´óÏó´«Ã½

So where are we on this ? What have we learned?

Perhaps, just perhaps, that cataclysmic rhetoric is inappropriate, unhelpful and futile when we are dealing with vital public services and jobs.

I fully accept that the media must share the blame here.

We tend to demand high-energy soundbites when gentle chiding and persuasion would suit the situation better.

But, you know, the voters have long since given up listening to the ranting anyway.

Perhaps we might, all, declare a truce and revert to discursive, analytical politics.

Think of it as like alternative football chants. Instead of howling abuse, perhaps our politicians might advise their opponents, in the subtle understatement which occasionally breaks out from the stands: "You're not very good".

No, I don't think it's going to happen, either.

Another little lesson. John Swinney will be mighty careful in future when dealing with the Greens.

He thought he had a deal - although, to be fair, nothing was absolutely fixed.

He thought he had said enough, including offering a personal assurance as a minister that he would deliver the upgraded offer.

But Mr Swinney's advisers were watching Patrick Harvie when that last minute assurance was given.

The Green co-convener was shaking his head, slightly but palpably.

Seconds later, he and Robin Harper voted against the budget, ensuring its defeat.

However, they were but two.

Forty six Labour MSPs - including one returned from illness and one from maternity leave - voted against the budget, as did sixteen Liberal Democrats.

As I have written previously here, they were perfectly entitled so to do. Otherwise, there is no function in having a vote at all.

However, as I also said, consequences flow from such decisions.

Perhaps some who cast their vote against the budget thought they were registering a protest - but not thwarting the expenditure.

Perhaps they thought the budget would go through regardless.

Perhaps they, like Mr Swinney, thought the Greens would vote other than they did.

As I have also written earlier, they were perhaps not aware of the conflicting pressures confronting Mr Harvie owing to a party which is intuitively averse to political bargaining.

Perhaps they thought, as Iain Gray sought to argue, that voting down the budget need not bring crisis.

He is right in that the existing budget would continue.

However, persisting in thwarting the new budget would undoubtedly mean real problems for real people. This was not a pain-free vote.

I suspect that Mr Gray swiftly concluded as much.

I suspect, further, that he foresaw the political campaigns against his party.

Indeed, the Tories were already out on Thursday morning at Waverley Station with leaflets blaming Labour for blocking expenditure on key services, forcing up council taxes and generally advancing the timescale for Armageddon.

"Spurious", yelled Labour. "Tosh" - or some word that sounds very like it.

But, in their core, they and the Liberal Democrats knew that they risked giving a powerful weapon to the SNP and the Tories if they sustained their attack.

Plus - and I mean this most sincerely, folks - all parties were genuinely seeking a solution.

They knew that it was unacceptable to toy with £33bn.

They care. All of them. They care.

So, in various ways, Labour and the Liberal Democrats sought a deal.

Labour offered to moderate its demands.

The Liberal Democrats offered to sideline their pressure for tax cuts and to focus instead upon common, elevated ground in the search for longer-term solutions to Scotland's problems.

This might include jointly pressing with ministers for borrowing powers to accrue to the Scottish Government.

Remarkable - and, considering the public interest, commendable.

Also at Holyrood, there have been a few subterranean efforts to decry John Swinney's handling of this affair: to suggest that he offered too much to the Tories for town centre regeneration and, hence, too little to the Greens.

I don't buy that. The arithmetic wasn't straightforward. It was more like geometry or trigonometry.

It wasn't a case of: sort the Tories, then turn to the Greens.

He had to reach out, simultaneously, to all the parties - including Labour who were negotiating seriously.

He will have to do the same again next year - which is why he will seek to keep all sides as sweet as possible.

Now, as I said with mild astonishment on Reporting Scotland on Thursday night, the budget may be carried by acclaim. Isn't politics wonderful?

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

Questions to the first minister frequently offer intriguing moments.

Banter, badinage, bombast, bickering. .

Not between Alex Salmond and Patrick Harvie, the Green Party co-convener, whose decisive vote last night thwarted the Scottish Government's budget.

Rather the tentative dealing featured Mr Salmond and Tavish Scott, the leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

How can this be? Didn't the Liberal Democrats effectively rule themselves out of negotiations by demanding a 2p cut in income tax - up with which ministers would not put?

Well, yes, they did - but now they're back in the room. Mr Scott noted that there might be scope for discussion of longer-term economic objectives.

Mr Salmond's tone in response was notably emollient, while expressing the hope that the 2p tax cut was buried, arguing that it would cost more jobs in lost expenditure than it would create.

Dissing the budget

Which means what? It means the Lib Dems won't set out a shopping list for the budget.

No litany of ten bob on this, £100m on that.

For two reasons. One, it wouldn't be credible for the Lib Dems after they dissed the budget so comprehensively.

Two, because any new concessions to the Lib Dems would run the risk of unravelling deals elsewhere in this highly tentative process.

By "long term", Mr Scott means items like the lack of borrowing powers for the Scottish Government: an issue currently being examined by the .

The Lib Dem leader envisages Mr Salmond might formally join the pressure for such powers to be established.

Intriguingly, the first minister might find that he has a willing ear for such a notion from his own government's permanent secretary.

Gand talks

In return, perhaps the Scottish Government might invite Mr Scott to join strategic thinking on future spending priorities - such as how to cope with an expected downturn in expenditure in 2010-11.

If such Grand Design talks get under way, then, who knows, Mr Scott might find his way clear to supporting the 2009-10 budget or at least abstaining to ensure its passage.
What then of the offer to the Greens on home insulation - which started at £22m and reached £33 million minutes before the 5pm vote?

Some on the Nationalist backbenches might be tempted to advise the Greens to raffle themselves - if they could reach an alternative deal with the Liberal Democrats.
Wiser counsel calls for caution.

Firstly, they might still need the Greens this year. Secondly, they might well need them next year. Thirdly, the plan for home insulation is viewed by ministers as rather a good one, albeit costly.

Why was there no agreement with the Greens? SNP ministers thought they had a deal.

They thought that Mr Swinney's personal assurance that he, as a government minister, would ensure that the top-up £11m would be levered in from other sources was enough.

It might have been enough for another party. But this is to mistake the nature of the Greens at grassroots level: a phrase of particular salience in their case.

Umpteen penalties

They are, by nature, idealistic rather than bluntly pragmatic.

I called them "faintly anarchic" on Newsnight. Perhaps a more apt description is apolitical. (My excuse is that I was still in shock after the umpteen penalties at Hampden.)

Patrick Harvie may have wanted to cut a deal. But he needed time - much more time than the parliamentary schedule permitted - to square his party.

In the bygoing, Labour remains adamant it will re-enter serious negotiations with John Swinney. That is regardless of the sharp exchanges between Mr Salmond and Iain Gray at question time.

It is felt those things had to be said - and don't pre-empt back-room discussion.

So, to sum up, the most probable outcome is that there will still be some form of deal to pass the budget. Election deferred.

But don't stake your house on it just yet.

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

Scotland, to be blunt, could probably struggle by without a fair proportion of the legislation passed in her name.

That is not to say that such legislation is not frequently worthy. That is not to say that, on occasion, sectors of the populace see improvements in their lives from changing the law in certain ways.

It is to question whether the earth would open beneath our feet were a particular Bill to fail or to be delayed.

.

It gives ministers the legal entitlement to disburse on our behalf some £33bn for the coming year.

That is thirty three thousand million pounds. We would notice its absence.

All of which opens up an intriguing philosophical and constitutional debate in advance of this evening's Holyrood vote on said budget.

'No' vote

Both the SNP and Labour are seeking to get their retaliation in first with regard to this debate.

As you might imagine, their contributions veer more towards rough politics than philosophy - but the thought is there.

In essence, Labour is attempting to defend, in advance, its likely "No" vote.

The SNP is attempting to suggest that Labour's attitude contrasts with the position the Nationalists themselves adopted while in opposition.

The constitutional question is this. The SNP won more votes than their rivals in the election.

Alex Salmond was elected first minister by parliament. He cannot govern without the power to spend.

Is it then incumbent upon the principal opposition party to tolerate the passage of legislation which permits that fundamental function?

Existing budget

They can point out the flaws in the budget, they can target individual issues. But should they seek to thwart such a basic element of government?

Labour's defence is that a "No" vote on the budget tonight does not in itself stop the flow of cash in Scotland.

Ministers would continue with the existing budget pro tem, with cash allocated each month for next year as per one twelfth of last year's total.

But their news release on this subject rightly notes that this would continue "in the interim".

Surely it is also true that - if Labour and the Liberal Democrats persist in blocking the new budget - then Scotland would eventually lose out in that the sums to be spent would be lower then envisaged for the new year.

In response, the SNP argue that they never voted against the Labour/LibDem budget bills. They say they abstained twice and voted for the rest.

The exception is in 1999 when there wasn't a full scale budget bill: then the SNP voted against the figures set out by the then finance minister, Jack McConnell.

Core issue

But is that to suggest opposition parties may never vote against the budget?

Wasn't the SNP's behaviour substantially influenced by the fact that the coalition had a majority, that opposition was futile on such a core issue?

Doesn't that 1999 vote, albeit not strictly against a budget bill, indicate that it is permissible for an opposition to seek to overturn financial plans.

Think of it this way. Today we learned that Scotland's economy declined in the last quarter for which figures are available.

If Labour genuinely believes that the present budget plans are wrong for the economy, are they not entitled to express that in a vote?

I believe both parties are right, to a degree. Labour is entitled to seek to vote down the budget. The SNP is entitled to point out that such a vote is not without consequences.

It will be up to the voters to choose which strategy they prefer. Presumably, they will also offer their opinion on the relevance of sundry tactics during an economic downturn.

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

Herewith the latest from Holyrood as MSPs prepare to vote upon the Scottish Government's budget on Wednesday.

Firstly, the presiding officer, Alex Fergusson, has notified party whips that he will use his casting vote AGAINST the new budget if there's a tie when MSPs vote at 5pm tomorrow.

The PO is advising the parties now - to remove at least one element of doubt and speculation from the intense negotations under way right now.

He's following convention - which is that the chair votes for the status quo in the event that a new proposal fails to win assent.

The revised budget counts as a new plan - and so falls within that convention.

Constitutional theorists, I suppose, might query whether Holyrood's support in principle for the new budget at stage one supersedes the status quo of the existing budget.

Against that, it was plain that Labour, for example, only supported the new budget at that stage in order to allow negotiations to proceed. In any event, Mr Fergusson has ruled - entirely in line with past precedent - that he regards the status quo as being the existing 2008/09 budget.

Funding concessions

Secondly, where do the parties stand? The only certainty in a blancmange of bluff and speculation is that the Liberal Democrats will vote "No" on wednesday.

They wanted a 2p cut in income tax. John Swinney would not entertain that. So no deal.

Right now, I think the Tories will vote "Yes" - as they did last year. They want guaranteed new funding for concessions secured last year such as cuts in business rates.

They want extra items such as town centre renewal, action on hospital acquired infection and outward bound training for kids. In all, they want £200m.

I think they'll get it and vote "Yes".

Can Margo MacDonald be persuaded to vote "Yes"? She didn't earlier, even though she's been given concessions on capital status funding for Edinburgh.

She wants more funding flexibility. As ever, it's her call.

Gaining ground

Which leaves the Greens and Labour. They are not remotely comparable in terms of Holyrood seats.

The Greens bring two votes to the negotiating table. Labour brings 46.

But ask yourself this. Politically, which party do you think John Swinney would rather do a deal with? If you answered "Green", you win a coconut or a cigar according to choice.

For two reasons. The SNP would not want the impression to gain ground that they are only able to govern with the temporary tolerance of their long entrenched rivals.

Secondly, Labour is pressing for concessions which are proportionate to their size. In short, they want a lot.

To be fair, Labour's demands are pre-grounded in their own stated economic policies. For example, they want more - much more - to be spent on training and apprenticeships.

They want a guarantee, as per Northern Ireland, that apprentices whose firms go bust will be caught in a state safety net.

Serious discussions

Labour sources dismiss suggestions that they're trying to supplant an SNP budget with a Labour one. A Labour budget, they say, would not be anticipating the introduction of a Local Income Tax, for example.

Rather, they are trying to amend the government's budget.

There have been negotiations between John Swinney and Andy Kerr: serious discussions.

However, perhaps understandably given the scope of the demands, Mr Swinney has not yet moved sufficiently to secure Labour support.

Right now, Labour MSPs are in a mood to vote "No". Unlike last year, they will not abstain.

But then, if Mr Swinney can secure the Greens along with the Tories, he does not need Labour.

The Greens want a huge package of investment in area-based home insulation: that is near universal rather than house by house on the basis of applications.

They will be offered pilots - at a lower cost.

Which is where the negotations are right now.

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

On occasion, an issue arises where I prefer to ventilate your views rather than proffer my punditry. This, I feel, is one such.

The issue? Whether broadcasters, , should show the appeal by the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) of charities with regard to aid for Gaza.

There have been a couple of developments over the weekend and today.

Firstly, the issue was brought home to ´óÏó´«Ã½ Scotland, literally, via a demonstration.

Secondly, Sky News has now joined the ´óÏó´«Ã½ in declining to broadcast the appeal.

Sky's head of news, John Riley, comments: "The nature of an appeal is that it sets out to provoke a specific response from the viewer.

"We don't believe that broadcasting such an appeal on Sky News can be combined with the balance and context that impartial journalism aims to bring to the highly charged and continuing conflict in Gaza."

Earlier, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ had attracted substantial adverse comment for turning down the broadcast.

Here is what Mark Thompson, the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s Director General, has to say on the subject.

"We concluded that we could not broadcast a free-standing appeal, no matter how carefully constructed, without running the risk of reducing public confidence in the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s impartiality in its wider coverage of the story.

"Inevitably an appeal would use pictures which are the same or similar to those we would be using in our news programmes but would do so with the objective of encouraging public donations.

"The danger for the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is that this could be interpreted as taking a political stance on an ongoing story.

"When we have turned down DEC appeals in the past on impartiality grounds it has been because of this risk of giving the public the impression that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ was taking sides in an ongoing conflict."

Herewith the alternative view.

Douglas Alexander, the Secretary of State for International Development, says: "My appeal is a much more straightforward one.

"People are suffering right now, many hundreds of thousands of people are without the basic necessities of life.

"That for me is a very straightforward case and I sincerely hope that the British people respond with characteristic generosity."

The First Minister Alex Salmond has also commented, saying: "This is the time when people across the world are celebrating the legacy of Robert Burns, who wrote 'man's inhumanity to man makes countless thousands mourn'.

"The sole purpose of the DEC is to help innocent people who are suffering through no fault of their own.

"I can't help feeling that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ are running scared at the present moment and they should reconsider their unfortunate decision not to allow the DEC to screen their appeal - especially now that other broadcasters have confirmed that they are showing it."

The Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has also strongly criticised the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

There has been discussion, on either side of the argument, with regard to the issue of whether aid would get through. However, the core question centres upon impartiality versus aid.

In essence, the alternative views are these:

• This is a purely humanitarian appeal, designed to assist a suffering people. It goes ahead without the broadcasters but their involvement would enhance it enormously. Viewers are well able to distinguish between news coverage and a charity appeal.

• This is an ongoing - and highly complex, politicised - conflict. Every day, broadcasters have to tread carefully, balancing competing views. If those same broadcasters then publish images which are designed to evoke sympathy for victims on one side of the conflict, then their impartiality is jeopardised.

Over to you. Given the gravity of these events, I would strengthen my now habitual appeal for even-tempered contributions.

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

Distinguished visitors in the gallery today for questions to the first minister, parliamentary conveners all.

John O'Donoghue, Ceann Comhairle in Dail Eireann; Stephen Rodan, the speaker of the House of Keys in the Isle of Man; Inge Lonning, President of the Norwegian Lagting; Steve Peters, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and Michael Polley, Speaker of the House of Assembly of the Parliament of Tasmania.

They listened as Annabel Goldie suggested the first minister had a face like a haggis.

That is not, incidentally, to traduce Miss Goldie's contribution. It featured sustained, witty invective on the subject of the currency, skipping blithely from defending Scots pound notes to condemning the Euro.

And the haggis? Bella reckons that a Scots Euro note, if such a thing were to emerge, would feature either Mr Salmond's own visage - or the great chieftain o' the puddin' race.

Perhaps, she opined, folk wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Oh, such wickedness! And was Alex Salmond crushed? What do you think?

Debate by insult

Plainly relishing the attack, he fought back personfully - reflecting on his own forthcoming appearance in The Broons before stating that he was far too discreet to suggest which cartoon character Miss Goldie resembled.

There must be room, on occasion, for a touch of flyting, the ancient Scots art of debate by insult. This was Grade A flyting - from both participants.

Actually, it was a rather good session of FMQs all round. Labour's Iain Gray pursued Mr Salmond on the topic of knife crime, in particular the issue of whether carrying a knife should attract a mandatory prison sentence.

Mr Salmond responded deftly, stressing the complexities involved in such an apparently simple request.

Tavish Scott, too, was on a strong topic, one he has made his own: the takeover of HBOS by Lloyds.

Today he suggested parliamentary inquiries into the implications and gained a degree of qualified support from Mr Salmond who noted, in passing, that Lloyds had also announced actions which might be said to assist Scotland.

Fine mimic

I suspect the watching Speakers, here for last night's Parliamentary Burns Supper, would have been impressed by the standard of disputation in the Land o' Cakes.

PS: Incidentally, all the best from me to Steve Rodan of the House of Keys. I remember him, roughly a thousand years ago, when he was a prominent Liberal in Scotland.

Indeed, he stood in Moray and Nairn, as I recall.

Again if I remember aright, he was a rather fine mimic. Isn't it intriguing how things come around?

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

Bit more to report re the .

With the deadline for amendments approaching, the subterranean negotiations are proceeding apace.

Only ministers can propose amendments to the Bill allocating expenditure for the coming year.

But there's an option for John Swinney to agree now that further changes will be made in the autumn revision of spending.

He took that option last year for part of the deal with the Tories. Looks like he will have to implement that procedure again.

Re details, expect ministers to offer the Greens a pilot programme to test the notion of area-wide home insulation.

That is, not the full-scale £100m policy they were after.

'Radical option'

Expect them to try to pin down Margo Macdonald's support by stressing the value of the capital city cash for Edinburgh: that support was not forthcoming in the stage one vote on the budget.

Don't think there can be or will be any deal with the Liberal Democrats. They are continuing to hold out for their "radical" option of cutting the standard rate of income tax by 2p.

Then there's Labour - where negotiations are under way on issues such as apprentice training. However, Labour wants concessions reflecting their numerical status: that is, 46 MSPs.

Might be too much for either side.

Which leaves the Conservatives. Primarily, they want assurances that the deals they secured last year - police numbers, cut business rates, tackle drugs - will be rolled forward.

They also have a shopping list including such items as town centre renewal.

In terms of arithmetic, strategy and politics, that remarkable blend of Nationalism and Unionism once again looks the most likely avenue for agreement.

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

Hail to the Chief, the theme song for today. Right up there with "Buddy, can you spare a dime."

It is, genuinely, uplifting to .

Seldom, however, has a president entered office facing such a severe financial crisis.

When Hoover gained the nomination for the post in 1928, he forecast America's "final triumph over poverty".

Within months of taking office, the Wall Street crash reduced that optimistic language to sewer gas.

Perhaps Roosevelt and his 1930s New Deal programme most closely match the challenge facing Barack Obama.

Political joy

FDR ended up fighting the wealthy and the Supreme Court in pursuit of his objectives.

It is a measure of the crisis facing the US that there is likely to be far more sustained focus in the early days of the Obama presidency upon his policies for reviving the economy than upon the once startling fact of an African American in the White House.

Entirely rightly, the question to be posed is not "who are you, where have you come from? - but "who are you, what can you do?"

However, for today at least, we might be allowed a rare moment of political joy as Barack Obama takes the Oath of Office upon the Bible used by Lincoln.

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

Intriguing developments at Holyrood. The presiding officer Alex Fergusson has .

I know, I know, you wicked guys out there think that politicians and the truth are strangers. Or, more precisely, you think that of politicians who don't pursue your own partisan allegiance.

Let us be clear what has - and has not - happened here.

Firstly, the PO is not conducting his own inquiry. He has asked Holyrood's Standards Committee to have a think.

Mr Fergusson has repeatedly - and, boy, do I mean repeatedly - had to advise MSPs that he is responsible solely for good order.

He is not, repeat not, repeat not responsible for the content of contributions, whether from ministers or others.

He has had to do this in response to frequent claims that, in his chamber utterances, Alex Salmond in particular dodges questions/is economical with the truth/choose any phrase you like.

Wise course

At which point, one enters the realm of partisan politics. Critics of the first minister say he is a serial offender who shoots from the lip.

Supporters of Mr S say it is scarcely his fault if his opponents are unable to catch him out in debate or at question time.

To be clear, secondly. This is not an inquiry into Mr Salmond. To understand that, we should perhaps use the full title of the committee - which is Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments.

On this occasion, it's the procedures bit which counts.

Alex Fergusson wants to know if or how new procedures might be implemented to allow him to rule upon the veracity or otherwise of parliamentary contributions.

To repeat, he does not appear to believe such a change would be a wise course.

He told MSPs he "never has been, is not and cannot" be responsible for veracity.

Who's right?

Not that word "cannot". That implies he believes that this position continues and must be sustained.

Exasperated by repeated points of order on this issue, he has asked the committee charged with examining procedure to guide him.

A specific complaint by the Liberal Democrat leader Tavish Scott that Mr Salmond misled parliament by saying that a funding concern with regard to the Inter Faith Council had been resolved when, at the precise moment the statement was made, it had yet to be concluded.

Who's right? Mr Salmond is relying upon the fact that Ministerial "assurances" were offered to the council before he gave his reply to Mr Scott on the 8th of January.

Mr Scott points out that the detail had yet to be resolved. The assurance had yet to be translated into practical action.

Mr Salmond replies that, in government, it is the "assurance" that counts. And so the long day wears on.

There is, of course, much more here than that particular case. Labour MSPs in particular have been pressing the PO to demand answers from Mr Salmond.

Feeling obligated

Just as vigorously, the PO has been insisting that the content of Mr Salmond's replies are nothing to do with him - as long as he observes order. It was notable that, today, the PO appeared to chide Mr Salmond for seeking to pose questions to Iain Gray, contrary to procedure.

In other words, the PO is feeling under pressure - and feeling obliged to respond. He has ruled - repeatedly - that he is not responsible for content.

In essence, he is now challenging his critics. If you think my rulings are wrong, show me why - and how. Not vaguely - but precisely, within the Parliamentary rules.

Yet more. In the ministerial code, we are told "that it is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to the parliament."

It is, however, the responsibility of the FM to ensure that this is observed.

That has caused controversy in the past - moving Mr Salmond to on such matters.

Another tiny point. If the PO is to be made responsible for content in parliament, is that likely to reduce the number of points of order - or might it rather increase their frequency?

Is it not likely that every time an MSP dislikes an answer, they will leap to their feet and demand a ruling from the PO on its veracity?

As ever, be careful what you wish for.

***Update***

Retaliate first. A fine political principle being followed tonight by Alex Salmond.

Aware of a pending formal complaint from Tavish Scott, he's invoked a procedure whereby the two former Presiding Officers are asked to investigate and rule on matters of probity affecting the First Minister in his dealings with parliament.

So, Sir David Steel and George Reid will conduct an inquiry into the claim that Mr Salmond misled Holyrood over funding for the Inter Faith Council. This is their first such inquiry since they were given the role by Mr Salmond last summer.

The underlying issue is "quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Who guards the guardians, who pronounces on Ministers?

The answer is the FM, who is the keeper of the Ministerial code. If they breach the code, he can sack them.

So who judges the FM? Well, aside from the voters, nobody - until Mr Salmond revised the system and gave the job to a tribunal comprising Sir David and Mr Reid.

We now have two inquiries. The Steel/Reid investigation into Mr Salmond's comments.

And the Procedures Committee inquiry, prompted by the current Presiding Officer Alex Fergusson, into the wider question of his powers.

Bet the Inter Faith Council never thought they would cause such a fuss when they asked for a hike in their funding.

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

Did you catch that item on GMS, prepared by my esteemed colleague, Seonag Mackinnon?

It dealt with the exclusion of pupils from school - or, more precisely, the sharp drop in such exclusions in Glasgow.

In the first four months of the current school year, .

The drop in the primary sector was 15%.

This is nothing short of a transformation. Or, in more modest mode, the beginning of a transformation.

As Seonag explained, one big reason for the change is the introduction of specific learning centres for tackling disruptive behaviour at secondary level, with nurture classes for younger ones.

The strategy would appear to be three-fold. Firstly, those who are causing havoc are withdrawn entirely from their class.

Subduing troublemakers

The learning centres are based away from mainstream schools. Makes sense.

To be brutally frank, time spent by teachers subduing troublemakers is time withheld from teaching those who want to learn.

There may well be sound reasons - background, home life - for the disruption: but that scarcely helps the others.

We can tinker with the exam system all we like, we can hold endless away-days for education staff.

But if there is no atmosphere of sustained discipline in our classrooms then we are completely wasting our time.

It is asking too much to expect our teachers to pass on their knowledge about quadratic equations - or elementary sums - while dealing with those who do not want, for whatever reason, to be in standard schooling and make their feelings plain.

Secondly, I liked the comment this morning to the effect that the learning Centres were not to be seen as "sin-bins".

Loving approach

Think of it this way. A punishment routine will often simply reinforce the aggressive, anti-authority behaviour which is the source of the trouble in the first place.

Kids from troubled backgrounds will be well used to the harsh voice of command - and worse.

They will intuitively respond negatively as they have done all their short lives.

Perhaps it is wise to try something else: to try a listening, loving approach - but one which counters the disruptive behaviour and its causes.

I liked too the notion that these learning centres include social workers plus sports and music instructors alongside teachers and psychologists.

Precisely the sort of combination which it is impossible to deploy in class.

Thirdly, the ultimate aim is reintegration. As Glasgow city councillor Gordon Matheson has commented, we are simply storing up further problems if we resort too readily to exclusion.

Best of luck, Glasgow. Hope it works.

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

Did you peruse The Herald this morning? Intriguing front page headlined "Is it time to redraw the council map of Scotland?"

Given these troubled times, the short answer to that might well be: "No, next question."

That short answer would be predicated upon a wish to avoid disrupting local authorities at a time when they have been placed in the front line of deploying public spending to counter the downturn/recession.

Redrawing the council map would be a huge task. Let nobody think differently. There would be endless argument, local inquiries, the lot.

Do we really want our local politicians distracted when they should be focused on mitigating economic decline?

To be fair, the Herald is alert to alternatives - such as sharing back office functions.

Does Scotland, they ask, really need 32 Directors of Education (and Social Work and....) plus their attendant staff numbers?

Pooled efforts

Good question. However, if we are to have this debate, then perhaps we need to start with a more fundamental inquiry still.

What is the purpose of local government? Is it to act as a delivery mechanism for central government objectives and targets?

If so, then efficiency would suggest that there should be savings to be made in that the individual directors will have little real discretion.

They could comfortably pool their efforts.

Herewith a snag, though. To whom would these shared directors be accountable? To their "own" council - which has farmed them out to neighbouring authorities?

To the various councils collectively which employ their services? What if those councils pursue different policies - and are of different political colours?

Perhaps, then, to the central administration - in that the bulk of the funding comes from that source?

Democratic mandate

It has long struck me that the key decision-making function of local authorities - as opposed to administrative functions - is planning.

That is where the democratic mandate rests. Do we, the citizens of Anytown, want more industrial development - or do we want green belt?

Do we, those same citizens, broadly favour social housing or upmarket estates?

How is that mandate exercised? Through local councils? Through larger authorities, still single tier but straddling a region?

If through those larger councils, then would you need genuine area decision making? Maybe the genuine questions are not about the map - but about the remit.

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

The Scottish Government's website always repays inspection.

Apart from gripping statistics about sheep, one can find much to amuse and inform.

Right now, for example, the "splash" items (to borrow a term from my old newspaper days) concern hospital infection and efforts to help communities afflicted by unemployment.

So what, I hear you mutter. So this. The choice is not accidental. These two topics feature as key demands for enhanced financial assistance from, respectively, the Conservatives and Labour.

The health item refers to an announcement by Nicola Sturgeon about new measures to tackle hospital acquired infection.

No doubt, she is working on the outdated concept that you should leave hospital healthier than when you were admitted.

Action on HAI was item one on the shopping list being progressively advanced by the Tories as part of their price for backing John Swinney's Budget.

Other items may emerge in due course.

Think of it as a political Dance of the Seven Veils.

Tabloid touch

The other lead on the SG website is more intriguing still. It concerns PACE - Partnership Action for Continuing Employment.

The headline - Stepping up the PACE - speaks of a yearning for a light, tabloid touch.

What great development has occurred? For what has the front page been held? Well, nothing, really.

Ministers, it would seem, are "working to improve the support" provided by PACE.

Since all funded initiatives are, rightly, under semi-permanent review, one would have thought this to be a statement of the obvious.

Rather, though, it is a statement of intent.

Labour has demanded that PACE schemes be enhanced - as part of its contribution to the Budget debate.

In essence, ministers are saying with this website item: we hear, we act.

Mildly amused

Explicitly, they are saying to Labour: if you still can't sign up to our Budget, then don't attempt to blame us for ignoring your demands.

Now, of course, Labour wants more, much more.

It has set out a 15-point plan for reviving - or, at least, protecting - the economy.

John Swinney says he's implementing some of them, he'll have a look at others - but Labour cannot expect the full package.

For the avoidance of any doubt, I am not remotely complaining about the Scottish Government website.

It is deft governance to use every tool at your disposal to advance your objectives.

The Budget undoubtedly fits into that category.

Just thought you might be mildly amused, that's all.

PS: Well done to United for their 4-0 triumph over East Stirlingshire. I thoroughly enjoyed standing on a terracing once more, cheering on the lads. Great to see Sean Dillon has joined Lee Wilkie and Jon Daly in signing new contracts. Go for it, Willo Flood. Arabs everywhere salute you!

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

What do you make of the Homecoming campaign?

Scottish Ministers are doing their bit this weekend - some, no doubt, under duress - by gallantly witnessing sundry soccer matches.

The reason? It's the Homecoming Scottish Cup - and a chance to punt the festival/concept/initiative, call it what you will.

The first minister, a self-confessed Jambo, is attending Peterhead v Queens Park.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill courageously fits in two games - Stenhousemuir on Saturday and the Edinburgh derby on Sunday.

A gushing news release informs us further that Adam Ingram will be in the stand for "arguably the most romantic tie of the round", Ayr United v Kilmarnock.

There writes someone who hasn't been at Somerset Park for a wee while - although, trust me, I get the Burnsian connection.

Bruce Crawford, minister for parliament and a fanatical Dunfermline supporter, is making the ultimate sacrifice and attending . . . Dunfermline v Clyde.

Education Secretary Fiona Hyslop gets the tie of the round - East Stirling versus the mighty Dundee United.

And there's more, too many to list - although, unaccountably, Finance Secretary John Swinney found himself unable to fit in the titanic contest that is Forfar v Forres Mechanics.

Something about a prior engagement.

Hope they all have a fine day and a splendid half-time pie - or, in the case of Forfar, bridie.

Despite this display of Ministerial dedication, it seems likely that the low-level muttering about Homecoming 2009 will continue. Is it fair?

Team Salmond is adamant that early organisational problems - that is, before they took over - have long since been tackled.

The enthusiasm of the promoters is palpable and impressive.

But herewith a few other moans and groans which I have heard. What's the purpose of Homecoming 2009?

Is it to attract expats from the diaspora back to Caledonia - or to foster a sense of Scottish patriotism within the existing residents?

Is it primarily about the arts - or about tourism? Is there much that is authentically new, or does it largely draw together events, like the Edinburgh Festival, which were happening anyway?

By what criteria should we measure success? Visitor numbers? Is that a reasonable guide in a year when the economy is destined for recession?

I freely confess that I am torn here. I am a sucker for Brand Caledonia. Tartan, Burns, the lot.

I think we should play that image for all it is worth. We should tell every visitor that their family name is an honorary sept of the Clan Cameron.

I am just not entirely sure, yet, of the added value of this particular initiative. However, I am quite prepared to suspend judgement until United have lifted the Homecoming Cup that is their right.

Prior to that, I'd welcome your views.

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

Money, money, money.

, we learned that interest rates have been cut again to their lowest level since the Bank of England was founded in 1694 - by a Scot, one William Paterson.

It was fitting, therefore, that the exchanges with the first minister were mostly concerned with cash or, more precisely, capital.

Both Iain Gray and Annabel Goldie voiced deep disquiet with the Scottish Government's handling of the proposal to fund a new Forth crossing.

Mr Gray was notably persistent. However, the best soundbite belonged to Miss Goldie who opined that Alex Salmond was more concerned with "burning bridges" with Westminster than building such structures in Scotland.

Mr Salmond initially appeared to struggle just a fraction - or, at least, in comparison with his customary sangfroid.

He very soon rallied, though, and offered rebuttal if not quite refutation to the opposition attacks.

Non-starter

You'll recall the background here. The Scottish Government wants the Treasury to release more money for capital investment in the next few years to build the bridge - on the understanding that Scotland would get less over a 20 year period.

No dice, says the Treasury. That's borrowing money now from budgets which don't yet exist.

Opposition leaders said Mr Salmond should have known his plan was a non-starter.

Further, they asserted that his government should not have announced this plan at Holyrood without establishing the Treasury view.

There began the Salmond fight-back. Firstly, he stressed that the bridge would be built by traditional procurement means.

What was in question was whether that cost could be spread - or whether it was all to be accounted for in a few years, thereby putting "substantial" pressure on other capital projects.

Secondly, he said PPP/PFI was now a non-starter because new accounting rules mean such projects count as public spending.

Confident performance

Mr Salmond said PPP/PFI would now mean that the whole cost of the bridge, some £2bn, would be accounted for in a single fiscal year: that is, more than half the annual Scottish capital budget of £3.5bn.

Scotland would then repay the PPP cost over decades.

Thirdly, he challenged his rivals to say how they would propose to pay for the bridge.

In particular, he tackled Labour over whether they would absolutely rule out toll charges.

It was, ultimately, a confident performance. However, it still leaves the question of the dog that didn't bark - or even whimper: the Scottish Futures Trust.

As Iain Gray pointed out, the SFT had played no role in the bridge scheme, despite advance billing.

Still with money, more re the controversy over the Scottish Budget for next year.

There were further talks behind the scenes today. For example, I understand the Greens have been sounded out again about their potential support for the Budget.

Doing a deal

Their price is quite specific - and rather substantial. They want a £100m project to enhance home insulation on an area basis: that is, universal rather than by individual applicant.

SNP plus Greens plus Tories would add up to a majority. If the Greens can be persuaded.

If and when the Tories advance a detailed shopping list of their own - and if and when a deal can be done with them.

They insist they're ready to vote "No" or "Yes". Don't think they'll abstain.

John Swinney, the finance secretary, only needs to cut these particular deals - if Labour and the Liberal Democrats vote No to the budget.

Last year, they ended up abstaining. Right now, it looks as if both those parties are talking themselves into a "No" vote.

The Lib Dems want income tax cuts (vetoed by Swinney, J.).

knowing grin

Labour wants its package on the economy adopted en masse by the SNP. John Swinney might well be up for deals on individual measures - but I suspect he would regard the wider Labour demand as being, in effect, a surrender of control.

Stand by for a game of political poker. The stakes? Nothing much: just £33bn of public spending and the future of the Scottish Government.

Still think the Budget will get through, though.

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

Bear witness, at Holyrood, to a tentative little political quadrille.

Nothing much at stake - just £33bn of public spending for the coming year.

For the Liberal Democrats, Mike Rumbles is having a chat with John Swinney, the Finance Secretary.

The advance billing from Mr Rumbles sets out his own party's demand for a tax cut to stimulate the economy.

Do not expect Mr Swinney to be over-sympathetic.

Beneath such understandable grandstanding, however, there are also detailed negotiations under way.

These are relatively early days - and so the various parties, including the Scottish Government, are reluctant to show their hand.

At this stage, however, it looks as though the political strategy picture may be somewhat different from last year when Mr Swinney struck a deal with the Tories - while Labour and the LibDems voiced sharp criticism but then abstained in the final vote, attracting howls of derision from the government benches.

I understand that Mr Swinney is quietly sounding out all the opposition parties, Labour included.

Again no details - but my guess is Labour might want to advance their case for training cash and for more action teams to help communities struggling with job losses.

Wouldn't mean they support the SNP's budget strategy - but might mean they seek an opportunity to lever productive change.

We'll learn a bit more tomorrow when Mr Swinney tables the Budget Bill.

The debate on that is a week hence. Ministers hope to get the Budget through by the end of January.

Will they succeed? Frankly, yes. This is a mid year - not a full-scale review period, meaning that the scope for innocent political merriment is limited.
Further, MSPs know that a Bill of some sort must, in reality, be passed.

Governments cannot govern at all without a licence to spend.

Further still, the political climate has changed with the calamities afflicting the economy.

No party wants to be seen behaving irresponsibly with public spending, particularly when one of the declared objectives is to revive that economy.

Further yet more, Mr Swinney and Bruce Crawford proved last year that they are adept politicians. I expect they keep a copy of "The Prince" by their respective bedsides.

In publishing the Bill, Mr Swinney will also give further details re the £260m of capital expenditure which he is accelerating, following agreement with the Treasury.

My guess is he'll seek to answer queries raised by the Finance Committee as to guarantees that this spending will help boost the construction industry in particular - and hence provide much-needed jobs.

PS: And if you want to know more about the parties' various stances on the Budget, be sure to watch Newsnight Scotland this very evening.

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

Agriculture, we learn today, is primarily about the provision of food. Well, that's a comfort.

For this searing analysis, we are indebted to the Scottish Government and, in particular, to Rural Affairs Secretary Richard Lochhead who has been .

Ach, stop it, Brian. Enough of this urban cynicism. Mr Lochhead is striving to promote an industry which is worth some £7.5bn to the Scottish economy.

I freely confess that my knowledge of rural matters is not great, despite my being the grandson of an Angus farm grieve.

From him and his kin, I learned sundry songs and rural lore. Even today, I can sing all the words of "Nicky Tams", that magnificent ballad of Angus country life.

As a coy loon on the Press and Journal in Aberdeen, I occasionally subbed the fish prices. Ling, coley, gutted haddock, round haddock and the rest.

Calamity to get them wrong.

Serious gig

At a still younger age, I was wont to pick berries in Blairgowrie and at small-holdings near Dundee. However, that's about as far as it goes.

But back to Mr Lochhead. The Oxford conference is a serious gig with speakers from the EU and the UK Cabinet alongside the Scottish governmental contribution.

Mr Lochhead's core argument is that the interests of Scotland diverge in this sector from policies which he attributes to his UK counterparts.

No surprise there, given that he is a Nationalist. He seeks further powers for the Scottish Parliament in this sector.

However, his detailed analysis is intriguing - and perhaps worthy of further debate.

The minister asserts that UK ministers are backing a relatively speedy end to farming subsidies as part of reforms to the European Common Agricultural Policy.

This, says Mr Lochhead, is "not Scotland's vision". Public support for farming, he said, was "wholly justified" in the light of challenges which he said were "unique" in Scotland.

An argument, one imagines, which will find favour in, for example, France where agriculture is traditionally accorded key importance. Perhaps Mr Lochhead should revive the Auld Alliance.

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

A guid New Year, this message widely and randomly dispersed. And a substantive political controversy to get us all going - how to fund the ?

And what has to give if the money comes from existing budgets?

As ever, the search is for the plain and simple truth. Equally as ever, the truth is rarely plain and never simple.

The Scottish Government consciously narrowed its options by abolishing tolls on existing estuarial crossings - and ruling out such charges for the future.

It further narrowed its spectrum of financial choices by taking against PPP/PFI.
There was bold talk that the new Scottish Futures Trust would generate innovative ways of funding such projects.

The SFT may well be working furiously behind the scenes but there is little sign yet of the brave new funding world that was promised.

Against that, Scottish Ministers point out that they took the decision to fund a new Crossing where others vacillated.

They reviewed it and produced a cut-price version. They have given a firm commitment to keep traffic flowing over the Forth.

Further, they say they produced a scheme to restructure capital investment. In essence, Scotland would get much more now in return for relative restraint down the line, spread over a twenty year period.

I was sceptical as to whether that would find favour with the Treasury - and said so on the day the plan was published in December.

Now we have confirmation - up with this the Treasury will not put. They say it amounts to advancing capital now on the basis of a promise to constrain distant budgets which have yet to be set for governments which have yet to be formed.

Indeed, the Chancellor went so far as to declare "we don't do that sort of thing."

A more wicked commentator might say that, until recently, the Treasury didn't do things like nationalise banks. But you won't find any of that glib insolence here.
More, Treasury Ministers say John Swinney's plan is different from the capital restructuring they have themselves undertaken which is measurable and limited to three years.

Scottish Ministers have now embarked on efforts to find a solution, in discussion with the Treasury. It was agreed today that there will be an early meeting.

Everyone acknowledges that a replacement crossing is required in order to relieve pressure on the existing bridge. Ferries don't quite cut it in the modern Scottish economy.

So options? The Treasury tentatively suggests PPP. But the tentative nature of that suggestion is intriguing, featuring as it does an acknowledgement that PPP "would not solve the budgeting problem if the scheme was classified as public spending."
Which, say SNP Ministers, it is - or will be under new European accounting rules.

Which, say the same Ministers, undermines any lingering support for PPP.

How about emulating Crossrail, the London transport project? But that partly involves borrowing against future revenue streams.

There ain't no such stream with a non-tolled bridge.

Other Treasury suggestions? Divert revenue to capital - or underspend on the capital budget for a few years, building up a bridge warchest.

Scottish Ministers don't fancy either option - arguing that they run counter to the objective of stimulating the economy with productive public expenditure.

Talks will examine these and other options.

But, in the absence of a grand new wheeze, we might end up with the following - the bridge goes ahead, funded from capital budgets, and other projects - transport, schools, hospitals - face possible delays.

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