Sod Eton, Floreat Winstanley!

I have very little to say regarding the proposal of Herman van Rompuy as President of the European Council, primarily as I know very little of him, save that he is Prime Minister du jour of Belgium, a country whose fragile coalitions might appear to serve as a poster for opponents of PR, but in reality serve as a poster for opponents of multinational states.

But I am very excited at the proposal of Catherine Ashton, or Baroness Ashton of Upholland, as High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

Mainly, I'm thrilled for Upholland. My bus to College would, on occasion, pass through the place. Mostly (particularly when we had the old, clapped out bus that couldn't negotiate a particularly steep hill), we'd go from Coppull through Shevington, Gathurst and passing St. Joh Rigby (the Catholic 6th Form College) Orrell, before arriving in Billinge and dropping us off at Winstanley College. But if we had a newer bus that could handle steeper inclines without dying (the old bus even struggled through Gathurst), we'd go through Appley Bridge, Roby Mill and Upholland, then through Tontine and reaching Billinge. The route was longer, but there was less traffic. So I have vague memories of Upholland - or at least, one ugly, ugly junction, where the road effectively turned back on itself, and we would have to make the turnoff on that particularly sharp bend.

So despite a slightly barmy road layout, Upholland has reason to be chuffed. And so do I.

For you see, young Cathy attended Upholland Grammar back in her day. But by then, the school wasn't in Upholland, but in Billinge - on Winstanley Road. It eventually stopped taking pre-16 pupils and evolved into Winstanley College - the same College I got the bus to every day!

It remains to be seen how well she will do in her job. She hasn't made any major muckups as EU Trade Commissioner, but she's only been in that post for a year and her domestic ministerial career involved nothing to do with foreign policy.

Nevertheless, to see her attain such an important post is, however she performs, an inspiring sight for all Winstanley alumni.

If she succeeds in her new role, then we can argue that we can all succeed in this or any field.

If she performs badly, then another alumnus has the potential to be the first former Winstanley College student to do well.

So stuff Eton, sod Fettes and Loretto - as of now, Winstanley College is where it's at!

That Was The Week That Was

This has not been a good week for the mainstream political parties.

On the one hand, the SNP finally have a candidate for Glasgow North East - and a fairly sharp one at that. Sadly, it's been a tougher road than we might have expected: the presumptive candidate didn't apply, the initial candidate withdrew, and so David Kerr, having already made an attempt to secure the selection, will now be on the ballot paper. Now, having a candidate is a good thing, and having a smart candidate like David Kerr is even better, but we're now at the stage of the press raking through everything that David Kerr has ever said or done. Frankly, I'm expecting headlines such as "Kerr put worm in Sarah Wallace's hair in Primary 1" next week. Interestingly, Willie Bain - Kerr's Labour countrerpart - appears to have received very little scrutiny and precious few column inches. On the one hand, he may not have to put up with tabloid muck-raking for the next few weeks. On the other hand, he's not getting any mention in the press at all. At least people will be able to match the phrases "David Kerr" and "SNP By-Election Candidate". Still, with the way the press seem to be operating this week, you can see why Grant felt it wasn't a good idea to put himself forward for nomination, and why James Dornan felt it necessary to stand down.

So the SNP can move forward from the frustrating events of the last couple of weeks. David Kerr will have to handle more journalistic egg-throwing, but 1) his name is in the papers while Willie Bain's isn't, and 2) I get the feeling that he'll withstand it, and dish it back out if need be...

For Labour, Gordon Brown has had to cope with the ghosts of Cabinets past. He's had former ministers complaining about the laddishness of his approach (here's something to think about: if a hypothetical male former minister said that an equally hypothetical female PM was 'girly', all hell would break loose, but hey, gender-based stereotyping and labels are perfectly acceptable if you're discussing men, it seems). Jacqui Smith told Iain Dale that she wanted to resign just before the G20 but was told not to (she also lamented not getting training). James Purnell's been telling the papers that he lost faith in Gordon Brown last December (that late?). Lastly, John Hutton has complained that the likely election campaign message is too crude, that while he - of course! - recognises Brown's many talents, the country as a whole doesn't, and has now jumped on the Afghanistan bandwagon (while eliding the obvious point that having been Defence Secretary until last month, it was his job to get the troops the equipment they need).

Now, this may seem like a bunch of has-beens mouthing off. Jacqui Smith complains about training - why couldn't she learn on the job like everyone else? James Purnell moans that he lost faith in the PM about a year after everyone else did but six months earlier than when he actually quit. If it was that bad, why didn't he have the cojones to go at Christmas? And John Hutton's "I'm not being funny, right, buuuut..." approach to criticising Brown is pretty shabby as well, particularly when, on the Afghan situation, he had a chance to make a difference and do the things he's now talking about, but didn't. In short, under normal circumstances, you'd expect Brown to brush this off. Blair would have. But Brown isn't Blair. This is how the Summer is going to go: more people coming out of the woodwork slagging the PM off, and just like last year, it'll be down to Sarah Brown to bail him out at Conference...

For the Tories, their European project has started badly: Edward McMillan-Scott MEP broke ranks with the rest of the party to stand for a Vice-President's post in the European Parliament, defeating official candidate Michal Kaminski of the Polish Law and Justice Party (part of the Tories' new ECR Group) in the process. By way of compensation, Kaminski has been appointed Leader of the Group, and now the press are going through his previous pronouncements as well - use of homophobic language, and today, accusations of anti-Semitism. When the Tories are trying to look human, they don't need this.

On the other hand, it is, after all the European Parliament and few people care about the niceties of European group formations, or, for that matter, the European dimension. Who refused to vote Tory because they were quitting the (then) EPP-ED Group? Did anyone in the UK vote (or not vote) Green because of Daniel Cohn-Bendit, for example? Have many people in the UK heard of Martin Schulz? I doubt it. So the story will pass, and the fact that today's allegations were deep in the middle of the paper suggest that they'll have limited impact. Kaminski will occasionally be used (by Labour) for egg-throwing purposes. Besides, out of 45 million eligible voters, barely a third bothered to show up for the Euro Elections. And if Kaminski is a vote loser, then the Tories only have 4,198,394 votes to lose in European terms. And most of them probably agree with Kaminski anyway...

Finally, the LibDems. They made a good point on the lack of support being offered to frontline troops in Afghanistan. The problem is, the point was too good, and Third Party Syndrome kicked in. Now everyone wants more helicopters for the troops but no one remembers who suggested it, just as on the Gurkhas, the LibDems were the ones whose motion won a parliamentary vote, but Joanna Lumley took the credit for the eventual success. This is a problem: when the have a bad idea, they get the piss ripped out of them in ways that doesn't happen to the others. When the have a good one, everyone else nicks it and no one remembers who thought of it in the first place. At least, for the others, the problems are (relatively) transient. For the LibDems, they're pretty much existential. It'll take PR for the LibDems to be considered seriously, but it's only the LibDems who are proposing PR, and not Labour or the Tories...

As the dust settles

The results in Scotland:

SNP 321,007 - 29.06% and 2 seats
Labour 229,853 - 20.81% and 2 seats
Conservatives 185,794 - 16.82% and 1 seat
Liberal Democrats 127,038 - 11.50% and 1 seat
Greens 80,442 - 7.28%
UKIP 57,788 - 5.23%
Others 102,590

As we can see, the SNP have come first in this election, for only the second time in the party's history and the first time in an election where Scotland is one part of a UK-wide (and, in this case, EU-wide) poll. The party hasn't succeeded in gaining a third seat, but this result is symbolic: this shows that 2007 was neither a flash in the pan nor an aberration: there is now a real trend showing the SNP in pole position. This is augmented by the fact that the SNP came first in 22 of the 32 local Councils. This might not be the biggest vote share in SNP history (in fact, this result is the fifth best in the party's history, behind the 2007 Constituency result, the 1994 European election, the 2007 Regional result and the October 1974 election), but it's loaded with symbolism.

It's loaded with symbolism for Labour as well. This result is the worst for decades and the party leads in only three Council areas: Glasgow, North Lanarkshire (which both have Labour majorities in control at council level) and Fife (Gordon Brown's backyard). In Edinburgh, Labour are third. That's alarming for Alistair Darling and for Sarh Boyack. In East Renfrewshire - Jim Murphy's stomping ground - Labour are third. In East Lothian - Iain Gray's backyard - Labour are second. Tom Harris, the blogging MP, will be particularly perturbed: in Glasgow South, his Constituency, the SNP came first. Labour came third in South Ayrshire and second in East Ayrshire - bad news for Cathy Jamieson. In South Lanarkshire, Midlothian, they came second - bad news for Andy Kerr and Rhona Brankin. The one saving grace for Iain Gray's leadership - now that he's flunked his first nationwide electoral test - is that he's been overshadowed by Labour at Westminster so much, all of the blame lands at Gordon Brown's door. This would not be a good time for Gray to emerge from his den of insignificance.

For the Tories, it was another case of holding the line: Annabel Goldie seems rather good at this, but an actual advance seems a distant prospect. Do the Tories have anyone among them who could make it happen? Right now, it looks like Tory progress at the General Election in Scotland will come solely on the back of a Labour collapse. For the Government-in-waiting, that's not good enough and the Conservatives UK-wide have to do more than simply wait their turn.

For the LibDems, meanwhile, the result is indifferent: they've held on but they're missing opportunities to capitalise on Labour misfortune. If Labour do somehow manage to recover, the LibDems have a problem. Right now, their strong position at Westminster hinges on Labour being crap. Again, that's not good enough.

For the Greens, the result is neither a cause for despondency nor a cause for celebration. Compared with the knockback the party got in 2007, to make progress now is an excellent result and Patrick Harvie must be happy. However, there is one fly in the ointment: like in 2007, polls in the run-up to the election showed a major Green advance and real progress in terms of seats, only for that not to materialise at the ballot box. Greens can be happy at the result, but may wish to be wary at this tendency towards false dawns. Nevertheless, third place in Glasgow, 5-6% in the North East, 7% in Highland among other results shows the possibility of expanded Green representation once again. They are not there yet, but these results tell a broadly positive story and Patrick Harvie should be chuffed. All they need to do now is get beyond their False Dawn Syndrome.

Now a few wider points:

We really, really need to find a way of dealing with the BNP. Ignoring them hasn't worked. Going around telling people they're nasty hasn't worked. The reality is they've gone into places telling the (straight white) voters that the other parties have been ignoring them and they'll be their voice. So here's a nutty idea, instead of no-platform policies and leaflets saying that the BNP will eat your baby, why don't the other parties - and here's a radical proposition - actually propose, you know, doing things for the people instead of simply defining themselves in terms of not being someone else? Why not offer a positive agenda that gets people listening instead of trying to fight hate with hate? Is that too shocking for the main parties? Instead of wringing your hands about the presence of fascists, why not sidestep them completely, engage directly with the voters and get stuff done?

Also, we are once again hearing that old chestnuts that PR lets fascists in. Tell that to the people of Padiham and Burnley West, the Lancashire County Council ward where the BNP won on the First Past the Post system. The voting system doesn't let the BNP in. The voters let the BNP in when the other parties don't do enough to work for them. End of.

For Labour, things are particularly humiliating: they are first in none of the UK nations. That's a first for Labour since WW1, and it's something that happened to the Tories in their wilderness elections: 1997 and 2001. The immediate prospects for Labour UK-wide look very bleak indeed on that basis.

Meanwhile, in England, we have the situation of a right wing body politic emerging, with a majority for the right - the Tories, UKIP and BNP among others. Wales shows a three-way dogfight between the Tories (first for the first time since universal suffrage), Labour (second for the first time since WW1) and Plaid. Scotland, meanwhile, shows a clear SNP-Labour faultline with advantage and momentum firmly with the SNP. That's three different nations with three very different political outlooks. Even in the 1980s, Scotland and Wales had a lot in common with each other, and with industrial Northern England. No longer.

And that, for me, is the key point: people thought that the 2007 elections - with the SNP assuming the Government of Scotland, Plaid joining the Government of Wales, and the DUP/SF Executive in Northern Ireland - was the biggest marker towards independence. Some will see the SNP's victory this week in that light. For me, it's the fact that the three mainland nations of the UK are now pulling in different directions. That's where we are now.

EuroLiveblog

I thought I'd join the happy few who are covering the event - so far it looks like it could just be Jeff and me exchanging updates. However, Malc has now joined us.

2:09 That's it - there's nothing more to stay up for. Labour are third behind UKIP in England and Wales. Labour are, on the whole, lucky to stay in double figures. The BNP are now Parliamentarians. I'm off to bed now, right after I've sewn a pink triangle onto all of my clothes.

2:05 North West: Con 3, Lab 2, UKIP 1, LD 1, BNP 1. LibDems lose a seat through the re-allocations, Labour fall back to second place, UKIP overtake the Liberal Democrats and Labour lose a seat to the BNP, with BNP Leader Nick Griffin going to the EP. As someone who voted for the Green candidate in this region, I'm physically sickened that I'm now represented by a member of the BNP. Let us only hope that the publicity vacuum that is the European Parliament as far as the UK media is concerned sees Nick Griffin fade into obscurity rather than being able to use his position as a bully pulpit. Let us also hope that any group he cobbles together collapses under the weight of its own bigotry, as happened the last time it was attempted. What a grim way to end the evening.

1:55 West Midlands: Con 2, UKIP 2, Lab 1, LD 1. The Tories lose a seat to the re-allocation, Labour lose a seat and UKIP gain one, overtaking them. Only the North West left from the overnight counts now, then Scotland in the morning...

1:37 Orkney: Labour came sixth behind the Greens and UKIP...

1:25 South East: Con 4, UKIP 2, LD 2, Green 1, Lab 1. No change in the allocation of seats, but the Greens overtake Labour here as well. Labour lose 5%, with the Greens gaining 4. Dan Hannan inadvertantly compares Gordon Brown to Arnold Schwarzenegger. I'd quite like it, personally. Now he's quoting Doctor Seuss. Nurse, the screens!

1:20 South West, presented by a Returning Officer who is clearly relishing his moment in the spotlight: Con 3, UKIP 2, LD 1. Labour wiped out in the South West. Greens overtake Labour, though that doesn't win them a seat. Mebyon Kernow, representing just one part of the region outpolled Arthur Scargill's Socialist Labour Party, Bob Crow's No2EU, Declan Ganley's Libertas and the Jury Team. Ouch!

1:05 From HP:

the snp have incredibly won labour heartland in greenock by 160 votes. get it blogged!

More than happy to.

12:53 East Midlands: Con 2, Lab 1, UKIP 1, LD 1. Labour overtake UKIP, who lose a seat. The LibDems hold a seat and do not gain one, as the BBC report: the region simply loses an MEP. With the absence of Kilroy, the UKIP vote has collapsed, but the Labour vote has still fallen.

12:40 London: Con 3, Lab 2, LD 1, Green 1, UKIP 1. Labour lose a seat to the reduction in available MEPs. Only minor swings here, but the Greens do overtake UKIP. Hurrah!

12:30 Computer problems in the South East, complaints about the ballot paper... See? It's not just Scotland!

12:19 BBC GB-wide projection: Con 27%, UKIP 17% Lab 16%, LD 14%, Green 9% BNP 6%. Ay, ay, ay...

12:04 A thought occurs: to the best of my knowledge, in post-war politics, perhaps even post WW1 politics, Labour have come first in at least one nation of the UK. In this election, unless there's something REALLY unexpected round the corner, Labour have come first in none of them. This is where the Tories were in 1997, but with one significant difference: Wales is now a three-way open contest with the Tories on top, England is dominated by parties of the right, and Scotland shows a clear SNP lead. Three different situations in each of the mainland UK nations, and a radically different situation in Scotland. Although the Scottish share for the SNP might not necessarily suggest a concrete vote for independence, this highlights just how much Scottish politics has decoupled from the rest of the UK. Is this, therefore, a more significant milestone on the road to the end of the Union than the outcome of the 2007 Elections? Perhaps...

11:46 Wales: Tories, Labour, Plaid, UKIP one MEP each. Tories now in first place ahead of Labour - when the hell did that happen? Labour shed 12% of the vote here, distributed relatively evenly.

11:28 Yorkshire & The Humber: BNP win a seat, at the expense of Labour. Tories 2, Labour 1, UKIP 1, LD 1, BNP 1. It would have to be Yorkshire, wouldn't it? This is the moment no one wanted, and now it's here. Let's just hope that Nik Griffin is kept out in the North West.

11:21 Dumfries & Galloway: Tories first, SNP second, Labour third.

11:14 Rumour has it SNP came first in the Glasgow South Westminster seat - Tom Harris may be just ever so slightly unsettled by that...

11:10 Seems Labour might have come fifth in the South West of England, and sixth in Cornwall behind Mebyon Kernow.

11:08 East of England: Con 3, UKIP 2, LibDem 1, Labour 1. No change in the seats, but Labour fall to fourth place from third. Labour lose 6%, Greens go up 3%, BNP go up 2%.

10:52 Oh, good. Labour have put Anne McGuire on the BBC Scotland programme. That's Anne McGuire, the sacker of disabled workers. DIE DIE DIE YOU COLD-HEARTED BITCH FROM HELL!!!!!! Sorry, I've calmed down now...

10:49 SNP take Highland, LibDems 2nd, Tories 3rd, Labour 4th.

10:46 Labour hold Glasgow by about 3%; SNP take Stirling.

10:42 European Parliament projects EPP at 263-273, Socialists at 155-165, ALDE at 78-84, Greens/EFA at 52-56, United Left and UEN at 33-37 each, Ind/Dem at 15-19 (end of group, basically) and Non-Inscrits at 83-89.

10:34 SNP appear to be ahead in Aberdeen City as well as in the Shire.

10:24 It seems official: Labour third in East Renfrewshire, behind the Tories and the SNP. SNP ahead in the popular vote by about 8%.

10:19 SNP pick up Aberdeenshire and Falkirk; Labour hang on to North Lanarkshire; Tories take South Ayrshire and also the Borders, where Labour may have come fifth. The question is, is it the Greens who have gone into the Top 4, or UKIP?

10:11 Rather naughty of the BBC to have Charlie Falconer on the panel after this morning...

9:57 SNP win in Edinburgh? Tory win in Wales? Mutterings suggest so...

9:52 Further info: SNP first place in South Lanarkshire?

9:50 Word is the SNP have come first in Renfrewshire...

9:46 Malc and Jeff have Labour leading in Fife by a gnat's bollock - SNP vote has gone up by about 8%.

9:42 First UK seats in the North East of England: looks like Lab 1, Con 1, LD 1. No change in make-up of representation, but Labour are down 9%.

9:07 France: UMP (EPP) 28 (up 11); Socialists 15 (down 13); Greens 14 (up 8); Democratic Movement 6 (down 3); Leftist parties 6 (up 3). Good for Sarko, the Greens and the Left; bad for the Socialists, Francois Bayrou and Jean-Marie Le Pen - the Non-inscrits in France go down from nine to three.

9:05 Brian Taylor predicts a first place for the SNP; Yousuf (the yapping one) reckons Labour will lose an MEP.

9:00 First results indicate major gains for the Greens, heavy losses for the Socialists.

8:30 Hungary: EuroNews has opposition Fidesz Party (EPP) on 67%, to Socialists' 19%.

8:28 I can tell you that EuroNews has Labour 12% ahead of the Nationalists. In Malta, that is.

8:25 EuroNews exit poll: Governing Spanish PSOE (Socialist) have been gubbed by the Partido Popular (EPP) - 21-22% for Zapatero's party, 43% for the Centre-Right.

8:19 EuroNews exit poll in UK puts Tories on 26%, UKIP on 18%, Labour on 16%. They don't give the LibDem share so this may suggest that they've avoided fourth place (but third to UKIP is still bad enough). LibDems may well have a problem - could the Greens have siphoned off votes from them?

8:13 As we know, the Scottish result won't be out until tomorrow morning, thanks to the Western Isles count result being delayed. However, it's already been counted (on Friday) and all that we'll be waiting for in the morning is the actual announcement. One SNP activist at the count described himself as "rather pleased".

8:09 Greens polling strongly in France, with joint lists involving Regional Parties (effectively a Greens-EFA list). Joint list apparently polling 18% in South East France, with Savoy regionalist François Alfonsi elected to the EP.

7:56 EU-wide turnout reported at 43%, down on 2004.

Anyway as things stand at 7:50, Germany has a commanding lead for the CDU/CSU, about 17 percentage points ahead of the SPD. Greens on 12%, FDP on 11%, Left Party on 7%. If this were a Bundestag election (and there's one coming up in the Autumn), we'd probably be looking at Angela Merkel getting the Coalition she wanted in 2005 - with Guido Westerwelle's Free Democrats.

The inevitable European Elec-torial

The elections are, of course, on the way, so it would be slightly barmy of me not to use some time over the next few days to issue some sort of editorial.

It should come as no surprise then, that I'm endorsing the SNP candidates: Ian Hudghton and Alyn Smith are canny, formidable politicians who do more than the average Parliamentarian in any chamber to engage with the electorate, meaning that when they're in Brussels and/or Strasbourg, they've got direct experience of what's happening on the ground in Scotland, and can use that experience to their advantage. Add to that Aileen McLeod, who knows the European political system like the back of her hand, and you've got one hell of a team there; I hope they all find their way to the European Parliament.

Certainly her expertise is a welcome contrast to George Lyon's candidacy, which has come about following his ejection from Holyrood at the hand of the voters of Argyll & Bute two years ago, and what must surely have been a desperate search for a gravy train to board. Of course, his attempt to be a 'local candidate' not just for an election to a national list, but to be local in two different locales is little short of embarrassing, and matters are compounded by the apparent efforts in his former Argyllshire stomping grounds to pretend that the 2007 election never happened and that the last major test of public opinion in the area was four years ago. It's sad that a former Scottish Parliamentarian and one-time Junior Minister should be the least credible of the Scottish candidates in this election (second place going to Mev Brown, who as Julie flagged up last week, is one of the Jury Team candidates) but given the campaign material behind him (made worse by absurd assertions that only the LibDems can win in Area X, Y or Z when it's a proportional, multi-member election for the whole of Scotland), but there you are.

Anyway. I must still confes that my endorsement has a bittersweet quality to it.

The first is that I won't be in a position to do what I'm asking you to do: I'm in the North West of England where it goes without saying that my ballot paper won't have an SNP option, so I'm still pondering who to vote for (I'm leaning towards the Greens), and I'm also facing a County Council election where my ward has only two candidates: Labour and Tory.

Now on the one hand, none of the brushes I've had with Lancashire County Council have given me any hope that the Labour-controlled body has even the slightest clue what it's doing. But on the other hand, my brushes with the Tory-controlled Chorley Borough Council make me wonder if Lancastrian voters might well be better holding onto their Labour nurse for something far, far worse.

There isn't even a LibDem candidate, which is strange, as this County ward contains the only Borough ward in Chorley which has any LibDem Councillors representing it, so I fear a deal has been done, and if I'm still here next year, my ballot paper for the Borough elections will once again have only two names, and it will be the Conservatives who are conspicuous in their absence.

So the Labour candidate, Edward Forshaw, almost had my vote, until last week when I was walking through Chorley town centre: when I saw a leaflet for the candidate in that part of town's ward, Hasina Khan. Barring the pictures, anme and ward, the leaflets were identical. Now, I'm fine with templates, and I have no problem with two candidates in the same party making the same point about being visible all year round and not just at election time. But I draw the line at the pair of them putting on their respective leaflets the same first-person quote with the exact same wording. It doesn't inspire me with confidence that they're local candidates, acting as local voices, if they've put their name to identikit leaflets. Moreover, I have at least heard of Hasina Khan, and while readers are well aware that I'm not a fan of some of Labour's candidate progression structures (i.e. the AWS), she'd be a worthy beneficiary from them. In fact, she'd tan the hide of anyone else she faced in an open contest. Forshaw, on the other hand, has been the County Councillor for four years and it took me a couple of weeks since seeing his name mentioned on the offical declarations before I remembered where I'd seen the name before. Specifically, four years ago when he was elected for the first time. So not only can the pair of them not come up with their own rentaquote, but in his case, the centrally issued tagline is bullshit anyway.

So in short, I'm stuck with a choice of two candidates I can't bring myself to vote for, but I'm going to be at the polling station anyway for the European elections. That's a toughie, and if there are any readers in the Coppull area, if you hear tales of a man standing in a polling booth in St. John's Church Hall on Hewlett Avenue, wailing like a baby, screeching "Why? Why me?" and banging his head repeatedly against the plywood wall, it's probably going to be me.

Nevertheless, despite having to vote for someone I really don't want to support, I'll still bite the bullet and turn up with my polling card. But then, you'd expect me to: I'm into this sort of thing, and I'm an electoral diehard.

On the other hand, lots of other people won't be bothering. If you were to compare Parliaments to football leagues which reflect their standing in the national consciousness, the European Parliament ranks not as the Champions' League, but as the Cowal Peninsula Sunday League Division 3. And everyone's pissed off with the expenses scandal.

Indeed, it's now become fashionable to look at the minority of MPs with their snouts firmly embedded in the trough, throw up one's hands and say "What's the point?". That it was becoming fashionable to avoid finding time within a fifteen-hour window to cast a vote anyway is overlooked. It's also tempting to grumble about how your vote on its own won't make a difference, how voting never changes things anyway, and how voting only legitimises politicians.

Well, you're probably right. But while the chances of you casting the deciding vote may be so slim it makes Amy Winehouse look like Cyril Smith, that minuscule probability is still greater than the zero it becomes if you don't show up.

And if there's a low turnout, politicians briefly wring their hands about voter engagement, then takes their seats as if everyone acclaimed their position. So not voting doesn't spook politicians all that much. Unless it's their supporters who aren't voting, that is.

One last point: voting might not change things in one election, but give it a few tries. Here's my idea: vote once, and if the people you support don't deliver, vote for someone else at the next election. And if they don't get the message, vote for someone else again. A body of diehard voters, none of whom are beholden to any one candidate or party, but will turn out. If I were a sitting parliamentarian, or even a candidate, that idea would scare the bejeezus out of me: a hoarde of angry people willing to indulge me, but watching me constantly for five years, ready to turn on me if I fuck up. Say goodbye to safe seats, say goodbye to complacency. Say hello to a gang of politicians who will let you use their first born child as a garden gnome if you stick with them, then wave goodbye to them at the next election as you ditch them for someone who isn't willing to stoop quite so low.

So this time, don't listen to those siren voices telling you that not voting will send a message. The only message it actually sends is, "I may have wasted my spare time watching Susan Boyle, that fat Greek Cypriot family, that spoilt brat from Accrington and all those dancing chavs but I can't find five minutes to put a cross on a piece of paper".

Send a better message. How about this one from Achewood?

I kick men's asses... AND I VOTE!

IndyGal MSP

As has been pointed out by various sources, the vacancy in Glasgow region is to be filled, by the sixth member of the SNP's List there: Anne McLaughlin, better known to bloggers as IndyGal.

And I reckon she'll do well: she's got a sound enough political brain to play a key role in the SNP's 22% swing from Labour in the Glasgow East By-Election, she's passionate, committed, infectiously enthusiastic and she's a good empathiser: that comes in handy in politics, even if it's a skill we don't see very often. But when she gets correspondence from someone in Glasgow, or when someone turns up at a surgery to see her, they're going to need her to be tuned in, hear them out, understand, and most importantly, care about them and the problem they've sought to raise. Anne will absolutely fit that bill.

But there's a knock-on effect that hasn't yet been mentioned: Anne had gone forward for ranking on the SNP's list of European candidates this year. Now, I'm reasonably confident that there's nothing theoretically stopping someone from being an MSP and an MEP (though an MP and an MEP is a different story, I believe) but it's not necessarily desirable and I don't envisage her remaining in the European selection process (UPDATE: turns out that there are no dual mandates at all: you can't be an MP and MEP, an MSP and MEP or even a Lord and MEP - so that's George Foulkes screwed - thanks to the commenter who pointed that out). If I'm correct, SNP members will now be ranking five candidates: incumbents Ian Hudghton and Alyn Smith, SNP National Secretary Duncan Ross, European affairs expert Dr. Aileen McLeod and Highland Councillor Drew Hendry. I wouldn't be overly surprised if the two present MEPs were to retain their positions on the List, but recent political trends - even the Glenrothes By-Election - point to the SNP in touching distance not only of first place, but also a third seat. That makes #3 rankng on the List important, and I had imagined that Anne would have been a strong contender for it. With her at Holyrood, it's now anyone's game...

EuroCountdown: Latvia

Number of MEPs now: 9
Likely number of MEPs in June: 8

2004 results

Tēvzemei un Brīvībai/LNNK (For Fatherland & Freedom/LNNK) - 170,819 (29.8%) - 4 seats
Jaunais Laiks (New Era Party) - 112,698 (19.7%) - 2 seats
Par cilvēka tiesībām vienotā Latvijā (For Human Rights in a United Latvia) - 61,329 (10.7%) - 1 seat
Tautas Partija (People's Party) - 38,114 (6.7%) - 1 seat
Latvijas Ceļš (Latvian Way) - 37,357 (6.5%) - 1 seat
Latvijas Sociāldemokrātiskā Strādnieku Partija (Latvian Social Democratic Labour Party)- 27,437 (4.8%) - 0 seats
Tautas Saskaņas Partija (People's Harmony Party) - 27,423 (4.8%) - 0 seats
Zaļo un Zemnieku Savienība (Union of Greens and Farmers) - 24,405 (4.3%) - 0 seats

Prediction

Once again, this is proving difficult. Although the turnout in 2004 wasn't quite as appalling as in some countries, the 41% showing is still lower than the average, and of course, that leads to some screwy results. Things aren't helped by the incredibly tight nature of Latvian politics: there are seven parties in the Saeima, and four parties are within 10% of each other at the top. There's also a four-party Coalition governing the country. Basically, if you recall how freaked out everyone was at how inconclusive the last Scottish Parliamentary election appeared, or how opponents of PR crowed at the result of the last German Federal Elections forcing a Grand Coalition, none of that has anything on how Latvian parliamentary arithmetic seems to operate.

Despite this, the last European Elections seemed pretty conclusive, and pretty safe for TB/LNNK. I don't see much changing for them (they gained a seat in the 2006 Saeima Election, and joined the governing coalition since then). Well, I see them losing a seat, but that's more to do with Latvia as a whole losing a seat. Indeed, the only real question for them is the group that they'll be in post-June. Right now, they're in the Union for a Europe of Nations group, but with its future having been called into question (even if the current members are in a position to form a group that meets all the necessary criteria, a number of them are thinking of heading elsewhere) they may have to find a new home, and matters may hinge on David Cameron's ability to get the Movement for European Reform Group off the ground. That's the group they're most likely to end up in.

For New Era, things are looking far bleaker. The party went down from 26 Saeima seats to 18 in 2006, and last year, a number of key figures left to create a new far-right party. In short, New Era will go backwards: the only question is whether they will lose one seat or two. This will be a small facer for the EPP.

And For Human Rights in a United Latvia aren't likely to do any better. It was an alliance of three parties, and while it's now a single entity, it's more of a rump, having lost alliance members and going from 25 Saeima seats to just six. This is pretty bad news for the EFA, and it's not clear whether the new Harmony Centre coalition (comprising, among others, the People's Harmony Party and the Socialist Party) would fit into it, or the PES. Certainly the 2006 results suggest that Harmony Centre would pull ahead of ForHRUL, and the combined results of the Harmony Centre coaliton members would be enough to give them a seat. The question is, will ForHRUL stay in?

Things seem a little safer for the People's Party: they became the largest party in 2006, so the chances are that they'll advance, and a second seat for them (and the EPP) is a possibility.

Latvian Way also face a bright future: they've formed an alliance with Latvia's First Party, which will probably be good to take them up to the 9-10% mark, making their position more secure. They're currently in the ALDE group, but they're heading further to the right, and the alliance with Latvia's First Party will only push tem further in that direction. Whichever they end up in, I predict one seat for them: no more, no less.

Finally, keep your eye on the Union of Greens and Farmers: they made a big leap forward in 2006, and became the second largest party. The one fly in the ointment is Aivars Lembergs, the mayor of Ventspils. Well, he's probably the former mayor now, given his arrest. He's pretty close to the Union so they could get hauled over the coals. Or they could escape unscathed, and cross the five-percent threshold needed for a seat. And if they do, it's a question of whether a Green or a Farmer gets the seat. If the former, they'll join the Green group (well, duh), If it's the latter, they'll go into ALDE.

So I'm saying three seats for TB/LNNK, two for the People's Party, one for Latvian Way. And the other two? Take your pick. New Era could hold on to one, the new far right offshoot - if it gets off the ground - could pick up the seat instead, Harmony Centre look like a good bet but ForHRUL could still hold on, at the expense of New Era. And waiting in the wings, the Greens and Farmers. This is going to be interesting to watch.

EuroCountdown: Slovenia

Number of MEPs now: 7
Likely number of MEPs in 2009: 7

2004 results

Nova Slovenija (New Slovenia) - 102,753 - 2 seats
Liberalna Demokracija Slovenije/Demokratična Stranka Upokojencev Slovenije (Liberal Democracy of Slovenia/Democratic Party of Pensioners of Slovenia) - 95,489 - 2 seats
Slovenska Demokratska Stranka (Slovenian Democratic Party) - 76,945 - 2 seats
Združena Lista Socialnih Demokratov (United List of Social Democrats) - 61,672 - 1 seats
Slovenska Ljudska Stranka (Slovenian People's Party) - 36,662 - 0 seats
Slovenska Nacionalna Stranka (Slovenian National Party) - 21,883 - 0 seats

Prediction

This is a toughie, for a number of reasons. Firstly, Slovenia had an abysmal turnout in 2004, of just 28.3%, meaning that most of the normal rules don't apply. It's a a question of how well the parties got their vote out (not well at all) and whether or not those voters who did show were given to a protest vote. I'd say the same is likely in 2009.

But New Slovenia won't be the beneficiaries: they've collapsed since 2004, losing all their representation in the Slovenian National Assembly, and suffering a split which neither side gained from: the Christian People's Party. Their combined support was still less than half what NSi got in the 2004 national poll. Frankly, I can't see them hanging on to either of their MEPs.

The LDS won't benefit either. They also suffered a split, and worse for them, the offshoot, Zares (For Real), is more popular than they are if the 2008 election result is anything to go by. So I'd expect Zares to win a seat for the Liberal group, but nothing for the LDS. And their partner in the 2004 Euro Election, DeSUS, might not be working with them either: the LDS has joined the new Social Democrat-led Government while DeSUS worked with the old right-wing government led by the SDS. On that basis, I'm not convinced that the two will work together this time, and the humilating thing for the LDS is that DeSUS overtook them this year and will probably outshine them again next year. Indeed, they could hold on to a seat where the LDS don't. The good news for the Liberals in the European Parliament is that both Zares and DeSUS are centrist and would be likely to stick with them. So there'd still be two Liberals there, just in different parties.

The SDS has just recently gone into opposition, having led the Government until the recent national elections. Nevertheless, they're now largely unchallenged at the top of Slovenia's centre-right, so they'll probably head up rather than down, and will keep their two seats for the EPP.

The Social Democrats, meanwhile, are on an upward vector, having only recently taken office with Borut Pahor forming a Government. The split in the Liberals helped, allowing them to become the largest opposition group before a single vote had been cast, and they becme the largest party in Slovenia this year. I'd imagine them coming top again, and gaining an extra MEP for the Socialist Group.

So that's two Social Democrats, two Democrats, one Zares and one DeSUS predicted. What of the seventh? A third Social Democrat is a possibility, but watch the Slovenian People's Party. They just missed out last time, and their vote dropped slightly in 2008, but the collapse of NSi could send a few extra votes their way, especially if, as they did this year, they run a joint list with the Youth Party of Slovenia. However, there might be an issue here: the Youth Party considers itself to be a Green party, while the SLS is more conservative. It may not work, but if it does, there's a possible MEP in the offing.

More worrying is the Slovene National Party which is still in the National Assembly and took 5% in 2004. They dipped slightly in 2008, but anything is possible in a low-turnout poll. They aren't exactly consensus-builders: they call themselves Tito supporters (eek!), they're anti-Catholic, Roma-hating homophobes (but don't be mean to Slovene minorities elsewhere or they're on your case!). They have a number of territorial beefs with Croatia and want the Croat border closed until they get them sorted. So if any group would have them, they'd be best suited to the ill-fated Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty group which collapsed under the weight of its own bigotry in 2007. So if they do get in - unlikely, but possible - they'll probably end up in the Non-Inscrits.

So in order of probability as I currently see it, this is how I'd see the Slovenian election going:

SD 2, SDS 2, Zares 1, DeSUS 1, SLS 1
SD 3, SDS 2, Zares 1, DeSUS 1
SD 2, SDS 2, Zares 1, DeSUS 1, SNS 1

EuroCountdown: Estonia

Number of MEPs now: 6
Number of MEPs after 2009: 6

2004 results

Sotsiaaldemokraatlik Erakond (Social Democratic Party) - 85,433 (36.8%) - 3 seats
Eesti Keskerakond (Estonian Centre Party) - 40,704 (17.5%) - 1 seat
Eesti Reformierakond (Estonian Reform Party) - 28,377 (12.2%) - 1 seat
Isamaaliit (Pro Patria Union) - 24,375 (10.5%) - 1 seat
Eestimaa Rahvaliit (People's Union of Estonia) - 18,687 (8.0%) - 0 seats
Erakond Res Publica - (Res Publica Party) - 15,457 (6.7%) - 0 seats

Prediction

Difficult. Firstly, turnout in 2004 was an abysmal 26.8%. Low turnout complicates matters: you can never be quite sure who'll visit the polls on the day.

Secondly, a new Government was elected last year: the the Reform Party is at its head, and it's in an unlikely looking Coalition with the Social Democrats and a new party formed by the combination of the Pro Patria Union and the Res Publica Party (more on that later).

So first, we turn to the Social Democrats, whose victory in 2004 must have come as a shock after their previous incarnation came sixth in the Parliamentary elections in 2003. They reverted to type in the 2007 elections though: they came fourth. Indeed, I'm guessing that their strong performance in '04 was down to two major factors: firstly, they had rebranded themselves in time to fight the contest (and it obviously worked), and secondly, they'd have been in a good position to pick up votes from hacked-off Reform and Centre supporters, with both parties being in the Government at the time. They are no longer new and they are in Government, so their main vote-getting points aren't there. Supporters of the new Government might find it more logical just to go back to the Reform Party. Others will find the Centre Party a wise destination. And the fact that they're in a right-leaning Coalition might make their left flank vulnerable. To top things off, there is now an Estonian Green Party cabable of standing in the election - there wasn't in 2004 - and again, votes could head their way. The Green vote share in 2007 wouldn't be enough for a seat, but the number of votes they picked up certainly would, based on the turnout figures from last time.

So to sum up, I don't envisage the SDE holding on to all three seats. On a bad weekend they could even fall to one, so that's a loss for the Party of European Socialists, and in terms of the gains, you can perm any combination of the Reform and Centre Parties (both of whom are in the ALDE, and it's doubtful that either party could actually do worse than in 2004), and the Greens.

On the right, things are equally messy. The merger of Pro Patria and Res Publica didn't quite work out (in 2007, they lost 14 percentage points on their combined vote share four years previously) as they'd planned but they are in Government and I wouldn't be surprised if it suits them better than it suits the Social Democrats, so my guess is that they'll hold relatively steady, and the EPP will keep its one Estonian member. If anything, they could pick up extra votes (but not seats) from the apparent decline of the People's Union. Of course, the Movement for European Reform could come a-knocking, but don't be too surprised if the IRL slams the door in its face.

So it's hard to call an electon where hardly anyone may show up, but it looks like the Social Democrats have the most to lose. It's down to the other parties to capitalise on that.

EuroCountdown: Cyprus

MEPs now: 6
MEPs in June: 6

2004 results

Dimokratikós Sinayermós (Democratic Party) - 94,355 (28.2%) - 2 seats
Anorthotikó Kómma Ergazómenou Laoú (Progressive Party of Working People) - 93,212 (27.9%) - 2 seats
Dimokratikó Kómma (Democratic Party) - 57,121 (17.1%) - 1 seat
For Europe - 36,112 (10.8%) - 1 seat

Prediction

I would expect AKEL (European United Left/Nordic Green Left) to top the poll this time, having won the 2006 Legislative Elections and the 2008 Presidential Election, and making strong progress on re-unification talks with Northern Cyprus, thanks to the Trade Union links that President Christofias has built with his Turkish Cypriot counterpart, Mehmet Ali Talat. However, For Europe was a splinter group from DISY (EPP), and a number of members have returned to the fold, but some have in fact gone off to form a new party, the European Party (ALDE).

I suspect that the Democratic Party (ALDE) vote will hold steady, so it's the For Europe seat that's up for grabs, and I'd favour the European Party to get it.

The Movement for Social Democracy took 9% in the Legislative Elections, and could benefit from the shifting sands in the ex-For Europe camp, but my guess is that their vote will be heavily squeezed by AKEL.

Basically (and this is down to the paucity of seats more than anything), there will be minimal change in Cyprus, and what does come will be a result of For Europe disbanding, and the formation of the European Party, depriving the EPP of an additional seat, which will favour the ALDE.

EuroCountdown: Luxembourg

MEPs now: 6
MEPs in June: 6

2004 results

Chrëschtlich Sozial Vollekspartei (Christian Social People's Party) - 37.1% - 3 seats
Lëtzebuergesch Sozialistesch Arbechterpartei (Luxembourg Social Workers' Party) - 22.0% - 1 seat
Déi Gréng - (The Greens) - 15.0% - 1 seat
Demokratesch Partei - (Democratic Party) - 14.9% - 1 seat
Alternativ Demokratesch Reformpartei - (Alternative Democratic Reform Party) - 8.0% - 0 seats

Prediction: The Election is coloured by the Legislative Elections due one week later (though possibly brought forward to co-incide with the European Parliamentary vote), but following a 2004 election which saw the strongest CSV performance in 45 years, I'd expect them to slip back but remain safely in first place, and the battle is for second place. My hunch is that the Democrats will benefit in terms of votes, but in terms of seats, anything could happen: the CSV could retain all three, or any of the parties could pick up a CSV loss, even, at a pinch, the ADR. Even my hunch is based on the fact that the Democrats are the largest opposition party: with no major electoral test between the 2004 elections and now, I could have called this one completely wrong.

So based on what little information we have, the CSV have provided every post-war Prime Minister in Luxembourg except one, Gaston Thorn. The current PM is Jean-Claude Juncker, who has been in charge since 1995 and whose popularity showed no signs of waning in 2004. It's logical that by now, some shine might have been taken off, but even so, the CSV should take first place and at least two seats for the EPP.

The LSA is the second largest party and currently in Coalition with the CSV. In the 2005 communal elections they appeared to be the largest party in local government, but the alternation between the LSA and the Democrats for second place (and Deputy Prime Minister's job) seems to be fairly frequent. It's on that basis that I see them slipping back a little. But if the vote stays relatively static, they could end up regaining the second MEP that they lost in 2004. Needless to say, they're in the PSE.

The Greens (no prizes for guessing which group they're in!) saw a decent swing towards them in 2004 and they appear to do better in the Euro elections than the national ones. But they did seem to plateau at the 4/5 seat mark in the Legislative elections between 1989 and 1999, so I don't really foresee much of an advance for them at this stage. And they've never had more than one MEP at any time.

The Democrats (in the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party, and so the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) probaby stand the most to gain, as the largest opposition party, and also in the hope that the LSA-Democrat pendulum swings back in their direction. The question is whether it will swing far enough for second place. Whether it swings far enough for a second seat is another matter entirely.

ADR, however, are something else. They started life as a single-issue party campaigning on pensions, but they've since evolved into a right-wing, borderline-Eurosceptic party that would probably feel at home in the proposed Movement for European Reform group. Their vote did go down in 2004, but who knows? The thought of a Eurosceptic MEP from Luxembourg? It's a long shot, but it could happen...

EuroCountdown: Malta

The first in a weekly series, in which I preview the Elections to the European Parliament next June.

Malta

MEPs now: 5
MEPs in June: 5, assuming the Lisbon Treaty isn't ratified

2004 results

Partit Laburista (Labour Party) - 118,983 - 48.4% - 3 seats
Partit Nazzjonalista (Nationalist Party) - 97,688 - 39.8% - 2 seats
Alternattiva Demokratika (Democratic Alternative) - 22,938 - 9.3% - 0 seats

Prediction: No change.

The Nationalist Government was re-elected in Malta this March, but the result was on a knife-edge: in a 69-seat House of Representatives, they have 35 MPs, to Labour's 34 (sound familiar?), and they won the election by only 1,580 votes. However, Labour have a new Leader and won the European election here in 2004 despite losing the General Election the year previously. So with a small swing to Labour shown in the General, I would put them on track to win again this time around. Further, Labour's new Leader, Joseph Muscat, was an MEP until last year, when he resigned his seat on winning the Leadership Contest. I expect him to place a key level of importance on these elections, given his CV, and the fact that this is the first key electoral test for his Leadership.

I do not forecast a gain for Democratic Alternative: they seemed to be squeezed in the General - that was the case in 2003 as well - and they do appear more attractive, possibly as a protest vote, in a Euro contest, but the sheer paucity of seats makes matters nigh-on impossible for them.

Labour are currently in the Party of European Socialists in the EP, while the Nationalists are members of the European People's Party. It's possible that David Cameron will try and lure them into the Movement for European Reform group after 2009 but I wouldn't wager any money on them actually joining it. Democratic Alternative are affiliated to the Greens but aside from perhaps a few extra votes, the carve-up of Malta's five seats between the Big 2 means that they won't have anything to shout about.

A weak Constitution, erm, Treaty

I thought I'd cast my beady eye over calls for a referendum on the EU Treaty Formerly Known As The Constitution, and why they will go completely unheeded. I may as well call this post "Stating the Obvious", but sometimes it's good to do that.

Anyway. Brown will never agree for two reasons:

1. He will be on the losing side. Brown has not yet managed to be on this so far, having handled the various crises of this Summer well, coming across as solid, safe and re-assuring. His Brown Bounce will evaporate overnight, and the Tories will use the result as a stick to beat him with from the moment the result is declared to 10pm on polling day for the next Westminster Election. By the following breakfast, David Cameron will be Prime Minister.

2. He cannot let the referendum genie out of the bottle. As soon as he gives in to calls for a referendum on the UK's place with the EU, calls for a vote on Scotland's place in the UK will intensify, and prove harder to resist. If he does resist them, Labour's loss in Scotland will happen again. And again. And again.

Now, Blair could afford to suggest a referendum: he had the European Elections around the corner, and Labour were in serious political trouble as this was becoming a hot button issue. A referendum put the issue on the back burner and bought him time, during which the French and the Dutch kicked the Constitution into touch. If they hadn't, if everyone else had backed it, then Labour could have run an effective "Don't get left behind" campaign. Also, the independence referendum wasn't on the horizon. The SNP were far weaker at that time than today, trundling towards the end of John Swinney's Convenership and the poor result that caused it. Independence just wasn't on the table.

In Brown's case, the Westminster Election is closer, and as William Hague learned to his cost in 2001, European issues hardly play at all with voters during those campaigns. Given that this is a "treaty", a number of countries who held votes may avoid doing so this time, pulling away Brown's safety net of someone else rejecting it first, and also undermining any "Don't get left behind campaign", as opponents of the treaty would point out how few people have had a vote on it. Blair staved off an election defeat; Brown would invite a referendum defeat. And of course, Alex Salmond is in Bute House and the National Conversation has started. Brown will not add fuel to the referendum fire.

Of course, I could point out that at least there's a consistency here, that Brown opposes both referenda, while the Tories want the people to have their say on Europe but not on Scotland's future in the Union. I could also mention that the LibDems insist that any document needs democratic legitmacy through a referendum (a principled policy as they realise that they'll probably lose), but the mention of a referendum on independence forces them to stick their fingers in their ears and go "La la la".

But that wouldn't be like me at all.

We might be going down, but at least we're taking London with us!

We're also taking NW England, SW England, the West Midlands and the East Midlands down.

The aforementioned areas find themselves being put forward to lose a seat in the European Parliament come 2009, as the UK will have only 72 MEPs against the current 78.

Anyway, the proposal has not gone down well, and the Electoral Commission has noted this. But the fascinating thing is that while Devolution became an argument for the cut in MP numbers from 72 to 59, it appears to be an argument against a cut in MEP numbers from seven to six. This came from all of the seven MEPs themselves:

"The formal responsibility of the Scottish Parliament to implement EU obligations places a legislative and scrutiny burden upon it which in turn requires greater input from ourselves than is the case elsewhere in the UK. It should be borne in mind that in addition to attending UK-wide meetings such as those between MPs and MEPs, we also fulfil specific roles in relation to both the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament’s committees..."

So while Devolution is perceived to have reduced an MP's workload, the MEPs argue that it has actually increased theirs. Of course, there might be an element of turkeys not wanting to vote for Christmas, but they do have a point.

I hate to bring this up, but the UK as a whole is assigned 72 MEPs following the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU. This is detailed in the Treaty of Nice. Scotland's proportion of electors in the United Kingdom gives it six of those, so as part of the UK, on the criteria that the Electoral Commission have to work with, six is a fair number. But as part of the EU, Scotland does get shafted: states that have a slightly smaller population that Scotland's get double that allocation, and those that are ever-so-slightly larger get thirteen MEPs, but remember that there is now a cap on the number of MEPs anyway. It's 732, in case you're wondering. So if Scotland were to gain independence before 2014 (assuming that Scotland remains in the EU), then the number of seats Scotland would be entitled to would come from other member states' allocations at the European Elections in that year. And it's not set in stone (in fact, not that likely at all), that the UK would lose six seats from its allocation to compensate: a loss of one or at most two is more likely.

Basically, Scotland's representation would go up, most likely to 12, even with that correction. And the other UK nations' representations would also go up to at least 70, from the 66 that is being proposed by the Electoral Commission.

It does make you wonder: how can Scotland be 'punching above its weight' on the world stage thanks to the Union, when its delegation to the European Parliament is half the size of what it would be if Scotland were independent? (And, from the other side of the coin, how is the Union good for England, when its own delegation is also smaller than it otherwise would be, albeit by a much smaller proportion: 59 as against a hypothetical 63/64?)

The Union Dividend, is, I'm afraid, not applicable to Scotland's relationship with Europe. Or England's, for that matter.

PS Who else gets six MEPs? Estonia (pop. 1,350,000 approx), Cyprus (pp. 855,000) and Luxembourg (estimated pop. 480,000). Just a thought.

Fanciful nonsense

"The UK coastline is shared between Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland - all with major fishing industries. So the notion that Scotland should have the sole right to speak for the UK on fisheries matters is fanciful nonsense."

Thus spake Rhona Brankin, Labour's Shadow Environment Secretary, on Alex Salmond's proposal that Richard Lochhead should be able to represent the UK on Fisheries. Let's take a look at what she's said more closely. Until now, representing the UK on Fisheries has always been the job of the UK Fisheries Minister. He has had the de facto 'sole right' to do so. (And there's a thought, he might have the sole right, but does he have the cod right and haddock right? Boom boom.) The problem is, with the UK coastline being shared, and fisheries being devolved, the term 'UK Fisheries Minister' isn't totally accurate.

The UK Government has a Fisheries Minister. Or rather, it has a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whose responsibilities cover "marine and fisheries, rural affairs, landscape, local environment quality." His name is Jonathan Shaw, by the way and he's also Minister for the South East. Therefore, as a Fisheries Minister in the UK Government, he's referred to as the UK Fisheries Minister. Except he only has responsibility for Fisheries in England. Now, I'm not suggesting he be referred to as the 'English Fisheries Minister' as there is no 'English' Government. Perhaps 'Whitehall Fisheries Minister' would be more appropriate.

Rhona Brankin has got lost in the terminology. As well as Shaw, there is, of course, Richard Lochhead, who she shadows. Wales has (at the moment) a Minister for Sustainability and Rural Development, which, with fisheries having been devolved to the Assembly at the start, I imagine includes fisheries. It's Jane Davidson for the moment, but I wouldn't mind betting that this ends up in Plaid's hands once Rhodri Morgan is well enough to draw up the new Coalition Cabinet with Ieuan Wyn Jones. Northern Ireland has a Department for Agriculture and Rural Development, and the Minister in charge is Michelle Gildernew.

So the question Rhona Brankin ought to be asking but hasn't is this: with Jonathan Shaw only responsible for fisheries in England, why should he have the sole right to represent the United Kingdom on fisheries? What gives him priority over Lochhead, Davidson (or her successor), or Gildernew? Any of them could, theoretically, do the job, but it's the Scottish Government that is the first to suggest it. Why dismiss it out of hand as 'fanciful nonsense' that a Minister for only one part of the UK should represent the whole when that's been the case since devolution?

Rhona Brankin doesn't get it. At best, she has got lost in the terminology, and seen 'UK Government' and 'UK Minister' as the best person to represent the whole of the UK, when in reality, that Minister only has responsibility for part of it. At worst, she has missed the point of devolution, the idea that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have Governments and Ministers of their own, who are no better or worse at putting the case across than anyone at Whitehall, and agreed that despite fisheries being devolved, the UK Government should still call the shots on this matter and any other matter on the European stage. I hope the worst isn't true. It would be especially sad for a former Scottish Executive Minister to have missed the point of the very concept that gave her her job.