Are you with us?
Just popped downstairs here at Holyrood to witness the mustering of Labour鈥檚 new front bench team. They were gathered in the Garden Lobby to endure trial by camera: the obligatory photocall.
Just one more, Wendy. This way, please, this way. The inevitable strained smiles. No such problem, of course, for those who have been subbed 鈥 including Hugh Henry who didn鈥檛 fancy a change of remit.
However, there could be a comparable strain on facial muscles tomorrow when Opposition leaders meet at Holyrood to discuss their alternative to Alex Salmond鈥檚 national conversation on the constitution.
The opposition parties have already met 鈥 once. Without Ms Alexander: she wasn鈥檛 in post then. So why the stress? What鈥檚 the problem? Labour and the Tories are irked at what they see as an attempt by the Liberal Democrats to bounce them into a particular strategy.
One close observer said it was time 鈥渢o put Nicol Stephen back in his box". Mr Stephen had suggested, fairly firmly, that he envisaged a Scottish Parliamentary committee taking forward the scrutiny of possible further powers for Holyrood. He had also offered ideas as to what those enhanced powers might entail.
Labour and the Tories say: hang on. This isn鈥檛 just a Holyrood gig. We need Westminster 鈥 and the voters 鈥 involved. Specifically, it would be down to MPs to legislate for any further powers. So, say Labour, they must be on board from the start.
Equally, though, Labour and the Tories both say that they鈥檙e ready, willing and eager to discuss tactics, privately, with Mr Stephen. With the emphasis on 鈥減rivate鈥 and 鈥渄iscuss鈥. They鈥檙e ready, they say, to give him space provided he responds.
Mr Stephen鈥檚 aides point out that his party鈥檚 federal conference is under way at Brighton right now. It would have been passing strange, they argue, had he not set out his views at that conference.
Yes, say the Tories and Labour, but you have to decide whether you鈥檙e joining opposition efforts to enhance the Union 鈥 or taking part in Mr Salmond鈥檚 initiative which envisages the prospect of independence, among other options.
To quote one close observer 鈥 a different one this time: 鈥淭he Libs need to decide if they鈥檙e in with us 鈥 or joining Alex鈥檚 Big Blether.鈥
Given all this, it鈥檚 not immediately clear what will emerge from tomorrow鈥檚 talks, if anything. To be fair, the opposition leaders face a tricky task.
They have to decide a mechanism for promulgating their project, they have to settle upon an agenda and they have to embark upon a course which has a reasonable prospect of progress.
Plus they don鈥檛 have the same perspective. No surprise there: they are distinct parties, after all. But the differences in emphasis are quite marked. The LibDems have a plan in place, drawn up by the Steel Commission, which would involve further fiscal powers for Holyrood.
The Tories say they鈥檙e open to that option, provided the Union is strengthened, not weakened. They remain to be convinced either way.
Labour is disinclined to speculate about specific powers at this stage, alert to the anxiety already present in their Westminster group about Holyrood鈥檚 status. More substantively, for Labour, this isn鈥檛 like the Convention. Then, they were in opposition.
Now they are in Government at Westminster: in the Parliament which would have to legislate if the Scotland Act is to be changed. They cannot write blank constitutional cheques.
And what of the First Minister and the SNP? They can afford to look on. Their line, broadly, will be that they know what they want: independence.
It is up to the opposition parties to sort out their precise preference for Scotland鈥檚 constitutional future. Then, perhaps, those options could be put before the voters in a multi-option referendum.
In essence, Alex Salmond鈥檚 line will be: get back to me when you know what you want.
I'm 
Comments
Nicol Stephen is clearly suffering from power withdrawal symptoms; I am sure he feel he was in power on merit rather than merely as a necessity for Jack McConnell to progress the Glasgow agenda.
Once he has tasted the oxygen of power he feels it should be delivered to his feet without delay; a spell in Brighton with Menzies should cure him of that delusion.
Wendy will try to establish her position within the Holyrood pack, although she should be reminded that in packs there is only ever one leader.
Annabel Goldie on the other hand strikes me as the only leader, excluding the First Minister of course who seems to know her place; reminds me of the Cleese/Barker/Corbett sketch from The Frost Report?
I only hope after the posturing is over they get down to some serious delivery for Scotland; we should hold anyone found delinquent in this cause to task.
Having watched Ms Alexander on TV last night and refusing to answer the questions put to her by the interviewer she does not seem to want to put forward any ideas about futher powers for the scottish parliament whatsoever. I actually like nicol stephens idea. However I dont think the other parties will agree. Mr stephen i think would get further by joining Alex salmond who would I think be more than willing to listen to what he has to say. So I would say to Mr Stephen have a blether with Alex and the rest of scotland.
If the Conservatives were in power at Westminster ,Labour would be shouting for more powers for Holyrood .
However because of there arrogance they assume that Labour will be in power for some time yet.Labour like the Conservatives cant get to grips with the development of Holyrood,and like the Unionists of old they will sell Scotland short for there own short term plans.
Do our politicians never learn from history ?
So the way I read this is that the opposition parties are going to hold a conversation amongst themselves whilst Alex Salmond will be talking to the rest of us.
Big Blether !! Ho ho ho...
Brian is quite right to state that once the three unionist parties know what they want ... they may have something to contribute to the debate. But 4 months ago those supporting the three of them voted for something quite different to what they are now proposing. Are they accurately representing those who backed them on May 3rd?
Considering the shift in the opinion polls now, they may be. However, it cannot reflect well on the Tories, Labour or the Lib Dems that they are changing their position so drastically so soon after an election!
Lib Dem idea of allowing us half our own oil revenue is very nice. A hint of justice about it, considering both Northern Ireland and Shetland have negotiated a cut with central government in the past. Although, I doubt the other two party leaders will back it somehow! How often does a thief come back and offer to divy-up your belongings in a "slightly more equitable fashion" (as he may now see it)?
Quick message from an interested viewer in Estonia with Scottish relatives. Go for independence, soon you will wonder, like your Scottish Parliament's existence, just how it ever could have been without it.
Instead of meeting behind closed doors why don't the unionist gang of 3 not join in and take part in the National conversation with some constructive ideas.
Given the comments made by Nichol Stephen over the last few weeks could it be that his party is thinking about jumping over the fence and entering some form of coalition (likely a loose one) with the SNP?
His comments today about the London Olympics and about the big conversation must have been music to Alex Salmonds ears.
After a few months I am not convinced that a minority government will serve the needs of Scotland over 4 years as well as a coalition government can.
Chris
Alex Salmond may have many attributes but stupid or naive do not figure amongst them; He will let them have enough rope to hang themselves.
What we will be delivered of are conspiracies within a conspiracy as all of the opposition party leaders debate collusion whilst simultaneously planning a coup for their own party; truly a meeting of illogicality.
Nicol Stephen suffering from power withdrawal symptoms is himself drawn to any route, or indeed any camera, which will return him to power. NB. Not returning the party to power but Nicol himself.
The Liberal requirement that it must be their way and no other, reiterated yet again by Menzies during the past two days is a turn off for voters, voters witnessed how a minority opinion was falsely moved to centre stage to permit Jack to operate his West Coast Agenda.
Wendy Alexander will be wishing to appear in control of her party whilst simultaneously displaying Ministerial airs; she will want to command centre stage and appear the most competent of the gathered leaders, as soon as the cameras are turned on Wendy will display both her strengths and weaknesses.
Annabel Goldie I feel is the most honest of the three opposition leaders, not much to boast of I hear you say having read the previous paragraphs, (I hope) however I think she is the most realistic in a leader鈥檚 assessment of her party鈥檚 prospects, except of course when standard party rhetoric is called for.
It's interesting to see Nichol Stephen swithering and trying to decide which side of the fence to come down on.
If he is truly thinking about adopting the SNP position on having a referendum in 2010 then i'm sure his contribution will be welcomed by Salmond, albeit from a non-coalition position.
It would effectively mean that the Lib Dems had denied themselves a chance to make government policy by refusing to adopt a position they ultimately ended up agreeing with.
The recent noises coming from the LibDems must mean that they are now seriously thinking of a loose coalition with the SNP. I think this due to the fact that the LibDems now realise that Labour and Tory comments about new powers for Holyrood are more to do with the tactics of opposition than any heart-felt constitutional need. Basically Labour and the Tories have been spinning the LibDems a lie to keep them in their Unionist box.
Once again, any comment thats brought to light made by a Unionist minister is, as always, negative.
Thats why I support the SNP. They are focussed on what we CAN DO and may I say accepting and embracing the opinions of all camps in the national conversation.
The opposition? Moaning as Usual.
For me Independence is not about better or worse. Its about scotland running scotland and not being told NO.
This is all rather sad - why can't these parties meet with the government to put forward what their own ideas are?
I suspect that they've all read through the Conversation paper and realised that they don't really have a suitable argument for keeping any of the powers mentioned in the control of Westminster (other than 'we can鈥檛 endanger the Union' without even really knowing / explaining why鈥).
If they were to go to the government individually we'd probably find that between them they all ultimately put forward the case of independence by having different ideas about what we should get control of and that is the trap they are trying to avoid.
The good news is that, with their uncertain positions and lack of substance behind why they are opposed to independence, the chances of the SNPs ultimate wish being granted are surely on the rise鈥
Seems to me that the three "Unionist" parties will be unable to agree on anything other than that they disagree with Eck.
Liberals, search your souls. Ming the Ineffectual says "It's fine to have a referendum about Europe, but not about Scottish Independence" ? In other words, we only support the concept of referendum when...er...when do we support it again ? I was quite hopeful when I heard Nicol Who make his spiel on more powers and, by Eck, did he even suggest at Fiscal Autonomy ? Has he finally managed to get enough of Tavish's daggers out of his back to consider a conversation with the Nats ?
Wendy is on a hiding to nothing on this one. How can she discuss "increased powers" for the Parly when she is simply the representative of a London party. Now, if Scotch Labour were at least a "federal" branch along the lines of the Liberals, she might have slightly more weight...otherwise, it's going to be "Yes, we agree with that...Can I just check with Gordon first though ?"
Either way, Nicol Who and Wendy had better be prepared for a serious good old fashioned Tory handbagging at the hands of Annabel. Do you honestly think that the Tories are going to sign up to anything other than retention of the Union in its current form and by the way can we turn the clock back a bit while we're at it ?
I comfortably predict that the net result will be Much Hot Air and a bland and meaningless statement that, well, actually, yes, we all believe in the maintenance of the Union in our own very special way and yah boo to the Nats.
The only answer is a referendum, multi-option or other. I'd prefer a straight Yes/No myself, along the lines of the '75 Euro Referendum. A straight Yes/No, each side with equal government funding and each party allowing their members and MSPs to go with conscience and not the whip.
Some historians might argue that it fundamentally crippled the Labour Party when half the cabinet went Yes and the other half No, but at least it gave a definitive answer and a way forward.
And if they Unionists are that confident of their position, call the bluff now. Support a referendum and Let The People choose, not have a compromise "deal" stitched up in a metaphorically smoke-filled room.
I absolutely love it! The Labour Party (pre election) and Tories (pre devolution) both stated they are strictly opposed to enhancing the power of the Parliament.
They (including the Liberals) criticise the National Conversation as a waste of time and money before unanimously agreeing that we actually DO need more powers for the Parliament and thereby enaging fully in said Conversation!
The opposition to the SNP are about as useful as a glass hammer!
Is there any room left in this separatist soapbox to point out that the 'opposition parties' represent a comfortable majority of Scottish voters?
Wee Eck can go and have his comfy fireside chat with the modest few who support him. If you don't mind, the rest of us decline to help him legitimise his minority position by taking part in a conversation designed to throw a smokescreen around the SNP's entire, destructive reason for existence.
Nobody is obliged, legally or morally, to prop up the madcap schemes of a minority administration, least of all in a parliament whose members were elected by PR and who therefore represent the actual spread of opinion of the electorate.
Those SNP supporters who rub their hands with glee at the thought of another step along the road to independence can delude themselves if they wish - we, the majority, have allowed Alex to have his day in Bute House and when we're tired of it, we will remove him.
It really is as simple as that.
Just to clarify a small point, because although Mr Taylor is fairly clear some of the postings are misleading.
The Lib Dems are saying exactly the same as they've been saying for years - indeed since they commissioned Lord Steel to write his report of moving federalism.
They still want what they called for during their election campaign - a 2nd constitutional convention to look at what powers would be most appropriate to keep on a UK level and which areas are best served by further devolution.
Their approach is about the best form of government for Scotland not Labour鈥檚 power-crazed centralism or a bitter nationalism based on Scottish-ness not being understood by the rest of the UK and responding with hysteria to the fact.
# 16 - You cannot ignore the national conversation. The other three parties are trying to - by having one of their own! That is a response, however, and not ignoring the event and leaving Alex talking to himself (as you clearly wish he was).
The SNP's reason for existance is not "destructive", as you well know. Perhaps you are thinking of the long-term effect unionist rule has had on Scotland instead? Successive Tory and New-Tory governments have denuded the country of value, jobs and even confidence.
The true minority position is yours. Even the Tories are talking about more powers and fiscal clout, and the Lib Dems have brought out federalism again. Labour is talking the talk - with no intention of following through, it must be admitted. What the three parties argued were steps down the road to (what you call) "separatism" four months ago - are their avowed policy now.
Incidentally, why is wanting to join the global community as a sovereign state called "seperatism"? "Separatism" is actually a good way of expressing the Unionist position: as they want Scotland (along with the rest of the "celtic fringe") to remain isolated from the outside world, under the supervision of London. It is a strange world view indeed that labels aspirations of independence "seperatist", and considers the enforced segregated and disempowered Scotland the norm!
#16 - it is clearly you that is in the minority. Even the Tories and Lib Dems are seriously talking about addition jurisdictions and tax raising powers! Labour is talking the talk, but with little intention to walk the walk.
Also, the three unionist parties are responding to Alex's big blether by having their own. It is not "leaving him talking to himself" as you put it. It is taking part indirectly and the Scottish people are wondering why they are being so childish and have to go and play by themselves instead of taking part properly and putting their argument across. If you think the gang of three should tear down the administration: wait for the results electorally afterwards. Your quite right of course there is no moral obligation - but it has never happened before in Scottish politics. The voters would feel like they are being overruled.
If you want a greater range of opinions on this site - contribute more often when you can. Nice to have variety!
It is a shame a coalition could not have been formed between the SNP and the Liberal party right from the start. If the SNP had dropped the referendum for just this parliament, had a majority government (with the Liberals) they could have proved they can govern. However now they will struggle to get anything really worth while though. The labour people will no doubt block anything on mass along with the nice conservatives (who seem to block most things). It only takes those two groups and anything put forward will be in real bother. And then in 4 (or so) years who gets the blame for getting nothing done. The Government, no one else, just the Government (i.e. the SNP).
As for this place being a 'separatist soapbox' and for Mr Townsend being in the minority: 18 (19 now) posts don鈥檛 make any sort of consensus one way or the other.
PMK looking at this board the majority of the posts don't appear to show any preference one way or the other. The fact you contribute only shows that you are vocal where others are not.
(Just for the record I don鈥檛 know where I stand on Independence and am yet to find good enough reasons for or against. Just do me a favour and leave the oil out of it. I tired of the debate and Oil and Gas from the North Sea is close to being all gone anyway, so we can鈥檛 base a future economy on that.)