SNP Tactical Voting: Route to a Referendum

This weekend sees two Scottish parties hold their respective conferences. The Scottish Liberal Democrats and Scottish Greens are both key contributors to the debate on an independence referendum but in contrasting ways.

The Greens are onboard. The party backs independence for Scotland and consequently would back a referendum.

The Scottish Lib Dems have adopted a policy of being against a referendum with the party leader Tavish Scott particularly strong in his opposition, insistent that he "won't be the handmaiden of independence".

This contradicts the views of the party's support base with recent polls showing that Lib Dems hold a clear majority in favour of a referendum. This echoes a similar conflict where the party leadership was against the release of Al-Megrahi while polls showed the party's supporters were in favour of Kenny MacAskill's decision. There are surely only a limited number of occasions that Tavish Scott can be at odds with his support base.

Despite the Lib Dems reviewing its policy on an independence referendum, it's probably fair to predict that today's debate will amount to more of a slapping down of the'young upstarts' rebellion (of which John Farquhar Munro and George Lyon are two members) rather than a talking up of a plebiscite next year.

With no support from the Lib Dems, Labour or the Conservatives, what are the SNP to do in its quest of putting the constitutional question to the Scottish people?

Well, one (though not the only) solution is to enjoy a Holyrood coalition with the independence-supporting Green party. 65 pro-referendum MSPs would ensure that any post-2011 Independence Bills would sail through Parliament. The future may not be orange, but yellow and green.

Currently the SNP has 44 seats and the Green party has 2 seats. Could they really make it up to 65 between them? It is perhaps unlikely but let's look at the numbers...

The 2007 election saw the SNP receive 32.9% of the constituency vote and Labour receive 32.2%. This resulted in 21 seats for the SNP and 37 for Labour.

Applying a recent poll that saw the SNP on 39% and Labour on 32% as a national swing for each constituency would change the result to 38 First Past the Post seats for the SNP and 30 for Labour.

In other words, the Nationalists would have pushed past the tipping point of popular support which would see constituencies like Airdrie & Shotts, Cumbernauld & Kilsyth, East Kilbride, Glasgow Kelvin, Edinburgh Pentlands and all Aberdeen seats falling into their hands.

This is of course before considering boundary changes which would no doubt see parties winning a seat here and losing a seat there but the principle remains: If the SNP can push sufficiently ahead of Labour in the first vote, then the regional vote is freed up for the Greens to win seats which would be more likely to be at the expense of Labour candidates rather than at the expense of SNP candidates.

So if the SNP continues to dominate the polls, the Greens improve on their 2007 performance and the Lib Dem leadership continues to adopt positions that conflict with the party membership, then perhaps the Nationalists will find their route to a coveted independence referendum much easier to navigate after the 2011 election.

Eddie Barnes - SNP has it all to do in Glasgow NE

ALEX Salmond has raised some speculation about an SNP surge by announcing he is to head back to Glasgow North East on Monday, having just left there yesterday. This after saying he was going to play a low key role. A year and a bit after they won in Glasgow East, is there about to be another shock on the same streets?

Having lowered expectations over the summer and early autumn about their chances, the SNP is now casting itself in the role of the plucky underdog, gaining ground on the tiring front-runner. They are hoping to time their run-in like they did in Glasgow East when they similarly came from behind on the final straight.

But there is a big difference between Glasgow East and Glasgow North East. When the campaign bus arrived in Glasgow East last summer, Labour activsts discovered that they had precisely no information whatsoever about the local electorate. So instead of knocking up their own support, or offering prepared messages to swing voters, the party had to spend ages simply going out to find the people who might vote for them. It was a mess. In North-East, however, I'm told that the campaign apparently already knows the voting behaviour of more than 40% of the local residents. So they know where their support is and they can target them and get them out.

Still all to play for, but Labour has a much stronger base position than it had last summer.

Caron's Musings: The Secret Truth behind the Lib Dems' private Conference

Today the Scottish Liberal Democrats gather, on Hallowe’en, in Dunfermline in an event only open to Party members. This has led commentators to wonder if there’s something sinister going on, if rebellion is afoot, speculating about mutinies about all sorts.

The truth is far more mundane. While there will be a session to discuss the Party’s response to Alex Salmond’s referendum bill at which, no doubt, a very wide variety of opinions will be put forward, this takes up an hour at the end of the day.

The rest of the time is taken up with something much more mundane. You know how we all have that cupboard in our house that we never, ever get round to cleaning out until, eventually, you can put it off no longer because we can’t find anything? Well, today my friends and colleagues are doing the Party’s equivalent of that – reviewing the constitution. We have been putting it off forever because there has always been something better to do until we’ve got to the point where there are bits of it which just don’t make sense any more because they are so out of date.

Ever since the Party decided to use today to get that bit of housekeeping out of the way, it’s been an event that’s been open only to Party members. To say that going through 60 pages of tightly packed constitutional amendments with 441 votes planned is mind numbing would be extremely charitable. As an example, one of the votes, number 60, is to delete the word “hereof” from clause C14. I think a two thirds majority will be required for that one, too! Believe me, this is a process that only a true Liberal Democrat geek could love.

What’s more remarkable is that there will be those who do love it – you would be surprised at how passionate a debate can become if it’s perceived that the centre is trying to take too many powers away from the members. This Review doesn’t even have much of that, if truth be told, though. It’s all quite sensible, sadly. Out of the 441 votes, there are probably less than 10 I’d argue about, and only a couple I’d be annoyed about if they got through.

So there’s no witchery or ghoulishness afoot – just a bit of much delayed and much needed Spring cleaning which gives our constitutional anoraks a bit of a treat.

Caron's Musings: It's The Economy, Stupid

I was a bit disappointed yesterday to see Labour leader Iain Gray shout across the Holyrood Chamber at Alex Salmond “It’s the economy, stupid”, reprising the iconic phrase from Bill Clinton’s first election campaign in 1992.

The difference 17 years ago was that the phrase was not used in anger. It was posted on the wall of the Clinton HQ as a constant reminder to the campaign team about where their focus should be. It was to remind them that whatever rubbish was flung at them from the Bush Campaign about Clinton’s character, they shouldn’t be distracted. They should stick to the one issue that was fundamentally important to the voters at the time – the failing economy. It was a strategy that paid dividends. Clinton kept driving home how Bush had failed on the economy, aided and abetted by Bush looking remote and distant not knowing how much a pint of milk cost.

Far from being a term of abuse, that phrase helped the Clinton campaign create and sustain the hopeful message that led them to victory. Iain Gray, if he’s ever going to make an impact on Salmond, is not going to do it by shouting and name calling.

It’s the economy that’s foremost in people’s minds in today’s Scotland, too. The SNP don’t get that. They are pushing ahead with their independence agenda despite all the evidence that nobody really cares. At the end of last month, only 4500 had attended National Monologue events across the country. The membership of the SNP was, last year at least, over 15000. If they can’t even get a third of their own people to engage in their own consultation, surely they should realise that the Scottish people, frankly, dear Alex, don’t give a damn.

In contrast, the Liberal Democrats’ main focus has been the economy, at Scottish, UK and European level. It’s hard to believe that it’s a year since we were saying in the Glenrothes by-election campaign that the banks needed to be broken up to protect the savings of ordinary people, ensure sustainable businesses had access to the lending it needed and keep the high risk investment stuff entirely separate.

The Labour Government at Westminster has not taken the opportunity to properly regulate the banks. They had no choice but to pour billions in to save them, but they have not used the control they had wisely. The hefty bonuses that continue to be paid to senior bankers while the rest of us struggle with a pay freeze or even cut has angered many people.

They wasted billions on a VAT cut that should have been put into infrastructure investment, creating green collar jobs to make our economy sustainable in the long term and cut our carbon emissions.

As a result, as Vince Cable observed this morning, while France, Germany and the USA are seeing small amounts of growth, our economy is still shrinking.

I’m impressed by the way that the Liberal Democrats, who instinctively understand devolution, work together at Holyrood, Westminster and Brussels. This is a refreshing contrast to Gray and Goldie who take their orders from their London leaders and to the SNP who really don’t seem to know what they’re at Westminster for.

This week we’ve had Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Tavish Scott, who campaigned against the Lloyds takeover of HBOS, call for the superbank to be broken up, bringing the Bank of Scotland home, in the interests of Scottish business and consumers.

Earlier in the week, Lib Dem shadow Scottish Secretary Alistair Carmichael warned of the consequences of the news that Barclays is to take over Edinburgh based Standard Life's banking operations, pointing out that Edinburgh’s reputation as a leading European financial services centre, and the many thousands of jobs that depend on it, are in jeopardy.

In Europe, George Lyon, Scottish Lib Dem MEP has been voting for investment in Scotland’s dairy industry and supporting EU investment in renewable energy projects.

We’ve seen this week that business leaders seem to be falling out of love with the SNP and Alex Salmond’s tackety booted, unsubtle and sometimes counter-productive attempts to support Scottish companies. Maybe they’ll find the consistent and credible approach of the Liberal Democrats more to their liking.

Eddie Barnes - Griffin's brief encounter

Just back from having finally tracked down Nick Griffin who came to Scotland today to take part in the Glasgow North-east by election, taking in a hithero unknown bit of the seat known as Hamilton. For more details see tomorrow's paper.

Griffin is loving every minute of his new found fame, following his appearance on Question Time last week. The programme and - perhaps more importantly- the media reaction to it, has played perfectly into his victimisation agenda. He was heading off to north-west England to give a couple of speeches this evening, and you can almost script the speech for him ("....arrogant liberal elites.....won't let the common man have his say....out of touch with decent British values.....")

He was asked about the views of his parliamentary candidate, Charlie Baillie, who said at the weekend that he would "go to his grave" wanting the BNP to stay white-only. Griffin has said he'll change the BNP's constitution so that it no longer discriminates on grounds of race, under the threat of legal action. The concession has allowed BNP members to say they aren't racist. But would he, like Baillie, prefer it if the BNP stayed all-white? First, he wouldn't answer the question properly. Then, on being pressed to say simply whether or not he would like the BNP to remain all-white, he said he thought there should be one party which "stuck up" for the country's biggest ethnic minority, "which is my people." That sounded to me like a yes. Griffin then claimed it was us in the media who were fixated on race, not him. Which is a bit rich when you read the BNP's constitution.

David Maddox: Things that should not be done with parliamentary equipment

Labour MSP Karen Whitefield (pictured top left) has been landed in a spot of bother today by her parliamentary researcher who put out the following e-mail:



From: <Karen.Whitefield.msp@scottish.parliament.uk>
Date: 27 October 2009 10:22:46 GMT
Subject: Telephone Canvassing for Glasgow North East
Dear Colleagues
Just a reminder that Usdaw have agreed to open their Edinburgh Office on Wednesday night for MSPs/ MSP researchers to help with telephone canvassing for the Glasgow North East by election.
The office will be open between 5.30pm and 8pm.
If you can spare an hour or so to help out, please let me know ASAP - a voting button is attached.
Usdaw will also be opening up next Wednesday evening so if you could help then, please let me know.
Thanks
Cara
Cara Hilton Parliamentary Researcher to Karen Whitefield MSP for Airdrie & Shotts



Unfortunately Ms Hilton managed to send this e-mail not only to Labour MSPs and researchers, but every single one in the Scottish Parliament, including all the other parties. In fairness Ms Hilton did realise her mistake and try to recall the e-mail but too late.
For those who do not know this breaks the code of practice, which is that MSPs must not use their staff during work time or parliamentary facilities for political campaigning of this nature.
The reason for this rule is that tax payers' money should not be used for party political activities.
Naturally, complaints were made and Ms Whitefield has had to give the authorities assurances that her office has not done this before nor will it do it again.
But there was an interesting lack of public complaining about and parties calling the media to cry foul, which suggests that this sort of thing may be more widespread than this one indiscretion.

But this is not the only indiscretion to come my way today. I note that Lib Dem Dunfermline and West Fife MP has been a bit sulky about the beeb on his Twitter.
He wrote: "is not impressed by Radio Scotland's Scotland@10 - I did them a favour by staying late but then got cut out half the slot."
I guess worse things happen, even to sulky MPs.

Gerri Peev: Forget Blair for El Presidente, what about Boris?

David Cameron should be careful what he wishes for. Clearly, he doesn't want Tony Blair to overshadow his own ascent to power. Imagine Barack Obama skipping London and heading straight to Brussels to deal with President Blair instead of Prime Minister Cameron.
As the Tory leader said, he does not want an "all singing, all dancing, all acting" president in the form of Blair. The truth is, Blair is a smoother, more experienced and better version of Cameron than Cameron. Perhaps, however, he should be mindful that should Britain miss out this time but have a chance for the second pop at the presidency, the alternative could be just as dangerous.
Sources tell me that Boris Johnson may not want to serve more than one term as London Mayor. Again, Cameron is slightly nervous about Boris coming back to Westminster in some senior capacity and possibly challenging him for the top job in future. After all, he is the only contemporary Tory leader with any experience of government. So how about Boris Johnson for EU President? He went to an international school in Brussels while his dad was a Eurocrat. He also frequently boasts of his Ottoman heritage - quite useful in the current context of the EU debate about whether or not to let Turkey in. And the timing could also work. Boris' term as London Mayor is set to end in the middle of 2012 - around the same time that the first term of an EU president was up for grabs....

David Maddox: The growing influence of George Lyon

In these days when black apparently is the new white and vice versa, little should surprise. After all this day that is now drawing to an end was the day that the Tories called for bankers to lose their bonuses and the once upon a time socialist Labour party defended the bonuses.

Then we were also asked to believe that the avid Celtic fan and Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy had had a word with the bank to keep his team's bitter rivals Rangers in business and players.

But it is the story of a Rangers fan that is even more interesting - former Liberal Democrat Scottish Minister George Lyon (pictured right).

When he was turfed out as an MSP in 2007 many (including some in his own party) hoped they were bidding a not so fond farewell to the controversial politician. However, in June this year he returned to frontline politics as his party's one and only Scottish MEP. Since then there have been growing signs of his influence within the party at a time when the Scottish leader Tavish Scott appears to be losing his grip slightly.

Even the unfortunate affair of Rangers was taken jokingly by some as a sign of Lyon's power. Mr Scott issued a press release earlier today demanding that Mr Murphy intervened. was this because the Rangers loving George Lyon asked him to it was queried in the corridors of Holyrood?

But joking apart, there is one serious issue with which the two men appear to be having a power struggle - an independence referendum. Mr Lyon made it clear ahead of the party's conference in Bournemouth that he thought there should be one, breaking the party line set by Mr Scott to oppose a plebiscite. odd considering that Mr Lyon clearly enjoys singing Rule Britannia. Since then there has been a groundswell of support among members, candidates and some of the grandees in favour of Mr Lyon's position, despite Mr Scott's protestations.

The two shall have their day at the behind closed doors Lib Dem special conference which will discuss the matter. The way things are going you would not bet against Mr Lyon coming out on top.

Chris Mackie: LibDems 1 Labour 1 in Rangers roundup

Proof, if proof were needed, that the pervasive influence of the Old Firm extends into every nook and cranny of Scottish life reached us this morning as politicians began to wade into the ongoing travails of Glasgow Rangers FC.

The LibDems were first, calling on Scottish Secretary (and Celtic fan) Jim Murphy to intervene in the situation that has seen a representative of HBoS placed on the board of the Ibrox club to monitor spending.

Tavish Scott (bizarrely, a Liverpool supporter) said all football fans - even those of a green and white hooped hue - would be concerned by reports that the club had been threatened with administration by a bank substantially helped by the use of taxpayers' money.

“If the Lloyds group can take down Rangers, there won’t be many professional clubs left in Scotland," exclaimed Tavish excitedly.

Improbably, he was joined by Labour's Frank McAveety, who crossed the Glasgow divide to offer his support to the Teddy Bears, noting gravely: "Anyone who cares about Scottish football should be concerned about the financial difficulties experienced by one of our biggest clubs."

Despite The Steamie's enquiries, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party have, perhaps surprisingly, declined to become embroiled in the row. And we didn't even phone the Greens.

ScottishToryBoy: It’s the end of the world as we know it but I feel fine

I thought I’d give my thoughts after Nick Griffins appearance on Question Time last night. I should also point out at this juncture that, as I had said, I didn’t actually watch last night’s Question Time. Admittedly I am toying with watching it tonight but probably won’t. However, it’s been difficult to avoid the topic as nearly every blog, newspaper and news broadcast carries the story.

It’s probably fair to say that both the Beeb and the BNP will be pleased following last night’s programme based on viewing figures alone as some 8million tuned in to see Griffin on QT – nearly three times the usual viewing figures for the show. I also think Nick Griffin has grounds for his complaint about his treatment on the show. Instead of focusing on current affairs, last night’s Question Time focused solely on Griffin himself and his views – it was, in fact, Griffin Time.

Yes, his views are disgusting and deserve to be debated and taken apart but Question Time is about discussing current affairs not teaming up on a single politician – something that will work in his favour as it will have garnered him some sympathy. Griffin complaining is also an inspired move as it will result in him staying on the news agenda even longer.

For me though, the most delicious irony of this whole affair was the anti-fascist groups trying to ban him from appearing on the show. Sounds a lot like censorship and suppressing freedom of speech to me…

Update:


I'm also enjoying Malc in the Burgh's post about being a fascist to oppose fascism.

ScottishToryBoy: A lot of fuss over nothing?

I think I’m probably one of the few bloggers that hasn’t yet written about Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time tonight, so I thought I’d break the duck now.

Based on some of the rantings stuff I have read, you would think we were approaching some sort of apocalypse as opposed to an elected representative being given a platform on Question Time. It is mostly those in the New Labour camp that have the biggest gripe with the leader of the extreme left-wing BNP appearing on TV. Young Yousuf of YappingYousuf fame seems to have gotten himself worked up into a wee tizz over this and Welsh Secretary Peter Hain wanted the BNP banned from appearing and is still handing out free legal advice.

Maybe I’m just getting cynical in my old age, but I suspect both the BBC and BNP will be fairly happy with the media coverage that this whole affair is getting. Like many I believe the views of the BNP are utterly abhorrent but down to their electoral “success” they are perfectly entitled to appear on Question Time. I note that David Dimbleby has been cleared to quiz Griffin on his denial of the Holocaust.

I should also note, I’m not going to even bother watching the show, that’s how little I actually care.

For more of my musings visit my blog: http://scottishtoryboy.blogspot.com/

Eddie Barnes - Megrahi latest

Sky News reported about an about ago that according to "sources", the Lockerbie bomber has died. But Tony Kelly, his lawyer is now saying that Megrahi is alive and that he has spoken to him since the Sky report went out. East Renfrewshire Council - which is in charge of monitoring Megrahi's health - is also saying they know nothing about his death, and are pointing out that they'd be the first to know.

So it appears, for now, that nothing has changed. Will update if the situation moves on.

Eddie Barnes - Getting nasty

Labour MP Tom Harris has kicked up a stink on his always interesting blog by referring to the SNP conference in Inverness as "a hate-fest". He also declares that the SNP is "the nasty party" of Scottish politics, pointing to "the poison" which drips from the keyboards of Scotland's army of anonymous 'cybernats'.

Certainly, there were a few incidents at the conference which will give succour to those who feel nationalism is animated by "hate". Most people picked up on the comments by Plaid Cymru's Helen Jones, who described Gordon Brown as "a sorry excuse for a Scotsman" before asking "do you ever as a nation wonder what you will do with the likes of him after independence?" But as someone who spent three days in Inverness, I would say that the tone of the conference was basically very similar to those which I attended in Brighton and Manchester this year. In other words, for a few days, lots of active, interested, interesting people all got together to listen, talk and drink too much. Rather than a hate fest, Labour should be considering the more worrying reality- for them- that the SNP conference has become a venue to do business. Inverness was filled not with much fierce fist-pumping but rather with public affairs consultants and lobbyists all clammering for their few minutes chat with SNP Ministers.

While Tom concedes that the modern SNP may have changed, he still feels able to conclude that they are a 'nasty party' because of the undoubtedly unpleasant missives written by some of Scotland's 'cybernats'. But can we conclude that the 'poison' which leaks from their pens is representative of the party as a whole (or, indeed, even among those Nationalists who blog)? Or is it just a case of a few kids who don't sleep enough?

Answers on a postcard, please.

Eddie Barnes: Salmond's speech, the morning after

Scotland on Sunday has plenty of coverage of Alex Salmond's speech and the SNP conference today, focusing predominantly on the SNP leader's decision to pitch himself against the cuts in public services. But there were some other bits of the speech which we didn't manage to analyse in the body of the paper. Here are three that are worthy of some scrutiny.

"In all 63 of our 94 headline manifesto commitments have already been achieved - two thirds at just over half way through our term."

Sounds good but the SNP won't say what those 94 commitments are, making the pledge completely meaningless. How can you base your own rate of success on an entirely made-up measure?

"Ed Miliband gave the game away when he said there was no difference between the Tories and Labour. Quoted in the Daily Telegraph - where else for a new Labour minister?- he said....."

This got a laugh from the audience for suggesting that New Labour ministers' first port of call was the English-based Tory-loving Telegraph.....but which paper was last granted an interview with our First Minister, after other Scottish based papers had been turned down?....er yes, the Daily Telegraph (last Saturday)

"Delegates, today Labour says no to Scotland at Westminster - no to our calls for a further acceleration of capital spending that would protect and provide thousands of jobs."

I thought this was a news line when I heard it yesterday. Had the Treasury said no to Salmond's request for a fresh advance of capital spending? In fact, Alastair Darling has yet to say, and won't until his Pre-Budget Report in the next few weeks. So, in this case, 'no' is defined as the current absence of the word 'yes'.

All a bit fly.....there must be an election coming.

SNP Tactical Voting: Northern Comfort

It is perhaps First Minister Alex Salmond's own fault that because he has delivered so many fiery, passionate, ovation-raising speeches in his two stints as SNP leader that when he comes to deliver speeches like today's at the SNP Autumn Conference, it's possible to feel that it was merely solid but not stupendous, comfortable but not captivating.

Today's speech was indeed comfortable, some may even say a little flat, but one could argue that in today's current climate there is much to be flat about.

With the sound of '£500m of Westminster cuts' continuously reverberating around the Eden Court Theatre's walls, the speech was always going to be light on policy and heavy on sentiment but it's clear what the clearest dividing line between the SNP and the other main parties will be going into the General Election and that is Trident.

Not only was it the only policy area mentioned twice in Salmond's speech but it was the issue where the delegates' and members' applause was at its most fervent.

In truth, there is something bittersweet about a party celebrating fifty years of opposition to nuclear weapons since that continued opposition inherently proves a certain ineffectiveness. However, given the dire economic climate, given the precarious constitutional arrangement and given the clear opposition to Trident north of the border from Scottish MPs, Scottish MSPs and the Scottish public alike, we can be confident that the "one hundred thousand million pounds" to be spent on new nuclear weapons by the incoming Westminster Government (whatever its hue) will be mentioned not just in Salmond's speech but utilised time and again to great effect in the SNP's election campaign.

I have mentioned the word 'comfortable' a few times already in this post and it's primarily because in the lunchtime fringe that I attended on The Modern SNP one of the guest speakers accused the SNP of adopting this position, an accusation meant as constructive criticism.

It is fair to say that the members and delegates feel comfortable, the First Minister's speech probably felt comfortable to many and the Conference itself will continue to have a general air of comfort around it. Gone, after all, are the days of the SNP looking into Government from the outside and the nervous, agitated energy that comes with that.

However, when a party is sitting comfortably ahead in the polls and can comfortably defend attacks from opposing parties, one has to conclude that being comfortable isn't really the worst position in the world to be in. Comfort is only a hop, skip and a jump away from confidence and confidence breeds success.

Here in Inverness, a bit of Northern Comfort steadying the SNP's nerves before the rocky General Election campaign ahead and embarking on the ambitious aim of 20 Nationalist MPs may be no bad thing.



Written by the editor of http://www.snptacticalvoting.com/

David Maddox: How not to sum up your candidate's chances

When the Conservatives launched their campaign for Glasgow North East today it was perhaps not a good idea to get their candidate, former BBC journalist Ruth Davidson, under a sign marked "Turkey".
Then again it was not a great plan to put her under a sign marked "you deserve a holiday" either. This may reflect Ms Davidson's 100/1 chances according to the bookies, behind John Smeaton who may apparently not even stand.
Not sure if it was former STV star cum spindoctor Michael Crow's finest hour.
They will no doubt be hoping there is no talk of turkeys when David Cameron visits tomorrow.

David Maddox: The great debate - Barnes v Maddox (4)

Eddie, we are at one over the legal technicalities. I believe the Scottish precedent was set in 1995 courtesy of a successful Labour/ Lib Dem challenge to the screening of an interview with John Major the week before an election in Scotland.
However, I think the logical conclusion of your position now is that we should simply not have the debates thus denying voters the chance of seeing the main contenders to be Prime Minister go up against one another. This may happen now as a result of the SNP challenge, ironically letting Gordon Brown off the hook.
Several posters have commented on the Steamie that opposing the SNP's supposed right to be part of these debates shows a lack of understanding of devolution. I would say it is the opposite. This is a UK election for Westminster not a Scottish devolved one for Holyrood and therefore needs to be seen in a UK context.
You also have to look at other practicalities. For example, I am not sure that Sky is able let alone willing to broadcast separate regional debates for Scotland as has been suggested by some. I also do not see why the SNP has any greater claim to participating in a UK-wide debate than UKIP, the Greens or even, unfortunately, the BNP. They all attracted many more votes in the last national election (the European Parliament one in June this year).
In our inquiries, which Eddie referred to, it may be that there are ways of getting around this such as the broadcasters offering a "minor" parties debate along with Scottish and Welsh only ones. This certainly would not make Alex Salmond and the SNP or probably even Eddie happy, but it could potentially nullify a legal challenge.

David Maddox: The Numbers Game (23) - polls apart continued

Always glad to see that the political parties are taking the Steamie serioulsy.
Following my blog below within minutes I received an e-mail from a Lib Dem spin doctor responding to some of the points I made. It read:

"I take issue with the "Lib Dems are in trouble in Scotland" point - what about the ComRes poll published in October showing LDs on 25%?! Or the YouGov poll showing us on 25%, also published this month.
Also, given that "others" are counted in SNP figures - surely this skews the results for seats.
Also - how are you getting a total of 12% for us?
Looking at the YouGov sky tracker poll - our figures are 9, 17, 24, 16, 18, 9, 10, 13, 25, 12, 12, 13, 15, 10, 15 - by our reckoning, we should be on at least 15%..."

This is not altogether unfair as the averaging of the Yougov poll depends on your starting point. It is also true that the SNP cannot be separated from other others in the Sky Yougov tracker. I think though it is fair to say the majority of that "other" vote in Scotland is for the SNP, while polling of 25% in Scotland for the Lib Dems appears to be the exception rather than the rule.

In addition, even if the Lib Dems are at 15% in Scotland, I would contest that that means they are still in trouble, especially considering their 26% in Scotland in the last Wesminster general election. It leaves them firmly in fourth place.

Eddie Barnes: The Great Debate: Barnes v Maddox (3)

Fair enough David, I think you've proven that there is no easy alternative to the straight Cameron/Brown/Clegg debate being proposed by the TV networks. I would agree with that. But I haven't changed my mind on the fundamental wrong-ness of the proposed debate.

However, having read some of the streams on this debate on the Steamie, particularly those of "DougtheDug", it also seems that whatever you and I think is right or wrong is pretty irrelevant. As he says, this is a legal matter now, and it's a question for the courts to decide. So the Scotsman and Scotland on Sunday will be looking into this over the coming days to find out what the legal views are. We'll also be asking the main broadcasters for some more details as to how they think they can square this circle. So far all we've had are some vague assurances that consideration will be given to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. And from the conversations I've had with the broadcaster's press offices, it seems pretty clear that that is about as far as they've thought about it. The BBC admitted it was "complicated" but then was unable to say anything more.

Answers need to be forthcoming, and we'll try and get some.

David Maddox: The Numbers Game (23) - polls apart

I have been handed two different versions of Yougov polls today, which make for some interesting analysis.

The first was the Scottish sample (188 people) of the Sun/ Yougov poll.

Cons 22% Lab 34% Lib Dems 10% SNP 28%

According to Electoral Calculus this would translate into the following allocation of seats (change from 2005 in brackets):

Cons 7 (+6) Lab 37 (-4) Lib Dems 6 (-5) SNP 9 (+3)

The second poll I was given was perhaps a little more scientific as it was the cumulative figures for the Scottish samples of the tracker Yougov polling for Sky TV. It gave the following results:

Cons 24% Lab 32% Lib Dems 12% SNP (inc others) 31%

This gives the following Scottish general election seat calculations according to Electoral Calculus (again change from 2005 in brackets):

Cons 10 (+9) Lab 31 (-10) Lib Dems 7 (-4) SNP 11 (+5)

Whilst even properly have scientific polls have to be taken with a health warning, these samples, particularly the tracker ones which represent more than 1,000 voters, do give us some hints of what is happening in Scotland from which we can draw four conclusions.

1. It suggests that the Cameron bounce is beginning to pay dividends with consistent polling in the low 20s for the Tories north of the Border.

2. They confirm that the SNP are running Labour close in Westminster voting intentions but an in-built constituency advantage for Labour appears should limit any damage and prevent the Nationalists from reaching their target of 20.

3. The Lib Dems are in real trouble in Scotland.

4. Just a small switch of a couple of points either way could have dramatic effects on how many seats parties get.

However, there is still a long way to go and only one poll that counts. Personally, I would be surprised if we see the above allocations in the final reckoning. Most people would guess the Tories and possibly Labour would have less while the SNP more. But there is still clearly a lot to play for.

Eddie Barnes: 9 votes for Tommy

Tommy Sheridan held a press conference this morning to launch his campaign for the Glasgow North-East by election. Of most interest was the former SSP MSP's impending court case with the News of the World, but Sheridan was as unfazed as usual, arguing that he stood a fair chance of winning the by-election, which takes place on November 12th.

And he got his campaign off to a good start. Leaving the press conference, held at the Petershill Leisure centre in Springburn, he was approached by a local man, dressed in his football kit, who was preparing to play a five-a-side game on the centre's astroturf pitch. They only had 9 - would Tommy mind making up the numbers? Sheridan, a mad-keen footballer, quickly dashed off to his car, got his kit from the boot, and headed straight out onto the pitch.

David Maddox: The great debate... Barnes v Maddox (2)

Unlike Gordon Brown and a succession of previous Prime Ministers (or even Alex Salmond on St Andrew's Day), I am not one to shirk when the challenge is laid down for a debate, even if this one is taking place over the cyberspace rather than on people's TV screens.
But as I have the greatest respect for Eddie Barnes, who as The Scotsman group's political editor is after all my line manager, I thought I should take his central point over the great TV debate debate seriously.
Eddie stated that to exclude Alex Salmond or another SNP politician from a general election TV debate aired in Scotland is "anti democratic."
As this is a complex matter it perhaps deserves a complex solution because including the SNP would bring into play several other parties with equal or greater demands for inclusion.
I think it is unlikely that the broadcasters and main party leaders will go for regionalised debates so we need a solution which recognises the proportion of support for parties across the UK as a whole.
On this basis I have decided to look at a "fair and proportionate" way of running a UK-wide TV debate. To do this I have gone back to the last serious test of political opinion in the UK - the European Parliament election in June this year.

My calculation on who to include and how much time to give them is based on the following rules:
1. To be included in the debate a party will have to have won a European seat.
2. The time allocated is mostly based on the percentage of votes received in June, with alterations detailed below.
3. As Labour are the biggest party in Westminster but only came third in June and the Conservatives are the biggest party in the European election I have added up their June 2009 percentages and given them half each of the combined 43.4%.
4. As UKIP came second in June but have no seats in Westminster, while the Lib Dems came fourth in June but are clearly the third party in Westminster I have added their percentages together and given them half each of the combined 30.6%.
5. I have topped up the English Greens with the Scottish Green vote, even though strictly speaking they are separate parties. Perhaps Scotland's Patrick Harvie could replace England's Caroline Lucas in one of the debates.
6. I suggest that the SNP and Plaid Cymru are represented as a single Celtic block with the SNP providing speakers for two of the three debates and Plaid the other. I have also topped up their vote with the 0.1 per cent given to Cornish Nationalists Mebyon Kernow, who out polled Labour in Cornwall.
7. I have excluded Northern Ireland which could have its own debate because essentially it has its own political parties, even if the former Ulster Unionists have joined the Tories.

This means for a two hour debate the following time allocations would be provided to the parties as a percentage of the total 120 minutes:

Conservatives: 26 minutes 3 seconds (21.7%)
Labour: 26 minutes 3 seconds (21.7%)
Liberal Democrats: 18 minutes 22 seconds (15.3%)
UKIP: 18 minutes 22 seconds (15.3%)
Greens: 10 minutes 56 seconds (9.1%)
BNP: 7 minutes 27 seconds (6.2%)
SNP/ Plaid: 3 minutes 36 seconds (3%)
The rest of the time ( 9 minutes 11 seconds) would go to adverts, the presenter and maybe the audience.

Seems over complicated?
Well this is what you get by trying to be strictly "fair and proportionate". I suspect that it would have little value to the parties, the broadcasters and most of all the voters.
How much better it would be to simply recognise that this proposed debate is a part of the growing presidential style of UK general elections and would focus on which individual we would rather see as Prime Minister. That cannot be Alex Salmond, even if the law may be on his and others' side when it comes to who should be given air time.
What would really be best is a simple, straight fight of Cameron v Brown.

Over to you Eddie.

Eddie Barnes - Osborne's lack of ankle room

Did George Osborne show too much ankle last week? Gordon Brown is out of the stocks this morning, using an interview to proclaim that Osborne's doom-mongering of last week, and the tough policy prescriptions he said would be required were over the top. One well-placed Labour contact yesterday, who has taken defeat for granted for the last few months, yesterday told me that the possibility of victory is now back on. Osborne and Cameron are now tied into their stark plans for how to deal with the public sector crunch for the next nine months. This is based on their stark predictions for just how deep UKplc is in trouble. But what if, as Brown claims today, the economy improves, that gaping deficit suddenly begins to fall, and the UK's credit rating actually goes up?

Labour strategists think that the Tories have got carried away by polling, which both of them have, showing that people want to hear it straight, and want to be told up-front how bad things are going to get. That gamble appears to have paid off, according to a new poll released today, which suggests people approve of Osborne's approach. But what people say to pollsters might not be what they think in the privacy of their own home (or ballot station).

In other words, what if people are basically liars? It's all very well being honest with the voters. But what if the voters aren't being honest with you?

Kezia Dugdale: Could your Granny vote?

Tomorrow, I’ll be joining hundreds, if not thousands of people, in marching across the Meadows to mark 100 years since the suffragettes took to the streets of Edinburgh.

Because of course we’re still two decades off marking the centenary of women’s suffrage itself. Not until 1928 did women ‘enjoy’ the same right to vote as men.
- Could your granny vote?

In 2009, twenty general elections later, there are just 126 female MPs. 76% of which are Labour.

Rapid progress in the Blair years seemed to develop a degree of complacency about gender representation.

Just look at the Scottish Parliament results in 2007 where the total number of females slid from 39.5% to 33.3%.

The problem lay with the growing SNP back benches, filled with generic and often indistinguishable men.

In 1999, the SNP returned 43 per cent female MSPs, this dropped to 33 per cent in 2003 and again to just 25.5 per cent in 2007. Interestingly, the Labour group remained 50% men, 50% women. Why? Because women’s liberation and the fight for gender equality are causes written into the Labour movement.

Labour is the only party seriously committed to achieving gender equality amongst its Parliamentarians. Why? Because it uses methods of positive discrimination to make it so. All women shortlists are of course the most controversial of these methods and I’ve long been a defender of this process.

The most common argument I hear men make against the case for All Women Shortlists is that it should be based on merit and merit alone.

“May the best man win.” Aye, that says it all.

Of course, if I was feeling particularly flippant, I’d suggest that if political party’s selection processes were truly based on merit – both our Parliaments would look a little different.

And what say the Tories? For of course there were famously more David’s on their front bench than there were women until Mr Davis resigned.

I recently looked at the 50 most marginal seats in the UK to see what would happen to gender equality in our Parliament in the highly unlikely event of a Tory election victory. My conclusion was zero – there would be absolutely no change to the number of female MPs. Neither a cause of celebration or disdain - but stalemate is the enemy of progress.

And progress is what we need.

The pay gap, poverty, low paid jobs, maternity rights, pension rights, opportunity, education, domestic abuse are all priorities for this Government, powered by female Labour MPs.

The national minimum wage is considered one of the most significant achievements of this Labour Government, but people often forget that this policy delivered the most for women. Work that the campaign for a living wage would build on.

When Nicola Sturgeon and Johann Lamont stood in for their respective leaders at FMQs last week, they provided one of the most energetic bouts of the parliamentary session. Yet a well known journalist of this very paper remarked that it was “like ladies day at Ascot without the hats.”

Oh how that enraged the women of Holyrood’s corridors.

The Gude Cause march is an opportunity for everyone to celebrate all that has been done to progress the cause for gender equality and reflect upon all that there is to do ahead.

When it reaches the summit of Carlton Hill, Cathie Peattie MSP will lead with a rendition of Bread and Roses and the lyrics will be as relevant as they always were:

As we go marching, marching
In the beauty of the day
A million darkened kitchens
A thousand mill lofts grey
Are touched with all the radiance
That a sudden sun discloses
For the people hear us singing
Bread and roses, bread and roses

As we go marching, marching
We battle too for men
For they are women’s children
And we mother them again
Our lives shall not be sweetened
From birth until life closes
Hearts starve as well as bodies
Give us bread, but give us roses

As we go marching, marching
We bring the greater days
For the rising of the women
Means the rising of the race
No more the drudge and idler
Ten that toil where one reposes
But the sharing of life’s glories
Bread and roses, bread and roses




For more information about the Gude Cause march see: www.gudecause.org.uk

Kezia Dugdale's blog can also be read here.

Eddie Barnes - The Great Debate....Barnes v Maddox

In series 5 of the Wire there's a great comment from the news editor at the Baltimore Post that, at their best, newspapers "are places where people constanly disagree with one another". In that spirit, I'm going to go head-to-head with my esteemed colleague David Maddox (and this is risky; he sits behind me) on the subject of the general election TV debate debate, as he calls it.

The story so far.....the broadcasters have said they want a debate, and the Conservatives, the Liberals and Labour have all agreed. Last weekend, the SNP - which will not get a podium place - said it would be taking legal action. In a previous post, David declared with typical panache that the SNP was getting its knickers in a twist. He said it was hubristic of that SNP to insist that they got involved, and that it would be absurd for non-Scottish viewers to have to watch the views of Alex Salmond being aired when none of them had the chance to vote for his party.

Well, clearly that would be strange. But I don't see how you can argue that having a debate screened in Scotland involving only Messers Brown, Cameron and Clegg is anything other than anti-democratic. If these debates do go ahead, let no-one be in any doubt about the importance they would hold (there will be 3 of them under the plans being considered by the BBC, ITV and Sky). We in the media would go predictably nuts and they would become easily the most important part of the election schedule. Ofcom recognises the SNP as one of the a main party in Scotland, along with Labour, the Tories and the Liberals. Are we seriously suggesting that in Scotland one of the main parties is going to be excluded? Why not exclude the Liberals instead? Or the Conservatives? Or Labour?

I've spoken to broadcasters in Scotland about this debate idea and they are pretty sceptical about the whole thing meeting the strict rules which cover election coverage. Frankly, the SNP seem to me to have a hard and fast case. Labour has suggested that we have a kind of Division Two clash involving all the leaders of each party's Scottish Westminster group. But would you dash home from work for the chance to watch David Mundell take on Alastair Carmichael? Thought not.

Personally, I would like to watch a TV debate take place. So what to do? I have no idea. Maybe there should be three more debates, to be broadcast in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - in which the UK party leaders stand alongside the leaders of the SNP, Plaid and Ulster parties respectively. It's not exactly likely to happen, I admit. Incidentally, I'm not at all convinced that Alex Salmond should be the person representing the SNP, given that he isn't standing for the General Election.

But I'm not here to provide answers. I just think that to exclude one party which represents the views of a substantial part of the electorate from such a high-profile occasion -an occasion which could decide the votes of thousands - is plain wrong.

Over to you David.

Two Doctors: The King's Kingsnorth North.

The demise of the proposed Kingsnorth coal power station,announced last night by E:ON, was greeted with jubilation by Greens and other environmental activists. E:ON can now get back to their core business of protecting donkeys with solar powered fences. For some reason a story about that makes it to their media release archive, while Kingsnorth is neglected.

The next scandalous project of this sort in our firing line, and opposed by others like the RSPB, is the new coal plant planned at Hunterston. The SNP sneaked it into the National Planning Framework (2Mb pdf) right at the last minute, four months after the consultation closed, and their Ministers claim the plant will be "carbon capture ready", which is about as reassuring as "don't worry darling, it's condom ready".

The local campaign against the new Hunterston project is here, and STV did a good report last month about their legal challenge to the NPF. I hope they win, but either way efforts to block it will continue.

NASA's James Hansen, the father of climate science, describes coal plants as "factories of death", and Hunterston is now front and centre in the campaign to make sure no more are ever built in this country. The SNP are yet again on the wrong side in the carbon wars, and both King Coal and King Alex will have to be stopped.

Eddie Barnes - Tories claim the moral high ground

A few initial thoughts having just left the conference hall in Manchester.

1. The most significant moment was Cameron's riposte to Labour on poverty. "Don't you are lecture us about poverty," he said. "You have failed us and it falls to us, the modern Conservative party, to fight for the poorest who you have let down." A great cheer and standing ovation followed. After decades of ceding the moral high ground to Labour and being cast as the nasty party, Cameron is trying to claim it back. The hall loved it - two decades of feeling like social pariahs is fast disappearing.

2. Shadow Ministers can rest easy.....Cameron effectively used the speech to confirm that they are going to get the jobs they currently occupy, which must have come as a particular relief to people like Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox and Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Teresa May.

3. Iain Duncan Smith looks like he's going to get some new kind of job as the Minister for Social Justice, although the party has confirmed following the speech that there won't be a new post created. No doubt he will soon be renamed the Minister for Easterhouse - the place where the former leader's conversion to poverty issues first began.

4. Can we leave Bono alone now? Or is he going to pop up at the SNP conference next week to say how great they are as well? Having now appeared on a giant screen at both Labour and Tory conferences, it now seems no party feels complete with a commendation. This needs to stop. Tories, the detoxification thing....we get it.

5. The recession didn't get much of a show. Cameron gave it a distinctly cursory mention at the beginning of the speech before moving onto his favourite topics of social responsibility and poverty. Look out for negative reaction from the City about the Tories still not getting the financial crisis.

Caron's Musings: Are we really all in this together?

Last week and this we’ve watched Labour and the Conservatives veer between delusion and illusion as they unveil their public spending policies and pledges at their respective conferences.

Nick Clegg spent much of the last few months of the last Westminster Parliamentary session trying to instigate a meaningful debate about how a future government would get the country on a more solid and sustainable financial footing.

He put forward a whole host of serious ideas including abolishing the Child Trust Fund, forgetting about a like for like replacement of Trident, and doing away with ID cards along with the intrusive, ineffective identity database.

What he got in return was a series of angry slanging matches between Brown and Cameron, spawning such classic phrases as “zero percent increase” from Brown and nothing of substance from Cameron.

Last week saw Gordon Brown deliver a speech to the Labour Party Conference which went on for so long about the need for change that he sounded more like a challenger, not an incumbent Prime Minister who had been in two of the top positions in Government for 12 years. His call for a rejuvenation of community post offices was laughable given that Labour have closed even more of them than the Tories. He rolled out pledge after pledge after pledge with no mention of how he was going to pay for them. What horrified me most was his idea that 16 and 17 year old mothers needing “support from the taxpayer” were to be put in supervised accommodation, blatant pandering to the myth that there are hordes of young girls out there getting pregnant in order to get a house.

This week we’ve seen the Tories tell us how men are going to have to work a year longer before they retire by 2016. My husband turns 65 then and has been carefully planning his retirement for a long time so you can imagine how that went down in this house. If you are reasonably affluent and your occupation is sedentary, this may not be so bad, though. However for the low paid in more physically demanding jobs, it is bound to cause real problems, especially when you consider that the poorest are also more vulnerable to ill health. The Tories also don’t seem to have properly considered the implications for women, either, as Lib Dem Pensions Spokesman Steve Webb has pointed out:

“Women have been a total afterthought to this announcement. It is simply impossible for the Tories to save £13bn a year by raising the state pension age for men alone.
George Osborne’s plans would require the pension age for women to increase each year until 2016. The Tories must come clean or risk leaving every woman in the country in a pensions limbo.”

Then we have their idea of a one year pay freeze for every public sector worker earning over £18,000. That is going to cause real misery for many households. If your income is £18,000, you are just a wee bit beyond the level at which you can get means tested tax credits. So, if you earn £18,000 you will be expected to fork out the full cost of childcare, prescriptions, school meals and the like. For your wages not to rise with the cost of living is therefore going to be an absolute catastrophe. Let’s not forget, as well, that £18000 is only around two thirds of average earnings.

In contrast, while the Liberal Democrats propose a freezing of the public sector pay bill, lower earning workers will be protected. They will also benefit from proposals to take anyone earning less than £10,000 out of tax completely and cut the tax bill of low and middle earners by £700.

I know that £700 might not sound much to the Tories. That’s only a few bottles of champagne in their world, where they mix with people who have enough ready cash to stump up £50,000 a year for dinner with David Cameron. In the real world, though, it would make a huge difference to ordinary households across the country. It’s nearly 4 months’ rent on a Council flat, or almost three quarters of the annual Council Tax on a Band B property in Edinburgh.

George Osborne might say that “we’re all in this together”, but he’s come up with a set of proposals which will cause even more hardship for the poorest and have little impact on high earning professionals. They say leopards don’t change their spots and nor do Tories. Their gut instinct is to protect the rich. However much they might try to pretend that they’ve changed, the evidence is that a Cameron led Government would hit the poorest hardest in exactly the same way the Conservatives did the last time they held office. Do we really want to go back to the 80s? Anyone?

And what of the SNP? What do they have to say on these things which are vitally important to millions of Scots? They’re spending their time threatening court action if Alex Salmond doesn’t get invited to debate Cameron, Brown and Clegg. How typical of them to be obsessed about their own interests above the issues which are important to everyone else. To be fair, however, I should note that they are now backing a pay freeze for top staff which will presumably mean that Alex Salmond will have all three of his salaries frozen.

So while Labour goes for the ostrich vote, sticking its head in the sand and pretending that a) it isn’t happening and b) it’s not their fault, the Tories revert to type. If you think that at some point in the next five years you might be old, sick, female, poor or unemployed, it’s probably best to give them a miss.

Eddie Barnes: Exc: Watch Dave sitting in hotel room!

FORGET The Speech, now we have the Official Build Up To The Speech. The Conservatives have posted a video on YouTube this morning in which David Cameron is seen in the comfort of his hotel room preparing for his big moment at the Manchester conference later today. In the course of a searching interview with a Tory staffer, viewers can learn that Cameron is worried his voice is sounding "a little bit reedy" and that he is having to do some "trimming" to keep the speech down below an hour.

Cameron also declares that The Speech will seek to focus on the "other side" of the coming recession in an effort to lift the gloom-mongering mood of the conference. In other words, with George Osborne having spent Tuesday telling everyone that there were black clouds coming, Dave today will show how he can see a day when the sun will shine. Let's hope he doesn't break out into song.

Just in case we haven't got the message I've just got back from watching William Hague in the conference hall and I can report that the backdrop to the platform has changed. For the last three days there have been a series of apparently random moving images of British streets, which bring to mind one of those bizarre pieces of installation art you find at modern art galleries which just show a video loop of something over and over again. But the street scenes have now gone, the camera has tilted upwards, and the screen simply shows blue sky and white fluffy clouds. The Messiah cometh.

David Maddox: Don't scare the children

A source at Holyrood who enjoys scouring the local papers has passed me a very funny tale from the Paisley Daily Express.
It seems that a year on from resigning as Scottish Labour leader over what she did or did not declare in her donations, Wendy Alexander (pictured right) has upset some local parents by allegedly canvassing the support of their children at the school gate.
As the MSP for Paisley North it is of course perfectly normal for her to visit local schools, as do most of her Holyrood colleagues across parties.
What "parents" or one parent at least - one Roseanne McKeown - reportedly found objectionable was Ms Alexander allegedly handing out postcards protesting against the Lib Dem/ SNP led Renfrewshire Council's education cuts.
This means the school in question, Ralston Primary, will lose £17,600 from its budget.
“I definitely wasn’t happy about it," said Ms Keown, apparently talking about Ms Alexander's canvassing of her child rather than the school's budget cut (odd priorities perhaps).
The really interesting question, though, is why children were being canvassed for support. it will, after all, be seven years before the oldest of these youngsters gets a chance to vote.
One suggestion that came my way was that Labour are in such a dire hole at the moment, not least because of Ms Alexander's unfortunate period of leadership, that they have given up on this generation of voters and have decided to started building up support for the future.
Even more strangely Ms Alexander seems to think that her actions as a politician were not political.
She told the Paisley Daily Express: “It wasn’t political, it was about cuts in the school budget.”
Which begs the question: What on earth is political then?

David Maddox: The Numbers Game (22) - the Cameron "tartan" bounce?

A little bit of research over the last week has shown that while the Conservatives may not have reached the heights of 50 per cent of the Scottish vote of the 1950, but the comeback from the nadir of 1997 is underway.
The Yougov Sky poll running everyday this week shows from the Scottish samples that the Tories are beginning to make an impression. Averaged out they show:

Con 24% Lab 33% Lib Dems 13% SNP 30%

This would translate into the following results in Scottish seats, according to Electoral Calculus. Please note that 2005 general election seat numbers are in brackets.

Con 9 (1) Lab 34 (41) Lib Dems 8 (11) SNP 8 (6)

Now the Tories as the second biggest grouping in Scotland? That would be a turn up for the books and hard to believe even if they have a minimum aim of four seats. This would actually break their 2014 target of eight seats, as recently revealed by the Scotsman.
I suspect the SNP at least may be confident of doing better than that. However, this does show that the Conservatives are slowly but surely re-establishing themselves north of the Border.

David Maddox: She's back! - Fiona Hyslop breaks her silence

After a couple of weeks of speculation on her future Fiona Hyslop, the beleaguered education secretary, has decided to come out fighting.
The rumour mill began in earnest a fortnight ago when she seemed to be sidelined in a debate on teachers with her deputy, schools minister Keith Brown, opening and closing. And there had been a little quiet speculation that Mr Brown was being groomed for Ms Hyslop's job after she had struggled to defend failed pledges on building schools, maintaining teacher numbers, reducing P1 to P3 class sizes to 18 and paying off student debt.
She was described as "silent and wretched" by Annabel Goldie in FMQs two weeks ago after her no-show in the debate and the main target again for Labour and the Tories in last week's FMQs.
But tomorrow's debate on the school building programme will have Ms Hyslop opening for the defence and finance secretary John Swinney closing.
And for good measure she is quoted in the Scottish Government press release defending the government's record as a preview for the debate.
"This government inherited a legacy of 260,000 pupils in poor or bad condition schools. In just two and a half years that number has dropped by 100,000," she said.
I guess we may hear some replies to that tomorrow.

Eddie Barnes: Battle of the Booze

The Tories have announced their plans for a booze crackdown here in Manchester today. They aim to substantially increase the price of lager, cider and alco-pops through a new tax.

As tax is reserved, the plans will apply in Scotland where, as has been well publicised, the SNP administration is planning to introduce its own minimum pricing policy. This would mean that cheap high-strength drinks - lager, cider, and alcopops for example - would have a price floor under which they could not be sold.

But if the Tory plan might end up increasing the price of those drinks above that floor anyway, making the minimum pricing scheme superfluous, on all but cut-price spirits.

Which makes me wonder whether the entire SNP alcohol strategy should now be re-named as the "Glen's Vodka price increase (Scotland) Act" and have done with it.

Two Doctors: What planet are they on?

Winchester Lib Dem Councillor Adrian Hicks had a curious secret when he stood for election in 2006 and 2007. He felt that admitting he'd seen an alien dressed as a ballerina under the city's Guildhall clock might jeopardise his chances. The alien was laughing and having a good time, and apparently was "human enough to get away with it."

As it happens, he lost anyway in 2006 before coming from third to win in 2007. Having served his area for two years now, he feels confident enough to come out, and he's trying to track her down, presumably so they can go to Venus together. Grazia have some potentially interesting information for him - they worked out who made her dress. I agree that the likely explanation is terrestrial. He probably just doesn't know what kind of sunglasses are in fashion.

Still, we shouldn't laugh. He's in good company. The wife of the new Japanese Prime Minister believes she was abducted and taken to Venus. It could be worse. Councillor Hicks could have taken her to his leader.

(via glum councillors)

Gerri Peev: Cam is Pol Rogered

APPARENTLY Tory leader David Cameron has been left fizzing over the snap showing him sipping champagne at party conference.

The frontpage of today's Mirror shows the Tory leader brandishing a glass of Pol Roger (a snip at only £140 a bottle) – and pictured next to him is The Scotsman's former political editor Fraser Nelson.

Cameron was papped at the Spectator party by a Mirror photographer, who was wrestled to the ground. The photographer threw his camera to a colleague who managed to make a dash for the exit before the incriminating pic could be wiped.

Now cheeky punters at Ladbrokes have laid bets with odds of 14/1 that Cameron will mention the word champagne in his party conference speech tomorrow.

The bookies think the Tory leader will have an equally gloomy speech to his Shadow Chancellor, offering odds of one to three that he will use the term tough decisions, and 5/2 that he will talk about “austerity”.

He may perhaps like to avoid apeing Nick Clegg in talking about “progressive austerity” though. As one senior Lib Dem said, it sounds like a wasting disease.

Unsurprisingly, punters don't rate the chances of Bercow, Bullingdon or duck island featuring in the speech and price them all at 25/1.

Ladbrokes' Robin Hutchinson said: "He's probably hoping his champagne moment will come in May next year".

Too bad he could not wait to put the party into conference....

David Maddox: Who is best to teach the youth of Scotland about financial prudence?

Obviously Gordon Brown would not be top of the list these days to talk about "prudence", a word he seems to have become less fond of since we found out that boom and bust had not really been finished.
But it turns out that SNP education secretary Fiona Hyslop has an interesting advisor for the "credit crunch" lessons for school children being proposed by the Scottish Government, as covered in today's Scotsman.
Labour's Bill Butler has uncovered that the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) is to be her main advisor.
Yes that is the same RBS which went on a spending spree of world banks, bringing down the once great institution with purchase of Dutch bank ABN Amro. The very same bank that was bailed out by the tax payer and is now mostly owned by the UK Government because of its erm.. expertise in financial prudence.
There was a suggestion that bankers should retrain as teachers. Maybe Ms Hyslop has a plan to supplement former RBS chief Sir Fred Goodwin's massive £342,500 a year pension (reduced after he took a £2.7 million lump sum) with a job in the classroom.

Question Secretary of State for Scotland Jim Murphy

SNP Tactical Voting: Goldie Looking Chained

In Tory leader Annabel Goldie's conference speech yesterday there was the usual Nat-bashing talk of "the inward looking, insular Scotland that Alex Salmond is hell bent on creating". The sentiment could have been lifted from any conference speech the Scottish Tory leader has given in years gone by.

However, this narrative now sits rather awkwardly against the main story of the week so far, the party's divisions over how it would deal with a post-ratified European Union. In a recent Conservative Home poll, more than eight in ten Tory members wanted Cameron to call a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon even if it has been approved by the next General Election.

Only 3% believed Britain should play a full part in building an "ever closer union".

It begs the question - Why is a desire to see an independent Scotland as an equal partner within the EU "extreme", "an obsession", "narrow" and "damaging" (as Goldie claims) while the desire of the majority of her party colleagues to see the United Kingdom pulling away from the EU is presumably deemed to be none of these things?

I suspect David Cameron will continue to paper over the cracks of his party's split on Europe right up to the General Election and then he will end the lip-service, ultimately denying the Eurosceptic wing of his party the referendum they so crave, but until Cameron comes out clearly embracing the EU, Annabel Goldie stands on very shaky ground.

Not content with her leader's contradiction of "not ignoring Scotland" while shutting the First Minister out of a leaders' debate, Annabel Goldie seems to be facing both ways at once in siding with party members that do not wish to work as a full partner within the EU while deriding the perfectly hopeful and optimistic aspiration of Scotland breaking away from Britain's union and immersing itself in the European Union as an outward looking independent state.

David Maddox: Do the Lib Dems have anything to say?

Apparently not. It seems they turned down their chance to have a subject debate on Thursday, allegedly because they had nothing to table.

Labour have stepped into the breach with another planned stooshie on building schools and the Scottish Futures Trust. It will be interesting if education secretary Fiona Hyslop turns up to defend her record this time having ducked the last education debate. Needless to say Labour are already challenging her to come out of hiding.

But perhaps, she will take the line of the Lib Dems and decide again that the least said the better.

In fairness to the Lib Dems, I have at least received an explanation from them for their reticence.

The party's ever cheery spindoctor in parliament Jenny Stanning told me: "I've also checked about the party business debates - we only get four a year, not as many as Labour - so it's not really a case of taking turns. The Government offers slots to parties as part of the business programme and we decided that we'd prefer one of our four debate mornings to be later on in the session. Hope this clears up any mystery!"

ScottishToryBoy: Debate on the leaders’ debate pt 2.

Much has been made over in this press this weekend, and on this blog earlier today, over the First Minister’s calls to be involved in the leaders debate set to take place between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg ahead of next year’s General Election. Now, I will nail my colours to the mast early on - I don’t even think Clegg should be involved in such a debate never mind Alex Salmond.

As much as I think this debate is a marvellous idea, it will only work if it allows the two candidates vying to be Prime Minister to have their policies fully scrutinized. The addition of any other Party leader would merely dilute the debate and cut down the time given to Brown and Cameron. Alex Salmond is not running to be Prime Minister and he's standing down as an MP so why should he be afforded the opportunity to take part in a debate that scrutinises the current Prime Minister and the man hoping to replace him?

Oh, and another thing, as it is a Westminster election debate, shouldn’t it be the SNP leader at Westminster, Angus Robertson MP, that takes represents the SNP and not Alex Salmond?

For more of my musings visit my blog here: http://scottishtoryboy.blogspot.com/

Gerri Peev: Beware Tories bearing gifts

What a contrast to the wake that masqueraded as Labour conference. There is absolutely no sense of triumphalism at the Tory conference in Manchester (if you ignore the empty champagne bottles lined up outside hotel doors in the early hours of the morning). But there is definitely a whiff of cold hard cash. Lord Ashcroft of Belize (Daddy Warbucks) has been seen wafting through the convention centre. The smell of money is palpable. Journalists have just been given "goodie" bags. Amongst the "ethical" goodies is a memory stick with the words "thanks for the memories Gordon". Hmmm so much for now wanting to appear complacent. There is even a makeshift cafe in the press centre which the Tories have set up, branded the "General Wellbeing Cafe". If the Conservatives want to show they are in touch with British society they should immediately ditch this happiness agenda and let us be miserable.

SNP Tactical Voting: Timing is everything

The Conservatives are gathering in Manchester today for the latest party conference in the Autumn series. It follows on from Labour's conference last week and the Liberal Democrats' a fortnight ago.

In 2007, the Conservative party had its conference before Labour and it may be worth pausing for reflection on what could have resulted had the order been the other way around.

Going into that Conservative conference almost exactly two years ago, Gordon Brown was enjoying a healthy lead in the polls and was on the verge of calling a snap general election to cement his weak mandate as Prime Minister. However, David Cameron received a healthy post-conference bump in the polls which brought his party close enough to Labour to leave Brown agonising, dithering even, over whether to sanction the election or not.

Of course, eventually, the Prime Minister decided against and Gordon Brown has not been in a position to realistically win a general election since.

Had Labour happened to hold its conference before the Conservatives, the probable subsequent bump in the polls would have been sufficient to give Brown the confidence to call that snap election that never was and it's not outrageous to suggest that David Cameron would have went on to win it with a slim majority or with a minority Government.

Consequently, we would now have Prime Minister Cameron and Chancellor Osborne leading the UK, the entire approach to the recession would have been significantly different, we would not have John Bercow as Speaker of the House, 'Lord Mandelson' and 'Lord Sugar' would not have entered the political lexicon, there would have been a referendum on EU integration and Tony Blair ever becoming the first President of the European Union would be a very remote possibility.

Furthermore, with a Tory Government in London, precious few Tory MPs in Scotland and a popular SNP Government in Edinburgh, the climate surrounding the question of constitutional change would be markedly different with the Nationalists arguably holding a more persuasive position with their independence arguments.

Indeed, we might even have had an independence referendum arranged by now either via the Scottish Parliament or directly with David Cameron, as a consequence of hung parliament negotiations.

So as the Conference season progresses, there are two key factors to remember:

(1) Timing is everything and (2) The best is always saved for last

David Maddox: Is the SNP trying to suppress democracy?

Interesting developments today over the great TV debate debate, if you get my drift.
Gordon Brown finally accepts, if somewhat reluctantly, to have one in principle. To be fair on him this is further than any of his predecessors have gone, even if he did have to be harried into accepting the idea.
Then, rather sinisterly, the SNP announce they will go to court to block any Scottish viewing of such a debate if they are not allowed to participate.
The Nationalists' argument is obviously that as arguably the best supported party north of the Border they would be unfairly disadvantaged if Alex Salmond or Westminster leader Angus Robertson were not part of it.
No doubt they still believe in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s that separation from the UK is the most important issue to discuss - most people in Britain might disagree.
If this were a Scottish election then they would have a point, but it is not. It is a UK election and this is the opportunity for people to see who they would rather want as Prime Minister - Gordon Brown or David Cameron.
There is just about enough moral justification to include Nick Clegg as leader of the Lib Dems, even though nobody but himself actually seriously believes he will be resident in Number 10 any time next year.
It would be a nonsense for tens of millions of non-Scottish voters to have to listen to a party they cannot vote for and a subject (Scottish independence) for which they care little and have no real say.
And where do we draw the line? Should we have the Greens, UKIP and the BNP who have more supporters across the UK than the SNP? Should we have all the leaders of Plaid Cymru and the various Northern Irish parties?
No we should not. The whole thing would become a joke.
So what the SNP want, essentially, is to make sure that Scots are the only voters who cannot watch these debates and take a view on who would be the best PM for Britain. It would be Scots, thanks to the SNP, who would have their democratic rights undermined.
The one compromise that seems reasonable here is the suggestion that there should be debates involving other cabinet ministers and their shadows.
If this were to happen Messrs Salmond or Roberston could take on Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy, David Mundell of the Tories and Alistair Carmichael for the Lib Dems in a specific Scottish edition on STV or/ and BBC Scotland.
However, we know from previous occasions that Mr Salmond's ego is too big to debate with mere Scottish secretaries or ministers. He refused an offer to take on Mr Murphy at a conference about 10 days ago and famously was mocked by Jeremy Paxman when he refused to engage with David Cairns.
It will be interesting to see how this all resolves itself. But my guess is that it may not be Gordon Brown's reluctance that stops these debates but the SNP's hubris.

Eddie Barnes - Cameron's European nightmare

David Cameron must be wondering this afternoon whether the political Gods vote Labour. On the eve of a party conference which has been months in the planning, and which will be watched intensely by voters across the country as they weigh up the look of their next likely government, the toxic issue of Europe suddenly blows up in his face.

With the news emerging that Ireland has backed the Lisbon treaty, it now looks as the matter will be ratified before the General Election. Cameron is committed to holding a pre-ratification referendum, but still won't say what he'll do if it's ratified by the time he gets in. Ken Clarke says this morning it would be a "disaster" if that issue became the dominant theme of the conference. Disaster? Who mentioned disaster?

Cameron has now issued a statement, repeating his position. "If the Treaty is ratified and in force in all Member States, we have repeatedly said we would not let matters rest there. But we have one policy at a time, and we will set out how we would proceed in those circumstances if, and only if, they happen," he says.

The Cameron position pre-conference appears to be along the lines of "I've yet to make up my mind, and that position is final". Not for the first time, Europe is causing the party a nasty headache. Not what Team Cameron wanted.

Kezia Dugdale: Not Now & Not Ever

Unionists across the political spectrum and across this great land respectfully debate the case of "Not Now" vs "Not Ever" in the context of an independence referendum.

Personally, I'm very firmly in the "Not ever" camp.

I didn't join the Labour Party to defend the union.

Of all the great causes in the world:

- The fight against poverty
- The battle for equality
- The plight for a more just world

Independence? The defeat of a union, a bond, 300 years strong?

It's a huge distraction peddled by fantastists and fundamentalists.

Fantastists who can't agree on what an independent Scotland would look like and fundamentalists who believe that Scots are a nation oppressed by the English.

The case for the union is so clear, so integral to who I am - Scottish, British & European - that I find the whole premise of a referendum ridiculous. The political equivalent of asking me why I put my clothes on before I go to work in the morning.

Some people consider my view "undemocratic" - that I would deny "giving the people a say." I could just about humour that view if it wasn't peddled by a party who have so cyncially ditched just about every other pledge they made to the Scottish people in 2007. That undermines democracy and the public's faith in politics.

I also risk upsetting the apple cart by suggesting that unionists who support a referendum are motivated not by a principle, or a value, but by tactic.

"Shooting the fox" is not what I expect from a party that banned hunting.




For more articles by Kezia Dugdale, take a look at her Soapbox blog here.

The Steamie: An Announcement

The Steamie is delighted to announce that our team of bloggers is about to get bigger and better.

We already give you the musings of the best political journalists and commentators that Scotland has to offer.

And from today The Steamie will also include contributions from the nation's five best young independent political bloggers.

Representing the range of Scottish political opinion they will give The Steamie new breadth and depth, making it even more essential as the place where Scottish politics happens online.

The bloggers are: SNP Tactical Voting; Kez Dugdale; Caron's Musings; Scottish Tory Boy; and Two Doctors. You can access their biogs by clicking on Contributors.

There are more plans for The Steamie in the near future - watch this space!

Kenny Farquharson
Deputy Editor, Scotland on Sunday

Two Doctors: The Trouble With Donald

Yesterday Aberdeenshire Council sunk to a new low, something previously believed to be against the laws of physics, by deciding not to block Trump's threat of compulsory purchase against local residents.

On Wednesday night Council sources had briefed reputable media outlets that Councillor Ford's motion against compulsory purchase was unacceptable, but that another anti- CPO amendment would pass. By yesterday morning they were back in line with the tribble-haired Mr Trump (pictured with friends).

It was a grim day for the families, who had argued so passionately for certainty from their elected representatives. Many red-shirted Councillors made craven comments about never voting for compulsory purchase, then failed to vote against. This did not go down well, and I suspect they won't get beamed back into the Council chambers come 2012.

The response from the Trump Organisation would have made Spock weep, too. This was a "logical" decision. Live long and prosper, it seems, so long as it's not in your own homes.

SNP Tactical Voting: East-enders

Labour's Party Conference in Brighton has now come to an end, swiftly followed by mixed reviews. Mixed mostly in that Labour party members thought it went very well while everybody else seems to think otherwise.

Amongst unwanted headlines involving The Sun, 'Gulags', Lord Mandelson, polls and attempted interview walkouts, there was some good news for a local Labour branch as Edinburgh East was awarded a recognition award for the extra effort that has been put into fighting for this constituency.

Congratulations is always due when great work is achieved but given that Edinburgh East is the safest of Labour's seats in the Capital, I was surprised that so much effort is going into saving it.

A 2.5% swing is needed to beat Labour in Edinburgh North & Leith, an 8% swing is needed in Edinburgh South West while a rather large 12% swing is needed by the main challengers in Edinburgh East.

The SNP won just short of an 8% swing in the European elections earlier this year so one would think that the front line of defence would start at the North & Leith constituency rather than Edinburgh East.

Assuming that Labour MP Nigel Griffiths will lose his tiny majority in Edinburgh South to either the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives, is it possible that, by seemingly concentrating effort and resources in Edinburgh East, Labour are tacitly admitting that its other seats are now a lost cause?

Are Labour now fighting for just one MP in the Capital?

David Maddox: How strategic chess moves are important in Scottish politics

As reported in The Scotsman today there will be an announcement later on this afternoon about a loan deal for the famous Lewis chessmen (some of them pictured above) to tour Scotland and even return home to the Hebrides for a short period.

Following my online debate with the Green's spindoctor James Mackenzie (of Two Doctors blog fame), this is yet another example of the importance of chess to political stratagems.

Most importantly they have become pawns in the great game played over separatism or unionism. The Nationalists cry: "Look at our heritage being held on to by those nasty people in London."

So this loan deal announced today is the Unionist response and an attempt to be reasonable, a move meant to take away one of the SNP's attacking pieces.

Time will tell if it works or leaves the British state further exposed.

Mr Mackenzie, of course, believes there is more merit in a game which involves the luck of the fall of the dice - he says backgammon, but it may as well be snakes and ladders.

It will be interesting to see if his MSPs have learnt some new strategies that do not depend on luck in trying to get their £1 billion of free insulation. It appears, at least from other parties, there are moves being played in this area too.

Eddie Barnes - Recession Over. Scottish Labour need new excuse.

So that's it then. The IMF has declared this morning that the world recession is now over and the global economy is expanding again. It has raised its growth forecast for the global economy back above the 3% mark next year, and the UK's growth rate to 0.9%.

In the context of Scottish politics, and the proposed independence referendum, this rather lands Labour in it. Observers will recall the Scottish party's latest position on whether or not to back a referendum has been to say that it would be wrong to do so in the middle of a recession, but that after that it might not be a bad idea. This formulation was conceived entirely as a way of dodging the SNP's point that opposition to a referendum was anti-democratic. OK democracy is important, Labour was saying, but overcoming the recession was more so.

But the recession now appears to be over. Or at least it will be by the time the SNP lay their referendum bill next year. Which means that Labour's line is fast becoming defunct.

Of course Labour could simply say that they won't back a referendum because they don't want to have one. But the confidence-sapped party appears to be terrified of being cast by the SNP as opposing the right of the people to have their say. But if the spectre of a recession can no longer raised as an excuse for not supporting a referenum, then what can? You can be sure that the SNP will be quick to ask the question.