Introducing the QIB

I referenced this in my last post, but as it's a factor we may keep coming back to, it may be time to put some flesh on the bones. It's time to discuss the QIB.

So what is the QIB? It's the 'quasi-incumbency bonus'. Say what?

The QIB, as the present electoral systems at work in Scotland apply, can only operate to any real extent in Scottish Parliamentary elections. As we know, anyone who can be a candidate can stand both in a constituency, and on the regional list as well. And as we know, sitting MSPs who have been elected on the list can and do seek election to constituencies at the next election, much to the consternation of the sitting Constituency MSPs.

But that doesn't stop the Constituency MSPs amassing their own personal vote: Regional MSPs can build up some traction, but a strong Constituency MSP can counteract that.

The question is, what happens when the Constituency MSP stands down, and the Regional MSP is seeking election again?

And that's where QIB comes in: the extra kudos that the outgoing MSP had evaporates and the defending party has to start from is base level with a new candidate. Meanwhile, increasing numbers of voters start looking to the well-kent face of the Regional MSP, who's had 4, 8 or by the next election, 12 years to build up a profile and organisation in the community. They become, in effect, quasi-incumbents. And up to now, the figure suggest that they get a bonus for that. Hence, quasi-incumbency bonus.

So far, there have been five instances of the QIB, and we can quantify four of them. The one we can't put a figure on is the Falkirk West campaign in 2007, when Independent Dennis Canavan stood down and was replaced not by Labour's Dennis Goldie, but by the SNP's Michael Matheson, who had been Regional MSP for Central Scotland for eight years. Although Matheson had outpolled the Labour candidate in 2003, there was now the matter of the 14,703 Canavan votes whose preferred option was no longer available. Now, we know that when Canavan quit Westminster in 2000, Labour squeaked the subsequent By-Election by 705 votes. But we also know that that mushroomed to 8,532 a few months later in the 2001 General Election (though still considerably less than Canavan's own levels of support at Westminster). We also know that on the 2003 Regional vote in Falkirk West, Labour secured 10,719 votes to the SNP's 6,474. Even with Michael Matheson winning the seat in 2007, Labour still had a lead (albeit a small one - 504) over the SNP on the Regional vote.

Nevertheless, Matheson secured 7,000 more votes in 2007 than in 2003, but we don't know how many of them would have voted for him had Canavan not been on the ballot paper back then. So we can see that he has a QIB, but we can't derive an accurate figure.

So what about the other four?

In 2003, Henry McLeish stood down as Labour MSP for Central Fife, with Christine May looking to succeed him, but the SNP's Tricia Marwick stood in her way. Labour's share of the vote fell by 15.93% points, while the SNP's fell by just 0.32%. Nationwide, Labour's vote share fell by 3.92% - roughly a quarter of the loss suffered by May - but the SNP's vote fell by 4.97% in what was a grim showing. While the scandal enveloping Henry McLeish must have exacerbated the situation, the bottom line is that a national swing from the SNP to Labour of 0.53% turned in Central Fife to a swing in the other direction of 7.81%. Not only was this a springboard for Tricia Marwick to win in 2007, it also represented a QIB of 8.13%. Now, we don't know how much of that was a reflection of the Marwick v. May battle, and how much was based on McLeish's downfall, but would Labour have done quite so badly had Henry decided to carry on? Probably not. Could Tricia Marwick have stemmed the flow of votes from the SNP to the SSP had she not been a Regional MSP? It would have been far more difficult.

The same year, Ian Jenkins stood down as LibDem MSP for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, having served just one term. In what was a decent night for the Libems across Scotland, with the Party picking up an extra 0.98% - an increase is an increase - Jeremy Purvis saw the LibDem vote share drop by 8.86%, and Jenkins had barely had time to get his feet under the desk! By contrast Christine Grahame turned that 4.97% fall into a 2.40% increase: not only did she stem the flow, she reversed it. Would she have been able to do that, had she not been a Regional MSP? Again, not necessarily. Nevertheless a national swing from the SNP to the LibDems of 2.98% turned into a swing the other way of 5.63%. Christine Grahame picked up a QIB of 8.61%.

Four years later, Janis Hughes stood down in Glasgow Rutherglen. In 2007, Labour's Constituency vote share across Scotland fell by 2.74%. In Rutherglen, it fell by 3.62%. Not much of an effect, but it's notable that James Kelly shared a ballot paper with Robert Brown, LibDem Regional MSP for Glasgow. That year, the LibDem vote increased nationally by 1.04%. In Rutherglen, Robert Brown's went up by 3.67%. A Lab-LD swing of 1.89% was augmented to 2.33%. Brown secured the lowest QIB of the four: 0.44%.

The big one came in Edinburgh East & Musselburgh, where Susan Deacon stood down and Norman Murray was tasked with defending the seat for Labour against the SNP's Kenny MacAskill. That nationwide fall of 2.74% became 10.60%. The SNP nationwide increase of 9.16% went up to 15.53%. In short, a swing of 5.95% (which shouldn't have been anywhere near enough for the seat to fall) became a local swing of 13.07% - a QIB of 7.12%.

That makes, up to now, an average QIB of 6.08%. In effect, if these trends play out again in 2011, any Regional MSP seeking election wherever the sitting Constituency MSP is standing down has a head start of a 6% swing right from the get-go.

So if Tom McCabe stands and wins in the Westminster contest in Rutherglen & Hamilton West, that sees a vacancy emerge in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse, the successor seat to Hamilton South, where Christina McKelvie challenged McCabe in 2007. If she secures the average QIB, she needs only a further 0.2%.

If - as is likely - John Farquhar Munro declines to seek re-election, but Dave Thompson stands in Skye, Lochaber & Badenoch, QIB puts Thompson in pole position.

If Cathy Jamieson wins Kilmarnock & Loudoun this Spring, and Adam Ingram again seeks election in Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley, he'll need a further swing of only 0.57%.

So now, all that remains is to check who is, and who isn't, standing where: it's well worth factoring this into predictions for 2011.

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.

Here's £33 billion, buy yourself something nice!

At last! We have a Budget!

For the SNP, it's a relieving moment: to follow the first ever failure of a Holyrood Budget with a set of proposals which achieved almost unanimous support is surely a good thing. Moreover, once deals had clearly been achieved with the LibDems, the Government could have simply pulled the ladder up and ditched any negotiations with Labour and the Greens. Wiser heads prevailed, at least so far as discussions with Labour are concerned. That's precisely as it should be.

And it help that wind was in the SNP's sails: a poll carried out in the aftermath of the Budget suggested that the Opposition had the most to lose (denting conventional wisdom somewhat) in blocking the first attempt and that the only party leader to have a net approval rating (as opposed to a net disapproval rating) was a certain Mr. A. Salmond.

The lesson here is not to trust conventional wisdom: we've had three long, dull months of commentators waxing lyrical about the end of the honeymoon period, that the sheen was off the Government, and the failed Budget was part of that. Well, if the honeymoon is over, then so much the better for the SNP: it would show that the Government's ability to pull a rabbit out of the hat when you least expect it is, in fact, permanent. That it should be John Swinney displaying that particular skill might seem somewhat ironic to the casual observer - during his spell at the top of the Party, he was not noted for his miraculous strokes of good fortune. But his current role suits him, which helps.

Labour have something to cheer about too: 7,800 new apprenticeships. That's got to be good news, especially for the 7,800 apprentices. And it shows that engagement actually pays off: they could have stayed in a huff, but they'd have got nothing. Instead, they got something good, along with the possibility of a further 7,800 in 2010-11.

Of course, that possibility - it's not a promise by any means - is a double-edged sword: if the SNP deliver, then Labour at last have a theme (the party of apprenticeships and everything that follows from that), and will (reasonably) attempt to claim the credit for demanding it. On the other hand, the SNP will (equally reasonably) claim the credit for actually delivering them, and it binds Labour hands: how could they not support the 2010 Budget, if it includes such a long-standing policy? Conversely, if the policy isn't in next year, then Labour have a clear attack point and total justification for opposing the Budget outright on account of their aims being known for twelve whole months, but Parliamentary arithmetic could see them being sidestepped anyway, and even if the Budget (No. 4) Bill falls, this week suggests that public opinion could easily punish them instead of the Government.

And indeed, they have been just as fortunate as the SNP with events: had the process collapsed, it's clear that they would have lost out, and could have been bounced into an election they didn't want with grim results. Further, there is gossip suggesting that Labour were trying to assemble a new coalition involving the LibDems and the Greens (which couldn't have worked, for reasons I'll explain later) and we know that George Foulkes was trying to use this as an excuse to oust the Government and abandon the Budget process altogether, giving credence to my initial suspicion that the main point of contention regarding the Budget was that it was being delivered by John Swinney rather than Andy Kerr. Luckily for them, wiser heads prevailed, who realised that the contents of a Budget are more important than who presents it. All the same, a clip on tonight's Reporting Scotland showed the applause that Labour offered when the Budget passed: it was half-hearted at best. Now, no one likes being in Opposition, but you'd think that having voted for the thing, and having secured those apprenticeships, a couple of the frontbenchers would have at least smiled. Sadly, one of them - I think it was John Park but I couldn't tell - applauded whilst apparently attempting to hide under his desk. Things like that are just plain embarrassing: they can do better than that.

And what of the Tories? Well, we knew they were more likely than not to support the Budget, and it's not a stretch to imagine that they'll be willing to back the 2010 Budget as well (the 2011 Budget, which will follow a CSR, is another matter entirely). But Annabel Goldie's approach at FMQs was telling:

For Iain Gray and the Scottish Labour Party, this was not about addressing Labour's recession; instead, it was about trying to stage some bloodless debating chamber coup to ensconce him as First Minister. Let me make it clear: I shall have no truck with such antics.

This begs the question: if it had come down to a confidence vote, would the Tories have voted with the Government? Because it looks like it there! Is this the start of a verbal confidence-and-supply agreement? Not necessarily:

Does the First Minister agree that Scotland is already badly served by one Labour Government and that we certainly do not need two?

That's the key: Goldie and the Tories have one eye on Westminster. Whether the General Election is this Spring or next year, we are heading into the concluding part of a Westminster election cycle, in which Labour and the Tories are in a state of direct clash over which one forms the UK Government. Their campaign to eject Labour from office at Westminster would become far more difficult and far less effective were the Scottish Tories to install Labour in office at Holyrood. The SNP and Tories don't necessarily share common policies and viewpoints, but they do share a common adversary.

And what of the LibDems? I wasn't a fan of the tax cut proposal - the talk of a stimulus is all well and good, but with people losing their jobs, there's less taxable income anyway so less money coming into public coffers and more people needing help that only the Government can afford to provide: while tax cuts might provide a stimulus for those who are just about holding on, keeping tax levels as they are maintains the present safety net for those who need it - but I'm intrigued by what the LibDems have got in this negotiation.

Firstly, the letter to the Calman Commission. Now, a letter from the Government stating the obvious (of course the Government wants borrowing powers - it wants every power the UK Government has!) might not seem like much, but as the SNP have been aloof from the Commission (no wonder really, when its terms of reference effectively freeze a pro-independence party out anyway), getting the Government to engage with it on any level is something of a coup. Of course, the LibDems haven't been getting the best return from Calman, so this might steer things in their direction or might serve to alienate them further. Even that may not be a bad thing: it would provide them with an out when the signposts suggest that Calman might not be all that close to what the LibDems want to see. Obviously, there's the joke that the LibDem position has shifted for the price of a stamp, but that stamp yet turn out to be significant.

The public spending review is another odd beast, and may prove less fruitful for the LibDems. Firstly, it sounds like it's going to be little more than a consultation with shoulder-pads, and consultations don't always deliver. And if it's carried out by the Parliament (which would make more sense) the likely people to do so would be the Finance Committee, where an SNP/Tory combination could freeze the LibDems out. So the LibDems should prepare for disappointment here. Even though they both want to travel in the same direction - a reduction in spending - the SNP are aiming for efficiency savings in preparation for a cut in the available budget, while the LibDems are looking for tax cuts.

Further, the LibDems want greater roles for the Council of Economic Advisers (an SNP creation) and Financial Services Advisory Board (of which SNP Ministers have been members for eighteen months), the latter with a view to protecting jobs in the financial services sector - an issue where the two parties are once again on the same page.

Lastly, the LibDems want to see movement on the Scottish Futures Trust - a brainchild of the SNP. That isn't surprising either, since neither party is all too enamoured with PPP/PFI.

That's the thing with the LibDems: there's a massive overlap between what they want and what the SNP want, but the two parties just don't seem to be speaking the same language at all. Are the underlying beliefs of the two parties so irreconcilable, or is it just a holdover from the Lab/LibDem Coalition?

Finally, the Greens. I feel sad for them, in a way, in that they seemed to be the fairest of the parties to vote against the Budget, while a lot of the vitriol that went their way following last week's vote was unfair: they were one of three parties to oppose the Budget, yet seemed to get a larger share of the blame despite being genuinely unhappy with proposals after negotiation when the LibDems didn't even try to get a viable deal and Labour were, it seems, looking at opportunities for intrigue. A deal with them would have made the most sense.

Instead, they got less Government funding for insulation - £15 million instead of £22 million - and more from other sources - £15 million instead of £11 million - though not enough to make the £33 million the Greens wanted. Moreover, if the Government finds at least £11 million of that extra outside cash, then Patrick Harvie will be made to look like a total chump: John Swinney said they'd get it and if he's proven right, then Harvie's opposition to the last Budget was for nothing. And even if Harvie is proven right instead, then there would still have been more money available to the project in the first version of the Budget, so his vindication would cost the scheme £7 million. I think Patrick Harvie realised this at the end, and the two Greens looked like rather forlorn figures today.

Moreover, the rumours are that Labour was making doe eyes at them. Now, it would be strange for the Greens to want to back a pro-Nuclear, pro-Trident, anti-Referendum party, when they are the exact inverse of all of those things and so are the SNP but there's something more practical standing in the way - the Greens' signature against this:

Therefore, the Scottish Green Party is committed to supporting the Scottish National Party in the votes for First Minister and Ministerial appointments. For their part, the Scottish National Party agrees to consult Scottish Green Party MSPs in advance regarding the broad shape of each year’s legislative and policy programme (together with any key measures announced in-year), and in relation to the substance of the budget process. The Scottish National Party also agrees to nominate a Green Party MSP as Convenor of a subject committee for which the SNP is the nominating Party.

Now, the SNP met their end of the deal: they consulted with the Greens - "consult" does not mean "agree with", remember - and Patrick Harvie is still Convener of the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, so with the letter of the agreement still in play, for the Greens to vote to replace Alex Salmond with Iain Gray and SNP Ministers with Labour and LibDem Ministers before an election would be a massive tactical error: they would be the first party in Holyrood to tear up an agreement. They would be going back on their word and Iain Gray would be wise to bear that in mind. If he does, they're totally frozen out: the Scottish LibDems were frozen out in 2007 through intransigence, the Welsh LibDems through indecision. The Greens would be the first to be isolated for not sticking to an agreement and while that might not have any impact outwith the Holyrood village, a total lack of influence on proceedings definitely would (people did at least notice and think about the Greens this week) and it wouldn't be a positive one. If they have been thinking about a deal with Labour, they might want to think about the deal they already have with the SNP as well.

But then, the important thing tonight is that we have a Budget. And 123 MSPs (plus the three who were AWOL) have something to smile about from it.

Does a failed Budget mean a new Election?

Much has been made of the SNP stating that, if its Budget is rejected, it will resign. Opponents are deriding this as grand-standing.

But here's the thing: whether it's grand-standing or not, it's the right thing to do.

The Budget is the Government's proposals to spend the money allocated to it for the coming year. That money is, therefore, used to discharge Government policy. If a Parliament rejects the Budget, it rejects the Government's policies completely. If a Parliament does that, it's saying that it no longer wants that Government in office. A Stage 1 rejection would rule out any co-operation with the Government under any circumstances. A Stage 2 rejection is highly unlikely - the worst-case scenario would be all five Opposition members of the Finance Committee ganging up to amend it to death, and that won't happen: Derek Brownlee will probably win a few bonus concessions and vote for the amended package, meaning that with Andrew Welsh's casting vote, it's going through. Labour might win a few points - we shall see - but Jeremy Purvis will walk in looking angry (it doesn't suit him, and neither does the facial hair), demand a 2% cut in income tax that everyone including the Tories - the natural tax-cutting party - are baulking at, and go in a huff when they vote him down, by seven to one. A Stage 3 rejection isn't impossible, however, and would show that despite the best efforts of the Parliament and the Government, members and Ministers just aren't on the same page.

At that point, any Government has to go. If Iain Gray reckons he can do any better, then let him: even with a pact with the LibDems, he'd still come up short of a majority, putting him in a similarly risky position when his Government were to table its spending plans.

And what about forcing an election?

A First Ministerial resignation on its own can't force an Election. Parliament can vote to dissolve itself, but that requires a two-thirds majority. That means any party with 43 members can block an Election. In the current Parliament, the SNP and Labour share control of this mechanism: there can only be an election held this way if they both agree to it, and if they do, it's guaranteed to happen.

But there's another way: the "28 days later" scenario. Parliament would have four weeks to replace the First Minister. It would therefore be down to the Parliamentary Bureau to schedule an election. The Bureau consists of representatives from any Party with five seats or more in the Parliament: Bruce Crawford for the SNP, Michael McMahon for Labour, David McLetchie for the Tories and Mike Rumbles for the LibDems. They each have a voting strength equal to the number of seats their respective parties have in the chamber: Crawford carries 47 votes, McMahon 46, McLetchie and Rumbles 16 each. As they plan the Business of the Parliament, they determine when a vote for a First Minister is held. Control over the continuation of Parliament, and the timing of a new Election would, in effect, pass from the SNP and Labour in the Chamber, to the Bureau.

And in the Bureau, there is no two-thirds majority rule. Further, with the Greens and Margo MacDonald out of the equation, there are a total of 125 votes available, with 63 needed for a majority: the SNP and one other party - any other party. If the SNP can secure Tory (or, less likely, LibDem) support for a new election, it can be triggered by a combination of the First Minister's resignation, with Messrs. Crawford and McLetchie voting to let time run out.

Of course, it's plausible that the Tories could vote to have the vacant First Ministership filled in those circumstances, but then they would face an odd choice: vote to re-instate the Government whose Budget just fell, or vote for Iain Gray as First Minister, with likely LibDem support. Not a choice any Tory would fancy, I'd imagine.

So if a Budget isn't possible, it's absolutely right that the Government should quit, and it's fair enough for Ministers to flag up the possibility: this wasn't an issue before May 2007, now with no guaranteed majority, there is the possibility of a Budget being rejected and it's right for Ministers to spell out what will happen as a result of that. And anyone thinking that a failed Budget won't cause a new election is wrong: it takes only a few easy steps - the Budget fails, the FM resigns, the Bureau fails to schedule a new vote, the 28-day time limit expires and bingo.

Remember: the Bureau holds the veto.

Tavish Scott's Shadow Cabinet

Tavish Scott has been relatively quick to get his new Shadow Cabinet together - I suppose the return to Parliament provided impetus for him, and I have to compliment him on the speed with which he acted: Nicol Stephen took more than a week to match people to their roles.

Having said that, I'm not sure where he's going with it. It's generally the custom to match Shadow Ministeial portfolios to actual Ministerial portfolios - so where possible, you have one spokesperson challenging one Minister. That does not appear to have happened. Nor has Scott attempted to map on to the Parliament's Committee structure, another possible alignment. Obviously, circumstances are made difficult in that there are only fewer viable Spokespeople: with Scott as the Leader and Nicol Stephen heading for the backbenches, there are 14 LibDem MSPs trying to fill fifteen seats. But even so, this seems a little bit messy.

Anyway, Jeremy Purvis gets a promotion: he is now Economy & Finance Spokesman, where he will shadow John Swinney. He doesn't appear to have a Deputy to speak of: I suppose the closest to that is Alison McInnes, Local Government and Transport Spokesperson, a slightly sideways but also slightly upwards move as she was Transport & Infrastructure Spokesperson under Nicol Stephen. But she does get a Deputy: Jim Tolson, who I suspect will retain most of his Communities brief.

Margaret Smith moves from Justice to Education, with Hugh O'Donnell as her Deputy (no move for him).

Ross Finnie remains at Health and keeps Jamie Stone as his Deputy. I would imagine that Finnie will retain his position as Deputy Convener of the Health & Sport Committee but that remains to be seen. Stone, incidentally, remains trapped in the Convenership of the Subordinate Legislation Committee.

Chief Whip Robert Brown finds himself moved to the Justice portfolio, with Mike Pringle keeping the Deputy's role.

Liam McArthur (formerly Tavish Scott's #2) gets the Environment, Rural Development and Energy post, while Jim Hume keeps the Deputy's spot in that Department.

Iain Smith becomes Culture Spokesman, and will be put forward as Tavish Scott's replacement on the Economy, Energy & Tourism Committee.

John Farquhar Munro retains his nominal Shadow Cabinet role as Spokesperson on Gaelic Language. It's rare for this to come up as an issue in Parliament, but he does have something to bring to the table when it does as he's the only native speaker of Gaelic among the MSPs.

Finally, Mike Rumbles becomes the new Business Manager. Let's hope he can keep private e-mails private, unlike his predecessor.

Hard to know what to make of this one. Jeremy Purvis has a lot to smile about moving to one of the most powerful positions in any Party's Shadow Cabinet (think of the influence Derek Brownlee wielded during the Budget period) but I wonder if this does kill of LIT completely: given the close fight he has with the SNP for his Constituency, I question whether he'll be open to many deals with his biggest challengers.

On the face of it, Robert Brown potentially has a more prominent role within the Parliament but I suspect his "Spokesman for Newsnight Scotland" position will move along with the Chief Whip's role into the hands of Mike Rumbles. So if anything, Rumbles will be more visible and will have more clout as a Member of the Parliamentary Bureau. So Brown effectively loses more than he gains while Rumbles gains more than he loses by ceasing to have a frontbench portfolio.

But by gaining full Shadow Cabinet status, the biggest winner is Scott's fellow Northern Islander, Liam McArthur.

The Treble

Well, By-Election season looks to be over for now. The Baillieston By-Election for Glasgow City Council is just on the edge of the horizon, and the Motherwell & Wishaw By-Election for Holyrood is just over it. So what better time to take stock?

Crewe & Nantwich was the spark that lit the bonfire. Of course, opinion polls had been showing clear Conservative leads for some time, but ultimately, they're just opinion polls. And Labour had taken a drubbing in the local elections, but things weren't quite as apocalyptic as they looked when you measured them against the last comparable set of local elections in 2004. And Boris Johnson had been elected Mayor of London, but this could be explained away for two reasons: firstly, the Tory candidate was Boris (nuff said), and secondly, part of his team's strategy was to get the outer, bluer suburbs to actually get out and vote in a way that they hadn't done in 2000 and 2004.

But in Crewe, there was no hiding place. Gwyneth Dunwoody was a popular figure, and the Labour candidate was her daughter. But her campaign was based on the premise that her Conservative opponent was a toff (so what?) and that she was an unemployed single mum trying to make it on her own. Of course, most unemployed single mums aren't the former Welsh Assembly Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire, and rendered unemployed after voters there decided that they'd rather support a Tory (a sign of things to come, perhaps). They certainly aren't usually former Deputy Ministers in the Welsh Assembly Government, they aren't the MP's daughter and they don't usually have the resources needed to stand for a seat in Parliament. So the basic premise of the campaign looked a bit ropey.

This meant that Labour weren't actually offering the voters, well, anything. The relative poshness of the candidates wasn't going to impact on people's food bills, or energy costs, or how much they have to pay in tax. So there was no reason to vote Labour. So people didn't. Dunwoody's personal vote did not transfer to her daughter and Crewe and Nantwich turned blue on the electoral map.

That should have been the wake-up call to Labour. "We feel your pain," came the message. Well, that's fine and dandy, but when I feel pain, I head for the medicine cabinet and dig out the ibuprofen. Why? Because pain is bad, I want it to end, and ibuprofen at least fends it off for the time being. The UK Government's method of easing the pain? Offer nothing, do nothing.

Then came Henley. Now, there's no dressing up fifth place and a lost deposit as anything other than humiliation for a party that happens to be in charge, but it's surprisingly easy to be sympathetic. Remeber the Moray By-Election, where Labour fell to fourth place and lost half of their vote? It wasn't just Labour's unpopularity that caused that - it was Labour's irrelevance to the By-Election. The SNP were defending the seat, the Tories were in second and the LibDems were trying to find ways of making it look like they were in contention. Labour didn't bother, and the result reflected that - why vote for a party who isn't going to win?

The same thing happened two years later in Oxfordshire. Yes, Labour unpopularity had something to do with it - and the voters who went to Labour in 1997 now feel able to go back to the Tories - but Labour were never at the races here. So aside from basic Lab-Con defections, if you were a Labour backer it made more sense to vote LibDem, as they represented a better chance of upsetting the Tories. It didn't happen, of course, but that's by the by. The fact remains that if you were became a Labour supporter in 1997, the Tories were now a viable option again; if you were a more long-term Labour supporter, the LibDems represented a better draw in Henley and you could lend them your vote. So not only were there no policies that people could rally to, but there was no reason to vote Labour anyway. Hence the lost deposit - and it's that, incidentally, that did for the LibDems in Glasgow East: no distinctive policies, no Scottish leader, no impact from Nick Clegg but more importantly, no prospect of winning so no point in voting for them.

Anyway, back to Labour in Henley. Does their collapse alone explain their fifth place? No. This is derived from the fact that unlike Labour, the Greens and BNP did have veins of support they could tap into. For the Greens, it was disaffected LibDems, hacked off that Nick Clegg appears to be joining the great big grey ideological splodge provided by Messrs Brown and Cameron. For the BNP, it was the members of the "Lock 'em up. hang 'em high" brigade, who found the Tories not just acceptable but admirable in 2001 under Hague and 2005 under Howard. Under Cameron, they're not so sure. So there was actually more on offer from the Greens and BNP than there was from Labour and the result reflected that.

Then comes Glasgow East. In many ways, this is the sequel to Crewe and Nantwich - Henley was just a sideshow - and it picks up where Crewe left off, with the UK Government feeling our pain but doing nothing to sort it. And it's because they did nothing to sort it that tipped the balance and caused them to lose.

The fact that Labour had sat on their laurels for eighty years hadn't helped, and the fact that no canvassing had been done during David Marshall's time in office, and that he didn't even have an office worthy of the name in the Constituency, meant that despite the huge Labour majority, there was a vacuum at the heart of East End politics. The SNP's organisation quickly moved to fill that vacuum and was boosted by the lack of a Labour candidate.

That again showed the organisational vacuum: they assumed George Ryan would stand and when he didn't turn up, panic ensued. The two other candidates on the short list were exposed as paper candidates there to give the appearance of a contest - that has to be the case or one of them would have been selected. After ringing around, well, everyone, it was Margaret Curran who picked up the phone. This was also going to be interesting as the SSP had already selected Frances Curran.

And her campaign was as pointless as Dunwoody's. The basic premise of it was two-fold: the first was that John Mason was a Nationalist (not really worth pointing out as that's routine for SNP candidates), and the second was that all those nasty people saying mean things about the East End are horrible meanies and Margaret Curran would say good things about them. The problem with that line is that life isn't exactly a rose garden in the East End and campaigning on a ticket of not talking about the problems doesn't exactly get them solved. Oh, and there were the lies.

So whereas you had SNP leaflets talking about "Winning for Glasgow", referring to possible oil windfalls, tackling gangs, and pointing out that SNP victories offer the chance to force a Government into action as they're scared of losing support in the area permanently, Labour had "We're not Nationalists" and "Let's not mention bad things". So again, no real reason to actually vote for them, where there were reasons to vote SNP - coupled with an ambitious campaign that gave people the message that there was a point in voting SNP as well. Well, there certainly was.

But unlike Crewe & Nantwich - where pundits pointed to Brown and blamed him (and also his Scottishness, which is tantamount to accusing the people of Crewe of racism when you think about it) - it's harder to do that in Glasgow East. Firstly, Glasgow is not going to punish a politician for being Scottish - though Brown has been trying to downplay that small fact for years now and that can't help him - and secondly, this is part of a wider trend in Scotland, that goes back to before Brown. Think Dunfermline & West Fife. Think the slashing of the vote in Moray. Think the defeat in the Holyrood Elections. Bear in mind that Brown's name was rarely mentioned by Labour. No, in Scotland, the problem isn't Brown. It's Labour itself. And Brown is being assigned the blame. The fact that the seeds for this defeat were sown before Brown was even in Government is ignored; that Labour were never at the races in Henley is forgotten; that Labour's strength was based on Gwyneth Dunwoody and not the rest of her party was disregarded.

And the Government's reaction? "We feel your pain". But they still haven't got the ibuprofen out.

Which is why, if this weren't the end of the By-Election season, they'd lose the next one. And the one after that.

Cashing In

Scotland's Government now has a Budget, having been passed by 64 votes to one with 60 abstentions.

The SNP have the most to celebrate: this is the Party's first Budget, and it is now ready to be put into practice. Alex Salmond's threat to resign as First Minister, and set the 28-day timer on a very early election no longer needs to be carried out. The accusation has been made that the First Minister did not need to make the threat, that the deal was already done. But why make it, if that was the case? If success is guaranteed, or even highly probable, why admit in public that failure is a possibility? Why discuss failure at all? No, failure was a possibility, and the First Minister was making clear what failure would mean. If the Government could not pass its own spending plans, how could it govern?

Hot on the heels of the SNP are the Tories: they gain concessions from the Government and therefore have had a real impact on how taxpayers' money will be spent. This is the first time that Conservatives could say that at any level higher than a local Council since 1997. It loks like they are starting to strengthen, and even gain influence. The last time the Tories could be described as an electoral threat in Scotland - despite a net gain in 1992 - was arguably the 1983 Westminster Election. With momentum building, could the Tories once again be an electoral threat in Scotland for the first time in a quarter of a century? I'm not sure how to answer that, but now is the time to start thinking about the question. The SNP especially need to work this one out: of the Party's six Westminster constituencies, the Tories are second in four, there's only one of those four that could be considered safe, and the candidate who has made it safe (a certain Mr. A.E.A. Salmond) will no longer be a candidate.

I'm tempted to say that Margo flexed her muscles, but events have disproven that at Stage 3, given the number of abstentions. But it could have been very different, and Margo MacDonald, whose many absences and excessive use of the 'abstain' button are reffered to time and again in my Sunday Whip feature. She is a formidable woman (and I have first-hand, trouser-soilingly terrifying experience of that), but we rarely see evidence of that these days. Today she showed just why she has the potential to be important.

The Greens I am bemused by. After announcing that they voted 'yes' or 'no', they abstained. I don't get what's happened to them: despite the electoral reverse, they had a deal with the SNP, they had the Committee Convenership, they seemed to have influence and now they seem to have wussed out of the whole political process. When I saw that the result was 64 to 1, I initially (and wrongly) assumed that the Greens had opted to hedge their bets, and have one voting for the Budget and the other voting against. Then they would, at least, be voting 'yes' or 'no'. (in fact, they would be voting 'yes' AND 'no'! Instead they went back on their position and abstained. What is going on?

But the Labour and LibDem position bemuses me. Why spend so much time attacking the Budget, only to abstain at the end? Was it simply because of the amendment, with SNP support, that there should be a review of skills provision. Was that, on its own, enough to stop them opposing it? I'll come back to Labour. But the LibDems abstained on the amendment, and attacked the Budget all the way until the end. Why speak against it, until, faced with a motion they claimed not to like, with an amendment to which they were either indifferent or ambivalent, they chose to abstain? Again, what is going on?

Now I come to Labour: they secured their amendment, but still decried the Budget as one that would fail vulnerable people. They still were hostile, and opposed the principle of there even being a Budget at Stage 1. Now, they had second thoughts.

Was the amendment enough to satisfy their concerns? On the one hand, moves like this might at the very least mean that they couldn't oppose it. But on the other, if this was the deal-breaker, and they secured it, couldn't they have supported it? And if the rest of the package put them off from doing so, why does the possibility of a further series of statements - which are not the same as action, and the call for Ministers to issue those statements is not necessarily binding - change the Labour position from 'No!' to 'Ummm...'?

Was this a vote for stability? Was there an idea that any Budget is better than no Budget, and that they would acquiesce so as to ensure that political life in Scotland could continue? After all, Labour MSPs did abstain on the motion proposing SNP Ministers, so guaranteeing their appointment. But if that were the case, why vote against the Budget at Stage 1, on the general principles of the Bill? Why try to kill the Budget at that early stage, when it could potentially still be changed in their favour, only to accept the need a for a Budget - any Budget - to pass in the end?

Was this a reaction to Alex Salmond's threat to resign? Did they brick it at the possibility of an early election, given the turmoil facing their leader Wendy Alexander? Now, Iain Gray's speech today suggested that he saw through the FM, that the 'resignation' threat was just a ruse, and the First Minister knew that a deal was done. I disagree with that, and if it was a genuine Labour calculation, then the abstention still makes no sense: they disagree with the Budget, the Budget will pass, there will be no election whatever they do, they may as well oppose the thing. On that basis, I have to call into question not just whether their calculation was on the mark, but whether or not even they believed it. Therefore, I find myself once again expecting the worst of the Labour Group: they took a look not at the sums, but at their seats, and the turkeys decided not to vote for an early Christmas. Now, of course, someone could argue that Labour are optimistic about their prospects in any poll, that they believe they could overtake the SNP and return to power with Wendy Alexander as First Minister. I would simply point out that they had an opportunity to put that belief to the test tonight, and chose not to take it.

I remain completely open to the possibility that I am doing Labour MSPs a dis-service. If so, I apologise: perhaps the amendment was enough to secure acquiescence, despite the previous hostility to the rest of the package and the lack of any firm, binding commitments on the SNP's part to what Labour wanted; perhaps Labour did seek stability over partisanship, despite the party's attempt to strangle the Budget at birth; and perhaps Labour had decided that further opposition was futile, despite the fact that abstention is a fundamentally futile stance at the best of times. But nevertheless, I look at the doubts over shadowing all of those possibilities and sadly, I take the view that the only calculations done by Labour MSPs involved their own majorities.

So Labour are in a bad light right now. But they at least had the amendment to call matters into question, which is why I took so long to consider their motives and why I come to the conclusion I reach only by finding fault with the others and viewing that the 'self-interest' case is the least imperfect.

The LibDems, however, offered no alternatives whatever (Labour did), carped about the whole thing all the way until the vote, only to chicken out of everything. But they at least avoided actually stating that they were going to oppose the Budget. Indeed, many corrrctly assumed that the LibDems would abstain, though I confess that I was not one of them: I assumed that Labour would oppose and the LibDems would do what Labour did - so I got the LibDem principle right, just not the action coming from that.

The Greens, though, stated very clearly that they would take a position and come off the fence. They did not take a position; they stayed on the fence. They cracked under pressure, and out of all the parties in the Chamber, they come off the poorest tonight.

Some thoughts on the Hain resignation

Firstly, it should have come sooner: why did Hain wait for Police involvement before deciding that clearing his name was more important (and more time-consuming) than his two Ministerial posts?

However, I'll still nod in respect to the man for taking the decision. It had to be taken, and it was the right one. Labour ministers have shown an extraordinary bouncebackability since Mandelson so he won't be out for long, but he can't fight this and do his two jobs at the same time. Late, but right.

Meanwhile, what now for Wendy Alexander? The police received a complaint regarding her liberal interpretation/timely ignorance of party fundraising law, so if Peter Hain feels it right to go, so he can fend off the allegations, why is she still Leader of the Scottish Opposition? This puts her in a very difficult position. Could Hain be the first domino? Even Nicol Stephen - who has hitherto been quiet on the issue - has talked about "storm clouds" gathering over Labour.

And finally, the re-shuffle: James Purnell is now Work & Pensions Secretary. Andy Burnham replaces him at Culture, and Yvette Cooper becomes Chief Secretary to the Treasury. But interestingly, Paul Murphy is brought back to the Cabinet as Secretary of State for Wales, and Murphy has no other ministerial titles...

Consider: there is a full-time Secretary of State for Northern Ireland - Shaun Woodward. And a full-time Secretary of State for Wales - Murphy. Scotland, however, still has a part-time Secretary of State, with Defence Secretary Des Browne nominally in the post. Why should the Scotland Office be the odd one out?

Has Gordon Brown thought this one through: did he consider re-instating the full-time post, only to reject it because of at least one of the following two reasons: a) he could find no suitable holders; b) he was scared of the inevitable hostile reaction to such a move in the right-wing London-based press? Or, more likely, did he simply fail to consider the role of the Scotland Secretary when he revised the role of the Wales Secretary so quickly?

And what does it say about the state of the UK, that the last conclusion is the most palatable?

The Crystal Ball

Yup, it's the traditional look ahead to the likely goings-on this year. Let me start by predicting that Jackie Bird will pester various people at BBC TV Centre to be allowed on Strictly Come Dancing. They will tell her to sling her bahookie and I'd guess that the scene is one that may well have been played out for the past few years. Anyway, on to the serious stuff. The start of the year will see venom bouncing of the walls at Holyrood: there will be attempts to pick Trumpton up where it was left for Christmas, but I suspect it will go on to the back burner until John Swinney inevitably announces that the plans will go ahead. The Electoral Commission will report back on Donorgate, which will place a spotlight on Wendy Alexander. And everyone will be hooked on the Trial of Tommy Sheridan, which will see an unstoppable force - Sheridan's ability to pull something out of the bag when you don't necessarily expect it - come up against an immovable object - Donald Findlay's habit of participation in high-profile cases, only for his client to be found guilty - and I'm not sure which of these factors will have the biggest impact. Besides that, expect a row over the first minority Budget, which will spend the early part of the year wending its way through Parliament.

However, as the year moves on, we will almost certainly see the focus move South, not just as party conference season begins, but also as we move closer to 2009 and the renewed possibility of a General Election. And even if Gordon Brown completely bricks it and waits until 2010, there's still a European Election on the cards that year, with both the SNP (in Scotland) and the Tories (GB-wide) looking to give Labour a bloody nose, and the LibDems looking for credibility. Either way, for the UK-wide parties, it will all be about Gordon Brown (not Wendy Alexander or her successor), David Cameron (not Annabel Goldie) and Nick Clegg (not Nicol Stephen) - unless they do particularly badly in Scotland, in which case it's the Holyrood leaders who'll get the blame, regardless of whose fault it actually is.

SNP

The Budget is undoubtedly the Government's toughest test in the early part of the year, though the Donald Trump saga ranks a close second. The former will require some element of consensus-building in a very hostile place. Labour won't do a deal no matter what is offered: they will see a chance to obstruct the Government. The LibDems might, but it's unlikely: it's blatantly obvious that they would prefer to be in with Labour. Movement on a local income tax or student funding might tempt them, but the money isn't there for either of those things so their hostility is guaranteed. That means the SNP have to talk to the Tories if they're going to make concessions. But that isn't enough: the Government absolutely has to make sure that the Greens are happy with the proposals if they're to pass.

However, that is nothing compared to the balancing act the Party will have to do as the year goes on: as the focus moves to Westminster, the SNP has to showcase its efforts there. That means Angus Robertson has to be let off the leash and be presented as the leader of an Opposition group that he is. But it has to be made absolutely clear that it's an SNP attack and not a Scottish Government attack, and the press will want it to appear like the latter, which will allow accusations that the Government in Scotland is picking fights with Whitehall to increase. Robertson has to play a very canny game.

Labour

Labour's fortunes at Holyrood desperately require a conclusion to Wendygate - one way or the other. Wendy Alexander's best hope is for a whitewash of a report which exonerates her completely - even the slightest criticism will be exploited by the SNP and the Tories. If that doesn't happen, then she's in trouble. Either way, the problem is Charlie Gordon, who, if cleared, resigned his post on the frontbench for nothing and could become a threat to her authority, and if damned, could end up having to resign his seat, triggering a By-Election that she would not want. Her ideal scenario is to be entirely cleared of any wrongdoing, but for Gordon's position as an MSP to become untenable, and for the SNP to field Mr. Creosote from Monty Python and the Meaning of Life as its candidate in the subsequent poll. Unfortunately for her, that isn't likely.

So when attention moves to London, it will be a blessed release, either for her or her successor. The problem is that things are very much not within Labour's control at the moment, which is a bit of a problem for a government. Brown is having a 'kamikaze' moment by pressing on with plans to extend the 28-day time limit on detention to 42 days, and could end up inflicting defeat upon himself by digging in. Economists are issuing dark mutterings about a recession. And who knows what random events are round the corner? If Brown can handle everything well, then he goes into 2009 happy. If not (and this is the more likely outcome), then in 2010 I'll be blogging about David Cameron becoming PM. The one shining light for Brown is that Ken Livingstone is likely to be re-elected as London's Mayor, thus denting David Cameron's credibility for a little while. That will prevent mass hysteria from infecting the Labour Party as a whole: it's only the Scottish branch that will press the self-destruct button. It's certainly only the Scottish branch that will press it repeatedly.

Conservatives

Despite an election result that can best be described as "all right, I suppose", the Tories have played their hand very deftly since May and you can't help but give them a grudging respect. All I can say is that in Holyrood, as long as they don't do anything utterly ridiculous like get rid of Annabel Goldie, who is doing a far better job than I anticipated this time last year, then they'll stick to the formula they appear to have developed and it will serve them well.

Organisationally, however, the Scottish Tories are in trouble. To the best of my knowledge, David Mundell is still Party Chairman and therein lies the rub as Mundell seems to be making very little impact other than to antagonise the occasional Constituency Party. I'd say that what they need is a PPC in a winnable Westminster seat to front things, take a more prominent role nationally and guarantee election for themselves (and, more importantly, make a bigger impact than the bland Mundell can). Unfortunately for them, the only seat I can think of where victory is highly likely is Dumfries and Galloway, where the PPC is Peter Duncan, who resigned as Chairman last year. However, Alex Johnstone MSP is a PPC in West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine, which isn't the biggest ask for the Party - and if the UK Party Chairman can be an MP, why can't the Scottish Chairman be an MSP? An MSP AND a PPC in a winnable seat... meh, he'll do for them.

In terms of the UK Party, they'll suffer a dent around May, when Boris Johnson fails to become Mayor of London, but the UK Government will fluff something a few weeks later so they'll pick themselves back up again.

Liberal Democrats

The LibDems in Scotland have a big problem: despite the end of the Lib-Lab Executive and the (formal) end of the Coalition, the LibDems are in serious danger of being viewed as an adjunct to the Scottish Parliamentary Labour Party, their voting partners at nearly every Decision Time, and so giving up their own individual identity as a distinct political grouping by their own accord. This is something they are going to struggle with: overshadowed by the other opposition groups, and with no more or less influence on proceedings than the Tories - who have become far more willing to exert that influence - and siding with Labour at almost every opportunity, they do make you wonder if there is a point to their presence in Holyrood and they need to do something about this.

At Westminster, the problem is different: their still a secondary opposition party, of course, and Labour has a majority in the Commons so the LibDem vote is not needed, but the problem is that the next election is viewed as a contest between Labour and the Tories for first place, whereas elections in the 80s were viewed as a battle between Labour and the Alliance for second place, and elections in the earlier part of this decade as a battle between the Tories and LibDems for Leadership of the Opposition. So with Gordon Brown and David Cameron squaring up, there's little room for Nick Clegg to present distinctive policies. Of course, this issue is aggravated as he doesn't appear to have the impact that Charles Kennedy did at getting out there to present his ideas - though it would be interesting to see how Kennedy would have fared in the current climate - and even if he did, Clegg occupies the same political grey area as Brown and Cameron. He has nothing to present, no way of presenting it, and no one willing to pay attention to it. Anyone expecting a LibDem revival or Clegg bounce will be disappointed: it is not going to happen.

However, as momentum gathers towards an Election, whenever it happens, we may see a shift - the LibDems as a party are still in trouble, but how they behave will change. The reason is this: the LibDems have to defend a number of gains from Labour, and are the primary challengers to Labour in a number of key seats. Once that happens, and without the wedlock that was Coalition government to sustain civility, the gloves may come off, and we may see the informal alliance that seems to have emerged dissolve.

Greens

Despite continued parliamentary survival, a dela with the SNP and a Committee Convenership, it is clear that the Greens are not having the impact I thought they would. Indeed, the Committee Convenership turned into a poisoned chalice when Patrick Harvie had to represent the Transport Committee during the Stage 1 debate on the Abolition of Bridge Tolls Bill, despite being the only member of that Committee who opposed it. They need to speak up a bit more, if they're to continue having any relevance whatsoever.

One opportunity does present itself in the likely demise - regardless of the outcome of Tommy Sheridan's trial for perjury - of Solidarity: with the SSP out of the question for those who left that party to join Sheridan's new creation, the Greens might be a likely destination. Electorally, that would create opportunities to bolster Patrick Harvie's position in Glasgow, and to restore a Green presence in the Highlands. However, all that does is secure one precarious seat and present opportunities to gain one more (a combined Green/Solidarity vote would not have won any more MSPs beyond what the Greens already won in May), and the risks - that the Greens be presented as 'sandal-wearing Socialists' with a far-left agenda, not helped by the influx of new members who promoted precisely that - would outweigh those benefits. It's going to be a lean year for the Greens.

And so begins the Clegg era

Nick Clegg is the new LibDem Leader at Westminster, by virtue of just 511 votes more than his rival, Chris Huhne. The main division of the campaign was on personality rather than policy, so we can see this result as a grudging support for Clegg rather than a ringing endorsement.

If I recall, however, most of the MSPs came out for Huhne, though most of the Scottish LibDem MPs preferred Clegg. It will be interesting to see how the MSPs' relationship with the MPs develops, particularly at a time when the MSPs are seen as far, far too close to Labour.

So is Clegg the right choice? No. A quick synopsis of his acceptance speech shows that it could have been uttered by either Gordon Brown and David Cameron. That is the problem: this means he is fighting on their ground. Brown is the PM; Cameron is the Leader of the Opposition and a PM-in-waiting, perhaps. Clegg is neither of those things. Brown and Cameron will get the attention for being who they are. Clegg can only stand out in two ways: by offering something different - which he isn't - or by saying things in a way that makes people listen. Vince Cable had a way of doing that, and it remains to be seen if Clegg can do the same. One problem is that those who seek to run him down already have their nickname, coined by a Huhne supporter: "Calamity Clegg".

One of the things Clegg had going for him was youth and vibrance. Nicol Stephen was supposed to have the same things, but he lacks charisma and at his first major electoral test in May, saw his party slip back. He simply failed to make an impact. And his judgment since then has been questionable: he had policy dictated to him by Tavish Scott and Mike Rumbles; his Parliamentary performances have been relatively weak; his line of attack on Trumpgate appears to be backfiring as the local press fear that his approach could jeopardise the golf course ever coming to Aberdeenshire and cause the local economy to lose out; even his attempt to get an independent inquiry about the Trump Affair has failed and he will have to content himself with the Local Government & Communities Committee looking at the issue. One of the members of that Committee, David McLetchie, did more than anyone to secure Henry McLeish's resignation. Nicol Stephen will not be anywhere near as successful.

Now, Clegg has more personality than Stephen ever will, or that he will perform as badly as the Scottish LibDem Leader, but the former Deputy First Minister's experience shows that youth and vibrance isn't always enough: you have to make people notice you, and give them a reason to support you. Clegg has opted to run with the Labour/Tory herd, which means his personality has to shine out more than ever.

Unlike his predecessor, Clegg will see out an election. But his target of 150 seats after two elections looks quite ridiculous at the present time, much as Nicol Stephen's ambitions to be First Minister caused people to snigger. It could happen, but people have to have a reason for voting Liberal Democrat and not anyone else.

And I am not convinced that Clegg will supply those reasons.

On Money and Time

Well, the Budget announcement has been and gone - for me, the high point was the announcement of a freeze on Council Tax; the low came with the lack of action on student debt. This, however, is the situation we all find ourselves in: we came to expect that the election would be on a knife-edge, but that a stable Coalition would emerge. We expected that the Comprehensive Spending Review would be far leaner than in previous years, but nothing too drastic.

Instead, we got a minority government and a meagre 0.5% increase in the available cash. So John Swinney now finds that getting a Budget, any Budget, through Parliament is going to be far harder for him than it was for his predecessors Jack McConnell, Angus MacKay, Andy Kerr and Tom McCabe who all had a Coalition and so a majority to rely on, and that if and when he does, there's less money available in it to dish out. Ordinarily, I'd argue that an attempt to get policy through, even if it ends in failure, is better than nothing as it demonstrates the willingness of a minority government to carry out things that were promised. A Budget, however, can't end in failure. It is simply too important for that. Things - like trams - have to be added, and other things - like student debt - have to be dropped for the time being. Even if the money saved by not adding the former would pay for the latter for well over a decade. Last week, in Sri Lanka, we saw the upside of the new politics, this week came the downside.

Opposition politicians are, predictably, claiming that the SNP would never have intended to deliver on promises made, that the manifesto was more an exercise in winning votes than in explaining what you could reasonably expect from an SNP Government. This conveniently ignores the fact that the SNP, like the other parties, had, and took, the chance to talk with the Civil Service before the election about the workability of their proposals. So either the Civil Service thought that what the SNP wanted could be delivered, or the Party simply didn't care. The former is more likely, for one simple reason: Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon, John Swinney et al. are many things, but they are not naive. They are surely aware that promising things they knew they couldn't keep in 2007 would cost them dear in 2011.

(And on the manifesto, remember that it has to last four years: when the Government is criticised for not doing X yet, ask yourself what they would do for the remaining three and a half years of the Parliament, if they had done everything in that manifesto by now.)

However, there is another variable in play. The CSR at Westminster has detailed spending for 2008-09 to 2010-11. A CSR will therefore be due in late 2010 to detail spending from 2011-12 onwards, and as the financial year runs from April to April, one of the last things discussed in Session 3 of the Scottish Parliament will be the Budget for 2011-12, which will take effect just as Parliament is dissolved.

Given that, if - and it's a big if, as there will most likely be a Westminster Election before the next CSR - Labour are still in office at Westminster in three years time, expect a bonanza to land in the Scottish Government's coffers: Labour will want every advantage they can get, and Wendy Alexander will be able to go around the country talking about Labour's generosity to Scotland. And the extra money will be described as the "Union Dividend".

On that basis, if - and again, it's a big if, as the SNP Government is in a minority so the support of the Parliament can never be taken for granted - the SNP are still in office at Holyrood then, expect the Government to be very liberal with that increased pot: the SNP will be the ones who allocated the money once it arrives. That means the Party will be free to go to the country following that Budget, talking about the extra investment being ploughed into Scotland's public services.

So I'm not unduly perturbed - at least, not yet - by any conspicuous absences in the Budget. There are three more Budgets and one Comprehensive Spending Review to come during the lifetime of this Scottish Parliament. Absences may be conspicuous to many, and no doubt disappointing to some, but I doubt that they will be permanent.

So long, Sir Ming (Updated)

In the past hour, Sir Menzies Campbell's resignation as Leader of the UK Liberal Democrats has been announced. The party has been in the doldrums of late, with poor poll ratings, weak results (and a loss of influence) in Scotland and Wales, and loss of profile to Labour and the Tories.

I do not believe that Sir Ming's departure will solve any of this. Ming was undoubtedly a part of the problem, but replacing him won't solve it. The main difficulty is that the LibDems occupy the same crowded policy ground as Brown's Labour Party and the Cameron Tories.

This is an instant handicap for them: they are the third party, not the Government or the principal Opposition and potential Government-in-waiting. Therefore, if they offer the same as the other two, they have nothing to offer people. On that course, there is nothing that the LibDems can say to get people to choose them over the other two parties that can actually form a government.

We saw this in Scotland in May: even parties with distinctive programmes crashed and burned as the contest became polarised between Labour and the SNP. The Tories and LibDems saw their Regional Votes fall (though their Constituency Votes went up). The Greens are lucky to have two MSPs. The SSP and Solidarity didn't help their own case by turning on each other, but even if they'd stuck together, they'd have only had one MSP. Of the other independents, only Margo MacDonald survived. Dennis Canavan retired following disasters in his family life, but those who did stand again suffered: Jean Turner fell to third in the seat she won in 2003; John Swinburne's SSCUP sunk without trace; Campbell Martin's challenge in Cunninghame North came to nothing, and given his former affiliation, it's a safe bet that the only change in outcome if he hadn't stood would have been to increase Kenny Gibson's majority.

In the absence of distinctive policies that would really make the LibDems stand out, a strong personalitiy might have done. Charles Kennedy was noticeable. Ming, sadly, was not. The problem is that none of his likely successors are, either.

Nick Clegg is seen as a favourite, and he is seen as well-known among LibDems, and is a key rent-a-quote LibDem spokesman, but he's seen as on the right of the Party. Will he sit well with activists? Also, he threw his hat in the ring at Conference, when there wasn't a vacancy. That won't go down well.

Chris Huhne is seen as a possibility, after a stronger-than-expected showing in the last Leadership Election. He has a good reputation within the party on environmental policy - fast becoming a key area - but is dull, dull, dull. At a time when the thrid party's leader needs oomph, he just doesn't have it. (UPDATE: there are rumblings that people may be less than impressed with Huhne's supporters, accusing them of briefing against Campbell during Conference)

Vincent Cable is the Acting Leader. He may well be tempted to stand, but in many ways, Cable succeeding Campbell would be a replacement of like with like.

Simon Hughes is fast becoming the LibDems' Kenneth Clarke - present in the last two Leadership Elections. Could he try again? Perhaps, but let's be honest, did Ken Clarke ever win? After his third place behind Chris Huhne, is he really a credible contender? (UPDATE: Hughes has ruled himself out, but Steve Webb, also from the Left of the Party, and Hughes' last campaign manager, may throw his hat in)

Lembit Opik just quit as Welsh LibDem Leader, and he suggested that he'd be up for the UK LibDem Presidency. Could he change his plans? Perhaps, but he is a figure of fun in the Party - if Hughes is the LibDems' Ken Clarke, Opik is the LibDems' Boris Johnson - and his personal life has become embarrassing to them. If he becomes Leader, the press will tear what's left of his reputation to shreds within a week, and Brown and Cameron will dance over his political grave.

Could Charles Kennedy try to stage a comeback? Only if he's a complete idiot. The Party were very quick to turn on him: during the Election campaign he was wonderful, but when results weren't quite as high as they'd hoped, and when the polls started to dip again, out came the knives. When Ming (seen as one of the architects of Kennedy's downfall, and his rather tepid expressions of support for Kennedy were remarked upon) failed to turn things around, the chatter started again, and the Elder Statesman of Liberalism became a dithering old man in the chatter of the LibDem top brass.

One other point: when was the last time a resigning Leader didn't announce his intentions in public himself? Rather than Ming on the steps of LibDem HQ, we got Simon Hughes and Vincent Cable announcing it on his behalf. Obviously Ming didn't want to make the announcement, but for this to happen makes you wonder if he wanted to take the action that was announced. And the answer comes: probably not.

By the way... Opik quit as Welsh LibDem Leader over the weekend, and Mike German, the Party's Leader in the Welsh Assembly, has said he'll quit in 2008. Campbell has gone. How long can Nicol Stephen last?

UPDATE: The Party has worked out a timetable for the successor:

Tomorrow (Tuesday): Nominations open
31 October: Nominations close
21 November: Ballot papers issued
15 December: Deadline to receive ballot papers
17 December: Result announced, new Leader chosen

Another change in Leadership

This one is in the Green Party: Shiona Baird will no longer be one of the Greens' Co-Conveners. Alison Johnstone has been nominated in her place, pending approval by the party membership. Johnstone is one of the Greens' three Councillors in Edinburgh (where she represents the delightfully named Meadows & Morningside ward), and one of eight nationwide (the other five are in Glasgow).

This is significant, as Robin Harper remains as Co-Convener: both people at the head of the Scottish Green Party are based in Edinburgh, as Harper is the MSP for the Lothian Region. In the short term, this could potentially be disastrous - the Greens can now be accused of being an Edinburgh-led Party, with little to offer other parts of Scotland. I'm sure that the five Councillors in Glasgow would take issue with that, but the accusation can stick, just as Labour have suffered from perceptions that they are a "West of Scotland" party. Similarly, commentators a few years ago were looking on the SNP and seeing it as a party that can only play well north of the Tay - this was of course disproven in May, but it was, for a while, a real concern. And the Tories have to put up with being branded an "English" party, with no real prospects or relevance in Scotland! Whether or not any of those perceptions bear any relation to reality doesn't matter: perceptions they are, and the Greens could now have a problem with theirs.

There's merit in having both Co-Conveners as elected officials: the Greens have two prominent flag-carriers in Robin Harper and Patrick Harvie, who can use their MSP status as a vehicle for their concerns and their Party. This worked to their advantage in 2003, when Robin Harper found himself with six Green colleagues. It worked less well in 2007, when five of them lost their seats, but the deal with the SNP gave them something to cheer about. Alison Johnstone can do the same, using her new position (if she is confirmed in the post) to raise the profile of Green Councillors, creating the idea that you aren't wasting your vote by putting the 1 next to the Green candidate's name in Council elections, and highlighting what the eight they currently have are doing.

That being the case, would it have made more sense to nominate someone from among Glasgow's pool of five, rather than Edinburgh's pool of three? Well, in the short term, the answer would be yes: Nina Baker's name immediately jumps out, and I believe Martha Wardrop was the second-placed candidate in Hillhead ward - no mean feat, even if this area, with Martin Bartos coming third in Glasgow Kelvin as the Greens' first ever Holyrood Constituency candidate, is fast becoming a key power base for the party.

However, therein lies part of the rub: the Green Co-Convenership is designed to promote gender balance, not regional representation. There are two female Green Councillors in Glasgow, Baker and Wardrop, and two in Edinburgh, Johnstone and Maggie Chapman. So the size of the pool of elected officials, if you want your Conveners to be elected, is the same in both cities.

And there's the long term. Robin Harper has been nominated again for the Convenership, but realistically, how many more times will that happen? I don't think it will be that many, and until 2011, when the elections may yet change the look of the Greens once again, Harper's logical successor is indeed Patrick Harvie, Convener of the Transport Committee at Holyrood and MSP for Glasgow. Of course, I'm assuming that they won't win a Westminster or European seat in Scotland - most of the Green Westminster candidates in 2005 lost their deposits, and the number of seats available to Scotland in the European Parliament means that the required share of the vote for representation is not in the Greens' reach right now. However, the fact remains, electing Nina Baker or Martha Wardrop this year, then Patrick Harvie after that, would create an image of the Greens as a Glasgow-centric party, with Edinburgh, it's traditional base, increasingly marginalised.

Johnstone is a nomination for the long-term, and Harper? He'll definitely be out by 2009, but it depends on what the Greens' priority is: the Westminster election, or the European election. If the Greens focus on Westminster, and Brown calls an election before next Summer (so the next few weeks or next May, it's appearing), then next year will see Green Party members voting on whether or not to approve Patrick Harvie along with Alison Johnstone. If it's Europe, or if Brown delays, then 2009 presents them with their last realistic chance to make the switch, as 2010 is cutting it fine with regard to the next Holyrood elections.

What did Brighton do to deserve all this?

First the TUC, now the LibDems... I'm beginning to think that the vengeful god of the Old Testament might actually exist and that he has it in for Brighton. I suppose once the seaside town disappears into the English Channel, he'll be after me fairly soon after, so before I get stuck inside a whale or something, I thought I'd take a look at the state of the latest plague to descend upon the place.

Anyway, the Liberal Democrats are in a poor position. They may cite the second places in Sedgefield and Ealing Southall as evidence of their strength, but it's not that long ago that they were taking equally unlikely first places in Brent East and Leicester South, so while they may claim an advance, in comparison to their position at the equivalent stage in the last electoral cycle, they are clearly weaker. Sir Menzies Campbell is continually the victim of various attacks by his own party's members made public, though the most recent one was one of the few where the critic's identity is also public (Lord Rodgers, in case you're wondering). Regardless of whether or not the critics have a point, the fact is that they are stuck with him until the Election. They deposed Charles Kennedy (though, in fairness, he should have quit sooner, of his own accord, to seek the help that he needed) only last year and an Election could be called at anytime (though I think the probability of an Autumn 2007 vote is receding, and it was never high to begin with). Yet common sense does not prevail and the critics do not let up, risking turning their dire predictions into a self-fulfilling prophecy: whatever Ming's faults, it is the criticism coming from his own side that will do the Liberal Democrats the most damage.

In many ways, the LibDems' prospects mirror those of the Scottish Greens' in the run-up to May: a LibDem group of 20 or fewer could wield more influence in a Hung Parliament than a LibDem group of 80 or more in one where either Labour or the Tories have a majority. This means that when support is needed, they will be turned to (which is a good thing for them as they could wield massive influence on the next Parliament, and punch above their weight). But it also means that their strength is not totally in their hands (which is a bad thing). Labour's victory and the Tories' victory both depend on one factor: their ability to secure the right number of seats. For the LibDems to wield influence to get something to happen, they need to make sure that neither party makes it, but that the total number of seats won by the LibDems (and only the LibDems, not the SNP/Plaid or any of the Northern Irish parties) and one of the two main parties yields a parliamentary majority. It is a very specific set of circumstances.

And even if they come about, would they take advantage of them? Recent evidence suggests that they wouldn't: in Scotland, LibDem MSPs took the huff completely, refusing to negotiate with anyone. The result is a minority government, which has (and, this week aside, has managed) to seek support from any of the other parties to get things through, while Nicol Stephen finds himself having to get his agenda published from the third slot at FMQs. This is not easy, with Labour and the Tories getting in before him.

In Wales, the LibDems had two clear choices: support Labour, or join a 'Rainbow' Coalition with Plaid and the Tories. Neither happened, mainly because of LibDem dithering, leading to an 'on again/off again' relationship in both set of negotiations. In the end, Labour and Plaid managed to secure a deal, so the LibDems went home, empty handed, with no place in Government, a weak position in Opposition (behind the Tories) and no serious way of influencing events.

However, in Westminster it's different: Gordon Brown has managed to poach LibDem peers as policy advisers, behind Campbell's back. Campbell himself set down tests that Brown would have to meet to get LibDem support (no such dialogue with the Tories). This is a dangerous strategy. By dismissing David Cameron out of hand, and setting tests for Gordon Brown, he risks alienating a lot of support. First, it looks like a clear position that the LibDems' preferred negotiating partner is Labour, thus burning their bridges if a Tory/LibDem Coalition were the only viable two-party alignment, and in a situation where LibDem support could put either Brown or David Cameron into Downing Street, Labour would have the LibDems over a barrel, as successful negotiations with the Tories would be nigh-on impossible. Second, before that, the Election would get in the way of things: only Labour supporters tactically voting LibDem would stick with them. Tory supporters voting LibDem tactically in Labour areas would return to their first choice, costing LibDems current seats and possible gains, particularly in the cities. Former Tory supporters who switched to the LibDems at some point from 1992 onwards would be tempted to switch back, not wanting to vote for a Labour government. This would hit them in the South of England. Leftist(ish) former Labour supporters who switched to the party at some point from 2003 onwards would resist propping up the party they used to (but feel they can no longer) support, and would either look for an alternative where available, or not vote at all.

In short, the LibDems are in trouble: they've burnt their bridges in Scotland and Wales; they need a Hung Parliament (an outcome they can't force) to have any prospects of influence after the Westminster election; they've inadvertantly shackled themselves to Labour in any case; they've gone from celebrating surprise wins to cheering second places; they don't seem to like their leader, but they're stuck with him.

Oh dear.

3 votes for Coffee, 1,435,210 votes for tea

Yes, folks, Conference season is upon us once again and as is traditional, we kick off with the TUC. (By the way, I'm hoping to be blogging from the SNP Conference in Aviemore next month, if I can get a good connection at the hotel)

Anyway, this is as good a time as any to think about Brown's relationship with the Unions. Many Trade Unionists have seen Brown as the antidote to Blair: Blair was a necessary evil, perhaps even a Trojan Horse, to make Labour acceptable to Middle England, and to secure a Labour Government; Brown was the one who would deliver real Labour policies. That was the expectation. What they got was a Prime Minister who has praised Margaret Thatcher (reviled by the Unions) for being a conviction politician, and brought in Tories as his advisors.

Remember that in 2005, UNISON launched a poster campaign, attacking the Tories and lampooning their own publicity ('Are you thinking what we're thinking?' was met with 'What are the Tories thinking?!'). If I were in UNISON, I know what I'd be asking: I'd be asking why so much time and effort was spent fighting the Tories and backing a third Labour term, only for a Labour PM to seek advice from Tories and pay homage to Thatcher.

So Brown does not (or at least, should not) start off with the best of relationships with the Unions. Where does he go from here?

Can he turn up the heat?

In the short term, yes. This will leave the Tories without a leg to stand on and generate positive headlines in the right-wing press. However, beyond that, it makes a full-on confrontation in the form of widespread industrial action very likely, and this will kill his Governmnet, just as the Winter of Discontent damaged Callaghan (though the devolution fiasco landed the fatal blow), and Heath's 'Who Governs Britain?' election to face down the miners generated the answer, "Not Edward Heath!" When the strikes bite, the press will turn, and the Tories will go on a very successful attack.

Can he pursue a niggly relationship with them, as now?

Possibly. It keeps his right flank solid, and in England, there is no credible left-wing alternative at the moment, with the exception of apathy. The LibDems are only leftist in some parts of the country (such as Manchester) and the total lack of impact by the Leadership rules them out of tempting people into their camp. Respect, meanwhile, requires large Muslim populations (and even then, they have to be completely disaffected with Labour, and completely unwilling to go in any other direction, neither of which is assured) and the person of George Galloway to thrive. Scotland is a different story: a LAbour that antagonises the Unions will lose leftist voters (though not key Union people themselves, who are too strongly associated with Labour to defect easily) hand over fist to the SNP. In a potential situation where every seat will matter, with the possibility of a Hung Parliament looming large, and with the West Lothian question hanging over politics like a cloud ready to unleash a torrential downpour, more SNP MPs would be Brown's worst nightmare. And with more SNP members in prominent local positions, it would be Wendy Alexander's worst nightmare as well.

Can he give the Unions everything they want?

Yes, but only if he wants to lose Middle England completely, hand over to David Cameron at the next election and see Labour reduced to a rump 'core vote', as the Tories have been in recent years.

Can he give them a little of what they want, but not everything?

Politically, this would be the worst option. If Brown gives an inch, the right will scream that he's kowtowing to the Unions. Only a handful will pick this up at first, but then, only a handful of Union members will be happy: they won't want to go part of the way towards their goals; they will want to reach them. Was the introduction of a minimum wage enough? Of course not: they want it to be higher. Is passing anti-discrimination law enough? Of course not: they (quite sensibly) want it to be enforced. Beyond employment law, did devolution kill the SNP stone dead, as George Robertson predicted? Definitely not!

With every demand that Brown agrees to, another one will come in its place. And with every demand Brown agrees to, the more people on the right of Labour's support will switch back to the Tories, and the more bitter the battle will become when the demands reach such a level that he has to dismiss them. He will face questions from the Right as to why he has drawn the line in the sand at that point and no sooner. He will face questions from the Left as to why he was willing to go as far as he had done, but no further. He will enter into a major row with the Unions, and perhaps the same industrial action as if he had gone into battle with them from Day One, but without the initial goodwill of the Right.

The bottom line

In short, Brown's options all carry risks: the 'niggle' option is possibly the safest for Brown, as he will be hit by the SNP, but strikes by the Unions would be impossible to justify, and he would cut off an obvious Tory line of attack that he is in thrall to the Unions who prop up Labour.

Brown likes to talk about being a 'British' politican. Here's his chance to prove it: can he battle the Tories, and win on their turf, at the expense of losing some ground to the SNP? If not, it shows that Scotland and Scottish politics is still his main focus, perhaps undermining a taunt that can be (and has been) levelled at him by the SNP (that he's sold out Scotland for his place in Downing Street), but giving fuel to the Tory taunt that he's a Scot running England, while the SNP run his own country.

And that opens up a whole new can of worms on the other kind of Union.

Lessons from the Past

Labour Leader-designate Wendy Alexander believes that Labour lost because it was no longer seen as an 'all-Scotland party'. It's hard to argue with that logic - a look at McConnell's last Cabinet shows that even before the Election, there was a clear centre of power in the party, and the Election results bear it out. Consider: without Aberdeen Central, that last Labour redoubt in the North, the Northernmost part of Scotland to be in a Labour-held Constituency would be in the seat of Dumbarton. For Labour, that has got to be a little disturbing. Let's look at the evidence.

In Glasgow, Labour hold nine of the ten Constituencies, and only lost the tenth to Nicola Sturgeon this year. Surely that's good? Well, for Labour and on paper, yes, but Glasgow is the centre of the Western Labour power base. The next strongest Labour region is the West (which includes Alexander's own Constituency, Paisley North), with eight out of nine. The ninth, again, was only lost this year, but the eighth Labour seat, Strathkelvin and Bearsden, was regained after four years of representation by independent hospital campaigner Dr. Jean Turner. Central Scotland has eight Labour seats out of ten, with Kilmarnock only falling this year, and Falkirk West would have been Labour (certainly in 1999, probably in 2003, and who knows about this year?) had it not been for the row over Dennis Canavan's non-selection as the candidate.

So these three regions accounts for 25 of Labour's 37 Constituencies, and that's before you count the five South of Scotland seats, of which four are in the West of the region (East Lothian sticks out), and three are in the strongholds of Ayrshire (Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley and Cunninghame South) and Lanarkshire (Clydesdale). The only Labour loss in this region was Ayr in the 2000 By-Election. Dumfries, like East Lothian, sticks out a bit.28 seats in Lanarkshire, Glasgow, Ayrshire, Renfrewshire and Dunbartonshire. Nine seats everywhere else. Yikes!

So with two of those nine accounted for, let's try to find the other seven. Four of them are in Lothian: Edinburgh Central, Edinburgh North & Leith, Linlithgow and Midlothian. It wasn't always this way: Edinburgh Pentlands was Labour for the first term of Holyrood, as was Edinburgh South. Edinburgh East & Musselburgh and Livingston fell this year. In this region alone, Labour have lost four Constituencies out of eight since 1999, compared with a net loss of four in the first four regions I mentioned!

Two are in Mid Scotland & Fife: Dunfermline East - Gordon Brown's old Westminster seat - and Kirkcaldy - a large part of his current one. Central Fife, Dunfermline West and Stirling all fell this year; Ochil was lost in 2003. Again, a loss of four Constituencies (this time out of six) since 1999.

The last, a rather lonely speck of red on the map, is Aberdeen Central, and again, it wasn't always this way. Aberdeen North and Dundee East fell to the SNP in 2003. Dundee West went the same way this year - a loss of three out of four seats since 1999.

Then there's Highlands and Islands, which only ever had one Constituency MSP, and lost that this year. A loss of 100%. Ouch!

So Wendy Alexander is right to flag up a problem for her party. But is it going to be easy to solve?

For answers, we turn to the UK Conservatives, who were reduced to a largely Southern English rump in 1997. Since then, we've heard about how the Tories need to re-connect with everyone across Britain. Up to the last Election in 2005, though, success has been... well, elusive:

The Tories have 198 seats. 194 of them are England. The three Northern English regions (North East, North West and Yorkshire & the Humber) have between them just 19 Tory MPs. The two Midland regions (East and West Midlands) have between them 34. The remaining 141 are in Southern regions. The Tories haven't been particularly successful at re-connection there.

But why should they be? While we hear lots of talk about re-connection from the Tories, there's not much evidence of action towards it, though it'll be interesting to see if Annabel Goldie's constructive approach at Holyrood pays off: this is their chance to take an active part in Scottish politics and they can't afford to blow it. However, with that exception of Parliamentary politics (and even that's an accident of Holyrood arithmetic and the lack of a majority Coalition), Conservative talk of re-connection, and being a party of 'all Britain and all Britons' (as Michael Howard put it) is some way off.

The moral: Alexander needs to match her words with action. But there's a problem. Why have the Tories words not been met with actions? The lack of prominent Conservative figures north of The Wash. Even when their Leader was a Yorkshireman, his patch of blue in Richmond was a pretty rare event north of The Wash. So few Tory MPs led to few standard bearers for the Party and that made it harder to re-gain lost footholds. Labour now have that same problem.

And the nine Regional MSPs as yet aren't a help and will not be one as long as Labour prevents candidates from standing both for a Constituency and Regional Lists: when this happens, the Regional MSP can build up a local profile which they can then use to their advantage. Labour have thrown this advantage away, and even if they didn't, what good would it be? Maureen MacMillan only stood in Ross, Skye and Inverness West because somebody had to (and her vote went down, and in fact went down by even more in 2003 when the rule was waived and she stood there). Peter Peacock's health forced him to resign as Education Minister, Rhoda Grant is a retread and David Stewart lost his Westminster seat in 2005. In Mid Scotland and Fife, Richard Simpson is a retread who was notable for calling striking firefighters 'fascist bastards' in 2003, and the other two, John Park and Claire Baker, are new to the Chamber. In the North East, Richard Baker was Jack McConnell's PPS (the word 'toast' springs to mind, for some reason) and Marlyn Glen is in the Campaign for Socialism, which couldn't produce a challenger to Wendy Alexander, so is an isolated figure. George Foulkes, meanwhile, has quit his Committee work to concentrate on his work in the House of Lords and the Intelligence Committee, and slow news days are filled with speculation about how long he's willing to stay at Holyrood. So they are not assets to the Labour cause.

Being an 'all-Scotland' Party will take more than a speech in Inverness. But Wendy's options are now limited: speeches in Inverness may be all she can do for a while.