later, look in vain for any coverage of the mighty Aberdeen FC in the sports pages and then, if the cat's litter tray is still fresh, consign it to the nearest recycling bin.

I realise that the Herald's problem is me, and those like me. I used to buy the Herald and its Sunday stablemate 7 days a week. In fact, I've never consciously stopped buying it. However, my 100% loyalty has dwindled over the past couple of years or so to the point that, thinking about it, I last bought a Herald 3 Sundays ago. I can't even remember the last time I tried to use the dreadful website. Frankly, there's nothing I've seen over the past fortnight which will be encouraging me to reverse the trend any time soon.

It's a title which no longer speaks to me, even if it's taken until the last few weeks for me to realise it. I dare say I'll still pick it up from time to time, maybe at the station or the airport, or if badgered sufficiently by my SO. I won't say goodbye, just like I never said hello, and my 80p or whatever it is it now costs each day will just stay in my pocket. The only bit I'll really miss is Ron Ferguson's column, and I can read him in the P&J anyway.

It's commonplace to remark that the Scottish media is in a sorry state. I'd like to think that it's worth saving, but it's going to take more than subsidies and retreating into entrenched geographical and political prejudices to achieve that. Let's start with a more generous spirit in reporting culture, trying to have a wider world view, learning to challenge your readership without antagonising them and most important of all, in trying to improve the bits in between the adverts. Maybe someone could let me know if the Herald starts to improve – it would be a great shame to lose touch entirely with an old friend, after all, no matter how much they've begun to grate latterly.

A 'Yes' for Wales

Some important news from Wales which you almost certainly won't have seen on our glorious British 'national' news. This evening, the Senedd passed a motion which triggers the process for a referendum to be held on transferring legislative powers to the institution from Westminster. The motion, which required the support of at least 40 AMs, succeeded in garnering the support of 53 in the end, with no abstentions or votes against.



And so begins a process which will see First Minister Carwyn Jones write to Secretary of State, Peter Hain, informing him of the result. The Secretary of State then has 120 days in which to consider the request, and lay a draft order for the referendum, or to respond in the negative explaining why a vote can't go ahead.

A rejection seems highly unlikely. Hain has already said this evening that he looks forward to “beginning the preparatory work”. His Conservative shadow, Cheryl Gillan, has also made it clear that the Tories, should they win the general election in the meantime, will not stand in the way of a referendum. Plaid Cymru, as you would expect, are in favour, while for the Lib Dems, Kirsty Williams has argued that the present settlement is “unsustainable”.

There's no doubting the progress that the self-government argument has made in Wales since the knife edge referendum result in 1997. I stayed up to watch the results coming in that evening, and went to bed in the wee small hours, despondent that the 'No' campaign looked to have won the day. In the event, it took the final declaration from Carmarthenshire to swing it. Seldom has a student hangover disappeared quite so quickly!



The argument for the transfer of legislative powers ought to be unanswerable. The current system whereby Legislative Competence Motions have to be passed in order to give the Senedd powers to legislate on particular matters, is clunky and cumbersome. However, the challenge, at a time of cynicism about politics and politicians, is to set this in a context and narrative which resonates with people. Done properly, and with the cross party support already in evidence, it can give the Senedd, and indeed the whole idea of self-government for Wales, the emphatic legitimising endorsement that so many loud voices have always sought to deny the institution.

While I wish my many Welsh friends and colleagues likely to be involved in the 'Yes' campaign all the best, it's hard not to draw a parallel with Scotland. Here, we're told by our regional franchises of Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems that a referendum on the constitution is no-go. Thanks to this evening's vote in the Commons on electoral reform, that's two referendums which now have the go-ahead to take place during an economic downturn, when people's minds are focused on [insert own self-serving excuse here].


It really shouldn't need to be pointed out, but the legitimacy of our political processes and their ability to respond to people's concerns has arguably never been more important. It's not just about who governs or how they govern, but also the ability we have to influence how we ourselves are governed. Here's to a successful referendum in Wales, and to a similarly successful vote on Independence in the not too distant future.

Update: Hamish Macdonell adds his slant in the Caledonian Mercury.

Underreacting - Again

Brace yourselves, people. Start looking out those candles and remember to wrap up warm. It seems that a mishap has just hit Torness Nuclear Power Station, causing one of the reactors, our most 'reliable' source of energy, to shut down. What? You mean that the lights don't go off without nuclear after all? Oh...

It should be pointed out that the fault affected a transformer, rather than anything more critical, and that the reactor shut itself down automatically only as a precaution. However, it does highlight one of the biggest drawbacks of nuclear as a source of power, at least when it comes to Scotland.

The conventional wisdom of the nuke fanatics is that it generates 50% of Scotland's electricity, a myth which I've stamped on before. The truth is that when both Torness and Hunterston are going at full output, they generate something like 35% of our total output, meaning that if one of either station's two reactors shuts down, we lose nearly 9% of our normal capacity. If either station has to shut completely, as happened to Hunterston B over 2006/7, that's the equivalent of losing all the power Scotland exports routinely through the interconnector.

That nuclear is inflexible to demand is one of the reasons it is spoken of in hushed tones of reverence as a way of meeting 'base load'. The flip side of this is that any sudden and unexpected loss of a big chunk of capacity like this can be hard to deal with. The same of course is true of any large power station going out of service. However, the problem is magnified many times where nuclear is concerned, not least because the down time for conventional stations in the event of a shutdown is seldom as lengthy as it is for nuclear.

The loss of a reactor affects the 'levelised' cost - the total cost of the station over its lifespan. Given the astronomical construction costs associated with nuclear power, and even allowing for the fact that the brave, swashbuckling capitalists of the nuclear industry still need the taxpayer to take the decommissioning liabilities off their balance sheet, the lengthy outages common to the UK industry do nothing to convince that nuclear can be considered either cheap or reliable.

In contrast, tidal flow and waves are as predictable as the moon orbiting the earth. If the wind doesn't blow in one part of the country, it will generally be blowing somewhere else. Demand is generally predictable, as is the ability of conventional fossil fuel powered stations, hydro, pumped storage, tidal, wave and wind to match it. A decentralised grid, flat connection charges, feed in tariffs to encourage take up of domestic microgeneration, and greater energy efficiency represent a much more sensible approach than putting so many of our eggs in the nuclear basket.

Nuclear might well be a wise option for countries lacking the ability to sequestrate carbon, or without access to significant resources of wind, wave, tidal and hydro power. They can choose that course if they wish, and be saddled with the financial millstone of decommissioning. In Scotland at least, our comparative advantages, and greatest opportunities, lie elsewhere.
FR43FNFC9574

Transmission (Re)vamp

Now that the dust is settling on the budget (passed today - still nothing constructive from Labour, and with fence splinters characteristically needing removed from the Lib Dem body politic), it's time to revisit the brouhaha over Beauly-Denny.

With a great big tip of the hat to the Caledonian Mercury, here's a map which shows the route that the new, upgraded line is anticipated to take:




In all, some 53km of 132kV overhead transmission line between Boat of Garten and Cairnmore in the Cairngorm National Park will be removed. 40km of 132kV overhead transmission line between Etteridge and Boat of Garten in the Cairngorm National Park will be removed, to be replaced by 33kV overhead lines supported by wooden poles, or underground cables. Meanwhile, a further 10km of 132kV overhead transmission line around Whitebridge and around Amulree will be replaced with underground cables.

The new 400kV overhead line between Beauly and Denny won't pass through any of Scotland’s designated National Scenic Areas, meaning that the section of the Beauly-Denny line passing through the Cairngorm National Park will be reduced from 35km to 28km, and will be much closer to the western boundary of the Park.

While mitigation details have still to be worked out, this does rather put some of the more lurid claims about the impact on the National Park into sharp perspective.

A Will To Settle Unfinished Business

Hibernation over. Here's a column for the Scots Independent, due to arrive through all good letterboxes shortly...

Devolution – the 'settled will of the Scottish people' according to John Smith, who famously regarded the creation of a devolved parliament as being 'unfinished business'. If you believed the Labour mythologising, that business was finished in 1999 when they and they alone passed the Scotland Act. Scotland had her Parliament, and the precise balance struck between powers reserved and devolved was perfect in front of God, enabling us to have those much fabled 'Scottish solutions to Scottish problems' while retaining all the benefits of our place in the UK.

Although a few enlightened figures such as Donald Dewar were prepared to pay lip service to the idea that devolution was a process rather than an event, a concerted attempt was made to cast the die. Woe betide any unwary nationalist who dared to upset the new consensus by suggesting that the new 'settlement' might not be the final act in the play.

The prelude to this mood music being struck up was there for all to see beforehand. At the 1995 'Great Debate' in the debating chamber of the Old Royal High School between George Robertson and Alex Salmond, the then Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland tuned up his unionist fiddle. Devolution would kill the SNP 'stone dead', he crowed. Attempts by the SNP to build on the powers of the Parliament by seeking independence would be to 'wreck' the new institution, 'without even giving it a chance'.

Nostradamus he most certainly wasn't. But moving on from the political ghosts of arguments past, I have a rule of thumb when it comes to the reporting of opinion polls which canvass on independence. If the poll is portrayed as representing a 'fresh blow' to the SNP, 9 times out of 10 the coverage is hiding something far more interesting behind the headline. And so it is with the latest work produced by the Scottish Centre for Social Research.

The research showed that on a question asking whether Scots wished to become "separate from the UK", only 28% were in favour, with 56% stating a preference for the present set up and a stubborn 8% wanting to see the parliament done away with altogether. Nevertheless, the devil, as ever, was to be found in the detail.

It's an article of faith for many unionists that an independent Scotland would be unable to support itself economically – an obviously false conclusion for anyone possessed of even half a mind and a stamp or two in their passport. Given the steady stream of ill informed newspaper articles and blogposts which take it as an article of faith that Scotland is somehow subsidised by a UK running a record deficit, the numbers are revealing – 31% of Scots believe that independence would improve our economy, 32% believe the effect would be negative while a further third are either unsure or don't believe it will make any difference.

It's clear that the SNP has taken its supposed Achilles Heel of the economy and played opponents to a draw. Seen like that, the prophesies of economic doom and gloom serve only to further entrench the never likely to be converted into their existing prejudices, leaving nearly two thirds of the electorate as fertile territory for the independence message.

Elsewhere, the message is equally positive for the SNP. When it comes to control over tax, almost 60% believe that Scotland should take the important decisions about tax, while an identical number believe the same about the benefits system. Only in the realms of defence and foreign affairs were the numbers reversed, with 60% preferring Westminster control to the 31% who wanted to see these matters managed from Edinburgh.

So, in the space of a decade, Scots have moved decisively away from acceptance of a constitutional settlement which saw taxation, public spending and welfare decided at Westminster, to expressing a view that these are matters which should be managed by the Scottish Government. Even if it still places voters behind where the SNP would prefer them to be, it's clear what the direction of travel is, and which party it is that is exerting the motive force in the constitutional debate.

It's evident that Scottish voters retain an attachment to the idea of the UK, which we can see expressed clearly in those particular numbers. Nevertheless, Scots obviously want to be a lot more independent than they already are, or are being given the chance to be. However, there is also clearly a great deal of 'cognitative dissonance' going on – the psychological discomfort which comes from holding two contrary views at the same time – when it comes to the figures for defence and international relations.

Most Scots were against the war in Iraq, remain opposed to nuclear weapons, and are supportive of Scotland having a direct voice in Europe, even if not yet the wider world. In view of the fact that it is impossible to have control over the procurement of weapons, the deployment of armed forces or the stance which Ministers adopt in international negotiations without independent statehood, there is considerable scope for the SNP to win these particular arguments in the future as well, providing they are set in the context of what independence might mean in practice.

If further devolution happens, it makes independence seem less of a step. With Gordon Brown having kicked Calman into the post-election long grass, if it is shown that Westminster can't even concede modest advances in devolution, the potential for moving the numbers on independence upwards becomes even greater.

But returning to John Smith, it's clear that he was at least half-right. Now, the only settled will of the Scottish electorate seems to be that the devolution we already have is itself unfinished business. It's going to be an interesting few years.

As You Were

The received wisdom of Scotland's blethering classes over the past couple of weeks or so has been that the Scottish Government, but in particular the SNP, had somehow hit the skids. The glee in certain quarters has been palpable.

The basis for this observation seemed to be that there'd been a credit crunch. That the SNP hadn't managed to take a rock-solid Labour seat at a by-election. That there'd been a hulaballoo over the cancellation of the rail link to Glasgow Airport. That minimum pricing for alcohol was likely to face defeat in Parliament. That there was still a majority in Holyrood against an independence referendum. Winning 20 Westminster seats was now 'off the agenda', we were told by those who know, just as was independence. Go back to your constituencies and prepare for opposition etc etc.

Mostly, though, it seemed to be because an echo chamber of opposition politicos and unionist-inclined meeja types all agreed with themselves that it would be desirable if this were indeed so.
What was absent was any semblance of a note of caution – I mean, how many times since the SNP started to achieve a leadership position in Scottish politics have we been assured that the wheels have come off what has regularly been described, somewhat inaccurately, as an SNP 'bandwagon'?

Mood music matters in politics. Despite what politicians would have you believe, it's rare that any one single event ever acts as a watershed – instead, it's the drip drip effect over time which alters perceptions and ultimately, voter behaviour. For that reason, it's understandable that people opposed to the SNP and all its works will always do all they can to try and pretend that the party's aims are unpopular, and that its figures and policies are somehow out of step with public opinion, whether this is the case or not.

The problem with this sort of political pyramid selling is that without more people piling in behind to back up the message, if the basic prospectus lacks support amongst the general populace, it quickly falls apart. And so it has, if a new poll published by Ipsos Mori is to be believed.

The SNP has restored its lead in the polls for Holyrood and crucially, for this observer, for Westminster too. When fed into Electoral Calculus, the SNP would on these figures win 16 seats, putting the party on target for its aim of 20. It also puts the support for a future independence referendum running at 75%, even if that is split between 25% who want an immediate referendum which isn't on offer, and a further 50% who say they want a vote at some date in the future.

People will make their own judgments on the so called 'bread and butter' issues, and will continue to take a jaundiced view of the opportunism which sees the main opposition party taking major policy decisions based less on principle than on the perceived tactical advantage they might yield. If Scottish Labour carries on as it has been, alcohol pricing will not be the only touchstone issue where, as Susan Deacon says, the party finds itself 'in the wrong place for the wrong reasons'.

On Calman too, it's back to square one. Labour won't implement any reforms before the next election. Rather than take the initiative now, the party seems willing to risk leaving matters in the hands of a possible incoming Tory government, which has pointedly refused to say what it will and will not implement in the report. The Lib Dems, meanwhile, seem to have got precious little for their efforts. Even after Calman, we still have three parties still holding three different positions, united only by their agreement that they neither want independence nor to give voters a say on which, if any, of the constitutional futures canvassed for Scotland ought to prevail.

For the constitutional debate, read also the policy debate. Everyone, even and especially those in the SNP, recognises that it remains a minority, albeit a sizable one. The difficulty for those who seek to oppose the party at every turn seems to be, exactly as it has been since 2007, in recognising that the non-SNP majority remains remarkably resistant to being moulded into anything coherent.

Just because a majority appears to be against something is no guarantee that a majority in favour of something can be found within those numbers. Both domestically and on the constitution, the debate on Scotland's future has a way to run yet...

What's The Welsh For 'Schadenfreude'?

Interesting developments today in Wales, where all hell appeared to break loose after Labour put out a press release declaring that there would be no more progress on a referendum on further devolution until after the general election.

Referendum? Further devolution? Labour? Yes, you read the above correctly. Enacted by a Labour government and supported by the Lib Dems, as a result of the 2006 Government of Wales Act, provision exists for our Cambrian cousins to hold a referendum to decide whether or not the Welsh Assembly should be given primary legislative powers. Even some Welsh Conservatives are now in on the fun, arguing that not only should there be a vote on granting legislative powers, but also arguing in favour of the move.

The statement by First Minister Rhodri Morgan, Welsh Secretary Peter Hain and the Chair of Welsh Labour clearly caught their Plaid Cymru coalition partners unawares. Part of the 'One Wales' coalition deal between the two parties is a commitment to holding the referendum, if it is winnable, by May 2010. In response, Plaid branded the move as a "serious breach of trust" and "completely unacceptable". Things appeared to have cooled down by the afternoon, though, with Rhodri Morgan and Plaid Depute First Minister Ieuan Wyn Jones able to say in an emergency statement following some hasty afternoon negotiations that "all options" on timing were open.

The similarities, not to say differences with Scotland are immediately apparent. With the Westminster Government insisting that there will be no progress on Calman until after the election, and this attempt by Peter Hain to delay a referendum in Wales, the game being played by Westminster Labour is pretty clear. Everything will be put into the deep freeze for now and the election fought on the claim that only Labour can deliver on further devolution in an attempt to try and shore up their vote. This either buys another few years of time in which to do nothing if Labour gets re-elected, or leaves the whole thing for the Conservatives to deal with should they run out winners.

Except, neither Plaid nor the SNP have played ball. The Scottish Government has draft orders in place which would allow for Calman to proceed without any need for further delay. Meanwhile, with Rhodri Morgan due to stand down, Plaid have the option of refusing to back any Labour candidate for the First Ministership who opts to backslide on this aspect of the coalition deal.

But why might Labour, other than its innate conservatism and reluctance to concede any more devolution than it absolutely must to fend off the electoral threat of the nationalists, be so keen to put the brakes on? The answer may lie very close to home, with echoes to be heard in the increasingly shrill cries against holding an independence referendum in Scotland.

Firstly, there's the problem for all of the unionist parties, but particularly for Labour, of being seen to support a Welsh referendum while ruling one out in Scotland. It's a position which holds precisely zero credibility. With public support for a referendum already high, it's a contradiction with which the SNP would need no encouragement to make hay over.

However, the ramifications run so much deeper. Think on the 'neverendum' argument posited by unionists as a reason why Scots shouldn't even be permitted to hold a first vote. Joyously, in section 103 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, it is made clear that if a majority of Welsh voters do not back the transfer of primary legislative powers, this does not prevent Westminster from laying the orders necessary to hold a further referendum in the future.

In just one paragraph, the Labour party in Government, and the Lib Dems who supported the bill on its passage, have enshrined explicitly in legislation the principal that there should be no time bar on holding a subsequent referendum if people vote against. Scotland can't get a vote on further constitutional change, but the Welsh can have as many votes as they like until they deliver what the government considers to be the right answer. Thus, by Labour and the Lib Dems own hands, the neverendum argument, such as it ever was, is killed stone dead.

The timescales promise to be similarly glorious, at least from an SNP perspective since all parties in Wales seem still to be contemplating a referendum prior to 2011. Compare and contrast this position with the unionist advanced argument in Scotland that constitutional ‘navel gazing’ (Calman presumably excepted) is the ‘wrong’ thing to do in a recession. In Wales, we will shortly be hearing the counter argument from a Lib/Lab/Con alliance that only with the further transfer of powers can the measures needed to counter the downturn adequately be taken.

If the Welsh Assembly backs a referendum by the required 2/3rds majority, the Welsh First Minister has to give notice of this in writing to the Secretary of State. The clock then starts ticking – the Secretary of State then has 120 days to either lay a draft of a statutory instrument containing an Order in Council before each House of Parliament, or give notice in writing to the First Minister as to why they are refusing to do so.

If this Assembly vote happens prior to the election, say in mid February 2010, it means that the first thing a Welsh Secretary will have to do post-election is decide whether or not a referendum can go ahead. Whether that person be Labour or Tory, even assuming that matters don't move quite so quickly, it seems likely that just as the unionist parties carry out their threat in Scotland to vote down a referendum bill, the issue will be resurrected almost immediately when matters come to a head in Wales.

Gloating is seldom an attractive trait in politics, but then again, neither is the defence of blatant double standards. Thanks to this piece of three year old legislation, the unionists have slayed every single argument that ever passed their lips against the principal of a referendum on constitutional change, on the principle of having future votes if required and on the principle of having a referendum during an economic downturn.

Peter Hain is due to visit Wales tomorrow, and will doubtless come under intense pressure to explain firstly why today's statement was made, and secondly, to state whether he backs the position as set out this afternoon by The First Minister and his Deputy. It should be fun to watch, but not nearly as much fun as it will be to see Scotland's unionists squirming over why Scotland should be denied a referendum just as the Welsh seem set to prepare to go to the polls.

The twisting and turning in the months ahead will be simply exquisite to watch. Now where's that popcorn?

UPDATE: Plaid Candidate Heledd Fychan seems mildly amused by it all as well...

Huntly - Monday and Saturday

Work took me to Huntly on Monday, in the aftermath of the floods which saw around 100 people evacuated from their homes.

Almost a month's rainfall in 24 hours, allied to ground already saturated from previous rainfall, saw the River Deveron rise dramatically overnight as water ran straight off the hills. As the river rose, the burn which flows through The Meadows estate quickly backed up and burst its banks in the early hours of the morning, flooding the neighbouring housing estate and the nearby Meadows care home.

First stop was the Stewart's Hall, where many of those affected were awaiting meetings with representatives of Aberdeenshire Council and Grampian Housing, to try and sort out what could be done until their homes were again habitable. Alex Salmond, who is the local MSP, and Cllr Joanna Strathdee, were also there to offer their support.

With the floodwater beginning to slowly drain away, the clean-up operation was getting underway. However, with furniture, carpets, walls and floors damaged beyond repair, it could be weeks if not months before some people are able to return to their homes. It's hard to offer words of comfort in these circumstances, but amongst the residents I spoke to, many of whom were still coming to terms with what had happened, there was a stoic determination to soldier on and to return to normality as soon as was possible.

Later, Joanna and I went round the housing estate to see for ourselves how the clean-up operation was progressing. We also took a walk along the Deveron down by Huntly Castle, which had by that stage begun to return to its normal levels. Even there, down by the Nordic Ski Centre, the extent of the damage was quite remarkable.

Here's a photo of debris, including planks from the scaffolding which had been on the A96 bridge:



The gravel from the riverside footpath was swept away (above), leaving the trench below:
















A flooded car park. The water had fallen considerably by the time this was taken:


The Deveron in full spate, with the riverside path turned into a canal:



However, today saw the second weekend of the Huntly Hairst festival, along with a Continental and Farmers market. I headed along in the afternoon to take a wander round and chat with folk about how the town was responding to Monday's events.

A slightly more sedate Deveron today:

Today's market:




There's a fantastic community spirit in Huntly, and it's been great to see the way that local people have rallied round. However, those still out of their homes are likely to need help for some time to come. Life goes on, but we shouldn't forget that there's still a lot to do to return life to normal for the folk who lost their homes last week.

Taken To Cask

Yes, yes. I know it's a lazy shot, but even after a severe bout of the cold and a protracted case of the canny be bothereds, this still makes me laugh:




Yep, in their press release relating to regulations laid in parliament which will improve the labelling of Scotch Whisky, Jim Murphy's full time press officer, working for a part-time department, has managed to mis-spell the word whisky.

'On the rocks', 'spelling disaster for the industry', 'lacking spirit' - insert your own jokes here...

Lib Dems "To Mount Referendum Review"

Well, well, well. What to make of the news that the Scottish Lib Dems are to re-examine their position on an Independence referendum at their Scottish Autumn Conference later this month?

I dare say that the hooting and hollering will begin in earnest from both Labour and the Tories, amidst claims that they and only they can be trusted to stand up for the union. However, we should be clear. This may only be a first step towards the Lib Dems changing their existing policy, but it’s not of itself a decision to support a referendum, and it’s certainly not a declaration of support for independence.

For that reason, the SNP would be well advised to play it cool. However, the questions remain - after mounting such a staunch defence of the policy last month, why consider changing it now? And what does this say about the state of Tavish Scott’s leadership of his party?

I see 3 possibilities:

• Tavish does this to try and shore up his position. Rightly or wrongly, he believes that the membership backs him on this issue, and so asks them to show dissident MSP, MPs and candidates that the pro-referendum argument is ‘over’.
• Tavish does this from a position of weakness, having had it forced on him by unhappy Lieutenants who can see the political damage it is doing.
• Tavish has belatedly realised that telling people they can’t have a referendum is a vote loser, and is seeking to u-turn in a way which can be presented as having been as consensual and as ‘liberal’ as possible.

It’s pretty obvious that the virulently anti-SNP/anti-independence streak which exists at the top of the Lib Dems isn’t at all representative of most of their members, far less their voters. Similarly, the hard line adopted over a referendum by Tavish Scott has discomfited many, who are instinctively in favour of giving people a vote on their constitutional future.

Certainly, in my experience, it goes down like a lead balloon on the doorsteps, since most people want a referendum regardless as to how they’d go on to vote. It’s also no secret, as we learned from their recent UK conference, that senior lib Dem strategists are concerned that the longer a referendum is postponed, the more likely it is that there might be a successful ‘yes’ vote to Independence.

However, Tavish’s difficulties aside, could there be another factor at work? The Calman Commission, with Gordon Brown showing no inclination to implement even the uncontroversial bits and with David Cameron rowing away from even the merest tweaking of the financial powers, is now the deadest of dead ducks. It was always destined to be lowest common denominator stuff and as was long predicted, was always unlikely to leave the Lib Dems with anything even approaching their preferred option of Federalism.

The constitutional debate in Scotland runs on SNP petrol. Without the prospect of Scots voting for independence, arguments for further devolution lose all force where it really matters – in Westminster. For the Lib Dems to back an independence referendum would flush Labour and the Tories out on Calman, and force both parties to come up with something, and sharpish. So, there’s a sound, strategic argument for the Lib Dems to back an independence referendum as a means of achieving further devolution. But then, that was always the case all along.

The Lib Dems are all over the place on tax, all over the place on spending, and now, all over the place on Scotland’s future. While conventional wisdom would suggest that inconsistency is a bad thing, I think that most voters would welcome just such a policy change, and might just be inclined to forgive Tavish Scott for his inconsistencies on this issue. Who knows, it might even represent the first act in throwing away the shovels with which the party started digging so enthusiastically when its MPs opted to bury Charles Kennedy.

With Respect, Mr Cameron...

Seeing as it's this blog's third birthday today, it's probably time to break the recent haitus...


...and the recent partisan claptrap about SNP participation in a party leaders' debate seems as good a place to begin as any.

Let's cut to the chase. In the UK, there are strict rules about broadcasting impartiality when it comes to politics. These don't often work to the SNP's advantage when it comes to the balance achieved between 'network' and 'regional' coverage during a Westminster election, but the rules exist, and they're there for a reason.

You would think, therefore, that if a party leaders' debate were to be proposed, that any sensible, fair minded person would have little difficulty in agreeing that the debate or debates which resulted ought to respect and reflect these rules. Ha. Mention the necessity to ensure that parties other than Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems be represented, and out sallies a hellish legion of talking heads in parliament and in print, determined to berate others for their impertinence in seeking to disrupt the binary Westminster agenda, in a vain attempt to disguise their own self interest in skewing and narrowing the debate which would result.

The most substantial criticism, if you can call it that, of including Plaid Cymru and the SNP in any debates is that they are are 'regional' parties, that they don't contest seats in all parts of the UK, or that they're not going to form the next UK government. On the first count, you could exclude the Tories, since the SNP has almost as many MPs in England as the Tories manage in Scotland (zero plays one). On the second, you could exclude every party except the Conservatives, and on the third count, you might as well tell Vince Clegg to save his taxi fare to the studio.

Now, lest anyone think I'm ditching my customary reasonableness here, let me say that I can see perfectly well why people in England might not want to see a debate involving Alex Salmond or Ieuan Wyn Jones. I can also see that a debate involving 5 or more people could quickly become unwieldy. However, if there's to be a 'leaders' debate', then over the piece it has to involve the leaders of all the main parties. Let's call it as it is - to exclude those who happen to sit in government in Scotland and Wales, one of whom just happens to be the longest-serving party leader in British politics, would be an act of base gerrymandering, which would discredit the entire process. Grist to the nationalist mill it might be, but frankly, isn't there a better way for everyone?

A separate Scottish debate involving the branch managers of the Scottish parties would be the answer to a question no-one is asking. Given the prevalence of satellite TV and internet video, it's difficult to see how any English-only debate (because let's be honest, that's all a showdown between Brown, Cameron and Clegg would be) could be kept off Scottish screens. Which is why the best way to solve this problem, once fevered brows have been cooled, would be to have separate debates in Scotland and Wales which include Brown, Cameron and Clegg.

I've no desire to keep the titanic triumvirate off English TV screens, but I have a desire to see that fairness prevails in Scotland and Wales. Voters are entitled to see how all the party leaders perform against eachother, as well as getting an idea of how they would approach Scotland and Wales over the next term at Westminster. Separate Scottish and Welsh debates would ensure that this is exactly what happens.

David Cameron has promised, if elected, to govern Scotland 'with respect'. With all due respect to Mr Cameron, I'm afraid I don't really believe him. However, he could make a good start on changing people's minds by agreeing to come to Glasgow to take part in a televised debate with Brown and Clegg against Alex Salmond.

If the UK's politicians and broadcasters can't come up with a solution to this problem which reflects the plurality of the British political system, it really doesn't say much for the prospects of that system surviving much longer. Come on, Dave. Be a man and admit you've called this one wrong. Let's see just how far that sense of fair play of yours extends...

Overnight Rain

The road into Inverurie this morning at Uryside. This is normally a field...

The Independence Impact - On Everyone Else

SI column time again... this time, considering the impact that Scottish Independence would have on the rest of the UK - the theme of a foray I made down to London last weekend, to address the SNP's London branch alongside some august intellectual company...

We all have our own arguments about what Independence would mean for Scotland. In the SNP, it's rare to find a point of view falling short of it being a good thing in every conceivable respect. However, there's one rather significant side-effect of independence which we often overlook – the impact it would have on our nearest neighbours.

Scotland going her own way requires us to establish the identity of a Scottish state and to obtain international recognition. It's often forgotten amidst the spurious claims of isolation which arise from this that the rest of the UK, or rUK, would find itself in a completely new position as well, with the idea that all continues as before left open to serious challenge.

First of all, let's follow the money, or perhaps even the lack of it. The UK national debt is set to reach £1.4tr over the next five years – something which Scotland will have to take its share of. However, with independence, what remains of the UK will have lost 8.5% of its population and nearly 10% of its tax revenues. It will also lose a large proportion of one of the UK's most obvious economic assets – North Sea oil and gas

Potentially, that is eyebrow raising stuff for the markets, leading to the prospect that rUK credit status may be downgraded. There's no reason why, handled sensibly, this should of itself be a huge problem. However, it carries with it the hint of the prisoners' dilemma – the optimum position is for Scotland and rUK to co-operate and emphasise continuity, but it one side 'defaults', for example, by rehashing previous spats about who subsidises who, it potentially leaves both sides in a poorer position in the eyes of the markets.

The creation of a new tax regime north of the border also creates a dilemma for the rUK Chancellor. As an English speaking country with a well educated population, fully integrated into EU law with good transport links and a well developed market in professional and legal services, Scotland is an attractive place to do business. Every change in the Scottish tax code which gives Scotland a potential advantage will, as with the Irish Government guaranteeing savers deposits in the early days of the banking crisis, put great pressure on the UK Government to follow suit.

But if the economic impact is potentially significant, the military impact is huge. Trident is the UK's main expression of military geo-political power and rUK could certainly afford to maintain son of Trident if it chose. Indeed, it might feel that doing so was necessary to maintain status as a world, rather than a mere regional power. However, rUK would face an immediate difficulty in the event of independence, since the deep water submarine base and armaments depot necessary for its operation would henceforth be based in a foreign country hostile to their presence.

A lack of access to these facilities would be even more debilitating to the integrity of the Trident 'deterrent' than any withdrawal of US support for the system. The facilities at Faslane and Coulport would take years to replace elsewhere, but even then, where could they go? And where would they be welcome? As such, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that independence would also mean the end of an independent UK nuclear deterrent.

Then there is the loss of Scottish service personnel to UK forces. While Scottish Defence Forces would undoubtedly find themselves serving alongside those of rUK from time to time, it is inconceivable that they would be used, as they have been in the recent past, in operations such as those in Iraq. With the UK already stretched, if Scotland's conventional military capabilities were to be lost, rUK would find it impossible to fulfill its present commitments.

All of this would have a diplomatic impact. Nuclear weapons or not, the inevitable consequence of a reduced military capability and ability to deploy it would be a diminished status internationally. At the UN Security Council, it would become increasingly hard to justify continued rUK presence in the permanent 5, particularly when a nuclear armed Indian democracy of 800m sits outside. Although it would be fiercely resisted by the French, pressure may build to have a single European seat, or at the very least expand the number of permanent members.

Then we come to Europe, and votes in the European Parliament and Council of Ministers (CoM). Scotland would see an increase in her number of MEPs, and would for the first time gain representation at CoM level. The impact is on rUK, which given a population loss of 5m, would snap into sharp focus the fact that Germany with a population of 80m would still have the same number of votes as rUK, on 55m.

One solution might be to increase the weight of German votes, although this would likely be unacceptable to the French. Accordingly, the most likely option would be to see a reduction in rUK voting power to the same number of CoM votes as Spain – something which, strange but true, would see Scotland and rUK with a stronger combined influence than the UK at presence.

But how much does this really affect England, Wales and Northern Ireland, rather than a British political class which boasts endlessly of 'special relationships' and 'punching above our weight'? Without Scotland, many of the traditional ties for Northern Irish unionists to the UK become less meaningful. Wales, which frequently looks to Scotland politically, would see that the British state was not indivisible, and may perhaps decide that the 'full national status' accorded to Scotland and advocated by Plaid Cymru is something both attainable and desirable after all.

So whither England, when so much of English identity has been tied up in 'Britishness' for the last 3 centuries? If we Scots seem further down the road to resolving outstanding issues of politics and identity in the world, it's probably because we've been obsessing about it for far longer. England, once de-colonised from the British State, can see a progressive, civic identity emerge, which is able to reflect itself politically and sit comfortably alongside the emerging independence of Scotland and Wales. A nation, hopefully, at ease with itself and its inhabitants, and able to look confidently to the future, without feeling diminished by contrasts with the past.

Megrahi - The Aftermath

Busy week and busy weekend, hence the recent radio silence. However, I can't let the events of the past few days pass without comment.

I remember vividly the night that Pan-Am Flight 103 came down, and like everyone, the horror of that evening lives with me still. In the years which have passed since, I​'ve come to admire the great dignity, persistence and vigour with which representatives of the relatives, particularly Dr Jim Swire, have conducted themselves. However, following Megrahi's diagnosis and prognosis, Kenny MacAskill had 4 choices open to him – just as any Justice Secretary of any party would:

1.Leave Megrahi to die in Greenock Prison.
2.Send him home to Libya under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement negotiated by Tony Blair.
3.Place him in secure custody in a safe house or hospice in Scotland.
4.Grant him compassionate release.

The Scottish Prison Service is not well placed to provide the palliative care which we are told Megrahi now needs. As such, option 1 was not a choice which could be described as humane, compassionate or realistic, at least by any code of ethics or morality with which I'm familiar.

The US Government had made plain its implacable opposition to prisoner transfer – given the UK Government's apparent reluctance to confirm or deny what, if any, understandings were in effect with the Lybian and US Governments regarding this, it easy to see why this was a less attractive option than either 3 or 4.

After seeking guidance from Strathclyde Police, it became clear that a minimum of 48 police officers would have been needed to provide adequate security were Mr Megrahi to leave prison custody but remain in Scotland. This would be impractical enough for any safe house option, but completely inappropriate in the context of a hospice where other patients expect to be able to die with dignity in the company of their closest relatives. As such, it was in my view rightly dismissed, which left compassionate release as the best and most humane option.

With dreary predictability, the charge of naivety has been thrown around liberally, particularly in the aftermath of Megrahi's welcome home. This is self-serving nonsense, for whatever you think of the decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds, the rightness or wrongness of that decision is not affected in any way by the manner in which he was received back in Lybia, however inappropriate we regard that welcome to have been.

I don't envy the position which Kenny MacAskill found himself in. However, genuine naivety is to pretend that any of the other three choice open to him could have been made without consequences. In particular, it would have been naïve to allow Megrahi to return to Lybia under the prisoner transfer agreement – the UK Government's favoured option – only perhaps to see the Lybian Government release him themselves. Far better, then, to release him ourselves from his sentence in view of his medical condition and likely life expectancy.

This was not, as some have claimed, about trying to make a play on the international stage. Rather, it was a temporary overlap between the sphere of international relations and the Scottish legal system, the likes of which we will be very unlikely to ever see again under devolution in its present form. It was inevitable that post-devolution, the decision would find its way into the in tray of a Scottish justice minister at some point.

In terms of political response, the muted criticisms from President Obama and Hilary Clinton were to be expected – they could hardly be expected to say nothing, after all. At home, David Cameron succeeded only in further burnishing his credentials as an opportunistic lightweight. From the likes of Tory MP Daniel Kadjinsky, on Radio Scotland yesterday evening, we hear nothing of greater lasting substance than the plaintive ululations of a post-asteroid dinosaur, not long for Scottish political ecology. And from the other main party leaders in Holyrood, in the words of yesterday's Scotsman editorial [no recent friend of the SNP administration], we saw accusations of opposition “behaviour which was less to do with principle and was more influenced by party political point scoring.”

As squabbles go, it's been all very Scottish – depressingly so - but domestic opinion appears to be hardening in favour of MacAskill's decision – something which I'll bet has only been quickened by some of the less temperate responses we've seen to date. Pride isn't a word I'm wont to use in this case. However, I'm certainly pleased that expedience was rejected in favour of principle, and that we have a justice system in Scotland that whatever its flaws, recognises that justice differs from vengeance, and which can rise above our baser instincts to leave room for compassion, even to those who have shown none for their victims.

S&I Elsewhere - waleshome.org

I have a new article up on the excellent waleshome.org site. Please go and take a look.

Beginning To Take Notice

Sat 15 Aug 2009 By Richard Thomson

For as long as anyone can remember, the devolution debate in Wales has been towed along by developments in Scotland. But that is changing, and Wales might now set the pace of reform...

Murphy's Flaw

Another SI article. What is the point of the Secretary of State these days, except to get in the way? And with his 'activist' approach, will Jim Murphy set an example to any incoming Tory government, thereby marking him out as the midwife of independence?

For students of post-devolution politics, the position of Secretary of State for Scotland is something of a conundrum. With Ministers now accountable to a Scottish Parliament, does Scotland need a territorial minister in the Cabinet any longer? More to the point, if the position didn't already exist, would anyone now bother to invent it?

In days past, the Scottish Secretary was the de-facto Prime Minister of Scotland – the Governor-General minus the feather-plumed hat. With devolution, Scottish Office staff were transferred to the Scottish Executive, leaving the Secretary of State without an empire and in search of a role. It created a political impotence which has been reflected in the chest-beating we've seen from Dover House ever since.

As time progressed it became obvious how little of the role was left. Helen Liddell famously found the position so undemanding that she had time to take French lessons. Alastair Darling and Douglas Alexander held the job alongside the Transport brief, while Des Brown juggled it with Defence. It is only with the accession of Jim Murphy that the position has again been given Cabinet status.

Constitutionally, Murphy's job is to represent Scotland in the Cabinet and to administer the block grant, topslicing the costs of his Scotland Office before passing the rest on to St Andrews House. Yet despite this diminished role, the size of the department has increased dramatically since 1999. From having just 20 employees in 2000, it now has over 60 today, and a budget which has ballooned from £3.7m in 1999 to £7.2m in 2009.

His department has issued just over 100 press releases since the start of the year, mostly welcoming initiatives taken by other departments, or announcing that he had appeared in Parliament to fulfill his responsibilities. Yet if this seems languid, it still marks him out as hyperactive in contrast to his recent predecessors.

While the propaganda machine might be in full flow, the more important functions seem to fall by the wayside. Not a peep was heard when the Chancellor imposed his recent increase in spirit duties. £1bn of Westminster cuts are obscured with spurious attacks on the SNP for poor macroeconomic outcomes in Scotland over which the Scottish Government, through Labour's own design, has little control anyway. The role he's created seems to be that of Labour PR man, rather than any kind of useful ally for the Scottish interest at Westminster.

With their Joint Ministerial Committees and 'compacts', Labour quite sensibly envisaged that direct links between Scottish and Whitehall Ministers would be the norm. Even as these structures fell into abeyance through the use of informal party networks, no significant liaison role was ever envisaged for the Secretary of State. Yet it is in this role that Murphy tries to portray himself as the great conciliator, inevitably in the context of mediating between an exasperated Whitehall and a supposedly fight-picking SNP Government.

Recently, he presented himself as having brokered a meeting between John Swinney and the Treasury over how a replacement Forth Bridge might be funded, despite the meeting having been arranged without his help. While others got on with working out how the bridge might be funded, Jim was busy spinning glory for himself from an inconclusive outcome while casting slights on the Scottish Government for the supposed shortcomings in its approach.

It's a tactic best described as pouring oil on troubled waters before trying to set fire to it. If he was a footballer, he'd be the one constantly pulling your jersey, before throwing himself to the ground in theatrical agony and complaining to the referee that he didn't get a free kick for his troubles. Which takes us to the heart of his new role – that of effective leader of the opposition in Scotland.

Labour in Holyrood has been utterly inept since the SNP's 2007 victory, with successive leaders failing to land a glove on a popular administration. It's debatable whether the next Labour First Minister is even elected yet to Holyrood. Lacking anyone with the talent to discomfit an assured SNP, it's fallen to Murphy to try and take up the job.

Even though he gets a free run from a press corps bored with a narrative of SNP success, he's running out of time, since his position depends not on Labour's performance in Scotland, but rather its performance UK-wide. Even if he holds his seat at the general election, unless Gordon Brown can effect a Lazarus-style political resurrection, it'll likely be David Cameron who appoints the next Secretary of State for Scotland. While Labour's ultra-unionists might not be too dismayed at that prospect, it's still a dangerous tack. For through his approach, Murphy has paved the way for an activist Conservative Scottish Secretary, with all that would entail for the remaining legitimacy of the UK.

Under the current settlement, election results mean that whether we like it or not, Labour has a certain legitimacy in Scotland over matters reserved, although this is not something that will transfer to an incoming Conservative administration. Just imagine, if you will, a Conservative Scottish Secretary trying to pull the same tricks, over matters reserved and devolved, in the face of likely stout cross-party Scottish opposition to a Conservative government at Westminster.

It's not difficult to see happening, at least for a time, nor is it difficult to imagine the likely response from Scottish voters. With Margaret Thatcher described as the midwife of devolution, how ironic it would be if in trying to bolster his party and the union, Murphy's example were to trigger the events which led to a yes vote in a future independence referendum.

On The Buses

It's not often you'll find me linking to something in the Daily Mail, but this Craig Brown piece is just too good to miss:

Hold on tight, it's Gordon Brown the coach driver

Every summer, I like to board a coach and set off on a sunshine tour. This summer, when I arrived at the coach, I was surprised to find that no-one had yet boarded. The queue of holidaymakers was growing increasingly irate with the driver. 'If I did not think I was the right person to be driving this coach,' the driver was saying, 'I would not be sitting here holding the steering wheel.'

Oddly enough, his voice seemed familiar. 'I have the focus, the energy and the determination to drive this bus. I have never forgotten my father teaching me to change gears, to signal clearly and always to do the right thing. I want to put something back into this bus. This is who I am.'

One of the passengers standing outside then asked him through the window where he would be going. 'I believe in coaches,' he replied. 'I believe in roads. And I believe in driving coaches along roads.' At that moment, it suddenly struck me who he was.

Read the rest here.

H/T - Mediawatch

Top 10

A last-minute dash to the polling station in the Total Politics Top Ten Blogs Poll has yielded the following selection from the Ellon judge:

1. Blether With Brian

All right, he's being paid to do it, but Brian Taylor still sets the standard I'd like to achieve for myself when I decide to be even-handed.

2. Mr Eugenides

He probably doesn't need the vote, but then, who really does?

3. SNP Tactical Voting

Quality and quantity. The undisputed king of nat pack bloggers.

4. Lallands Peat Worrier

Witty, erudite, cultured and always bang on the money. Wouldn't be surprised to learn that he's kind to animals and phones his mother every week as well. His picture is to be found both prominent and hole-ridden on my dartboard in consequence.

5. Clairwill

Thought-provoking and often plain laugh-out-loud funny.

6. The Steamie

Lets David Maddox show that there's more to his repertoire than simply knocking politicians as hard as he can. Also allows Geri Peev to be more prolific, which is always a good thing in my book.

7. Bill Cameron

A place where I find disagreement without disagreeableness.

8. Adam Price

Quite possibly the cleverest MP in the country. Certainly one of the best public speakers, and definitely the most thought provoking blogger in Westminster.

9. Alex Massie

The best thing about the Spectator Coffee House.

10. Leaves on the Line

Didn't get where he is today by wearing underpants decorated with Beethoven, apparently. Another favourite read.

Social Unions

I entrusted myself to the tender mercies of Nationalised Express this weekend to make a visit to London. The occasion was the wedding of two of my friends, Tom and Jacqui, with whom I used to share a house when I stayed in the city. There was never any question of me missing their wedding. Tom and Jacqui are both very dear friends of mine, with whom I always try to hook up on the infrequent occasions I'm down there now.

Their friendship got my experience of London back on an even keel following an early bad flat experience. Politically, it was an interesting house in which to live. Tom and Jacqui met while working as researchers in the House of Commons – he for a Tory and she for a Labour MP. With a Lib-Dem sympathising lodger and myself as an SNP staffer in tow, we very nearly had the full set represented.

Their wedding was a spectacular affair. The church was grander than many a Cathedral I've visited and the mass, with the addition of a choir, was a world away from the rather more austere, if for me familiar surroundings of the Kirk. Officers from Tom's TA unit provided a guard of honour, before we headed off to the Terrace of the House of Commons for the reception.

However, it was the previous evening which provided a cameo as touching as the wedding itself. Heading pubwards up Shaftesbury Avenue around 9pm, we passed Soho Fire Station. There, in one of the doorways, were two firefighters standing behind a table, collecting for Ewan Williamson of the Lothian and Borders Brigade, who tragically lost his life on July 12 tacking a blaze in Edinburgh's Dalry Road - not far from where I went to school.

Those London firefighters most likely never knew Ewan, but that's not the point. It could just have easily been one of their own watch members who had left a family behind in the line of duty, which is why they were there, collecting change from the late night revellers for someone whom through the bonds of the job they regarded as one of their own.

If it's possible to be both humbled and uplifted in the same moment, that's how what remained of our evening began.