David Maddox: No place on the Tory front bench for Scotland

David Cameron and the Conservatives have been painfully aware of their lack of support north of the Border. In a radio interview recently Mr Cameron admitted his party would not win many seats, even though they are targeting 11.

For this reason Mr Cameron and his party (at least in Scotland) have been keen to promote the so-called "respect agenda" should they win power in the UK without much of a Scottish mandate.

The details of this are well known and often repeated - ministers regularly visiting, an annual PMQs with MSPs, post Pre-Budget and Budget briefings, the Scottish Secretary giving a verbal report to MSPs on the implications of the Queen's Speech etc.

But respect needs to be symbolic as well, which brings us on to the last Scottish questions in the Commons before the election. This was my second since transferring from Holyrood to Westminster and today, like the last time, it was noticeable that shadow Scottish Secretary David Mundell (pictured) was shunted off the front bench to make way for other (more senior) colleagues for PMQs which followed immediately afterwards. today he was shifted before Scottish questions had even finished.

On both occasions poor Mr Mundell was forced to sit awkwardly on the steps between the back benches.

In comparison Jim Murphy remained on the Labour front bench throughout PMQs.

The sight of the frontbencher responsible for Scottish affairs being pushed aside so unceremoniously is not exactly the sort of respectful image for Scotland that the Tories have been so keen to claim is their own.

David Maddox: Pizza and beer for the new political blockbuster

They may well be seen as boring men in grey suits talking about dull economics but it seems that the Chancellors' debate last night drew amazingly high viewing figures.
According to one of the Tory spindoctors 7 million people, more than one in ten people in the UK, tuned in to Channel Four to watch Messrs Darling, Osborne and Cable talk about the economy. The peak viewing according to figures they received was 2 million.
This compares to the normal Channel Four News viewing audience of 1 million and Dispatches audience of 1 million.
It would be a good omen for interest in the political process and the forthcoming election.
However, perhaps a more accurate assessment of the viewing audience appears in the Guardian Media Guide which reports that there were 1.6 million viewers, a 6.6 per cent share of the total UK TV audience.
Let's hope that the Conservative estimates on potential savings they can make are more accurate.
Whatever, the truth of the figures, it seems that the Tories at the party's London HQ at Millbank Tower decided to have a night of it with the debate and ordered in pizza and beer before settling down to watch the first political blockbuster of the election campaign.
The choice of cuisine is largely because there is a Pizza Express nearby, but perhaps it is a sign of how far David Cameron's party has come from the days of champagne and caviar, just as Labour is returning to its traditional beer and sandwiches union tucker.

David Maddox: The Numbers Game (29) - Bookies' Balls up

As regular readers may know, The Steamie has at times tried to help you add a few pounds to your pockets by offering a tip on the political betting front with mixed success.
Those of you who put money on Iain Gray to become Labour leader may appreciate The Steamie's advice, while those who went for Ann Widdicombe to be Speaker may not.
But we've had some interesting odds regarding who will be the next Chancellor to give a Budget from our old friends at Ladbrokes. Please note these odds are ahead of tonight's debate and may change at 9.10pm, I'm reliably informed.

George Osborne 2/5 (fav)
Alistair Darling 5/1
Ed Balls 10/1
Vince Cable 16/1
Ken Clarke 16/1
Philip Hammond 20/1
Gordon Brown 100/1

So tip of the day would be to put your money on Balls.
With Labour closing the gap there is now a decent chance it will be the biggest party and may even have a majority.
If that were to happen Gordon Brown has already made it clear that he wants to replace Alistair Darling with Ed Balls, despite the fact that many people now believe the current Chancellor is the last remaining minister with any credibility and certainly could claim to have won an election for Labour.

This also applies to the newly published odds on the next Labour leader with the very same Ed Balls at 14/1. Again this tip is based on the fact that the Brownites would support him against the Blairites' David Milliband (the 5/2 favourite). He would also probably have the backing of the major unions including the dreaded Unite.

I'm not just saying this because he is a fellow Norwich City fan, but while Ed Balls is reportedly incredibly unpopular in the Commons he has enough powerful supporters and hangers on to make both sets of odds from Ladbrokes look pretty generous.

Perhaps the clever bet is to actually back Ed Balls on both. Whilst it is extremely unlikely but not impossible to clean up on both it makes a decent each way bet on Mr Balls' ultimate fate based on whether Labour win or lose the election.

Here are the rest of the runners and riders to replace Gordon Brown as Labour leader:

David Miliband 5/2
Ed Miliband 5/1
Alan Johnson 6/1
Harriet Harman 8/1
Peter Mandelson 8/1
Alistair Darling 12/1
Ed Balls 14/1
Jon Cruddas 14/1
Jack Straw 25/1
John Denham 25/1
Andy Burnham 25/1
Hilary Benn 33/1
Yvette Cooper 33/1
Shaun Woodward 50/1
Jim Murphy 50/1
Douglas Alexander 66/1
Peter Hain 66/1
John McDonnell 66/1
Liam Byrne 66/1
Hazel Blears 100/1
Tony Blair 100/1
Alastair Campbell 500/1
Cherie Blair 500/1

David Maddox: The rise of Willie Bain

I had coffee with Willie Bain (pictured right) recently down in the Commons, one of many I've tried to cram in with MPs before they are fully distracted by the need to persuade people to vote for them.
While I met Mr Bain during the autumn campaign for Glasgow North East, it was difficult then to weigh him up, largely because Labour kept him so well protected and the only quality they highlighted of his was his "localness" as opposed to the outsider SNP candidate David Kerr.
So it was a bit of a relief to find out that Willie Bain appears to be a capable and articulate politician, which is not something you can say about all MPs.
And since he came down from his parents' high rise in Springburn to help save Labour in Glasgow North East, Willie's stock appears to have risen.
In a very short time he has become the parliamentary private secretary (PPS) to transport minister Sadiq Khan. Being a PPS - or bag carrier as it is more disparagingly known - is the first step to becoming a minister.
His swift elevation is certainly partly due to the fact that he is relatively young, 37, and, unlike many of the younger up and comers standing in safe Labour seats in Scotland, actually has a hinterland outside party politics, having worked as a lecturer in public law in London.
There is no doubt he is one to look out for in the future depending on Labour's fortunes at the election, although he will certainly be coming back.
However, there is actually a more serious issue going on with the way Gordon Brown tries to control the Chamber highlighted by a recent report by the Public Administration Committee in the Commons.
It has raised concerns about the size of what is called the payroll vote which represents 40 per cent of the Labour MPs. These are the MPs who have a government job, including the lowly PPSs who are not actually paid a ministerial wage, and who then have to resign if they vote against the government.
By drafting in as many MPs as possible on the payroll vote Gordon Brown can limit any potential rebellions. MPs within the payroll vote are not even able to go against the government line in less strict one or two line whipped votes, let alone three line whips.
The committee actually agreed with one of Mr Brown's predecessors, Sir John Major, who said last year that the size of the payroll vote was leading him to have doubts about the first past the post voting system. He suggested it should be halved.

David Maddox: Why did it take Jack Straw so long to realise?

I've had a few e-mails about the continuing lobbygate saga particularly over the involvement of the former ministerial trio of Byers, Hoon and Hewitt.
One e-mail asks about Justice Secretary Jack Straw's comments today describing the three as "stupid."
Why, I was asked, has Mr Straw, who is supposed to be reasonably intelligent, not realise they were stupid when Geoff Hoon was responsible for the UK's defence, Stephen Byer's the transport infrastructure and Patricia Hewitt the English health service?
The answer could be that maybe he thought letting that sort of information out might cause general panic. Afterall you do want the people in charge to have a few grey cells to rub together.
But, maybe the truth is found in looking at the end of his comments.
They were "stupid" for "allowing themselves to be suckered in a sting like this."
So now we understand the UK government definition of stupidity: You are only stupid if you allow yourself to get caught.
If this was the thinking that underlied their policy on education and justice as well it might explain a few things.

David Maddox: Lessons in how to avoid answering questions

If there is one person in the government or British politics as a whole who has a reputation for being able to deal with the press it is Lord Mandelson.
I went to a press conference today which underlined his reputation for having ruthless streak.
The press conference was on a tedious but important announcement on a massive gas pipeline deal from Shetland along with Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy and some representatives of the companies involved.
The two ministers arrived 15 minutes late, allowed for a contract sign photoshoot and then read out the statements provided on the press releases.
At this point Lord Mandelson asked if there were any questions. He took one question on the technicalities which was answered by one of the industry men.
Then Lord Mandelson picked up his papers and along with Mr Murphy literally ran for the door without allowing another question to be asked.
Just to make sure none of the pesky journalists could intercept his lordship on the way out two flunkies were positions to block the media and allow the ministers a free run to the door.
Below may be a picture of Lord Mandelson departing:

Now it may be because only the Scottish press representatives and a few specialist energy industry journalists were there, that he felt he could get away with it, but it was clear that both his Lordship and the normally chatty Scottish Secretary were interested in allowing the press conference to feature any awkward questions and, bizarrely, had planned hasty their getaway prior to the event.

Needless to say the hacks who had given up their lunchtime to wait for the two ministers were less than impressed.

It left you wondering what questions they didn't want to answer.

Feel free to leave suggestions in the comments section, although please note that obscene and defamatory suggestions will be deleted.

David Maddox: Self-certifying politicians

Just come back from the morning Downing Street briefing where the main topic of conversation was cash for access.

This was not the huge sums Labour is demanding for a bus trip with Gordon Brown during the election, but, of course, the Stephen "taxi" Byers, Geoff Hoon et al controversy of asking money from companies to lobby on their behalf.

Byers (pictured right) has apparently boasted that he managed to change legislation, although all will be much clearer this evening when the Channel 4 program making the claims is aired. But this morning it was made clear that the Prime Minister sees no reason for an investigation of any sort.

The reason for this is that the two departments concerned - Transport and Business, Innovation and Skills - run by their Lords Adonis and Mandelson have issued statements saying it is not true.

Which raises the question: What would happen if this principle were to be used in the courts or police investigations?

If it were, all criminals would need to do is say "not true gov" and, whatever the evidence, the courts and constabulary would say "well that's good enough for me, no need to take this further."

Fortunately, our legal systems do not work the same way as our political ones. But this is another example, if one were needed, of the political class operating to different standards than the rest of us.

David Maddox: A future fare for all with Gordon Brown

Lobby journalists have just discovered the price of a bus ticket with Gordon Brown.
One day on the election battle bus with the great leader is £595 while a full election season ticket is a snip at £12,995.
That's certainly an interesting way of raising election funds.
So when Mr Brown unveiled that rehashed election slogan "a future fair for all" maybe he just misspelt fare.

David Maddox: Let the election games begin

With the election timetable to 6 May becoming more clear by the day, the image of relentless, brain eating zombies trying to get your vote might be one which may be one which begins to chime with the public, especially after all the TV debates have taken place.
So already a free computer game has come out to capture that feeling. It looks like it might be a lot more addictive than the politicians themselves. Have fun by clicking here.
This may well prove to be the first of many.

David Maddox: MPs get their holiday

Well that's it then, we almost know exactly when the election will be called.
Harriet Harman announced in the parliamentary business statement that there will after all be an Easter recess in parliament much to the huge relief of MPs who had all but given up on a holiday.
Having said that they will almost certainly be spending their break tramping up and down streets in the phony election war.
MPs quit the Commons for a week on Tuesday 30 March and return on Tuesday 6 April. That means, according to the sears here in the Commons, it is almost certain that Gordon Brown will call the election after Prime Minister's questions on Wednesday 7 April giving us a month to 6 May.

David Maddox: Meeting on neutral territory

It may just be happy coincidence but Scotland is actually the perfect place in terms of ecclesiastical politics for Pope Benedict to meet the Queen.

The reason for holding the visit in September seems to be more about the symbolic nature of turning up in Scotland on the feast day (the 16th) of the country's first saint, St Ninian, who brought Christianity to the heathen Picts.

This of course falls during the Queen's holiday in Scotland, which seems to be the real reason the two are meeting at Holyrood Palace.

However, the complexities of the constitutional settlement in Britain and history of the Reformation mean that Scotland is best suited for two heads of a churches, as opposed to their roles as heads of state, to meet.

Her Majesty is Head of the Church of England, a role she takes very seriously with deep conviction. But she is, of course, not head of the Church of Scotland so how has no religious role north of the Border.

Maintaining this separate religious status was one of the conditions the Presbyterians put down before the Parliaments were united just over 300 years ago, along with separate education and legal systems. All these aspects of that agreement are with us today and have helped preserve Scotland's identity over the years.
So when they meet in Scotland they are meeting on land where neither the Queen or the Pope have religious authority.

This means they can meet as Heads of State and perhaps avoid awkward discussions over the Pope's efforts to make it easy for thousands of Anglicans to desert the Church of England and return to the fold of the Roman Catholic Church.

The other advantage of Holyrood Palace is that it is holy ground. Irt was the site of a former Roman Catholic abbey built after King David I of scotland had a vision of the Crucifix (Holyrood meaning holy cross) on the site after an unfortunate hunting incident involving a white hart.

So the land is both royal and holy and can be laid claim to by both parties, a perfect place for the two to come together after 450 years of division since the Reformation.

David Maddox: The onward march of the patsies

Just seen the press release about Pamela Nash being selected as John Reid's replacement as the Labour candidate for Airdrie and Shotts.
Her main qualification appears to be that she was Dr Reid's parliamentary researcher, although to be fair the 25-year-old does actually come from the constituency.
She is the latest in a long line of candidates whose political and indeed life experience is based on working in either the Westminster or Holyrood bubble. They are what is sometimes termed as the patsies (politically ambitious twenty somethings) who go to work for a party as soon as they graduate in an effort to forge a political career.
There seems to be less room for people who have had experience in a profession or lived much of an adult life for that matter.
Now that does not mean Ms Nash will make a bad MP or candidate, I'm sure she will work very hard, and it is not as if having an experience of a trade union or business makes somebody a good MP.
But in the end bringing experience to parliament, having a hinterland, does help inform debate and scrutiny and improve legislation.
It is interesting that as we are near to an election Labour's NEC has a far greater say over shortlists. Dr Reid's replacement could have been done in 2007 when he announced he would retire although the selection then ended in a bitter dispute between party bosses and the local party. Maybe Ms Nash with her strong local links makes an excellent compromise between these two points of view.
But one concern that is being raised privately by Labour members is that constituencies are being pushed into taking on patsies who hand picked by the Labour leadership because they will toe the party line and essentially their campaigning skill sets suit them for modern machine politics.
But in case this seen as an attack on Labour, the march of the patsies is a feature of every major political party in the UK.
One of the most prominent former patsies is the Conservative Party leader David Cameron, whose first job upon leaving university was to be a Tory Party researcher in Central Office.

David Maddox: Nick Clegg offers to hold your nose for you

The speech by Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg will be covered in tomorrow's Scotsman, but its message was pretty blunt and not exactly expected.

He wants to have the chance to hold the balance of power so his pitch has got to be that only a hung parliament can deliver change if he does.

But these lines are of particular interest:

"I want to warn you about something that is coming in the next few weeks.
"We are going to hear a nonsensical claim from the two old parties designed to scare people into voting against their best interests.
"The Conservatives will say: vote Lib Dem… get Brown.
"Labour will say: vote Lib Dem… get Cameron.
"Don’t believe it for a second. They are wrong."

He added later:

"Some people are thinking of holding their noses and voting for Brown just to keep out the Conservatives. I say to you: don’t do it.
"Some people are thinking of holding their noses and voting for Cameron just to get rid of Labour. Don’t do it.
"You have a once in a generation opportunity for real change."

The problem with this message is that if he holds the balance of power we will still get either Gordon Brown or David Cameron as Prime Minister, we will not get Nick Clegg bar an extraordinary shift in political opinion in the UK.

So in reality what he is saying is let me make the choice for you. In his words he is offering to be the one who holds the nose.

David Maddox: The Peter Baker affair

Much has been written about the three Labour MPs, including Livingston MP Jim Devine, and the Tory Peer up in court this morning for alleged fraud.
But, it is perhaps not surprising that this is not the first time this has happened.
Of course before the 1832 Reform Act and the abolition of rotten boroughs fraud and corruption were part of the job description of an MP, but what is more surprising is that it has only happened once before since the Second World War, given the recent history of people like Jonathan Aitken and Lord Geoffrey Archer.
The previous miscreant was an MP from the part of the world I originally hail from.
When Peter Baker was elected aged 28 in 1950 as the Conservative MP South Norfolk he was the youngest MP and the "baby of the house." As such he seemed to have a bright future in front of him.
He was re-elected in 1951, but soon after he was facing questions over his business dealings. In 1954 he was convicted of forgery including writing false signatures, and fraud and sent down for seven years.
Then on 16 December 1954 he became the last MP to be expelled from parliament.
Some may think that recent events suggest others should have followed him but as MPs seem to be good and protecting their own, and of course the three accused will not be standing for re-election on 6 May, Baker will remain as the last MP to suffer this indignity.
The only other two MPs to be expelled in the 20th century were Gary Allighan, the Labour MP for Gravesend and Horatio Bottomley, the Liberal MP for Hackney South.
Mr Allighan was elected in the 1945 Labour landslide, expelled in 1947 for leaking details of private meetings to the press. He was a journalist before becoming an MP and his misdemeanour now seems to be the norm among many politicians.
Mr Bottomley was elected in 1906 and relected in 1910, but then thrown out for bankruptcy in 1912. He then managed to get re-elected in 1918, found a party called the People's League, but was then convicted of fraud in 1922 and expelled again as an MP.

David Maddox: Party fundraising

Well if you haven't got Lords Ashcroft or Paul, a friendly union or, in the Lib Dems case, a criminal to fund your election campaign then you have to get down to some good old fashioned fundraising events.
Take for example this invitation circulated around Westminster by two Labour candidates Kerry McCarthy (MP for Bristol East and Labour's Twitter tsar) and Lucy Powell (candidate for Manchester Withington and apparently pal of Eddie Izzard).
The e-mail managed to get sent to all and sundry, including a few political opponents which is why it ended up with me.
The guest of honour and main speaker at this event in a posh London restaurant is no less than International Secretary come Paisley and Renfrewshire South MP Douglas Alexander.

Here's the e-mail (or part of it):
This is your last chance to purchase tickets for tomorrow night’s fundraiser with guest of honour the Rt Hon Douglas Alexander and other special guests!

We have some exciting raffle prizes that are included below! We do hope you are able to make it and forward on to other friends and colleagues that might be interested and encouraged to attend as well.

Many thanks,
Kerry & Lucy

Raffle Prizes:
Bottles of Newcastle Brown Ale signed by Nick Brown and Gordon Brown
Gordon Brown books signed by the Prime Minister
Framed copy of Gordon Brown’s “I will do my utmost” speech with photo of him and Sarah Brown, to be personalised by both.
Auction Prizes:
Bottle of House of Commons whisky signed by Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and Michael Foot
Minimum Wage Bill signed by Gordon Brown, Neil Kinnock, Michael Foot, Jack Jones and Bill Morris
Historic Labour postcards framed and signed by Andy Burnham, Ed Balls, Hilary Benn, Ed Miliband, Alan Johnson, Frank Dobson, David Miliband
Set of five historic Labour postcards framed and signed by Cabinet Ministers Ed Milliband, Jim M, Nick Brown, Tessa Jowell and Jack Straw

Now the sharp eyed among you, including my source, will note that of all the ministers who have helped with the raffle prizes for this event (£40 a ticket by the way, discounted to £380 for a table for 10), the one whose name is not in fully is Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy.
Here are possible reasons why he is simply Jim M:

1. They are English and don't know or care who he is.
2. Jim M is such a laid back character that he doesn't feel the need to be dignified with a full name.
3. He is providing the post match entertainment with a take-off of his near namesakes Boney M. Anybody for Ra Ra Gordsputin...?

David Maddox: Budget gossip

The chat in the Westminster bubble today centred on the mystery of what could be Labour's last budget for some time.
The dates mooted have been next Wednesday (17 March) or the Wednesday afterwards.
The first, as mentioned in a previous blog, would mean that we would probably have an 15 April general election, the second a 6 May election.
But the reason for the gossip is that it is common practice - convention even - for the government to give at least four weeks notice for a budget. At the morning press briefing it was pointed out that even if the budget takes place on 24 March it would be the shortest notice period given for one ever.
But as the day moved on there were some suggesting that actually we are all mistaken in expecting a budget before the election.
The words from Gordon Brown on the Andrew Marr show which has led to this assumption were: "There will be a budget in the spring." He did not specifically promise a pre-election budget.
Strictly speaking even if there is an election on 6 May, a budget could take place afterwards before 21 June, which is the first official day of summer.
As convention is out of the window in terms of warning for a budget, it is also possible that it won't take place on Wednesday.
As you can tell people excited about strange things in Westminster.

David Maddox: Dates for the diary

I spoke to one senior Labour backbench MP today who has been used as a campaign co-ordinator who is adamant that the election will not by 6 May but April 15.

His reasoning for this is the the next set of GDP figures which are due out on 23 April, St George's day. As with the knight and the mythical dragon he fears that they would slay any Labour recovery.

The GDP release has already been well trailed, but for those of you who have not been following the election date rumour and speculation, the theory is that the long hard winter will mean these figures will make it look as though Britain's fragile recovery has come to a halt.

The only doubts he believes Gordon Brown will have in going early is that it would mean Labour would have to spread its paltry funds over two elections to avoid disaster in the English council elections on 6 May.

But if Mr Brown really does decide that the GDP results would be too damaging 10 days before a 6 May vote, the the last day he could call an election is 19 March, because he has to give 17 parliamentary working days between informing the Queen and the poll itself.

Interestingly this falls just before 24 March, which is the day many speculate the budget will be unveiled by Alistair Darling, which would bring it further forward.

David Maddox: Remembering Michael Foot

Today in Westminster has been full of anecdotes and memories of a man who lit the place up with his eloquence and wit after it was announced that Michael Foot had died today aged 96.

My own memory of him was going with my dad to hear him deliver the annual Thomas Payne lecture at the University of East Anglia in Norwich.

Of all the speakers I heard give that lecture over the years Foot probably embodied the spirit of the great 18th century British radical and even for a 12-year-old boy, as I was at the time, he was a captivating speaker for a full two hours.

Sadly I can't recall quotes from the day although many of his speeches have been quoted back in the last few hours.

But one thing of interest is on his record as a disastrous leader of the Labour Party when it was almost obliterated in the 1983 election. As has already been recounted the infamous manifesto was dubbed by Labour MP Gerald Kaufman as the "longest suicide note in history."

Yet this much maligned document is now beginning to have a prophetic quality to it. One measure proposed which was much criticised was the nationalisation of one or two banks.

How ironic that this very thing has eventually had to happen because of the banks own irresponsible behaviour, not least the bosses of Scotland's own giants RBS and HBOS.

So its perhaps appropriate that this proposal from 1983 has been recalled in an early day motion by Independent MP for Blaenau Gwent Dai Davies whose Welsh constituency includes Mr Foot's old seat of Ebbw Vale.

The EDM reads:

"That this House remembers with fondness and admiration the life, political leadership, authorship, trades unionism, journalism and unrivalled oratory of Michael Foot as one of the world's greatest Socialists; fully supports his lifelong backing of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) and the necessity of a world without nuclear weapons; recalls that Michael Foot was proud to call himself an 'inveterate peacemonger'; recalls the sense set out in the Labour Party Manifesto for the 1983 General Election that was prescient and before its time in calling for the nationalisation of the banks; believes had this sensible strategy by the then Member for Ebbw Vale been supported, then the current economic crisis, arising from reckless and selfish behaviour of senior bankers, could have been avoided; further believes Michael Foot was a great internationalist and fighter for justice for the poor and dispossessed; and believes that this nation would have been much better served if Michael Foot had led this country from1983."

David Maddox: Clarke takes centre stage

As a new boy down in Westminster I had never really appreciated until this morning how much the Conservatives need the presence of Ken Clarke, hush puppies and all, to give their top team substance until this morning.
The City raid by the three top men who hope to be running Britain's economy from about 7 May (Cameron, Osborne and Clarke, pictured above in slightly happier bigger poll lead times) represented a high risk strategy.
You can read more about it in tomorrow's Scotsman, but essentially the message is one of economic Armageddon if Labour win. It can't be ratcheted up much higher than that really.
However for this message to work you need somebody of experience and substance to deliver it. Neither Cameron nor Osborne have it yet and the warnings from them do not sound credible, which is why the floor was essentially thrown open to the former Chancellor for most of the presentation.
There is far more to Mr Clarke than the girth of his waste which suggests a long experience of business lunches. He sounds and looks like a man who knows what he is talking about, which given that he left the economy in a healthy state, is true. His two "senior" colleagues in comparison look gauche and in Osborne's case quite clearly in need of the Clarke endorsement he received.
The only problem with this strategy is that you cannot help but think the Tories might be further ahead in the polls if he was the one due to reside in 11, Downing Street or even the more famous address next door the Tories might still be further ahead in the polls.

David Maddox: Hell of a week

In a week where one leading Scottish politician was complaining about the forces of hell being unleashed on him, while another was apparently trying to suggest that he was next to God (or was that God next to him?) it turns out that a third is actually going try to take on the fiery inferno herself.

But whilst Chancellor Alistair Darling's motive may have been revenge on the Prime Minister and Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy was seemingly hoping to gain some electoral advantage, SNP MSP Christina McKelvie's (pictured top right) stunt is for charity.

Whilst many politicians would walk on hot coals to get elected later this year, Ms McKelvie is to literally do that on 12 March to raise money for motor neurone disease, a condition her father suffered from.

Anybody wishing to sponsor her should go to this link.

*I have just been reminded that this is not Ms McKelvie's first experience of playing with fire. She once admitted to having an interesting tattoo of a dragon.

David Maddox: The X Factor election

Just been listening to the fascinating debate on whether the Westminster voting system should be changed, read the reports on it in tomorrow's Scotsman.

Its an anorak's debate, which must be why so many MPs are taking part.

But one speech worth mentioning which may not survive the cut for various articles has just been made by Battersea Labour MP Martin Linton.

He is backing the alternative vote system (AV) which would allow voters to rank candidates in order of preference leading to the final winner after various eliminations having more than 50 per cent of the vote.

It is the system that Gordon Brown wishes to replace the current First Past the Post (FPTP) system with probably because its effect would almost certainly stop the Tories ever getting a majority again.

There have been various arguments about fairness and restoring trust in MPs used for AV tonight, but Mr Linton has possibly appealed to the wider public sentiment.

AV, he says, is the system used over a period of weeks to decide the winner of X Factor.

"If we had first past the post Jedward would have won," he added.

As a bit of a fuddy duddy I'm not entirely sure of the dismerits or otherwise of Messrs John and Edward (pictured top right) but I do remember the press coverage about Simon Cowell threatening to leave the country if they won.

For me this seals the argument in favour of FPTP, although I suspect Mr Linton hoped the threat of a Jedward victory would have the opposite effect.

David Maddox: The Numbers Game (27) - Marginal results

Two sets of polling figures have been produced this week which illustrate why general national polls are not altogether reliable sources electoral success.
The TNS-BMRB poll this week was not good news for the Conservatives in Scotland this week ahead of their annual Scottish conference in Perth and visit by David Cameron.
It had them stuck on 18 per cent for Westminster, a mere 13 per cent for Holyrood constituencies and and even lowlier 12 per cent for Holyrood party list votes.
None of these figures had budged a dot from the year before and suggested that the Cameron effect is negligible north of the Border.
The one crumb of comfort was that it left them above the Lib Dems in support, but it would still leave them with less seats.
According Scotland Votes the latest split on the poll Labour 42%, SNP 26%, Tories 18% and Lib Dems 12% leaves the following Scottish Westminster seat allocations (change from 2005 in brackets):

Lab: 42 (+2) SNP 7 (+1) Con: 3 (+2) Lib Dems 7 (-4)

The Lib Dems would lose Argyll and Bure, and Berwickshire Roxburgh and Selkirk to the Tories, and East Dunbartonshire, and Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey to Labour. Meanwhile the SNP would gain Ochil and South Perthshire from Labour.

This is not exactly a massive breakthrough for the Conservatives, however, what they claim is that the real key to whether they are succeeding or not is in the polling for target seats and key marginals.
As most people know there are 11 target seats in Scotland for the Conservatives and yesterday they passed on figures of polling they had commissioned in one of those constituencies - Edinburgh South.
This is a threeway marginal which is made even more open by the announcement by its Labour MP Nigel Griffiths that he will not contest it again.
The Tories got an independent poller to ask a series of questions which came up with the following results:

This Labour Government at Westminster looks weak and divided.
Agree: 75% Disagree 19%

The SNP will never have the power or influence to represent your views in Westminster.
Agree 71% Disagree 24%

Do you think it is important to have a strong and stable government at Westminster to help Britain out of recession?
Agree 95% Disagree 3%

It is important to have Conservative MPs from Scotland in the heart of a Westminster government to defend and represent Scottish interests.
Agree 71% Disagree 24%

My local MP would have more influence if he or she was from the Party of government.
Agree 60% Disagree 27%

It is an interesting use of questions designed to eliminate opponents one by one, which will not doubt appear now in leaflets.
The answers say that people think Labour is weak, Nationalism is irrelevant in Westminster and it would be better to have an MP from the party of government which rules out the Lib Dems also have a chance of winning the seat. Logically, that just leaves the Tories as the only option.
Of course, had they simply asked people which party they will support then the result would probably not be so clear cut for the Conservatives.

David Maddox: Banking on Sean and Andy

Just a final thought on the events of the weekend and Andy Murray's defeat to Federer.

Some people may have noticed that there was an attack on one Scottish icon - Sir Sean Connery - for fronting an advert for a French bank on green banking.
Labour put out a quite contorted press release on it having a go at Sir Sean's alleged blunder.

Which got me thinking as I looked up at the TV screen to watch the tennis - "Famous people... advertising banks... making money... what's the big deal?"

And then I took a closer look at Mr Murray again and remembered his sponsorship. Strangely enough nobody seems to be concerned about the Dunblane lad's sponsorship by RBS, the bank whose dodgy practices almost sunk the British economy.

Could one of the differences be that Murray now refers to himself as British (courtesy, reportedly, of his marketing team's advice) while Sir Sean is a well known SNP supporter?

*As an addition the prize for the most pointless Murray political press release - keenly contested over the last week or two - has to go to the Scottish Government's one on Saturday evening telling us that the First Minister Alex Salmond would be sat on his sofa watching the Scottish hero do his stuff against Federer.

David Maddox: For Foulkes Sake (16) - The late late show episode 2

I know how much cybernats like pieces about written questions from Lord George Foulkes, Baron of Cumnock, MSP to the Lothians and First Lord of the Twittery.
It always surprises me why people who supposedly support democracy object to democracy in action because of cost or perhaps more likely because it embarrasses the party they support, although, it's fair to say, that it is not only Nationalists who are prone to this sort of self delusion.
But anyway here's another couple of the noble one's questions which finance secretary John Swinney has finally deigned to answer quite a few days late.
Readers of the Steamie may remember the questions from Lord George asking about the First Minister's tardiness.
He asked how many times Alex Salmond had been more than 30 minutes late to official events and why he was allegedly more than two hours late to the opening of the latest stage of the Burns Cottage development.
The two answers appeared to be a little contradictory. Here they are:


George Foulkes (Lothians) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive on how many occasions since May 2007 the First Minister has arrived more than half an hour late for a public engagement.
Mr John Swinney: Under successive administrations it has not been customary to keep a record of arrival times at events by the First Minister.

George Foulkes (Lothians) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive for what reason the First Minister was over two hours late for the opening of the latest stage of developments at Burns Cottage.
Mr John Swinney: The First Minister was not late to this event. He arrived at 13:15, the arrival time agreed in advance with the organisers.

So basically what Mr Swinney is saying is that no record is kept of the First Minister's arrival time unless he is on time. This probably requires less effort.

David Maddox: How much does an SNP supporter cost the taxpayer?

An interesting written answer has popped up on the list on the parliament website which shows that the SNP ministers are intent on avoiding any details getting out of how much taxpayers' cash they hand out to party supporters. Here it is:

Lord George Foulkes (Lothians) (Lab): To ask the Scottish Executive what costs were incurred by and reimbursements made to Elaine C Smith as a consequence of her radio recordings for Weather Wise.

John Swinney: I regret that, under the Data Protection Act 1998, Section 7 (4) and (6), I am unable to release the information requested by the member.
Ms Smith has confirmed that she will be using her fee to fund her support for a range of charities.

The reason for this question is that Ms Smith is a well known SNP supporter and chairs the Scottish Independence Convention. It seems quite a coincidence that she should get the gig to provide the tips on radio for the Scottish Government's Weather Wise campaign in the recent cold snap.
It is highly reminiscent of the row caused by another question from the noble one one the Scottish Government "kickbacks" for the SNP supporting singer Sandi Thom (the one who did a duet with Alex Salmond). Then the Scottish Government admitted to forking out almost £10,000 in expenses including £580 for a breakfast to her for performing at government events.
The incident was highly embarrassing for the SNP and this written answer on Elaine C Smith shows that they intend to avoid any repeat in terms of damaging headlines.
Ms Smith may be giving her money to charity, which is of course highly commendable, but we should be allowed to know how much of our money is being handed out to people, government party supporters or not.

David Maddox: General election games

One of the more interesting election bets on offer is from Ladbrokes on how many cabinet ministers will lose their seats when voters go to the polls.
Given that three of them - Lords Mandelson and Adonis, and Baroness Royall - are not elected this leaves just 20 possible targets.
In Scotland we have two cabinet ministers often talked about as possible scalps. The Tories have hopes of taking both Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy's East Renfrewshire seat and Chancellor Alistair Darling's Edinburgh South West constituency.
But, as has been pointed out often by Mr Murphy, nobody expected him to win the seat in the first place in 1997 and he has held on to it twice since then against expectation. He has also been helped by being made Scottish Secretary giving him a free role to campaign here.
The two Scottish targets also represent their desire to have a "Portillo moment", a top level politician swept away in a wave of change across the country as happened to Michael Portillo and several of his colleagues in 1997.
There are a couple of others down in England too who might be under threat. The most vulnerable in majority is Treasury Secretary Liam Byrne in Birmingham while Culture Secretary Ben Bradshaw in Exeter is not safe.

Here are the odds from Ladbrokes:

0 - 6/4
1 - 5/1
2 - 7/1
3 - 8/1
4 - 8/1
5 or more - 2/1

The safe bet is zero, but the interesting bet could be three or four to go, which brings back the best return and also reflects the most likely potential number of casualties.
For guidance here are the cabinet members and their majorities in order of potential vulnerability with the main challenger (second in 2005) in brackets. Scottish seats in bold.

Liam Byrne, Birmingham Hodge Hill - 5,449 (Lib Dems)
Jim Murphy, East Renfrewshire - 6,657 (Cons)
Alistair Darling, Edinburgh South West - 7,242 (Cons)
Ben Bradshaw, Exeter - 7,665 (Cons)
Jack Straw, Blackburn - 8,009 (Cons)
Tessa Jowell, Dulwich and West Norwood - 8,807 (Lib Dems)
John Denham, Southampton Itchen - 9,302 (Cons)
Shaun Woodward, St Helens South - 9,309 (Lib Dems)
Ed Balls, Normanton - 10,002 (Cons)
Alan Johnson, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle - 10,951 (Cons)
Hilary Benn, Leeds Central - 11,866 (Lib Dems)
David Miliband, South Shields - 12,312 (Lib Dems)
Ed Miliband, Doncaster North - 12,656 (Cons)
Peter Hain, Neath - 12,710 (Plaid Cymru)
Douglas Alexander, Paisley and Renfrewshire South - 13,232 (Lib Dems)
Harriet Harman, Camberwell and Peckham - 13,483 (Lib Dems)
Bob Ainsworth, Coventry North East - 14,222 (Cons)
Yvette Cooper, Pontefract and Castleford - 15,246 (Cons)
Andy Burnham, Leigh - 17,272 (Cons)
Gordon Brown, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath - 18,216 (SNP)

David Maddox: Information or state funded propaganda?

Labour have kicked up a fuss this morning about a video the Scottish Government have posted on Youtube tracking Scotland's constitutional history.

The video was the one played at the recent launch of the SNP's white paper on a referendum for independence. It starts with the first record of a Scottish Parliament in 1293 and moves through notable moments in history.

Not surprisingly it is packed with iconic moments for Nationalists - Bannockburn (1314), the Declaration of Arbroath (1320), the execution of Mary Queen of Scots (1587), Bonnie Prince Charlie and the Highland Clearances (1750).

But it also has the key moments for Unioinism - the Reformation (1560), the union of the Crowns (1603), and the Act of Union (1707).

But what seems to have raised Labour's ire is the point of the founding of the Labour Party (1900) "with Keir Hardie as first chairman, supporting home rule for Scotland" and the SNP's first by-election victory in Hamiton (1967).

There is also anger that the SNP's National Conversation - always described by Unionists as state funded party propaganda - features heavily.

"Surely a Government publication should not be promoting political parties in this way?" asks a Labour source. "This is an extraordinary use of public funds to provide such a skewed, a historical and vainglorious interpretation of Scotland's past and current SNP government plans."

Personally I rather like the video, there is a poster to go with it. Given that it was made for the White Paper and the conclusion of the National Conversation we perhaps should not be surprised about how it skews history, but history often seems to be there to be misinterpreted for different political slants. Both Unionists and Nationalists are as guilty as one another in this respect.

Anyway here is the video:

David Maddox: Aunty's Bloomers

It's been one of those weeks in Holyrood where the main activity has been to spot the various gaffes.

In a week where the shocking level of illiteracy in Scotland was debated by MSPs we had two good examples of the problem. Firstly, on Wednesday, in his statement on the Aberdeen bypass John Swinney's speech writer managed to include the words "pubic transport" which the minister himself avoided saying after a quick intake of breath.

Then we had the SNP press release on Wednesday headlined: "MURPHY ON MANEAUVERS OVER CALMAN COP OUT" - that probably should be maneuvers, manoeuvres or manoeuvers.

Having said that, journalists are in no position to throw stones about typos, including this one.

The real bloopers came from the Labour and the Tories.

On Wednesday we had the extraordinary controversy about the spads (special advisers) - the party employees, usually spin doctors, on the government payroll. Labour claimed to have revealed plans by the SNP to have limitless spads ending the current Scottish Government cap of 12.

This was a great story until the moment we all realised that the reason for this was because of legislation being put through Westminster by the Labour UK government.

There was some irony that the revelation came from a question put to a minister by former Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander and the Labour press release attacking the SNP quoted another MSP David Whitton (pictured left). Before becoming MSPs both Ms Alexander and Mr Whitton were Labour spads. Hypocrisy did not really cover it.

Yet despite this farce, even Labour was to be outdone on Thursday by "Aunty" Annabel Goldie and her performance in FMQs.

She went on the attack about the cost of the Scottish Parliament only to be ruled out of order by a rather cross Presiding Officer Alex Fergusson (himself a Tory) because the parliament is not the responsibility of the government. We then had the following exchanges:

Annabel Goldie: Let me clarify for the First Minister that the Scottish Government allocates the budget for the running of this Parliament and that he leads a party that has a member who sits on the corporate body—
The Presiding Officer: That is actually incorrect, Miss Goldie. The Scottish Government does not allocate that budget.
Annabel Goldie: I apologise for any confusion, Presiding Officer.

At which point, somewhat flustered she appeared to be unable to construct a question.

Ms Goldie (pictured right) has many admirable qualities and is well liked, but she has not had a hit in FMQs for some time now. The last time was over links to the Megrahi release and Qatari loans.

It seems that a whispering campaign about her leadership has begun again. It will be interesting to see how things develop after the UK general election. Her job may depend on the Conservatives making some real gains in those 11 Scottish seats they have targeted.

David Maddox: For Foulkes sake (15) - aka The late late show

It seems that the First Minister may have been showing a little bit of tardiness lately if the questions he has been asked recently is anything to go by.
Any journalist who has waited for a briefing or press conference involving Alex Salmond will know this is the norm rather than the exception.
However, two questions were put down on 4 December on the subject by his fellow Hearts fan and old political adversary - Lord George Foulkes, Baron of Cumnock, First Lord of the Twittery and Labour MSP for the Lothians.
Lord Foulkes wanted to know why the FM was over two hours late for the opening of the latest stage of developments at Burns Cottage. He also asked for a list of events where Mr Salmond was late by half an hour or more.
The deadline for the answers was 18 December but, with the smallest hint of irony, the answers are late and the good lord is still waiting.

David Maddox: True Grit

It has been a bitter winter in Scotland not least for the SNP leader of Fife Council Peter Grant (pictured right).
As the snow and ice have taken a grip on Scotland his council made UK headlines for running out of grit for the roads and being the worst prepared.
Things have got so bad that his own party - in the guise of Central Fife MSP Tricia Marwick - has called for an inquiry.
The press release did not apportion blame, but pointedly it only defended the actions of the Scottish Government.
It is very unusual these days for the SNP to publicly leave one of its own out in the cold as such, but Mr Grant is in many ways yesterday's man as far as SNP ambition goes, despite leading the party to breaking Labour's historic grip on the Kingdom in 2007.
He was the SNP's coming man in 2008 when the expectation that he would win the Glenrothes by-election was so great that two London based nationals ran early editions the day after the result proclaiming his victory.
Unfortunately for him and the Nationalists he not only lost but was thumped by Labour's Lindsay Roy by a massive 6,737 votes.
While Alex Salmond publicly took the blame for the humiliating result behind the scenes fingers were pointed at Grant himself particularly his policies to the elderly as council leader which undid what seemed to be a certain SNP victory.
Now his council's actions - this time its lack of preparedness - are under the spotlight again and it seems that the SNP is not in a mood to forgive.

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.

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.

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.

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.

David Maddox: The Numbers Game (24) - Scotland at odds with itself

So with the SNP's big show this morning the bookmakers have again been the first to deliver their verdicts on the chances of independence or even a referendum being achieved.

First came Ladbrokes within minutes of the launch of the white paper. It is offering:
2/1 on a referendum on Scottish Independence before 2015
20/1 on Scotland to become independent of the UK before 2015

Paddy Power's odds have just landed offering:
8/1 on Scotland to gain full independence by 2015
7/1 on a referendum on full independence to be held in 2010

The only one of those bets worth even thinking about is independence before 2015 at 20/1 but even then you would probably be wasting your money.
The odds reflect the fact that a referendum will be blocked by the pro-Union parties before 2011 and anything further for the SNP depend on Mr Salmond and his cohorts becoming the biggest party in the 2011 Holyrood election and the Lib Dems agreeing to a referendum and having enough votes between them and the Greens to force one.
It is still possible that in his dotage Alex Salmond may look back to Wendy Alexander's "bring it on!" invitation when his party's popularity was at its height and realise it was the great opportunity missed.

David Maddox: The SNP's cybernat problem

There have been some questions posted on the Scotsman's website about why comments are no longer allowed after my stories.
It has been alleged that I am afraid of criticism or that I can't handle a bit of abuse. Neither of these allegations are true, if they had been comments would have been blocked long ago.
It has also been claimed that I personally ordered comments to be stopped. Again not true, although it is nice to think that people seem to believe I have such authority in the newspaper. If only.
The reason the comments are no longer allowed after my stories is because cybernats - by which I mean the extremist element that supports the SNP and manifests itself under anonymous names - were putting up comments actually seemed to be threatening me physical harm and asking people to track down my home, car etc.
At that point it was decided by the newspaper's management that comments should no longer appear after my stories.
While I think it is a shame to close down the debate, I agreed with the decision, not least because my windows have been smashed eight times in the last two years, which makes personal security for me and my family a high priority, even if the vandalism was probably done by local kids.
I confronted via e-mail a couple of the pro-Nationalist posters who put up these threatening remarks and one, who at least had the decency to apologise, admitted to being a party member.
In the stories we have seen today in Scotland on Sunday and other papers, we have seen that again there is a link between the party and these vicious bloggers.
It rather makes the odd excuse that the SNP have officially always used that these are not party members and claims the posters may even be unionist plants just look silly.
It also does gives some credence to the case of those who believe that many of these bloggers are employed by the SNP or are members and that this sort of thing may actually be co-ordinated, although personally I think we need to see much more evidence before we can draw that conclusion.
I know that this is not only an SNP problem. Labour had Damian McBride, Wendy's drunk spindoctor foul mouthing Alex Salmond and various unionist posters have been pretty vicious too.
However, in Scotland the vast majority of the vicious and defamatory posters on the internet are supporters of the Scottish National Party, whether they are actual members, staff or not.
The SNP has simply refused to deal with this extremist element who do not represent so called civic nationalism, but the extremism evident in other types of nationalism.
The party's silence on the matter has always puzzled me. Some have taken it as actually condoning the behaviour, personally I think it is the equivalent of sticking its fingers in its ears and singing: "La la la nothing's happening."
One thing that is for sure, though, is that if the SNP want us to believe it really stands for civic nationalism, as I think its leadership mostly does, then it has got to tackle this problem and wheedle out the extremists once and for all.

A note on the good guys:
I feel I should add that there some excellent Nationalist contributors in the blogosphere, even if they are a minoritry.
Two of them, who happen to be among my favourite bloggers, but are not the only good ones, are Jeff Breslin of SNP Tactical Voting and now the Steamie, and Calum Cashley, the party's Westminster candidate for Edinburgh North and Leith and a researcher in Holyrood.
Both make thoughtful observations, do not hide behind anonymous names and are well worth a read. Neither feel the need to be abusive or defamatory but address issues through proper political debate.

David Maddox: DIY outrage

As many readers know the Taxpayers Alliance (TPA) is the first or in some cases the eventual port of call for any journalist who wants outrage over public spending.

I know of one or two colleagues in the more rightwing press who even have their number on speed dial. Then there is the fascination with TPA's Susie Squire (pictured) who caused a bit of a flutter at the recent Tory Party conference.

But rather helpfully a website has been created for newspapers to generate a TPA quote without having to call anybody. If you want to try click here.

Having run a couple of options through, as an occasional user of TPA, the quotes are pretty close to the real thing. However, I should point out that it is a spoof created by a group that seeks the opposite aims of TPA.

David Maddox: Why politicians should learn to play chess

Some of you may remember the debate I started with "Green" James Mackenzie (of Two Doctors and now Steamie blog fame). Sadly I was unable to persuade him that chess is by far a superior game and test of skill and intelligence than backgammon.
The Green party's spindoctor, chief strategist and general dogsbody still seems to believe that the random throw of the dice is of more value.
The advantage of chess is that it forces a player to think at least several moves ahead, look at the consequences of an action and the possible counter moves by his or her opponent.
And a story cropped up yesterday which again shows that politicians really need think more than one move ahead and not rely on random events.
In this case the "game" was MSPs vs the children of Scotland - the Schools (Health Promotion and Nutrition) Act 2007 which was purely a piece of social engineering aimed at trying to force children from to not eat chocolate, sweets and other unhealthy food by banning their sale on school premises.
But because MSPs (and civil servants) didn't look ahead this had an unintended consequence. The story from yesterday was pupils from Dyce Academy in Aberdeen presenting a petition to have the law looked at again. Their fair trade tuck shop had been forced to shut down because the new law had banned most of their products.
Of course, the youngsters at the school generally had not been affected by the law at all in their eating habits, simply taking the two second walk to Asda to stock up on sweets, chocolates and all the other banned food.
So the only effect of this new law in terms of this school was to prevent teenagers from learning about running a business successfully and promoting ethical standards, instead their fellow pupils were driven into the welcoming arms of a commercial giant and health standards remain unaffected.
If more MSPs played chess they might have realised that social engineering is much harder to achieve than they seem to have thought in 2007.
Here's a prediction on another piece of social engineering. The SNP, Lib Dems and Greens are getting together in the upcoming criminal law act to have a presumption against short sentences of six months or less in favour of community sentences. What's the bet that we see a huge increase in the number of seven month sentences handed out by Sheriffs afterwards?

David Maddox: Political betting

I received a slightly cocky e-mail this morning from a Labour spindoctor concerning his prospects of winning a bet the two of us have on the next general election.
At the start of the by-election he bet me £10 that the SNP will have less than 10 seats after the next general election.
And, according to his e-mail, after Labour's crushing defeat in Glasgow last night he is confident that I will be handing over a state sponsored RBS note some point next year.
I took the bet because I'm always happy to receive free money and my opinion has not changed from last night.
True, the SNP juggernaut came to a halt in Glenrothes and last night only confirmed that the breakthrough needed is still a long way off. The SNP will struggle to get Alex Salmond's target of 20 seats. It seems a long time ago now since the SNP were passing around a list showing that all Labour's seats bar one would fall to them on the basis of the Glasgow East swing.
However, they will gain seats. They managed to win six in 2005 with a mere 17.6% of the vote, they are now regularly polling above 30% in Westminster voting intentions and haven't dropped below 25%.
The other factor is that the Lib Dem vote appears to be disintegrating before our eyes. The party is running at around 12/13% in the polls (half what it was in 2005) and last night came a dismal sixth with just a handful of votes. Most of the disaffected Lib Dems appear to be going to the Nationalists and, to a lesser extent, the Tories.
As things stand my prediction for the SNP at the moment is 14 seats, four for the Tories, nine for the Lib Dems and 32 for Labour. Obviously, though, the chances are I will be very wrong.

David Maddox: Inspiring candidates

As many of the papers have noted this morning there is concern that Glasgow North East could set a new low in the turnout records for Scotland.
Some commentators have suggested that it may be around 25 per cent, which is pretty depressing considering the effort that has gone into this by-election by the various parties and that it is the last serious test, with the possible exception of the English council elections, before next year's general election.
However, it will struggle to beat the all time record of 19.6 per cent set in 1999 when Hilary Benn, the son of Tony Benn who is now a cabinet minister, was elected as the MP for Leeds Central.
But one interesting statistic is that the previous Scottish record was 36.6 per cent in Falkirk West in 2000 when Eric Joyce won for Labour.
Who was the defeated SNP candidate then? It was David Kerr of this very same by-election.

David Maddox: How do we remember the bad guys?

The two minutes silence most of us observed a few minutes ago allows us to remember those who died for this country and, in terms of the Second World War at least, those who gave their lives in the cause of liberty and democracy.
But what about the men who fought on the wrong side?
A few weeks ago I tried to find an answer to this while I was visiting my Dad in Normandy.
One of the places I visited was the German war cemetery at La Cambe (pictured) where more than 21,000 men are buried.
These were men who after all gave their lives defending modern history's most notorious regime which subjugated Europe and was responsible for the systematic murder of six million people. Some of those under the soil may well have played a part in those crimes against humanity.
Yet the message of the cemetery's existence is that everyone deserves to be remembered and not forgotten. After all, just because they were fighting on the side of evil does not mean there are not men buried there who showed acts of bravery to help out their friends and comrades in battle just as many Allied soldiers did.
The opening statement at the cemetery reminds visitors too that many of these men were also forced to fight for the Nazis, although it is impossible to say how many.
The German War Graves Commission (Volksbund Deutsche Kriegsgräberfüsorge) has perhaps done all it could do with the site which is to dedicate to peace and the futility of war. The visitor centre includes pictures of other more recent wars, including Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the Second World War.
It's perhaps a little ironic that many of the men buried in the cemetery and certainly the Nazi leaders they served did not share that world view, and indeed one argument for war is to defeat such regimes.
Indeed, the American and Commonwealth cemeteries are in some ways celebrations of liberators with enormous car parks for the many visitors who come each year compared to the very modest collection of parking spaces at La Cambe for the modest amount of visitors.
But the German cemeteries are equally worth a visit just to remind us that even the bad guys were ordinary human beings and the waste of life that the pursuit of unnecessary war brings.

David Maddox: Don't count your chickens....

Labour have just put out a press release with the following subject title: "Words from the Prime Minister on Willie Bain's election"

I know Labour are confident about Willie Bain winning Glasgow North East, but perhaps they should wait for the voters to do their bit on Thursday before announcing the result.

Just to clear up any confusion these were not words from Gordon Brown prepared in the event of Mr Bain's anticipated victory, but comments from his morning briefing of journalists supporting his party's candidate.

David Maddox: The Tale of Mr Toad and the Dark Lady

Momentarily dragging this blog from the streets of Glasgow North East back to Holyrood, an interesting controversy happened this week which was quite instructive about the culture and lack of culture in the corridors of the Scottish Parliament.
On Wednesday evening in a debate on the Glasgow Airport Rail Link, the SNP list MSP Professor Chris Harvie described Baroness Shriti Vadera, one of Gordon Brown closest advisers, as "the dark lady of the London underground."
Almost inevitably there was a ripple of shock. Did he really just describe an Asian political figure as "dark"?
Within hours a press release had been turned out in Margaret Curran's name (remember her? She lost the Glasgow East by-election last year) demanding that the Professor apologise because his words "could be construed as racist."
Certainly one or two seasoned observers believe he would not have been able to get away with such language in the Westminster parliament.
Having said that everybody who knows him knows that Prof Harvie is not racist, but simply eccentric. The professor, nicknamed Mr Toad (which he celebrates on his website), has landed himself in trouble before by criticising the town of Lockerbie, attacking Neds dress sense and even describing Hitler as a genius and Blue Peter as evil. Most of us, though, believe he adds much needed colour and thoughtfulness to Holyrood's usually dull, robotic proceedings.
However, the response to Labour's attack from the SNP took everyone by surprise.
A party spokesman said: "This sort of innuendo is unworthy of Margaret Curran. Professor Harvie's remarks were a play on Shakespeare's 'dark lady of the sonnets' – which obviously has nothing to do with race – and Baroness Vadera's role in undermining the London Underground."
Leaving aside that many of us thought that Nationalists were only allowed by party leaders to quote Burns and not the English bard, the link between Shakespeare's sonnets and GARL was not immediately obvious and did not entirely appear to exonerate Prof Harvie.
The dark lady is a married woman who betrays her husband in an affair and represents lust, moreover, she is described as having dark hair and dun coloured skin. But essentially the literary point that Prof Harvie was clearly trying to make was that the dark lady leads the man into bad ways, which I guess is why he believes the Baroness has done for Gordon Brown on the underground.
Nevertheless, several of us wondered if the SNP press office had simply Googled dark lady and noted the third option as being the literary figure. So one of my fellow newspaper hacks went to confront the Professor in his office.
He found a completely unapologetic Professor Harvie who snorted: "Don't Labour read Shakespeare any more!"
Which certainly seemed to be a damning indictment on the quality and education of Labour MSPs these days.
This was ruined, though, by his researcher, who as my fellow journalist was turning to leave noted: "I thought he meant the dark lady of the Sith from Star Wars."