³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

Sitting here in , a copy of The Sun on the rough hewn table that passes for my desk.

The page one footy trail speaks of Arsenal's victory and Liverpool's defeat. Rangers humiliation is a few pars on the inside back page. A clue to the edition in question.

Also on the front is a banner declaration of intent: .

It is accompanied by several pages of explanation - plus a handy pull-out-and-keep poster listing Labour's failures.

Of course, such a momentous switch needs a slogan. The paper duly supplies it with: "We're feeling blue."

Not, however, in Scotland. .

For why? Presumably because of the calculation that the Tories are not in a particularly healthy state in Scotland.

Political stance

As a marketing tool, they are flawed, at least by comparison with the brand in England. In short, the Scots Tories don't sell.

The Scottish edition of the paper, which I have perused online, does the sums.

It says: "Fifty years ago more than half of Scotland voted Tory. Today they command the support and respect of only one in six of the population."

The Scottish Sun has wrestled with its political stance before. As I recall, it flirted relatively briefly with support for independence, presumably as a counterpoint to the Labour-loyal Daily Record.

Now it appears caught between the overall abandonment of Labour and the lack of an obvious alternative.

Not the Conservatives: today's Scottish edition of the paper says that suspicion of the Tories "runs way deeper" than the newly-stated distrust of Labour.

Not, it would seem, the SNP: that same Scottish edition declares continuing support for the Union.

The Liberal Democrats, then? Behave yourself.

Instead, the Scottish paper is left urging Mr Cameron to declare what he will do for "our nation", starting presumably next week at the Tory conference.

Does all of this matter? As Gordon Brown pointed out this morning, newspapers don't vote, people do.

However, newspapers can undoubtedly lead opinion - not through their op ed articles but through dedicated, persistent news coverage aimed in a particular direction.

In short, having declared for the Tories in the southern edition, The Sun will want to end up on the winning side. They don't do losers.

In Scotland, presumably, the paper will tailor its coverage to match its nuanced position. Unless and until it reaches a clear verdict.

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

Ecstatic applause greeted the opening of as he proclaimed Labour's achievements in office.

It would seem we must add time travel to the list.

Earthbound voters might think the next UK election will involve Labour's search for a fourth consecutive term in power. Not so.

It would, apparently, be "the first Labour Government of the new global age".

This is a novel concept created, of course, by a desire to shed any suggestion that Labour has run out of ideas and ambition.

Mr Brown's argument was that the world had been utterly transformed by the economic crisis.

This merited a renewed effort to curb financial excess while rewarding hard work.

'Focus group-inspired'

Political subtlety and time lapses aside, this was a : full of policies and rhetoric designed to appeal to middle England/Britain.

Skivers, benefit cheats and city centre drunks? The PM was against them. Pensions?

He'd restore the earning link. Teenage parents? They'd stay in supervised accommodation, losing benefits if they didn't comply.

As one informed observer said, the content was straight out of focus groups, bolstered by an American-style language of fundamental family values.

Given devolution, of course, not all the policies announced apply north of the border. But Mr Brown appeared to base two announcements on Scottish developments.

Firstly, he announced free personal care for those with the highest needs who stay at home.

Secondly, he outlined plans for family intervention projects based on a pilot in Dundee which he has studied.

Tax relief

A further policy could have Scottish implications. The PM said he would reform tax provision for better off parents in order to release money for free childcare for 250,000 two-year-olds.

The cut in tax relief would impact across the whole UK. But it would be up to the Scottish Parliament and Government to decide whether to implement the enhanced childcare.

There would be extra money for Scotland as a consequence of the new investment in England.

On the economy, a new investment corporation, efforts to support business and tax increases "at the very top" - although there's also a hike in National Insurance on the way.

In all, Mr Brown was seeking to contrast his approach with what he characterised as malign, non-interventionist neglect by the Tories.

Again, the calculation is that, if the next UK election is a referendum on recent events, then Labour has had it.

If it can be transformed into a choice between Labour and the Tories - "the change they choose" as Mr Brown put it - then perhaps the outcome may be different.

Either way, in this time zone, the days and weeks are running out.

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

Intriguing speech by Iain Gray at the .

Three themes: a sustained personal attack on Alex Salmond; a warning to his own party to remain united and, most intriguing of all, a nod to the .

The Salmond attack was fairly familiar stuff, spiced with the suggestion that the SNP would favour a Conservative victory at the UK general election (because it would add to the strain on the Union.)

The warning to his own party was based upon his depiction of the relative political impotence of opposition: Labour's condition in Scotland. Coming your way at Westminster, he implied, unless you unite and fight.

But to the referendum. This is what Mr Gray said: "The day may well come when the people of Scotland want a referendum to settle their constitutional future once and for all. But not now, in the midst of a recession. And not on a question rigged by the SNP."

Pressed subsequently by the wicked media (self included), Mr Gray indicated there was minimal to zero prospect of these conditions being met before the next Holyrood elections in 2011.

Consider those conditions. There are three. One, that the economic crisis is over. Two, that the question suits Labour. And three, that it settles the question "once and for all".

'Running a mile'

Timing, wording and impact. All three, it appears, would have to be met before Mr Gray would support a plebiscite.

Pressed still further by the w.m., Mr Gray confirmed that he had supported Wendy Alexander in her .

However, Alex Salmond had "run a mile", the recession was now in place - and the moment had gone.

Might it return before 2011? Seemingly not. The focus had to be on economic recovery. (Condition one). And Alex Salmond would not sanction suitable wording. (Condition two).

So what is his objection to the Salmond wording? Too conditional, apparently.

The SNP want to ask the people of Scotland whether they agree or disagree "that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state."

According to Mr Gray, that is a "rigged" question. It gives the impression there will be further phases, that the choice is not final.

Implicit conditions

Nationalists say it is a realistic question which also deals with the limited powers of the existing Scottish Parliament: the fact that the constitution is reserved to Westminster.

But consider also Mr Gray's implicit third condition, that the issue would have to be settled "once and for all".

How could he secure that? Mr Salmond has indicated that the question of independence would fade for a generation if defeated in a referendum.

However, presumably Mr Gray concedes Mr Salmond would be entitled to object to the wording of the referendum.

The SNP leader could scarcely be expected to abandon or shelve his party's key aim if he did not trust the wording, if he thought it "rigged".

Pressed once more, Labour's Holyrood leader said he favoured a straight choice. Yes or no to independence. Yes or no to ending the Union.

No multiple options. No Calman versus SNP White Paper. A simple proposition, attracting a yes or no response.

Might he table such a bill if he were to become first minister? Mr Gray declined to specify.

Indeed, he was notably imprecise presumably because he does not envisage an early date for such a referendum.

Intriguing, nonetheless.

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

Not sure if you've managed to catch any of the programmes in a new series I've been presenting on the wireless. Brian's Big Debate on Radio Scotland every Friday at 1315 BST. C'mon, I'm allowed to plug my own show.

Another belter today with lively exchanges on Trident, pensions, teachers and the future of broadcasting. Great audience contributions - with a forest of hands still in the air by the close.

Anyway, after a few shows in ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Scotland HQ in Glasgow, we're venturing on the road. Next week's programme will come from Perth, the scene of so many key Scottish political battles.

I'm not quite old enough to have covered Ted Heath's Declaration of Perth, nor the 1963 by-election when Sir Alec Douglas-Home entered the Commons to become PM.

But I have reported on umpteen party conferences from Perth, firstly from the City Halls then the new Concert Hall venue.

And I covered the remarkable by-election when Roseanna Cunningham won her Commons seat in 1995.

So I'm looking forward to returning to the old city next Friday. Actually, I'll be in Perth rather earlier than that - tomorrow for the contest between St Johnstone and the mighty Dundee United.

Much as I appreciate the Fair City, I'm afraid that more fundamental loyalties will prevail on that occasion.

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

Notably sharp exchanges at first minister's questions .

Labour's Iain Gray was succinct, pointed and pertinent. In response, Alex Salmond shone with his customary burnish.

He said that progress was being made year on year in trimming the numbers in individual class rooms.

He referred to . He challenged local authorities, notably Glasgow, to improve their performance - which should make for an entertaining exchange when he meets Glasgow council leader Steven Purcell this afternoon.

It was good, substantive stuff, powerfully delivered. However, there is still an underlying challenge facing Mr Salmond's government on this issue.

Cast an eye back to the SNP manifesto for the Holyrood elections in 2007.

Here's what they said on class sizes: "We will reduce class sizes in Primary 1, 2 and 3 to 18 pupils or less to give children more time with their teacher at this vital stage of their development."

Not "we will reduce class sizes" - if economic circumstances permit. Not - if the councils do their bit. And not "we will make progress year on year."

Appearing exercised

That may have been the tenor of the concordat with councils. It did not, however, feature in the manifesto upon which the SNP were elected.

Annabel Goldie also pursued the topic of class sizes.

Tavish Scott, fresh from Bournemouth, appeared exercised by the future of broadcasting.

Perhaps that's what happens when your are shown live on telly.

Anyway, Mr Scott was decidedly droll on the likely TV schedule in an independent Scotland.

With an eye to the FM's speaking style, he suggested Mr Salmond would welcome the return of Grandstand.

FMQs would become "Only an Excuse". And the star of the Weakest Link? Fiona Hyslop, the Education Secretary.

Ouch and ouch

In response, Mr Salmond reckoned the Lib Dem leader had been indulging in the sea air and Pina Coladas.

But the best gag of the day undoubtedly goes to a sedentary heckler. (Sounded to me like Margo MacDonald - but undoubtedly she'll put me right one way or t'other.)

Answering a formulaic question about his engagements, Mr Salmond said he had no immediate plans to meet the Prime Minister.

Heckler: "". Ouch. And, again, ouch.

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

Hands up those who believe that the SNP will deliver on their manifesto pledge to reduce class sizes in Primary 1, 2 and 3 to 18 pupils or fewer.

Ok, OK, let's try another tack. Hands up those who believe this was a misguided or undeliverable policy in the first place.

Fine, hands down. Now hands up those who feel that the Scottish Government is making a gallant effort to trim class sizes - and that in P1 is part of that.

Ministers say the cap will give legal protection to those councils facing troublesome placing requests which threaten to undermine class size targets. They say they're moving towards their target, not running from it.

Opposition critics say it's a hideously embarrassing climbdown which proves that the manifesto promise was a con in the first place.

It's a legitimate controversy, a decent row. Welcome to those who want to add to it by responding to this blog.

Me, I'm intrigued by a wider question. Public spending in the period ahead is going to be tight, really tight.

Fragile recovery

We may be about to witness "savage cuts" (copyright, Nick Clegg) in the comprehensive spending round which will begin from 2011.

Yes, there are signs of extremely fragile recovery in the economy. But the tentative end to the recession will not obviate the necessity to reduce the huge level of accumulated government debt.

That means cuts in spending or increases in taxation or probably both. That isn't politics. It's arithmetic.

So just when is the political debate in Scotland really going to engage with that?

When is it going to focus upon serious constraint in spending rather than controversies over whether a particular sweetie has been delivered in a quarter pound or half pound bag?

To be fair to John Swinney, his most recent draft budget featured cuts in some programmes, most contentiously .

However, he was dealing with existing, historical spending patterns. Party manifestos for the next Holyrood election in 2011 will have to be predicated upon sharply reduced spending levels, certainly in real terms, quite possibly in cash terms.

Excise waste

The debate at Westminster has now, finally, moved from competitive spending offers to a faintly macho contest as to who is the toughest in delivering potential constraint.

Hence the Tory insistence that they will promise real cuts. Hence Nick Clegg's savagery. Hence Gordon Brown's carefully modulated promise to excise waste and cut certain programmes.

By the very nature of devolved politics, where Holyrood's budget is dependent on Westminster, the debate in Scotland is subordinate.

It inevitably lags behind the Westminster controversy. That is not partisan politics. That is the Scotland Act 1998.

But, sooner or later, the debate at Holyrood is going to have to change too.

At a conference in Edinburgh today, Alex Salmond said that Holyrood needed to make the "transition from a lobbying culture to a determining culture".

Mr Salmond was making the case for the Scottish Government and Parliament to play a real role in, for example, the upcoming global climate summit in Copenhagen.

Enhanced powers

But his remarks work just as well in the context of spending decisions.

The Scottish Parliament may not presently have full powers. That debate is, of course, at the core of politics in Scotland.

However, Holyrood is already a spending polity. It makes choices, admittedly within a largely fixed budget.

Over the medium to long term, there is a debate to be had over the wisdom or otherwise of altering the means of settling that budget: enhanced tax powers, full independence.

In the short term, at the next Holyrood election, there will be another choice.

What can Scotland afford to spend? On class sizes, on hospitals, on transport, on fighting crime.

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

There is, as I recall, a rather deft little ditty entitled: "Blame it on the bossa nova." It even featured in an episode of the West Wing.

Tavish Scott, it appears, is inclined to look elsewhere for his causal link of choice. On ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Scotland's Good Morning Scotland programme this morning, he blamed it on the pina colada at his party's Bournemouth conference.

The import of his wireless words was that one or two excitable delegates had been so fired up by a lethal combination of sea air and Latin liquor that their thoughts instantly turned to...the prospect of a referendum on Scottish independence, no doubt conducted via the single transferable vote.

Mildly seriously, Mr Scott was seeking to play down the prospect that his party might perform a Palais glide and endorse the SNP's plans for a plebiscite next year.

Now, Mr Scott might have a point. If TUC talks in days gone by could be settled over beer and sandwiches, perhaps Scotland's future will indeed be heavily influenced by pina colada and nachos.

I suspect, however, that the Bournemouth brouhaha owes more to a factor I have identified previously. Which is that opposing a referendum is an uncomfortable place to be for a democratic party. Perhaps especially one which carries that name in its title.

When they all get together, when they've exhausted the topic of multi-member constituency canvassing, when the tapas are nearly done, it's then that the chat turns to the referendum.

Tavish tells them: "Just say no." But it's so tempting, so tempting.

Doesn't make Mr Scott's stance impossible. There is a cogent argument to be advanced to the effect that a referendum now would be an unwarranted distraction from the task of tackling the recession. (NB: by cogent, I mean relevant or pertinent, not inherently right.)

Mr Scott makes that argument in Holyrood where it finds a ready echo from Labour and the Conservatives. The LibDem leader is also making that argument in Bournemouth, only just a little distracted by the noises off. Too many pina coladas, guys, one too many.

Incidentally, if he's looking for tips on the bossa nova, he could do worse than consult Vince Cable, the dance maestro of the Locarno, Twickenham.

Mr Cable certainly needed neat footwork as he explained his "mansion tax" on houses worth more than one million pounds. Was it temporary? Was it a prelude to Local Income Tax? What would happen in Scotland? Answers came there many - when just one or two would have been preferable.

No doubt, though, it's all the fault of the wicked media. Hey, Jimmy, when you're done with that sangria, por favor...

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

Don't think the evidence stacks up.

off the back of the decision to cancel the proposed rail link to the city's airport.

There are two separate issues here: the rail link itself and the wider treatment of Scotland's largest city.

The link to Glasgow Airport has been cancelled on the grounds that the cost, especially in times of economic trouble, isn't justified by the proclaimed gains, according to ministers.

Pretty well exactly the arguments deployed by ministers when they cancelled the air link to Edinburgh Airport. Did that then illustrate an anti-Edinburgh bias?

Other say: but look at the trams investment in Edinburgh? Look at the replacement for the Forth Bridge?

Two points. John Swinney was completely against the trams project - and was forced to fund it by a Parliamentary vote.

The new Forth crossing is vital for the whole of Scotland. What do we do if the present bridge fails - or faces restrictions on traffic? Return to the ferries?

Further, ministers are able to point to other investment in Glasgow: the new Southern General Hospital, motorway extensions etc.

On my show on the wireless (Brian's Big Debate, it's awfully good, you should listen), Mr Purcell argued that this investment was largely driven by the city council.

He argued further that Edinburgh had benefited from capital city status cash.

Another issue arises.

The creation of a link to the airport formed part of Glasgow's bid for the Commonwealth Games.

It was an explicit element of the offer, with cross-party endorsement including a letter from the then deputy leader of the largest opposition party at Holyrood, one Nicola Sturgeon.

Fine, say ministers, but times have changed.

The Scottish Government argues it is backing other development projects - and that it can guarantee good transport for the Games participants and spectators.

So where are we?

Strictly speaking, the rail link could be revived if opposition parties join forces to insist that it is reinstated within the government's spending programme.

Will that happen? I think not.

Opposition leaders would require to state what else they would cut to fund the rail link.

Frankly, they have other priorities.

What does Glasgow City Council do now? My guess? Sustain its complaints - but, realistically, seek to extract other advantages for the city as recompense.

I suspect both John Swinney and Steven Purcell - both highly adept politicians - know precisely what is going on.

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

There were cries of "shame". There was persistent loud applause. There was angry gesticulation. There were gory metaphors. There was precious little humour.

This is serious.

The cries of shame greeted the .

Angry Labour MSPs accused the SNP of a bias against Scotland's largest city.

This was - equally angrily - denied by John Swinney, who pointed to the extent of public investment in Glasgow and promised that other transport projects would receive support.

The applause came, of course, from the SNP benches who welcomed , good or bad.

It was another powerful performance.

Justifying hyperbole

The gore dripped from Andy Kerr who depicted Mr Swinney wielding a knife over the corpse of Scottish public spending.

Instead of Swinney, he saw before him Sweeney, the demon barber.

He justified this hyperbole by arguing that it was Mr Swinney's decision to accelerate capital spending which had led to inevitable problems this year.

Steven Purcell, the leader of Glasgow city council, pursued this metaphor of his city.

In reply to such attacks, John Swinney is arguing that he has been left with no alternative.

In 2007, when they came to power, SNP ministers said the new spending round, which ends in 2011, was tighter than previously.

That was exacerbated, they argued, by £500m of cuts ordered by the Treasury.

Blame game

It was made still worse by the consequences of that capital acceleration: a change enforced, they argued, by the need to tackle the economic crisis.

Which leaves us where? With, in the short term, a blame game.

Labour says the SNP knew the consequences of bringing forward capital spending.

The SNP says the Treasury should help to spread the pain.

With, in the medium term, an attempt to persuade the Treasury to do just that. In other words, to allow further capital acceleration.

Even if that happens, the Glasgow Airport Rail Link has had it, the most high profile casualty on a day which saw health and police budgets relatively enhanced - while housing and enterprise suffered.

Further, in the medium term, MSPs will set aside the rhetoric, will stifle the anger - and get down to the job of hard bargaining to produce a composite Budget Bill which will pass parliament.

In the longer - but only slightly longer - term, politicians of all parties will face the necessity to process much more substantial cuts in public expenditure as the bills for the banking crisis come in.

When that happens, today's sound and fury will seem like a tame dress rehearsal.

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

A day to go until John Swinney publishes his draft budget - and the statistical squabbling is well under way.

From the Scottish Government, indications that the budget to be announced by Mr Swinney will represent a real terms cut: the first since devolution.

Aha, says the Scotland Office, but that is only because you, Swinney J., opted to bring forward £347m of capital expenditure from 2010/11 - and now have to account for that expenditure.

Other than that, says the SO, there would have been a slight real terms increase in the money available for 10/11 compared with 09/10.

That calculation includes the "efficiency savings" ordered by the UK Government.
Hang on, says the SG. You call them "efficiency savings". We call them cuts.

Plus the acceleration of capital spending was in line with a composite strategy to attempt to revive the ailing economy. Further acceleration is needed.

Let's cut to the chase here. This is a collective challenge for Holyrood. One way or another, our MSPs have to deal with a relatively tight budget, however that sum was reached.

Further, in subsequent years, that constraint will become tighter still. Read Gordon Brown's lips. There is no new spending.

It is understandable that, in advance, the parties squabble over who is to blame. It is understandable that they seek electoral advantage.

However, I fully expect that, such endeavours exhausted, they will get down to the job of matching demand to supply with regard to public sector spending in Scotland.

At this stage, it does not look like that will be accomplished via the cross-party mechanism prompted by the Liberal Democrats.

You will remember that part of the LibDem price for endorsing the previous Swinney budget was a new system whereby other parties would be consulted at an earlier stage over the details.

There have been only two meetings of the new cross-party steering group - and none in recent weeks. In effect - although this will meet adamant denials from some - the mechanism is in suspense.

For three reasons. One, governments like to govern. They tend to want to control their own budgets as much as possible, even when in a minority in Parliament.

Two, Labour in particular harboured a lingering suspicion that they might be sucked into endorsing Mr Swinney's plans without full sight of government documents.

Three, there was a concern abroad at Holyrood that cross-party bargaining might cut across the open, constitutional scrutiny of the budget which is undertaken by Parliament's finance committee.

So, in reality, we're back to the status quo ante. John Swinney will publish his budget - and proclaim that he's protected Scotland from the worst of the Westminster cuts.
Opponents will claim that he's got his priorities wrong.

There will then be protracted negotiation. The revised budget will, eventually, be endorsed.

No complaints here about process. That's politics. Parliamentary politics.

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

He said it. Finally, he uttered the word "cut".

In truth, though, , issued at the TUC, was carefully finessed.

Labour, he said, would "cut costs, cut inefficiencies, cut unnecessary budgets".

Scarcely a dramatic new direction there. Isn't that what responsible government should be doing all the time?

There was more, though. Labour would also cut "lower priority budgets". One can see the potential for dischord where different people have different priorities.

His union audience liked the promise to protect "vital front line services". They will have noted the challenge implicit in his determination to secure "realistic public sector pay settlements".

So, finesse. Far from aligning himself with a broader cross-party movement to endorse the necessity for cuts in public sector spending, the prime minister was out to depict contemporary UK politics as offering a choice.

Underlying objective

A choice, he argued, between intervention in the economy from Labour as against what he characterised as potential neglect by the Conservatives.

The Tories, of course, would not depict the choice in these terms. It is important, though, to understand the PM's underlying objective.

Labour strategists calculate that, if the next UK election amounts to a referendum on the immediate past, a period of economic decline, then Gordon Brown has had it.

If, however, they can contrive to get the voters to think about the election as a choice between two futures, rather than a verdict on recent history, then Labour may have a chance.

For Scotland, today's speech at the TUC should have a direct and immediate impact, particularly with on Thursday.

For consistency, Labour in Scotland might now be expected to shelve its attempt to argue that the resources available to the Scottish Government for the period ahead are anything other than relatively tight.

If Gordon Brown is telling, as he put it, the "tough truth about hard choices" on the economy and spending, then surely that is also the case with regard to the Scottish Budget which presently is a subset of the wider UK fund.

It would seem logical, at least, that the debate which will follow Thursday's publication might focus upon the best use of relatively constrained resources - not on whether such constraint exists.

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

Quite rightly, questions to the first minister today were .

However, the pursuit of the FM was anything but single-minded.

From the chair, Alex Fergusson complained that the exchanges with the three Opposition leaders had taken up twenty two of the 30 minutes on offer.

He warned he will now seek ways of reducing this dominance.

The PO, of course, is not responsible for the content of questions. But it seemed to me that this Q&A was wanting in other respects.

Perhaps it is the stylised format of FMQs, perhaps it is the perceived requirement for a quota of partisan exasperation, but I did not feel that the Diageo issue had been suitably addressed.

We might exempt Tavish Scott from this. The Liberal Democrat leader inquired, relatively modestly, why the Diageo job losses had produced such a substantive response - government task force et al - by contrast with economic challenges elsewhere.

Party bickering

Mr Salmond, equally gently, cited examples of action by his government to preserve and create jobs while thanking Mr Scott in the passing for the notably consensual tone of his comments on Diageo yesterday in which he warned that party bickering would not save a single job.

For the Conservatives, Annabel Goldie chose to pursue the question of disruptive pupils and school exclusions.

On the day, she didn't make all that much progress. However, the Tories are plainly building up a dossier on this, an issue which resonates with their vote.

Labour's Iain Gray certainly pursued Diageo. However, he seemed a little uncertain as to which avenue to follow.

Yesterday he had issued a statement saying that the Diageo workers had been "let down" by the Scottish Government.

He started today down that tack, accusing Mr Salmond of indulging in megaphone diplomacy with Diageo by joining a rally in Kilmarnock against job cuts.

The implication appeared to be that diligent negotation might have been more effective.

Saving jobs

However, Mr Gray then switched - and said it was important to move on, to combine to mitigate the impact of the job losses.

He then expanded his arguments still further, arguing that the Scottish Government was spending so much time on its National Conversation about the constitution that it was neglecting its responsibility to save jobs.

On the day, each attack might have been substantive. However, the single transferable question allowed Mr Salmond to chide his opponent for failing to focus on the issue at hand.

Indeed, the FM proceeded to address the question he felt Mr Gray should have asked. Alex Fergusson might welcome this approach.

If the FM both asks and answers the questions, time would undoubtedly be saved.
Is there still underlying substance here, though? Possibly.

It is at least arguable Mr Salmond was displaying a dual personality in the early stages of this controversy: part protest, part persuasion.

Certainly, business leaders have queried whether it is suitable for the political leader of a government to be on the march in protest at a company with substantial continuing investment in Scotland.

Political bosses

Mr Salmond says he has nothing to apologise for.

Secondly, the issue of the National Conversation. Here, it is Labour which appears to have a dual approach.

At points, they seem to suggest that Mr Salmond has no mandate to pursue this issue.
He does. He won most votes in the election. He was duly elected first minister with the power to direct civil servants which that implies.

Those civil servants are obliged to pursue the manifesto of their political bosses.

That manifesto contained a promise to pursue independence via a referendum.

Separately, Labour and others argue that the National Conversation is a waste of time and money.

That is a different case, party political not constitutional.

One for the voters to judge at the next election - by which time they may have cast their views on independence in a referendum. Or not.

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

An intriguing variety of political responses to the news that Diageo is to persist with closing its plants in Kilmarnock and Port Dundas, Glasgow.

This closure has gained exceptional salience in part because of the iconic nature of the brand involved, Johnnie Walker - but also because of the sharp partisan conflict in the town of Kilmarnock.

Responding to the news today, the SNP's John Swinney and others voiced disappointment that an alternative proposal had failed to sway the company.

Labour's Iain Gray said the workforce had been "let down" by SNP Ministers.

For the Tories, Annabel Goldie said the Scottish and UK Governments must stop squabbling, reminding us that there was new investment planned by the company in Fife.

And Tavish Scott of the Liberal Democrats said that a political blame game would not bring one single job back.

As sometimes happens in partisan politics, each point has legitimacy, each point is worthy of consideration. (NB: for the avoidance of doubt, "legitimate" does not mean inherently right, just not intrinsically wrong. Worth, in short, a look.)

It is conceivable, as many argue, that the company was intent on cutting costs, has found no serious option on offer - and has paid minimal attention to history and workforce loyalty.

However, without indulging in a blame game, it is legitimate to ask whether enough was done to dissuade Diageo.

Such questions should be moderately drafted and temperately proffered. Equally, Ministers are adamant they can address such inquiries - and, again, should do so in a controlled fashion. Well, we can but hope.

Understandable partisan concerns must come second to anxiety for the workforce and the need to preserve Scotland's reputation as a place where business motivations are understood. Interrogated, yes. Challenged, yes. But respected.

The Tories are right to point to the jobs on offer in Fife - although, of course, that does nothing to placate those now facing the dole queue at the affected sites.

The LibDems are equally right to note that partisan squabbling - as opposed to dignified scrutiny - will provide nothing. My sympathy to those who are now more worried than ever for their future.

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

The smile is back, palpably back.

Indeed, at one point, Alex Salmond had to promise the Presiding Officer - with a drolll grin - that he would try to avoid stimulating the chamber too much with his rhetoric.
(Alex Fergusson in the chair had requested no interruptions to Mr Salmond's statement. The interruptions consisted of lively applause from the SNP benches and sedentary growls elsewhere. Mr Salmond's offer merited a wry smile in return from the PO.)

The statement was substantive: thirteen bills ranging from action on alcohol abuse to measures to protect wildlife.

Controversy? Plenty. That alcohol bill with its plans for minimum pricing; crofting reform where consensus is absent; the future of children's hearings, ditto; debt provision, seeking balance between the rights of creditors and consumers; a shake-up for our legal firms; tenancies and limiting the right to buy; the new Forth crossing.

Then there's the Budget Bill, this year against the background of looming cuts in public expenditure.

Enough, in truth, for substantive debate and argument. But there's more.

.

Paving legislation which could lead, ultimately, to the Act of Union (Abolition) Bill.

This is, of course, deeply serious - not least for the SNP for whom it is a founding principle.

So why the passing smiles from the First Minister as he opened his remarks, leading to that conclusion?

Because, alongside the deeply held long-term desire of Alex Salmond to secure Scottish independence, there is a short to medium term strategy.

Mr Salmond acknowledged that he serves in, as he put it, a parliament of minorities.

He knows he cannot push through his Bill for a referendum on independence next year without support from other parties.

He knows that support is not presently forthcoming.

Labour, for example, has staggered through its "bring it on" phase - and now rejects a referendum on the professed grounds that it is an unwarranted distraction during economic crisis. Tories and LibDems ditto.

So, again, why the smile?

Because Mr Salmond calculates that, setting aside views on independence per se, the intrinsic notion of a plebiscite tends to be rather popular with the people due to be consulted.

He calculates, further, that those same people will tend to resent or, at least, question those who would seek to frustrate an exercise in popular democracy.

He anticipates that those same people might, if prompted, tend to express their discontent at a forthcoming election by bolstering the SNP at the expense of the other parties.

To enhance that prospect, Mr Salmond explicitly suggested that there might be a multi-option referendum: broadly pitting the status quo against Calman-style devolution max and independence.

The Scottish Government insists its preference is for a straight yes or no on independence.

But, ever keen to help, it is offering to include the option of the reforms drafted by the Calman Commission (copyright: Labour, Tories, LibDems.)

This is deliberately sufficiently flexible to make it an offer which is, strategically, difficult to refuse.

Again, dual approach.

Mr Salmond wants independence. He wants a referendum.

He argues that Scotland can only thrive with the full powers of an independent nation

This is not purely tactical.

However, there is a substantial tactical element: he wants to invite voters to infer that his opponents are curmudgeons who dislike giving the people a say.

As I have written before, this is a tricky one for the SNP's opponents.

They have to find language which suggests that the particular Referendum Bill is unwanted without in any way giving the impression that they are hostile to popular choice.

On today's evidence, they will seek to suggest that the referendum is a selfish move on the part of the SNP, placing partisan advantage ahead of Scotland's pressing needs, particularly in difficult economic times.

Should be a fascinating debate. Bring it on, as someone once said.

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

UPDATE AT 1430: And, later, as the debate progressed, Westminster implications predominated.

As Alex Salmond was winding up the debate, a special adviser handed him a note regarding the views expressed by the Prime Minister.

Mr Salmond duly informed the chamber that Gordon Brown had stressed his respect for the right of Scottish Ministers to take the decision regarding al Megrahi - "and for the decision".

The first minister placed substantial emphasis upon the latter element regarding the decision itself: emphasis which had not been present in Mr Brown's own delivery.

Indeed, by contrast, the PM seemed to underplay an element which Mr Salmond thought crucial.

As to the debate itself, I thought it was of a relatively high standard: notably better than the exchanges during last week's emergency statement. Perhaps further consideration has added depth.

There were good individual speeches from Elaine Murray who emotively described the feelings in Lockerbie, from Malcolm Chisholm who explained why he would be voting with the Scottish Government and from Patrick Harvie who sought to return the chamber to the underlying issues.

Parties combine

The vote? Alex Salmond's government will lose as the main opposition parties combine.

But Mr Salmond can afford to discount this vote. For why?

The decision itself does not require parliamentary sanction. This is not a confidence vote - either in the minister or the government.

It will not become a confidence vote - because that might seem too nakedly partisan on the part of opposition parties.

And because Labour might now be keen to get off this topic given the discomfiture caused to the PM.

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

on the decision to release the Lockerbie bomber.

Today's proceedings in the Scottish Parliament were opened by David Cameron.

Not, you will have calculated, the Conservative leader. We are dealing here with the Rev David Cameron of Queensferry parish kirk who was appearing in the regular prayer slot, irreverently titled by some "Thought for the Week".

Smiling gently, the Rev Cameron reminded MSPs the parliamentary mace bore the legend: wisdom, justice, compassion, integrity. A useful blend, he suggested, for political decision making, especially the tough ones.

However, the shade of his Tory namesake hovered over the debate as it got under way.

Yes, MSPs were debating a decision by the Scottish justice secretary on the fate of a man previously held in a Scottish prison.

But, especially following the publication of detailed documents yesterday, the controversy has palpably shifted south, adding to the pressure upon the prime minister - from whom we are due to hear later today.

Deft sidestepping

Thus it was that the First Minister Alex Salmond pre-empted today's debate with a point of order inviting Labour to redraft their amendment condemning Mr MacAskill's decision.

That position, he said, had become "totally and absolutely ridiculous", given disclosures that UK Ministers had been averse to the concept of al Megrahi being left in a Scottish jail to die.

The point was deftly sidestepped by Alex Fergusson, the presiding officer. But the issue had been raised - and it seemed, to some extent, to discomfit Labour's Richard Baker who opened for his party.

Challenged about the views of his party colleagues at Westminster, he said that was irrelevant. It was Mr MacAskill's decision which counted.

That was met with uncharitable guffaws - including from those who insist on just such an assertion. That's politics: things move on.

To be fair, Mr Baker rallied to close relatively strongly, accusing the SNP ministers of arrogance.

Clinical dissection

Other front bench contributors, Bill Aitken and Robert Brown, offered clinical dissection of the evidence.

Mr Aitken notably sought to extend the criticism beyond Kenny MacAskill alone by repeatedly referring to decisions taken by "the Salmond government".

Of course, Mr Aitken's Tory party is assiduously seeking to extend the controversy still further to include Gordon Brown.

Right now, right now, that is where the debate is heading. It may well revert but Scottish Ministers plainly believe that the redirected controversy assists them.

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

So where are we now?

Well, read the documents for yourself on the web. But already this evening divergent interpretations are emerging.

At Westminster, opposition critics are particularly keen to seize upon the suggestion that the then Foreign Office Minister Bill Rammell had indicated to Libya that neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Secretary wanted Abdelbaset al Megrahi to die in prison.

At Holyrood, the somewhat different opposition wants to focus upon the actions of the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill.

The element I would note en passant is the absence so far of any concrete link between these two events: UK Government positioning and Scottish Government action.

Firstly, the Westminster perspective. Today's documents confirm what we knew: that the UK Government was anxious to improve relations with Libya in order, among other things, to strengthen global security.

The initial aim of excluding al Megrahi from the emerging prisoner transfer agreement was dropped in pursuit of that wider interest. But UK Ministers stressed at all points that this was one for the Scottish Government.

Translation? We, the UK Government, want to placate the Libyans. That means no exclusion for al Megrahi. But there's a fall back: you, the Scottish Government, can say no to prisoner transfer.

We learn today that Kenny MacAskill mentioned to Al Megrahi in Greenock prison that prisoner transfer would require the abandonment of outstanding legal proceedings.

Opponents translate that as: drop your appeal and you are on your way home.

Not so, says the minister. He was merely stating the facts, accompanying them with a statement that he would require to take all elements into consideration.

In the event, he said no to prisoner transfer - but sanctioned release on compasionate grounds.

Which leaves us where? Influential interests - certainly including the Libyans and conceivably including the UK - wanted a resolution to the al Megrahi applications for release in order to improve relations between London and Tripoli.

But how was that translated into action? Did Kenny MacAskill comply via compassionate release rather than prisoner transfer?

He and his UK counterparts are adamant that there was no such deal - and there is no document in today's dossier which confirms otherwise.

Did Kenny MacAskill, then, release Al Megrahi because he knew, in advance from another meeting held by his officials, that the Libyan was prepared to abandon his appeal in return for prisoner transfer?

Again, there is no concrete evidence to that effect. And, again, the Minister is adamant that he acted from mercy, rejecting prisoner transfer.

More tomorrow.

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