³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

David Laws is either the first calamity of the new Parliament or, perhaps more accurately, the last victim of the tsunami which swept through the previous one.

Either way, .

It would not have been credible for him to be casting a covetous eye over Britain's finances, ordering cuts, while the Westminster authorities were investigating his own.

If handled properly, it need not cause utter dislocation within the coalition. The Tories are scarcely in a position to excoriate one brought down by expenses. Take your cue from moats and proceed.

Plus these are still early days for the new government. There are still sufficient numbers on the backbenches who yearn forpromotion to provide a bulwark of support to the Cabinet.

That factor dimishes with the passage of time as some are sacked and others conclude that they will never achieve office.

However, it will cause political problems for the coalition externally: both in the Commons and with the voters.

Collective sigh

In the Commons, Labour will attempt to extend their criticism to the programme of savings which Mr Laws has already instigated and the ones to come.

The voters, I suspect, will yield a weary, collective sigh.

As for Scotland, it produces an intriguing switch. .

He already had a ministerial foot at the centre of government with his role in the Cabinet Office. Now he has been asked to step up to one of the toughest jobs of all.

Controlling expenditure is tough in good times: colleagues moan unceasingly when their pet projects are denied.

In these times, it will be grim beyond measure.

.

Scottish mandate

There has been some surprise expressed that he has over-leaped the Conservative MP, David Mundell, who remains his deputy.

That is to misunderstand the nature of the post. In this coalition, the Lib Dems do Scotland. That is a matter largely of arithmetic.

Mr Mundell is a lone rider, the solitary Scots Tory MP. His appointment would revive challenges to the UK Government's Scottish mandate.

The Lib Dems have almost twice as many MPs in Scotland as the SNP.

Myself, I was rather surprised that Michael Moore wasn't in government in the first place.

'Loadsaluck'

From his days enthusiastically explaining the lack of progress in the Scottish coalition talks in 1999, on the pavement outside the Lawnmarket, he has progressed rapidly and is well regarded.

Now, the surprise may be that he has leaped straight into the Cabinet over, for example, Alistair Carmichael who is already in office.

Perhaps it is felt that Mr Carmichael is an innate whip, born to command. Perhaps the circumstances called for the minimum disruption.

Either way, congratulations to Michael Moore on his elevation.

To the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in the words of the late, great Allan Sherman, "loadsaluck".

For the avoidance of doubt, Mr Sherman intended irony. As do I.

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

Names matter. For example, nomenclature has long played a part in preventing the merger of the two football teams in the great and noble city of Dundee.

What could you call the new outfit? My suggestion would be to take one word from the Dens outfit: that would be "Dundee". And another word from the cup holders: that would be "United".

Perhaps the newly merged "Dundee United" could play at, say, Tannadice. In tangerine.

For some unaccountable reason, this proposal has failed to find favour.

At Holyrood question time, Labour's Iain Gray was also looking with disfavour on a name change. Sorry, make that a "visual identity transition".

Apparently, the title Skills Development Scotland is just so last year. Mr Gray told MSPs they were to become "Scotland: the Works" - backed up by that transition programme and a marketing exercise costing some £2m in total.

Mr Gray seemed to feel that this money might be better spent on finding jobs for young people. He reckoned it was "marketing mumbo jumbo".

First Minister Alex Salmond defended the organisation, noting that it had exceeded its target for generating employment opportunities. It had done well.

However, he declined to comment on the visual identity transition, relying instead on restating his admiration for the work done by Skills Development Scotland.

Perhaps, however, he will ask a few awkward questions once he returns to his office in the Scottish Government (formerly, Executive).

UPDATE AT 1547: And there's more. ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ questions to Skills Development Scotland re the points raised by Iain Gray elicit an intriguing answer.

Drawing upon their diplomatic skills to the full, they say that the Labour leader "has got the wrong end of the stick."

They have, they say, no plans to change their name. That option has been rejected.

Further, they say that the marketing budget is deployed to promote opportunities including apprenticeships and adult literacy.

They add that it would have been "impossible" to deliver the 20,000 new apprenticeships praised by the FM without marketing spend of this kind.

Which means? That they believe the leader of the largest opposition party at Holyrood has blundered.

As you can imagine, we are now trying to ask questions of the Labour Party.

UPDATE AT 1644: Still more. Labour at Holyrood has now produced documentary evidence to back up its claim.

It has published a document dated 27 April this year which appears to be a detailed plan by Skills Development Scotland to phase in the use of The Works in signage, letterheads and the like.

In an earlier statement, SDS says that an internal proposal to use The Works as a corporate brand was rejected by their directors on the 30th of March.

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

Had enough of the UK election aftermath? Ready for a bit of Holyrood pre-election fun?

This afternoon we got the final recommendations on the new Scottish Parliamentary boundaries which will now go to the Scottish Secretary (Holyrood elections being, still, in Westminster hands.)

The statement is full of valuable information about the average size of constituencies (more lie close to the mean); about co-terminosity with local authorities (enhanced, apparently); and the fact that the recommended names for Holyrood seats mostly differ from Westminster versions.

Are these facts entrancing our political parties? Or are they doing rough sums as to the likely impact on their electoral prospects?

Hands up those who answered "the latter".

Now, health warnings. There is no guarantee that voters in new seats will replicate their past habits: they may be influenced by the boundary changes.

Plus incumbency may counter negative factors from any boundary switch.

Holyrood gossip

Plus the corrective list mechanism may do exactly that: rebalance for a party which has lost a constituency on a boundary change but retains a substantial vote region-wide. (Or, of course, it may not.)

But, with those points in mind, herewith the Holyrood gossip around the parties thus far.

Labour: Starts one seat down in that a constituency vanishes from depopulated Glasgow (hence Margaret Curran's departure for Westminster.)

Looks to be in bother in the new Eastwood - which, despite furious protests, is now sans Barrhead (Labour's voter base.)

Could be facing tougher challenges in other seats - such as the redrawn Edinburgh Central; the new Dumfriesshire; and maybe Aberdeen Central.

Has "high hopes" of taking Glasgow Southside (presently Govan, current incumbent Nicola Sturgeon.)
Plans big list campaign to help counter any problems with individual seats.

SNP: Believes it could make perhaps two net gains. Thinks the redrawn Edinburgh East still good. Thinks the new hybrid of Midlothian North and Musselburgh could be winnable.

Admits Southside "more challenging" but believes Ms Sturgeon will hold on.
Now to be two seats in Angus: hopeful of both (but see below.)

Conservative: Happy at splits in number of urban seats. Thinks Eastwood on the cards for a win. Looking optimistically at new Dumfriesshire.

New Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire tougher, but winnable/holdable. Ditto Edinburgh Pentlands. Ayr strengthened for Tories.

Disagrees with SNP re Angus. Thinks Nationalists will be entrenched in Angus South but that Angus North and Mearns could turn blue. Thinks Perthshire South and Kinross-shire a possible.

Liberal Democrat: Not at all happy with the change in the Borders which turns Jeremy Purvis' seat into Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale.
Turning an eye upon the new Edinburgh Central and, possibly, Argyll and Bute.

Remember those caveats. Plus, as ever, the voters will decide.

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

With a sentence in the Gracious Speech, .

Her Majesty's (new) government .

I was struck by the sentence immediately preceding: in which it was stated that HMG would work with the devolved administrations.

In part, that was designed as a prelude to the three devolved offers: Calman for Scotland, a referendum on further powers for Wales and efforts to sustain and foster the devolved settlement in Northern Ireland.

But it was more. Ministers in the UK Government intend, if they can, to implement Calman in tandem with the Scottish government.

Could be a challenge. Alex Salmond and other SNP ministers have spoken out in the past against the Calman tax proposals which, they believe, could give Scotland the appearance of power but without the tools (such as control over allowances, starting rates and differentials) to effect real change.

Plus there is a definite limit to this offer of co-operation. The UK government does not intend to reopen Calman entirely in consort with the Scottish government.

Borrowing powers

With a Bill due in the autumn on the topic, the UK Government's starting point will be the final Calman Report.

Not, incidentally, the White Paper prepared by the previous UK administration.

I interpret that as meaning that elements of that White Paper may disappear.

For example, the suggestion that the use of borrowing powers for Holyrood should be linked to an automatic increase in Scottish taxation.

More to come. Much more.

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

Stress was laid upon "liberté." Take note of the emphasis placed upon "égalité".

Big question outstanding is whether "fraternité" can be preserved.

Within the UK coalition government, that is. Today David Cameron, Nick Clegg and colleagues .

They are, it seems, united in tackling the deficit, primarily through spending cuts rather than tax increases. For the avoidance of doubt, Vince Cable said he fully backed the chancellor.

But how about the French motto?

It fell to the support acts to spell out the underlying principles. Home Secretary Theresa May talked of restoring liberties. Mr Cable spoke of a commitment to egalitarian fairness: although it was equality of opportunity, not outcome.

And fraternity? As the two sides contentedly coalesced, I found it striking that the prime minister felt the need to stress, at length and in detail, the Tory content of this coalition package.

Reforming government

He felt the need to stress, further, how much more could be done in implementing elements of the Conservative manifesto by a coalition government with a secure majority.

Members of the wicked media at the launch suggested that the two leaders, Cameron and Clegg, now appeared to feel more at ease in each other's company than in the society of their individual parties.

Not at all, replied the PM. He had not started by favouring a coalition but he now believed that it had "the potential to be a great reforming government."

Again, though, he listed the upside for Tories. Strong and stable government, action on the deficit, scrapping the planned hike in NI, action to counter the "dependency culture" of welfare, wholesale education reform (in England).

Plainly, he was protesting rather loudly in the face of discernible grumbling on his back benches.

- including, of course, those changes to benefits rules.

Plus the expected indication that the money demanded by Alex Salmond from the fossil fuel levy will be forthcoming - although it is only under review at this stage.

Public finances

Plus, on the constitution, a promise to implement Calman and a commission to look at the West Lothian Question in the Commons.

On funding for the devolved institutions, there is a nod towards the "concerns" raised by the Holtham Commission - which dealt with the situation in Wales where the Barnett formula has become an object of loathing.

However, it notes further that any change to the system "must await the stabilisation of the public finances".

In other words, it is too painful to contemplate deficit reduction and scrapping Barnett at the same time.

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

An intriguing taster of things to come in the Holyrood statement this afternoon by the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill.

He was facing potentially awkward questions as to whether the Scottish government sought to influence chief constables with regard to the timing of the recruitment of new police officers.

In the event, Mr MacAskill's "in your face" approach comfortably deflected criticism.

Labour's Richard Baker essayed an exercise in voluble indignation, drawing ridicule from the Minister.

Bailie Bill Aitken, sadly departing this parish at the next election, was more contained.

After all, it was his party which struck a deal with the SNP over recruiting one thousand more officers.

Robert Brown for the Liberal Democrats was gently satirical as to whether the Minister was seeking to blame future cuts on the UK government.

Specific cash

Perish, said Mr MacAskill, the thought.

The minister strenuously defended himself and his civil servants for insisting that specific additional cash for police forces must be spent on recruitment to meet the 1000 target.

With that, he has a point. Ministers cannot meet a manifesto pledge if those on the ground divert the resources elsewhere.

Yes, it raises issues about autonomy. The minister argued that police chief constables should remain entirely in control of operational matters - but that the government was entitled to insist upon a promise, endorsed in a parliamentary vote, being delivered.

Incidentally, none of the above features the really intriguing bit. That came in the Minister's sundry assertions re future plans.

One thousand extra police officers had been promised. One thousand extra police officers would be delivered - with that level sustained through to the Holyrood elections.

The Scottish government planned "budget stability" in the current year - that is, they will defer any pain which follows from Monday's announcement from the Chancellor of £6bn emergency cuts.

'Not guilty plea'

Beyond that, though, the minister could offer little in the way of reassurance. That was dependent on "the full impact of the Westminster cuts to come".

Turning his (operationally autonomous) Taser to full power, he blamed Labour for creating the economic mess together with the Tories and LibDems for planning cuts.

Sounded like an advance plea of not guilty to me. Or, at the very least, a plea in mitigation. Perhaps he hopes for a not proven verdict.

Like much heard in the Scottish courts, there was still an air of remote unreality about today's exchanges.

They were still predicated upon protecting public services, upon reassuring the voters - with hints about the pain to come relegated to the margins.

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

Isn't it wholly refreshing to witness a politician disdaining the customary euphemisms when announcing a decision about his future?

.

He doesn's say he intends to spend more time with his family or his constituency or his dog.

Rather, he says that the challenge requires certain qualities which he does not possess.

Hang on just a second, though, before awarding him the Order of Merit (Second Class) for collegiate self-deprecation.

The influential backbench MP also indicates that he has neither the time nor the inclination to spend half the week preparing to knock lumps out of his opponent (or, in these coalesced days, opponents) in the Commons.

In other words, the job is wrong for him - rather than perhaps the other way round.

Right to rule

Mr Cruddas, a thoughtful figure, says two further things. He wants to contribute in some way to reshaping the Labour Party. Secondly, he wants the leadership contest to be prolonged: a "battle of ideas."

What impact might all this have upon the Scottish Labour Party - or, more precisely, the semi-devolved Labour Party in Scotland?

Despite Wendy Alexander's past insolence, I am not convinced that the Labour Party in Scotland is entirely an idea-free zone.

Certainly, there is a substantial segment of the party which has not completely liberated itself from the concept that it has a natural right to rule.

But the hustings for the Holyrood leader were lively and combative without being confrontational.

No, it's not the "ideas" bit which would trouble Scottish Labour overmuch. Rather it's the suggestion of a "battle".

Labour in Scotland cannot afford a leadership contest which is too prolonged or too bloody. It does not have the breathing space - with Holyrood elections due next May.

On the other hand, the party in Scotland may be hoping that a sensible, well-argued debate might help energise the comrades.

A discussion among sisters and brothers. Brothers being particularly apposite.

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

Today, if you will indulge me, I propose to write the odd line about events over the weekend.

Not moves from the Treasury to establish a new system of financial rigour. Not Labour's attempt to woo disaffected Lib Dems. Not even the latest on the ash cloud.

I refer, of course, to .

Scenes from a cup final. United were utterly magnificent and thoroughly deserved their victory. .

But more. The astonishing level of eager, happy enthusiasm among both sets of fans.

We applauded each other's team at the end. There was not one word of bile aimed at the opposition.

We even shrugged off the hue of their strip and resisted the temptation to sing: "Are you Dundee in disguise?"

There I was in the North Stand, singing along with twenty eight thousand others about a ship called Dignity - with Ricky Ross smiling benignly two rows back.

Successful side

There I was, with my wife, tapped on the shoulder by an old school chum of ours.

His wife, also at school with us, had said: "If you see Brian and Pam, send them my love."

He had said: "But there will be fifty thousand and more there." He was in the row behind me.

There I was, with my two sons. One old enough to remember 1994. The other just a toddler then, with no personal experience of United as winners, as a truly successful side. No more.

There I was, approached by umpteen folk who had seen the daft wee item on Reporting Scotland.

They loved the Shed Shades - noting that I had sported the children's version. All I could get.

There was Lee Wilkie, leading out the team, holding up the cup. Wonderful gesture. Let's cap it by insisting that he has a testimonial - with his former club Dundee as the opponents.

Ghana flag

There was the chairman, Stephen Thompson, and his mother, Cath Thompson. Enjoying the triumph, also thinking no doubt .

There was Prince Buaben at the end, wearing a Ghana flag like a kilt.

He says he will dedicate his cup medal to his late father who always encouraged him to work hard and do his best. Prince, you are a king.

There was all the team, victory achieved, dancing and singing with the delighted fans.

Goodie and Conway, the scorers. The entire squad.

There was Lorraine Kelly, a real Arab, at the game and in Dundee the next day, urging the thousands who witnessed the final to support the club in Europe and domestic competitions next year.

European spot

There was Craig Levein in the stand, struggling to wear the mask of a neutral Scotland boss. Many congratulations on failing in that task. This victory was yours too.

And there was Peter Houston. The deputy manager. The stand-in whose side got thumped by Rangers in the first few days.

He feels like giving up. He battles on, his tactical brilliance shines. His side win the cup and clinch a good spot in Europe. It's like something out of the Wizard.

Enough, Brian, enough. Spare a thought for the colleague who will have to put this piece online. He supports Ross County.

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

It is, averred the prime minister, about building bridges, not burning boats.

David Cameron was chatting with Tavish Scott, an erstwhile Guizer Jarl at Up Helly Aa where boat-burning is compulsory.

But, alongside the joshing, a visit with a decidedly serious purpose. , an indication of his intent to re-engage, if possible, with the entire Scottish body politic.

Symbolism all round.

Mr Cameron said it was his first visit as prime minister to a parliament anywhere. He has yet to go to Westminster.

His talks with the opposition leaders were held in Queensberry House where the second Duke of that ilk crafted and propagated the Union Treaty in 1707.

And the PM had to enter Holyrood via a side door because of a noisy protest outside against public sector cuts.

Future progress?

But hard bargaining in outline form with the FM. Alex Salmond said after the talks that he had been surprised that the new PM was ready to engage, seriously, about financial issues such as new borrowing powers or Scotland's demand for a comparable share of the money currently being spent in the east end of London in association with the Olympics.

Will there be final deals today? No, of course not. Might there be progress in future? Perhaps.

Privately, those observing the talks with Opposition leaders say that the PM was open to the idea of progressing the Calman reforms to Holyrood with relative speed.

Indeed, it was Mr Cameron who raised the issue.

Understandably, he would not give an immediate assurance that Calman would feature in the first coalition Queen's speech.

Holyrood reform

But those seeking to advance the Calman agenda felt reassured by Mr Cameron's response.

Frankly, those supporting the Union felt he had got the concept: that further reform at Holyrood would be required, from their standpoint, to counter the SNP arguments which will now be advanced in the run-up to the elections next year.

From an SNP perspective, Mr Salmond appears to be sustaining his broad strategy which is to govern as consensually as possible within the present Union settlement - while simultaneously inviting the voters to infer that things could be better under independence.

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

And with one round, he was free. One round of voting, that is.

Labour's Iain Gray seemed decidedly liberated .

For why? For this reason: he no longer has to act as defence counsel for the UK Labour government, rebutting taunts from the FM. Isn't defeat wonderful?

Today Mr Gray had the best gag on offer: he did a few sums on the SNP performance in the UK election, by contrast with their forecast.

Instead of a Baker's Dozen - 13 not 12 - we had the Salmond Score, six not 20.

OK, Frankie Boyle's job is safe. But, on the day, it worked.

More seriously, Mr Gray tackled the issue of impending cuts, citing the example of jobs to be lost in NHS Greater Glasgow.

New coalition

These were not, he said, Labour cuts or Tory cuts or Liberal Democrat cuts. They were to be laid at the door of Alex Salmond and his Health Secretary, Nicola Sturgeon.

In response, Mr Salmond made two points: the NHS budget had risen in real terms, despite constraint on the total available; Scotland's largest parties (SNP and Labour) should unite to demand concessions from the new UK coalition.

Reasonable points to advance. Substantive issues. But, somehow, they fell a little short by contrast with the simplicity of liberated opposition, delivered by Mr Gray.

Now, that does not mean that Mr Gray has complete justice on his side. Merely that he no longer has to look over his shoulder when launching his oppositional attacks.

Further, he is buoyed by Labour's performance - in Scotland, strictly in Scotland - in last week's election.

'Tory anti-histamine'

Again, that does not mean Labour's showing will be replicated at the Holyrood elections next year.

On the day, Annabel Goldie performed rather well, swatting aside Mr Salmond's reminder that she had deplored the impact of a Cleg(g) bite during the election.

Tory anti-histamine would sort that, she soothed.

And Tavish Scott must be relieved that he didn't face more in the way of satire or invectice for his party's decision to support the Conservatives.

Mr Scott pre-empted such criticism by drawing attention to the announcement by the new (LibDem) Scottish Secretary that the detention of children in Dungavel will cease.

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

In times of turmoil, I usually turn to that great sage and acute observer of the political scene, Lewis Carroll.

However, on this occasion, only W.S. Gilbert will suffice.

You know, I feel sure, the great song from Iolanthe in which Private Willis, while guarding the Palace of Westminster, offers his views on the politicians of the day.
Here's one classic:

When in that House MPs divide,
If they've a brain and cerebellum, too,
They've got to leave that brain outside,
And vote just as their leaders tell 'em to.

But his sharpest observation is to note:

That every boy and every gal
That's born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!

What would Private Willis make of our new UK Government which contrives to blend the two?

I know that members of the Liberal Democrats contrive to castigate their Labour and Tory rivals - do we still call the latter that? - as the "old parties", cheerfully ignoring their own prolonged history.

No deal

But still it is remarkable to see the party of Gladstone and the party of Disraeli conjoined in coalition.

"Remarkable" might not be the chosen description for some LibDem activists - and indeed some Tories.

Was there an alternative? The Lib Dems talked at length with Labour - but no deal emerged. One, because the numbers did not fully add up.

It would have taken a rainbow extending far beyond primary colours - and, even then, it is arguable that it would have been vulnerable to internal dissent and disquiet.

Two, there was a palpable and growing lassitude on the Labour side with regard to remaining in government.

They knew they had lost ground, substantially - and that was reflected in their wider party approach to the prospect of a deal.

Consequently, the Lib Dems felt they had no choice. Their rivals in Labour and the SNP - we definitely still call them both that - will continue to insist that there was: and that the LibDems have "inflicted" the Tories upon Scotland and the UK.

Nationalist 'wickedness'

Of all the reaction statements, I particularly loved the one issued in the name of Margaret Curran, Labour MP and (still) MSP.

Suggesting that the SNP can "barely hide their glee" at the Tories taking power, Ms Curran (or her ghost writer) provides the full, shocking list of Nationalist wickedness.

Apparently, they "stood candidates against Labour". The beasts. Further, they "fought to reduce the number of Labour MPs".

Infamy, infamy, they've all got it infamy.

Now, do I believe there was a degree of calculation in Alex Salmond's offer to support a Lib/Lab coalition? Yes, of course. Welcome to politics.

But it is not, primarily or even substantively, his responsibility that there is not a Lib/Lab coalion today.

That is, mostly, down to arithmetic: the small, insignificant fact that the Tories got many more votes and seats than Labour across Britain.

Great machine

Now we are to have a Liberal Democrat Secretary of State for Scotland. To return once more to G&S, it will be a source of innocent merriment to .

The Scotland Office is not perhaps the great machine of state it once was (I know, I know, when precisely was that, Brian?).

But Jim Murphy transformed it into a form of embassy or, perhaps, High Commission, keeping a close watch on the Scottish government.

Perhaps Mr Alexander will perform a comparable role - although he will also have to ride point in defending the further spending cuts which are coming down the road.

As his Scottish colleagues are already saying privately, loadsaluck with that one.

It makes sense, I suppose, for that particular post to go to the Scottish Lib Dems.

At least, they can muster a football squad at Westminster - rather than the lone striker, David Mundell.

Apparently they agitated for this job. Presumably they hope that, in Scotland, they can mitigate the political damage which they fear may be coming their way as a result of forming an alliance with the relatively unpopular Scottish Tories.

As Private Willis would trill: Fa la la.

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

Why are the ?

Because political opponents are involved. They have fundamental differences, one with the other.

Why are the Liberal Democrats still in negotiation with the Tories?

Because, together, they can command a relatively stable majority. Plus the Tories heavily outpolled Labour across Britain. Take your cue from the word "Democrat".

Why then are the Lib Dems also talking to Labour?

One, to examine, seriously, an option.

Two, to placate their concerned backbenchers who fear that the Tory talks are too narrow.

Possible deal

Three, to put parallel pressure on the Tories to up their offer (or, four, if you listen to Sir Malcolm Rifkind, because they are untrustworthy).

Why then are the Lib Dems anxious about a possible deal with Labour?

See above.

Do they really want to be the party which countermanded the expressed opinion of voters in England?

Why are the Scottish Lib Dems so anxious about a deal with the Tories at Westminster? (it's a big day for anxiety).

Because .

They do not want to face jibes at the Holyrood elections next year that they are the subset of a party which is unpopular in Scotland.

Cabinet contact

Why are the SNP not dealing with the Tories?

Because, one, they are not needed, arithmetically, in any Tory/Lib pact and, two, because they have ruled out any agreement with the Tories (see above re Scots Tory unpopularity).

Why then has , that it cannot envisage such an agreement?

Because Labour politicians, especially in Scotland, loathe the SNP.

But, seriously, why?

Same answer - plus they do not envisage that the SNP would vote to bring down a Labour/Lib Dem coalition.

They would, in effect, defy them to do otherwise. They believe they would not need them formally signed up to a deal.

Talks offer

Were the SNP contacted by a Labour cabinet minister?

I believe so, yes - very informally, not with an offer of talks.

Not one of the names mentioned by Douglas Alexander when he described an absence of contact.

Have the SNP met the UK civil service?

Yes. But that simply means that they have been sounded out with regard to their position. No more, no less. To be fair, Alex Salmond has never said anything other than that.

Can Labour and the Liberal Democrats govern without any other chums in their coalition?

Yes - but without a confirmed majority.

Progressive politics

They might collate support from the SDLP and the Alliance in Northern Ireland - while assuming that the SNP, Plaid and the solitary Green would mostly vote with them. See above.

What will Alex Salmond say if his party is ignored in a Labour/Lib Dem deal?

That his rivals are not serious when they talk about consensual, progressive politics.

And what will he say if there is a Tory/Lib Dem deal?

That the Lib Dems have ignored the wishes of the people of Scotland and imposed a Tory government upon them.

What will he say, either way? Vote SNP. (for the avoidance of doubt, the other parties will also attempt to foster undying loyalty for their squad).

Why, finally, are these talks seemingly so intractable?

Because the new UK government will have to deal with a toxic level of debt. They will have to do nasty things, unpopular things.

And rather soon at that.

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

We do not yet know who will be the next prime minister. .

The manner of his departure was dignified. His Downing Street statement conceded that, whatever the uncertainties of the election outcome, it was plainly a rejection of him.

For a proud and frequently stubborn man, imagine the agonising which must have preceded that announcement.

Is it conceivable that the Liberal Democrats could now form a "progressive coalition" with Labour - as suggested by Mr Brown ?

It is - although the Commons arithmetic makes it particularly difficult. As does the fact that Labour has palpably declined in popular support, falling behind the Conservatives.

Does removing Gordon Brown magically turn that around? I would suggest not, certainly not entirely.

The dilemma for Nick Clegg is this: he might find Labour more congenial, he might prise more from them in terms of political reform - but he might then find the wrath of the voters (in England) directed at him as he thwarts their apparent intention to turn away from Labour, if not entirely then substantially.

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

Why, I was asked, Because, I replied, they are opponents.

Indeed, across large swathes of England, Scotland and Wales, they are visceral enemies.

There will be Tories who are choking at the prospect of a deal with the Liberals - as they always style them.

Namby-pamby, pussy-footing, "say anything to get elected", find me a fence and I'll sit on it. You can just hear them.

Then again, they can probably swallow their angst in order to get David Cameron into Downing Street after thirteen years of opposition.

Bit more challenging for the Lib Dems. Unless they get serious movement on political reform - a cross-party commission is very far from serious - then a full-scale coalition would be difficult to sell to their members.

The sandal-wearing propensity in the Lib Dems is now, sadly, in decline. Far, far too many suits. But there is a doughty gang who would be willing to get the old footwear out, socks optional, if Nick Clegg signs up to a deal that does not include a firm route map towards PR.

Big force

Bung Scotland into the mix and this is a notably tricky ask for the Lib Dems. Would you really want to be Tavish Scott, going into Holyrood elections on a programme of progressive change while his Westminster colleagues are in coalition with the Tories?

You remember the Tories? Used to be a big force in Scotland? Still stuck on a single seat? Yes, that's them.

Mr Scott would, I suspect, find it rather uncomfortable to be pushing the message of reform while his opponents drown out his offering with taunts that his party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Conservatives.

I know, I know, Scotland is different. The Lib Dems are quite entitled to take different perspectives north and south of the Border.

Do you think that would stop Mr Scott's opponents, Labour and Nationalist, from delivering the jibe?

Talking of the Nationalists, just why is Alex Salmond ?

For one thing, he favours that outcome. For another, it gives him potential relevance in the post-election haggling.

Civil talks

Incidentally, not sure it was entirely wise of Labour in Scotland to heap such scorn on the prospect of involving the SNP. Yes, guys, you loathe Mr Salmond. I get the concept. But have a wee glance at the Commons arithmetic.

Plus - contrary to some Labour claims - he was not making it up when he said his party had been approached to sound them out; he was not making it up when he confirmed that the SNP had held preliminary talks with civil servants.

No more, no less.

But back to the main question. Why is Mr Salmond pursuing this? Politically, it adds to the pressure on the Scottish LibDems, arguing that there is an alternative which they reject "at their peril", to quote Angus Robertson.

Further, a coalition deal which excluded the Tories would, presumably, infuriate the Right-wing press and the voters of England who backed the Tories more than other parties.

At a stroke, you highlight Scotland's political difference and you oblige the voters of England to put up with the form of electoral mismatch which has, more commonly, affected Scotland. Potentially putting strain on the Union.

For a Nationalist, what's not to like?

Most likely outcome? Tipping towards coalition. But, perhaps, more probably an arrangement whereby the LibDems support the Tories on confidence motions and "supply" (that's money to you and me).

Nick Clegg would bill this as putting Britain's interests first while sustaining a modicum of independence for his party. Tavish Scott would like that.

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

UPDATE 1505 BST: And so Alex Salmond got his hung or balanced parliament.

But not the 20 seats he wanted to exert substantial influence in that situation - or, indeed, even any more than in 2005.

However, Mr Salmond may still be able to play a role.

The first minister has said that he will take up an already tabled offer of civil service back-up in the event that the SNP are involved in coalition negotiations. No more, no less.

Be clear that this is not participation in talks. It is a technical, governmental prelude to such potential talks.

The SNP would be willing, perhaps, to discuss a potential deal with Labour. That's down to arithmetic.

Nationalists calculate that an anti-Tory coalition is only possible if they are on board.

Labour plus LibDem plus, even, NI seats doesn't do it.

Is such a deal likely? Frankly, no. There are figures in Scottish Labour who would do anything other than talk to the SNP, far less form a government which relied upon them.

Secondly, the private perspective in SNP ranks is that such a deal presents huge obstacles: not least the previously billed point that Labour has palpably declined.

Would the SNP enter talks with the Tories? No. Why? For this reason. Just as Labour has demonstrably lost ground across Britain as a whole, so the Tories have been comprehensively rebuffed in their search for substantially enhanced Scottish support.

Yes, they're up in voting share - but only by a fraction. No seats gained.

The SNP say they take their "marching orders" on such matters from the people of Scotland.

However, that would not stop the SNP seeking to exert advantage in the event of a minority Tory government, a coalition or a "confidence and supply" deal between the Tories and the LibDems.

UPDATE 1206 BST: As prime minister, Gordon Brown is perfectly entitled to sound others out with regard to forming a new government.

Those others are perfectly entitled to tell him where to go.

This is about arithmetic: who can command a majority in Her Majesty's House of Commons, soon to be reassembled.

However, of course, it is also about momentum and, above all, voter tolerance. The "moral mandate", if you like.

Exasperated Labour MPs have now rediscovered a fond admiration for Britain's unwritten constitution.

There is much bold talk of advising the Queen, of waiting for the verdict from the palace.

Again, constitutionally, that is absolutely correct. Mr Brown was prime minister. Mr Brown is prime minister.

He remains so until he resigns, either because he gives up or because he suffers defeat in the Commons.

However, think. If and when Mr Brown phones Nick Clegg or a few other potential chums, he may find the line engaged.

They will be in touch with David Cameron. Or each other.

For myself, I do not believe that Gordon Brown or a Labour alternative stands much chance of being prime minister.

Firstly, Labour has evidently declined in the popular vote and in seats.

As at Holyrood in 2007, it is not yet absolutely clear who has won. It is, however, pretty clear who has lost ground: Labour.

Secondly, Labour plus Liberal Democrat does not a majority make.

Even if they were prepared to form a pact, they would not have the numbers on their own.

Thirdly, the Liberal Democrats are scarcely likely to go against the apparent tide in popular opinion by returning to power a party which has demonstrably lost ground.

The title of their party is a clue.

Fourthly, Gordon Brown is palpably diminished. He has not lost overall. His rivals did not quash him utterly or anything like it. But, again, he lost ground.

So could the Lib Dems strike a coalition with the Tories? I think a full-scale coalition unlikely. For two reasons.

One, in such circumstances, the Lib Dems would press for proportional representation.

The Tories would say no - and would then seek to govern as a minority, with or without sanction from rivals.

Two, the economy. The Lib Dems are not going to want to be merely the handmaiden to the potentate - when the kingdom's riches are vanishing.

So what happens? Most likely, I believe, is that the Conservatives form a minority government with, probably, the prospect of an agreement on key votes such as the budget with the Liberal Democrats.

It is even feasible that Labour in such circumstances might seek to exert influence, claiming credit for advances in preparation for another election in a couple of years' time.

I do not think the voters - or the economic markets - would wear a repeat election.

I think both would expect an effort to be made to secure stability from the uncertainties of the night.

Is there a role for the SNP? Yes. They can seek to exert influence in the hung or balanced parliament which they envisaged.

However, with only six MPs, that influence is constrained.

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

UPDATE 0655 BST: All 58 Scottish seats that are declaring overnight are in. No seats change hands - with, again, the exception of the by-election reversals. By comparison with last general election, status quo on seats.

UPDATE 0455 BST: As forecast here, Alex Salmond is now openly challenging the Tories' mandate to govern Scotland.

On the respect agenda, he said it had to be proven in deed, not through rhetoric.

By this, I presume that the FM means that fiscal autonomy should be delivered to the Scottish Parliament.

UPDATE 0431 BST: Is there a Celtic factor at play?

No. Scotland's results are distinctive but the picture in Wales is comparable to that in England.

In Wales, the Labour vote is down while the Tories' vote is up. In Wales, the Lib Dems have added votes at much the same pace as in England.

Scotland? Labour up. Tories up in share - but only a wee bit. LibDems down.

More, Plaid are down in Wales, SNP up in Scotland.

UPDATE 0425 BST: Where's your "respect agenda" now? Looks like the Tories will have but a single seat in Scotland.

David Cameron said that, as PM, he would offer "respect" to the devolved settlement and the first minister of Scotland. David Mundell has just confirmed that, stressing mutual respect.

But would Alex Salmond reciprocate? His strategy is to govern consensually within the existing structure while arguing, simultaneously, for independence.

But might he not be more tempted to challenge the Tories' mandate to govern Scotland?

UPDATE 0410 BST: Another one bites the dust. If there is to be a Tory gain, it won't be West Aberdeenshire.

Alex Johnstone for the Tories recorded a swing - but not enough to take the seat from Sir Robert Smith of the Lib Dems.

Still no change in seats in Scotland - those by-elections apart.

UPDATE 0405 BST: Labour comfortably holds Dumfries and Galloway, despite challenge from ex-MP Peter Duncan.

Those Tory targets are shrinking fast. If the Tories form a government, looks like David Mundell would be Scottish secretary.

Unless, of course, the post went to another party.

Or was abolished. (Not Tory policy - but might it be the policy of any partners?)

UPDATE 0350 BST: And he's back. David Mundell retains his vast Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale constituency.

Forecasts of a Tory-free Scotland are, as Mr Mundell himself reckoned, shown to be exaggerated.

But, as things stand, doesn't look as if he will be joined by many or indeed any buddies.

UPDATE 0339 BST: And so at least one MSP will have to remain contented with the Scottish Parliament.

John Lamont of the Tories fails to take Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk from the LibDems.

He added votes - but Michael Moore for the LibDems also added to his share. So net swing to the Tories very small.

Will any seat change hands in Scotland tonight - by-election reversals apart?

Alex Salmond forecasting that SNP result in terms of share will be best since 1970s.

UPDATE 0313 BST: The chancellor of the exchequer - that is, the incumbent of Number 11 in the last parliament - is a cautious individual.

He frets perpetually about his constituency. Despite that, he has now been returned comfortably, registering swings in his direction.

Catch that comment from David Cameron?

He is saying that Labour has lost its mandate. He is not yet claiming the right to adopt that mandate in their stead.

At this stage, he is content to counter Labour claims that they would be able to remain in office.

UPDATE 0259 BST: Quote from Douglas Alexander: "What you need to govern in the United Kingdom is a majority in the House of Commons."

In other words, it need not be the largest party which governs.

Again, constitutionally accurate - as my little history piece on the telly reflected.

Labour, incidentally, is currently standing at 16 net losses. The Tories are standing at 17 net gains.

UPDATE 0244 BST: Again clock that divide north and south of the border.

Glance at Basildon South, for example. A swing from Labour to the Tories of 7.5% as the Conservatives take the seat.

In Scotland, the Tories appear to have been pegged back and it is Labour that is registering improvements in share.

Jim Murphy has been returned with big majority in East Ren. Actually registered swing from the Tories.

All the talk of a Tory gain comes to nothing.

UPDATE 0218 BST: As billed, Stewart Hosie returned in Dundee East.

Indeed, he registers a swing in his favour.

Overall, though, obvious that the party will not achieve target of 20 seats, as acknowledged now by Mike Russell.

UPDATE 0213 BST: That is a remarkable result for Labour in Dunfermline.

The widespread view - and I mean widespread among politicians as well as pundits - was that Willie Rennie had done enough to entrench himself since the by-election.

He put on votes from the last General Election but not enough to win.

Elsewhere, MSP number two heads for Westminster as Margaret Curran wins Glasgow East for Labour.

That means both by-election defeats for Labour return to the party in this general election.

John Mason secured a swing in his favour but not by enough to hold the seat.

UPDATE 0210 BST: And another thing.

Say Labour attempts to form an administration, despite slipping in the polls. Say they succeed.

Say that the Tories have more seats in England than Labour. Would the Tories then argue that the people of England must live with the outcome of a British general election?

Logically, given their stance re Scotland, they would.

Constitutionally, they would have little option.

But I can imagine they - or perhaps, more accurately their voters - might feel sore.

UPDATE 0205 BST: And so Cathy Jamieson takes Kilmarnock. Swing from SNP to Labour of 3.5%.

The first MSP tonight to switch to Westminster.

Turning to Dundee, on the swing in West, the SNP would lose East.

Think, however, that the incumbency and profile for Stewart Hosie may well counter that.

0143 BST: And so Gordon Brown is duly re-elected as the MP for Kirkcaldy. But will he still be PM by the weekend?

Signs are that Labour is doing relatively well in Scotland - but that there are swings against Labour across England.

Members of Team Brown are stressing that he would be entitled to attempt to form an administration even if he has lost his lead.

Constitutionally, that is absolutely correct. But, in terms of momentum, it presumably depends upon numbers - and upon perception.

Would the Liberal Democrats, for example, really be prepared to return to power a party which, across Britain, had palpably lost support?

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

Final day of campaigning, final thoughts from the political leaders.

Given the polls, each of the parties spotlights the prospect of a hung parliament, either in anticipation or horror.

Here they are, listed for you in a handy paste-and-keep guide. All part of the service.

From Labour's Jim Murphy, a declaration that the choice confronting voters is "between a Labour Prime Minsiter or a Tory Prime Minister."

Mr Murphy argues that "voting for the Liberal Democrats, the SNP or staying at home would hand the keys to Number 10 over to David Cameron."

He advises potential voters: "If you don't stop David Cameron, no one will." Labour, he says, will prioritise the economy, jobs and families.

From Tavish Scott of the Liberal Democrats, disdain for what he calls "the old parties and the old system".

'Do a deal'

Only the Lib Dems, he argues, are offering to fix that system, rather than perpetuate it. In particular, he suggests that support for his party would entail "fairer taxes, green sustainable jobs and cleaned-up politics."

Mr Scott concludes that "real change is coming", advising voters: "Whether you voted Labour or SNP or Conservative last time, vote Liberal Democrat this time."

Alex Salmond of the SNP concludes that "Labour are finished while the Tories are arrogantly saying they can rule with no Scots MPs and the Lib Dems are ready to do a deal with David Cameron".

Restating his campaign theme, he says that "Scotland needs champions, now more than ever before." This, he argues, is particularly vital to protect public services.

Mr Salmond says that only voting SNP will "save Scotland from the worst impact of a Tory or Tory-led government."

From David Mundell of the Conservatives, a warning that "a hung parliament would put economic recovery at risk", threatening fewer jobs and higher mortages.

By contrast, Mr Mundell says that what is required is "a strong and decisive Conservative Government to sort out the mess left by thirteen years of Labour rule".

All night long

The Tories, he says, would help families, protect the most vulnerable, foster business and economic growth while securing Scotland's place in the United Kingdom.

PS: Herewith the plug. ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Scotland telly coverage of the election - blending full reports and analysis of the UK and Scottish pictures - starts on ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ 1 at 9.55. We're going right through the night. I plan to blog.

³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Radio Scotland coverage starts at 10pm, running right through to 0600 when it's Good Morning Scotland to 0845, then Call Kaye - and then continuous rolling coverage all day in a Newsdrive Special, pausing only for my Big Debate at 1215.

Watch. Listen. Surf. Enjoy.

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

Isn't that an intriguing echo from Labour today: the ?

An echo? It's eerily, if only partially, reminiscent of a hint from Alex Salmond on the day he launched the SNP manifesto in Glasgow.

Mr Salmond said then that it was a "legitimate and proper thing" for voters in England to contemplate tactical voting in order to deny an overall majority to Labour or the Tories.

Two differences. Firstly, Mr Salmond insisted that he was not directly counselling the good and sensible people of England to vote for the Lib Dems (although newspaper coverage suggested it amounted to much the same.)

Secondly, the SNP actively seeks a hung parliament - and has done so since the outset of the campaign. Indeed, it has been its permanent theme: that, in such a parliament, the Nationalists and Plaid conjoined could extract concessions.

By contrast, Labour would much prefer - you guessed it - a straightforward Labour majority.

Unlike the SNP, they don't want to keep out both the Big Parties (will we soon have to drop that phrase?) Just the Tories.

'Expert advice'

The Lib Dems call the appeals "desperate" - even though they might potentially benefit if folk pay attention to Messrs Balls and Hain.

The Lib Dems do not want to be seen as thirled to any one of the Big Parties. (Let's give it another go for old time's sake.)

The Tories? They say it proves that voting LibDem could mean a Labour government by the back door. You know, vote Clegg, get Brown. (Thus explaining the LibDem caution still further.)

I suspect that the voters can make their minds up without expert advice from on high. They will base that choice on local calculations which they are best placed to make.

I suspect further that the voters dislike being guided by those who have partisan motivations.

Which, of course, is why Alex Salmond took pains to insist that he was only offering remote analysis, not guidance, still less direction.

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

It's the fun game you can play at home. All you need is a little imagination and a well-worn anorak. Yes, folks, it's Pick your own Parliament.

Our esteemed politicians, of course, are masters at the game. They know that their party will win every single seat, everywhere. Adoring voters will flock to their side.

But, in the unlikely event that there are one or two sceptics out there yet to be convinced, preparations are under way for alternative scenarios: hung Parliament, coalition.

In Scotland, there is the added joy of calculating not just the UK winner but also the impact on cross-border politics.

In that regard, we now have a courageous constitutional doctrine from David McLetchie, the Scottish Conservatives campaign manager.

You'll find it as the splash in today's Scotsman. But Mr McLetchie actually made his comments on ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ Scotland's Politics Show.

The newspaper neglects to mention this: shortage of space, no doubt, or maybe they felt that the Beeb had featured enough in their pages, given the spread devoted to last night's Leaders Debate.

Anyway, no matter. Mr McLetchie said that he expected the Tories to win several seats in Scotland on the way to utter triumph.

But if they didn't? Would David Cameron lack a mandate in Scotland?

Mr McLetchie declined to countenance this but added: "The vast, overwhelming majority of Scots want to be part of Britain and they accept the judgement of the electorate as a whole and so David Cameron has a mandate to govern Britain of which Scotland is a part by the overwhelming choice of the overwhelming majority of Scots. That is the sheer logic of it."

Unsurprisingly, this "sheer logic" does not appeal to Alex Salmond. He argues that the Tories are, in effect, including support for other Unionist parties, Labour and the LibDems, within their proclaimed mandate.

Mr McLetchie, undoubtedly, would see things differently. In essence, he is confronting and countering a very old argument in Scottish politics.

Which is this: is there a distinct Scottish mandate at all? Remember 1992 when Labour expected to win - but lost. Then, Donald Dewar briefly flirted with the claim that the Tories lacked a mandate to govern Scotland.

Or consider the prolonged period when a succession of Tory leaders failed to oust Tony Blair. They started to deploy, more vigorously, the argument that there should be English votes on English issues, that somehow Labour's mandate in England was or might become questionable.

Successive Tory leaders, most notably David Cameron, came to the conclusion that this was not an argument which sat readily with support for the Union.

Mr Cameron chilled on this issue - while still pursuing the search for a solution to the West Lothian question within Westminster rules.

Ditto Donald Dewar in 1992. He quickly abandoned the mandate argument. If the Tories had no mandate to govern Scotland, then that involved fundamentally questioning the Union of Parliaments.

Within the rules of that Union, Mr McLetchie is absolutely right to stress that the mandate of the government at Westminster derives from Britain - or, rather, the UK - as a whole.
However, politics works by momentum, impression and voter tolerance as well as strict rules.

Could the Tories govern Scotland within the UK without a single Scottish seat? Yes. Would it be constitutionally and electorally challenging? Yes. Might it prompt Scots to question the Union settlement which had produced such an outcome? Perhaps.

The Tories, of course, point out that many domestic decisions are now devolved to Holyrood. The Parliament they opposed but now support now helps mitigate a potential problem which, to stress, they do not envisage arising.

Here's more fun in our guessing game. David Cameron is offering to show "respect" to the Scottish Government and First Minister.

From first principles, Alex Salmond would be tempted to respond positively, if cautiously. Remember that his strategy is to govern sensibly and consensuallly within the Union while, simultaneously, inviting the voters to go further towards fiscal autonomy and indepedendence.

However, Mr Salmond would find it exceptionally difficult to respond positively to that respect agenda if the Tories had very few, if any, MPs in Scotland. In such circumstances, the urge to decry the lack of a mandate in Scotland, viewed from a Nationalist perspective, might trump the prevailing consensual strategy.

None of this might happen, of course. Enjoy it while you can.

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