´óÏó´«Ã½

From the outset, Wendy Alexander has had a fairly persistent kicking in this blog. With reason.

It is right, therefore, to record that she performed well today at the weekly session of questions to the first minister.

Did she utterly discomfit the FM? Did she leave him a pitiful wreck, pleading for mercy? Scarcely. He was as bold and confident as ever.

However, she stuck to a single topic - cutting class sizes - and pursued it with restrained vigour.

Mr Salmond's government wants to see a maximum of 18 pupils in early years classes. What will that cost? When will it happen?

Labour MSPs jeered loudly at answers which they felt were somewhat opaque. Nationalists applauded the FM's sundry statements of general principles.

Old trick

As an aside, did I detect the deployment of an old debating trick by Ms Alexander?

Invited to speak, she rose slowly and portentously. Having spoken, she resumed her seat with seeming reluctance, glaring at her opponent all the while.

A wheeze designed, as I recall, to attract attention and give the impression that one's remarks carry particular weight by contrast with those flibbertigibbets who jump to their feet, desperate to be heard.

Anyway, she was on better form today - and drew companionable noises from her back benches as a consequence.

As to the others, Nicol Stephen pursued Mr Salmond with dexterity over the topic of how to pay for the planned new Forth crossing.

Annabel Goldie sounded consensual over action against drugs (see earlier blog) - and received consensual words in response.

'National outrage'

Towards the end of FMQs, Mr Salmond .

He took the chance to denounce what he saw as the "national outrage" that oil-producing Scotland is hit by the cost of fuel - without reaping the benefits of enhanced revenues.

I think I heard a Labour voice mutter: "Here we go again!" Indeed. I suspect Mr Salmond will take every opportunity to raise this point.

I suspect further that Scotland might be inclined to give him, at the very least, a hearing.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Big numbers. In Scotland, 421 deaths caused by drugs in 2006. Between 40,000 and 60,000 children's lives affected by parental addiction. An estimated social cost of £2.5bn.

By contrast, a small number. "Drug users come in units of one."

That particular phrase jumped out at me as I listened to Communities Minister Fergus Ewing explaining his revised strategy on drugs to MSPs.

The new emphasis is upon recovery, rather than containment. This switch was partly prompted by the Tories in negotiations over the Scottish Government's budget.

But Mr Ewing is by no means a reluctant convert. Drugs ruined lives, he said. They were anything but glamorous. The aim should be to encourage abstinence. To get folk off drugs.

There has been, I feel, a degree of misunderstanding about the role of methadone.

The emphasis on recovery does not preclude methadone. But the aim will be to get people off methadone too, not merely to stabilise them with its use.

Which brings us back to that key phrase: "Drug users come in units of one."

To be clear, the minister is in no way disparaging collective, social assistance. To the contrary. He simply means that different, focused help will be required for each individual. What works for one may not work for another.

Politicians have frequently struggled to cope with the issue of drugs. Either they sound glib or they sound apocalyptic. Neither matches the mood in our troubled communities which more resembles taut despair.

To be fair, Mr Ewing and the others who spoke today know that. There was a consensual approach. They know that words which sound sensible in the Holyrood chamber can sound like platitudinous drivel around our towns and cities.

Drugs, crime, prostitution, family breakdown, younger and younger users. The sheer scale can drown out mere words, evoking a sense of hopelessness.

Just say no? Just ask why. Why an individual, not an amorphous "user" but an individual, turns to drugs. What might assist that individual to rebuild a life?
Is the core problem education? Or employability? Or family stress? Or social circumstances? Ask why - and try to help.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Politics, as I have repeatedly noted, is a tricky business. Decisions are seldom plain and never simple.

Just look at the complex web of inter-connected issues confronting politicians in Britain at the moment .

After talks with oil industry leaders in the North-east of Scotland, the prime minister suggests North Sea oil output will be increased in an effort, over the medium term, to reduce the pressure on prices at the pump.

But how does that square with the conservation of scarce resources? How will he answer pointed comments from the SNP about the cash value of the North Sea?

The Chancellor and the PM are under pressure to abandon a planned hike in petrol and diesel tax. They say they are listening - but also keen to adhere to the government's green strategy.

Our soil

Quite. Should the UK Government relent and ease the strain on business? Or should we, collectively, bear the burden of higher prices in order to force us to change our behaviour in ways that help the environment?

Then another pressure point. The UK Government is hinting, again, that nuclear energy may be required to play a greater role in the provision of electricity.

The Scottish Government says: not on our soil.

I say again, politics is difficult. Views welcome.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Encouraged by the substantial response to my previous Tory posting and intrigued by sundry comments in the papers today, herewith a few more thoughts anent the .

Connections everywhere. In particular, I seem to recall the news conference which Donald Dewar held in Glasgow in the immediate aftermath of Labour's General Election defeat in 1992.

It is my recollection that Mr Dewar suggested then, albeit en passant, that the victorious Tories under John Major had "no mandate" to govern Scotland, given the relative paucity of their representation in Scotland.

(The Tories then had 11 MPs north of the border, a level they would now regard as a triumph.)

It occurred to me then and occurs to me now that the mandate argument cannot be deployed, credibly and consistently, by a party which adheres to the Union.

If you support the United Kingdom, then you accept the outcome which emerges from a UK election.

You accept that the writ of the elected UK Government extends across the whole of the territory, within the rules upon which the election was fought.

Logically correct

Admittedly, Mr Dewar was speaking in different, pre-devolution circumstances. It was an instinctive response to defeat. However, that did not make it logically correct.

In practice, Labour did not pursue that particular argument, preferring to focus upon gaining a UK victory in order to implement Scottish political reform.

In essence, David Cameron is revisiting that issue - but with a difference. He is anticipating that he gains UK power in 2010 - before the next Holyrood elections.

That would mean that he enters Downing Street while Alex Salmond remains first minister.

Mr Cameron is tendering "respect" to the devolved mandate presently held by the SNP. In return, he is asking Mr Salmond to respect the UK reserved mandate which is held by the prime minister.

Sounds fair, on the face of it. The SNP has been prepared, strategically, to work within the current set-up. Mr Cameron is asking for that tolerance to be extended to him.

Restricted remit

But think on a little. By legal definition, the Scottish devolved government has no remit across the UK, across England. By convention, the UK Government agrees to restrict its remit in Scotland to reserved matters - while, legally, retaining full power.

In practice, Mr Cameron is envisaging a situation where he seeks to govern the UK without a majority of MPs from one of the constituent nations of the UK, Scotland.

He is offering, in effect, to respect the convention which lies at the heart of the devolved settlement. To take no steps at Westminster, including on finance, which might countermand that devolved mandate.

It is a substantive offer.

In return, however, he is asking Alex Salmond to raise no objections to the Conservatives, with a Scottish minority, exercising reserved power in Scotland.

Again, that is an intriguing, thought-provoking offer, given that, under the post-devolution rules, the UK remit runs in Scotland, whatever the First Minister of the day says.

However, unlike Donald Dewar in 1992, Alex Salmond does not believe that the UK should have any remit in Scotland. That may, I feel, influence Mr Salmond's response, should the matter arise.

At the very least, he might well be tempted to raise more of a fuss about Conservative rule in Scotland, if only to advance his own cause.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I doubt they'll be served with "hamely fare" at the Tory conference dinner in Ayr this evening.

But David Cameron evinced a considerable sympathy for "honest poverty".

Late this afternoon, he was blethering about Burns with youngsters in auld Ayr who are keen to learn more about their local bard. Haggis was much mentioned.

But earlier , yet passionate, take on Scotland's current condition.

Choosing from the Burnsian canon, the Tory leader is more in tune with the Unionist sentiments of "Does haughty Gaul invasion threat?" than the Nationalist onslaught on the parcel o' rogues.

His speech was an emphatic defence of the Union - together with an assertion that he'd rumbled Alex Salmond.

Mr Salmond, he suggested, would rather like a Tory Government in the UK - provided it neglected and undermined Scotland, prompting an enhanced desire for independence.

By contrast, Mr Cameron said that, whatever happens in the years ahead he'd govern the UK, including Scotland, with "respect." Intriguing word.

But, you know, they're really chipper here in Ayr. I guess that's what a does for you.

They believe, they really believe, that Cameron, D. is heading for Downing Street.

How would he handle Scotland if and when he gets there? Change there would be.

Perhaps more powers for Holyrood through the Calman Commission.
(I say again: the Tories are in that Commission because they expect to have to deal with devolution post-2010. They expect to be in power.)

Probably English votes on English issues in the Commons - if that can be sorted.

And a review of the Barnett Formula. Or, more accurately, of the entire basis for allocation of public spending across the UK. In short, a needs review.

To be clear, Mr Cameron has said that before. To be clear, Barnett is not currently helping Scotland: it is Barnett which means that the percentage increase devoted to Scotland is less than in England.

Further, Mr Cameron - and - insist that they will do nothing which harms Scotland and, thus, jeopardises the Union.

But this is becoming intriguing. The Calman Commission introduces a new spending system for Scotland? Outcome? Almost certainly a UK needs-review, perhaps driven by the Treasury under the present Labour Government.

Alternatively, David Cameron comes to power. Result? A UK needs-review, perhaps driven by the Treasury under a Conservative Government.

Time to get out the "hodden grey"? Cash cuts in Scotland? Perhaps - but there is a considerable argument to be had. Both Labour and the Tories want to placate growing English disquiet over Scotland's proclaimed spending "advantage".

But neither wants to give Alex Salmond any more gift-wrapped opportunities to attract support. That would be ganging rather more agley than they intend.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Holyrood, collectively, was on fine form today.

The choice of issues with which to berate the first minister could scarcely have been bettered. Topical, serious and detailed.

Without question, it is a key function of parliament that the FM is confronted regularly with subjects which interest the public - or are in the public interest.

Today Alex Salmond was questioned, in order, about his proposed Scottish Futures Trust, complaints from a sheriff about sentencing policy and the disclosure that patient records have been left lying around in a closed Dundee hospital.

Snag for the opposition leaders is that, on the day, Alex Salmond did not appear even faintly disquieted by their disparate assault.

Firstly, Wendy Alexander. She opted for the SFT which has already faced criticism from business for being vague and imprecise and from unions for persisting with PFI in another guise.

It was the right topic. She pursued it in a controlled fashion, mostly eschewing rhetoric. However, for me, her attack was too disparate.

Hideous cost

Three successive questions, three completely different aspects of the controversy. Might have been better, on balance, to pick just one element and pursue the FM over that.

In any event, Mr Salmond was able to despatch her three-pronged attack by sticking broadly to a single theme: the hideous cost to the public purse of old-style PFI and the consequent need to act.

Annabel Goldie opened with a couple of good gags - then metaphorically rolled up her sleeves and got going on one of her favourite topics: the early release of prisoners.

I thought, to be frank, that, by contrast with Ms Alexander, her rhetoric was a little over-cooked.

She accused the FM, effectively, of being on the side of sin and anti-virtue.

Even confronted with such provocation, Mr Salmond maintained a calm sough.

Who knows, he might need the Tories again, just as he did over his government's budget.

So he pointed out gently, almost sorrowfully, that it was the Tories who had introduced automatic early release - and that his administration was implementing plans to replace the present set-up.

Nicol Stephen pounced on patients' records. Quite right too.

On the face of it, there seems to have been, at the very least, unacceptable laxity with regard to Strathmartine Hospital.

Was he right, however, to demand the resignation of Public Health Minister Shona Robison - whose constituency is near the hospital?

Her defence is two fold: that the records were neglected, not by her, but by NHS Tayside; and that she, twice, sought and was apparently given assurances that the issue was being tackled.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I suspect Miss Robertson, my erstwhile primary teacher, will have gone to her reward.

However, if she is still extant, respect and gratitude. She herded a huge class at Blackness Primary in Dundee with dignity, discipline and dedication.

(For the avoidance of doubt, that's the real Blackie. In Blackness Road. Not the establishment now masquerading as the Blackie.

Which is, in fact, Hawkhill Primary aka the Hackie. And if you understand one word of that, you are definitely, like me, a Dundonian.)

But back to Miss R. I had other primary teachers, of course. There was the gallant soul in P2 who granted me occasional weekend and holiday custody of the class frog, thus inculcating a deeply-held respect for our nation's pond life.

Marble count

Somehow, though, Miss R stands out. It was not simply that she tolerated no nonsense in her class.

She would not have recognised such a recalcitrant creature had it dared to poke its foul nose through the substantial timber door of her class.

By now, of course, you are probably thinking that I should conduct a quick count of my marbles, in case a few have gone astray.

You are probably wondering whether the strains of the football season - stolen trophies, dodgy refs et al - have done their worst.

There is, however, substance. : with explicit reference to the Scottish Government's aim of holding numbers in P1 to P3 at 18 or fewer.

(Not "less", note. Miss R was strong on grammar.)

I say "aim" because it is down to councils under the system of single outcome agreements to deliver on this target. They have to do this alongside other competing demands, within a fixed budget.

Ring fencing no more.

However, for today, let us consider the academic evidence before the committee. It is mixed.

Shuffling comrades

Such surveys as have been conducted emanate from the US or England. There has been no relevant research in Scotland - although, apparently, such study is under consideration.

The research indicates that there is indeed a potential link between class sizes and attainment - but that it can be difficult to sift such conclusions from other factors.

In other words, do pupils thrive because a few of their comrades are shuffled off to form another class, offering more attention to the remainder?

Or do they do better because of teaching standards, prior effort, parental support and other factors?

Further, some argue that class size reductions are only credible in the very earliest years. To be fair, that fits precisely with the SNP Government's aim.

But some suggest, instead of the one size fits all approach, it might be better to support stragglers with personalised support teaching, backing up the general work done in the wider class.

So there are two issues before you today, dear readers. Do smaller class sizes achieve the claimed objectives? Will the present programme/budget in Scotland achieve that aim of reducing class sizes?

Do not attempt to write on both sides of the exam paper at once.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

If it works, it'll be fine and dandy. But will it work?

Ministers are confident but the accompanying documentation still appears a mite tentative.

I'm talking about the (SFT) which is designed to supplement the Public Private Partnership (PPP) which itself redeveloped the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and which has now extended into the Non-profit Distributing mechanism (NPD.)

So the acronym market appears to be thriving. How about the market for generating investment in Scotland's schools and hospitals?

Ministers say the Trust will "ramp up its activities over time". Again, notably cautious. But that's perhaps understandable when we're talking about £40bn investment over 10 years.

It'll start this summer, co-ordinating capital projects across Scotland. Broadly, at first, it'll be like a posh quango, advising on sundry schemes in councils, health boards and the like.

But, from 2009, it'll move from the public sector to develop a private finance and investment arm.

Private finance

Again, ministers say it'll work in a range of ways: developing central financial expertise; grouping together capital projects to drive down the cost of borrowing; and encouraging councils to work together to offer joint bonds to the market, attracting private finance.

To be frank once more, today's document relies more upon conceptualisation than detail. Indeed, we are told that "the details of how investment will be raised from the private sector has not been explored in any detail at this stage."

That is listed as an early task for the trust itself.

Sceptics say today's document is "fluff" and a "cheap make-over" for PPP. They're also demanding early parliamentary scrutiny. (John Swinney is appearing before the finance committee next Tuesday.)

Questions? If NPD is already driving down costs by strictly capping profit through removing the equity element of PFI, why do we need a futures trust?

Because, say ministers, it adds the other elements: expertise, bonds and a search for other investment vehicles.

Attractive method

If the SFT was roundly criticised by many who responded to the consultation (and it was), how can we have confidence in it? Because, say ministers, they have listened to the consultation (which also included several positive responses) and acted.

Why would councils act together to offer bonds for a project which they might not control directly? Because, say ministers, this will be an attractive funding method and will benefit the wider community.

Why doesn't the Scottish Government borrow money itself or issue its own bonds? Because it doesn't have that power under the Scotland Act.

In itself, an issue, perhaps, for another day.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Fair deal of blatt chat this morning re the into the hideous guddle that was last May's Holyrood elections.

Much of the coverage focuses upon the issue of whether all of our elected tribunes should, strictly, be in the Scottish Parliament; whether their wins were legitimate.

I understand this focus. It was spotlighted in the report - and it must be furiously frustrating for the losers.

However, I find myself more interested in the dog that didn't bark. The MPs on the committee disdain even to argue the case for retaining legislative control of Holyrood elections at Westminster.

They say, simply, that there is no need to transfer control to Holyrood. They neglect the finding in the Gould Report that such a transfer was merited, preferring to spotlight Ron Gould's later concession that it was not utterly essential.

So MPs agree. Power over Holyrood elections should remain with . . . MPs.

Status quo

They reach that conclusion despite excoriating the Scotland Office, which handled the ballot on behalf of the UK Government.

Now, there may well be a case to be made for the status quo. There may be - but we do not learn of it from the Scottish Select Committee.

They skip this task in a report which, otherwise, is searching and thorough.

Re the questionable seats. As I pointed out on the night of the election, there are several seats where the majority was lower than the number of rejected ballot papers.

By simple definition, these seats might have gone another way if all or even most of the rejected papers had featured a vote for the loser.

But, after a degree of disquiet, all the parties accepted the results. They could do no other.

After all, they were collectively and severally involved in the discussions which generated the voting arrangements.

Poorly placed

Discussions which, according to Ron Gould, concentrated on partisan interest and ignored the voters.

Labour is particularly poorly placed to complain. Their ministers were in overall charge at the Scotland Office in the UK Government. Their ministers were in the majority in the then Scottish Executive which offered advice to Whitehall.

I say again: look to the future instead. In that regard, the select report makes several useful recommendations including the prospect of appointing a chief returning officer to take administrative charge of Holyrood elections.

However, they should have been prepared to defend their case that legislative control should stay at Westminster. Scotland has had a sufficiency of silent presumption when it comes to the voting system.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Quite frequently, politics can appear remote, separated from the issues that concern or intrigue the public.

Today, at Holyrood, matters were notably different. .

Firstly, political leaders paid tribute to Tommy Burns, the Celtic legend who has died at the age of 51. Quite right too. He made a great contribution to football and to Scotland.

Then they turned to the UEFA Cup in Manchester - or, more precisely, the shocking scenes of violence involving a tiny minority of Rangers fans in clashes with the police.

This is a notably sensitive topic. A word out of order can provoke resentment.
Credit where it is due. The first minister and the Labour leader handled their exchanges deftly and with dignity.

It is right, in my view, that Scotland's parliament contrived to comment on an issue that is dominant in Scottish discourse today. However, they had to avoid sounding like gratuitous onlookers.

No justification

They did. Wendy Alexander focused, properly, on the inquiry which has been launched by Manchester City Council. Would the Scottish Government participate? Should the remit be widened? Should the report be published?

Alex Salmond, who was at the game and travelled back to Edinburgh overnight, assented to all these propositions. But he went further.

He listed potential issues to be examined: the organisation on the ground, the technical breakdown, the late change in the message to Rangers fans as to whether they were welcome in Manchester without tickets.

He indicated he wants to co-operate with the Home Office to ensure that football banning orders in England can be extended to Scotland.

He stressed, repeatedly, that the "vast majority" of fans had created a "carnival atmosphere" in Manchester.

Then the verdict. Mr Salmond said, bluntly and simply, that there could be no excuse for the scenes of violence. No justification whatsoever.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Finally, a glimpse of the clunking fist.

The cheers swamped the jeers as Gordon Brown tackled a series of challenges from David Cameron, including - once more - the referendum row.

Mr Cameron's constructed contention in the Commons was that the PM won't play straight.

He cited the condition of the housing market, the new tax breaks which he said were aimed at the Nantwich by-election - and the Labour disarray over Wendy Alexander's referendum initiative.

Instead of wilting, the PM appeared, visibly, to rally. Admittedly, he did so by, for example, sidestepping the referendum question and, instead, asserting support for the Union.

A tactic - but, on the day, effective.

Mr Cameron responded deftly by suggesting Mr Brown and Ms Alexander were "the two most unpopular politicians on the planet" and, consequently, scarcely to be trusted with defening the Union.

But again, on the day, it was the PM who thrived.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Finally, a glimpse of the clunking fist.

The cheers swamped the jeers as Gordon Brown tackled a series of challenges from David Cameron, including - once more - the referendum row.

Mr Cameron's constructed contention in the Commons was that the PM won't play straight.

He cited the condition of the housing market, the new tax breaks which he said were aimed at the Nantwich by-election - and the Labour disarray over Wendy Alexander's referendum initiative.

Instead of wilting, the PM appeared, visibly, to rally. Admittedly, he did so by, for example, sidestepping the referendum question and, instead, asserting support for the Union.

A tactic - but, on the day, effective.

Mr Cameron responded deftly by suggesting Mr Brown and Ms Alexander were "the two most unpopular politicians on the planet" and, consequently, scarcely to be trusted with defening the Union.

But again, on the day, it was the PM who thrived.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Politicians love to make things "absolutely clear". Their position, however opaque, is always "absolutely clear".

They are never confused. Is that absolutely clear?

Scottish Labour's position on an independence referendum scarcely fits that aim. Originally, it was what Sir Humphrey would call "courageous". Now it is decidedly gelatinous.

Labour MSPs met again at Holyrood to survey the collateral damage. I spoke privately to a fair number of them. They do not sound "absolutely clear" on where they are heading.

Labour group convener Duncan McNeil reiterated support for the principle of a referendum. He added the rider, however, that Labour would not abandon its right to scrutinise the detail of the bill.

As we pursued him down the glass corridor at Holyrood, I asked him whether that included the wording of the referendum. It does indeed.

Now, to be fair, Wendy Alexander has repeatedly said that there could be no blank cheque for the SNP over their bill. But the mood has changed.

Ringing cheers

A week ago, after the Holyrood group, the bold talk was that they wouldn't thwart the right of the Scottish people to determine their future.

Today, the talk is of the caveats, the wording, the timetable, the whys and wherefores. It's a question of tone.

So where are we? Some Labour MSPs were apprehensive about the initiative from the start. But most seemed willing to give it a run - when it felt like a tactic designed to flush out the SNP.

In other words, they liked the gutsy feel of "bring it on". They liked the notion of confronting Alex Salmond.

They liked the wheeze of demanding an early referendum - fully anticipating the first minister would decline. They thought that would "call his bluff".

As that strategy evaporated in the chaos and counter-briefing of the past few days, the mood apparently changed somewhat.

As one Labour MSP told me: "I didn't come into politics to do the SNP's bidding."

To be "absolutely clear", though, Labour MSPs are not saying they will vote down the SNP referendum Bill in 2010.

They are still saying, however, that that timetable is too tight with Holyrood elections due in 2011. They are saying that, ideally, the issue should have been settled by the 2010 UK general election.

On Wednesday in Holyrood, the first minister will set out the aims and objectives of his Scottish Government for the next 12 months. He will stress a referendum on independence will NOT form part of that programme but will follow in 2010.

Don't expect the cheers to ring out from the Labour benches at that point.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Oh dearie, dearie, me.

There was the kernel, the substance of . It has, to say the least, gone somewhat agley.

Firstly, to thrive, the Scottish Labour Party needs to demonstrate a degree of autonomy. It needs, on occasion, to stand out against Westminster, including its party colleagues.

That is because Alex Salmond's single biggest pitch is that he stands for Scotland, on every occasion, on every issue, without qualification.

That has a powerful appeal for voters in . . . guess where. Successive Scottish Labour and Tory leaders have sometimes struggled to combat that.

They have donned kilts, they have quoted Burns. But they have also glanced nervously over their shoulders to see what London was thinking and altered their behaviour accordingly.

Jack McConnell knows that, for the good of his soul, he should have picked a few open fights with London.

Corageous defiance

He should, for example, have protested long, loudly and in public when attendance allowance was withdrawn by Whitehall in response to the introduction, by Holyrood, of free personal care for the elderly.

He calculated there would be other fights, other issues. He calculated that, in itself, the introduction of free care represented a courageous act of defiance.

Wendy Alexander came to office as leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament determined to up the ante on autonomy. She wanted that to include Scottish party HQ in Glasgow.

Grand plans have since been somewhat diluted.

But Ms Alexander remained - and remains - keen to assert her political independence. Snag is she chose the issue of Scotland's independence as the battleground.

It is not, in itself, a problem that the issue of the constitution is reserved to Westminster. Arguably, a serious fight will only occur over a reserved or mixed issue - because it is now accepted in practice that Holyrood has control of fully devolved matters.

Patronising tosh

It is not, in itself, a problem that Ms Alexander sought to pursue a path that might be uncomfortable for MPs, including the PM.

Those who say, privately to the newspapers, that Ms Alexander lacks Westminster know-how are spouting patronising tosh. Are we back to seeing Holyrood as "a wee pretendy Parliament"?

The problem was the precise topic - and the timing. The future of the United Kingdom is, I would argue, a matter of passing interest for the prime minister of that United Kingdom.

Yes, Ms Alexander may have become frustrated by what she saw as indecision on the part of Gordon Brown when, demonstrably, he had been considering the topic, partly at her pressing.

But she was wrong, tactically and politically, to act without explicit sanction from the PM.

She should have acknowledged he was in trouble for other reasons, he was certain to face challenges on this at a UK level and that, further, he remains vulnerable on the subject of testing popular opinion because of his refusal to sanction a plebiscite on the EU Lisbon treaty.

It is at least arguable that, given proper planning, the challenge of holding an early referendum might have put the SNP on the back foot as Ms Alexander wished.

Under-harried

What's that, Mr Salmond? You want a referendum, just not now? Why? Scared you'll lose?

There are answers to these questions - not least pages eight and 15 of the SNP manifesto. But they are, potentially, good questions nonetheless.

Ms Alexander is adamant that, as in 1996 when Tony Blair announced a pre-legislative referendum on devolution, her strategy will ultimately be proved right.

Maybe - except that was a referendum announced by a UK Labour leader, not sprung upon one.

Wendy Alexander must hope - does hope - that once the fuss dies down the focus will return to harrying Mr Salmond. To repeat, right now he looks under-harried.

Finally, where are we? The campaign for an early referendum is over before it began. Alex Salmond says no. So do the Tories and LibDems.

Ms Alexander now accepts in practice her focus shifts to the Calman Commission review of devolution.

And 2010? A Scottish Government sanctioned referendum? Labour now say they will have to study the terms although, to be fair, Ms Alexander never offered a blank cheque, whatever comments were made by others.

If she remains leader by then, however, it seems to me it would be very difficult for the party group in Holyrood to turn down the chance of testing popular views on independence.

If he remains prime minister by then, would Gordon Brown be any more persuaded?

PS: All the best to Rangers on Wednesday. Here's hoping they bring back the UEFA Cup for themselves and for Scotland.

PPS: Bet they're wishing they could take Mike McCurry with them as referee, after his supporting role at Ibrox on Saturday.

Here's an idea. Why doesn't football copy the rugby practice of using TV monitoring - by an unnamed official - to assist the ref when he's unsure or unwilling to take a decision?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

So where are we now after the ?

A little clearer about this remarkable controversy - and a step closer to a referendum on Scotland's future.

For a moment, . I know it's fundamental to parties' electoral prospects. But indulge me and set it aside for now.

It would appear Wendy Alexander is quite determined to resist the evident displeasure of the prime minister and to sanction a referendum if and when one is advanced by Alex Salmond.

But, to be clear, not any referendum. Yes, she has said that she will not seek to block an opportunity to allow the people of Scotland to choose.

Equally, though, she has said that she won't sign a "blank cheque". So it's hands up to the principle of a referendum - but not to the detailed wording or conduct of the plebiscite.

Final break

Here is the wording favoured by the SNP, as set out in their .

People in Scotland would be asked to accept or reject the following statement: "I agree that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state."

We might call that the mandate option. Ms Alexander dislikes it. I suspect she fears supporters of independence might seek to imply the referendum was only the start of a process, not its conclusion. Not a final break.

Ms Alexander, I imagine, would prefer a starker choice, more apocalyptic language. She would favour talk of ending the Union or separating from the UK.

The sort of language, in short, which tends to depress support for independence in certain polls.

For myself, I think it likely that the wording matters less than the conduct of the campaign.

I think the people of Scotland would swiftly grasp the core nature of the choice - independence or the Union - whatever the wording.

Bad election

They would be confronted with emotive and pragmatic arguments on either side. They would, in short, know what they were doing.

If that problem could be overcome, then it would appear we are more likely than not to be facing a consultative referendum, called by Holyrood, during the present session which runs until 2011.

Wendy Alexander wants one asap in order, she argues, to forestall the SNP from creating further conflict with Westminster in the by-going.

She also fears being seen to oppose the principle of Scottish self-determination. She fears the issue dominating the 2011 elections if she thwarts that principle.

She fears, privately, that Labour could do badly in a 2010 UK General Election, lending further succour to the SNP.

Mr Salmond is adamant he will adhere to his stated timetable of calling a referendum in 2010. That timing seems decidedly more probable.

Back to the sound and fury. For now, this completely obscures any prospect of Labour turning this issue into a cogent assault upon the SNP.

Less than harried

The manner of executing this plan, if such a description can be used, has been utterly abominable.

It has prompted an internal Labour row. It has landed the prime minister with .

It has brought huge smiles to the faces of Nationalist MSPs.

And it has provoked scorn from the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats which, incidentally, will cause early difficulties in the .

I imagine, however, they will overcome this.

Labour can only hope the sound and fury dies down - leaving the core challenge to the SNP still extant.

Ms Alexander is promising to "harry" the first minister. For now, he looks decidedly less than harried.

Finally, what of those internal Labour relations. This is seminal stuff. Despite the assurances, this has been a significant rift between Ms Alexander and Mr Brown.

Today in the Commons, Helen Goodman, the deputy leader of the house, read out a letter from the PM to David Cameron.

Eye to impact

This missive insisted Mr Brown and Ms Alexander were united in their approach. As Tory MPs understandably guffawed, Ms Goodman could barely stifle her own giggles.

One or two of the bolder Labour MSPs are voicing satisfaction at the nature of the conflict. One told me: "We should have picked more fights with Westminster when we were in power."

Another said: "Wendy really means it when she presses for Scottish party autonomy. That's what they don't like."

Viewed from Westminster, the picture appears understandably rather different. Some MPs sympathise with the strategy. But others are angry the prime minister has been placed in trouble.

One called Wendy Alexander a "liability". Another, with an eye to impact rather than taste and discretion, called her a "political suicide bomber".

So why doesn't Gordon Brown give ground and endorse Ms Alexander's approach?

Firstly, while he has been pondering the question, he doesn't entirely buy the fundamental premise. Secondly, think of the follow-up questions which David Cameron could pose.

If you favour a Scottish referendum, Mr Brown, why wait? Why not call one yourself, using your Westminster majority?

Further, if you favour a referendum on Scottish independence, which you oppose, why not call one on the Lisbon EU Treaty, which you endorse?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Here's a wee thought to whet your appetites while we wait for first minister's questions, here at Holyrood.

I'm told there are still big differences among the parties about how to implement the new scheme for MSPs' office allowances.

So big that the prospect now looms that the issue might have to be argued out in the chamber instead of being settled by negotiated agreement.

You'll remember that Sir Alan Langlands chaired a review of allowances.

His team , designed to save money and placate the public.

The big issue dividing the parties is whether to end the present parity of treatment for constituency and regional list MSPs.

Breach fairness

Sir Alan concluded there should be a maximum of £62,000 paid to a constituency member's staff team - with list members restricted to £45,000.

Those supporting this position argue that constituency members have a far bigger case load. Those against say it would create two castes of MSP and breach basic fairness.

Very broadly, the Tories and the SNP favour parity. Labour backs the Langlands position. The Liberal Democrats are seeking a compromise.

The parties have perhaps a fortnight or three weeks in which to sort this. Otherwise, we're back to what happened in 1999 when MSPs were left arguing about their own cash on the floor of the chamber.

I'm told all sides want a deal. One participant said the talks have been serious - but sensible with no "bawling or shouting". Save that for FMQs, eh?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

So where's your referendum now? At Prime Minister's Questions, Gordon Brown offered an entirely different interpretation of the scenario offered by Wendy Alexander.

According to Mr Brown, Ms Alexander had not demanded an immediate referendum on Scottish independence.

"That", he opined in response to David Cameron, "is not what she said."

Rather she intended to review matters after - and only after - the cross-party Calman Commission has produced its ideas for the revamp of devolved powers.

So let me get this straight. When Ms Alexander deployed an unaccustomed demotic touch by declaring "bring it on", she was actually saying that this was an issue which should await the outcome of an extensive and lengthy review.

Alternatively, one might suggest that he has apparently lost patience with Ms Alexander.

Far from endorsing her standpoint, he went out of his way to dilute it.

Substantial obstacles

This lends credence to the notion - floated on this blog yesterday - that there was both "anger and disappointment" in Westminster Labour circles over the manner and nature of Ms Alexander's initiative.

The Tory leader said, further, that Mr Brown had "lost control of the Scottish Labour Party".

Strictly, of course, this was a matter for the elected leader of the party at Holyrood. That led Team Alexander to insist that Mr Brown was "relaxed" about developments.

He did not look or sound hugely relaxed to me.

There's a further development on this story. It appears that there may be substantial obstacles in the path of Wendy Alexander's back-up plan - to table her own bill.

Firstly, she would require the support of at least one other party to table such a bill. Secondly, if there is the prospect of a Government Bill on a comparable topic - then a member's bill is ruled out.

Given that SNP ministers plan their own Bill for a referendum in 2010, this would appear to be a problem.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There's more. Wendy Alexander tells me she has spoken to Gordon Brown post PMQs.

They are, apparently, "united" in their resolve to harry the SNP.

And those differences? Apparently, what matters is that they are, severally and collectively, targeting the SNP over the issue of an independence referendum.

Why, then, did the PM tell David Cameron that he was wrong in his suggestion that Ms Alexander wanted a referendum "now"?

Because, apparently, she doesn't. She wants to begin the lengthy legislative process asap so that the referendum could be held next year, not in 2010 or 2011.

Why did he say that the whole issue would have to await the report of the Calman Commission - when Wendy Alexander said the two issues were quite separate?

Apparently, there is no confusion. Both agree that reviewing the powers of the Scottish Parliament is important.

Both agree that it is right to harry the SNP who are, seemingly, backsliding over the issue of tabling a referendum bill. (That is, incidentally, news to the SNP.)

'Labour mess'

Is the issue damaging for Labour? Yes. It's a mess. SNP ministers in the Garden Lobby had to pinch themselves to stop grinning so evidently.

But, you know, Labour MSPs are, mostly, still adamant that the "early referendum" plan leaves them, ultimately, in a better place.

As one put it to me: "It's been messy, really messy, but we've got to the right strategy."

How did it come about? Wendy Alexander freelanced on a tactic she believes is correct without fully finalising consultation with colleagues, especially in Downing Street.

For Gordon Brown, this isn't part of the game plan. Quite simply, he doesn't want to talk about Scotland.

He needs to address Middle England/Britain: concerns over tax, housing, crime, immigration and the economy.

Further, talk of a referendum on Scotland is particularly unhelpful. Why would he favour a referendum on Scottish independence - a prospect he abhors - when he is simultaneously refusing repeated demands for a popular plebiscite on the Lisbon Treaty?

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

Herewith the chat from Holyrood today. The topic? of course.

Labour backbench MSPs veer between apprehension and satisfaction, with the latter emotion probably ultimately uppermost.

Firstly, those concerns. Labour MSPs ask themselves: is this the right agenda?

Shouldn't we stay focused on issues like poverty and skills? They ask, further: Is this the right move? What if we lose the referendum?

Then the satisfaction kicks in. It's visceral. For once, after a miserable year, they think they're in a position to dish it out to the SNP, to put Alex Salmond on the back foot.

It is, potentially, tricky for the SNP. Yes, they say, we want a referendum on independence. Just not now, thanks.

They'd like to wait until 2010. Why? Because they'd have more chance of winning the argument then after a prolonged period in government - and after the next UK general election.

Party woes

In other words, it is a calculation based on their own advantage. Nationalists also argue, however, that it is right to delay the referendum until the has been exhausted and the has had a chance to pronounce with its plan for Devolution Max.

That, in essence, will be the case they advance in response to Labour. It would also be the argument they deploy if - when? - Labour tables its own Bill proposing a referendum.

Other goss. Tories are angry. They say Wendy Alexander is seeking a way out of her own and her party's woes - and is prepared to risk the Union in the by-going.

In practice, however, they now have to find a way of living with the prospect of a referendum, given that the two biggest parties at Holyrood are (for very different reasons.)

Annabel Goldie also says that the prospect of a referendum campaign which pitted the currently popular Alex Salmond against Wendy Alexander and Gordon Brown is a "nightmare".

Like the Tories, the Lib Dems are exasperated Ms Alexander has pursued a freelance route while simultaneously joining them in the Calman commission.

'Out there'

However, they also now have to decide their practical strategy in the light of the fact that the referendum is now "out there" as an issue.

And there's more. The Prime Minister's official spokesman has repeatedly refused to endorse the Alexander strategy.

Insiders insist, however, that reflects tactics. The PM does not propose to call a Westminster referendum, therefore the Government has no formal position on the Scottish Parliament discussions.

Further, Wendy Alexander has, of course, discussed the topic with Gordon Brown - and he is said to be "relaxed".

Thirdly, given that this is tactical, it is important for Ms Alexander to be seen taking the lead against Alex Salmond.

What next? Labour MPs meet tonight to consider their views. Labour MSPs are meeting right now.

Expect a new line from Labour this afternoon - quite possibly outline plans for their own Bill in the light of the Scottish Government's refusal to advance their own plans.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

More on the referendum. As forecast earlier, Wendy Alexander is now saying she will consider bringing forward a member's bill to legislate for a plebiscite - if the SNP declines to speed up their plans.

And there's more chat offstage re Gordon Brown's position.

Within a confusing set of circumstances, it seems clear that the PM didn't give his explicit sanction to this initiative by Wendy Alexander.

At that point, interpretations vary. Aides to Ms Alexander insist the PM was consulted - and is "relaxed" about developments.

They stress further that it was her call. Asked at her news conference, Ms Alexander declined to add to speculation.

'Anger and disappointment'

She would only confirm that the decision was one for the party at Holyrood to make.

Here's the alternative version. One Westminster source told me the issue of a referendum had been discussed, sporadically, over a prolonged period.

Further, the same source suggested Ms Alexander had been losing the case for holding a referendum.

By this view, she then opted to "freelance" by confirming her views on ´óÏó´«Ã½ Scotland's Politics Show after a report in the Sunday Mail suggesting that Labour was ready to sanction a ballot.

My source said there was both "anger and disappointment" at Wendy Alexander's initiative.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

It can be intriguing to examine the motives underpinning political decisions.

A blend, perhaps, of party interest, personal interest, national interest and financial interest.

With , I prefer more precise terminology.

It is driven, I reckon, by calculation and fear.

To be clear, that does not make the decision necessarily wrong. Merely fascinating.

We are led to understand that Ms Alexander has long been intuitively supportive of the concept of popular plebiscites, that she was an early advocate of such a ballot with regard to devolution.

Further, we are led to understand that she has been, from an early point, sympathetic to the notion of responding positively to the SNP demand for a referendum on independence.

We are led to understand that her reticence on the matter was simply driven by the times, by a lack of understanding with regard to the issue, perhaps particularly among her Holyrood colleagues.

If so, she hid it well.

Her Holyrood colleagues would, understandably, have been lulled when Ms Alexander said, repeatedly and as recently as the spring party conference, that independence and its associated referendum were an "obsession" for the Nationalists and not a topic for serious-thinking politicians.

Calculation and fear?

The fear is obvious. Fear of electoral defeat, fear of defeat even worse than the reversals in May last year at the Holyrood polls.

Wendy Alexander glances at Labour's collapse in the English and Welsh locals, she ponders Boris as London Mayor - and she thinks: Is Scottish Labour immune?

The situation is different, admittedly.

The Tories may be notably cheerful in Scotland but they are scarcely driving forward in a manner comparable to the march of the Cameronians.

In Scotland, Labour's big opposition - Labour's fear - is the Scottish National Party.

But there is a read-through from the locals nonetheless.

Voters disenchanted with the UK government, annoyed by totemic issues such as the 10p tax rate, may seek alternatives in Scotland too.

That alternative may be the SNP.

Which brings us to the calculation.

I believe this has two factors.

Firstly, Alex Salmond's strategy is to challenge his Unionist rivals to hold an independence referendum.

If they decline - which, until now, was the stance - then Mr Salmond takes the issue to the Holyrood voters in 2011, arguing that the people have been denied a say.

Wendy Alexander knows that is a highly potent argument. She now, apparently, wants to forestall it, if she can.

The second factor is her innate confidence that, presented with the choice in serious terms, the people of Scotland would reject independence.

She calculates that would undermine Mr Salmond, would set his administration off course.

In short, she is prepared to sanction a referendum she wouldn't, in other circumstances, want.

Which leaves us where?

Firstly, Ms Alexander's mates in the Calman Commission - which only began work last week - are entitled to feel somewhat sore.

The Tories and the Liberal Democrats thought they were joining an initiative to shore up the Union; an initiative which deliberately excluded the option of independence.

They did not know, they were not told, that there would be a side bet on an independence referendum.

Secondly, a referendum now seems likely by 2011.

We are very far from knowing precisely how or when. This was a speedy initiative of calculation and fear, not governmental detail.

However, the UK Government may eventually exercise its reserved power over the constitution and call such a ballot.

That could happen under the cautious Gordon Brown - or under his (Tory?) successor.

More probably, Mr Salmond's eventual bill for a consultative referendum will be tabled at Holyrood and Labour would support it.

At this stage, it would appear that such a referendum would be a straight choice: independence, yea or nay.

The alternative of "more powers" would sit on the sidelines, an available substitute.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I enjoy the company of folk in business.

They frequently have an intriguing take on authentic politics - the real stuff that affects real people, as distinct from the partisan piffle that mostly masquerades as political discourse.

Over the past year, I have been struck by the extent of goodwill in the Scottish business community .

Partly, that's the result of assiduous lobbying, most notably by Jim Mather, over a prolonged period, starting years before the SNP took power at Holyrood.

Partly, it's the background of senior Ministers. was an economist for the Royal Bank; had a career in finance; Jim Mather and Stewart Stevenson both have business backgrounds. They talk the talk.

That talk includes a pro-business emphasis - stressing the objective of economic growth, cutting business rates, especially for small firms, scrapping bridge tolls.

However, an alternative analysis was offered to me recently in a chat with a fairly senior business person.

She reckoned that Scots because they liked the sense of confidence he exudes.

Budget constraints

More to the point, many Scots business people had been patronised at some point in their career by headquarters, possibly a remote headquarters.

To be frank, they secretly crave to stick it to the boss - just like Salmond sticks it to Westminster.

Fascinating notion, isn't it? Further, it appears to be borne out by a poll in The Scotsman which indicates folk in business mostly think the SNP is doing a good or excellent job in office.

It may all change, of course. The honeymoon will end.

Opposition claims that there will be problems down the line as a result of budget constraints may prove well founded.

Right now, though, the first minister is able to mark the anniversary of his election victory with signs of continuing popular support.

And that would appear to extend to the business community.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

It was a day for indisposition at Holyrood. The first minister, Alex Salmond, is . His deputy Nicola Sturgeon duly deputised.

Presiding Officer Alex Fergusson is recovering from keyhole surgery on his knee following an injury. His place in the chair was taken by Alasdair Morgan.

My sympathies to both the FM and the PO. Best wishes for a speedy recovery.

And did this outbreak of illness result in quieter, more contemplative exchanges in the chamber? What do you think?

Certainly, the chat between Nicola Sturgeon and Annabel Goldie was notably consensual.

But then they were discussing the problem of youthful abuse of alcohol and wisely chose to abstain from political barracking.

Coming unstuck

By contrast, the discourse between Ms Sturgeon and Labour's Wendy Alexander was as sharp and argumentative as anything witnessed when the FM is present.

Ms Alexander was doing a fair job of pursuing her rival with claims of cuts in education, despite Ms Sturgeon's assertion that the claims were untrue.

However, the Labour leader came rather unstuck when the Deputy FM disclosed that Ms Alexander's press aide, Simon Pia, had phoned the head teacher of a Paisley school where there is concern about future provision.

The clear implication was that Mr Pia was deliberately fomenting discontent in order to stand up claims due to be made at Holyrood by his boss.

Mr Pia insists he was merely phoning the school out of politeness to alert them to the fact that they were to be mentioned in the chamber.

Perhaps the most effective intervention came from Nicol Stephen of the LibDems.

He reflected upon remarks made by Alex Salmond in a conference webcast interview with myself; in particular, exchanges on the subject of student debt.

Clever point

Mr Stephen noted the FM said then that the government had instigated a consultation on the topic of student debt, the contents of which could be read.

Was, Mr Stephen inquired, that statement true?

Ms Sturgeon averred that everything said by the FM was truthful. However, she rather spoiled the effect of that by going on to indicate ministers will consult on debt.

Future tense. It will apparently emerge later this year.

Mr Stephen, she conceded, had produced a "clever debating point", just the sort of stuff she used to chuck at Jack McConnell.

PS: On the subject of the former FM, an earlier post on this site asked me whether Mr McConnell had made other contributions in parliament since losing office.

He has indeed, most notably urging ministers to restore funding to an organisation which helps with youth employment training.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?