´óÏó´«Ã½

Some intriguing suggestions as to public attitudes from

Looks like Scots want Holyrood to run the show when it comes to domestic issues - even those that are currently reserved to Westminster.

But there's an obvious exception: defence and foreign affairs.

Views flip over when it comes to that sector with people in Scotland seeming to favour Westminster control.

No surprise that folk fancy Holyrood control over the health service: it's already devolved.

At the very least, it would seem to confirm support for the settlement in that field.

But how about income tax and pensions? Tax is almost entirely controlled by Westminster at the moment - with the exception of the never-used 3p variation. Pensions are wholly reserved.

Yet by margins of around two to one in each case respondents to our poll indicated their preference for Holyrood control.

John Curtice, the wizard of the figures, says this is in line with previous comparable findings which suggest, among other things, that Scots might be inclined to go further than Calman when it comes to transferring new powers to Holyrood.

They may not want to make changes to, for example, pensions and social security provision. But they appear to want such matters run from Edinburgh.

However, that pattern goes into reverse when it comes to defence and foreign affairs.

By a clear margin, Scots favour those decisions remaining with the UK Government at Westminster.

And there's more. Asked to choose between independence, devolution with no tax powers and the Calman-style option of devolution with some tax control, Scots seem to go for "more powers".

But, if a devolved Parliament with more powers is to be put forward, respondents to our
poll reckon this should only happen after a referendum.

Aha, the SNP will undoubtedly say.

That adds to the case for putting Calman to the test in a referendum alongside the independence option.

Among earlier broadcast findings, confirmation that Scots mostly feel Scottish rather than British, a feeling that Holyrood has given Scotland more clout in the UK and continuing disquiet about Scottish spending levels.

More tomorrow.

NB: The poll was conducted for ´óÏó´«Ã½ Scotland by ICM. They interviewed 1010 people between 22 and 24 June.

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

Remarkable dual approach at Holyrood over climate change.

Accusations of political manipulation offstage. Unanimous backing in the chamber.

Versions of how they got there differ. But our MSPs are now committed to a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 42% by 2020. That's up from 34%.

Firstly, the offstage stuff.

Labour accuses the Scottish Government of lacking ambition.

By contrast, ministers reckon Labour are at it - late political opportunism to irk the government.

Lib Dems and Greens say both the big parties are missing an opportunity to drive real change - with annual targets instead of a single, longer-term ambition.

Argument, irritability, claim and counter claim. Then they all vote unanimously for the deal.

Contradictory? No.

Quite often, political deals go to the wire. Look at the negotiations over the budget.

This consensus reflects the fact that all parties reckon they've arrived, collectively, at the best agreement possible in the circumstances.

The key point about the new, higher target is that it includes get-out clauses. Ministers will be able to vary the 2020 target in certain circumstances - most notably linked to wider efforts to tackle emissions by the EU.

But the minister, Stewart Stevenson, promised that there would be only one change at most; that it would not cut the target for 2020 below expert advice; and that it would not be needed at all if the EU went for ambitious targets which, in effect, offer Scotland a helping hand.

So, targets we have. Now, as to implementation.

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

Don't expect you remember the ´óÏó´«Ã½ comedy series, ITMA. Dating from the 1940s, it is, in truth, a little before my time too.

However, as well as entertaining Britain during troubled times, ITMA (or "It's That Man Again") generated a few lasting catchphrases.

There was Colonel Chinstrap who would inevitably turn every discussion round to the subject of drink by muttering "I don't mind if I do".

There was the standard valediction: "TTFN". Standing for Ta Ta For Now.

Then the ineffably polite pair of gents, each reluctant to oust the other from the limelight.

"After you, Claude". "No, after you, Cecil". "No, after you...." Well, you get the concept.

I wonder whether the spirits of Claude and Cecil may be hanging over the talks today between Alex Salmond and Jim Murphy.

What's occurring? Mr Murphy is meeting the members of Alex Salmond's Cabinet in advance of the regular weekly meeting of the Holyrood top team.

Team Salmond have held several such events - although, of course, this one has added piquancy in that they are meeting a declared political rival.

And why the reminiscences about ITMA? Because Claude Salmond and Cecil Murphy are both eager to insist that, if there is any discord, it won't come from them.

More in sorrow than anger, Mr Murphy tells GMS radio listeners that he's only too eager to co-operate - if only Mr Salmond, the brute, would stop complaining about forthcoming cuts in public spending. Which don't, you understand, exist. Over to you, Claude.

Meanwhile, Team Salmond stresses that - while they might mention spending cuts and the Calman Commission in passing - their real objective is to brief Mr Murphy on the Scottish Government's urgent economic programme which, of course, is only needed because You Know Whose government has made a mess of things. Your call, Cecil.

It's a delicate dance. An elegant political quadrille. Knife your opponent while hiding the blade and protesting, mildly, that your only objective is to stay in close step.

Come and trip it as you go, on the light fantastic toe.

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

Mr Jim Devine is said to be considering his future - what remains of it following the verdict from the grandly titled Labour Party NEC endorsements panel.

Big name, simple outcome. Mr Devine will not be welcome to represent the party at the next general election.

It is, in truth, an ignoble ending to a relatively brief parliamentary career, culminating in accusations over his expenses, including a claim for 66 metres of office shelving.

He was only returned as an MP in September 2005 at a by-election following the death of Robin Cook.

The option of resigning immediately and forcing a by-election remains open to Mr Devine - who protests his innocence.

Or he could carry on until the general version is called by, at the latest, next year.

Either way, it would appear his political career will prove notably short-lived.

Shelved, in short.

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

Another day and things move on apace.

Alex Salmond has now : he will publish a White Paper on St Andrew's day this year, with a referendum Bill to follow in 2010.

More intriguingly, he has suggested the eventual referendum ballot paper to go before the voters, Holyrood permitting, might include a "Calman option".

This is smart thinking by the FM. His opponents in the Scottish Parliament are opposed to holding a referendum next year.

Whatever they may say, I suspect that, privately, they understand that this is a tricky place to be, politically.

Not impossible, you understand. But difficult.

It is one thing to advance a case against independence. It is another, entirely, to be depicted as standing out against the people choosing.

Folk tend to like being empowered.

Weeping buckets

Mr Salmond knows all that - and so Mr Salmond is out to be Mr Reasonable when it comes to his referendum.

You don't like asking about independence? Well, then, put in the option of your .

As I have written before, he won't exactly weep buckets if his Referendum Bill is blocked.

He would use it as a tactical issue at the next Holyrood election.

There's another, more immediate tactical problem for Mr Salmond's opponents.

They say that they aren't entirely against the concept of a referendum. It's largely about timing.

Not now. Economy in crisis. Too disruptive. Wait. Defer.

In which case, why pursue the Calman agenda so enthusiastically and urgently? That involves, does it not, substantial change including fiscal transfer.

Difficult position

It is sufficiently substantial, at least, for the business organisation, the CBI, to warn against it.

Why the hurry, then, from those who are so utterly resiled against an independence referendum? Now, I understand. Independence is rather different from Calmanised devolution. I get the concept.

I simply say again that it seems to me to make it rather more difficult, intellectually, for Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Tories to be so against Mr Salmond preparing a plebiscite when they are eagerly pursuing a constitutional agenda of their own.

Especially when he is now prepared to absorb their option.

In response to Mr Salmond's remarks today, the comments are coruscating.

It is, apparently, a "cynical attempt by the SNP to play politics". (Author: the Tories.)

Or it is "another red herring". (Labour). Or it is a "pointless waste of taxpayers money" to have a referendum. (LibDems)

The chutzpah

All of which may or may not be true. I know not the species of fish involved but I feel sure that the leader of a political party is, wittingly or otherwise, engaged in politics.

However, it still does not answer the underlying point. For a democratic, elected politician, it is a tricky thing to have to advance a case against a popular choice, against a referendum.

Our opposition leaders at Holyrood plainly feel they have the stomach for the fight, the chutzpah. I shall watch with growing fascination.

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

Reaction matters in politics - and it matters substantially with regard to the Calman Commission, which has .

When the commission's , one political leader, Tavish Scott of the LibDems, was notably sniffy.

His exceptionally brief statement indicated to all the world that up with this he would not put. He wanted detail - radical detail.

Mr Scott was smiling this morning post the launch at the Dynamic Earth.

Devolved control of four taxes - and substantial devolved involvement in setting income tax.

Now the actual power contained in the income tax proposal may be somewhat less than meets the instant eye.

For one thing, Scotland could not vary the tax balance. Could not, for example, choose, politically, to heap added taxation upon the well-heeled.

Making choices

The differential between standard and upper rates would remain set.

Plus, Scotland might simply leave well alone - choosing to reinstate the 10p tax removed at outset by the Treasury.

But there's that word choice. Scotland's politicians would have to make their choice and declare the outcome of that decision.

That's why Mr Scott was smiling. Labour also looked notably content. They believe they have justified their decision to follow Wendy Alexander's initial suggestion that devolution needed substantial review.

As to others, I believe the business sector may well need convincing as to why Holyrood should have more influence on tax.

However, those with business experience on the commission believe they got the balance right, given the pressure.

Which leaves me to comment upon the SNP and the Tories - each of which is notably intriguing.

The Tories hope and, frankly, expect to form the next UK Government.

Listening and understanding

They have taken Calman exceptionally seriously. More, David Cameron has taken a direct personal interest.

Why? If he is to be PM, David Cameron knows that he will require to govern with only, at best, a handful of MPs from Scotland.

He needs a framework which enables him to say that he has listened, he understands, he responds.

He needed a think tank, while in opposition, to draft detailed plans. Calman supplies just that.

Idologically, the Tories support the concept of taxation allied to representation. As a party, they could argue, if they chose, for lower taxation in Scotland.

And the SNP? They argue the real benefit for Scotland lies in fiscal autonomy and independence.

They point out that a Scotland with charge of oil resources over the decades could have matched Norway in setting up an investment fund.

The Calman Commission is decidedly delphic on the topic of oil.

Joy of speculation

There is minimal reference to it in the executive summary. On Page 96, we learn it might be "attractive to speculate" how such oil revenues could have been added to the Scottish budget.

Being wicked, I invited Sir Kenneth Calman to add to the joy of such speculation when he launched the report. He declined.

Instead, the commission's point is that both the costs and benefits of oil have been shared down the decades - and that oil is now a declining and volatile asset upon which it would have be unwise to found a devolved budget.

Not surprisingly, the SNP jib at this. However, it is intriguing to note the SNP's response is, on balance, notably more measured.

They fielded the wit and wisdom of Michael Russell at the launch itself. He duly excoriated the lack of oil wealth and the absence of fiscal autonomy.

However, he went on to say the Nationalists welcomed anything which added to Scotland's powers - and assisted the people of Scotland.

Against that background, they were willing to look seriously at Calman.

Does that mean consensus? Not for a second.

As I have written repeatedly, you do not solve a fundamental difference over the future of the union by a group hug and a few quiet words.

But it means just perhaps that Sir Kenneth's report will do more than moulder on a shelf in two parliaments, simultaneously.

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

The language is a little more restrained than during the evidence sessions.

But still the Public Audit Committee doesn't miss in condemning what they believe was obfuscation by the civil service.

According to the convener, Hugh Henry, the difficulty in prising information from senior civil servants amounted to a "discourteous and obstructive" attitude to the committee.

During the hearings themselves, Mr Henry was somewhat blunter. His committee, he said, had heard nothing but "bullshit".

The inquiry was into a potential conflict of interest involving the finance director of Transport Scotland, the quango which handles transport matters for the Scottish Government.

Guy Houston held shares in FirstGroup while the extension of that company's rail franchise was under discussion.

MSPs say that Transport Scotland "seriously mishandled" the issue. But they go considerably further.

Mr Henry is furious with civil servants, notably Sir John Elvidge, the Permanent Secretary of the Scottish Government.

The convener says his committee had to drag details from the government officials: information which sometimes turned out to be insufficient or plain wrong.

The advent of a Scottish Parliament has put added pressure on the civil service.

Previously, they could expect to appear relatively infrequently before the Westminster Parliament. Now they are regular guests.

Does all this matter? Yes. Why? Because, as the audit committee stress, parliament can't do its job of scrutiny if it is thwarted by officials.

There is, perhaps, a clash of cultures here.

Civil servants thrive on elegant circumlocution. Politicians like to think they have a blunt, populist approach.

But these are serious criticisms, with serious intent. They will, we are told, be treated in that light by Sir John and his team.

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

Intriguing- both for what it said and what it did not say.

Gordon Brown attempted to regain the initiative - at least partly by placing Scottish devolution in the context of renewal of the UK.

His objective was plain: to depict his party as offering solutions to perceived problems by contrast with the Tories who, he implied, were solely concerned to talk up the challenge.

So, in the context of talking about future reform, he reminded MPs that the Tories had opposed Scottish self-government.

The changes to expenses rules in the Commons are, mostly, likely to be agreed across the parties - although the details may prove troublesome.

They include statutory regulation rather than self-policing.

That may or may not lessen the fury expressed by the public in the Euro elections. In the short term, probably not.

Written constitution

But it was the longer-term prospectus which intrigued me still further. Mostly, because of the substantial gaps.

Mr Brown offered yet another review of the system for electing MPs - without stating any preference other than retaining the link between elected members and individual constituencies.

Similarly, he said he was personally in favour of a written constitution. He was willing to look at the issue of the current voting age.

After protracted delay, we were promised final stage reform of the Lords. Mention was made of devolving to the citizen in England.

Sceptics and cynics listening to his statement - the majority, I suspect - noted that such issues had been aired previously, only to vanish once more.

It was hard, they argued, to avoid the conclusion that Mr Brown was keen to give the impression of taking command, of offering a grand design in troubled times.

We do not have long to wait for one element of the putative design to emerge.

More gossip

The will report on Monday, setting out proposals for enhanced financial powers for Holyrood allied to suggestions for strengthening the links between the Edinburgh and London Parliaments.

PS: Yet more gossip, here and at Westminster, re the by-election which will follow the resignation of the Speaker, Michael Martin.

It's said the contest might be held on July 23, alongside filling the vacancy in Norwich North.

Here at Holyrood, weary Labour figures are already reflecting on just how successful the strategy of holding a summer by-election was in Glasgow East last year.

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

Is that it, then? Is that the insurrection over?

For practical purposes, it would appear so.

Have MPs learned to love Gordon and all his manifold works? No, this is an act of calculation - motivated, as ever, by personal electoral considerations.

MPs have worked out which course of action was most likely to give them a chance of saving their seats.

I don't, incidentally, remotely chide them for such an approach. It is precisely when such calculations are being made that the power of the voters is at its most substantial.

There are MPs like Tom Harris who have concluded that disquiet with Gordon Brown is so entrenched that his absence is required, regardless of whether that prompts an early election - which might prove challenging for Labour, to say the least.

Most appear to have decided that only GB can credibly stay in office until next May, opening the prospect of an improvement in Labour's fortunes. I stress, prospect.

As ever for a party which has governed for a prolonged period, there is another factor at play.

By now, the leader(s) have mostly promoted the ones they're going to promote, sacked the ones they're going to sack - and the others who've never been promoted or sacked have worked out that they're stuck.

The leadership, in short, has lost the leverage which the early period of power involves.
Now, here's a challenge.

Try explaining the events of the past few days to those Buddhist monks who have just emerged from a four-year retreat in Arran.

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

You can factor in the caveats.

The SNP vote wasn't as high as at the Holyrood elections. The Nationalists and Labour each gained two MEPs.

But sometimes caveats are trumped by the big story. This is one such occasion.

The .

The Scottish secretary, Jim Murphy, called it right. Labour's showing was "rubbish".

Do these results translate directly into a UK or Scottish general election? No.

But they are a pointer to the extent of disquiet - make that anger - with Labour.

The scunner factor to the fore once more.

'Comprehensive victory'

It could be said that there was an anti-scunner factor at work at Holyrood.

Not sure I entirely buy the SNP argument that this was a confidence vote in the Scottish Government. It was more about protest against Labour.

However, at the very least, the voters were not apparently deterred in any way from giving their support to the SNP by the party's performance at Holyrood.

Plus the victory for the SNP was comprehensive.

. I make it that voters in 22 council areas opted to put the SNP first.

The Tories took four councils, the Lib Dems three - with Labour confined to Fife, Glasgow and North Lanarkshire.

Both the Tories and the Lib Dems saw their share shrink slightly on the night - but with compensations.

Expenses fury

The Lib Dems were simply relieved to hold on to a Euro seat. The Tories were cheered by their decent showing in key target areas like the Borders and the south-west.

What does it mean for the prime minister? Not much more than he already knew: Labour is in grave trouble.

Still, it adds colour to that picture to say the least: beaten by the Tories in Wales, third place overall behind UKIP.

His pitch to his MPs remains as billed previously on this site.

Dump me, he says, and there is an immediate or early general election. Anyone care to guess the outcome, based on these figures?

Keep me, he says, and I can stay in office until May when the economy should be picking up and the fury over expenses may have abated a little.

Maybe.

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

UPDATE AT 1009:

I'm filing from the Royal Mile in Edinburgh, where .

As billed, two seats each for the SNP and Labour, one for the Tories, one for the Lib Dems.

In terms of voting share, the SNP are placed first, with 29.1%, Labour second with 20.8%, Tories third with 16.8% and Lib Dems fourth, with 11.5%.

The SNP's Ian Hudghton described it as a great victory for his party, while Labour's David Martin said his party had managed to hold onto two seats during what he called "unnecessary in-fighting".

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

UPDATE AT 0922, MONDAY:

Last result in this morning in Scotland from the European elections.

That's the Western Isles

The SNP has consolidated its leading position by taking 43.3% of the vote with Labour second, way back on 18.4%.

The full formal declaration will be made shortly, but it still looks like two seats each for the SNP and Labour one each for Tories and Lib Dems.

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

UPDATE AT 2353:

We won't know the full Scottish result until the Western Isles declares, but the picture as is from the Edinburgh counting centre is a big victory for the SNP, in terms of voting share.

They're on 29%, Labour are just under 21%, the Tories just under 17% and the Lib Dems just over 11%.

In terms of seats though - doesn't look like any change.

Scotland is down from seven Euro seats to six and looks like those will split two each to the SNP and Labour, one to the Tories and one to the Lib Dems.

No change in seats then - but all change in votes.

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

UPDATE AT 2212:

Labour has won in another council area - but only just.

North Lanarkshire puts Labour first, with the SNP just behind and the others nowhere.

But, in neighbouring South Lanarkshire, the SNP takes first place.

Couple of others - the Tories are clearly in first place in the Scottish Borders with the Lib Dems second, while, in Aberdeenshire, its SNP, Tory, and Lib Dem, in that order.

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

UPDATE AT 2156:

We have now had the result in East Renfrewshire. In Westminster terms, that's the seat of the Scottish secretary, Jim Murphy.

In tonight's poll in that area, the Conservatives have come first, the SNP second and Labour third.

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

UPDATE AT 2150:

More still. The SNP has taken first place in Edinburgh with the Tories second, Labour third and the Liberal Democrats fourth.

That's a third of the councils declared so far - and it's still looking like victory for the SNP in terms of share of the vote.

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

UPDATE AT 2145:

And there's more.

In terms of share of the vote, It's Labour and the SNP neck in neck in West Dunbartonshire; the SNP has out-polled Labour in Dundee by nearly two to one; in Fife Labour only just managed to out-vote the Nationalists and, in East Lothian, the SNP came first.

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

Edinburgh City Chambers, and the very first in the European elections.

Councils all across Scotland are doing their sums and transmitting the outcome to the Capital for a central calculation of Scotland's membership of the European Parliament.

First indications? Very bad night for Labour - with the SNP looking set to take first place in the popular vote.

Whether that is enough to win the SNP an extra seat, remains to be seen.

Under the complicated European counting mechanism, the first-placed party has to out-pace its rivals by a fair degree to gain that extra seat.

Other straws in the wind include a decent showing by the Greens, so far.

More later . . .

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

As I reported for duty this morning, I glanced at the pile of papers adjacent to my desk.

On top was a headline: "Brown fights for survival."

Fairly blunt, fairly clear. But snag. Was this pile today's papers? Or yesterday's? Or Wednesday's? Or...

Turned out to be apocalypse yesterday by contrast with today's version.

Returning sporadically to my work-station from sundry toil, I have got into the habit of asking colleagues: "Anybody quit in the past 10 minutes?"

Gordon Brown . Or rather, had it accelerated for him.

Better to get the thing under way while he still has a sufficient pool of ministers upon which to draw.

While preparing to broadcast to an astonished nation last night - or at least that portion of the a.n. which was watching Newsnight Scotland - I indulged in a few idle phone conversations with Labour figures.

They agreed that Gordon Brown is in serious trouble. (It is this perspicacity which has made the Labour Party the fighting force it is. Or, perhaps, was.
Ach, I shouldn't cavil. We all, me definitely included, resort to comforting simplicity in the face of such guddle and chaos. )

But my Labour interlocutors agreed further that Mr Brown's fate rested upon which questions the party's MPs asked - and how many.

MPs are motivated by many things but chiefly, on these occasions, by their own survival.

Get them by their majority and their hearts and minds will follow. Electoral support is all - which is, arguably, healthy in a democracy.

So, if MPs only ask Question One - is G. Brown a popular Prime Minister? - then he has had it.

If they ask Question Two - who might replace him? - then he is probably still in big trouble.

Disenchantment with Mr Brown is such that MPs would be prepared to consider most anyone.

And they don't have to: Alan Johnson is palpably hovering.

However, how about further questions? How about this one? If Alan Johnson replaces the PM, would he have to call an early General election?

Constitutionally, no - we have a parliamentary, not a presidential, democracy.

But, in reality, yes.

The voters just about swallowed GB as PM on the basis that he had campaigned side by side with Tony Blair in 2005.

It was - arguably, just - something of a joint pitch.

They would not, in my view, tolerate a third prime minister on the basis of a single, dated mandate.

So Team Brown - what remains of them - can say to MPs.

Replace GB - and face an early poll in which you lose big style because the economy is still in recession and voters are still utterly furious over expenses.

The Brown offer, then, is time.

Put up with him - and he can hold on until May next year when, maybe, perhaps, the economy might be a little better and action at Westminster might have begun to soften voter fury a fraction.

Not much of a pitch, I grant you. But it's the best that Gordon Brown has got.

PS: Welcome your comments as ever. Would remind you, gently, that it is one of the house rules that responses should not stray from the particular topic on offer.

This is designed to ensure that, in the interests of all readers, there can be focused, substantive debate.

Over a prolonged period, it means that the broadest possible range of topics can be aired.

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

What a mess. What an utter and total guddle.

In may have concluded her departing message with an exhortation to vote Labour in tomorrow's elections.

However, every other element of her resignation - its manner, its timing - seemed calculated to destabilise the leader of that party to which she professes her allegiance.

By common consent, divided parties do not flourish in electoral contests.

The voters tend to prefer to align themslves with politicians who are capable of internal agreement or at least presenting a front when required. Folk want to join a happy gang.

As David Cameron pointed out in the Commons, Ms Blears was the minister responsible for local government in England.

She has chosen to quit on the very eve of . . . local government elections in England.

Marginal seat

Team Brown could say - and did - that yesterday's was simply an unplanned happenstance.

Always intended to go, more time with her family, marginal seat, still backed Brown . . .

But nothing of the sort can be said with regard to Hazel Blears.

This, remember, is the minister who lampooned Mr Brown's YouTube appearance.

This is one of the ministers who were said to be contemplating the PM's ousting a year ago.

She is said to be upset at Team Brown's portrayal of her "unacceptable" expenses claim.

Taking that as read, the timing of her resignation is revenge.

Cabinet reshuffle

Further, the PM was simply unable to rebut Mr Cameron when the Tory leader inquired whether there would be any other unscheduled departures - before the cabinet reshuffle pencilled in for next week.

He was unable to say that the chancellor would still be in office a week's time - although he countered Mr Cameron's grammatical challenge by praising Alistair Darling in the present tense, rather than purely the past.

And, admittedly, Mr Brown had logic on his side when he argued that sorting out the scandal of Commons expenses was not solely dependent upon a General Election.

Indeed, he argued it was incumbent upon all parties - including, he meant, the Tories - to act now.

He linked that to his assertion that he was working "every day" to revive the economy.

But he has demonstrably lost authority. Not all authority: he remains in office. But control, clout. He is not fully in charge of events.

As the SNP will point out next week when they lodge a Commons motion demanding the dissolution of parliament.

Expanses row

So what does it all mean? There are now two serious options. Mr Brown regroups as best he can over the summer recess - and goes to the country at a moment and in a manner of his choosing next spring.

Still would be far from an ideal occasion for Labour - who were lagging in the polls long before the expenses row.

Alternative scenario. Tomorrow's elections prove disastrous rather than merely bad, there is further agitation, Mr Brown is replaced by a caretaker - and there is an election in the autumn.

To repeat, a caretaker couldn't continue in office based upon a mandate originally obtained by Tony Blair and inherited by Gordon Brown.

The public - whose patience is already wearing thin - wouldn't stand for it.

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

Would he do it? Gordon Brown, that is.

Would he

Given the presently febrile state of politics at Westminster, the answer must be: if that's what it takes.

The relationship between Prime Minister and Chancellor is at the very core of UK politics.

Normally, a PM is exceptionally reluctant to abandon his Downing Street neighbour.

Sends negative global signals. Spooks the market, apparently.

Me, I think we could do with marketeers who are capable of taking a somewhat longer view of events - but no matter. Quivering markets must not be upset.

Adverse publicity

In any case, these are far from normal times.

Mr Brown may be forced to conclude that the only way of attempting - repeat, attempting - to counter the tide of adverse publicity is to offer a highly significant grey-haired, dark eye-browed scalp.

At the very least, it's not looking good for the MP for Edinburgh South West.

The custodian of the UK's finances has had to repay over-claimed expenses in order "to avoid ambiguity".

It follows the disclosure that he had repeatedly "flipped" his second home designation in claiming cash at Westminster.

Not good at all. Invited to comment by the ´óÏó´«Ã½, Mr Darling said: "It's up to the prime minister. He's got to decide the team he wants to be the next government."

Was there just a note of resignation - in both senses of the word - in that answer?

And of course there's more. We learn now that , has been referred to the party's special panel in order to determine whether he should continue to be a Westminster candidate in future.

Not good at all.

PS: Welcome your comments as ever. Would remind you, gently, that it is one of the house rules that responses should not stray from the particular topic on offer.

This is designed to ensure that, in the interests of all readers, there can be focused, substantive debate.

Over a prolonged period, it means that the broadest possible range of topics can be aired.

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

Welcome to election week.

Not much at stake. Local councils in England. European Parliament seats, 736 of them across the EU. And, just possibly, Gordon Brown's future.

Mr Brown declares that he isn't for ousting, regardless of what befalls his party on Thursday and subsequently.

He's the boy, he says, to tackle the economy and reform Westminster.

For myself, I think Mr Brown looks almost physically diminished as the cumulative effect of the past few weeks adds to earlier troubles.

Doesn't in itself mean he's finished and heading for an instant exit. For one thing, any replacement would almost certainly be forced to call an early election.

Anyone fancy leading Labour into that at the moment?

For another, although it seems unthinkable at the moment, the fury over expenses may wane eventually.

But, for now, calamity beckons.

Certainly, Team Brown know there is virtually nothing they can do until that incendiary public anger subsides.

They cannot deploy the customary tactic of diverting attention onto other topics.

Angry voters - and non-voters alike - simply won't be diverted.

Ministers can't get an audience for any other subject, let alone a reaction.

And, grumble those in Labour ranks, it's all so unfair.

This scandal has washed across the partisan divide, palpably affecting the Tory party.

Yet it appears from polls that it is Labour which is bearing the brunt of public anger.

Hey, welcome to government.

However, it would appear that the Tories are fretting that they may not be the automatic beneficiary of disaffection with Labour across the UK.

Hence their attack upon UKIP.

In Scotland, Labour's anxiety must be that they are overtaken in the Euro popular vote by the SNP - an outcome which, of course, would replicate the 2007 Holyrood result.

Remarkable to recall, isn't it, that the Euro result for the SNP last time out was so poor that John Swinney felt obliged to step down as party leader.

So quite a week.

Votes cast on Thursday. English locals declared on Friday. Bulk of Euro results available on Sunday evening, after polls close across the EU.

Final Scottish result next Monday - after the Western Isles joins in, having observed the Sabbath.

If you've got a spare 50 minutes, catch the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Radio Scotland Euro hustings at 6.10pm this Monday evening.

And of course watch out for the Euro results on ´óÏó´«Ã½ 2 next Sunday - including targeted coverage of Scotland from Glenn Campbell in studio and me at the Edinburgh count.

Plus the final Scottish picture on the Monday, also on ´óÏó´«Ã½ Scotland.

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