Sepp Blatter's own goal

For those of you (and there seemingly are many) who think that the Labour party or Gordon Brown is good at creating a nanny state and sticking a nose in when it's not necessary, then spare a thought for the footballing world.

There you are, quite happy with the Ronaldos, Fabregas' and Drogbas that litter your team, dripping with talent and overflowing with creativity and some old man in a grey suit in FIFA headquarters decides you have to play 6 Englishmen in every game you play from 2012/13.

Imagine, trading your Torres for a Timothy, your Kanu for a Keith or your Reyes for a Rooney (well, ok, I'd maybe let that last one pass)

But just because your average British teenager stuffs his face with chips, flows beer down his throat at a rate of knots and can't get a game for Peterboro while the continental superstars are doing star jumps, eating grilled fish and queuing up to play for Benfica, Bratislava or Bradford, it doesn't mean a special dispensation should be granted for footballers that don't make the grade.

This is protectionism of the worst kind. Free markets and lifting the barriers to employment are the progressive policies that should apply to all walks of life, even something as deliciously low-brow as domestic football.

And to further bolster my argument, even the EU agrees and we've already seen what kind of awful decision-making can come from those based in Strasbourg. (I've just realised that using an entity with wacky decision-making pedigree to back me up is an odd choice of ally. But still, the law of large numbers dictates they have to get one right one of these days!)

FIFA's argument, I understand, is that clubs using local players will boost the national team and give the club itself a stronger link to the country it is based in. Well, anyone watching the SPL run in will be in no doubt that the link between local fans and international players can still be very, very strong indeed.

The Celtic line-up against Dundee United on that awesome Thursday evening that won the SPL title shows it well. A Dutchman scored the goal, an Irishman jinxed and jigged down the wings, a Pole saved the United shots and a Japanese guy pulled the strings in midfield. Do you think they understood any less what a 3rd SPL title in a row meant to Celtic Football Club? Were the fans more proud of the Scottish players on the pitch that night?

And now I think about it, what an awful way to bring segragation back to the heart of clubs that have worked so hard to end such ugly affairs. Ajax I believe was riddled with racist issues only recently, I remember Mark Walters at Rangers having bananas thrown at him in his first few games (from his own fans!), John Barnes had to play through some of the worst racial abuse back in the 80s and the current UEFA cup holders pride themselves on never having had a black player in its history. Do we really want an "Us and them" situation in clubs all across Europe? It would be a red rag to the Spanish and Eastern European fans who are notoriously and aggressively prejudiced in this darkest of ways.

So, no more lazy, backward thinking just to convince yourselves that you justify your high salaries. You overpaid bigwigs at UEFA and FIFA should just relax and enjoy the football. You've got EURO 2008 to sit and watch from the corporate boxes for the next month, don't be wasting time with silly new rules now. Just let the Manchester Uniteds, the AC Milans and the Barcelonas do what they do best and allow the best players to get the best opportunities whatever town or city they happened to be born in.

Not that I still harbour secret desires of turning out for Bayern Munich as a Meadows-discovered rough diamond or anything. Although perhaps I should be relegating my dream team to Helsingborg as time is marching on here….


NOTE: Gordon Smith, SFA chief, has said Blatter's plan should be given the "green light without condition". Thanks Gordon, thanks for nothing...

In praise of Park and Ride

In full knowledge that it was a Labour council plan, I'm going to sing the praises of the Hermiston Park & Ride scheme.

Having the rare luxury of a car to drive this weekend (and also because it would be towed away by lunchtime if I left it in Marchmont) I decided to make optimum use of it and drive to work.

But where to park? Well, Hermiston Park and Ride saved the day.

A fairly seamless short drive out along the Western Approach Road had the triple-win of catching on the radio: Mark Ronson's "Stop Me" (twice), Muse's "Plug In Baby" and a hilarious Gordon Ramsay interview from the Chris Moyles team. (Prior night plans to do a short Spanish lesson during this half hour were abandoned upon starting the ignition).

An indecisive driver's nightmare awaited me at Hermiston as there were plenty of spaces to choose from even at 8:20am. I had no such dramas swinging into one of the farther away spots. I like to say it's to allow grannies a closer berth but really my parking is just woeful.

Clear signs for where and when the buses would be arriving were complimented by announcements of when buses were just about to arrive or depart. The nicest touch was the evidence of joined-up thinking in having rows of recycling bins available so you could bring your old papers, bottles or plastics to get rid of before heading out to work. Time management is everything.

And speaking of which, running 10 minutes early for the 45 bus to take me into RBS, I had the choice of the Metro, The Skinny or Short Cuts magazines to keep me entertained in the meantime.

And bang on time it arrived. Which pretty much brings me present and another day at the bank awaits….

Park and Ride people, you know you want to….!

It's only words...

There's an interesting debate brewing over at Scots and Independent. This verbal ruck is focussed on what wording any future independence referendum should have and we have 3 main protagonists:

Richard himself is certain that the word "independent" is sufficient and a more negative connotation such as "separate" is unnecessary.

Normal mouth, a highly intelligent and perceptive Welsh blogger, has chosen several 'fruity' questions to toss Richard's way.

Ideas of C has stepped in to claim, quite fairly, that after weeks and months of national campaigning, the Scottish public will be all too aware what they are voting for and the wording will be not so important, a storm in a voting booth if you will.

I personally (and with more than a dollop of irreverence) believe I have concocted the perfect solution.

In the Autumn of 2010, or whenever this fine referendum shall take place, we shall have two questions that people have to answer:

The SNP's preferred option:

"I agree/ disagree that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state."

The Unionist's preferred option:

"I agree/disagree that Scotland should remain as part of a prosperous United Kingdom and not ripped apart at the border to create a separate, barren Scottish state where the sun will never shine again." (*note that I can't remember the exact wording off the top of my head but I'm sure this is close enough…)

And the interpretation of the result would be as follows:

If there was a "disagree" to question 1 and an "agree" to question 2 then this is an unequivocal win for the Unionists. The SNP's forfeit would be to disband, live in caves in the Pentlands and speak with Bristol accents until the end of their days.

If there was "agree" or "disagree" for both then this would be a draw. The tie-breaker would be an arm-wrestle between Nicola Sturgeon and Wendy Alexander. If this still resulted in a draw then we'd have a Sumo wrestling match between Alex Salmond and Jackie Baillie.

And, finally, if there was a "agree" for Q1 and "disagree" for Q2 then the result would be Scotland gets to be the 3rd richest country in the world, we wouldn't have to partake in shambolic wars, we could get rid of our nuclear weapons, everyone could bath in North Sea oil 3 times a day (if they liked that sort of thing) and Gordon Brown would have to do a Scottish jig everywhere he went north of the border.

Problem solved.

I expect the Electoral Commission to be in touch to hammer out the details before the end of the week.

Crime and punishment

I know, I should just let these things go but I can't help but think that someone at CNN is going to get their bottom smacked for this:

"Reaction: McClellan not in a position make to claims"

Boys rule OK

I've just read about an elderly couple who dumped their newborn twins on the basis they were girls. They were born a fortnight ago and the parents have not visited either child once in that time.

This is clearly a very heartless couple indeed. Horrible actions that must surely border on criminal?


Mind you, looking at a few stories of the day, you could almost see where they're coming from!

10p tax fiasco revisited

Yes, yes, I know. This post is probably the equivalent of turning up to the party at 5am, seeing a mass of passed out bodies, a hazy bile of smoke seeping out the window, some Barry White still snaking out of the stereo and belatedly, optimistically holding your Spar Vodka aloft and shouting 'Paaaaarty!!' to the dying throng of people who just want to go home and stop feeling so wretched about the whole affair.

But bear with me.

Of the two points that I have here, one thing that I wanted to post about during the 10p tax hoo-ha was the double-win that some tax payers got from (1) the initial decision and (2) Alastair Darling's subsequent £2.6bn giveaway:

These tax payers were not the poorest, not the 15k group, not even the 25k a year group but the 'just below the top rate' bracket. You know, just the people that really need extra cash with their comfortable homes and fancy cars…..

A person on £30,000 a year would have received the following from the Labour Government:

10p tax rate = A saving of £332.40 a year

And then, of course, there was the second giveaway

Moving of personal allowance = A saving of £120.00 a year.



Lovely stuff. Nearly a 500 pound giveaway from the Treasury in these difficult times for people who are already very well off indeed. Also, if you earned more than £30k you would have saved even more right up to the 40% tax limit. (But I can't be bothered working out the exact figures)


I just wanted to mention that in case anyone didn't fully appreciate the sheer ineptitude of the Labour policy here.


So, my second point: How did this come to pass? What machiavellian thinking was going on at the Treasury to have allowed this spectacular own goal to come around?


I've not read much on this theory in the general press but to me it's crystal clear what was going on and it ties in with the complacency and darker side that Brown possesses.


My theory stemmed from a comment from a good friend who said they had to vote Labour at the recent Holyrood election as they needed their working tax credits to get by, they couldn't risk losing them if another party came into power. Their gross income is around 15k and they have kids. And, now I think about it, they clearly don't appreciate what is devolved and what isn't. (Don't worry, my seemingly empty promise that the SNP would wipe out student debt was enough to convince her of Salmond's charms.)

But it was the working tax credits that got me thinking. The 10p tax decision didn't make all of the oft-quoted 5.3m people poorer. Changes to tax credits meant that most of them were just as well off as they were before (if 'well off' is a suitable phrase for some of the poorest workers in the land). The difference was rather than a relatively simple tax system taking their PAYE out every month, they now had to fill in forms and go cap in hand to the Labour government to make up the difference of what had been lost from the basic rate of tax being abolished.

Gordon Brown was trying to create a dependency culture amongst his core vote, a situation whereby people would struggle to even consider voting for anyone other than Labour as they needed their tax credits to make ends meet. What with the massive advantage that New Labour had over their Tory rivals, Brown gambled that this was a risk worth taking to secure his premiership as he would effectively have 5.3m votes in the bag before anything else was taken into consideration.

Unfortunately for Gordon though, as he was gathering these 5.3m people around to suckle on his generous breastfeeding teet for the next generation, he stumbled in many, many other ways. Events got in the way of his core message and a reinvogirated Tory party were able to raise the alarm on the 10p tax debacle with a wrong footed, free-falling Labour party unable to explain their side of the argument.

In short, Gordon Brown was caught with his trousers down (not to mention his nipple out) and his gamble that a working electorate would be dependent on a low-tax, high-welfare Labour party was compromised.


And the rest, as they say, is history.

Party over for Gordon Brown I suspect. Despite what late protestations he may have (with or without the Spar Vodka of course...)

Edinburgh Council - Paying Out

I had an interesting chat with my flatmate today as we eased through a Tuesday evening preparing our respective dinners and battling for the best hotplate on our rather crusty oven.

She (who will remain nameless) moved into the flat recently and got a job at Edinburgh Council so I am, of course, intrigued as to what work gets done and how it all works in general.

What was particularly intriguing though was today's tale that the lack of work is really beginning to bug my flatmate. I knew that for weeks she had been asking her managers constantly for more to do but they seemed happy with my Canadian friend just sitting tight and surfing the web etc for a while.

It seems Monday was the tipping point though as she only did half an hours work over the course of the 8 hours or so.

I didn't really know what money she was getting paid but assumed it was around £6-£7 an hour.

Well, after today's chat it seems a temp at Edinburgh Council gets £8 an hour. Pretty fair I'd say.

Well, here's the kicker. On top of that, the agency gets £13 an hour. That's £21 an hour for a Council temp worker who sits around on the internet all day!?

So, nothing against my hardworking flatmate who is practically begging for more to do to make her day pass quicker, but her 30 minutes of work cost us taxpayers £168. That's £336 an hour!

As a private sector worker who feels guilty if he takes the full hour for lunch or peeks at BBC News in the afternoon, and with all these budget cuts and council tax freezes on the go, maybe the councils need to start looking at how to get the most out of their employees and assessing staff costs more closely...

Then again, when our political masters are awarding themselves £23k lump sums, maybe this is all part and parcel of a sagging public sector....

Collecting the dividend

The main argument from the proponents of the Union is that there is a 'dividend' in being part of the United Kingdom. A bigger, stronger nation pulling resources and sharing ideas together that will ultimately bring increased benefits for all.

This is, of course, a convincing argument but I worry that Scotland within Westminster is either not pulling strongly enough or our efforts to collect our dividend is going unheeded. The tipping point in making me think this way was the article in the Sunday Herald regarding the baby steps that are happening towards the creation of a high speed rail link between Edinburgh and London. It all seems too little too late for a rail infrastructure that could potentially transform business within Scotland, not to mention opening up the continent more readily to environmentally-conscious travellers.

All across Europe people can't move for high speed rail links, they're all over the place. Even on my recent trip to Sweden I had the pleasure of racing across the country at top speeds which helped me see a heck of a lot of a nation that is twice the size of the UK in only one week. Mind you, I have to admit to feeling a little bit nervous the first time the tilted train sent me off to the side of my seat as it swung round a corner…! In Malmo too the rail links are awesome to see, links with Copenhagen across a truly astonishing 10-mile bridge not to mention a Cross rail project that will take trains under the city to avoid having to take the scenic route to get to Denmark. Malmo is booming as a result with the population set to double in the next few years. Efficiency, creativity and ambition is on show at every turn.

And where is this same creativity and ambition for the UK? Talk of a 3 hour link between Edinburgh/Glasgow and London is just that, only talk. And with Gordon Brown already in political trouble with the electorate for simply being Scottish not to mention Cameron's quandary with 'those sponging Scots', I can't imagine the political momentum is going to swing in our direction any time soon. I think it's great that London has fast connections to Paris and a brilliant new station at St Pancras, I really do, but these were funds that came out of a UK budget and Scotland is entitled to ask the question, 'what's in it for us?'. The speed of Eurotunnel is somewhat undermined when you have to get a Megabus down to catch it the night before.

And the same argument holds for so many more of the UK based decisions. The multi-billion pound Olympics won't be crossing the border, the Iraq War/Trident have cost us billions despite a clear majority of Scots being against it, our contributions to the EU budgets don't seem to be paying out much with frustrating decisions on fisheries and agriculture leaving us short-changed, increased duty on whisky, petrol prices through the roof despite 'our oil' financing it.

It's worth questioning what impact an independent Scotland would have on our high-speed railway planning, our fisheries policy, our defence spending, our oil surplus, our relations with the wider world.

Would Scotland benefit from a purely Scottish approach to the big decisions if we were to go our own way? Would we be more efficient? More creative? More ambitious? Maybe Scottish-only dividends are large enough?

There is a dividend to be had as part of the United Kingdom but if it's not paying out then it may well be time to cash in our chips and set up business as a sole trader. the rewards are there...

Every underdog has its day

Good luck to Queen of the South today. I hope the fairy tale continues and they are lifting the Scottish Cup before the day is out.

Nothing against Rangers that is, I just have a penchant for the underdog.

So in saying that, I hope Gordon Brown, Wendy Alexander and Hillary Clinton have an enjoyable Saturday whatever each has on the agenda.

Is it just me...

... or is this a little bit insensitive?

Profiteering from the Phil O'Donnell testimonial match. Phil O'Donnell being the Motherwell player who tragically died onfield during this season of the SPL.

I would 'almost' suggest a campaign of wasting this person's time with bogus offers but that wouldn't be very nice would it? Would it.....?

Hmmmm....

Will Iran be Gordon's Falklands?

It's clear that after the Conservatives resounding victory in Crewe and Nantwich the Prime Minister is going to get more and more desperate to turn things around. He's waited too long for this big moment to see it slip through his clunking fists.

So what are his options?

Well, he probably has slightly more available to him than the 'defcon 1' approach but I'll consider it all the same. Yes, calkl me crazy, but Gordo may just be tempted to use that old fear tactic of going to War to scare the public into voting for the present Government?

And why not? History has showed that when a leader is facing defeat at the polls a bit of a foray into killing innocent people never goes amiss.

It worked for Gordon's best mate Margaret in the Falklands.

It worked for George Bush in 2004.

It also worked for Tony Blair in 2005.

The common denominator in the above 3 scenarios is that the leaders were up against ineffective opposition. And no offence to Cameron, but the shoe fits once again…

So, who could we attack? You can just see Gordon pacing around in front of a giant World Map, assessing his options. But as much as he looks elsewhere, his eyes are continually drawn back to Iran.

John McCain is probably trigger-happy enough to have a go at taking Ahmadinejad down. There's certainly enough sabre-rattling from the neo-cons to suggest it's on the table. Even Hillary says she'd happily obliterate the country so what chance have we got if even the Democrats are getting carried away?

Can Gordon cling onto the Downing St keys into 2009 and start World War 3 just to save his Premiership?

Stranger things have happened…..

The fall is all that is Left

By-elections tend to be a rather drawn-out dull affair. One party is generally the favourite and swings of 2, 3 or 4% are analysed to death by party elders shouting each other down. The wisdom of attributing a whole evening of broadcasting to one teeny-weeny constituency has always seemed to be a bit misplaced to me.

Not so tonight.

The Crewe & Nantwich by-election is history in the making. The Tories first by-election win in 25 years. A huge Labour majority wiped out and quite possibly reversed. The improbable result of a constituency seat unable to be passed on from the unfortunate death of a popular MP to her daughter. And of course the turning point in Gordon Brown's fortunes where the end of his premiership really is imminent.

The only question remaining is: Will Gordon step down gracefully or will the stalking horse that is Alan Milburn (or the stalking woolly mammoth that is Charles Clarke) have to step into the scene?

There is a deluded air around Gordon Brown right now, one that suggests he is the only one that doesn't know he's doomed. Like the naïve executive who doesn't know he is imminently about to be fired you can almost picture his colleagues giving sympathetic looks his way, pretending that they are listening to what their boss is saying but knowing full well that they are in the presence of an empty shirt.

It is this quiet sense of sympathy for Gordon permeating through Britain that screams out how close the end of his tenure as PM is. John Major received such emotion before his "put up or shut up" moment. Menzies Campbell was being bullied for months while we all knew what was coming as much as we didn't enjoy seeing it. And so we feel for Gordon Brown; we know, even if he doesn't, that the road back to the top is just too steep for him to tread. How galling for the man that the tomes of history will discuss the Blair Years but only one solitary Brown Year. After all the great Tony vs Gordon rivalry, 10-1 is a thumping in anyone's book.

And what further evidence is needed that Brown's 10 Downing Street days are numbered than a quick look through the blogosphere:

A fascinating graph from Mr Eugenides showing that the current debacle is merely a case of history repeating a la the Major years.

Scottish Tory Boy delights in reminding us just how bad the polling results are for Labour. Their worst ever since records began.

For Political Dissuasion and this hilarious post, Gordon's Brown delusion is akin to an almost-dumped boyfriend not quite getting the message. Maybe the next time Gord watches Friends the message will sink in.

The fabulous Mike Smithson tells us the bets are already paid out on a Tory win tonight, Alan Milburn is primed and ready to step in to challenge the PM and there was even a 1990 by election that sent John Major spiralling, echoing Mr E's comments that a repeat of history could be unavoidable.

But the most complete and comprehensive summary that the end is nigh comes from Scottish Politics. A simply excellent post discussing the many, many ways in which Gordon has no hope.

They say that when the fall is all that is left it matters a great deal how you do so. And to that end I hope Gordon Brown can leave us as leader with dignity. I suspect however there will be much dragging, kicking and screaming until his bitter end comes.

So for now, all eyes are on Crewe and Nantwich, and the increasingly necessary all-day coverage that will tell history as it happens.

And when Labour MPs inevitably and brazenly say that Gordon has months to save his career, most of us will comfortably agree that we look forward to the Fall.

A trip to the shops

As is often the case, the healthy side of my lunch is rarely enough to satisfy my hunger (and my sweet teeth) so I used the last 10 minutes to venture out for 'a wee goody' with some Mrs Tilly tablet fitting the bill just perfectly.

At my work we have a Tesco and of course at lunchtime there is a very long queue. As I inched closer to the tills (and freedom) I watched with interest that every staff member said "Would you like a bag?" regardless of what any one person was buying. This was followed with "Do you have a clubcard?" and, of course, these two were sandwiched between "Good Morning" and "Have a good day".

So even before I knew who was serving me I knew exactly what they were going to say. And of course, those same 4 lines; nothing more, nothing less, came my way.

A couple of interesting (to me anyway) points to note here:

(1) Most people say yes if you offer them something so those who don't need a bag will generally end up taking their bottle of water (or whatever) out the plastic bag within seconds of leaving the shop. And so, the environmentally unfriendly poly bag serves only to unhelpfully warm the water for about ten seconds. Pretty pointless really. Why not just leave people to ask for the bag if there's a chance they dont' need one?

(2) Tesco workers are clearly constrained by a brutal regime at the top of Tesco. These stock phrases their workers use are no doubt drummed into them at 'Tesco Camp' upon joining the evil global empire. I bought a small bar of tablet which I clearly was going to take back to my desk if I didn't snaffle the whole lot on the way (turned out it was half and half). But still, this Tesco footsoldier had no choice but to pointlessly ask if I wanted a means of carrying it in the off chance that my hand was incapable of holding a 6 inch bar of confectionery back to my workspace. I gave my Tesco worker (Jim) a blank look for about 3 seconds, trying to silently will him into breaking free from the vice-like grip his employer had him in. Come on Jim, my straining pupils were saying, seize the moment and laugh at how ridiculous your question is here.
But he was unmoved. The dead eyes gazed back at me waiting for an answer. I suspect he could have stood there all day. Motionless. Unblinking. Patiently flatlining. Finally, I caved and responded. "No, that won't be necessary" I mumbled.

Walking off, I was choking back tears for dear Jim as I heard him say "Have a good day".


It doesn't need to be this way!


I want to live in a world where shop staff can say "Lovely day isn't it?" or "Are you watching the football tonight?" or "Woah! Crazy tie dude!!" if they see fit. A world where fruit can be bumpy and veg looks like it came from the ground, not suspiciously shiny and of equal size and shape. I don't want uniforms to be a dull checked tartan and boring black slacks, a hole where a nose-ring usually sits being the only suggestion that "Lisa" has any sort of a life. I want to be free from the Tesco Clubcard, the 3-for-2 offer, the value deals, the fluorescent lighting that hurts the eyes. I want to walk into a shop to be surprised and warmed and enthused by what they have to offer.

In short. I fucking hate Tesco.

(Mrs Tilly does very nice fudge though)

Toffs and Average Joes

I've never liked that Raef on The Apprentice. He speaks too crisply, he is too rich, his hair has that funny posh parting and he clearly had a great education and was born with a silver tongue in his mouth. How could you like someone so eloquent? With such manners? Who dresses so well? And with such an easy propensity to laugh?

Clearly, I am being facetious, but the logic above is almost exactly what the Labour party in Crewe and Nantwich are using in order to try to win cheap votes in the constituency. They claim that the Tory candidate coming from a rich family and having a first class education means he can't fathom the issues that affect you're average working Joe. Poppycock.

Incredibly, the UK party as a whole are considering using the same "toff Tory" approach to target David Cameron. It simply will not work.

I went to a standard state school, a fairly average education in a fairly average town so I didn't really come into contact with anyone from private schools until university.

I was, of course, taught by my Glaswegian compatriots to wear a chip on my shoulder with pride but it didn't take long before the range of talents that these strange, exotic people possessed had me enthralled.

Of course, there's no reason why multi-talented, bilingual, business-savvy private school types should be put on a pedestal but to apply inverse snobbery and think that the uncultured, uneducated and undesirables are somehow a better class of person than the upper crust is seriously misguided.

And I bet even Average Joe would happily agree with me.

The bets are off in Crewe and Nantwich, and it's not difficult to see why.

Oh dear

Let's be honest, this headline can't be too good for the SNP's "1,000 extra police officers" policy....

"Row over Scottish police numbers"

I'm off to bed, but I strongly suspect Kenny MacAskill is still awake somewhere this evening....!

And there we have it.

A lot of chat about abortions and embryos on various blogs today but after all that it was a fairly comprehensive result. The abortion limit will remain at 24 weeks.

For me, this is as it should be as I mentioned earlier today.


So it seems the only interest and entertainment we'll get from this evening is Kezia Dugdale's rather bizarre behaviour.

First she adamantly and wrongly states that Alex won't be in Westminster and then tosses a vague reference to Brian Soutar into the mix, a desperate (and perhaps libellous) attempt to suggest that the business tycoon is buying votes in parliament.

Secondly, even minutes before the vote takes place, Kezia believes the result is going to be "extremely close". It was a thumping 332 to 190 scoreline.

There was also the clear insinuation that Alex Salmond was in the wrong to spend time working on the Scottish Futures Trust, a policy that has the potential to save Scotland literally billions of pounds if the SNP can get it up and running.

This tireless evening also included a pledge that Kez will don her cape and fly to America to fight alongside Barack Obama if he wins the Democratic nomination. Barack must be thanking his lucky stars that this stalwart of Scottish Politics will be leading the charge against the Republicans for him.

Back to tonight, and on learning that Alex is indeed in Westminster, Kezia then (again for no apparent reason) decides that "something seriously suspicious" is going on. This charge is based on the monstrous basis that Kez can't spot Alex on tv anywhere. Given Alex has been in favour of 20 week limits since September 2007, I don't think his missing a bit of the debate is reason enough to suggest dodgy behaviour.


As is becoming increasingly the status quo, there's no logic or concrete facts emanating from the Soapbox during these wild swings at the SNP.


I can understand the frustration and bitterness that must come with being in the Labour party ranks at the moment, and I honestly do sympathise, but to hit out at one's enemies in such a bizarre and inappropriate manner is probably not the best way forward.

Scottish Futures Trust

I await with interest what plan Alex Salmond and John Swinney have come up with to push further ahead with the Scottish Futures Trust. It has had a few detractors so far but the logic and simplicity of the plan makes complete sense and it is a far, far better approach than the prohibitively expensive PFI model.

I have already discussed SFT last month so I'm going to lazily direct anyone interested in this subject to there.

I also believe I should point to the Sunday Herald's latest front page story which has independent analysis on PFI and how costly it is. It is truly shocking.

It is worth noting the Tory finance spokesperson Derek Brownlee's comments on SFT:

"However it is dressed up, the key principle of PFI/PPP is maintained - leveraging in private investment into public infrastructure."

Derek is either deliberately seeking to mislead or he himself does not understand. Yes, the SFT involves private investment, but given the private company involved is going to be a not-for-profit arms-length entity then there is no loss to the Scottish public. He is cunningly using the term "private investment" to suggest there is private sector profits still being made. This will not be the case as I am sure Swinney and Salmond are about to announce.

The quicker we can reverse the damage done by PFI the better. I look forward to the next step being taken later today.

The Lives of Mothers

"When you do have a child, you will be amazed by the capacity you have to love someone."

So said Robert Downey Jr in his time on Ally McBeal. Or so I've been told. It's not like I watch the show (or own the dvd boxed sets) or anything….

But, with the upcoming vote on abortion limits in mind, an appropriate question may be: Why does this unconditional love that most mothers have for their children only start after the child has been born?

I've often struggled to reconcile the difference between mothers who are able to terminate the pregnancy of their unborn child and mothers who would fight tooth and nail to give their born children the best chance in life. It is somehow morally acceptable to kill an inconvenient foetus while it is (of course) criminally outrageous to smother a weeks old baby who cried incessantly or had a disability.

And yet, I find myself utterly convinced by the arguments put forward by those in the 'right to choose' camp.

The sad reality is that we don't live in a life plucked from tv scripts. There is not always the schmaltzy happy ending as the difficult, complicated, often depressing lives we lead are not penned by a Hollywood scriptwriter blessed with imagination and a wicked skill for storytelling.

Even if the mother's "capacity to love" had fallen short in an Ally McBeal episode there would be an All-American loving couple waiting in the wings to take the baby away to a life lived happily ever after. Real life doesn't work that way.

So women, thankfully, have a window of convenience, a time period where they know they are pregnant but have the opportunity to abort before the child's life truly begins.

And how long should a women's window remain open?

Well, I was going to start this post by having the reader imagine a pregnancy starting today and then ask them if having a termination date of 7th October (20 weeks hence) or 4th November (24 weeks hence) really made all that much of a difference. My point being (in unashamed defence of Alex Salmond's position on the subject) that 20 weeks is as suitable a time period as 24 weeks.

But then, by the same token, an extra 4 weeks for any abused, raped, confused and/or depressed mothers to come to the most difficult decision they'll ever have to make is worth it.

I admit that my strength of feeling on this subject is markedly low. Whatever the decision taken at Westminster this evening I will neither be outraged nor delighted. But I will be interested. And of particular note during the debate will be the difference between MPs who are able to see life as stark as it can be for women and those who still cling on to the happy endings, whatever the cost.

Scottish Labour - A Way Back from the Brink

As a blatant fan of the SNP and risking the possibility that this blog ever becomes a brainless cheerleader of the nationalists (with me painted yellow and replete with pom-poms, of course) I feel it is well worth my time to occasionally kick out against the party or at the very least point out where Labour, the Lib Dems or the Tories impress me.

I've already stated that I think Gordon Brown is the best bet for Prime Minister at the current time, genuinely wishing him a come back. He has the capacity to reverse the polls which are very soft indeed given David Cameron is benefitting from votes lost rather than votes won. He is ahead simply because he is the alternative Prime Minister, not because he is saying anything particularly impressive.

For the Scottish Labour party, I feel now would be a good time to either back the current leader or sing the praises of who would be a suitable replacement.

And even though I am trying to be fair and soberly assess Scottish Labour's position through non-partisan eyes, Wendy Alexander's position is untenable for one simple reason. She cannot be the leader of the party when the SNP bring forward their independence referendum bill.

There is no way, after all this "Bring it on" nonsense, that she can then lead her party into voting it down. And make no mistake, it will be voted down.

Of course Labour will be damaged when this time comes but maximum damage will be felt if maximum hypocrisy is on show. So only a Labour leader who has consistently opposed an independence referendum can sit as head of the party whenever the bill is presented before MSPs. Wendy should accept this and make way for a successor later this year.

So, this leaves me with a great opportunity to 'big up' someone in the Labour party who impresses me and who can build a smart, confident shadow Government going into the 2011 Holyrood election.

Now at this point I could go on about slim pickings and slip back into some emptily jolly "the SNP are great" ways. I shall resist but I will have to partake in some sort of process of elimination given the realistic options available to Scottish Labour.

For example, there are some non-starters:

Jackie Baillie has had a shocker on Newsnight which immediately rules her out and she is known to be something of a control freak. After Wendy's well known 24/7 demands and furious pace in communication with her colleagues, Scottish Labour need someone with a broader view when it comes to holding power.

Malcolm Chisholm is my local MSP. He is well respected, votes with his heart (leading to him being kicked out the Cabinet twice) and generally wins with a landslide whenever he stands making a mockery of my tactical voting tendencies. However, he is completely isolated in the parliament and without sufficient support he can be ruled out immediately.

Margaret Curran, I'm afraid, has a smile that could shatter glass. I don't know the woman except via people who have worked closely alongside her but she has an unfortunately unlikeable quality around her that I fear is too deeply entrenched to be controlled. She often makes me wonder if she's Hillary Clinton's nastier wee cousin. Margaret can be ruled out for sure.

Helen Eadie. As much as I enjoy Calum Cashley's frequent posts on the matter, he is (surely!?) raising them with tongue firmly placed in cheek when he suggests Helen for Scottish Labour leader.

No, we have to cast the net wider than the above.

So how about the usual suspects:

Iain Gray. Intelligent, fair-minded, experienced in working with Oxfam, good speaker publicly as long as noone rocks the boat too much; I do think Iain Gray would make a safe, solid choice as leader of Scottish Labour. The only problem is, safe and solid is not the approach Labour require. They need a bit more razmatazz and ambition. Iain Gray is a little bit dull and would not capture the imagination of the Scottish people. And anyway, Alex Salmond would have him for breakfast regardless of whether or not Iain Gray had a good point or not in between the stammerings and mumblings. Anyone who thinks otherwise should watch again Iain's recent showing on Newsnight to see how easy it is to fluster the man.

Andy Kerr. Similar to Iain Gray, he'd probably be a pretty safe pair of hands but he just doesn't have enough of a spark. His move to reward the nurses with an early pay rise was beautifully done, especially the great PR when he stood in his best suit with about 100 nurses all of them smiling as one on a sunny Edinburgh day. But this also shows his brutal side as he didn't share any of this glory with the rest of the party and he seems to have a penchant for briefing against his colleagues and stabbing them in the back when he doesn't even need to. So for Andy Kerr I think we should read a poor man's Jack McConnell. And surely Scotland deserves better.

So where now? Cathy Jamieson? She does a good job in FMQs and I think she'd have a more natural instinct than Wendy in avoiding banana skins but could we stomach her lack of eloquence for more than a few weeks before she becomes a figure of fun? I doubt it.

So we're running out of MSPs a bit here I think. And that's where my idea becomes inspired, creative and stunning, all rolled into one. (If I say so myself.)

Yes, in my view the person to lead Labour into the next Holyrood election is none other than……......


Ewan Aitken

When it comes to trustworthy recommendations, be it films, books, music or even, apparently, leaders of countries, I always try to use information already gleaned from those in the know. So my ears were first pricked by Ewan's talents by Kezia Dugdale's when she was positively fulsome in praise for Mr Aitken. I guess those comments sewed the seed in my thinking that he is a competent politician.

But my esteem for the man has grown more rapidly and much more recently as Ewan has started writing a blog. I am so taken with it that when I read a story in the general press I tend to turn to his blog to make sense of Labour's plans. Ewan has a clarity and balance to his writing which, if he carries into policy approach and oral delivery, would be very attractive indeed. He has already written intelligently on a whole range of topics.

I have regularly left comments on this blog and these could be read in a way which seems I am less than impressed with his thoughts. But if someone writes a poor blogging entry, I don't tend to waste my time responding to it. I like to see if I can "bring down" a good post and I'm not ashamed to say that each time I thought I had done so on Ewan's blog, I was calmly and respectfully (and occasionally comprehensively) picked apart.

As an Edinburgh resident I have seen first hand the good work that has been completed while Ewan was leader of Edinburgh Council. I've already congratulated him on this blog for the St Andrew's Square renovation (though I admit I initially wrote the blog item in the hope it was an SNP idea!). Edinburgh has been practically transformed in the past 6-10 years. The Forthside project, the finance district, the easing of congestion on Princes St and the rapid increase in building across the capital without ruining the natural beauty that Edinburgh possesses. It's no wonder the city is now regularly ranked amongst the most popular cities in the world.

And, in keeping with the Edinburgh Council theme, the good work that Ewan and Labour have done is in stark contrast to the SNP/Lib Dem coalition which I personally believe are making a dog's breakfast of running the city. Of course I would rather this wasn't the case but credit where credit is due, the past year has served only to show how capable the last adminstration were. If I could, I would go back and vote SNP-SNP-Labour on May 3rd 2007.

Another subtle but potent advantage in Ewan's favour is something very simple. He doesn't hate the SNP. You can see the detest Wendy has for Alex Salmond, it sits in the pit of her stomach and is one of the main reasons she can't control herself at FMQs or even in live interviews at times. I have been told this is a common problem across both of the main parties, a toxic malevolence between the SNP and Labour with the bad blood going both ways in almost equal measures. Any leader who has to stand in the public eye needs a certain way of being, a certain gravity, a certain composure that carries their words softly into the ears of a listening voter. Wendy patently does not possess this and if Alex lacks this then he is putting on a very, very good replacement act. Perhaps Ewan's religious background is something of a saving grace here but it is clear from the ex-minister's tone that he merely disagrees with the opposition. He harbours no secret desire to destroy them.

Further to this, Ewan's base is in the East and Labour are entitled to take the West for granted so choosing a leader from outside of Greater Glasgow is a shrewd plan. There is no question that the wider your power base, the stronger you have the potential to be. The SNP will have to crack Glasgow if it is ever to be a fair fight. And similarly, as an ex-Minister Ewan Aitken could also be expected to hoover up votes from the more religiously-minded amongst us.

I admit to the risk of possessing a certain political naivety so perhaps the fact that Ewan isn't even an MSP (yet!) makes this whole idea a bit ridiculous but it doesn't take the most complex of mental gymnastics to turn this potential weakness into a pillar of strength.

It's no secret that Jack McConnell is positively chomping at the bit to get into the House of Lords but the Labour party as a whole fear a mauling in any by-election. Personally, I don't see Motherwell and Wishaw as a Crewe and Nantwich just yet. The good people of Central Scotland are happy enough to vote for anyone (and I do mean anyone) in a Labour rosette so parachuting Ewan into Holyrood should be trouble-free.

And what a spring-board! They have months to plan this and all to the backdrop of a Jack McConnell swansong that could be pushed as warm and fuzzy as the Scottish public could stomach. Their new leader could be promoted as the secret weapon, someone so talented, experienced and affable that they just couldn't wait to fast track him into the top tier to take on the Nats. A well timed policy think-tank could arm their new leader with ideas and manifesto items that could make him the Holyrood version of Rambo. And with Obama winning the Democratic nomination, proving that experience is not always key in winning elections, the left wing of Scotland could tap into the American feel good factor and decide they rather like the idea of a creative, optimistic and somewhat unknown personality championing the idea of change.

It's been a long time that I've nodded happily along to a Labour politician thinking to myself that they are talking sense and have a solid grasp of what the real world involves. I do this regularly on Ewan Aitken's blog so, perhaps, Scottish Labour will think big and promote this man to the very top to pull them out of their current mire.

Though of course, as I get out my yellow paint and put on my SNP pom-poms again, I sincerely hope that Wendy Alexander stays on till 2011, long enough for her to watch Alex Salmond "bring on" an independence referendum bill and experience an implosion of Scottish Labour that will make the past fortnight look like a mere tummy-bumper.

Sweden

I have returned from a week in Sweden and I am delighted to state that it is the healthy, democratic, feminist, hip, content wonderland that we all imagine it to be.

Couples stroll through Stockholm parks and along Malmo boardwalks wearing funky clothing or pushing sporty buggies, seemingly perfectly at ease with the 30% basic rate and 55% higher rate tax that comes out of their payslips each month. You can almost imagine them resisting a snigger at our Local Income Tax and 10% rate squabbles over the past few months.

Students in Lund to the South and Umea to the North are all too keen to talk about the subjects they are grateful to not have to pay to study. New sections of universities are being thrown up at a furious rate as the investment in learning continues apace.

Infact, the only real downside that I encountered was that their knowledge of Britain, and more specifically Scotland, was not perhaps what it should be. I was constantly labelled "English" or "from England" which is fine, it honestly doesn't bother me that much, but given the fervent pride in their own country and the readiness with which Swedes wish to define themselves as separate from (and better than) their Scandinavian neighbours, I would have thought they would have known how Scotland sits within the UK.

And yet, how would they? We are constantly tucked away into British institutions and this is then translated abroad as English as I found yet again on my latest travels. I daresay it won't be too shocking for you to learn that the only person I met that had ever heard of Holyrood was an architect and an avid fan of Enric Miralles. The mention of Wendy Alexander and Alex Salmond drew a very blank look indeed though.

From Swedish newspapers the only real mention of British Politics comes from London and involves the Iraq War or the Olympics or global economic matters. Scotland doesn't get a look in. Our international voice is nothing more than a whisper and the ignorance from the unquestionably intelligent poeple that I met of what being Scottish involves was genuinely startling.

Even with the looming Euro 2008 and Olympic competitions, we don't get to grace the world stage as a nation. We gave it our best shot in the football but for the Olympics we are quietly folded into the British pack which everyone thinks of as England anyway from what I have seen.

The real damage this is all causing is the image a typical Scottish person now has in the eyes of our European neighbours. Many, many people have assumed that I am not from Scotland simply because they understand what I am saying. They expect Scots to be unintelligible and drunk more often than not. An image not helped this past week of course.

We have more to offer the world than the gardener in The Simpsons and the classic Highlander 'teuchter' image attached to most Scottish exports. But the intelligence, the creativity, the logic and the diplomacy that we have to offer Europe and the world doesn't count for much if we do not have the stage or the pulpit to show ourselves at our best.

The European Union would be the perfect arena to reflect our uniquely Scottish talents and I am becoming increasingly convinced that an independent Scotland within the EU is the ideal constitutional scenario for our nation.

Maybe then our European friends may know that not only can we stay sober and speak legible 'English', but they may also realise they like a lot of what we have to say too.

UK Minister admits majority in favour of independence...!

Yes, David Cairns, the Scotland Minister, has quite clearly stated that greater than 50% of Scots want independence:

"51% of people want independence but only 32% are going to vote for the party associated with independence," Mr Cairns told BBC Radio Scotland.

This line is from 2nd November 2006 and came at a time when Labour were attacking the SNP on its Holyrood capabilities. The line, now used in a wider context, blows a hole in the oft-quoted argument that if Scotland wanted independence then the SNP would have won a clear majority at Holyrood.

Infact, for the past 10 years at least we have seen independence support hover around the 45-55% mark. Given that this excludes the "don't knows" of approximately 10%, I would fully expect a referendum in 2008, 2009 or 2010 to end with a win for the "yes" campaign

So it begs the question, if back in 2006 the Nationalists can attract 51% of support for independence with only 32% of the Holyrood poll and with Labour still having some fight in them back then under Tony Blair and Jack McConnell, just what can the mighty SNP do with 45% support at Holyrood and Labour in clear disarray?


I really hope Salmond is strongly considering including a refendum bill in his draft legislation for next week.


Maybe 'It's Time' for the SNP to call the Labour bluff and have the referendum sooner rather than later after all?


Many have said that David Cameron will be the last Prime Minister of the UK, but I'm going to stick my neck out and and say not only will it be Tessa Jowell, but that we Scots have participated in our last UK General Election.

The Times and Michelle Obama

Reading tomorrow headlines in The Times has been an interesting affair.

The leanings of the newspaper aren't difficult to work out when it discusses "the noble cause of the union" and has ex-Communications Director for Scottish Labour writing about FMQs. And Kezia suggests that "Labour's big challenge is somehow to fight for the media's affection"? Yeah right, tough fight you've got there Kez.

But no, it was another article that got under my skin. An appropriate line there given the article discusses Michelle Obama and leads with the title "You go girl!". Barack Obama's wife and quite possibly the next First Lady of America reduced to a cheap Jerry Springer chant.

Even if the truly awful Sun or Daily Record had chosen such a title I would be surprised but The Times?

I am genuinely stunned.

Popular stories

Per the BBC News website at 9pm Thursday night:

MOST POPULAR STORIES NOW

1. Great tits cope well with warming
   
2. SA infidelities plastered on car
   
3. Sitting straight 'bad for backs'
   
4. 'Respect atheists', says Cardinal
   
5. 'Sex pest' seal attacks penguin

I hope everyone wasn't as disappointed as I was upon reading that story number one relates to wildlife.

Labour thuggery?

I thought I would draw attention to this post at Man About the House.

Specifically the response from Karen Gillon (Labour MSP) is worth noting.

In short, it seems if Labour MSPs don't like the questions being asked they'll put your address on some sort of hit-list.

Imagine Cathy Jamieson and Frank McAveety coming round to bash your head in for asking if they thought Local Income Tax was a good idea? Terrifying!

So yeah, in case any Labour MSPs are reading this and want to do me over. I live at the top of those dodgy Craigmillar Towers and answer to the name of Bruiser McGhee. Feel free to pay me a visit any time you like Kazza....

Strife imitating art

Regular readers may know that I am a West Wing super-nerd. It doesn't take much for me to compare real life occurrences to the fabulous political show penned by the equally fabulous Aaron Sorkin.

And so it was today during First Minister Questions as Wendy Alexander volunteered the word "problem" to the SNP, other opposition parties and to the national press.

Take this part of the West Wing script where we have CJ Cregg (Democratic press spokeswoman) and Danny Cancannon (Washington Political Reporter). Their parts could so easily be played by Wendy Alexander and Brian Taylor after today's showing:

Danny: "Do you really want to be the first person to use the word subpoena?"

CJ: "In the context."

Danny: "I don't care what the context was, that's the only word anybody's going to read tomorrow."

CJ "I really don't need your tips, Danny."

Danny: "As a matter of fact you do."

The next day….

CJ: "You're right. Subpoena appears in every headline in today's papers"
Danny gives an 'I told you so' look.
CJ: "Except yours"
Danny: "Well, that's only cos I don't know how to spell it"


Of course, the problem for Wendy is that "problem" is a much easier word to spell than "sub-poena".

I await with anticipation tomorrow's headlines. I expect they will be more than just problematic for Wendy Alexander.

Holyrood goes Hollywood

I await with palpable excitement this lunchtime's FMQs. Sadly I won't be able to see it live but I can almost imagine the crackling buzz of anticipation and maybe even hot dog/popcorn vendors in the public galleries. This is box office stuff.

Wendy, of course, is the star of the show but only as grudgingly as Roman Gladiators were the focus of attention back in the day. It is quite possible that she will share the same fate and be thrown to the lions before the week is out.

The Labour leader has to lead with the Scottish referendum in her questions. We saw the abuse she got for not leading with the oil strikes when it was the main story of the day. This is arguably even bigger.

However, I can't think what line of attack she'll go for that'll be effective.

Will she call for a referendum now? Even when Gordon Brown explicitly said that's not what Wendy wanted?

Will she say the SNP are running scared of the public? That won't wash whichever way she dresses it up.

Will she quote recent Daily Telegraph statistics? Alex can just hit back with the other recent poll that had support for independence higher than support for devolved Scotland.

Wendy simply has nowhere to turn to and will just have to spend yet another day 'toughing it out'. I fully expect the Labour leader will barricade her in her offices which she seems to be doing a lot of these days.

No, the only danger for this afternoon is Alex's smugness will perhaps be in overdrive.

If I was Alex, I wouldn't go in for the kill on Wendy, just state my case calmly and reasonably.
Let the press do the killing over the next few days or weeks. After all, they've wanted revenge ever since the dodgy donations row and Labour's casual regard for journalists trying to do their job.

It's Time (well, in a few years it will be)

It is becoming increasingly clear that Wendy Alexander will push for an early referendum on independence and Alex Salmond will push for a late one. It is not clear whether Wendy will publish her own bill (I guess not) or whether she will back a 2-way poll instead of a 3-way poll (again, I guess not).

So, looking only at the known knowns above, I thought I'd list the non-partisan reasons why we should wait until 2010 to have this referendum:

• The public need time to digest the many complex arguments that would be put forward during a referendum campaign. Until now we've only scratched the surface of what independence involves and an informed decision is vital. A 2009 vote would be too rushed.

• The SNP have put their National Conversation in place. Wendy Alexander may not like it but the clear timescale was that this would finish in 2009/10 with a referendum closely following it, if passed by the debating chamber.

• The Calman commission needs time to complete its work. It would be disrespectful to have any sort of referendum while they are deliberating the best devolved settlement for Scotland.

• The SNP claim that they need time to show how they can perform as a devolved government is fair. The Scottish public had 8 years to assess Labour at the helm and 3 years of the SNP in power is a good length of time for us to assess how an independent Scotland might feel with the Nationalists in charge.

• The infrastructure of a referendum needs careful consideration. After the embarrassment of Holyrood 2007 we need to take adequate time to put a proper structure in place that will ensure the vote runs smoothly.

So Wendy can rest assured that the SNP will indeed "Bring it on" but not for a couple of years yet. And when they do, Wendy Alexander will have a hard time getting out of opening the gates to an independent Scotland.

Neverendums

I admit to being actually shocked when I heard Labour had changed their stance on an independence referendum. Even more bizarre is that Labour are pushing to have it sooner than the SNP are.

And yet, there is a method to yet more madness from the Labour party.

Polls on the independence question are showing a slow but unmistakable climb in favour of a "yes" vote.

Wendy was going to look like a fearty if she didn't accept the SNP's bill on an independence referendum and Alex could have used the unionist intransigence as a campaiging tool going into May 2011's election.

So she had to do something. And her best bet, quite reasonably, is to have the blasted vote as soon as possible, confident that the Scottish people will be too scared to vote yes.

This throws up an interesting scenario though. Alex and Nicola want to have the vote in 2010 and Wendy wants to have the vote in 2009.

So, Wendy may well produce a bill this year which is voted down by the Tories and Lib Dems and, incredibly, by the SNP as it doesn't fit their timing.

Then, the following year, the SNP will put the finishing touches to THEIR bill and bring it in front of the parliament. The Tories and Lib Dems will take the same stance as always and Labour, quite fairly, will vote no in retaliation to the SNP's own no vote the year before.

Are you with me so far?


So basically, we could have the two largest parties clamouring for an independence vote and we, the poor Scottish public, being empty-handed nonetheless!

The times they're not-a-changing

Given the news that SNP support has moves into the 40+% mark, we had this from the BBC:

SNP leader Alex Salmond was delighted with his party's "spectacular progress".

He said: "Labour's much-vaunted re-launch in Scotland has been a total flop because all that it has shown is that Labour in Scotland are a 'hand-me-down' party who take their orders straight from London.

Labour's attacks on the SNP have also backfired badly because Scots are attracted to our positive proposals to move Scotland forward and build the powers of the Scottish parliament.

As Labour panic and indulge in hysterical attacks on the SNP, we will get on with the job in hand of developing the right policies for Scotland's Parliament."

Yes, all very good but what I neglected to mention is that this poll and this quote is from 1998!

So in a week where the SNP's poll rating moved above 40% mark just like exactly 8 years ago, I think it's safe to say that we shouldn't be using these figures to assess how many seats the SNP will win in 2011.

That said, the TNS/System 3 poll, conducted over April 26th to 29th, is an absolutely awesome boost for the SNP's confidence:

SNP - 45%

Labour - 31%

Tory - 12%

Lib Dem - 11%

I look forward to an even wider margin again in 2016!

Mayor Boris

I like Boris Johnson, I really do.

It wouldn't cross my mind for a second to vote him in as London Mayor but some of his TV performances must rank up there with the funniest moments in television.

The pick of the bunch: If he tackles crime as well as he tackles Germans, then London has nothing to worry about. (I can't begin to describe how much this video makes me laugh.)

Mind you, Boris' calls for safety on the roads may fall on deaf ears given his approach to cycling.

In this long but worthwhile Have I Got News For You clip, we get to see Boris' inability to fight his own corner, something the GLA Assembly might delight in if they fancy bossing Boris around. Mind you, there is a refreshing simplicity to the way he laughs off the whole incident.

Despite these moments of comedy gold, his comments on Congo residents who would break out in "watermelon smiles" or "flag waving piccaninies" in Commonwealth countries or "Papa New Guinea style orgies of cannibalism and chief killing" is simply unacceptable chat for the Mayor of the world's greatest city.

His eloquent apology neither disguises nor excuses the out-dated views that Boris clearly possesses:

"I meant no insult to the people of Papua New Guinea who I'm sure lead lives of blameless bourgeois domesticity in common with the rest of us. (I will) add Papua New Guinea to my global itinerary of apology".

The biggest contribution that Boris may end up making to British Politics is saving Gordon Brown's bacon and handing Labour a 4th term in office.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for giving people a fair chance but if Boris Johnson (ex-Etonian) stuffs up the running of London then it would make the UK voters think again about letting the country be run by David Cameron (ex-Etonian).

"Not been the best weekend"

So said Gordon Brown on Andrew Marr this morning. Gordon Brown, master of the understatement.

And it was sad to see that he still doesn't quite get it. He looked just as stiff, awkward and unintelligible as always. The only time he brightened up his persona was when Andrew Marr, with apparent genuine concern, suggested our PM didn't look so good.

Had I been planning the interview I would have had Gordon Brown turn up, not in the stuffy suit, but with an open shirt, relaxed slacks and with hair ever-so slightly dishevelled. I wouldn't have wanted to paint a picture of a man getting back on his horse too soon without taking stock of the shell-shock he has just gone through. He needed to look like a man hit for six and relatively content to have been so.

Andrew Marr, of course, quizzed him on his thoughts on the results, how he could turn it around, his thoughts on Boris Johnson. Now was the time for Gordon to chat freely in clear English "Yes, we've taken an absolute pasting here" or get some humour in there "now I know what a pair of clunking fists coming the other way feels like". He clearly didn't like being pressed on London's new mayor so why not just say he's looking forward to getting to know him over the next few weeks, arrange a dinner date or something. Instead his biting his lip to control the clear rage burning beneath was awkward to watch.

I don't know, he needed to keep it light and show some humility but he failed on both counts sadly. Noone is going to be won round by policy detail the day after an election where you got an absolute doing.

Basically, if people want to kick you (as they so clearly do in England and Wales at least), lie down to them for a while, let them get it all out for a week or so and take everything on the chin.

Infact, had I been sitting on Andrew Marr's bijou little armchair this morning I may even have said something like: "I'm going to take the next week to consider my position and assess if I have the skills, depth and policies to take this job forward...". It would make the looming relaunch all the more effective if it came after a seemingly genuine pause for reflection.

But instead, a rather punchdrunk Gordon Brown stumbled and mumbled on about his motivations and how he can connect with the poor of this country.

It all sounded a little too familiar and a little too soon somehow and although I still think Gordon has the capacity to make a comeback, he needs to change tracks fast.

D:Ream Land

Per the BBC:

Annabel Goldie, the Scottish Tory leader, claimed the SNP was "riding high" in the polls, not because of support for independence, but because they were not the Labour party

Well, the SNP aren't the Tories, Lib Dems or Greens but they are still the party hoovering up the voters.

One year into an SNP-led Scotland and, quite frankly, things can only get worse for Alex Salmond. A markedly different assessment from what people are saying about Gordon Brown today...

Congratulations to Rangers!!

Getting to the Champions League final (Moscow):

Ticket to the game - £2,000

Return airfare - £900

City centre accommodation - £300

Russian Visa - £80

Transfers from airport - £30

Getting to the Uefa Cup final (Manchester):

Megabus return - £20

Priceless...!

Gordon Brown - Comeback Kid

From reading The Times this morning I learned that Gordon Brown is planning on salvaging his tarnished reputation by mounting an "aggressive relaunch campaign".

The tactic will include:

• owning up to past errors


• adopting a listening/contrite persona


• demonstrating a policy energy through a draft Queen's speech


• shifting focus to welfare, education reforms and involving the community in tackling crime


• standing firm on the 42-day detention for terror suspects

All in all, I think it looks like a good plan. If the British people enjoy a Comeback Kid as much as the Americans do (and did) then there is definitely scope here for Gordon to reverse the polls and do a good job as PM.

I know I should really take more note of recent history but I honestly think that Gordon Brown has the capacity to be the best Prime Minister on offer right now. It's too early for David Milliband to step up and the rest of the Cabinet, though capable in their briefs, are not up to the role in my eyes. As for David Cameron, the title of a "shallow salesman" bestowed on the leader of the Tories by Brown is entirely fitting.

So our PM needs to get up and running soon; and I see two ways in which this can happen sooner rather than later.

Firstly - the 42-day detention vote

I believe the vote is so tight it's not even clear yet which way this will go, but I see it as a win-win for the PM.

Gordon has said that he is not for turning with regard to this legislation. This is a rare showing of his once-trumpeted conviction and if he wins the vote then that will serve him very well.

If he does happen to lose the vote then I don't think there will be as much bad press as there was for the 10p tax rate. As Gordon admits himself, the tax debacle was a mistake but the 42-day detention ruling is probably, on balance, the correct answer for our security services given the need to thoroughly investigate terror suspects and gather sufficient evidence. Yes there is a case to answer over Human Rights, being detained for 6 weeks when you may be perfectly innocent would be highly unfortunate, but such risks for a negligible number of people are a small price to pay for enhanced security.

The Tories, Lib Dems and backbenchers can be held up as playing partisan politics over something as serious as national defence and, in the event of a loss in the Commons, Gordon can play the "I'm trying my best to protect you but my hands are tied by these complacent fools" card.

Part 2 of the short-term comeback plan as I see it comes in the shape of the delightfully foppish Boris Johnson.

I find it truly incredible that this hapless joker can be put in charge of the most influential city in the world. Don't get me wrong, people can always surprise you, but given Boris has been consistently calamitous for most of the past decade, I can't envisage his looming mayorship as being anything other than an unmitigated disaster.

And what parallels could people take from London when transposed to the entire UK? May they think "One posh Etonian has screwed up London, I'm not going to let another one screw up the country"?

A win for Boris and an inevitable farcical showing as London's mayor could well prove a boost to the beleagured Brown and even save his Premiership.

So with a bit of luck it'll be: Not Flash-in-the-Pan, just Gordon.