´óÏó´«Ã½

Perhaps my current reading matter has influenced my thinking but my thoughts are drawn towards the disclosure that last year.

The reading matter? "In Cold Blood" by Truman Capote, a near-obsessive examination of a notably brutal multiple murder.

In particular, Capote scrutinises the societal and personal motivations underlying the crime.

With regard to the Scottish data, I know that the prison stats record an "all-time high" virtually daily as more are sent to the slammer and for longer sentences.

These figures, therefore, merely confirm a trend, based on averaging out the daily stats. However, it is a deeply disturbing trend.

Scotland's prison population has, this week, .

The rate of increase is steeper. We should not allow familiarity to negate the necessary political debate.

An element to note in passing is that the use of community sentences is also at a record high.

In other words, it is not that the courts are ignoring or entirely setting aside alternatives to custody.

The prison service plays with the hand it is dealt.

Scotland's prisons, Scotland's officers, cope as they can with the numbers sent to them by the courts. They, rightly, take no part in the political debate.

To be fair, that political debate is vigorous, if inevitably a little repetitive.

For example, Bill Aitken for the Tories forecast that SNP ministers would "abuse these figures to argue their dangerous case that fewer criminals should be sent to prison".

Justice Minister Kenny Macaskill said that, far from advancing a dangerous case, he was attempting to deal with "the absurd situation" inherited by the Scottish Government.

Mr Macaskill noted that prison disposals had increased, despite a falling overall crime rate.

If one were being cheeky, one might suggest that recruiting more police will mean yet more arrests, more court appearances and - guess what?

Next week, ministers will set out their governmental programme for the year ahead at Holyrood.

Criminal justice and sentencing policy will feature prominently.

I'd welcome your views - as, I feel sure, would the politicians.

Do we send too many to prison - perhaps especially those whose behaviour is driven by addiction or deprivation?

Or is it entirely right that society be protected from offenders? Should we simply expand the prison estate to cope?

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

It was a jolly occasion: unsullied, mostly, by rough, nasty things like winning external popular support.

That was for later. For now, loyal Scottish Liberal Democrats had one thing in mind: to applaud their new leader, Tavish Scott. There was notably vigorous applause from those who had campaigned for rivals. There was even a token baby or two on hand, mewing gently.

True, there was a curious remark from the second-placed Ross Finnie to the effect that the leadership contest had shone a light upon some party issues which were more commonly consigned to the cupboard.

One can only presume that he was referring to relatively mild disputes about the correct strategy for the LibDems to follow, post Salmond.

But he said it with a roguish grin - and followed it with a vigorous pledge to work for the newly elected leader.

As for Tavish Scott, it was a good, gutsy opening performance. He kept his acceptance speech mercifully short: thanking those who merited thanks and delivering a brisk political message.

That, need one say, was aimed at the First Minister. According to Mr Scott, Mr Salmond is destined to follow Gordon Brown in losing popular support.

Here's the key quote re Alex Salmond: "What looks confident, sure-footed and wily today will be seen as arrogant, misguided and politically dishonest tomorrow."

In short, he was telling party activists: fight hard on issues of popular concern, target the incumbent SNP - and bide your time.

What might one surmise about the issue of the constitution? Mr Scott wasn't for saying, preferring to deal with those popular issues: the economy, housing, rising prices.

However, pressed by me and others, he said his objective would be to secure greater powers for Scotland - firmly within the UK.

That could point to support for a multi-option referendum: perhaps setting independence against whatever emerges from the Calman Commission.

But, again, Mr Scott wasn't for saying, stressing that this was an issue for another day - and not an issue which motivated the mass of the population, in contradistinction to the obsession of political activists and journalists.

In all, then, a taut, confident beginning. But with questions ahead. What, precisely, will be the role of the Liberal Democrats? All-out, gutsy opposition? Cross-party co-operation? Bit of both?

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

Sport can provoke quite exceptional extremes of passion: delight, despair and bitterness. And it's even worse among the participants.

How about that Aussie comment to the effect that Team GB could only win at sports where they took part sitting down? Just marvel at the bile that generated that gag.

Now that Team GB - or shouldn't that be Team UK - are on their way back, having successfully piloted their huge haul of medals through the airport metal detectors, there's fresh argument.

Longer term, we will be able to pick over the cost and capacity of the London preparations for 2012.

Right now, the sport of choice is to work out whether there should be an all-UK football team taking part in those games four years off.

GB backs Team GB at footy. The Prime Minister reckons it would be daft to skip a sport which Britain gave to the world.
He believes he can reassure the sundry football associations who fear that Team GB at the Olympics would lead to Team GB in the European Championships, the World Cup or even a GB-calculated entry in the club championships.

Of course, Mr Brown makes this point purely on a sporting basis. The thought of advancing his cause of Britishness never entered his mind. In response, Alex Salmond says such a notion is nonsense.

The fans, he says, are against it. It would jeopardise Scotland's place in international football competition. And for what? To allow an under-23 side with perhaps a couple of Scots to enter the Olympics.

Mr Salmond, of course, makes this case purely on a sporting basis. The thought...you get the concept.

For the purposes of this blog, I'm going to act as referee. (Hopefully, one who knows that the game is called football for a reason and that one is not allowed to score goals with one's hands. Bitter, me?)

Seriously, it's over to you. Should there be an all-UK football team in the Olympics next time round? State your reasons succinctly. Me, I'd settle for Team DU putting one over Cowdenbeath in whatever the League Cup is called these days.

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

It's not often, in truth, that elected politicians resort to contacting phone-in programmes on the wireless.

They have so many other avenues: formal interviews, parliamentary speeches, the peripatetic soapbox.

Plus it's generally felt that the phone-in is an opportunity for the public to ventilate their concern/anger/delight at whatever is being done to them or in their name.

So it was a little surprising to hear the First Minister Alex Salmond call into Morning Extra on ´óÏó´«Ã½ Radio Scotland.

By no means unwelcome, not entirely unprecedented, just a little out of the ordinary run of things.

And what had prompted this? Mr Salmond was seeking to clarify remarks he had made in an interview with Iain Dale for Total Politics.

Mr Dale, an avowed and thoughtful Conservative, had been seeking to explore the SNP's attitude towards the Tories. His theory was that the previous hatred had dissipated.

Mr Salmond acknowledged that he had tried to bring the SNP "into the mainstream of Scotland", developing a competitive economic agenda, cutting red tape.

However, he argued that the SNP retained a strong social conscience - in line, he argued, with Scottish predilections and in contradistinction, he claimed, to the position espoused by Margaret Thatcher.

Then, citing that issue of social conscience, he added: "One of the reasons Scotland didn't take to Lady Thatcher was because of that. We didn't mind the economic side so much. But we didn't like the social side at all."

Cue rival outrage. Labour suggested that Mr Salmond should "hang his head in shame".

Thatcherite economics, they argued, had closed Scotland's shipyards and pits, destroying jobs.

Mr Salmond's reply? This was "total tosh". He hadn't praised Thatcherite economics.

Rather he had suggested that her social policies were more hateful still. He had gone on, he stressed, to suggest that Lady Thatcher's supporters wrongly claimed the legacy of Adam Smith, neglecting the moral dimension of Kirkcaldy's finest.

I suspect, however, that if Mr Salmond were entirely confident in what he had said in the interview, he would not have taken the time and trouble to call Morning Extra. He would have let the words stand alone.

Given a second chance, I doubt that he would have said: "We didn't mind the economic side so much."

Does all this matter? To borrow the first minister's comparative device, not so much as contemporary debate over current issues such as economic growth, housing, education and health care.

Still, one might reasonably expect Labour in future to quote, selectively, from Mr Salmond's comments.

One might expect Mr Salmond to retort, as he did today, that he will not be copying Gordon Brown.

He will not be inviting Lady Thatcher to visit Bute House any time soon.

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

For those in search of resonance, the venue offered pointers. Here, at the Apex Hotel in Edinburgh's Grassmarket, Wendy Alexander had set out her vision for the future of the Labour Party in Scotland.

Those with longer memories might have recalled that this was also the location of choice when David McLetchie defeated Phil Gallie to win the leadership of the Scottish Conservatives at the advent of devolution.
This was different, though: the Edinburgh hustings for the three contenders seeking to succeed Ms Alexander.

There was a decent turn-out. A few laughs such as when the chair invited young people to pose questions. Some of the self-selecting hands raised in response struggled to meet the definition "young".

There was little in the way of overt, sharp distinction between the candidates, at least on the night.

Perhaps Andy Kerr has laid the greatest stress on Scottish party autonomy: He mentioned that. Perhaps Cathy Jamieson has stressed her union and Left credentials: those were, gently, on display. Perhaps Iain Gray has been most vigorous in stressing the urgent need for co-operation across the movement, including Westminster: that came through.

But, you know, all three talked of Labour values, all three talked of the need to talk, to communicate with the membership, all three insisted that Labour must sound less negative, must advance a positive policy offer.

All three condemned Alex Salmond, claiming that he was out to "use Scotland" for his own Nationalist ends, not to serve her needs. All three used variations of that formula.

Alex Salmond was Banquo at the feast: reviled, yes, but feared too. Indeed, Cathy Jamieson, who deputised on occasion for Wendy Alexander at First Minister's Questions, said she had proven expertise in tackling Mr Salmond. The others stressed their willingness to be combative.

In truth, the mood of the evening struck me as tentative, somewhat provisional. Labour in Scotland is still coming to terms with defeat. It is too soon to expect certainty about attempts to revive.

Some of the questioners last night seemed to be to be seeking reassurance in the midst of anxiety. They wanted to hear how the contenders would engage with the grassroots, the local authorities, the unions. The equivalent of a political hug. They were duly comforted.

They wanted to hear too that there would be an end to bickering between Labour at Holyrood and Westminster. They were suitably assuaged.

To be fair, however, the questioners also wanted to hear evidence of policy thought: action on housing, employment rights, training. Again, the answers were inevitably somewhat tentative. They would press for this, seek assurances on that, strive to build coalitions on the other. Welcome to opposition.

So tentative, provisional. But healthy for all that. More than one speaker noted, with approval, the value of open debate, of a contest, of full OMOV voting. Novelty, indeed.

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

has produced an intriguing range of responses from Scotland's politicians.

The sundry contenders for the Labour leadership in Scotland have each issued statements essentially supporting the strikers - and urging talks - presumably featuring an enhanced offer, to resolve the dispute.

By contrast, First Minister Alex Salmond has argued that it would be an error to seek to remedy price inflation by wage inflation.

He was challenged on the issue - by a trades unionist - during audience questions after he at the Edinburgh book festival last night.

Mr Salmond said government endeavour both north and south of the Border should be directed towards ameliorating price inflation, particularly in the energy sector.

Why the difference? Simple, really. The Labour MSPs are presently seeking the votes of their movement, including union members who will be directly balloted.

Not smart politics, in short, to oppose a pay claim one day, then seek enthusiastic personal endorsment the next.

In contradistinction to that, Alex Salmond and John Swinney are trying to implement a three-year funding agreement with local authorities, who are employers in this dispute, from relatively constrained resources.

Hence their stance on pay.

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

A wee while back, I spent a couple of nights in hospital. Nothing serious, a gastric problem.

The medical and nursing treatment was excellent. The journey of care, as I believe it is occasionally known, less so.

The ward was cluttered and crowded. Information was sporadic and, sometimes, contradictory. It was difficult to discern who was in charge of care provision.

Then there was the cabaret. One patient was apparently anxious to resume his maritime career. He told us, repeatedly and loudly, that he had to get back to the islands to rejoin his boat. He took especial care to stress this point during the middle of the night, lest we might doze off and miss something.

It might have been Pinteresque - a little like the character keen to get to Sidcup to collect his papers. Unaccountably, however, my dramatic sensitivities were a little dulled. Lack of sleep, perhaps.

Brutes that we were, we, his fellow patients, cheered inwardly when, finally, he did a runner, doubtless in search of his vessel. However, the police, with a greater sense of duty than mercy, picked him up close by and returned him to our company. The lamentations began again.

I thought of this as I heard Nicola Sturgeon on the wireless this morning making a distinction between medical/nursing treatment and the wider provision of care. The latter, she felt, had flaws.

And what, exactly, was she discussing? The fact that a for seven hours. Seven - count them - hours. Two meals went by. The deceased remained in situ.

For pity's sake, has it come to this? Spare us the soothing jargon, please. Full inquiry, must never happen again, errors in procedure. A corpse was left lying beside sick people. For seven hours.
The justification? The family of the deceased, to whom all sympathy, apparently wanted the body left in the ward to allow one relative time to get to the hospital.

Again, sympathy. But did no-one consider the competing interests of the other patients and their families? Rights are not absolute, even in death. They must be balanced with the rights of others. Did no-one at the hospital think that, on balance, it was preferable to say no to this request?

Even after the relative arrived, there was a further delay in moving the body. To repeat, a corpse lay in a hospital ward for seven hours. Forget Pinter. This is straight from Gogol. Give me strength.

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

My sympathy to the family of John MacDougall, .

As others have borne witness, the length of the preparation does not lessen the shock of the final loss.

Born in Dunfermline, John MacDougall was a Fifer through and through. Indeed, his was almost the quintessential Fife Labour career.

Employment at the Methil yard, service as a union shop steward, Labour branch chair, Fife councillor and council leader, MP in Henry McLeish's old Fife constituency, then MP for the new Glenrothes seat.

He had, in truth, little opportunity to make an extensive or, more accurately, sustained impact at Westminster. Illness determined that: the insidious and hateful blight of Mesothelioma.

Political contest

But, added to his Westminster service, he will be remembered for his substantial work in union, council and party circles - plus his efforts within European politics. Plus his commitment to his native Fife.

His death, of course, means a by-election. That will involve a political contest, a sharply-fought political contest.

But not yet, I trust, not yet.

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

I am painfully aware that I have rather neglected Scotland's other leadership contest, that within the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

In that regard, my behaviour probably mirrors that of the nation as a whole which is either on holiday, at work, watching the Olympics or waiting for the opening of the Scottish football season on Monday.

(One or two affect to believe that the season opens on Saturday. They are mistaken. The season only truly begins when the mighty United face Hamilton on Monday. All the best to Craig and the lads.)

However, back to the Lib Dems. This blog is eclectic and egalitarian in its outlook. So I should have mentioned the contest ere now. Mea maxima culpa.

It is, in itself, an intriguing fight. Two ex Cabinet Ministers, Tavish Scott and Ross Finnie, plus one of Holyrood's awkward squad, Mike Rumbles.

Incidentally, from me and from many Lib Dems, that is an expression of praise. If Mike Rumbles had been in the pre-Union Scots Parliament, he'd probably have joined the Squadrone Volante, demanding a tough line on those Court and Country backsliders.

Tavish Scott must be reckoned favourite. He has the most prominently declared support - although, as Mr Scott will be the first to recognise, that can be a downer in the Lib Dems who wear their iconoclasm along with their sandals. (Cheap, Brian, cheap: they abandoned sandals long since. They now wear clogs.)

I'm intrigued by Ross Finnie's stance: arguing for a purer Lib Dem message. Plainly he feels that has been somewhat jeopardised by the years in government.

In response, Mr Scott might note that he took arguably the hardest line in the short-lived coalition talks with the SNP last May.

Independence didn't form part of the Lib Dem agenda - and he would, consequently, have nothing to do with the Nationalists.

This has been a good, clean fight - with just the odd hint of the guile for which the Lib Dems are occasionally renowned, at least among their opponents.

Either way, whoever wins may swiftly face an intriguing conundrum. What to do about the council tax?

The Lib Dems are in favour of a Local Income Tax. Simple, then. They'll vote with the SNP to scrap the Council Tax and replace it with LIT.

Except. Except we've now heard muttering from Vince Cable, the party's sage at Westminster on these matters, that LIT might not, perhaps, be utterly wonderful.

There were even suggestions that Mr Cable might favour piloting the new tax in Scotland. Memo to Vince: study your poll tax history first.

Except, part two, I don't really hear enthusiastic evangelising from Scottish Lib Dems about the merits of LIT. I hear them say it's their policy. I hear them criticise the Council Tax. I don't really hear gutsy, all-out pressure for LIT.

Except, part three, the present SNP proposal is for a fixed rate tax across Scotland, 3% everywhere. That, as the Lib Dems point out, isn't local. So they won't back that.

Could that change though? SNP Ministers are hinting again that they're ready to talk. Nicol Stephen offered such discussions. Will his successor take them up?

Or might he more inclined to listen to the alternative offer - from Labour and the Tories, to consider reforms to the Council Tax.

There are political and practical problems aplenty with either option. Back Labour/Tory - and be painted as the defender of the council tax, abandoning your own manifesto.

Back the SNP - and what? If LIT is popular (OK, no tax is popular - less hated, then), won't the SNP just take all the credit? If LIT bombs, will the Lib Dems share the blame?

Welcome to leadership, Mr Scott, Mr Finnie or Mr Rumbles.

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

The story is no doubt apocryphal - but it bears repetition nonetheless.

Roughly a thousand years ago, the Conservative government was agitating, especially in Scotland, about the system of collecting local taxation from the citizenry.

It consulted an international expert on such matters. Said expert examined the options then pronounced: "Tell me more about these rates. We do not have them in my country. They sound very interesting."

Bit of a snag given that the object was to replace the rates. The rates were to be scrapped. Their very name had become a hissing and a byword to all right-thinking people. They were bad. They were an intrinsic evil.

And so was born the poll tax.

Now Iain Gray,, says he will urgently convene talks, if elected, to find a method to replace or reform the council tax.

It must be changed. Its very name has become a . . . see above.

You know, this reminds me of nothing more than John Major's campaign to succeed Margaret Thatcher.

He too promised an urgent examination of local taxation. After he won, the poll tax was scrapped - and thus was born the council tax.

Admittedly, Iain Gray wasn't in the last Holyrood Parliament from 2003-07. But, as a special adviser at the Scotland Office, I feel sure he kept up to speed with developments on local taxation.

Indeed, he says that the extensive commissioned by Jack McConnell will form part of his fresh thinking on the council tax - as, presumably, will the proposals for rebanding upon which he stood at the elections last May.

You see the problem, of course. Scotland does not lack reviews. There is no shortage of data, no deficit in the scrutiny department. What is missing is action.

That, in my opinion, for very good reasons. It may not seem like it but local taxation, however framed, bears a very small proportion of the cost of local services.

The financial mechanism known as gearing means, therefore, that any attempt to tinker with local taxation can have a disproportionately big effect. It can skew the charges substantially for individuals or whole sectors of society. Witness the poll tax.

Plus council taxation is not just about the provision of services. There must be equity, efficiency, ease of collection - together with retaining local accounability.

The SNP Government is . Except it isn't truly local. It would be set nationally at a rate of 3p in the pound.

Now that may be equitable - although it wouldn't be levied on savings income. It may be efficient and easy to collect - although that's disputed by some who question the impact on employers and the Revenue.

However, it scarcely enhances local accountability.

Plus there's the issue of council tax benefit. If council tax is scrapped in favour of an allegedly fairer scheme, then what is the case for council tax benefit continuing to be paid by Whitehall?

SNP ministers say it has become an intrinsic part of Scotland's funding set-up and is recognised as such by the Treasury.

It has become, in short, formulaic rather than entirely claimant dependent. But that is, to say the least, open to argument.

Plus, the Lib Dems like LIT - but want it truly local. They don't approve of the SNP system.

Mr Gray indicates he will seek to build a coalition with the Tories who favour council tax reform. And he nods towards the Greens who back land value taxation.

To all our politicians who are trying to wrestle with this problem, may I simply quote the words of that great American comedian, Allan Sherman? Loadsa luck, pal, loadsa luck.

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

Out of the loop. Thus John Robertson MP describing his Holyrood Labour comrade Tom McCabe on Good Morning Scotland.

It is, I suppose, the quintessential political put-down. By definition, political aspirants customarily want to be inside the tent, avoiding the mud with the rather distinctive aroma on the outside.

Snag is that, on this occasion, Tom McCabe suspects that the loop in question is actually a noose.

Mr McCabe, formerly a Scottish cabinet minister, wants much greater autonomy for the Labour Party in Scotland.

In particular, Mr McCabe wants the , not just at Holyrood.

That, he believes, would allow that new Labour leader to fight on a more equitable basis with Alex Salmond who, self-evidently, doesn't have to look over his shoulder towards London before taking decisions.

Tom McCabe has form on this issue. When he ran Wendy Alexander's leadership campaign, he was pressing very hard internally for exactly these changes.

Loop externalist

For example, he wanted little short of a revolution in party organisation, bringing the Glasgow HQ directly under the Scottish leader.

Since those days - and his admission that Team Alexander broke the law over campaign donations - he has indeed somewhat excised himself from the loop.

He has yet to endorse a candidate to replace Ms Alexander. He has, mostly, worked away quietly at Holyrood and in his constituency.

His views, however, deserve consideration. It is not good enough to depict him as a loop externalist. There remains, as I have pointed out endlessly, a fundamental contradiction at the core of this current leadership contest.

To reprise, it is is. Strictly, the post is "leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament". That formula is designed to appease MPs who have resented Holyrood's place in the political sunlight.

However, if that truly is the job, then what role do the MPs have in electing such an individual? Surely, that is simply a job for the Holyrood group - to elect their group leader?

If the franchise is wider - as it is - then the job must be wider.

Westminster discontent

To Plan McCabe, then. While applauding him loudly for raising the issue, I have a few problems with his analysis, as it stands.

Firstly, the examples he cites. He mentions Westminster disquiet over the smoking ban. But that got through. It was enacted. Westminster discontent was completely and utterly ignored.

Further, he says the Scottish party must be free to determine policy. That is, indeed, a quintessential of political devolution - and Labour remains perhaps the least devolved of any of the parties.

But the example he uses is the council tax. He says Scottish Labour must be able to set a timetable for its abolition, to match the SNP offer. Yet he is unable to come up with an alternative - and dislikes the SNP plan of a nationally-set local income tax.

It does not strike me as particularly wise politics, whether at Holyrood or Westminster, to condemn an existing system to extinction without having an alternative in place: especially in the field of taxation.

Secondly, that notion of matching Alex Salmond in Scottishness. As successive Labour leaders have found, that is a chimera.

Again, by definition, an SNP leader can always trump a Labour leader on Scottish patriotism. That is because an SNP leader stands ineluctably for Scotland alone - while a Labour leader, supporting the Union, must consider the UK dimension.

I suspect, however, that Tom McCabe is instead talking about extending the writ and remit of the Scottish post in order to match more closely the Scottish dimension.

Beyond wit

I suspect he has pitched for the maximum, expecting a compromise.

Thirdly, party organisation. Labour MPs will not readily surrender control of the party machine in Scotland - and for a good reason. It gets them elected - or not, as in the recent example.

Resources are finite. MPs will not easily trust a system where the direction of those resources - which seats to target, for example - are under the control of a leader from a different parliament whose job is not directly dependent on the decisions taken with regard to Westminster.

Of course, the current set-up is imbalanced too. Labour has only limited internal devolution - and MPs won't even trust Holyrood to take overall charge of its own public elections.

Perhaps it isn't beyond the wit of man or woman to devise a scheme where power is devolved and shared. The Liberal Democrats, for example, have an MSP as leader and an MP as deputy.

But then such compromise will be hard to achieve in an atmosphere of mutual misunderstanding and suspicion: an atmosphere that has persisted within Labour since the very advent of devolution.

Outside the loop, indeed.

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

I wince in anticipation. At some point in this , someone will intone, sententiously, that political leadership is about policy not personality. Heads will nod sagely.

This is, of course, tosh. Bilge. Piffle. That does not, however, prevent it being presented as incontestable fact by some. This is tosh with a shelf life.

When you elect a leader, you are not simply selecting an automaton who will delve into a data base of pre-picked policies, using a search engine to find the right one.

You are, or should be, electing a person of integrity, sense and judgement who will decide what approach should be followed in a given set of circumstances, heavily influenced of course by those pre-selected policies.

You doubt me? Drop the word "personality". It is too tainted by celebrity telly. Insert instead the word "character."

You are looking for someone with the character to withstand the eventualities which occur. If every event could be foreseen, then one might stand ready with a pre-set basket of policies to apply like limp poultices.

However, events cannot be entirely foreseen. Hence the search for someone with the right character.

Of course, of course, one expects a leader to implement as far as possible a given set of policies. The choice of those policies in the first place often reflects the character and judgement of the leader anyway.

So, self-evidently, the policies have to be right. But character matters too - and it will be to the fore in this Scottish Labour election.

Each of the three contenders - Iain Gray, Cathy Jamieson and Andy Kerr - has talent and experience. Each has served in the Scottish Cabinet. Each is a decent despatch box performer.

As to policy, Cathy Jamieson is demonstrating signs of reflecting her Left-wing credentials, masked somewhat during the constraints of serving in government.

Those credentials are emphasised by her nominating supporters - although they are not all of the discernible Left and there are Left-leaning MSPs in the other camps.

Andy Kerr is stressing the need for the writ of the leadership to extend beyond Holyrood.

His rivals tend to prefer to let that one slide a little, presuming that the role will be defined by the mandate in practice. In other words, a leader who is facing the test of winning support across the party, including from MPs, will be entitled to expect wide-ranging loyalty.

Iain Gray is playing to some extent upon his cross-Parliament experience as first a Scottish Cabinet Minister and then a special adviser in the Scotland Office.

Admittedly, this breadth of opportunity only arose after he was liberated by the electorate in 2003.

Each of the contenders will, apparently, be making strenuous efforts to listen and learn. Oh, stop it, Brian. Quit the light mockery. What else can they say after calamitous defeat last May and in Glasgow East?

You get the core point, presumably. This is not a grand ideological battle. Yes, it is about policy. But it is about character too. Who is best placed to rescue Scottish Labour and take the fight to Alex Salmond? (It may, of course, turn out that the battle is beyond any of the three. But that is the choice.)

PS: Here's a fun game to play. Have a glance at the nomination lists in the Labour contest.

Find out whether your MSP has been bold or foolhardy enough to state a preference. Try to calculate why. Hours of harmless fun.

Note that none of the contenders for leadership has nominated a deputy. Sensible move. That would amount to running as a ticket. There is no fully-fledged, agreed ideological ticket. See above.

To be clear, Bill Butler, a deputy leadership contender, has nominated Cathy Jamieson for the top job - part of the Left-wing slate noted earlier. Johann Lamont, his rival for the deputy post, has made no such nomination.

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