THE ANSWER ISN'T BLOWING IN THE WIND; IT'S IN THE QUESTION

I haven't yet had time to look at FMQs from yesterday, but I had to laugh at the clip of Ruth Davidson on the STV (Grampian) News. Every poll ever published (in the whole wide world in the history of mankind) agrees with me? What? It's a wonder then Ruth that you're not First Minister, or the Queen, or something. And of course, as James points out, clearly the poll of September last year, and umpteen others showing a lead for independence over dependence, were figments of our febrile imaginations.

Lamont was just as bad. "He has the majority, he has the mandate...." (well, thanks for admitting that Johann) ...so why, she wondered, didn't he call the referendum now. 

Well, you see Johann, the clue to the answer is in the question. It works like this:-

He has the majority to decide whether or not, and when, to call the referendum. This is a majority given by us, we, the Scottish electorate. And although by Westminster standards it is a tiny majority, it is, in fact, the majority that should never have been: a majority that was never envisaged: a majority that the system was set up to avoid ever happening (because Blair  wanted 'parish councils' rather than strong government in 'the provinces'). 

And (and this is important), it's not a majority based on the voters being sick of the last lot, as so often happens, but instead a majority based on their being SATISFIED with the last lot, because as you may remember, the SNP was the last lot.

And as Johann says, the mandate is there; there's no escaping that. The referendum was in the manifesto. And, just in case someone who didn't know what the SNP was all about, and who didn't read the manifesto, was in some doubt, it was hammered home by none other than Tavish Scott in the Leaders' Debates when he pointed out that "a vote for the SNP is a vote for independence".

 And when pressed on the timing of that referendum, Johann, you may remember, Alex Salmond said, on national television, in front of the then leaders of the now opposition parties, a hand picked studio audience, and anyone who was interested enough to be watching, that if the SNP won the election, the referendum would be called in the second half of the parliament.

So, to answer Mrs Lamont question, he is calling a referendum, and he is calling it in the second half of the parliament because he has the majority, he has the mandate, and that’s when he promised the Scottish people he would do it.

And why, anyway, is Mrs Lamont in such an all-fired hurry now to have a referendum that only a few months ago her party, in an opposition coalition with the Tories and the Liberals, made clear would be defeated were proposals to “bring it on”  brought before parliament?

Unless, as part of Labour’s “Bring it on: Don’t Bring it on” referendum policy, we're in the 'Bring it on' cycle. 

Pics: Ruth Davidson, Conservative leader, and Johann Lamont, Labour leader, providing her own caption and advertising campaign.

WHITHER THE LIBERALS? ...YES, INDEED, WHITHER?

So first we asked where the Tories were going. The answers were various, but we came to the conclusion that they may well be going in three different directions. Then we talked about where Labour was going. It seems that they might reject the Holyrood leader from London and plump for the Ms Lamont. On the basis that you want personality, looks and intellect to be a political leader these days, I think we can safely conclude that this will not be the best decision ever. But beggars can't be choosers.

So now we must ask: Whither the Liberal Democrats?

Well, it's been conference this week and they have managed some headlines and a few of their "big names" have been writing for the papers. Notably Malcolm Bruce, who it seems is an MP and Tavish Scott MSP, who used to be .... So we have some idea of what they feel they're about.

Bruce has been talking to The Telegraph about the SNP's "abuse of power"! This abuse appears to have manifest itself in talk of a referendum on independence. Having more MSPs than the rest of the parties put together, there is no obvious impediment to introducing an appropriate bill to give Scots the chance to chose their future. The likelihood is that it will pass and that Scots will be able to vote. A possibility that seems to scare the living daylights out of the unionist parties.

Of course the SNP hasn't actually mentioned referenda save in response to questions from opposition parties, Instead the SNP talks about bringing jobs to Scotland before all else; bringing capital spending forward to provide jobs for people and improve the infrastructure and housing in our country.

But old Malc has gone as far as to suggest the need for a second chamber for the Scottish parliament to hold the SNP to account. [For pity's sake man, we're trying to reduce the cost of government, not increase it.] And how would he insure that this second, expensive chamber wouldn't be SNP dominated? Have it appointed? By whom? Nick Clegg? Oh please.

Where is the abuse of power, Malc, seriously?

And poor old Tavish Scott, bitter to the last, has written for Scotland on Sunday. I won't go into details here, because someone who is an expert on debunking pompous nonsense has already done it here.

Still they both made a great headline for the unionist papers.

They seem desperate to do that at all costs. They are the hard men, they're standing up to the Tories and the SNP.... Pfffffff.

Where are they going? Well, they went from 16 to 5 seats in the Scottish parliament; that's a start . Then there was the English council elections, where half the seats were lost; and in Liverpool, losing 11 out of 13 seats, the ex-council leader, a lord no less, lost his seat to an 18 year old lad.

They won't admit it but they must be dreading next year's council elections here.

So not so much WHITHER the Liberals... as WITHER the Liberals, and who would wonder at it when they sold principles for a few cabinet seats, flash offices and big cars...

**********

However... there is hope. Because the rank and file are still trying to get some decency into the government's policies on health benefits as shown here.

MORE RANDOM RAMBLINGS

* Am I the only one who thought that the Times headline the other day was wrong. EVERY ONE IN FIVE.... YOUNG ARE OUT OF WORK. The second part of the headline is approximate (and I can’t check it because it’s behind a pay wall), but it’s the first part that concerned me. It should surely read “ONE IN EVERY FIVE........” To think it used to be a newspaper of record!

* The Metropolitan police are the most incompetent lot, aren’t they? They seem to get precious little right. Now English high court has ruled that the way in which they kettled people during the G20 demonstrations in April 2009, was illegal. The court heard that police used mass detention against peaceful protesters, and that officers punched faces, slapped and hit out with shields as they tried to move a demonstration against climate change. It has opened up the possibility that up to 5000 people may sue the police for wrongful detention. Damned right. People were kept for hours with nothing to eat and no toilet facilities crushed up against one another. I hope to never see that kind of tactic used in Edinburgh. I don’t know what happened to England’s much acclaimed free speech. The fault of course was of the management. Well no surprise there. I wonder where Commander Dick was that day. Looking for a room maybe?

* MPs have reacted with anger at a 16% cut in the BBC World Service. They say that as the BBC is undergoing only a 10% cut (I didn’t notice a 10% cut in my licence fee), it is unfair that the Foreign Office-funded World Service is being penalised. They say that the BBC is used to promote British values around the world. So that got me thinking. What are British values? Are there such things? Are values different in Scotland from in England, what about Irish and Welsh, or for that matter Cornish, Manx, Jerseyman or Guernseyman values? Are British (or any part thereof) values different from say Danish ones? The things that go through my head. Answers on a post card to the usual address with the usual prize going to the usual winner.

* Annabel Goldie was a million miles better than Tavish in her interview with Gordon Brewer, and a fair amount of what she said made sense. Why keep 14 year olds who will learn nothing more at school distracting other people who want to do well, and making teachers’ lives hell.

But Brewer didn’t ask her what she proposed to do with them, or what it would cost. You can't just let them vegetate in bed.

And although I believe absolutely in free education, I could see some sense in Annabel’s argument for graduate tax. But again Brewer missed a chance. Annabel says that everyone knows that there is a black hole in the finances, and she will use the graduate tax to fill it. But the tax won’t start trickling in for 4 years, and then pretty slowly. How will she fund universities till then? And how much will it cost for the Treasury to collect it, as we can’t tax.

And wouldn’t a tax (as opposed to a loan) encourage people to go abroad after we have educated them?

I wonder how Gray will be tonight. How will he explain the 150,000 jobs out of thin air trick he’s going to pull off? Iain Dumblegray, Scotland’s greatest wizard. Not.

* Does anyone agree with me that it might be a good idea for the government to sing from the same hymn sheet? Headlines this evening have changed from “Cable attacks Cameron”, to “Cable agrees with Cameron”. Perhaps there should be a quick meeting of top advisors at the same time as Cabinet each week with each department giving a list of the speeches its ministers are going to make, so that if there is to be a major policy disagreement it can be thrashed out before they look like a bunch of unruly kids, not after.

* Would it not be best for the News of the World to come clean now? It all looked good for a while; the Metropolitan police hadn’t really investigated and long sighs were being heaved.

But there are too many “important” people among the victims; too many with clout in the right places. It is bound to come out in the end.

In the meantime, I’d say John Prescott is bang on the nail. No matter how many dinners the Prime Minister rather stupidly has with Murdoch’s son, and no matter how unprofessional Vince Cable is, there is no way that the BskyB deal can go ahead while this is hanging over our Rupert. I’m not suggesting any impropriety you understand... but it is going to look like dodgy deal.

THE SCOTPULSE POLL GIVES THE NIGHT TO ALEX

There was an STV poll following the first of the three televised debates of leaders for the General Election. It was conducted by the tv company’s own online polling system ScotPulse. Its results make frightening reading for Iain Gray.

991 people were polled:

87% thought Alex Salmond won the debate;

7% thought it was Annabel Goldie;

5% thought Iain Gray was the winner;

and 1% thought Tavish Scott.

Over half the respondents (53%) found their view of Alex Salmond became more positive during the debate, but nearly three-quarters (74%) found their perception of Iain Gray changed negatively.

Annabel may have done herself no favours over university tuition fees, but despite that, she was seen to be the next best thing to Alex for FM.

Mr Scott has been stabbed in the back by London Liberals. Not only has the windfall tax on oil companies cost Scotland billions in investment, there is an estimated loss of 40,000 jobs to take into consideration. Maybe not all at once, but that’s a lot of employment and a lot of salaries to be spent!

It was, of course, the decision of George Osborne to levy this tax, but in some mad lemming like bid for notoriety, or to curry favour with Mr Cameron so that he may progress in the ranks of Cabinet ministers and get his own department (they may be looking around for a new Foreign Secretary soon), Danny (ginger rodent*) Alexander has claimed full responsibility for dreaming up the tax.

This may have been a tad foolish given that the biggest losses will be felt in the town of Aberdeen, where there is one now very vulnerable Liberal Democrat seat for the taking.

Iain Gray: read ths and weep.

Hey ho, isn’t politics interesting?

*allegedly (if in doubt refer to Harry Hardwoman)

PS: Top marks to Annabel for wearing a dark inobtrusive suit, like all the men necessarily had to wear. Whatever people say about her, and the Tories' policies, Annabel still strikes me as a decent sort.

FMQ: IN WHICH ANNABEL PLAYS MATRON AND ALEX SAYS "YES"!

The first question about what the FM was going to do with the rest of his day was answered with some excellent news. Alex Salmond was to make an announcement with executives from Amazon of 950 new full-time Amazon jobs to Scotland. Great news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00x98fj/First_Ministers_Question_Time_13_01_2011

Policing and Fire Services are hugely important issues, and most people would think it was cheap and unpleasant to make, or try to make political capital out of them, but the sickening idiot Gray did just that. While usually I can laugh at his stupidity, and his cack handedness, today I’m just sickened by him. I can’t even be bothered to call him by his pet name. He’s a buffoon, and an unpleasant one at that and a completely useless opposition leader.

He pressed for the FM to give a response now to the future of policing and fire services and bemoaned the fact that the government is consulting. He wanted action. Just do it. If this is what he would do in government, then it would be as well to keep him out. He complained that Alex’s position on the matter had changed over the last few months. He complained that Alex should show leadership and make a decision and that “this is daft stuff”. Definitely FM material. NOT

All of this of course gave Alex the opportunity to give him a little lesson in what running a country is about. We all know about Labour dictatorship. We had plenty of that from Gray’s friends in London. Alex prefers to govern by consensus. There must be changes. Thanks to cuts in funding from London, partly due to incompetent running of the UK economy by Gordon Brown, the status quo is not an option. But the number of forces cannot be decided without knowing facts, and weighing potential consequences.

It was the most sickening display of stupidity I’ve heard from the idiot yet.

And so to Annabel, who reminded Alex that it was Conservative policies which had put 1000 extra officers on the streets! She made a Party Political Broadcast committing the Tories to a pledge to keep them there for the next 4 years. Would, she asked, the FM meet that commitment?

“Yes”, said he, and sat down to good humoured laughter all round, except presumably Labour who, in her question, had been given a drubbing by Annabel. “They had no plans then and they have no plans now”, she said.

She reminded Alex that she had had to tweak him back into line when he was naughty... (hmmmm, I’m not sure all of you are ready for this kind of stuff, especially, when he replied, saying that he felt a bit like he’d been pulled into line by Matron.) There was an agreement that on Law and Order there had been much co-operation with both the Tories and the Liberals. What a relief that Annabel has a sense of humour and an IQ level above that of Humpty Dummy.

And so to wee Tavish, who was also, quite rightly for this IS important, asking more questions about policing. He really just gave Alex the opportunity to reiterate the importance of consulting widely before taking a decision, rather than going gung ho into it as Iain Gray presumably would were he ever the FM. Tavish pointed out that Labour had tried to make changes in England and had to turn back due to not having thought out, or costed how it would be done. Alex assured him that he would not be using Labour’s blueprint.

And so to supplementaries on company closures, the impact of VAT and fuel duty, flu and legal aid.

Pic 1: “It’s OK Alex, that’s just the starter; the real meal is to follow”. Pic 2: A picture of Iain Gray’s brain embedded in soap. Can’t see anything much there. Pic3: In case the Tories are stupid enough to dump Auntie Annabel, she’s got another job as a train driver... )ic 4: On yer bike Tavish...

FMQs: IN WHICH TOO MUCH SHERRY IS TAKEN AND MUCH NONSENSE IS SPOKEN

It was pantomime time at Holyrood today, with wee Elmer doing funny voices and swaying around like my great Auntie Nellie after a few sherries too many on Hogmanay. However, not even the festive atmosphere in Edinburgh could save the wee fellow from acting like the tea cake he is.

Education was his theme (nice change from the snow Elmer, I feared you were going to get stuck on that one forever). He produced some figures that, he said, showed the SNP cutting 800 teaching posts this year, which gave Big Eck the chance to point out that the bulk of the posts being cut were in Glasgow’s LABOUR RUN council, possibly because LABOUR RUN Glasgow had failed to sign up to the concordat between the government and local councils.

Elmer , who had looked quite confident to begin with, started to look a tad cross and began swaying as Alex took everything he accused the government of and threw it back in his face. The final question involved the number of schools built and was “another broken SNP promise” according to Elmer. True, said the boss, but this time it was one Eck was happy to confirm. Labour had promised 250 new schools, he said, and the SNP government had broken its promise; it had delivered 330. Maybe a few sherries diminished Mr Fudd’s arithmetical abilities.

And so to Annabel, who chose, presumably for want of anything else to criticise the government about, to ask about university funding. Given that Mike Russell was due to launch a Green Paper (consultative document) on the subject that very afternoon, I thought it was completely bizarre.

The discourse between the FM and Ms G followed that of an exchange 3 weeks ago, so I won’t bother repeating it here. Suffice to say that it was rather a waste of a question.

And so to wee Tavish, who asked a sensible question about the fact that vast numbers of Scots are either worried about their energy bills (4 out of 10 households), or struggling to pay them (3 out of 10). He wanted to know what the government’s intentions were concerning Home Insulation Schemes. Alex told him that the relevant minister had just explained that there would be proportionally larger increases here than there would be south of the border. Tavish then asked about the huge increases in profits per household the energy companies had reported, and the doubling of costs over the last 5 years.

Alex was able to point out that some of the factors that were involved in this were controlled from London, and in fact by Liberal Democrat minsters. Alex softened that remark, noting that Tavish’s points were well made, but he wished he had the power to insure that everyone in this energy rich country could access the energy they needed.

Unspectacular performances today, I thought, and top marks go to Tavish for asking the most sensible question.

I can’t help feeling that Alex refers too much to what’s happening in England and comparing it with what is happening here. OK, I accept that what happens in England has a knock on effect by way of Barnet, but I get a little bored hearing it and it does tend to sound feeble, even if, in fact, it is not.

Backbench questions were sensible across the chamber and dealt with subjects as diverse as Sex Offenders, Homicide Rates, Fatal Accident Inquiries and Company Closures. There was one criticism of the Labour party for misrepresenting Fife Constabulary on their website and refusing to take the misinformation down, even when asked to by the police themselves. Tch tch.


Pics: The lovely Annabel (top centre) falls into the Hattie Jacques role perfectly; I though Elmer for the Kenneth Conner role and of course Tavish is Jim Dale... I’m not sure who should get Babs Windsor’s part (or parts) Johann Lamont? Eck (left) of course vanquishes all foes and slays dragons (that’s Lamont again) and finally (right) is Tavish, standing right next to a guy who sold his soul for a red box... a pantomime villain if even I saw one.

MORE POLICE, GOOD NEIGHBOURS, HARD WORKERS: ALL AT FMQ TODAY

When is the Labour leader going give some thought to the questions he asks and thus deny the First Minister the opportunity to do a weekly party political broadcast.

Today’s subject was police numbers. Based on conversations he had had with two, yes 2, police officers Elmer concluded that the government’s claims to have more police on the streets was a sham. Some research would have unearthed the Scottish Police Federation’s statement fulsome in its praise for the position of the government, saying that they had understood the needs of policing and wishing that some local authorities, Labour ones, would step up to the plate and take the same attitude. Ooops!

Eck was able to point out that Labour was the only party in the Chamber which did not support an increase in police numbers. He quoted 1190 (the number of additional officers on about 5 occasions, and repeated that recorded crime is at its lowest levels in Scotland for 30 years.

When will Elmer ever learn?

And so to Annabel:

...who once again proved that FMQs doesn’t have to be a battlefield. She turned, appropriately, to the question of snow. Much of Scotland is under the worst November weather, Annabel said, for 40 years. She praised people who had made it to work, particularly those in caring and neighbours and friends looking in on the elderly or frail. She asked the FM to join her in praising them.

This he was happy to do, and gave examples of the security guard in parliament who was up at 4 am, collecting his colleagues in his 4 x 4 for the early shift and Perth and Kinross Council which had got to all but 2 of its vulnerable residents, but who had assured themselves that these remaining two were being looked after by neighbours.

{On a personal note here, I’ve been touched by the way people have helped each other out during the awful weather. My own mum has had countless offers of help, and when I knocked on the doors of some older people around me, I was hearing the same thing. We Scots can be proud of ourselves I think.}

In reference to school closures Annabel suggested that headmasters should be left to make decisions on opening. The FM agreed and referred her to advice to schools to that effect from the Cabinet Secretary for Education. Harmony.

And so to Tavish:

...who wanted to refer Eck to the review that the English transport minister had ordered of the way that transport had handled the snow and what was the FM doing along these lines. Alex said that we could have any number of reviews after the event was over, in the meantime the government was concerned with the practicalities of keeping Scotland moving.

Tavish asked about the fact that Edinburgh airport was closed today and suggested that in view of the government’s attempts to bring winter tourism to the country it would be a good idea if they could keep the capital’s airport open. The FM whilst praising Edinburgh’s fight to keep the runway open agreed that there might be lessons that could be learned from Aberdeen, Dundee, and Highlands and Islands airports, which had remained open.

Questions about snow; sectarianism; PE in schools and a Single Police Authority followed from members. One particular line from Eck I thought was worth a mention. Richard Baker asked about a Single Police Authority and when the First Minister had answered the point he said... I’m tempted to remind Richard Baker, although of course I won’t, that he said.... and proceeded to remind not just Mr Baker, but anyone listening, what he had said... the just of which was that there were 7 police forces ...when there are actually 8. He pointed out that Mr B would be better to know how many there were before he started trying to abolish them.

And so to lunch for them ....and tea for me!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00w6f4n/First_Ministers_Question_Time_02_12_2010/

FMQ on SVR by SR

The account of today's First Minister's Questions can be found over at Subrosa's place, and a damned good one it is too.

Warning: This post may cause people to wonder about how much time can be wasted on trivia by highly paid public servants.

Someone told Tavish yesterday that his attack on John Swinney had been statesman-like. (I think it may have been Tavish as he was shaving this morning.) So, he resumed this afternoon where he left off yesterday. A forensic examination of that part of FMQ can he found here at Scot Goes Pop.

Warning: This post may cause uncontrollable mirth.

Pics: Alex Salmond's reaction on hearing that Tavish Scott was out to get him...

CLOSING TIME AT THE OLD BANK BAR, OR FIRST MINISTER'S QUESTIONS

Well... it was like Saturday night at pub closing time in parliament today. Even the Presiding Officer who is well known for his tolerance, lost the cool with the noisy and unruly drunks, I mean MSPs. “Sit down Mr Gray”, said he. “When I say Order, I mean order.” I was waiting for “Time gentlemen please”.

Elmer was his usual dreary self today, tearing the budget, which he appeared to have only skimmed, apart. He had one good line though when he was complaining that the FM had spent half a million on speech writers. “I’ve heard the first minister’s speeches, could we have our money back? “said our brave boy. I was thinking that perhaps Alex could lend him just one of them, for the man is tedious in the extreme.

I can’t see what he had to complain about in John’s budget. You freeze the pay of the better off, reduce the pay of the best off and give the least well off a pay rise... What could be fairer, but no, the SNP did it and someone once told Elmer his job was to oppose, so he opposes. Duh.

Alex pointed out to him that, on radio, he had admitted that pay freezes were necessary; then he had been seen outside parliament demonstrating under a banner which said “no pay freeze” . He was, Eck reckoned, the only leader to join a demonstration against his own policies.

Of course they were all showing off because there was a delegation of distinguished visitors from Japan in the gallery. Lord only knows what they though. I’m surprised they weren’t throwing nuts of the people down below in the chamber.

And so to Annabel: As so often Ms Goldie concerned herself with Higher Education. A worthy cause. She said that the Conservatives had a plan to give more money to Universities and to students in need, as opposed to the opposite from the SNP, and she quoted part of what Professor Bernard King had said about it “not being sustainable for any longer than 1 year”. Eck of course was able to finish the quote which thanked the government for not delivering “deeper and more damaging cuts”. And he added a little praise from Professor Muscatelli (one of Annabel’s heroes, whom she quotes when giving the First Minister his Latin lessons) saying that he was happy that research funding had not been reduced. The Condem coalition’s way of dealing with student funding was not the way Scotland, with its proud tradition of higher education, should go.

And so to Tavish, who wanted to know if the FM agreed with a criticism made by SNP councillors in Glasgow of pay rises for people on over £80,000. Eck sidestepped it neatly saying that he agreed with what John Swinney had set out in his budget, and told Tavish what that was, in case he’d been dozing off when it was read out yesterday.
There was a pile of statistics from Eck about how they would reduce the top salaries. Mike Rumbles was overheard by the FM, asking how they (the government) knew they could meet these reductions. That gave him the opportunity to point out that they had met or exceeded every target they had set themselves in 3 ½ years of government. Silly Mike. Never give Eck a chance to boast for he will surely take it.

And so to the others: Anne McLaughlin, Robert Brown: Good questions on asylum seekers in Glasgow, and excellent answer from the FM. Questions on low carbon electricity generation, fishing, and fishing policies, in particular discards. (We really must have our own representation in Europe.)

And so, once again, to lunch, the best part of the day.

NOW LISTEN VERY CAREFULLY: I WILL REPEAT THIS OVER AND OVER

Oh Lord, it’s like spending half an hour in the remedial class.

The first 10 minutes were given over to Elmer’s weekly drubbing at the hands of the First Minister. Mr Fudd had decided that last week’s embarrassment over schools was not enough for him. No. More education embarrassment for our favourite cartoon character. When, he wondered, would Alex Salmond come up with a solution to the university funding issue. Of course he knows perfectly well what the timetable is. He knows that, when the consequential of England reducing its tertiary education funding comes about in 2012, the Scottish system will be ready. Once again, instead of seeing when he was beaten and moving on, he did his party piece of repeating the same question (laboriously) and getting beaten by the same stick over again. Listen carefully Elmer: The SNP has spent far more on education than Labour did; Labour in England, thanks to Lord Voldermort, was cutting the budget months before the Tories got in; And Labour’s great answer was? To have a review. Excellent!

Just one wee jarring note Elmer. If you are going to ask questions about further and higher education, a little more attention to correct grammar might be in order.

What a relief it was when the wee man sat down and we moved on.

But not for long. Usually Annabel Goldie asks sensible questions to which she gets sensible answers. Not so today. She chose to ask in a very very longwinded way about the ECHR ruling that some categories of prisoners should be able to vote whilst in the pokey. As this is matter of electoral law, and as such a reserved matter to England, it seemed a bit of a waste of time. Alex answered sensibly that it was a Tory government which had agreed to bring this into UK electoral law. Annabel went for him again, at least this time much more amusingly, attacking him for the policy of getting prisoners to serve sentences for less serious crimes in the community. This was odd, pointed out the First Minister, since it was exactly this SNP policy that had been adopted by the Lord Chancellor Ken Clarke, supported by his coalition partners, and recently commended by Ed Miliband. Ms Goldie it seemed was out of the loop.

It was a bit of a relief when she sat down too.

And so to Tavish. Always a joy.

This time it was ferry services to Dunoon, and the apparent lack of action from the government. Alex pointed out that there had been a large increase in the budget for ferries under the SNP, but suggested that the liberal Leader’s habit of asking for more money for everything might be a little less apposite now that his party was heavily involved in reducing the amount of money to be spent.

Well, unionists, if you insist on giving us pocket money to run the government of Scotland, dependent always on a consequential from London, you really can’t complain when we use it to beat you about the head.

In Supplementary Questions I was particularly stunned by David McLetchie’s question. Did the First Minister not understand that the reason that there was such a reduction in crime was that all the bad guys were locked up? I listened to this on radio, but I can just see the look on Mr Salmond’s face as he realized that he was going to have to explain the Ken Clarke, Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband connection one more time for the slow boy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00vkppz/First_Ministers_Question_Time_04_11_2010


Pics: Super Eck, explaining it once again; Elmer, posing for Niko as the look of the future; the slow boy Mcletchie; Auntie Bella biting her lip and turning purple and Tavish, bless him, learning to fly.

FIRST MINISTER'S QUESTIONS: OCTOBER 7, 2010

First Minister’s Questions started with Alex Salmond paying tribute to the memory of Donald Dewar on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of his death.

And so to business:

Well, after the drubbing that Iain Gray took after last week’s performance, a concoction of confusion and mixed up facts that caused disquiet in Eire, you might have expected him to have done some double checking for this week’s session. But no, in typical Elmer Fudd style he started, and continued for the entire time to insist that nurses in Grampian have been asked to work for nothing. This despite the First Minister pointing out on four occasions that this simply was not true. However, it gave the First Minister the chance to point out that patient satisfaction was at an all time high, and waiting times at an all time low. The English government has guaranteed that health spending will be maintained and the SNP has said that the “consequential” will be protected in the same way. The FM was able to point out that Iain Gray had not been able to make the same commitment.

Annabel Goldie’s questions focussed on the serious drugs problems in the country and in particular the number of methadone scripts being issued. Alex replied that that he was pleased that politicians had achieved a cross party co-operation on drugs strategy which was centred on recovery. £26.8 million was being spent on frontline recovery programmes. He was, however, happy to look at any proposals to increase effectiveness of translating the strategy into successful practice.

Tavish’s question about Cabinet meetings prompted the First Minister to pay tribute to Eilish Angolini, Scotland’s Lord Advocate, who has been in post for 10 years. The Liberal leader went on to question the FM on the possibility of a single police force for Scotland, which he said would be unpopular in the North, South and East of the country. This gave Alex a chance to point out that current statistics show a 36% reduction in crime and a record clear-up rate. He refused to rule in or out changes to the structure of policing, but he pointed out that 25% of the total police budget is spent on head office functions, over eight forces, and that that was far too much.

Backbench questions included a discussion (based on various questions across the chamber) on the problems of children of alcoholic parents, which give the first minister the opportunity to demand support from the chamber on minimum pricing, a policy which, he said was widely supported by health professionals, and to point out to a Conservative member that it was rather inconsistent to call for more heath visitors whist calling for less public spending. Business rates’ appeals was another question which gave Alex the opportunity to show the improvements in the situation which had occurred since the SNP took power.

Once again sensible questions were dealt with in a serious manner, but where the questioner attempted to make political points the FM demolished their arguments.

A rather dull question time all in all.....

THIS WEEK'S FMQ'S IS OVER AT SUBROSA'S PLACE

Subrosa and I have agreed to take week about at writing up a short report on the spectacle of comedy that is First Minister's Questions at Holyrood.

This week it's her turn. You can find her report and a video of the proceedings here

COGITO, ERGO SUM FIRST MINISTER

Fresh from their wee break last week, hobnobbing with the rich and lecherous ... sorry famous.... the party leaders returned to the fray this week at FMQs and kicking off, as usual, for the away team was Elmer Fudd, proof positive that a break doesn’t always do you any good. Instead of concentrating on the task at hand, and leaving enough room for backbenchers to ask questions that actually matter, Elmer was concerned about the poster on the wall of St Andrew’s House which he described rather grandly as North Korean, and then spoiled it by referring to the "great", rather than the "dear" leader.

Eventually he got round to the question, or series of questions about economic growth or not, in Scotland, in which he got his figures wrong, cherry picked the Rowantree Foundation’s report and stuttered, on at least one occasion prompting Mr Ferguson to remind him that it was First Minister’s QUESTIONS, and could he come up with one, please? Eck as usual wiped the floor with him, quoting good news about more house building and renewable energy jobs coming up. As Eck pointed out, the Scottish government could do a deal more if only it had the power; something Iain Gray’s party was happy to deny it. He ended with a rousing piece, Salmond at his best, recounting with ever rising hysteria and obvious relish, and to the delight of the chamber, advice given to him on election strategy by none other than Hootsman jouro Bill Jamieson..... the two words that strike fear into the heart of every Scot...."Iain Gray".

Annabel was next up for a turn, refreshed and somewhat flushed, presumably from her encounter with El Duce, and showing off her superior education, she started off with a quote in Latin (someone should tell her Philip is Greek!!) "Via, Veritas, Vita", she intoned somewhat superiorly, and, knowing that no one else in the place would have a clue, she translated; "the way, the truth, life".

This was the posh way to introduce the question of university funding and a speech made by Anton Muscatelli , principal of Glasgow university. The good professor, it seems thinks that his university will soon be broke and urgently needs government to look at ways to ensure that his massive salary can be maintained. To be fair he had been quite complimentary about the SNP government’s funding over the years, a fact Annabel in her Roman flush, neglected to mention. But it was a fair question for all that. It’s serious and Eck took it seriously. There was to be a green paper on ways of funding, but the government did rule out upfront fees. So, it seemed, did Annabel. She was for a graduate tax, possibly forgetting that it is not in the Scottish government’s remit to impose that!

And so to Farmer Tavish and his eminently sensible questions about the Commonwealth Games in Delhi, to which Mr Salmond gave perfectly sensible answers. The Scottish team has a delegation in India and can inspect the accommodations for themselves which puts them in a better situation than many other teams. Tavish was rightly concerned that some of Scotland’s top athletes were unable to compete due to other commitments. The FM explained that the climate in Delhi has meant that the games have had to be moved to a time in the year different from the usual one. Glasgow, with no such climatic problems (it’s cool and damp all year round) will have no such issues and the Games should not clash with other major events.

See Elmer, if ask sensible non point scoring questions, like we pay you to, you get intelligent answers.

Jackie Bailey was put in her place over public enquiry into the C Diff outbreak; Alec was asked about prisoners’ votes by several MPSs. It was suggested to him, and he agreed that our elections should be run by the Scottish government; there was a question about European human rights in an independent Scotland, one on teacher numbers, and on public sector pay and bonuses.

Too few, I fear, from back benchers because Iain Gray takes up too much of the half hour wittering round and round like a crazy carousel, and the PO is too busy doing an imitation of Joyce Grenfell in her nursery teacher role "Don't do that George" to shut him up.

And so to lunch ..............

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.