´óÏó´«Ã½

And so we have a Bill . Not THE Bill. Not legislation to go before Parliament. But a Bill.

Opposition parties are tentatively beginning to advance the notion that the delays and discussions surrounding the Bill add up to "another broken promise from the SNP."

They might be wise to pursue an alternative path. As Alex Salmond pointed out at First Minister's Questions, if his rivals would withdraw their opposition, he would introduce a full-blooded Referendum Bill tomorrow.

Still and all, is Alex Salmond playing tactical politics with this issue? Yes of course he is.
The consultation over the new Draft Bill is due to end on April 30.

Opposition leaders

That is conveniently timed to ensure that the process is coterminous with the campaign for the General Election which is expected on May 6.

Mr Salmond is hoping that the issue of independence will thereby form a significant part of that election campaign. His opponents seem reluctant to play.

That was evident at FMQs. Not one of the Opposition party leaders chose to major on the just-published Referendum Bill.

They were intent on signalling that they regard it as an irrelevant distraction. They chose instead to question the FM about knife crime, the number of civil servants and bonuses at Scottish Enterprise.

The referendum finally featured in rather lively exchanges towards the close.

Political debate

So where are we now? We have the draft Bill. It proposes two questions, one on independence, one on extended devolution.

On the latter, there will be consultation as to whether that means Devolution Max or the Calman package.

This draft Bill will be, potentially, a standing sub-text for the next stage of political debate in Scotland.

That sub-text will remain in place - just as the fundamental substructure of Scottish debate is the range of opinions about Scotland's constitutional future. That is and remains the core fault line in Scottish politics.

I suspect, however, that Mr Salmond will be relatively content, having published his Bill, to engage on issues which will be germane at the UK General Election, not least the economy.

He will do so in the context of his perspective about independence.

His rivals will engage in those debates on their own terms, disdaining to accept Mr Salmond's parameters.

Tax powers

Among the many questions posed by the media, self included, today, herewith a few of the more entertaining.

1) How can Labour be so set against a referendum in Scotland - when they back one on Alternative Voting for Westminster and are apparently content to endorse one on enhanced devolution in Wales? Labour's answer - the circumstances are different and the responses tailored to those differing circumstances.

2) Say, following consultation, the "extended powers" option on the ballot paper is Calman. How could Alex Salmond campaign for a Yes/Yes vote, as he promises, when he has described Calman's tax powers as inimical to Scotland's interests?
The SNP's answer - they expect that the option would be Devo Max, not least because the Calman proponents appear averse to submitting their plan to a referendum.

3) The independence proposal on the ballot paper includes Scottish membership of the European Union. How can the SNP guarantee that would be the case when it would be an EU decision? The SNP's answer - they are entitled to describe their vision of independence in a consultative referendum. Scotland would inherit EU membership from its current status within the UK.

For now, though, this is not about the precise referendum questions. That is because this is, presently, about political strategy, not legislation. This is A Bill, not THE Bill.

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

Hell, it has to be said, has not of late had the media attention that once it commanded.

Brimstone is seldom mentioned.

That has now changed with not one but two references to the inferno in a political context.

Firstly, had descended upon him after he forecast in 2008 that the worst recession for 60 years was upon us.

In retrospect, that looks like comparative optimism.

At the time, though, it was regarded as a betrayal of his party's Panglossian verdict that all remained for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

According to Mr Darling, Downing Street formed part of the hellish legion sallying out to attack him.

Presumably, some eager Special Adviser saw it as his/her role to put the Chancellor of the Exchequer right. David Cameron reckons it was the departed Damian McBride.

Or, perhaps, Alistair had one of those full and frank exchanges with his neighbour for which Number 10 is so renowned.

Gordon Brown insists he never instructed any briefing against his Cabinet colleague.

But that hellish image? I mean, come on.

Can you think of anyone - anyone at all - in the Prime Minister's present circle who could conceivably adopt the role of Mephistopheles: the Prince of cunning, the champ of calculation, the lord of manipulation? No, thought not.

Alistair Darling, I think we may safely assert, was speaking figuratively.

It fell to me to interview the Chancellor in his Edinburgh home on the morning in 2008 when the row broke.

He looked notably drawn and tense, certainly. But there was nothing to indicate that the origins of this were anything other than worldly.

Speaking figuratively

To our second hellish reference, then.

Did you catch the Cardinal on GMS this morning?

Keith O'Brien said he had advised Labour's Holyrood leader Iain Gray that he hoped the Pope had a word or two with him during his planned Scottish visit.

To be precise, he said to Mr Gray:

"I hope he gives you hell for what has happened over the last 10 years."

He was speaking figuratively, wasn't he? Of course he was.

in areas such as the family and marriage.

He was responding to a speech by the Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy in which he sought to reach out to those of faith.

"Reach out", that is, by persuading them to vote Labour.

Lest there be any doubt, Mr Murphy was quite explicit here.

He was not merely seeking to engage with faith groups.

He explained that Labour had a lead over the Tories among the religiously committed at the last General Election - and that required to be "replicated".

This, said Mr Murphy, could be done by an effort to "reflect and respect their values and aspirations."

Philosophical dichotomy

The Scottish Secretary was addressing diverse faith groups, including those which are salient in his own East Renfrewshire constituency.

He was in no way confining his comments to the Roman Catholic Church.

However, it was the Scottish Catholic leader who responded most vigorously.

Right, said the Cardinal, if you're respecting our values, let's start with tax breaks for marriage. And civil partnerships - we're not happy. And abortion......

It strikes me that there is a philosophical dichotomy underlying all this.

By definition, faith groups sustain unchanging beliefs.

They base those convictions upon a credo, what they hold to be revealed divine truth.

For example, when seeking a foundation for their way of life, those in the Judaeo-Christian tradition will turn to Exodus and Deuteronomy, not a party manifesto or think tank or focus group.

Those of faith seek to spread those beliefs, to inculcate faith in others: these days, mostly by evangelism - although there are occasions, in history and today, when more directly persuasive means have been deployed by some.

Theocracy or democracy

Crucially, the views of faith groups are not altered by changes in society nor by opposition from a predominantly secular community.

Indeed, they may often be strengthened by such criticism.

By contrast, a democratically elected politician has to act within the ambit laid down by that very mandate.

They cannot, must not, act without the fiat of the people. If they do not follow that course, they are ejected from office.

The can listen to the views of faith leaders. Of course, they can. But they will always balance those views with other elements in society, reaching a view which, they hope, best reflects prevailing opinion and the best course of action.

I suspect that Cardinal O'Brien, being an astute, intelligent man, knows that perfectly well.

Indeed, he insisted that he did not expect political parties to follow his dictat. He knows well that would be a theocracy, not a democracy.

However, he was understandably taking an opportunity, presented by Mr Murphy's speech, to advance the agenda of his particular faith group.

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

Charming, it was, to stroll along the boulevards of Dennistoun and Springburn during the Glasgow North-east by-election.

I encountered voters who were exasperated, angry, disaffected, amused, puzzled, busy and bored: sometimes in equal measure.

However, I must confess that I encountered few wails and lamentations over the delay in calling the contest. Courageous souls that they are, most appeared to feel that they could struggle by for a few months, somewhow, without an MP.

Nevertheless, it seems sensible to pay heed to the Electoral Commission when they say, as they do today, that . The commission says that Westminster should review the rules.

In response, Labour (the victorious party in Glasgow NE) says that the timing of the contest was entirely driven by the intervening parliamentary recess.

Partisan electoral considerations never entered into the calculation. Of course, of course.

The only alternative would have been to hold the by-election during the Glasgow Fair, prompting a rush of postal votes from Rothesay.

Not a good idea. Risks disenfranchising the voters.

And the last time a by-election was held in the summer (in Glasgow East), Labour lost. Not of course that such a thought entered... you get the concept.

It would seem, however, that the SNP are a little less enthralled by the Electoral Commission when it comes to the putative referendum on independence.

Seemingly, they prefer such a ballot to be run by a new Scottish Referendum Commission.

Rivals scent a fix. Rigging the rules. Removing an establishing organisation which might, for example, ask awkward questions about ballot paper wording.

Not at all, say ministers. Not at all. Partisan electoral considerations never entered... It is right to use an ad hoc body which would be directly responsible to Holyrood, not Westminster.

Further, they say, there was a distinct body set up to monitor arrangements in the run-up to the establishment of devolution in 1999.

One might point out that the Electoral Commission was only set up in 2000, via the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act of that year - and thus was in no position to take on the job.

Still, no matter. The Referendum Bill will only be in draft form at this stage, pending further consultation. The SNP's rivals say they will block the bill, if and when it is placed before parliament.

Further, if opposition parties are sufficiently exercised about this particular point, then presumably they can extract a concession as to the role of the Electoral Commission in return for allowing the bill to proceed?

Or not.

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

UPDATE AT 1646: In his speech, David Cameron gives Alex Salmond a right skelping - then promises to work consensually with him, should he end up in government.

Not the contradiction it might seem. Mr Cameron's tactic is to attempt to exclude the SNP from this upcoming UK General Election, to suggest that they are somehow irrelevant.

In particular, he notes that Mr Salmond will not be entering Downing Street.

In response, the Nationalists say that they can play a role at Westminster - if they have a sufficiently substantial bloc of MPs.

His second message - that of consensus - is also aimed at Scots voters.

He believes that voters like to hear, especially in a period of economic difficulty, that parties are prepared to collaborate.

More precisely, this message is an attempt to counter the argument that the Tories would have no mandate to govern Scotland, should they have very few Scots MPs.

In essence, Mr Cameron is offering a shared mandate: reserved issues controlled by the PM, devolved issues in the hands of the FM.

In that respect, he is attempting to make a virtue out of political necessity.

The other big message from Mr Cameron was one of change: change in his own party, a departure from the Thatcherite past.

The Tory strategy has been, firstly, to stress the personal leadership of David Cameron; secondly, to promise spending cuts to tackle the deficit; thirdly, to stress that those cuts would be early but not savage.

They know that, to reinforce that, they need to persuade people that those cuts would not particularly harm the poorest and weakest in society.

They know that is a vulnerable point for the Tories: that, while people might accept the need for constraint, they remain concerned that the Tories would apply these cuts in a heartless way. Hence, that message of change, hence that talk of solidarity.

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

Pre-empting the Winter Olympics (go, curlers), the Tories are holding their annual conference today in an ice rink: the one in Perth. And their economic message is comparably chilly.

Speaker after speaker, each one a Westminster candidate, all warning that an incoming Conservative government will focus upon cutting spending rather than increasing taxation in order to tackle the budget deficit.

On Good Morning Scotland, Michael Gove makes the same point while stressing that cuts would not be "insensitive". Translated, that of course means that the Tories would seek to minimise the vote-losing potential. Might be a tricky gig as it is for the other parties.

Would Scotland be penalised in particular through scrapping the Barnett Formula? Tories say they'd seek, eventually, to pursue a needs-based review of expenditure across the UK - but would also seek to ensure that Scotland is not particularly disadvantaged.

Again, that might be a tricky challenge although, as I have written here before, I think that the Cameronians are chilling somewhat on the early enthusiasm for big change on this issue.

Cuts, though, there will be, both in Scotland and throughout the UK. But Tories insist they'd protect the health service - and challenge the Scottish government to do likewise, health being devolved.

Another message delivered by David Mundell, the Shadow Scottish Secretary, concerned promoting economic growth with policies targeted on stimulating business, for example by trimming tax on the first 10 people employed by a small firm.

Mr Mundell drew warm applause for an attack upon the SNP. Alex Salmond has forecast that his party will take 20 Westminster seats - and hold the balance of power. David Mundell ridiculed each of these ambitions in turn.

Stand by for David Cameron this afternoon.

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

UPDATE AT 1306: As expected, it was Talking Point two which - with each of the opposition leaders making cogent points.

Is there any crime, Iain Gray asks, which would not attract a letter of reference from the first minister or his deputy?

In a classic technique, he then asked for a show of hands on who would have written the letter despatched by Ms Sturgeon.

I remember Michael Foot doing something similar in the Commons. Catches them every time.

Annabel Goldie asked first about the use of a government spin doctor to plead Ms Sturgeon's case with the media.

Perfectly reasonably, Mr Salmond said that was because her position as a member of the government was under challenge from a resignation demand.

Ms Goldie, it strikes me, was on firmer ground asking whether there was any connection between Ms Sturgeon's constituent and the SNP.

Considerable distance

The first minister replied that he knew of no connection - other than that between a constituent and an elected member.

Tavish Scott then asked where the line should be drawn when it came to acting as an elected member.

He plainly felt - and said so - that Ms Sturgeon had stepped some considerable distance over that line.

Mr Salmond repeatedly suggested Ms Sturgeon had been under an obligation to act.

Others suggested that she was under an obligation to pay heed to her constituent - but not to write to the court.

Again, it comes down to judgement.

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

Two talking points today.

I suspect you will not need any prompting but it is customary for me to pitch in first - so let us adhere to tradition.

Talking point one: , disclosed by me to an astonished nation this morning (or, at least, that substantial and sensible portion of the nation listening to Good Morning Scotland.)

Talking point two:was Nicola Sturgeon wise , Abdul Rauf, convicted of defrauding £80,000 from the Department of Work and Pensions?

Incidentally, today's initiative on Talking Point one was planned and scheduled by the First Minister before item two broke as a Talking Point last night.

So, to the referendum. Alex Salmond is now acknowledging tactically what has been evident numerically for some time: the arithmetic will not permit a referendum bill to pass at Holyrood in the current circumstances.

As background, Mr Salmond witnessed the claim and counter claim with regard to the passage of sundry bills.

He noted the controversy, which arose again last night, over the .

Referendum bill

The issue here is arcane. Indeed, the framers of the Schleswig Holstein question would have been proud to be associated with such minutiae.

But, in essence, the concern was that shifting Margo's bill to an ad hoc committee instead of the health team had consequences for other bills in the pipeline.

The particular consequence for the referendum bill being that it would end up before an ad hoc committee with a Labour convener.

There were reports - by ´óÏó´«Ã½ Scotland and The Times among others - of suspicions that this was designed to kill the bill swiftly.

Within weeks, one report suggested.

In such circumstances, Mr Salmond has ordered the use of a stratagem, a device, a ruse: a tactical withdrawal, if you like.

If a bill is formally introduced, then it becomes the property of parliament: it is up to MSPs to dispose of it as they will and as guided by the presiding officer and the business bureau.

Staying alive

The Nationalist suspicion is that it would be disposed of swiftly and without ceremony.

So Mr Salmond produces a bill in draft form only, for further consultation among the public.

Said consultation to be driven by the government, not primarily parliament.

For Mr Salmond, this has two advantages. One, it keeps the bill alive, it keeps the issue alive.

Two, it sustains the prospect, however remote, that there might be a change of heart by one or t'other of the Opposition parties after the UK General Election has run its course.

Further, the planned bill contains two questions. Broadly, one, do you back independence? Two, do you back more devolved powers for Holyrood?

The consultation will focus upon whether "more powers" means Calman or Devolution Max.

The downside? Fairly obviously, if the bill is delayed from formal introduction, then it is delayed from potential legislation - and the referendum itself is delayed.

Backing down

There is now no realistic prospect of legislation being in place in time for the detailed administrative and electoral preparations which would be needed in order to hold a referendum in 2010.

Mr Salmond's opponents will say that he is backing down, that he is ducking a decision.

However, Mr Salmond's calculation will be that a bill deferred is better than one destined for certain defeat: that we already knew a referendum in 2010 was doomed, that this keeps the pilot light flickering, perhaps for later ignition.

Talking Point Two: Nicola Sturgeon's decision.

Did she have a "duty", as she says, to act as she did? In calculating that, perhaps one has to distinguish between her duty to consider the plight of a constituent and the particular action which might follow.

It might be argued that she had a duty to respond to an approach from a constituent or one lodged on his behalf.

It might be argued further that she did not have to write to the court. Nor in those particular terms which included a suggestion that the court might consider an alternative to custody.

The SNP says such court letters are common custody. They point to a case from 1999 when it was reported that Gordon Brown, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, wrote to the High Court with a testimonial on behalf of a constituent who had been convicted of growing £10,000 worth of cannabis.

The constituent was spared a jail sentence.

These matters are a question of judgement. The court case involving Ms Sturgeon's constituent is a matter of judgement.

If you trust her judgement in his issue, you will say she has done nothing wrong. If you do not, you will take the counter view.

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

Scottish government announces new money for council houses. House-builders talk of crisis. Shelter talks of ministerial failure.

What's going on? Firstly, a Westminster election. Homes for Scotland, the construction industry body, wants to influence MPs and would-be MPs with regard to mortgages and tax.

In particular, it is pressing for fundamental reform of stamp duty plus tax incentives for private rented accommodation to counter the sluggishness verging on lethargy which it is experiencing in the wider housing market.

But it highlights that by warning the Scottish government will be unable to meet house building targets unless things ease.

Secondly, there is the issue of the Scottish government budget.

Yes, the minister Alex Neil has announced that extra cash, drawn from Barnett consequentials, will be converted into council housing investment with authorities invited to bid.

Yes, the capital investment over three years in housing has been some £1.7bn.

Treasury rebuff

However, in the budget secured by John Swinney last week, housing suffers one of the biggest cuts.

Year-on-year, compared with 2009-10, the money allocated to housing for 2010-11 is substantially down in both capital and revenue accounts.

You can say - Alex Neil does today - that this is largely because funding accelerated to other years has to be repaid in 2010-11.

Remember Scottish ministers pressed for further acceleration and were rebuffed by the Treasury.

However, it is also the case that John Swinney and his team made choices within the money allocated to them.

Glance at table three in the annexe to the Scottish Budget (already your daily reading, I feel sure.)

You will see that, overall, health is protected while housing is not. Now, of course, housing is relatively capital-dependent and thus particularly vulnerable to the acceleration issue.

Social housing

It is, however, also partly a question of choice.

That is where the Shelter criticism comes in. They welcome the money diverted to affordable housing but note that it "failed" to address the emerging "hole" in the wider housing budget.

There is a range of further issues here.

House construction soaks up labour and enhances the economy - but is it universally welcome? Or should we target social housing in particular? Or, as Homes for Scotland argue, is private housing often developed in tandem with social housing?

Is the big problem productive social investment?

Or does the real blockage lie in the mortgage market: those pesky banks again? Could the UK government do more to ease credit availability?

Not easy - but germane.

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

In response to the blog, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations set out its position on the issue of affordable homes.

Here is what the organisation had to say:

Dear Brian,

Today's edition of your blog - Keeping a roof over your head - neatly comes to the nub of the problem when arguing for more money for affordable housing - as the SFHA has done consistently over the last 12 months.

On the one hand, the Scottish government has stuck to its commitment to spend £1.7bn over three years (as set out in the 2006 Comprehensive Spending Review), enabling it to claim that the budget has not changed.

On the other hand, £120m from this year's budget was accelerated to cope with the effects of the recession, into the two previous financial years - meaning that this year, when we are scarcely out of recession, there is £120m less to spend on building homes than we otherwise would have had.

That's why opposition parties and campaign groups have branded it a cut.

The Scottish Federation of Housing Association's consistent position has been for MSPs and the Scottish Government to close this gap by reinstating the £120m to the budget.

Housing currently enjoys only around 1.6 per cent of the total Scottish Budget.

Your blog, on the other hand, overlooked the primary builders and managers of affordable housing in Scotland - housing associations and co-operatives.

Associations are the main builders of new homes, manage around half of Scotland's affordable housing stock, and receive public subsidy through the Affordable Housing Investment Programme (AHIP).

In the 2010-11 Budget, this year's AHIP will drop will drop to £471m from £675m in 2009-10.

For every pound of public subsidy housing associations receive, they lever in approximately an extra pound from private finance.

However, our members face the twin threat of more difficult-to-obtain private finance and the effort of front-funding development projects.

Currently our members are front-funding around £100m of new build projects.

Housing associations are now facing gaps opening up in their budgets for 2010-11 and beyond.

There is a danger that affordable house building, which has been bridging some of the gap created by the slump in private developments, will fall significantly - at a time when demand for homes, especially affordable homes, is extremely high.

According to the Scottish Housing Regulator (April 09) there are 285,662 people on waiting lists for Registered Social Landlords.

We also have an all-party commitment to ending involuntary homelessness by 2010 to take into consideration, as well as the strong economic multiplier effects of building new housing, for a country which is struggling to emerge from recession.

The SFHA will continue to campaign for a greater share of the Scottish Budget to be spent on building new homes and creating sustainable communities.

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

Two stories, one response. In both cases, Labour says that the SNP has made fundamental errors.

In both cases, the Scottish National Party is accusing Labour of seeking to deflect attention from other matters.

Case One: alcohol.

, seeking solutions which, one must presume, do not involve minimum pricing as the party has already set its face against that.

Not without reason, the SNP questions why Labour cannot examine such issues within the ambit of the health committee which is considering the Scottish government bill - including, among other things, .

In short, the SNP reckon it's a wheeze to appear to be taking action while, in practice, blocking the proposal on the table - minimum pricing - which has medical backing.

Labour says no: this is constructive opposition, reflective of their position as the second largest party at Holyrood.

Instead of merely thwarting the Government, they are looking, seriously, for alternatives.

Labour 'mumping'

With regard to minimum pricing, they argue that it's a mistake, that it would not address the real problem drinkers as they would, arguably, be most resistant to price pressure.

As an interim, Labour has suggested clamping down on caffeinated drinks (such as one with a monastic origin.)

Case Two: .

Nationalists reckon Labour is only "mumping" about this issue at Holyrood because it has three MPs facing criminal charges at Westminster in relation to expenses.

Mr Salmond has now sought to "draw a line" under the issue by cancelling four proposed lunches with him (he disclosed a further three) and one with Ms Sturgeon, pending a ruling from the Holyrood authorities.

He notes further that no donations have yet been received.

In response, Labour's Iain Gray says this is insufficient: that Mr Salmond and his deputy have been "systematically selling access", that it is an abuse of office.

over-excitable

Nationalists say that is ludicrous: that the lunches, had they taken place, would have been highly public events in the parliamentary restaurant; that the donations would have been published in the normal way; and that Labour is scarcely well placed to criticise on the issue of party fund-raising.

In terms of tactics, Mr Gray perhaps now feels that he should have ventilated the topic earlier in questions to the FM on Thursday.

He has certainly pursued it since.

Mr Salmond, arguably, did not help his case with a somewhat over-excitable response to the points of order later, although one might note that he felt exasperated.

Following these exchanges, a Nationalist and a Labour MSP were over-heard discussing the matter in rather blunter terms in the garden lobby.

A further link between the topics?

They confirm, if confirmation were needed, that Labour and the SNP are enemies, not just opponents.

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

In the event, it was very far from being the main course.

It was more by way of an amuse bouche. But still Labour's Iain Gray contrived to produce a .

Perhaps Mr Gray felt that - at Westminster - he should mostly steer clear of political finance.

Perhaps he felt that he would lay himself open to a reprised attack , apparently assisted by the loan of a council marquee.

(He did: also in an aside from Alex Salmond.)

Perhaps he felt that there were more significant matters to address - such as the topic of literacy which he chose to pursue.

Either way, Mr Gray set aside advice from some in his team and decided against majoring on the story in The Herald about lunches offered by the first minister and his deputy in return for donations to party funds.

Auction event

However, he managed a reference, noting en passant that there was no such thing as a free lunch.

The basics? It appears Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon each offered to host a lunch in the parliamentary restaurant.

These were presented as items in an auction held at a party fund-raiser in Glasgow Central.

Mr Salmond's lunch seemingly went for £9,000, while the gavel came down on Ms Sturgeon's hospitality at £2k.

Labour has objected, describing the offer as "industrial scale fundraising using Parliamentary facilities and an abuse of public money".

The SNP is adamant no rules have been broken - but is now writing to the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body to seek clarification.

The present rules make no explicit mention of the parliamentary dining room.

Standards question

However, they do read as follows:

"Parliamentary resources are provided by the SPCB to support members with their parliamentary duties.

These include items such as office equipment, IT (including the e-mail system), furniture, meeting rooms and all other SPCB provided resources.

These resources must not be used for any other purpose, including any significant party political purpose."

Critics, including the former standards committee convener Mike Rumbles, question whether that rule has been strictly observed in the case in question.

The SNP points out that clarity is required: that lunches are regularly offered as auction items, for example in aid of local constituency charities; that donors may visit parliament separately without their donation being directly linked to hospitality.

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

UPDATE AT 1721: As billed, the budget carried by 66 votes to 45, with 14 abstentions.

Supporting the budget were the SNP, the Tories, the Greens and Margo Macdonald. Labour voted against, the LibDems abstained.

In a separate vote, MSPs rejected a demand for the reinstatement of the Glasgow Airport Rail Link.

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

. Scottish ministers say they'll match the English plan for a boiler scrappage scheme.

Which means what? That they will find £2m to provide £400 for everyone who chooses to replace the oldest generation of domestic boilers.

Which means what, seriously? That this is a further hook for the Greens in the budget talks - and an attempt to discomfit Labour.

You'll remember that Labour has been pressing for weeks for Holyrood to match the Westminster plan.

Scottish ministers indicated their emphasis was upon more general measures to improve fuel efficiency, targeted upon low-income families.

However, on the day of the budget, they've budged. They hope it will make it more difficult for Labour to say no.

Labour support

Some hope. Labour is insisting the budget fails the key test of reviving the economy, with particular reference to the abandonment of the Glasgow Airport Rail Link.

Labour also says that the new money announced for affordable housing falls far short of closing the gap which has opened in that spending programme as a result of the 2010-11 budget plans.

Can the SNP government live without Labour support? Yes.

PS: Row brewing here over the .

Instead of being considered by the health committee, it's been despatched to an ad hoc committee for scrutiny.

Margo's far from happy, sensing a stitch-up. More, the Scottish government is unhappy.

Bruce Crawford was outvoted in the business bureau.

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

Bit more movement on the budget front at Holyrood.

Still looking pretty likely that the £30bn package will be endorsed by MSPs tomorrow, one way or t'other.

Re that movement. Firstly, the Scottish government is publishing details of progress on its 36 largest capital spending projects.

It isn't the full month-by-month outline demanded by opposition parties - but it is internal detail showing what has and has not been spent to date on these big projects, .

Ministers say it demonstrates some projects have clearly been accelerated, countermanding any slippage elsewhere.

In plain language, there isn't spare money for the .

That is bad news for Labour who emphasised again today that it was "almost impossible" to envisage their MSPs voting for the budget without the reinstatement of Garl.

Spring revision

Particularly since, it has become totemic for Labour - but the party leadership insists that the cancellation of Garl is also an indication of where the budget falls down on improving infrastructure and sustaining the economy.

More movement. Ministers have announced their routine spring revision to this year's spending programme, for 2009-10.

The choice of programmes to benefit is carefully scripted.

There will be more for affordable housing - a key Labour demand. And more for college places - a key Liberal Democrat demand.

In other words, ministers are anticipating opposition suggestions for 2010-11 with action this year.

So how are things shaping? I think Labour will vote against, unless - against all expectations - they get the reinstatement of Garl.

The Tories want serious indications of measures to curb spending - including an independent review and the publication of all spending items costing more than £25,000.

Green vote

I think they'll get those - or something close - and may end up supporting the budget.

Ditto the Greens who have already been promised a £10m fund for wave and tidal power and are looking for more action on home insulation.

They won't get all they want but may - stress, may - vote "Yes" to the budget this year.

As for the Liberal Democrats, their prime demand has been for.

They'll get something on that.

They seem to me to be swithering between support and abstention - with abstention perhaps most likely on the grounds that they won't get all they want and have reservations about other aspects of the budget.

If that is the arithmetic, then the budget carries.

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

Outs and ins. to spend more time with an international educational institution.

Mr Griffiths said it was a "once in a lifetime" opportunity to combine acting as director with lecturing on climate change, conflict resolution and nuclear disarmament.

Rather than looking to the future, some observers may be inclined to cast their minds back a couple of years when the married MP was obliged to apologise after a newspaper disclosed he had sex with a woman in his Commons office.

One or two may be casting still further back in time: to 2005 when Mr Griffiths only held his Edinburgh South constituency with a slim majority of 405 over the Liberal Democrats, leaving the seat potentially vulnerable.

(The third placed Tories are also voicing optimism.)

, who has won fame for chairing the Treasury select committee during the economic crisis.

Mr McFall is stepping down in West Dunbartonshire.

Now there is always churn at election time - but it does look as if the turnover will be substantial this time around. (The voters, of course, may add to the tally.)
Thus far, nine Scottish Labour MPs are retiring/departing before a vote is cast.

One Lib Dem, John Barrett, has announced that he is to go. The SNP's cohort - with the exception of Alex Salmond - are all seeking re-election, as is the solitary Tory.

And the ins? Those candidates being selected to fill the vacancies.

For Labour, they now include .

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