AND SO IT BEGINS, AGAIN

A Yesser's appeal to hard nosed party political 'enlightened self interest'.

GUEST POST BY BRACO

Mr D'Hondt

I am not a member of any political party but I am totally committed to the Yes movement and an Independent Scotland. 

After reading a very interesting and thought provoking post-election article over on Arc of Prosperity  these are some of my own (non party political) thoughts on the issue of d'Hondt and pro-independence majorities. I would really like to thank Tris and the Republic for giving me the opportunity to try and develop that discussion on here as a guest post.

I think, after the heat of party political battle is over, the electoral evidence is now becoming clear for all to see. The voting system, which Scotland currently operates under, is designed (and was selected specifically) in order to try and make the devolved governance of Scotland reliant on the formation of coalition politics (of some sort). This is at the heart of unionist reasoning behind d'Hondt as their voting system of choice for Holyrood back in 97. 

I.e. IF Scottish governance is made dependent on coalitions and the SNP are the only effective Independence party in the country to vote for, then it will never have a coalition partner party to form a majority government with. Therefore the SNP will be unable to pass Independence Referendum legislation while in government, no matter how popular the SNP becomes. This is central and must always be kept in mind when thinking about Scotland's current electoral system.

It also explains the reason behind the Libdem leadership's point blank refusal to enter into coalition with the SNP in 2007 (and, dare I say, Lord Nicol Stephen's shock resignation as Libdem leader and subsequent enoblement in 2008). 

It was this refusal that forced the SNP into forming Holyrood's first, 'shock horror'... minority government. Also, worth noting that even the SNP themselves bought into the accepted political narrative of the time and really didn't want to take (or see the political opportunities) that minority government could bring. 

This refusal of the democratic will of the electorate to form a coalition with the SNP shocked many of the Libdem rank and file, and was the start of Libdem electoral rot in Scotland thereafter. What it did do however, was absolutely ensure that there was no Indy Ref during that first term of enforced SNP minority rule. 

I.e Short term, the system worked exactly as designed. 

As ever, though, unionist long term thinking has been shown to be more tactical than strategic and even in those terms limited and inept, as during the period of exceptional circumstances that followed, we the Scots electorate were able to first experience successful and competent minority SNP governance, and then watch the stars align during the 2011 election as the d'Hondt system was broken (just) through what we now know was a lucky balance being struck between constituencies won and regional list votes cast. All resulting in the SNP winning an incredible (and d'Hondt busting) single party absolute majority. 

The evidence of the extraordinary nature of that result at the time was seen in the total and utter shock of even the SNP's own leadership, as well as the hilarious absolute blind panic and horror that followed from all other sections of the Scottish (and UK) political establishment. This 'breaking of their system' at the root of all the 'Holyrood-as-anti-democratic' psychosis and unionist schtick that still fills their media output to this day.

Yesterday we just saw a return to the normal way that the voting system was actually designed to operate. That is, no matter how popular a single party becomes, in a multiparty d'Hondt system, it will most likely NOT gain a majority. This is again shown to be true by the fact that the SNP voting figures actually went up from 2011 yet their seat count went down.

If all the above is taken into account and properly rationalised, then there is only one relatively simple way to ensure that democratically endorsed pro Independence electoral results in Scotland always have the ability to produce equally strong pro independence majority governance in Holyrood (along with all the democratic abilities that will naturally bring, such as referendums on Independence as often and as regularly as the will of the Scots electorate will allow).  

The answer is simple; don't try and 'game' the system by attempting to form a single super supported (and therefore super powerful) single Independence party that can somehow regularly overwhelm d'Hondt, as this strategy will inevitably risk wasting hundreds of thousands of pro-Indy votes on the list every time that attempted majority fails (750 000 votes in the case of the SNP on Thursday). Far better to simply go with the grain of d'Hondt and purposely set about helping the development and establishing of a good, strong and electorally successful moderate second pro independence party that can be relied upon to form strong and effective pro independence coalition governments with. (After Thursday, this is looking like it could be the Greens).  It's that simple.

As the main creators of our devolved electoral system, SLabour's leadership never truly saw the LibDems as an electoral threat in Holyrood, rather they viewed them as their key to consistently forming (and leading) majority Scottish governments.  Term, after term, after term. This is how the SNP (and the Yes electorate) should start thinking about the Green Party. There are many overlaps between SNP and Green party policy priorities (other than just Independence) within which a sensible and workable, progressive eco friendly programme for government could be formed.

Now that SLAB and the LibDems are up to their necks in the same d'Hondt electoral trap they hoped to lock the SNP into, it's that very same opportunity of consistently leading (though perhaps not totally dictating) the policy agenda of Scotland over many, many terms of majority government that now presents itself as the enormous prize to the SNP (and Greens as junior partners). 

All that is required is that each can somehow see past traditional UK party political tribalism. It's not happy clappy idealism that I am appealing to here but instead simple, hard nosed party political 'enlightened self interest'. This is what d'Hondt is designed to reward and it is through this (along with a powerful and autonomous YES grass-roots movement) that Scotland will quickly win it's independence.   

I think this is the lesson that the Independence movement will learn from yesterday's frustrating experience of the d'Hondt system. Hopefully all this will also be cemented in place during a term of government where the dominant pro indy party (SNP) learns to work effectively and builds strong political relationships with the other, much smaller, pro independence party that was also returned by Yes supporters to sit alongside them in Holyrood (The Greens). 

It's essential that both these parties manage to control, and then throw off, those 'me-only' party political attitudes developed and inherited from the British adversarial 'first past the post' system (essentially two party politics) and begin to adopt the more consensual, coalition based political culture that we all hoped Holyrood would help usher in (and which yesterday proved, will be needed) if timely Independence is to be achieved within the designed limitations and political realities that we the Scots electorate find ourselves having to operate under.

Thanks for a great article, Arc of Prosperity, it was much appreciated, and thanks again to Tris and Munguin's Republic for the opportunity to discuss it further in the Republic :-) 

THEY MUST BE DOING SOMETHING RIGHT...DESPITE THE UNIONIST PRESS'S CONSTANT CRITICISM

In an email to Munguin from the first minister I noticed the following two paragraphs.

I was both delighted and humbled this week to see that people of Scotland continue to place their trust in the Scottish Government to listen to them and act in their best interests.

The latest social attitudes survey found that 73 per cent of people in Scotland trust the Scottish Government, the highest level since 1999, compared with 23 per cent who trust the UK Government.

Now all we usually hear from the Press and the BBC is "SNP bad" But Holyrood Magazine's poll shows that the Scottish public doesn't actually agree with them.

And it is interesting that 76% of the poll of 1,288 people thought that the Scottish government should have control over most of what happens in Scotland.

We've long believed that the Press had much less influence over the public's opinion than it thinks it has. For example the D C Thomson press in Dundee produces the ultra conservative Dundee Courier, Evening Telegraph, and the once ubiquitous Sunday Post. 

Once upon a time one of these papers, maybe more (and the now-defunct People's Journal) went through the letter boxes of the vast majority of Dundee homes, and yet they stubbornly voted Labour at every election, until very recently, when they have solidly voted SNP.

Any you have to ask yourself how many people who read the Sun actually vote Tory.

The Press and Journal were running a story earlier saying that the Scottish government is the most trusted in Europe, but it has mysteriously disappeared. 

I wonder why.

YOU'VE HEARD OF THE TEA PARTY?

WELL THIS IS THE HAMILTON LABOUR TEA-CAKE PARTY

This, ladies and gentlemen, I am reliably informed, is a bunch of Labour canvassers in Hamilton, who have the notion that the best way to win votes in a local by-election is to go around with a box of Tunnock's tea cakes. (If this some sort of a bribe, then I think I'd want something more than a tea cake?)

When I saw it my first reaction was that it was a set up. But apparently not.

The Lady in the black coat and red scarf is a local councillor. Her name is Monica Lennon and she is a hopeful for a list seat in Holyrood in May. 

It didn't work, as Scot Goes Pop's post on the results shows:

SNP 42.9% (+2.5)

Labour 33.6% (-9.4)

Conservatives 18.5% (+8.4)

Greens 3.3% (+0.2)

Liberal Democrats 1.8% (n/a)

Some weeks ago there was a social media storm about Tunnocks marketing their product as "British" rather than the "Scottish" they had always been. Some people got bent out of shape at this, probably not so much because of the act itself, but the management's explanation behind it, which was (in my humble opinion) ill-advised.

"We could have said Scottish, but then you are promoting Scotland. We're British", said Boyd Tunnock, the 82 year old boss of the company who campaigned for a NO vote in the referendum. 

The marketing was intended to tie in with the Great British Bake-off theme, which was sweeping the country at the time, and from a business point of view might have been a reasonably good idea, although when I lived in England, "Scottish Produce" was a sure-fire way of selling your stuff.

Whatever. I claim no great knowledge in the matter of sales promotion, and I'm sure their people do, but Mr Tunnock's statement certainly sounded anti-Scottish and it got under the skin of some folk here who set up an online boycott campaign.

It was a storm in a tea cup, if you'll pardon the phrase. 

I say if Tunnocks offends you by marketing itself as British in England, then stop buying their products. There are many other brands of tea cake, just as good, and in some cases better and much cheaper.

The lesson though seems to be not to use tea cakes as a political stick with which you can beat your opponents. People really don't seem to care that much.

A TALE OF TWO PARLIAMENTS

Today the Scottish parliament voted to allow 16 and 17 year olds a vote in General and Local Elections held in Scotland. Those elections involving other UK countries will retain the UK rules for voting of 18+.

Ironically at the same time the Westminster parliament voted to not allow 16-18 year olds the right to vote in the upcoming EU referendum, despite the enormous effects that the outcome may have on their lives.

Cameron, at one point in the referendum campaign, rather patronisingly told us that whilst a vote in the General Election was only temporary, and that in 5 years’ time we could tell the Tories to “F off”, a YES vote was a decision forever; there would be no going back.

Although, of course, nothing can be said to be forever, at least in the short term he was right.

But, surely a vote to leave or stay in the EU is the same. There will be no going back, at least not in the immediate future, if we decide to leave. And leaving a union, whether the UK or the EU, doesn't happen overnight.

If the UK votes “out”, then by the time that the necessary administration is done, these 16 and 17 year olds will almost undoubtedly be 18 year olds with their university education and working lives ahead of them. It’s surely their business as much as it is ours whether they work in or out of the EU.

The bid to overturn the Tories’ backward looking rules was led by Labour and the SNP, for once working together to try to pull the UK into the 21^st century.

SNP MP Stephen Gethins said that there was overwhelming evidence from the Scottish independence referendum that extending the franchise for 16-year-olds was a good thing for democratic participation.

When you listen to some of the arguments against widening the franchise, you have to wonder what planet the MPs are living on.

One Labour rebel, Barry Sheerman (above), claimed that allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote would make them 'adults' and therefore more vulnerable to sexual abuse.

WHIT?

Clearly the fact that they can leave school, get married and have children, go to work, live separately from their parents …sometimes on the streets… and pay taxes, seems to have escaped his notice. I’m just guessing that this may have more of an influence of their sexual behaviour than the right to vote! For the life of me I can’t work out why he reckons that casting a vote would open them up to sexual abuse. However, who knows about those things when it comes to planet Westminster.

There was also anger in Westminster that EU nationals will be banned from voting. This time the government had Labour’s support. Strangely there is an exception made for Republic of Ireland nationals. I’m not sure how they are allowed to pick and choose like that, but apparently they can. But then why Irish? Why not Lithuanians, or Maltese?

Unlike in the Scottish referendum, ex patriots will be allowed to vote.  So, even people who have lived here for 20 years, and are married to Brits, won’t be allowed a say in their future. And people who were born here but live in America, or Hong Kong will.  Once again this contrasts with the Scottish referendum which allowed people who lived in Scotland the vote, but those who had chosen to make their lives elsewhere were excluded.

Scotland 21^st century; UK 19^th.

JIM PLAYS KEEPY-UPPY WHILE SCOTLAND GETS FRACKED.

So, all weekend Jim has been pointing out that when he is first minister (a big question mark over that given that he's not even an MSP), he will not allow fracking in this country. (OK, you could split hairs and point out that the first minister can only propose policy, not insist on it, but in fairness to Jim, he knows that the Liberal(s), Greens, SNP would vote with him, as would the SSP should they have any MSPs by that time.) 

Given then, that commitment to a frack free Scotland, why did he fail to turn up to vote for the power to stop fracking to be devolved? 

At present, as I understand the situation, the Scottish government has powers over planning consent, and withholding that from fracking companies might mean delays to their plans. But any planning refusals could be, and might well be, overturned by the Westminster government on the basis that they were being maliciously employed in an attempt to circumvent UK law reserved to Westminster.  

In short this power must be devolved to Scotland.  If not Jim can huff and puff, but he won't be blowing any houses down if the power stays at Westminster. (This might be convenient to him of course ... I'd do it if I had the power!)

Jim controls all Scottish Labour MPs ... They are nothing to do with Miliband, because Jim is NOT a branch office supervisor like Jola was. Oh no, Sir. He's the real deal. Miliband's equal.

Of course we know that Jim was too busy today to bother turning up at his place of work to do his job and vote for a policy proposed by one of his own minions, that would give the power over fracking to the Scottish parliament. But why did he not instruct his own MPs, the ones who report directly to him remember, to vote in favour?

Jim incidentally was too busy to go to London and vote because he was engaged in a game of Keepy-Uppy whilst attired once again in shorts. (I feel it might be appropriate at this point to bring to the attention of the press office at Scottish Labour, that whilst some politicians half dressed and showing off their legs, might well be considered to be an asset to their party, Jim is not among their number. I've seen better legs on a chicken.

As one lady I overheard today (a Labour supporter too) said :"LESS ...LESS!"

This of course is another possibility.
While Jim was away maybe Miliband got his whips out.
Don't want to go upsetting big money like that.

You have to ask yourself what they are for these Labour politicians.

See what I mean?
 Seriously he's no bonny with his clothes on, but
half naked? Jeeeeeeez.

Well, our policy will be one of the above... whichever one will
buy us the most votes at the time.
Fracking isn't the only thing they get mixed up about.

Oh no, his pants are on fire.
Maybe that's why he's always showing up in shorts.

ANYTHING YOU CAN DO....

Following on from the Tory's "Road to... (erm, well probably the road to Weimar actually)" fiasco of a poster to kick off their general election campaign, I was saying to a friend this afternoon that I was surprised that it had been selected for use. 

When reviewing this kind of campaign surely one of the first things that the campaign manager would do was ask "What could go wrong?" 

Well, having to admit to not being able to find one road in all of Britain that stretched into a glorious and happy future... or portrayed the concept... seems to me to be something that could be described as "going wrong". Someone was sure to ask..."where is the road?"...and answering ... "it's a composite of various roads" would have been bad enough if they had at least all been in Britain. 

That the road in question was in Germany was nothing short of hilarious mind blowing incompetence.

We reflected that this was not the first time that a recent political campaign had been found rather naive. We'd all be incredulous when Better Together came up with the "cereal" lady.  Did no one stop to wonder how it would play in the 21st century to make a woman look as if she, a mindless adjunct to her husband, was not to worry her pretty little head about politics... but instead to concentrate on the bairns, the cereal, and the nice cup of coffee in the kitchen... 1950s or what?

So this afternoon when we were talking we hadn't seen Labour's first poster of the campaign. 

Now we have. We'll we've seen "Scottish" Labour's poster, despite there being no such party. James Kelly parodies it rather nicely here, and for once the Rev Stuart is left speechless (which we suspect doesn't happen that often).

And so for the second time in a few days we are left wondering why did no one ask... "what could go wrong?"

Really, did no one at Jim's HQ ask why they were spending their limited resources proposing a "policy" (he flattered it) on a service over which they would have no control whatsoever in the parliament into which they were hoping to be elected? 

This is a campaign for a general election in London, Westminster, the UK, call it what you will. The Scottish Health Service is funded and overseen from Holyrood by an entirely separate parliament and government which will be come up for election in 16 months' time. (Heaven help us if it's Jim whose the FM then. He'll be assuming it's being taken care of from London!)

So, for the purpose of this election campaign, the one that is going on here and now, surely the SNP will be making no promises whatsoever about funding nurses in NHS Scotland. Being in government in Scotland they know perfectly well where NHS Scotland is run from.

But even if it were a matter for the UK parliament, it appears to be the most ridiculous statement of intent. What they seem to be promising is that whatever the SNP proposes, they will add 1000 to it.

So, if the SNP, having researched it with NHS Scotland's management, promises the optimum number of nurses, regardless that an extra 1000 would just really be in the way, Labour will supply them anyway.  

I wonder if they intend to spend the entire campaign promising whatever the SNP says, plus 1000.

Schools: (also not under consideration in the UK election)... whatever the SNP say + 1000. Trains (also Holyrood): whatever the SNP promises, + 1000. Nuclear warheads (ah, Westminster): Whatever the SNP promises +1000. Oh, that'll be 1000 exactly then.

It brings back memories of days when my brother and I would argue about something, by proposing, each in his turn, an ever bigger number, until of course one of us remember infinity.. and then we did infinity plus 1!

We were aged 8 and 4 at the time though, so we had an excuse.

Sorry guys... must try to do better than under 10s! 

Serious suggestions:

1) Find out what Westminster is responsible for (you should be good at that, Jim, being as you are supposed to be working there) and propose policies for which that parliament has responsibility. There are plenty, unfortunately.

2) Try to come up with policies which aren't the same as, but bigger than, those of the SNP. It might make people think that you had given it some intellectual consideration, and that's always a reassuring thing for a potential government (flatters them again). 

3) Before you put out your next poster, ask yourself... what will the public be laughing at tonight? If the answer is "us"... ditch it and start again.

MAKE UP YOUR MIND DEAREST DARLING

Alistair Darling, who is the leader of the Tory-Liberal anti independence movement, has been left facing accusations of hypocrisy after he attacked George Osborne over the state of the UK economy.

In the Daily Record  Darling attacked the chancellor because of stalled growth, the economy bumping along the bottom and the number out of work growing.

Kenneth Gibson MSP, said this was hypocritical of Darling who is trying to convince the people of Scotland they are ‘better together’ with a Tory finance minister like George Osborne than making decisions in their own parliament in Edinburgh.

Gibson said that one minute Alistair Darling was telling us that Scotland is better with Westminster making the decisions, the next he was attacking the damage being done by that self same Westminster.

He went on: “He can't have it both ways - but it is not surprising as we know this hypocrisy sums up the No campaign’s arguments.

“Anti-independence politicians are happy to attack the record of Westminster - but are still perpetuating the myth that Scotland is better with a Tory Westminster government that we didn't vote for.

“Scotland’s finances are consistently stronger than the UK's, over half of the North Sea tax revenues are still to come, and our oil and gas assets are worth £1.5 trillion or even more.

"With our abundant resources, only a Yes vote next September gives Scotland the powers to create the fairer and wealthier society we all want to live in.”

Not for the first time does Alistair get a bit muddled in his thinking...

Gibson has a point. If Westminster is all that Better Together (or apart or whatever they are these days) cracks it up to be, why on earth is the leader of Better Together so critical of Westminster?

It doesn't add up, but then our experience of Alistair Darling is that nothing he does, from being Finance Minister to filling in his expenses, actually does add up!

THE TV DEBATES START

Yes to an Independent Scotland have announced that STV’s current affairs programme, Scotland Tonight, will broadcast its first major TV debate on the Scottish independence referendum with Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and Scottish Secretary Michael Moore on Thursday May 16.

This is the first in a series of live, head-to-head Scotland Tonight Referendum Special debates examining key issues in the independence debate.

The subject for this debate is the economics of independence and whether Scotland will be better or worse off as an independent country. They will also have the opportunity to cross-examine each other.

Political 'experts' will provide analysis before, after and throughout the debate from a second STV studio, with viewers encouraged to interact by sending their own reactions via social media.

Gordon Macmillan, Head of News at STV, said: "STV is committed to providing a platform for debate around all the key issues ahead of the 2014 referendum and this series of Scotland Tonight specials will give viewers the opportunity to hear the arguments from both sides of the discussion, from Scotland’s biggest political players."

The debate will be streamed live on the STV News website (http://www.stv.tv/scotlandtonight) and will be available for catch-up on the STV Player.

Congratulations to STV for staging this debate. In my opinion the state broadcaster  which we all pay around £2,50 a week to support in that luxurious position, should have been responsible for providing this platform. However, given their record, doubtless it would have been rigged against Nicola.

I went to the BBC site today to read the story about Christian Allard being sworn into parliament. Because Scottish stories on the BBC do not allow comment, I was unable to congratulate him. Strange that other "regions" of the BBC allow comments!

IT'S TIME TO GET A GRIP

It is worrying that at Scottish Question in the London House of Commons the Labour MPs from Scotland seemed reluctant to hold Michael Moore and  David Mundell to account (as they are supposed to), on deprivation,  high fuel costs, lack of financial investment (there are currently 43 projects "shovel ready" to create thousands of jobs, but which London will not sanction).

Instead they preferred to join with the Home County Tories (why are they even there?) to ridicule the SNP government and ask Moore and Mundell about the iniquities of "separation". Some even, à la Lamont, refused to face reality and argue that despite Cameron and the First Minister signing the Edinburgh Agreement, the Scottish government does not have the right to call a referendum.

Meanwhile Jim Murphy seems to be doing his best to close down shipbuilding on the Clyde, which is under threat because of a tightening of London's Defence budgets: 

"The Tory government plans are adding to the worries but there is one certainty which is that the SNP proposals would sink Scottish shipbuilding.

"The rest of UK would become a foreign country to Scotland and the UK Royal Navy has not built a warship in a foreign land in living memory.

"The Royal Navy order book keeps Scottish yards afloat but independence would see orders dry up. Thousands of jobs are put at risk by Nationalists' plans."

As a Scottish MP should he not be talking up the yards, at a time when at least one yard will have to close, pointing out that there are many other places to go for orders. Scottish shipbuilding is amongst the best in the world and there is no reason why we could not build ships for, for example, Gulf states. After all England builds planes for them!

But no, as in Holyrood where you would have thought there were many real problems waiting for the attention of our MSPs, hatred and division has become before real politics.

I remember the first time I attended a debate in Holyrood. I left the chamber walking on air and proud as punch that discussions in our parliament were so civilised, and yet relatively informal, without any of the (patently untrue, indeed laughable) "honourable/learned/gallant/reverend gentleman/lady" of the brawling of the London parliament. 

Now Holyrood has turned into a hate fest. The modus operandi appears to be: never mind the problems besetting the country, let's  talk for as long as we can, all the time putting down Alex Salmond, before putting a question. Let's get our hatred for the government on the BBC and in the papers never mind if we have to bend the truth to do it. And who the hell cares about the constituency questions that actually matter to real people: people who are not overly interested in the independence question 2 years before the date of the referendum?

Lamont's inability to get past her script doesn't help, of course, but her insistence on asking 4 questions which seem to fail to take into account answers previously given is an embarrassment:

"Why isn't Alex Salmond's government using Scottish steel to build the Forth crossing?"

"Because we don't make steel in Scotland."

"Alex Salmond says that we don't make steel, but why is his government going to China for its steel instead of using home made steel?"

"Because we don't make steel in Scotland."

"Has the First Minister thought about the number of jobs that would be created if he had chosen to use steel made in Scotland."

"As I've said before Presiding Officer, Johann Lamont knows that the London government shut down the steel making industry in Scotland and Labour did nothing to revive it. We have no suitable steel making facility in Scotland."

OK, the words are mine and I've used considerable licence, but that was a rough outline of how the argument went, although both Lamont and Salmond talked at length. But months after this point was made, Joanne Lamont still refers to the dreadfulness of buying steel from China.

She's not thick enough not to take in the fact that we didn't have the facility to make that steel in Scotland. She just thinks that its a good line that people will pick up on and hate Alex Salmond for; that jobless youngsters will be able to say..."If only Alex Salmond had bought Scottish steel, I could have got a job making it."

The trouble with all this is that it is not only causing division in the country, it is also putting people off politics. And I think it may be polluting the way that other people debate politics. After all, if the leader of the opposition or the Conservative party doesn't bother to try to make any constructive criticism of the government, why would Jock down the pub?

A definite plus once upon a time, for an independent parliament would have been a raised standard of debate. Unfortunately that is no longer so.

COME DINE WITH US...

Sickened as I am by the quality of debate on the independence question, I have looked elsewhere for a subject to post on... and I didn't have to look far.


As each and every one of us "ordinary, decent, hard working families up and down the land" (don't they realise how patronising that is) cuts and trims their budgets, it appears that, despite calls for them to, and their promises that they will, cut the cost of bars and restaurants in Westminster, the subsidy we pay these 650 members has, according to the Telegraph, risen to an unbelievable £5.8 million. (£8,923.08 per person per year.) For every £10 an MP spends on lunch now, the public contributes £7.60; last year the sum was £6.90.

 The menus are mouth watering, I warn you in advance, so be prepared:

Artichoke and tomato salad with truffle dressing: £2.05;

Seared breast of pigeon with aubergine purée and spiced couscous: £4.15;

Spinach, ricotta and sundried tomato pizza with a rocket salad: £2.75;

Roasted half spring chicken with stuffing: £2.95;

Risotto of pea and broad bean with goat’s cheese: £2.40;

Char-grilled rib-eye steak with hand-cut chips and béarnaise sauce: £7.80;

Green tea and white chocolate brûlée: £2.05;

Cheese board: £3.10.

And Pugin Room bar prices include a glass of malt whisky, Cointreau liqueur or Grand Marnier: £2.55; Glasses of 2009 Sauvignon Blanc or 2010 Merlot: £2.35.

And at these prices, our brave representatives do a power of drinking. They spent £1.33 million in the last financial year in the bars (£2.046.15 each). Given the subsidy, imagine what that would have been in real prices. 

But Holyrood cannot claim much superiority here. The Edinburgh parliament restaurant was subsidised by £80,000 in the last year (£620 per member).

The meal prices are equally mind blowing with smoked salmon and beetroot lax with potato blini, herb cream cheese capers and spring onions at £1.40.

and seared salmon with herb crème fraiche potatoes, braised celery and soy cucumber relish a mere £4.80.

Any restaurant on the Royal Mile would laugh at these prices. And with bar prices at less than £3 for a malt whisky, the bar is being subsidised at around £130 per member.

On average MPs are paid around £66,000 and MSPs around £52,000 per annum. With average salaries around the £25,000 mark, no one could say that they are not reasonably well paid. Surely it is unnecessary for the public to subsidise their eating, and absolutely unnecessary to subsidise their drinking! Something to think about if we are really "all in it together".

However, the laugh of the week has to be our favourite nut job, the Sarah Palin of English politics, Nadine Dorries, who tweeted about the state of the Westminster restaurants:

"Mice running all over dining room..disgusting been that way for six years I have been here.*shudders* shld be paying us to eat here"

Erm, we are, you silly old sausage!

CONGRATULATIONS TO JOHANN LAMONT AND ANAS SARWAR

Labour's Scottish branch has elected Johann Lamont as their leader with 51.77% of the vote. 


Her old job of Deputy Leader has been taken for the first time by an MP based in London, Anas Sarwar, reflecting the fact that their leadership is, as of now, over the entire Scottish branch of Labour (as Iain Gray always wanted it to be) and not just over the group of MSPs in Holyrood. 


Munguin's Republic offers most hearty congratulations to both of them.


In the last few months three of the four opposition parties in Holyrood have changed their leadership. Two chose people entirely new to Holyrood. Now that the new leaders are in place (and having been Deputy Leader, and a member for the parliament since its inception Johann will hit the ground running), we must get to grips with the challenges that the next few years will bring.


Because of the mess that greed has got us into, the UK is in a very serious financial situation. Even Tory MPs like Douglas Carswell are warning against the smugness that Cameron and Osborne are showing in relation to the worsening financial situation. The UK too may soon find itself lamenting its loss of the much prized AAA status.


Scotland is unfortunately in this mess every bit as much as the UK. I've just listened to FMQs and I'm disappointed that even as Iain Gray bowed out of his leadership, it was all about carping and point scoring. 

We all want a better Scotland, although clearly each party has different ideas of how this can be achieved. None is mad; none is bad. We are all just different.


My plea to Johann and to the other party leaders, including the first minister, is this:


It is a time for, in as much as it is possible, working together. 


As leaders you set the tone for debate in parliament. Let's see if the watchword, at least for the duration of the financial crisis, can be "cooperation". 


As Nicola Sturgeon said on election night, the SNP does not have the monopoly on good ideas. Other parties can, if they offer the help constructively, make an impression on the dire straits we find ourselves in.


Let's stop  carping about the independence referendum. It is going to happen towards the end of the parliament. That's a done and dusted fact. In the meantime there is a country out here that sent you people, of all political colours, to parliament, not to point score, but to do your best for us.


If you can't do that, then move the hell over and let someone else do it.

SOME THOUGHTS ON THE 2011 GENERAL ELECTION

Jeff Breslin has an interesting piece over at SNP Tactical Voting on the possible outcomes of the next Scottish General Election. His piece is knowledgeable and researched, based on fact and intelligent conjecture arising from these facts.

My thoughts are that the result may come down to how well the SNP can get across the fact that their failure to deliver on manifesto promises (LIT, Referendum, SFT, Minimum Pricing, etc) was entirely down to their being a minority government with opposition which was united in its desire to see the SNP fail. (Local income tax, for example, would have saved pensioners and low paid workers a lifestyle-changing amount of money and might well have been a huge incentive for the 2012 voter, and we will be paying for PFI till we die.)

It’s a question of communications.

It will be important for the SNP to make this clear. It’s not a party political point; it’s not a point of view. It’s just the truth. It depends how intelligently the Scottish voting public responds to that.

We have had three plus years of minority government, which has worked to prove that the SNP are not the “basket cases” that they were portrayed as. They have successfully administered the country in a devolved situation, and so by extrapolation may be considered to be capable taking our nation back to independence.

Jeff rightly says that there are two parties in contention. But he also points out that other parties can have a considerable effect on the outcome. The Tories are bound to lose votes because of the English government’s harsh policies, and the Liberals will surely be doubly hit by the fact that they too have been involved in this, and by the fact that it does seem to be that if you vote Liberal, you surely won’t get Liberal, but they will help whoever offers them the best Cabinet seats!

Their loss of votes will have to go somewhere. They are up for grabs. Not huge sections of the vote, but enough to make a difference given the slender “majority” held by the current government.

Jeff analyses the “Gray” effect, because after all Gray and the Noble and Rt Hon Baron McConnell, the Farm Boy (it’s good to associate yourself with the farm yard when you are about to take your seat in the House of Lords), are two very different kettles of fish. Whatever you think of their politics, Jack is immediately charismatic and Iain is.... well.....aptly named.

Given the arrangement of Labour’s prop (when in government in Scotland) with a certain other group of politicians in London, which may or may not still be in place, what are the chances of Tavish being allowed to go into government with Iain Gray’s Labour? Slim, I’d have thought. Oh yes, they are busy talking about all kinds of autonomy for the parties in Scotland, but they won’t have anything sorted by the time campaigning begins....

So not only do we have the Iain Gray effect, we also have the Iain Gray in minority government effect. I’d make two points on this which may or may not be associated. Firstly minority government takes a great deal of political skill, nous, patience and intelligence. Secondly, Labour send their “best” people to London.

So, it’s all to play for.... but just a thought: would it be too bad for the SNP to have another 4 years in opposition, having proved their ability to run a credible government under the most difficult of circumstances?

I think not.