Those Scottish Elections: the essay

I know I'm a bit slow with this as I get the blog back on track but I thought I'd give a very quick overview of the Scottish elections. The headline, of course, was the amazing landslide for the Scottish National Party which, for those outside of Scotland, is essentially an alternative social democratic party to Labour, without the baggage of murder and government and at liberty to put political ideas independent of a Westminster agenda.

Whilst that does not mean the SNP is immune from exactly the same neo-liberal and reactionary pressures that Labour is prone to it is able to, for example, oppose trident and nuclear power or propose a tax on supermarkets in a way that Labour seem utterly unable to. Indeed I even voted SNP on the constituency ballot (where the Greens did not stand) in order to help displace the complacent Labour incumbent.

We could go into the SNP's deficiencies at length - but frankly that would be both boring and churlish in the face of their historic victory gaining a majority of seats under a system that was specifically designed to stop them doing just that.

How did they do it? Well, they certainly had a strong well-financed campaign, although I wont go as far as some to call it a work of genius. To a large extent it was achieved through the miserable state of the opposition and the ability to gain real momentum off the back of that. There were few people who voted on the 5th that had any illusion about whether the SNP would be forming the next government or not, but if we look back to January we see the polls were predicting a comfortable Labour victory... that lead was lost by Labour rather than overcome by the SNP.


Labour's campaign

Labour did so badly that they lost key Glasgow seats leaving them in a minority in the city... yes, Labour a minority in GLASGOW. Unthinkable.

Much has been made of the dismal and lacklustre Iain Gray, Labour's Scottish leader. It certainly has little to do with Ed Miliband, as he barely figured in the Scottish campaign, with the entire weight of responsibility placed on the shoulders of a man determined to do an uninspired impression of a sack of potatoes. But frankly Labour chose him so they can't be absolved of responsibility no matter how much their candidates complained of the terrible campaign.

Labour's vision for Scotland seemed to consist of refusing to think about any alternative to cuts and mandatory prison sentences for carrying a knife. I guess that combination of authoritarianism and abandonment of public services is nothing new but in a field where voters actually had an alternative non-Tory party of government it just would not wash.

I was stunned by Labour's refusal to even talk about tackling the cuts in any meaningful way. There wasn't even any hot and meaningless rhetoric, which could have gone down pretty nicely had Labour wanted to win, which I guess they didn't.

There were two turning points of note for me. Way back when Labour had the lead the SNP proposed a 'Tesco tax' on the 1% richest companies in order to offset public sector cuts. It was a good proposal universally opposed by Labour and the Coalition Parties prompting a widespread feeling that Labour et al were simply voting in the interests of their major donors.

The feeling that Labour were in the pockets of the rich was further entrenched by the fact their argument against the Tesco Tax was that this was a 'tax on jobs'. If they wanted to look identical to the Tories they were doing a fine job and I would not have been surprised if they'd come out with the 'trickle down effect' soon after. It was from that week that Labour started to flag in the polls.

The second turning point, which was far less avoidable, was when Iain Gray was confronted by anti-cuts protesters. It's a difficult situation to handle and I have *some* sympathy with Gray over this, but his choice to turn tail and hide in a sandwich shop became an overnight legend which genuinely started to define Labour's campaigning style, run away from anything difficult. People still raise this minor incident today, and it may well become Gray's legacy.

For me more symbolic of Gray's shambolic election was the less known incident from when Alex Salmond was doing a photoshoot in a supermarket, the way you do on the election trail. As the assembled press and journos directed their attention to the big man who should walk in by chance but Iain Gray. He weakly waved and then ambled off to the lavatory. It sums the man's political career up for me.

But herein lies the danger for Labour. They desperately need to do some soul searching and the temptation to blame Miliband for not doing enough or Gray for being rubbish has got to be overwhelming. However I think that would be a mistake. Labour lost because they had nothing to say, not who was delegated to not say it. Be nice to supermarkets, be frightened of independence and give more powers to the police simply did not resonate with the electorate, and why would it? Why not turn to a Scottish party that had been careful to play down any dangerous thoughts on Scottish autonomy.

What about the Tories and Lib Dems?

Whilst the Tories did not have a great night the utter rout of the Lib Dems is the big news. All three Westminster parties saw their leaders resign in the wake of the election result which is probably inevitable but quite what Goldie or Scott were meant to do with the hand life had dealt them God alone knows. At least the Tories ran an honest and clear campaign with a leader who was happy to look the electorate in the eye and tell them 'hard truths', even if I don't think they're true.

Tavish Scott, the leader of the Lib Dems on the other hand seemed utterly flummoxed by the whole thing and given a complete absence of anything useful to say seemed to drift as much as Labour. He tried to distance himself from the national Coalition but without any meaningful policy difference this just looked shifty and dishonest.

The flagship policy of the Scottish Lib Dems was even worse than Labour's lock up those carrying knives. It was opposition to merging Scottish police forces. The majority of the electorate probably didn't even know there wasn't a single Scottish police force, let alone felt particular concerned about whether it was merged. It was totemic of their campaign that they chose as their lead campaigning issue an obscure piece of admin.


The only other significant campaign issue raised from the yellow team was on refinancing the debt of Scottish Water. As the only newsworthy economic issue they raised it was both complicated and reeked of privatisation. However the main problem with it was for a party that justifies drastic cuts in public services on the basis that we're in too much debt suggesting we get into more debt seems just the tiniest bit incoherent and, well, opportunist.

Not for the first time I was left thinking that even Lib Dem members deserve a better leadership than this. My local constituency candidate Alex Cole-Hamilton could not have campaigned harder if he'd hired an army of clones to go door knocking with him. The man was a Stakonovite of historic proportions in a campaign he must have known that he'd be crushed in. I genuinely feel very sorry for the guy. I must be going soft in my dotage.

Alison Johnstone and Patrick Harvie launch the Manifesto

And then there's the Greens

The polls consistently put the Green Party on between six and eight MSPs which always seemed a touch fanciful to me - although I had hoped for an increase. In the end it was not to be, the increase in the Scottish Green Party vote was not enough to see the SGP do more than hold onto their seats (with only the Highlands and Islands seat close to an extra win, being just a few hundred votes away from electing Eleanor Scott).

Personally I think for a small party to get noticed enough and taken seriously enough to maintain their seats whilst all other parties were swept before the tartan steamroller is actually an impressive result. Increasing our vote under these circumstances was a real achievement, but many were understandably disappointed.

With a strong media campaign and good professional approach to the campaign many members felt that this was the best SGP campaign that they could remember, although whether they'd all characterise our message as hard-left as the Scotsman did is debatable.

Certainly the Party focused on raising revenue to protect services and jobs. This gave our candidates something unique to say on hustings and in the press quite distinct from the other parties in Holyrood. It was good that the press focused on our economic policies, showing we were being taken seriously, and to my mind it is this reason that we were able to hold our ground - but in the future we need to ensure we have strong enough ground campaigns to deliver more MSPs in difficult elections as well as when the wind is going in our direction.


The others

The hard-left parties saw no resurgence in their fortunes and are sadly a shadow of their former selves. I saw one SSP candidate describe the idea of a rainbow Parliament at a hustings and to be honest that's what I would like to see, a real diversity of opinion represented (although not at the cost of the Greens, obviously!).

I was pleased that the Scottish Socialist Party polled almost three times higher than the morally bankrupt Solidarity and I hope that means they will be able to play a useful role in Scottish politics in the future. Sadly they did not out poll the Socialist Labour Party, a non-existent party who gain almost all of their votes from people who vote for them by mistake instead of the Scottish Labour Party.

Even though I love him dearly, I was also pleased that George Galloway was a long way off winning a seat in Glasgow. To be honest he doesn't live in Scotland, knows nothing about how Holyrood works, nor does he seem particularly interested in it. He's not qualified and the electorate knew it.


His hyperbolic intervention in the growing football tensions were particular unwelcome I thought and I'd far rather see a more thoughtful socialist like Colin Fox in place as an MSP than a walking megaphone like Galloway.

The far-right continue to be a non-existent force in Scotland and political Christianity, which tends to focus on the hell fire stuff rather than the love one another business, continued to languish at 0.1%. Maybe if they focused on the hugging more than the smiting they might poll a little better, who knows?

When the dust cleared it was clear we are in a new situation with the prospect of independence on the cards and Holyrood's first majority rule. I'm really pleased for Patrick and Alison, our two Green MSPs, and disappointed for those excellent candidates who didn't make it - but elected or no there are still important issues to be campaigning on and I think we're in a good position to do that.

Guest Post: How close were the Scottish Greens to more MSPs?

Jeff from Better Nation kindly consented to write a guest post on how close the Greens were in Scotland to getting more MSPs. I think the facts, as presented here, are useful if a little depressing.

My shared home blog Better Nation is regularly pinned as a 'Green blog', something that I am certainly comfortable with and I know that my fellow Editors there were bummed at the lack of a surge in Patrick Harvie's bloc of MSPs, as I was.

As only a member of the GPEW, it's not really my place to say where, if anywhere, the Scottish Greens went wrong in this campaign, they were after all the only party other than the SNP to increase their share of the vote. So, I decided to take a dispassionate look at each of the regions and see where the Greens might have fared better with a few more votes or, perhaps, constituencies falling elsewhere.

CENTRAL (0 Green MSPs)

The SNP took the 7th regional spot here, winning its third list MSP.

The Greens were 6,395 votes away from taking that 7th regional spot and were behind Labour, the Tories, the SNP and even the Senior Citizens Party. Put another way, the Greens were miles off winning a seat in Central and it was never a likely place for a gain.

GLASGOW (1 Green MSP)

I had tipped this to be a potential region where the Greens could have picked up two spots but, alas, it wasn't to be. In what will prove to be something of a theme, it was the SNP who took the 7th spot here, their 3rd regional MSP on top of the 5 FPTP victories. Patrick Harvie took the 3rd ranking spot and the Greens were 3,193 votes away from getting a second, behind both Labour and the SNP but, interestingly, not behind the Lib Dems as the Greens successfully managed to poll more than double the yellows in Glasgow.

Changing the constituency wins between Labour and the SNP doesn't make it more likely for the Greens to get any closer either. Indeed, making Labour win every constituency would mean the SNP would take the first six ranking spots and Patrick would take the seventh.

HIGHLANDS & ISLANDS (0 Green MSPs)

Yes, you guessed it, the SNP took the 7th regional spot here too but the Green candidate, co-convener Eleanor Scott, was a slender 877 votes behind the SNP and 494 votes behind Labour in the race for that 7th spot.

If the SNP had won one of Orkney or Shetland then the Greens would have moved ahead of the SNP in the pecking order by 108 votes. Changing the Labour and SNP constituency seats does not have an impact
as any FPTP win is automatically replaced with another list seat with no impact on the calculations for that 7th spot.

This was as close as the Greens came to getting that 3rd MSP.

LOTHIANS (1 Green MSP)

Edinburgh has always been a happy hunting ground for the Greens and it was unclear to what extent that was a personal vote for Robin Harper. However, Alison Johnstone was returned easily enough this time around
despite the threat of Margo Macdonald hoovering up much of the non-mainstream vote. Alison won her seat in Round 4 of the d'hondt allocations.

The Greens were 5,757 votes away from the Conservatives who took the 7th seat in this region but were also 4,835 votes behind the Lib Dems, 3,356 votes behind Labour and 1,575 votes behind the SNP so they
really weren't getting a look in. The Lib Dems or Conservatives winning a seat here and there might have helped but in truth the SNP and Labour vote share were just too high again with the Greens falling short.

MID SCOTLAND & FIFE (0 Green MSPs)

The SNP took the 7th regional spot here, winning their only regional MSP with it too. The Greens were 2,008 votes away from taking it. Again, changing the constituency wins would have no impact here as
seats won/lost by the SNP are just replaced on the list.


NORTH EAST (0 Green MSPs)

Similar story to MSF, the SNP took their only regional MSP on the 7th allocation. The Greens were 2,388 votes short and were also behind the Tories and Labour in the queue to take an MSP. Very unfortunate to not see Dr Martin Ford at Holyrood.


SOUTH (0 Green MSPs)

The SNP again took the 7th regional spot here and the Greens were 5,627 votes short (from a total number of votes won of 8,656). The Greens were also behind Labour and the Tories in the fight for that seat so were always outsiders to win a seat in this region.

WEST (0 Green MSPs)

Labour finally take a 7th regional spot, pipping the SNP by only 185 votes. The Greens were 4,804 votes short.


So, all in all, depressing reading and it will be a painful review that the Green party will have to embark on in order to understand how a radical alternative manifesto and a collapsing Lib Dem vote did not deliver gains. It is a shame that there is not even any real opportunity of analysis on switching constituency wins to see to what
extent that may have helped the Greens win, they simply didn't have enough votes to be in the hunt.

The simple problem was that the SNP took far too much of the vote.


Under a true PR system, the Greens with their 4.4% national vote share would have been entitled to 6 MSPs, thrice what they have now. But sadly there is effectively a 6.67% de minimis limit as there are typically 16 MSP slots available in each region.

My only advice to the Greens, albeit hollow as they appear to be doing it already, is to be the main line of defence against local decisions that go against the party's ethos. From Aberdeen parks through Edinburgh trams to Glasgow University cuts, the Greens were there but regional strategies to compliment a national strategy is, for me, the way ahead.

One final thought, because I'm nothing if not ornery - Patrick Harvie said he didn't go into Politics to sit in a group of two, and yet that is what he shall be doing for the next five years. Will those words come back to haunt him? I do hope that Patrick continues to value his place in the Parliament even if he doesn't have the numbers he has been wishing for. Scotland needs a strong, vibrant Green party, even if the nation doesn't always realise it at election time!

BBC on the Scottish polls

The BBC have been explaining how the Scottish Parliament elections work here. As you can see they predict that, if current polls are correct, the Lib Dems will come a well deserved fifth. Interestingly, they appear to be saying the English Greens will achieve eight seats which is all very jolly as they are currently busy fighting local elections south of the border... the struggle to keep our broadcasters on brand continues it seems.

Note: polls may in fact be bullshit, but might not be either.

The polls shine on the Scottish Greens

There's always a danger that polls can mesmerise, hypnotise and discombobulatise the political class. As the saying goes, there's only one poll that counts and that's on election day. You could drive yourself mad playing with Scotland Votes, you could. However, whilst the barometer may not be the same thing as the storm they still give an indication of what's happening on the ground outside the fetid party HQs and squalor of the news rooms.

Today's Scottish polls build on the steady results the Greens have been getting throughout the election that we should be doubling or tripling our representation - which would be very welcome, if replicated on the day. In today's polls it puts the Greens on 7 MSPs, equal with the Lib Dems, which brings closer the tantalising thought that we could shove the yellow devils into fifth place.

For more on the number crunching see Jeff Breslin and LPW but Jeff reckons that today's polls would mean 62 for the SNP, 38 Labour, 14 Tory, 7 each to Greens and the Lib Dems and 1 independent.
  I'm not counting my chickens before they hatch, particularly because the national vote has to be spread the right way across the regions for us to get the best possible result. We have eleven days to go and I'd be happy with any increase in MSPs, although if we were to hit, say, the magic number eight I wouldn't send any of them back for a recount.

In fact the poll shows two 'nice' things for the Greens. One that we're doing well enough to see a likely increase in representation and two that the gap between the SNP and Labour is looking unbridgeable - which means any third party squeeze shouldn't be too significant a factor on the day. Iain Gray is likely to resign as Scottish leader of the Labour Party directly after the election (shall we pencil in Monday the 9th for that?) as much of the blame for Labour's poor performance has been laid directly at his door, which is probably unfair even if understandable.

Certainly those who usually vote Labour (or Lib Dem for that matter) for leftist reasons would be making good use of their second vote by lending it to the Greens at this election without it going to waste.

The Greens are explicitly pushing progressive taxation, where we expect the greatest contribution from those most able to pay, renationalising the rail, retaining Royal Mail in public hands, a focus on affordable, warm housing including tackling fuel poverty with a large scale home-insulation scheme, investment in public services rather than cuts and we're even talking about fan ownership of football clubs. Not policies any Labour vote will get you anyway, no matter how left leaning your intention.

With Patrick Harvie still excluded from the leaders' debates (sign the petition) it's all down to the last leg of the campaign on the ground now. Certainly the feeling out on the streets is good for the Greens and we're a distinctive voice among the shades of grey that are the other parties. Let's see what we can make happen on May 5th. If you live in Scotland feel free to get involved with the Scottish Greens campaign.

Hustings report: Edinburgh Southern

It was a beautiful sunny day today, so what better place to spend it than in a church hall listening to politicians. Glorious. This time it was the Newington Churches Together hustings for Edinburgh Southern and we had Andrew McPake from the SSP list, Gavin Brown the Tory constituency candidate, Jim Eady the SNP constituency candidate, Margo MacDonald the respected independent, Mike Pringle, the outgoing Lib Dem MSP and Paul Godzik Labour's constituency candidate.

Alison Johnstone for the Greens (pic from here)

Oh, and Alison Johnstone for the Greens who was the best of all of them (pictured).

I'm going to be nauseatingly pleasant for a moment and say I thought they all came across well, in terms of speaking style and personability. In other words there were no 'duds' on the panel, but there was a great deal to disagree with. I wrote sporadic notes throughout but wont attempt to give a blow by blow account, just a flavour.

Alison (Greens) started off and managed to set the agenda of the initial discussion by raising the cuts, whether they are actually necessary and the amount of social harm that they will do. She praised groups like UKUncut for their sterling work against corporate tax evasion and talked about the need for tighter legislation to ensure even the richest companies and individuals have to pay their fair share of tax. As she said the private sector will not fill the jobs gap when public sector workers have been laid off.

Andrew (SSP) said how we used to have a colourful parliament. Full of different parties that represented different view points and this was good for democracy. He hoped to see a 'rainbow parliament' again, with SSP members in it. Like Alison he railed against the cuts and felt that in order to tackle tax avoidance we needed an 'independent Scotland with teeth'. We didn't need cuts but increased taxation revenue, and that was to come from the rich.

Gavin (Conservatives) listed all the money the Tories were giving to various small business schemes and market organisations. For me this came across as hand outs for businesses and we'll close your library. Later he also said that the cuts were *not* savage, but more a gentle rebalancing of the books.

Jim (SNP) was a competent speaker but lacked detail I thought. So for example he said the cuts weren't necessary but I was never sure why he thought that, unless it was his comment about using the wealth oil would bring in - which I'm pretty sure is not a sustainable model. Certainly though he came across as a steady social democrat, but I did drift off a bit when he was speaking. Sorry.

It was good to hear Margo (Independent) in the flesh as I'd heard nice things about her. I was very disappointed then when the main thrust of her opening address was on how essential the cuts were, and that they needed to be deep. She claimed that the politicians (including herself) did not understand the current situation (which I took to mean she didn't) and that we needed to get the election "over with as soon  as possible". Frankly I think the date is set at May 5th and it would be a bit of a hassle to change that now.

Mike (Lib Dems) agreed with Margo about how necessary the cuts were but that his priority at this election was police numbers, and opposition to the merger of the Scottish police forces. He stated very clearly that he was against free prescription charges and opposed to a council tax freeze (at least I can agree with him on that last one).


Paul (Labour) made quite a motherhood and apple pie introduction talking about protecting jobs and "frontline" services, although he was opposed to getting extra revenue from taxation. I wondered how he was going to achieve this, well, "efficiencies" in the "backroom" (where clearly nothing useful happens because the public can't see them) and "Scottish solutions for Scottish problems". In particular he wanted further efficiency savings in the police, fire-service and health. That's all sorted then, job done, no harm to anyone.

Of the highlights of the debate I'd say there were three. First on crime. The Lib Dem and Margo MacDonald both came out against mandatory sentencing for carrying a knife and although the Labour guy tried to defend it he just sounded like someone who likes locking people up and doesn't mind if they deserved it. It was Andrew from the SSP who took it up a  notch getting very impassioned about the low conviction rate for rape in Scotland and noted that it was time we thought about lowering the evidence threshold on rape. I'm not for that, but it was a strong point well made.

The Conservative, Gavin Brown, felt that we weren't sending enough people to prison and that we were letting them out too soon. I should have heckled that Ken Clarke didn't agree with him, but was too lazy.


The second was on renewable energy. Now this is an area which I think is difficult for the Greens (at a hustings). Everyone expects us to be good on this, it's our topic as it were. So if we shine - well, that's as it should be - and if the others all say they like turbines, sun and wave (as they all say they do these days) it's harder for us to be distinctive on this unless we're prepare to really hammer the record of the other parties.

So we had a few comments about how windy and wavy Scotland was and that the SNP were going to make us 100% renewable powered. Then Alison stepped in and, I think, blew the others out of the water. It's all very well arguing for new wind turbines, she argued, they're ok I suppose, but the key problem is that we're using too much energy, not simply that we're producing it in the wrong way.

If our home insulation scheme was rolled out properly (unlike the half hearted scheme the SNP proposed) it would have a phenomenal impact on our energy *needs* as well as making the poorest households warmer. Without tackling waste and reliance on oil fancy renewable technologies wont take us nearly far enough. I thought that was great, as it challenged the idea that green ideas are something you can just buy in and carry on as normal.

The last highlight (there were lots of other questions) was on what party the panelists would be a member of if they couldn't be in their own. It's a great innocent sounding question that is an incredible minefield for all the parties, but especially the Greens.

SNP Jim got in quick with his "The Margo MacDonald Party" which was promptly banned as an answer for further panelists. Then Labour, Lib Dem and the SSP candidates all said they'd be in the Greens (the SSP candidate pointing out that many members of his party had actually been expelled from Labour so might find it hard to go back).

Alison for the Greens, faced with all this love, had to do some quick thinking. She basically ran through the fact that we like some of the policies of other parties and work with them (for instance the SNP and nuclear) but would have real problems digesting some other policies (for instance SNP and road building). In the end she plumped for the Green Party of England and Wales - which in no way answers the question, well dodged that woman.

That only left the Tory who made some weird remark about Solidarity... but I don't think he was considering joining them.

Anyway, those were my impressions. I'm sticking with the Scottish Greens for the list vote, as you might expect, but you'll have to wait and find out who I vote for in the Constituency list where the Greens aren't standing.

Scottish Greens Election Broadcast

Because from Scottish Greens on Vimeo.

Once you've watched this go look at this http://scot.gr/because/

Edinburgh Central: Climate Cafe

Tonight I attended a Climate Cafe for the Edinburgh Central constituency in my ongoing attempt to decide how to use my constituency vote at the upcoming Holyrood elections. All five parties were in attendance and after much careful thought and consideration I decided I'd vote for Greens on the list. They are paying me after all.

The Climate Cafes are a really nice alternative to hustings where voters sit in groups and the candidates rotate round, speed dating style, for fifteen minutes face to face with each group. It's less confrontational and more intimate and everyone attending should get a good chance to ask their question of at least some of the candidates.

It also looks like the candidates prefer it to the all answer in a line approach, which always has the problem that someone answers first and someone last, skewing their ability to look fresh or comeback on other candidates.

I'll make a few comments about each candidate in turn, which were my personal impressions, I'm sure others in the room had a quite different cafe experience.

Labour's Sarah Boyack was first to our table. On some levels she gave the best performance of the five but having had a non-response to my email questions from her I've since discovered a whole number of locals who have found it impossible to get her to reply. If she doesn't listen to her constituents she doesn't get my vote, end of.

Her responses were pretty steady and competent, which always goes a long way and her comments about the reliability of tidal power, despite its early days in the research and development stages were interesting. I think she was the only candidate to mention (unprompted) local energy production, which is another fruitless plus.

Next up was Conservative Iain McGill who appeared a little nervous I thought. In his introduction before the cafe bit started he mentioned how his party was in coalition with 'Alex's Party' which was particularly cruel as I'm sure the Lib Dem Alex was hoping we'd forgotten that, he certainly winced at the time.

Iain took control of the table and directed it from the moment he sat down, which was in contrast to the other four candidates who all allowed the table to direct how the questions got asked. He also talked quite a lot which might have been nerves, or possibly a strategy to reduce the number of questions he got asked.

I asked him how we were meant to be meeting environmental targets if all the regulating bodies had been abolished in the bonfire of the quangos. He replied that the conservatives were not anti-regulation but were in fact for extra regulations, but they would be enforced in a different or new way. I happen to think this is completely untrue, but it was a nice try.

One thing he said that I liked, gasp, was to change the taxation on aviation so that each flight is taxed, not each passenger. I think that's quite a good idea, although admittedly small beer.


Alex Cole Hamilton for the Lib Dems came next who was appropriately enough asked about what he was going to do about all this junk mail. He replied he was on a 'sticky wicket' on this one as he'd be out of the race if he stopped the deluge of paper, which had the ring of honesty about it. He was the only candidate to have canvassed one of our table, which caused a frisson of excitement.

He did say that at a time when "we are cutting back on front line services" (note: this is not the line, the line is front line services will not be effected by the cuts, bad candidate!) councils producing lots of waste paper was one area we could happily cut without tears.

One thing he said that I liked was that it was not currently feasible for us to meet our renewables targets because there was no political will to do so. He said "the political class and the public at large are in second gear on climate change" and I always like to hear candidates slag off the public. I do! The public might not, obviously, but I think it demonstrates a bit of integrity. He then topped it off by saying the Lib Dems were willing to take unpopular decisions - that's one Lib Dem pledge I doubt they'll break!

Marco Biagi for the SNP was up next. He's currently the front runner for my constituency vote, but I'm still open to persuasion. The first question he was asked (not by me) was "Who are your preferences for a coalition partner?" to which he replied "Green, then Labour, then Lib Dem, then Margo MacDonald, then the presiding officer, then, um.... move to Ireland."

He was asked about new coal and he had a particularly dispiriting answer which was there is no need for it, but because of UK law it would happen anyway. While the Scottish government can use planning regulations they are bound over what arguments they can use and climate change is not one of them.

He also put the emphasis on renewable energy technologies, and all but said that we could not afford a massive home insulation scheme even though it is "vital". He is "100% behind it, but where's the cash?" That's not really good enough to be frank, but again it was shot through with honesty.

Green candidate Steve Burgess was last to our table. I'm entirely biased on him so won't bang on, but I thought he came across well with a quietly spoken and mild, thoughtful manner. He was the only candidate to attack oil, talk about moral obligations to other nations (this was a cafe about the climate after all) and the only candidate to talk about the role of the unions.

Things livened up a little when he criticised growth and was asked which industry's workers he was planning to lay off. For me this really underlined how even with a clear job creation plan at the front of our policies our critique of 'growth' needs a lot more refining, especially in the way we articulate it, otherwise it just sounds like we're arguing for a deeper recession - which we aren't.


Steve handled the question well I thought but we're not always there, face to face, to deal with these questions and, for me, all these phrases like steady state economy and zero growth need a lot more work before we fit them neatly into our Green New Deal approach. Anyway, I found it helpful, so thought I'd pass a report on.

More Scottish Crunch: Glasgow Kelvin 2007

When you're an emotionally one dimension political hack like me you tend to do strange things for fun, like analyse spreadsheets in your spare time. I did think about taking up a hobby, like a sexual deviance, to break things up. However, I heard that rubber can chafe and I didn't fancy the taste of wee, so instead I've taken a look at an unusual Scottish constituency in the 2007 Holyrood elections.

What made Kelvin interesting was that unlike most constituencies, where only four Holyrood parties stood (Labour, Lib Dems, SNP and Conservatives) there was an array of candidates, including the Green Party's own force of nature Martin Bartos - who danced past both Tories and Lib Dems to take third place.

This, for me, is particularly interesting because the Lib Dems beat us to fourth in the regional list *in the same constituency* so we have Lib Dems voting for Martin on the First Past the Post ballot instead of where you might expect them to favour us, on the list. Mind you, this could simply be an extra argument for only standing in the list seats to prevent voters casting their Green vote on the "wrong" ballot paper.

This gives us an interesting contrast to Edinburgh Central where the constituency candidates were drawn from a far smaller pool. This time I've chopped off quite a few lower placed parties from the regional list, for the sake of sanity, if nothing else. Regional lists are along the edge, constituencies along the top;

Region	Kelvin Constituency candidates
	Tory	Christian	Lib Dem	Green	Ind	Labour	SNP	Total
Labour Party	0.84%	0.47%	2.29%	2.96%	1.18%	84.41%	1.71%	7016
SNP	1.14%	0.56%	2.25%	5.34%	1.74%	3.98%	81.67%	6742
Liberal Democrats	1.11%	0.39%	70.85%	8.19%	4.69%	9.59%	3.36%	2796
Scottish Greens	0.95%	0.23%	9.56%	64.27%	4.38%	11.35%	8.11%	2625
Conservative	76.58%	0.72%	3.67%	1.86%	3.88%	7.39%	3.26%	1934

OK, what do we see?

Once again the Labour  Party voters are the most consistent/tribal with Lib Dems and Greens most likely to split their vote. For those who did split their vote the Greens were the most likely option for Labour and SNP voters, and a whacking 8.19% of those who voted Lib Dem in the list voted Green in the constituency. Only the Tories shied away from the Green vote, which is only fair as the feeling was mutual.

For those who voted Conservative on the list but split their constituency vote I was surprised to see they were twice as likely to choose Labour than Lib Dems. I do wonder if there is something interesting, if anecdotal, brewing here about what AV might really mean for the Lib Dem vote - particularly at a time when the yellows are seen as the dishonest half of the Coalition.

While many commentators seem to the think that AV will 'naturally' favour the 'center' party the evidence does rather point to the idea that AV accentuates existing trends and a low first preference turnout for the Lib Dems may well signal a low second preference rating too where Labour and Tory *voters* choose both parties as their first two picks. We'll see soon enough I suppose.

As always you can find the figures for yourself here (xls) and my ongoing gratitude to the Peat Worrier for bringing this up in the first place.

More on Edinburgh Central: 2007 data

Time for a little more data analysis. Courtesy of Lallands Peat Worrier it has come to my attention that in Scotland they record comparisons of how people vote in the list and constituency votes. That means we know how many Tories, in a specific seat, voted for, say, the BNP on the list. And they have this for every seat in Scotland - Glorious!

So obviously I've taken a look at Edinburgh Central, which is where I'll be casting my votes in May. Last time round while Labour won the vote for the constituency, it actually came second to the SNP on the list vote from within the same area.

The table shows the total votes cast for each list (right) and the proportion of those votes that were cast for each of the four choices we had for the constituency. It's worth bearing in mind this was in 2007 before the Coalition, for example.

I've cut off those parties who did not out poll the BNP, partly because xl is being quite, quite insolent tonight and I had to do some of this by hand;

	Tory	Labour	SNP	Lib Dem	Total Votes
Scottish National Party	2.05%	3.71%	82.05%	7.77%	6876
Labour Party	1.42%	88.56%	0.98%	4.37%	6756
Liberal Democrats	2.16%	6.62%	1.56%	87.69%	4621
Conservatives	85.37%	4.89%	1.10%	6.31%	4107
Scottish Green Party	4.59%	26.80%	17.13%	47.06%	3619
Margo MacDonald	18.06%	27.55%	20.17%	31.18%	1844
Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party	17.78%	30.28%	22.22%	23.61%	360
Solidarity	4.29%	26.29%	39.14%	20.86%	350
Scottish Socialist Party	1.53%	25.46%	37.12%	25.15%	326
British National Party	34.72%	18.13%	24.35%	10.88%	193

Out of the voters for the four main parties on the list the SNP appear to be the party that voters were least likely to switch to and the Lib Dems the most likely. By the same token those who voted SNP on the list were the least likely to stick to their list choice in the constituency - whilst Labour were the more consistent / tribal.

However, it's actually the other parties who yield the most interesting results because they actually couldn't stick to their list choice, even if they wanted to.

BNP voters followed by voters for Margo MacDonald were the list voters most likely to choose the Tory candidate. The Senior Citizens were most likely to plump for Labour. Solidarity and SSP voters were those  most likely, proportionally, to choose the SNP and the Greens were most likely to choose Lib Dem.

Of course, it's just as easy to see it in reverse and that a large portion of Lib Dem voters (for example) chose to lend the Greens their second vote whilst staying loyal in the constituency. The figures alone couldn't tell us which way round was the most sensible way to interpret the numbers.



There are some interesting little tit bits in their too if you look. For example, those voting for Solidarity on the list were more likely to vote Tory in the Constituency than even Labour, Lib Dem or SNP voters. Bizarre.

Your Current Misc

Let's have a Scottish Green round-up to celebrate the fact that Patrick Harvie MSP is going to be on Question Time (BBC 1, 10.35pm) tomorrow. Good luck Patrick!

• First to Glasgow where intruders entered the Free Hetherington Occupation claiming to be Young Greens. Their claims were made bolstered by the fact that three of them were naked. Oh yes.
  
  
• Robin Harper, the Green Party's first MSP, has had some fantastic coverage in the Scotsman today under the headline Jolly Green Giant. He does poke fun at the left though, so brace yourselves!
  
  
• Lalland Peat Worrier takes a look at Green tactical voting in Glasgow Southside.
  
  
• Scottish Liberal discusses drugs, the Greens and being fair to each other.
  
  
• The third poll in a row puts the Greens set to triple their MSPs and hold the balance of power in Holyrood. Blimey. Mind you, it'll only happen if people vote that way. Front page Headline? Green Coalition could hand Labour Power.
  
  
• Finally I'll point towards the campaign for a 'Warm Scotland'. Utopian dreamers the lot of them.
  

Edinburgh Diary Dates

If you know of other funky lefty things going on in Edinburgh let me know and I'll add them.

• Saturday 5th March

The big society revenue and customs joins community groups in Edinburgh to protest against the proposed closure of two nursery schools (High School Yards nursery and Princess Elizabeth nursery).
11.30am - Edinburgh City Council Chambers, Cockburn St.
Then moving on to some of our favourite banks.
Courtesy of Edinburgh Uncut

Demonstrate at the Scottish Lib Dem conference
Perth Concert Hall (not Edinburgh)
Assemble 11am

• Sunday 6th March

Anarchist film festival
From noon to 11 pm
Teviot bar, Bristo Square
£4 entry

• Tuesday 15th March

Mark Steel's in Town
Queens Hall, 85-89 Clerk St
EH8 9JG
0131 668 2019 for tickets

Bernado's Political Book Sale
45 Clerk St. EH8 9JQ
6.30 - 8.30 pm

• Friday 25th March

David Rovics with Fiona Keenan and David Ferrard
Bannermans, 212 Cowgate, EH1 1NQ
Admission £8

Meet the Edinburgh Central candidates

It's hustings central here at the Daily (Maybe) at the moment, although this one is a change of pace from all that Green Party stuff. I'm based in Edinburgh at the moment and in the upcoming Holyrood elections the Greens stand on the second, proportional representation, ballot paper but not in the First Past the Post constituency lists.

This presents people like me, who'd naturally vote Green on any ballot paper put in front of them, with a dilemma - which of the other main parties to vote for? I could, of course, spoil my ballot but I've never been quite that tribal. While there are disturbing similarities between the parties some candidates are always going to be better than others.

To help resolve this conundrum I wrote to the four candidates for Edinburgh Central with three simple questions. They're busy people so an in-depth questionnaire was unlikely to get any response.

The SNP and the Liberal Democrats (in that order) got back to me really quickly with very friendly emails. I heard nothing from the Tory, even after a follow-up email, although in fairness his answers would have had to have been pretty damn good to get on my short list!

Labour's candidate didn't get back to me but someone else did with a terse email asking for my address. I'm not quite sure why that was necessary but I supplied it anyway - that was the last I heard from them. My vote's clearly not worth very much to her then, at least not as much as knowing my address is.

Anyway, thanks to Marco Biagi of the SNP and Alex Cole-Hamilton of the Liberal Democrats for their responses. Here's what they had to say, both really interesting I thought - for different reasons.

---

Marco Biagi of the SNP

1) The cuts are dominating the headlines at the moment. Are you in favour of using the Scottish Parliament's tax raising powers to off set job losses and protect public services? If so please do give a specific example.

I support fair and progressive taxation. The existing income tax power is neither. As Holyrood can only change the base rate the burden would fall on virtually all those earning. A 1p rise in the Scottish Variable Rate would mean a £60 per year for a full-time minimum wage worker - and frankly people working for £5.93 an hour 40 hours a week should be paying less tax and not more.

Even using the full 3p of the power would not have been enough to cancel the £1.3bn cut happening just this year. The SVR was intended never to be usable and its designers did their job well. Don't even get me started on Council Tax. It was invented by a Conservative Party who were trying to go as little distance as possible from their beloved poll tax and is even more regressive than VAT. Freezing it is progressive but I'd rather replace it entirely.

The Scottish Parliament's tax raising powers however also cover business rates. In the SNP policy team I helped conceive the Large Retailers Levy as a way of trying to find ways to raise revenue from sources who could even now afford to pay a bit more. Unfortunately this fell under yet another alliance of convenience of the other three big parties.

Other revenue options at a local level are worth exploring, such as scaling empty business relief. Personally I also think we should be courageous and make use of the provisions to introduce a carrier bag charge under the Climate Change Act, provided the money goes straight to green jobs schemes. I'd also like to see money that is Scotland's by right - like the Fossil Fuel Levy or consequentials from the London Olympics - coming to Holyrood. Unfortunately when it comes to enforceability the Barnett Convention isn't worth the paper it isn't written on.


2) I received a free education, my Dad was in the same job for almost all his life and it seems that everywhere I look services, like local libraries, are being closed down. are we moving backwards as a society?

There's a trap here of falling into a giant postmodern discussion about the meaning of progress. Yes, there are fewer libraries in the country than fifty years ago but there are more nurseries (as just one example).

Services change based on the demands of the public and their willingness to pay, and many things the government provides now weren't even thought of back then. Employment has changed almost unrecognisably too - more fragmented and less unionised yes, but also with better rights in workplace safety and minimum pay.

Movement though isn't something that should happen *to* people, it should happen because of them. There can be a better future if people are willing to engage and be part of it - and if people go against those who present dystopia in the language of progress (not that I'm thinking of any Big Society in particular).

The SNP restoring free education by abolishing the Graduate Endowment was the embodiment of a group of motivated people choosing to put one their principles into action and reverse a direction of travel - towards ever more charging - that until then had seemed unstoppable. We chose party politics.

Some people prefer to lobby politicians through interest groups, but it's a lot easier to win an argument with an elected representative if that elected representative agrees with you in the first place. And, incidentally, when it comes to free education, wild horses couldn't shift me - no tuition fees. End of story.


3) I'm voting Green on the list. How would you pitch for my vote on the constituency paper?

That question is a bit of an elephant trap and it would be very easy to be cynical. I'm standing for the party that ended PFI, froze an unfair tax, increased the police to record highs and took class sizes down to record lows, restored free and funded higher education, abolished prescription charges, and focused our support for industry on small business and the new, emerging low carbon technologies.

We've done a lot and we'll do even more if and when we're able to make more of the big decisions about the economy, jobs, pensions and our relations with the rest of the world from here in Scotland. That's the same list of achievements I'd give to anyone on a doorstep, and I'd be doing you a disservice as a voter if I did otherwise. We have an environmental record that is second to none, and I'll expound it any time and anywhere you want. But that's not what you asked.

My answer in a nutshell? I think you should vote SNP on both.

---

Alex Cole-Hamilton of the Liberal Democrats

1) The cuts are dominating the headlines at the moment. Are you in favour of using the Scottish Parliament's tax raising powers to off set job losses and protect public services? If so please do give a specific example.

We live in unprecedented times, the UK's structural deficit was costing us £120 million a day in interest payments alone, that's the equivalent of ten new primary schools a day going straight into the pockets of international financiers. So whilst I didn't get into politics to make cuts, I recognise that in this instance something had to give. Labour have a nerve when they suggest that the cuts the coalition are making are deliberately targeted at the poor and vulnerable.

By their own admission, they were going to cut public spending by 16% whilst renewing trident and keeping ID cards, the coalition are only cutting 19% but not renewing trident and scrapping ID cards, so under Labour vulnerable groups would have suffered just as much, because they depend disproportionately more on public spending.

With regard to raising tax in Scotland to offset the need to cut public spending, I'm not convinced. With inflation at 4% and the cost of living soaring as a result, the last thing hard up families need is to pay more tax. I do agree however that the poorest should in fact pay less tax. That's why I'm proud that Lib Dems in government in the UK are moving the income tax threshold to £10,000 meaning that over 90,000 Scottish families will soon pay no tax at all.

I think we can be more sophisticated in Scotland about where the cuts fall and it doesn't have to mean job losses or service closures. Public sector pay is a major area that could provide a saving, I think it's outrageous that hundreds of public sector bosses earn more money than the First Minister and with no accountability. Similarly In think that by delivering services in partnership with the voluntary sector, we can do a lot more, more efficiently and for less money.


2) I received a free education, my Dad was in the same job for almost all his life and it seems that everywhere I look services, like local libraries, are being closed down. are we moving backwards as a society?

A lot of the problems we face are being experienced in many developed countries around the world, but they are worsened in the UK by the size of our deficit and the burden of debt repayment we face. But everywhere I see reasons to be cheerful- in the determination of community groups and charities pulling together to get through these difficult times. Sometimes adversity brings out the best in people and you can see that in local campaigns springing up, like the successful campaign to save Dalry swim centre.

We will come out of this slump with a greater sense of community and an understanding that we need to be more responsible with public spending in the future, to me that suggests we are in fact moving forward as a society, despite the problems we face.

With regard to free education, Students in Scotland pay no tuition fees, because the Lib Dems in Government in Scotland scrapped fees after Labour first brought them in. We intend to preserve free education in Scotland as it should be a right and not a privilege.


3) I'm voting Green on the list. How would you pitch for my vote on the constituency paper?

As a Quaker, a voluntary sector worker and a committed environmentalist, I have always had a great deal of sympathy with the green movement. Our manifesto for the forthcoming elections is packed with policy to make our country and our economy more sustainable and cognisant of our responsibilities to the world around us.

This includes a dramatic refocusing of our economy towards the renewable energy sector, something which, if done correctly, could provide thousands of new jobs. We are also committed to the full implementation of the Climate Change Act. The Liberal Democrats were the only major party consistently to argue for the 42 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020, and we are proud of the role we played in securing the inclusion of cumulative emissions, sectoral targets and tough annual targets within the Act. Concerted effort is now required to meet those targets, and we recognise that sustained, early action over the course of the next parliamentary session is crucial.

Time for a Triple Scotch in May?

In May this year the Scottish Parliamentary elctions will be the most significant election for the Greens in the UK. There are prospects of the great leap into the Welsh Assembly with the possibility of our first Welsh Assembly member and breakthroughs on local councils throughout England, all of which will be most welcome news. But north of the border things look even more exciting, if you can imagine it.

The Scottish Greens (donate) have been represented in Holyrood since the very beginning of time (1999) and currently have two MSPs in the shape of the mellifluous Patrick Harvie and the incredulous Robin Harper.

However, a YouGov poll released yesterday (pdf) suggests the Scottish Greens could be looking for a very happy May election indeed on 6.4%. These figures would mean a leap upwards to six Green MSPs fighting against the cuts agenda and for a sustainable society.

Indeed this is the second recent poll that suggests the Scots Greens might triple their representation. However, where the Times poll (which had only half the number of respondents I believe) was surprising in that it placed the SNP and Labour neck and neck, the YouGov poll confirmed the impression most people are getting that the gap between the Nats and Labour is, in fact, even widening with Labour in the lead.

This is not, I should hasten to add, because Labour are such a vigorous and dynamic force God bless them but because, with the Coalition in power, Labour's army of donkeys in red rosettes are benefitting across the UK from a tidal surge not of their own making, and which, personally, I don't think they deserve very much.

Similarly the Lib Dems couldd run the best campaign in history and they'd get obliterated - the electoral climate is just too inclement for them poor souls. This is probably just as well as they don't appear to have any campaign money.

Of course, we have to caveat all of this with the fact that there is only one poll that matters, and that's in May (no, there isn't a new series of X-Factor then). I really don't want to be like some (not all) SNP supporters who welcomed with open arms the previous Times poll and then are picking apart the more substantial YouGov poll based upon the convenience of the results.

After all, if I was going to cheery pick I'd point to the fact that more people YouGov spoke to said they'd vote Green than Liberal Democrat. I'd dearly love that to be the result on the day but that's before weighting and the poll actually says the Lib Dems are a whopping 0.4% ahead of us.

However, I should to like add "Woo Hoo!" at this juncture.

The thing that makes me nervous and excited by turns is that if you enter the figures into the excellent Scotland Votes site you quickly realise that very marginal differences to the SGP vote can impact on how many Green MSPs we elect. Every second vote counts as they say.

No Cell Off

I think it was Not The nine O'Clock News that did a joke about Thatcher giving prisoners the opportunity to "buy their own cells", well hurrah for the current trend of eighties nostalgia because it's actually happening. Sort of.

Two police forces in Scotland are, according to the Scotsman, farming out their cells into the private sector. The lucky winners in this game are Group Four (renamed G4S so that people forget that kept letting prisoners escape) who's comments in the press appear to have provoked the normally supine Unison into threatening strike action. Or at least not ruling it out, which is pretty scary stuff I'm sure.

Group Four's managing director John Shaw diplomatically said that "Police forces in Scotland have a great track record of being very forward-thinking, compared to England and Wales" who presumably have not had meetings with him about this exciting business opportunity which includes constructing and staffing detention units and "portable cells, something I said would never happen in February 2009.

As Unison's Peter Velden says "Privatising custody suite officers would concern us greatly. They are valuable public servants and they should be kept in public service. If this saves money, it will be through cutting the guys' wages and cutting their allowances."

I think, given the record of privatised public services, it could also mean a severe degrading of the service - which in this case may mean more injuries, deaths and legal mishaps. In fact it's fair to say that organisations like Group Four (G4S) that make their money profiteering from formerly publicly owned utilities are nothing better than a bunch of criminals.

However, while I've heard of people having to dig their own graves I've not yet heard of criminals building their own cells. We live in hope.

Activist dies in fire

I was very concerned to see that after a fire at a protest camp in Midlothian a young man has died and a woman is seriously ill in hospital. The death is not being treated as suspicious.

The Bilston Glen camp is probably one of the last surviving road protest camps existing in the country. The camp issued this short statement;

"The people of Bilston Road protest site regret the loss of one of their friends, who has been a valued member of our community, and extend our deepest sorrow to his family and friends, who we would like to get in touch with as we have no way of contacting them. We would ask everyone to respect our grief."

My condolences to the protesters and family members of those concerned.

History hour: 1979 Scottish Devolution Referendum

With the up coming referendum in May on the Alternative Vote (AV) I thought now would be an appropriate time to take a look at previous referendums in the UK. One useful example might be the 1979 referendum on Scottish Devolution.

The movement for a more independent Scotland had been around for some time. Right at the start of the post-war years in 1948 there was a two million strong petition for a Scottish Parliament and although the tide washed in and out on the issue the current never quite went away.

In the October '74 General Election the Scottish National Party (SNP) who'd never won a single MP in a General Election before that year, won over 30% of the Scottish vote and 11 MPs, mainly at the expense of the Conservatives. To put that in context in 2010 the SNP won 19.9% (an increase of 2.3% on the previous time). The issue was alight again.

There was no support for Scottish independence at (Labour) cabinet level but the new SNP threat had to be scuppered somehow, so a referendum on devolution was approved, primarily as a way of heading off full scale independence.

One London Labour MP (George Cunninghame) successfully moved an amendment insisting that not only did the referendum have to pass with a simple majority at least 40% of the electorate had to vote in favour, effectively turning abstentions into no votes. A similar Parliamentary proposal was put forwards for the AV referendum last year incidentally, but it found little support.

The campaign in favour was split. SNP activists were divided between those who (understandably) saw the devolution question as a way of preventing independence and more pragmatic SNP activists who thought devolution was a step towards their goal.

Likewise, although Labour was officially in favour of the proposals they themselves had initiated high profile MPs, like Robin Cook, placed themselves firmly in the NO camp. The forces who would expect to have been in the YES lobby were horribly split among themselves culminating in two official YES campaigns (the SNP one and the one for everyone else) which enjoyed only lukewarm support at best from the hard line reformers.

Meanwhile the NO camp, with it's rather simple 'bollocks to it' message (that wasn't an official slogan mind) was united, clear in its message and, with a Labour government shuddering to a halt, a NO vote could be seen as a parting shot to the dying government from its detractors.

early polls had indicated a comfortable win for the YEs campaign but March '79 found the YES vote scrapping in by the skin of their teeth. 51.6% of those who voted, voted in favour. But George Cunninghame had his revenge because, on a 63.6% turnout, only 32.8% of the electorate had voted YEs and 30.8% had voted NO. The referendum fell on a technicality.

The referendum, having gone down to defeat, pulled the SNP down with it and later that year they went from 11 MPs to just two, so in many ways the halfway house of devolution DID put a hole in the SNP's historic rise.

Two light words of caution about drawing too strong a parallel with the AV referendum though. There are certainly parallels between the pro-independence campaigns of '79 and pro-PR people of 2011 - both are divided into 'step towards our goal' and 'attempt to head off our goal' groupings, but the fact that the devolution referendum lost does not in itself prove wrong those who said it would not lead to independence, even f you think they should have set their sights lower.

The second point is that while devolution falls short of independence it is an increase in the level of independence or autonomy of the Scottish nation while AV is not more proportional that First Past the Post (FPTP). In fact Av entrenches the concept that only those with majority support should be elected to Parliament at all - which is the opposite of the PR principle that minorities should still have a Parliamentary voice.

You can argue that demonstrating a willingness to reform, and reject FPTP, may make PR more likely (and I'd like to see that argument made rather than simply stated as a fact) you can argue that AV is preferable to FPTP - but what you cannot credibly do is argue that AV is more like PR than FPTP in the way that devolution certainly is more like independence than no devolution.

These caveats aside I think the '79 devolution referendum is instructive in a number of ways. It shows how a question posed deliberately in favour of a reform few were advocating is divisive among reformers. It shows how a divided campaign can lose ground to a united opposition and how, once a referendum is put, no matter what way the answer falls you've had your option for change for a generation.

Tommy Sheridan: hubris and perjury

Tommy Sheridan has been convicted of perjury and in January he is likely to be sentenced to a prison term. This should make no one on the left happy, nobody joyous, nobody smug - indeed it should make all of us on the left very angry that it was ever allowed to get this far.

Cicero said that “Time destroys the speculation of men, but it confirms nature” and what could be more fitting to describe the long and drawn out series of court cases begun not by the police, not by Sheridan's "enemies" on the left or by MI5 but by the Scottish socialist politician Tommy Sheridan himself?

Dave Osler has the tone about right I think when he rightly points to the service Sheridan had done to the left over the years prior to these events but that he then pulled down those achievements around himself over some (largely true) tabloid allegations that he could have simply brushed aside.

That he was a victim of internal rivalries is fanciful. The SSP was at a high point, with six MSPs, the best known of which was Sheridan, when the saga began. To claim that internal foes manouvered him into taking up a court case, when they were openly calling on him not to pursue it, and then lied in court to destroy him, regardless of the catastrophic effect such a course of action would have on their party just goes beyond credible. That he turned allies into enemies through his decsion is beyond question.

To say that Sheridan's decision to try to force fellow party members to lie for him in court about his sexual life was misjudged would be to put it mildly. To say his refusal to back down when they made it clear they would not perjure themselves for his personal ego was suicidal would be spot on. He made a terrible error of judgment that dragged his family, his friends, his colleagues and himself through an extraordinary and damaging process. He is the victim of his own mistakes.

As Sheridan was using the courts to make two hundred thousand pounds in libel damages from the News of the World, he was also using the tabloid press to attack his comrades on the left, using ludicrous accusations like 'scabs' for their refusal to lie. A scab is someone who crosses a democratically agreed picket line, who works during a strike, undermining it, not someone who fights to protect the reputation of a socialist party against the personal ego of one man.

The implication that socialists should tell lies to protect 'one of their own' when the case was neither political nor an attempt to bring that socialist down is wrong headed in my view. The left has to be honest with itself and with others, to do otherwise is to become morally bankrupt and unsupportable. However the lines were drawn up and the feud was as public as it was bitter with bad behaviour on both 'sides'.

The libel case raised the question that someone had to be lying and all sides of the case were investigated. Eventually the roles were reversed and it was Sheridan who was in the dock. Bizarrely in his five hour summing up Sheridan even described systematic lying as part of his political tradition. He claimed that the old Militant tendancy that he was trained in would use a "defiance strategy" of dishonesty and conspiracies against their enemies. I think that says more about Sheridan than it does the socialists with whom he once held common cause and I'm convinced that had I been on the jury the length and tone of his summing up as well as this admission of the willingness to lie to achieve his ends would have weighed heavily against him.

If this case had gone the other way, it would have been other socialists facing a jail sentence. I'm glad that they are spared this hardship, even if I'm not happy that Sheridan is not. The fact is that Sheridan made it inevitable that someone on the left would go to jail, and there's no reason to think that given that facts it should have been anyone other than the man himself.

That there is a legacy of bitterness on the Scottish hard-left is undeniable. This article by SSY shows both the power of the arguments against Sheridan's suicidal course of action and how emotionally damaging the last years have been. That some of Sheridan's former comrades made mistakes is undeniable, but the fact remains all of them, to a man and woman, had tried to stop the first idiotic case from ever getting off the ground. Once it had begun, everyone's course was set.

However, the left is not there to simply serve itself and the left is far more than those who are members of hard-line parties. The civil war in the Scottish left, in those corners where it still persists, should end, but the truth is that for many it was never more than a distraction from the good work that they continued to crack on with, either because they had never been involved in the SSP or because they did not let the feud pull them down. Those who are unable to move on from this dark period will need no help from opponents in disappearing into obscurity.

The anti-war, anti-privatisation party I'll be supporting in May's elections will be the Scottish Greens, of course, but I wish all of those on the Scottish left inside and outside the SSP all the best. This has been a difficult time, but it is a period that is over and a new chapter is begining.

Sectarian bunfight!

It can be strange to watch the in-fighting between groups that you assumed were all on the same side. As they denounce each other for letting the world go to hell in a handcart it's possible to see that the issues are really, really important to them but it's just not possible to work out why.

Such was my reaction when listening to the news tonight where a Scottish bishop was denouncing Devonshire monks for 'leading people into sin'. This is not within the remit of being a monk and is, therefore, a serious charge.

It seems the monks produce Buckfast, a potent mixture of caffeine and booze. Bishop Bob Gillies (pictured) has had enough of the licentious and criminal behaviour conducted under the influence of Buckfast and has called in the big guns in the form of an old white man in a beard saying “St Benedict, I would have thought, would have been very, very unhappy with what his monks are doing nowadays.”

That's not really him in the picture, obviously. This is him.

On PM the good Bishop went even further than the claim that someone most people know little to nothing about would not have approved by claiming that Christians should not be involved in producing harmful substances at all. That's quite a strong claim and I look forward to his coming denunciations of the cigarette industry, bacon sandwiches and channel five. Let no one put this man in charge of the economy, we'd all be on the dole.

You don't get Buckfast round my way much but apparently it's a popular tipple in Scotland where it is affectionately known as "commotion lotion", “liquid speed” and “wreck the hoose juice”, at least it's known as these things according to The Times, and they move in those circles I'm sure.

Part of the problem is that this is no ordinary wine but a rocket powered 15% brew injected with an impressive dose of caffeine, presumably to ensure you don't fall asleep in a bush on your way home. A bush you are almost guaranteed to have ventured into if you've had a few glasses.

The local police certainly seem to think it's the devil's lubricant, linking it to a large number of crimes - including with the bottle. It may well be that this is the mischief makers booze juice of choice but can we really lay the blame for Scotland's woes at the door of the wrong kind of monk?

Come on guys, Bishops and Monks shouldn't be fighting each other, you should be picking on the Jews, Muslims and Buddhists surely.

Labour retain Glasgow North East

No big surprises at the top with Labour retaining the seat and the SNP still firmly in second place, although the Lib Dems cannot be best pleased with their pitiful result coming in sixth behind the BNP and Solidarity.

It's a pity that the Tory just managed to scrape her deposit back, but we can't win them all. The lack of headlines really reflects the fact that most parties didn't stand here last time so there's not much direct electoral history to compare to.

The Solidarity and SSP vote combined is much the same as last time (a little down) but the bizarrely high 2005 SLP vote has completely collapsed, possibly indicating that people had previously seen the word Labour and voted for Scargill's team accidentally last time.

The BNP vote has seen a boost after their successes elsewhere and blanket media coverage of the main stream media's bugbear of choice - but the boost was not significant enough to see them retain their deposit, let alone threaten the big players.

Full results, lifted direct from wikipedia, God bless it.

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	±%
	Labour	Willie Bain	12,231	59.4	N/A
	SNP	David Kerr	4,120	20.0	+2.3
	Conservative	Ruth Davidson	1,075	5.2	N/A
	BNP	Charlie Baillie	1,013	4.9	+1.7
	Solidarity	Tommy Sheridan	794	3.9	N/A
	Liberal Democrat	Eileen Baxendale	474	2.3	N/A
	Scottish Green	David Doherty	332	1.6	N/A
	Jury Team	John Smeaton	258	1.2	N/A
	Scottish Socialist	Kevin McVey	152	0.7	-4.2
	No Label	Mikey Hughes	54	0.3	N/A
	Socialist Labour	Louise McDaid	47	0.2	-14.0
	Independent	Mev Brown	32	0.2	N/A
	The Individuals Labour and Tory (TILT)	Colin Campbell	13	0.1	N/A