David Maddox: The great TV debate debate (again!)

There was an air of predictable inevitability over the announcement on the election debate and its consequences.
The broadcasters were never going to countenance having Alex Salmond et al joining the big three, or rather the big two (Brown and Cameron) and medium sized one (Clegg). I gather that they were reluctant even to include Clegg but could not get away with it.
And, of course, apparently in the name of democracy we are to get legal challenges from the Nationalists in Scotland and Wales. But as I predicted in my Steamie debate with my colleague Eddie Barnes virtually every other minor party in British terms is also demanding a place in the debates - UKIP and the Greens have already said so. Maybe they will try legal challenges too.
However, I stand by my earlier comments that I cannot see a democratic justification for stopping Scots, or Welsh for that matter, watching a debate between the men contending to be prime minister.
These debates are nothing to do with proportionality and everything to do with the presidential style of election we now have, like or hate it. In that sense Alex Salmond and his Welsh counterpart stand no chance of being PM and their value in them is limited at best.
The issues of constitutional nature, which is what they stand for, can be dealt with in separate Scottish and Welsh debates, which should deal with the legal issues too.
The only down side is that discussions on health and education or anything else devolved will be of little interest to those of us north of the Border. However, the defence and economy debates should be fascinating and will be worth broadcasting in Scotland for that reason alone.
Economically especially we are on the verge of a new era and this election will decide whether it will be a future of far less public spending or more taxation. The two main contenders appear to offer very different futures and Scots should not be excluded from that.

George Lyon MEP in Copenhagen: COP15 turns into cop out by world leaders

What was heralded as the last chance to save the planet has become a rushed attempt by world leaders to save face.

The Copenhagen Accord that has been agreed by world leaders has no legally binding targets, no transparency to monitor progress towards the domestic targets set, and no target date for finalising a real global deal in the future.

COP15 has turned into a cop out. No matter how much they spin it, world leaders cannot, in good conscience, claim that this is a ‘meaningful agreement’.

If you wanted to look very, very hard for a silver lining, you could concede that it is a small step in the right direction given the potential for a complete collapse of talks as looked likely earlier on today.

But there is an overwhelming sense of frustration and deflation People, like the thousands of Scots who marched in the Wave protests, have every right to feel angered by the actions of those who they tasked with reaching a global solution to a global problem.

All quiet now at the Bella centre. That is how this agreement has been received – with deafening silence.

George Lyon MEP in Copenhagen: Face saving, not planet saving agreement

As talks in Copenhagen continue this evening, at least for the moment, spirits are rather low.

America and China produce over 50% of the world's carbon emissions: any deal here tonight will require them work together. Unfortunately, there appears to be stalemate.

Prior to today there was some hope that the US had come to the negotiating table ready to play ball. Hillary Clinton suggested that they might come forward with an offer of more money and concrete commitments.

Unfortunately that looks like it was all posturing. President Obama instead used his speech simply to assert that the US is ready to do a deal if China and others are prepared to be transparent.

China is refusing to budge. There's a bit of a culture clash here as the Chinese perceive international monitoring of their efforts as "snooping" and a breach of sovereignty, or at least that is the reason they are giving for refusing to open up.

That is a real shame. China has to understand that economic development should go hand in hand with political maturity. It is in their own interests to play a full role in international affairs, including the fight against climate change.

The draft Copenhagen Accord continues to look like a face saving, not a planet saving agreement.

Even the leaders' "family photograph" has now been postponed indefinitely. We wait for more news.

George Lyon MEP in Copenhagen: There will be no climate deal

I've just come from two separate briefings, one with the EU delegation and one with their Indian counterparts. Different briefings but the same message - there will be no climate deal.

Details are sketchy at the moment but the EU delegation has told me that China is digging its heels in over binding targets and the future inspection of those targets. There is a leaked draft agreement floating around that is ridiculously weak, but China would not even agree to sign up to that.

This is a huge shock. As I have stated in previous posts, it was becoming increasingly unlikely that a legally binding deal could be reached but it was always thought a political agreement would be finalised before world leaders leave Copenhagen.

However, now it looks as though, rather than being in deadlock, the talks are just dead.

World leaders are expected to leave the conference in the next couple of hours. I've just bumped into Ed Miliband, Sarkozy, Merkel and Barroso leaving a meeting, no doubt wondering what to say. Glum does not go far enough to describe the way they looked.

Of course, now the blame game will start. The EU and US are blaming China. Developing nations are blaming developed nations.

The attitude of the developing nations can be summed up by a conversation I've just had with a member of the Indian delegation. Agriculture is India's biggest industry. Limiting the planet to 2C of warming would cut 14 million tonnes of wheat out of their economy.

He told me: "Why would we sign up to something that will restrict our growth. We are not going to pay for the growth of western countries over the last century."

This is what the Copenhagen Climate Conference, heralded by some as the last chance to save the planet, has come to.

UPDATE: 1837 CET

I have a leaked copy of what the Indian delegation has called a 'holding statement' in my hands. It is tentatively called the Copenhagen Accord.

There are no binding targets, it allows developing or non-annex 1 countries to stick to targets set domestically, there is no transparent inspection in place to monitor those targets and it says that a review of this process will be undertaken in 2016 - a full six years after binding targets for all should be in place.

It is staggeringly weak. Can world leaders really pass this off as a substantial agreement? More to follow...

George Lyon MEP in Copenhagen: EU 'red lines' in negotiations

A little bit of behind the scenes information for you. I just had a meeting with the EU delegation, which is headed up by the Swedish Presidency. I asked them what their 'red lines' were in the negotiations. They told me:

1. All developed countries must sign up to a Kyoto level of bindingness
2. All emerging countries must sign up to real and appropriate commitments
3. There must be proper monitoring, reporting and verification of emission cuts

A few obvious sticking points there then, but it does give you a sense of diverse negotiating positions of the key players in Copenhagen.

George Lyon MEP in Copenhagen: Obama's speech moves US position by inches when we need him to go the extra mile

What did we learn from President Obama's address to the Copenhagen conference? The answer to that has to be 'not much'.

The scheduled proceedings were delayed by two hours as Obama held talks with nineteen other world leaders in a closed session. We thought that we might get some answers after they emerged and Obama took to the podium but no, not even a hint of progress.

We got the same resounding rhetoric from the President. He told us that he believes now "is the time for the nations and the people of the world to come together behind a common purpose." He added that world leaders were ready to get the job done today.

Good, because many delegates and even more protesters think they might have to wait to COP16 in Mexico for a legally binding agreement.

What we heard from Obama was not enough at this late stage. To give him credit, Obama has thrown down the gauntlet to China on the transparency issue and that gave a certain amount of positive momentum to proceedings yesterday.

But there has been very little movement in terms of targets from America. At the start of the process they said they would commit to a 17% cut in CO2 emissions below 2005 levels by 2020. This equates to about 4% below 1990 levels.

Let's put that in context. The African delegation, who walked out earlier in the week, wants a commitment to 40% cuts below 1990 levels. That is a huge gulf to bridge with only hours remaining of the Conference.

I hoped for more movement towards the European Parliament's position of 20:2020 - 20% reduction by 2020, with room to move up to 30% if other big emitters commit to big cuts.

President Obama's speech moved America forward by inches only. With the clock ticking we need every country to go the extra mile.

George Lyon MEP in Copenhagen: Slogans and pressure - what can Obama expect at COP15?

"Global justice now", "COP15, big failure", "One world, one consequence, one will?"

Just some of the slogans and chants being used at the final day of the Copenhagen climate summit. You certainly feel the pressure to deliver as you walk through the main entrance to the Bella Centre where the conference is being held.

People thrust flyers into your hands reminding you of the consequences of a two degree rise in global temperatures. They hold banners that show anything from a polar bear's habitat melting to famine in Africa. Some people even tried to convince me to become a vegan to stop global warming - not the most convincing argument to make to a former President of the NFU.

For me, one of the most moving protests was a group of people who decided to start shaving their heads, angered by the slow progress at the talks. This included young girls with long hair who started crying as it happened.

It is loud, very loud, and can be intimidating.

This is the welcome that President Obama will get when he arrives to address the conference. As if he could forget, he will be reminded by all the protesters that they are counting on him to deliver a global deal. Delegates are expectant, if not necessarily confident, of an agreement being reached by the days end.

The centre of Copenhagen came to a stand still in preparation for his motorcade as I walked from the train station to the conference centre. When he leaves later on this evening, the protestors will know if their slogans were listened to.

George Lyon MEP in Copenhagen: Clinton puts figure on develping nations fund for first time

Conferences like this are always consumed by rumour and speculation, claim and counter claim. Today I heard, from my MEP colleagues, that the EU was considering only putting 25% on the table, instead of the expected 30% that the Parliament were pushing for, in hope of kick starting a deal as the final day of negotiations approaches.

This was quickly denied by a spokesperson, recognising that many parliamentarians, including myself, would see this as a fatalistic move that would only serve to encourage other groups to lower their ambitions.

There is hard news though. One positive was Hillary Clinton’s speech to the Conference delivered earlier today. For the first time she put a figure to the amount of money developing countries need to help their economies grow while keeping emissions low.

She told delegates that it would take $100billion. The US Secretary of State would not put that on the record unless the US had some intention of putting real cash on the table to help developing countries buy into a deal.

With President Obama arriving tomorrow there are now signs that he will put his shoulder to the wheel and go the extra mile to secure an agreement.

So there are some sign of progress but it is becoming increasingly clear that a deal will be political, with no legal underpinning.

At a briefing a few minutes ago, the Swedish delegation, who hold the EU Presidency at the moment, said they were hopeful that a fringe group would be set up to try to clear some of the remaining obstacles to help them move towards an agreed text. Time is running out.

David Maddox: Official endorsement of The Steamie from Alex Salmond's spokesman

Just come back from the weekly Scottish Government briefing that follows First Minister's questions.
Perhaps not surprisingly given what happened in FMQs the main topic of conversation was Mike Russell and unsubstantiated allegations over his supposed connection with a malicious blog run by his former employee.
Kevin Pringle, Alex Salmond's spin doctor in chief, was again reiterating how Mr Russell had no prior knowledge of the blog or its contents.
But, as an aside, Mr Pringle, a regularly reader of The Steamie, kindly took time to highlight it as the sort of blog preferred by the Scottish Government.
"We are into that sort of blog," he said.
It's obviously the season of generosity. So Happy Christmas to you Kevin and all other Steamie readers.

George Lyon MEP in Copenhagen: Finally arrived on the train, but will negotiations stay on track

I’ve just arrived at the Bella Centre in Copenhagen for the United Nations climate change conference. After a nineteen hour train journey across the snow covered tracks of northern Europe it is a welcome relief to arrive at the destination I’ve been building up to since the European elections in June.

Of course, others have been building up to this Summit for much, much longer. It is now twelve years since the Kyoto conference – a city that has become synonymous with international efforts to combat climate change, but also the ultimate failure of those efforts.

The problem with the Kyoto Protocol was that it omitted the two world's largest CO2 producers in the United States and China. The former because of Congressional alarm at pesky environmentalists dictating terms to the world’s only remaining superpower which had the potential to harm continued economic growth. The latter because it was still considered a ‘developing’ or non-annex 1 country and so was not bound by the targets set.

Without the participation of the two giants of the new century, Kyoto lacked the authority to back up its intent. But it did set the precedent for international action on climate change, and while it quickly lost momentum and credibility its long term legacy may be that world leaders learn from their mistakes.

That is the context in which the Copenhagen Conference is set. As world leaders arrive, it is still very much in the balance whether a global deal will be reached.

I hope to bring you the latest news from behind the scenes over the next couple of days on The Steamie. You can also follow me on Twitter – just follow @georgelyonmep

David Maddox: The Numbers Game (26) - Mind the gap

Following up from my post late last week on the Yougov samples, I have been handed the data for the Scottish samples of the last three Yougov polls. It makes fascinating reading.

Con: 22.3% Lab: 35.6% Lib Dems: 13.3% SNP: 23.3%

This certainly makes interesting reading regarding signs of a potential comeback for the Tories in Scotland and the problems the Nationalists have recently experienced. Having said that the difference of just 1% is hard to believe.
Now, the usual health warning about smallish samples being averaged out applies here, but what is interesting is that the total number of people asked is 566.
This larger than the sample which the SNP keep quoting from a recent Ipsos Mori poll of those who would definitely vote, which was around 500 and put them two points ahead. They were behind if you took the total number.

I have run the above numbers through the two online predictors now available.
ScotlandVotes, which The Scotsman is the media partner for and which I will now regularly quote, has the following (difference with 2005 in brackets):

Con: 5 (+4) Lab: 38 (-3) Lib Dems: 9 (-2) SNP: 7 (+1)

In this scenario the Tories gain Dumfries & Galloway and Edinburgh South off Labour, and Argyll & Bute and Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk off the Lib Dems.
The SNP take Ochil & South Perthshire off Labour.

My usual predictor, Electoral Calculus, comes up with a similar result.

Con: 6 (+5) Lab: 37 (-4) Lib Dems: 9 (-2) SNP: 7 (+1)

The only change here is that the Tories would also gain Stirling off Labour.

Of course, it will all be different on the night, but the fun and speculation will no doubt continue until 25 March or 6 May 2010.

David Maddox: The Numbers Game (25)

I have just been handed some analysis from the Scottish samples of the last two Yougov polls, which comes from about 400 people.
The usual health warning about polls in general and combining polls in particular, but the results are beginning to show a certain degree of consistency.
That is that Nationalist support is going down, Labour is regularly in the low to mid 30s and the Tories are stuck around 20 per cent, while the Lib Dems are in a desperate battle for survival.
The data shows:

Con: 20.5% Lab: 35% Lib Dems: 16% SNP: 23.5%

My guess would be that the SNP vote is probably higher, whereas the Labour and Lib Dem vote is in reality a couple of points each below what is shown in this data.
However, should election day have this breakdown, then Electoral Calculus suggests the following results for Westminster in Scotland with change from the 2005 election in brackets:

Con: 4 (+3) Lab 38 (-3) Lib Dems 10 (-1) SNP: 7 (+1)

David Maddox: In Constance sorrow (2)

There is a debate going on this morning in Holyrood which may well go under the radar in terms of media coverage.

Labour have put down a motion raising concerns about a report which suggested that disabled people should be excluded from having free bus passes.

What is interesting about this is that the Labour motion in the name of their transport spokesman, the recently rehabilitated Charlie Gordon, is word for word the same as a written one put down by Livingston SNP MSP Angela Constance (top left).

The mystery here is why after putting down a written motion which was then signed by several of her colleagues and members of other parties Ms Constance then decided to withdraw it.

She is deputy convener of the parliamentary group and thee is a suggestion that she was heavily leaned on by the party whips because the motion essentially undermined future SNP spending policy, probably because the Scottish Government doies not have enough money for it.

An example of the SNP's famous central control over its MSPs who have yet to show any sign of rebellion.

If this is true then there is a slight irony in the sense that the leaning would almost certainly have been administered by the chief whip Brian Adam (pictured right).

This no nonsense MSP just recently put out a press release apparently criticising his finance secretary John Swinney for his decisions on council funding which has left Mr Adam's city of Aberdeen a little short of cash. To be fair, from my days as an Aberdeen reporter I know that Mr Adam is first and foremost a determined constituency MSP.

Whatever the inside machinations of the SNP Holyrood group, it will be interesting if Ms Constance offers an explanation for suddenly pulling a motion which commanded wide support.

Here's the original motion:

(1) S3M-04717 Angela Constance (Livingston) (Scottish National Party): Concessionary Travel— That the Parliament welcomes the recommendation of the Review of the Scotland Wide Free Bus Travel Scheme for Older and Disabled People to include seriously injured armed forces veterans to the scheme but notes with disappointment and concern the review’s recommendation to disenfranchise disabled people who receive the lower rate of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) from the scheme; further notes that the review paints a worst-case scenario of the costs of including disabled people who receive the lower rate of DLA and that these costs are open to scrutiny and debate and that the review also played down the positive social impact that the scheme has on people’s lives; acknowledges that denying disabled people on the lower rate of DLA access to the scheme will damage the main aims and ethos of the scheme, namely to allow disabled people improved access to services, facilities and social networks by free scheduled bus services and so promote social inclusion and improve health by promoting a more active lifestyle for disabled people; notes that previous local schemes operated in West Lothian and Strathclyde provided people on the lower rate of DLA access to concessionary travel schemes and that they supported the national scheme mirroring their eligibility criteria instead of the stringent criteria that is now adopted; welcomes disability organisations Leonard Cheshire Disability, Learning Disability Alliance Scotland (LDAS), Inclusion Scotland and many more in challenging the review’s negative recommendation, and considers that disabled people’s views, that the national concessionary travel scheme should include people who receive the lower rate of DLA instead of backing the unfair recommendation on eligibility from the review, should be listened to.
Supported by: Robin Harper (Green), Dr Bill Wilson (SNP), Stuart McMillan (SNP), Bill Kidd (SNP), Anne McLaughlin (SNP), Gil Paterson (SNP), Christina McKelvie (SNP), Elaine Smith (Labour), Charlie Gordon (Labour), Aileen Campbell (SNP)
Lodged on Friday, August 21, 2009; Withdrawn as of Friday, August 21, 2009

David Maddox: The kitchen cabinet secretary

A freedom of information request was published on the Scottish Government website last week which went largely unnoticed probably because there was so little in it.
The subject was an old favourite for journalists - ministerial gifts.
Only five are listed and only one of those was even vaguely interesting - a cook book by Scottish celebrity chef Nick Nairn which was pocketed by Environment Secretary Richard Lochhead in June last year.
Most gifts are even given to staff or kept by the government on display or stuck in a library or storage, however, clearly Mr Lochhead enjoys his food and plans to take on a few tips from the cooking master.
Mr Nairn has been a great supporter of SNP ministerial initiatives such as breakfast clubs.
But, hopefully, with his new book Mr Lochhead has got past the bit about cooking toast (see the Lochhead, left, and Nairn, right, picture above) and on to some more complicated cuisine.

David Maddox: Currying favour at Christmas

The idea that Christmas parties reflect the fortunes of their hosts seems to be confirmed with a comparison between this year and last year of the bashes arranged by Scotland's leading political rivals - SNP First Minister Alex Salmond and Labour's Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy.
Last year, despite the SNP losing heavily to Labour in the Glenrothes by-election, Mr Salmond still gave the impression he could turn water into wine or at least walk on water, while Labour appeared to be stuck in the doldrums.
So the 2008 Christmas party arranged by Mr Salmond for Scottish political hacks involved top notch award winning curry, lots of drinks and a long reception at Bute House, the First Minister's official residence.
Meanwhile Mr Murphy's staff forgot to send invitations to the media for an event which involved a few drinks and crisps and was lumped together with inviting various parts of Scotland's great and good.
How different it is this year. Last Thursday Mr Murphy entertained the political hacks with curry and drinks, including Scotland's strongest beer (since Brewdog's Tokyo was banned), at 7.8 per cent, perhaps symbolic of Labour's decision to torpedo the SNP's minimum pricing for booze policy. Overall the event, as did the host's demeanour, reflected a far more confident relaxed attitude encouraged by rising political fortunes.
Labour of course have just thumped the SNP in Glasgow North East while Mr Salmond appears to be struggling with the SNP behind in the polls and having no chance of getting its referendum. There is also the small matter of the education crisis which led to the sacking of Fiona Hyslop from the cabinet.
Which brings us on to Mr Salmond's hastily arranged Christmas do for the media this year. This afternoon we learnt that it has now been diaried at the Scottish Government offices in St Andrew's House for a few drinks for Thursday, the busiest day in parliament, for an hour and 15 minutes at 5.45pm, a time when most journalists are stuck on deadlines and unable to attend.
Mr Salmond's office said this was because the original date clashed with the Tartan Bollocks (The Scottish Parliament Journalist Association's annual dinner named after the award for the worst story of the year -NB this is not the story which cybernats most disapprove of).
But, many have seen this last minute arrangement as a reflection of the First Minister's waning fortunes. It certainly suggests he may be less happy than he was spending his time with journalists and that he is not exactly pleased with the coverage he is getting currently.
Of course the irony, if this is true, is that a party on the down would have more cause to try to get in the press's good books to get back into favour, but it seems that's not how politics, at least in Scotland, works.

David Maddox: The adventures of War Monkey

Mike Russell headed to Inverkeithing Primary School for his first media photo-op as the Scottish education secretary (designate) and was met there by a decent sized crowd of political press hacks.
He did the tour and then came in for a posed chat with a selection of distinctly nervous looking school children from various classes.
As he sat down with them, he breezily asked one: "What are you reading?" And then slightly choked as he read the title: "Oh, it's War Monkey."
Perhaps symbolic of what some believe is his new role given that he has to go into battle for the organ grinder (Alex Salmond) with Scotland's councils over education in the coming days.
But, what followed was not a good sign for what is to come, especially if he is looking for good press on a difficult issue for the Scottish Government.
Instead of facing questions from the assembled journalists of the written media, who had been waiting for an hour, Mr Russell decided that it was a greater priority to do his bit for government propaganda.
So he prioritised answering some banal questions for the Scottish Government website rather than searching ones from the fourth estate, cutting down the time available to question him on policy and the difficult issues ahead.
It was not clear who made this decision. Colin McAllister, the party spin doctor for education on the government pay role, should take much of the responsibility for not taking a grip on the situation and apparently leaving the decision to a junior press officer. Mr Russell, as an ex-media man himself, should have known better too.
But whoever is to blame, to put the government website first will do nothing to improve the SNP's image.

Chris Mackie: A bluffer's guide

As the SNP education brief begins life in a post Fiona Hyslop world, the clear line coming from the opposition parties is that her demotion (ok, sacking) was an example of Alex Salmond blinking first in the latest stage of his Call-My-Bluff style of minority government.

That the opposition felt emboldened enough to stare him down in his latest threat to walk out was emblematic of the torrid seven days his government has experienced. A simmering dispute with local councils, a lukewarm response to the referendum plans and ongoing education travails all added up to make it a week to forget for Salmond and co.

It is certainly true that the reshuffle (alright, sacking) has emboldened the opposition benches - the number of gleeful Tories, LibDems and Labourites eating lunch in the Parliament's canteen yesterday was significantly higher than it usually is.

But Alex Salmond is nothing if not a canny operator and he may well have felt that his powder would be better left dry to help him through the forthcoming budget negotiations, especially as the political tide is flowing against him in the run up to Christmas.

Much more is at stake for the SNP in those deliberations, and to take his government to the brink for the sake of loyalty to a colleague would have left him with much less political capital to play with in the new session. Yes, his position is lessened by this climbdown, but to stake his government on an education secretary that was the very definition of "embattled" would have been denser than the 198 brochure used to herald the referendum Bill.

Expect to see more of this in the New Year, with or without the chairmanship or Robert Robinson.

David Maddox: Breaking news - first cabinet casualty

Fiona Hyslop (pictured) has just been removed as education secretary by Alex Salmond after a string of failures.

She is replaced by Mike Russell. In turn Ms Hyslop takes over Mr Russell's old external affairs and culture portfolio in a non-cabinet role. However, Mr Salmond does not feel he can trust her with the referendum bill and has taken control of that personally.

It seems the final blow was a threat by the Lib Dems to hold a vote of no confidence on Thursday in Ms Hyslop. Interestingly, previous threats like this have been met with a threat by Mr Salmond to get the government to resign. But he clearly was not willing to stake the keys of Bute House on Ms Hyslop's woeful record.

Read more about it in tomorrow's Scotsman.