Is this the end of newspapers?

There is a gathering school of thought that newspapers as we know them are fast becoming a thing of the past. My recent 'Tweet' that I was buying a paper for old times sake certainly seemed to strike a few chords given the ReTweets it got, although I must say that the blogging philosophy that 'it was blogs wot done it' is probably wide of the mark.

People lead busier lives and try to cram as much into their days as possible. Ironically, this desire to do so much means many traditional aspects of one's day are falling by the way side.

Included in this are cooking properly, families eating at the dinner table and tending a proper moustache. (So God bless Bob Ainsworth I say)

Also falling away is reading a newspaper before getting to work or during lunch or at any time of day to be honest.

The BBC probably satisfies most of the public's need for news either via its main tv bulletin or its website. And for James Murdoch to suggest recently at the Edinburgh International Television Festival that the Corporation is 'a threat' to established newspapers is just nonsense. Quality news should not just be for those who can afford it.

It is a worry what the future direction is for the paper press, so much so that a debate has been organised in Edinburgh this week to give the topic the attention it deserves.


So rather than me solve the problem now (which I'm sure I would have stumbled onto given another 5 minutes or so), I'll wait a few nights and report back on what Thursday night holds.

Perhaps even some readers of this particular post might make it along?

Here is a link and the details:



"Is this the end of newspapers?"

AllMediaScotland.com's director Mike Wilson looks at where online media is going and what the future holds for the printed media.

Date: Thurs 3 September 2009

Time: 6pm for 6.30pm

Dodgy Dossiers

Just back from an excellent wedding (rounded off with the most well-dressed game of crazy golf these shores have perhaps ever seen) The blog, obviously, didn't get much of a look-in during the time and I think I'll continue my minor blogging hiatus into the long weekend and the busy working week that lies ahead but I had to not only flag up a truly tragic spelling error in today's newspapers but also raise an objection to what is appearing to be a regrettably dedicated campaign against a Government Minister.

First thing's first. Look at the headline to this story. "Kenny's dogie dossier". The paper version has the correct spelling of 'dodgy' so I'm reasonably sure it's not a pun. If the Scotland on Sunday wants to be a quality newspaper they could at least hire quality proof-readers, particularly for the headlines of one of their main stories.

Anyway, the decision to liken the Justice Secretary's following of due process in releasing Al-Megrahi to the unpopular and factually inaccurate dossier that took us into war in Iraq is unfortunate. Infact, it is shabby.

The two main concerns that the Scotland on Sunday raises are as follows:

• Four prostate cancer specialists were not "willing to say" whether Megrahi would live for more than 3 months. No professional doctor in such or similar circumstances can ever conclusively say how long someone will live or not. Of course they are not going to risk their professional reputations on gambling on whether Megrahi will make a surprise recovery with his illness going into remission.
• SPS guidance requires the authorities to consider type of offence and length of sentence outstanding. The guidance only requires this to be considered which MacAskill surely did. Indeed, it would have been unavoidable.

And that's it, that seems to be the sum total of the 'dodginess' of MacAskill's 'dossier'.

It's ok to disagree with the decision but there needs to be a semblance of dulce et decorum around the objections raised. Politicians of all parties have (more or less) conducted themselves in this way but journalists at Johnston Press seem to be struggling.

Yes, Kenny MacAskill has staked his reputation on whether Al-Megrahi lives for another three months. That is an unfortunate and unavoidable corollary of the decision he took.

However, the Scotsman and Scotland on Sunday are putting their reputations on the line by going after the Justice Secretary so vigiorously. If it transpires that Kenny has indeed played this sufficiently by the book, then Johnston Press has a lot to lose.

EXCLUSIVE: BPPA to sponsor SNP's Donaldson Lecture

The SNP have had a reasonably tough time at the moment so good news comes in the shape of Bell Pottinger Public Affairs sponsoring the Donaldson Lecture at the SNP's Autumn Conference in October.

There were ripples of controversy when BPPA moved from supporting the Labour party conference to the Tory party conference (only for the Tory champagne reception to be switched to a Policy Exchange party in the end).

So it is a real shot in the arm for the SNP that the mighty London political consultants are giving such a strong show of support to the party.

And the offer has been confirmed by the SNP in the past 15 minutes so this really is hot off the press...

What's it called?

Cumbernauld!!

Ah, don't you just love local slogans? Pure dead brilliant. Well, ok, not all of them.

Cumbernauld gets a bad press, since time immemorial it has been voted the ugliest town in the UK when in reality it's actually a very nice place to live.

That niceness is about to get a considerable increase as a simply stunning 10m statue is due to be built for the bargain price of £250,000.

There is a local debate about the location of the statue; town centre vs the outskirts and I have to say I agree with the artist himself:

"An artwork does not need to be slap bang in the middle of a town to be seen as a landmark of that place."

I have been really taken with the design and, wherever it ends up, I'm sure it will look beautiful.

Scotland should call time on Diageo debate

"Irritated" is the first word of the Times article on the recent spat between the Scottish Government and Diageo over the expected loss of some 500 jobs.

It's an appropriate word as the conversation has dragged on for too long now and, as if Scotland doesn't have its own international relations problems already, it is well and truly time to leave Diageo be to make its own mind up what is best for its future as a company before we cultivate a reputation for being anti-business.

I mean, how cheeky is it to go to a company that's just made a £2bn operating profit and propose a new business plan? Particularly when the Managing Director of the company almost immediately dismisses said plan as not detailed enough.

Per a Government spokesperson:

“The details of the proposal put to Diageo will focus on continuing production activity at Port Dundas in Glasgow and the development of a new bottling plant in Kilmarnock on a greenfield site.

“The plan is detailed, deliverable and the result of the joint efforts of the taskforce — including unions, Glasgow and East Ayrshire Council, local politicians and Scottish Enterprise.”

That's fine, but I think someone, somewhere is putting too much faith in our councils and unions. Finance and forecasting is a different ball game in the depths of Diageo plc I reckon.

Don't get me wrong, along with local MP Des Browne, the SNP have fought the workers' corner manfully and admirably but the party has to tread very carefully with this issue or it will find it is not only Diageo who are finding it 'irritable' when it tries to push private companies around.

Aside from everything else, if the whole issue is left with Salmond and Paul Walsh (Diageo CEO) on bad terms, then the honest endeavour of the Scottish Government will have to be penned down as a fail.

Full detail of Daily Mail/Al-Megrahi Poll

Well, the full detail of the Scotland-only 1,078 sample size poll from DailyMail/YouGov is now out and the Nationalists who were holding out for a silver lining after the initial bad news will perhaps not be best pleased.

The independence question was, as far as I can make out, identical to the question that Alex Salmond would happily have as part of a referendum.

For whatever reason be it RBS' and HBOS' remarkable fall from grace, the Al-Megrahi decision or recent attempts to redefine what Britishness is, the people of Scotland do not want to be independent.

28% in favour of independence compared with 57% against does not leave much wiggle room, even for a man of Salmond's indisputable talents.(32% say Alex is the best FM to Iain Gray's 12%)

As for voting intentions, we have:

Westminster

Labour - 33%
SNP - 25%
Tory - 19%
Lib Dem - 16%

I don't have my Westminster spreadsheet to translate this into seats but I don't think I need to say that the SNP would be miles away from getting their coveted 20 MPs with that national breakdown.

Per Electoral Calculus, it would be Lab - 38, Lib Dems - 11 (!), SNP - 7, Tory - 3.

Infact, only 4 Scottish seats would change hands in what would be the dullest of dull evenings for an election night. (Ochil, Edinburgh South, Dumfries & Galloway and *whisper it* Glasgow East)

"Were you up for Nigel Griffiths?" we could say. It's just not the same somehow (although if Grifftihs is a specific Tory target, does that make it a decapitation strategy or a castration one? Ouch.)

For Holyrood, we have:

Constituency vote:

SNP - 33%
Labour - 31%
Tory - 16%
Lib Dem - 16%

Regional vote:

Labour - 28%
SNP - 27%
Tory - 17%
Lib Dem - 15%
Greens - 6%

It would be another wafer-thin election between the SNP and Labour if it was held in the short term (not an impossibility with potential no-confidence motions looming) and the Greens remain on that nervy 6% threshold where they could finish with 10 MSPs or 2 MSPs if they finish up a percentage point or down respectively.

The Tories and the Lib Dems are in similar positions to 2007 so they would presumably be neither scared of nor incentivised by a potential snap election. Indeed, if Tavish and Iain could carve up a pre-election coalition deal, I would almost recommend they go for it.

On Megrahi, it's not all bad given the public perception is not too far off 50/50 at 42% for and 51% against. I say 'not all bad' but that's save for the fact that a fairly whopping 69% of people think that Scotland's reputation has diminished as a result of the Justice Secretary's decision. That stays at a high 50% amongst SNP voters alone.

So a fairly bad poll. It's not a body blow, merely a kick in the shins, and in a funny way the SNP Ministers may even perversely wear these polling results as a badge of honour.

Pleasing merely half of the people is the inevitable consequence that so often comes with being in power and having to take the hard decisions so as the dust settles and tempers cool a different picture is perhaps as likely to emerge as this picture remaining into the mid-term.

But is it just me, or did we unknowingly, unexpectedly and not a little bit unexcitedly just enter the 2011 election cycle...?


Game on.



EDIT: I don't tend to read the 'Political Party Identification' section of the poll but I did this time and noted it had 469 Labour members. That's from a total sample of 1,078 and equates to 44% of the population.

Given there are 18,800 Labour members in Scotland, 0.376% of the population, is this a whopper of bias in the poll or am I reading it wrong?

Crucially, there were 166 'Other' members noted (presumably mostly SNP) with 15,000 across Scotland.

So if 18,800 Labour members are represented by 469 sample individuals and 15,000 SNP members are represented by only 166 sample individuals, maybe this poll can be discarded as somewhat biased after all...? Or am I 'over-reaching'?


Anyway, I'm off to the Bloggers Meet. Cheers...!

Planes, trains and unnecessary bridges

I daresay only Scotland could receive news of a potentially revolutionary high speed rail network, fuelling our imagination with talk of 200mph trains and 2 hour trips to London, and almost immediately boil the debate down to whether it should be called 'the Union Railway' or 'the Independence Railway'.

Tom Harris and Bill Wilson, take a bow.

Anyway, the mischief and nonsense to one side, it is a hugely inspiring proposition and regardless of the prohibitive cost, we have to ask ourselves whether in 50 years time we want to be flying to London and beyond or getting the train.

With the environment very much in mind, it is surely the latter that is vastly preferable and although it may appear unaffordable, we should look at other projects that are in the pipeline in order to concentrate our minds on what is needed and what is not.

The Forth Road Bridge, the 3rd bridge to link Edinburgh to Fife, is due to be financed and built over the next decade with a cost expected to exceed £3.4bn.

The cost of high speed rail is reported to be £34bn.

Scotland's population is some 10% of the UK's total population which would suggest that our share of the cost for these trains would be roughly £3.4bn. Exactly the same cost as the new Forth Road bridge. What are the chances!? (Pretty high given my creative accounting but let's move on shall we....)

The gist of my point is this, we probably can't afford to build a new Forth Road Bridge and start on high speed rail. Some would say we can afford neither but given we already have two bridges spanning the Forth between Edinburgh and Fife and only a pedestrian train service down to London, it is surely the latter that is a priority.

There is a suggestion that the reason for the third bridge is that the SNP could use it as an expensive leverage when pushing for fiscal autonomy and borrowing powers. A means to a constitutional end. Honestly? I have a lot of sympathy for that suspicion.

How many stretches of water around the world have 3 transport bridges sitting side by side with each other? Not many I reckon.

The official reason for the third bridge is that the existing road crossing is seeing its cables weaken at such a rate that the bridge will be too dangerous to travel on some time next decade. However, through a mix of new technology (dehumdification) and engineers' confidence in the strength of the current cables, there is now no reason why the existing bridge cannot be merely upgraded to extend its useful life, possibly forever, as has been the case with similar bridges facing similar issues around the world.

The Forthright Alliance is a group that is fiercely opposing the building of the new bridge and I thoroughly recommend reading their website.

Tom Harris, when he's not poking the SNP beast with talk of 'Union Railways' has suggested that the SNP is too disciplined and does not generate enough debate within the party.

Tom may well be right but for my money (and my share of that £3.4bn is a serious chunk of cash), I think the SNP are flat out wrong on the need for another Forth crossing and the money should be invested in transport that fires the imagination and will deliver a truly sustainable network, a long-lasting testimony to the green future that we should all be striving towards.

We need high-speed trains for the centuries to come, not a bridge for diesel-powered lorries and cars to break the back of over the next few decades as an expensive quick fix to a very difficult problem.


EDIT: That said, if we're going to have this bridge, and while we're talking about names, I still think the Irn-Bru Bridge (made from girders) is a winner.

SNP take poll hit after Megrahi

The Daily Mail have released that rare thing, a Scotland-wide poll with a 1,000+ sample size.

It has been a long while since the last one but it seems the SNP has taken a bit of a hit on a number of scores and it's difficult to shake off the suggestion that some of this is due to the Al-Megrahi decision.

'Post hoc ergo propter hoc' and all that, just because one thing follows another it doesn't necessarily mean they are related, correlation does not always equate to causation, so one has to make one's own mind up on this. Anyway, here are the numbers:

On independence, only 28% are said to back it (no indication what the wording of the question was)

On Holyrood voting intentions, we have:

SNP - 33% (-5)
Lab - 31% (-1)
Con - 16% (+3)
LD - 16% (+4)

There was a Westminster voting question which, worryingly, has the SNP on a rather light 25%. No other figures seem to be known yet.

Crucially, on the question of the Al-Megrahi release, 42% said the release was correct and 51% said the release was wrong.

Split by party, Lib Dems were 57% in favour, Labour 39% and Tories 30%. Once again, Tavish Scott is looking like he is facing in the wrong direction on this issue but at least Gray and Goldie have their members behind them.

This comes on the back of a poll of Scottish lawyers, where almost 70% of these more learned individuals agreed with the Justice Secretary's decision.

The silver lining surrounding all of this is, if the slight dip in the SNP's fortunes is off the back of the Al-Megrahi decision, it should correct itself fairly soon as the story blows over.

Then again, this could give the unionist parties the impetus to kick on and put a no-confidence motion to the Parliament next week in seeking Kenny MacAskill's resignation which would surely force an election.

With this, there is a warning in the YouGov poll. Although 51% of people disagree with Kenny's decision, only a third wish to see him resign so the criticism is not as fierce as it could have been.

Why do so many people hate the SNP?

I've only been a member of the SNP for just over a year. That may only stretch to the occasional Branch meeting, dangling my toes in Autumn Conference 2008 and getting up to my knees in Spring Conference 2009 (I'm thinking of going waist-high in Autumn 2009 but it is in chilly Inverness so we'll play that one by centigrade...)

Anyway, I've only ever met reasonable, intelligent, engaging people. It's been an enjoyable experience seeing how the party hangs together and the dynamics that have formed within it. I have no doubt it is a similar situation to all the other political parties out there although there is a good reason why the SNP may have an extra energy about them given the 2007 victory.

Even though I know precious little about the SNP's history (Free by '93? The 79 Group? Haven't a clue) it strikes me as peculiar that the Nationalists are so often singled out for a very special kind of derision and deep-seated anger. There seems no reason for it whatsoever.

After all, all parties are legitimate. Even the Lib Dems.

This week, that negative feeling has been brought into sharp focus.


Tory Bear kicked things off with a barrage of blogging bile that had seemingly been built up for quite a while now:

The Nationalists are apparently "scum" and "dangerous and deluded fools". The "lunatic-fringe pressure group", the "jumped up county council" "embarrassed themselves today" with a "cold and cynical calculated move".

How does a little boy gather such hate-filled opinions at such an early age? Is it passed down through the generations along with nice watches and a Range Rover? Who is to know...

Brian Wilson struggles to keep a lid on things in a recent article titled "Lockerbie bomber: The SNP's Libya stunt has shamed my nation". Brian used to be a Government Minister. Where is the level-headedness? By all means agree but "cosying up"? "Shame"? It's all a little too needlessly incendiary for my liking, presumably driven by personal feeling towards the Nationalists.

Even the Coventry Telegraph's Alan Poole can't resist a good kick at the SNP, even if he does think they got the decision correct:

The SNP, of course, are at best parochial parasites, at worst insidious racists, while their leader is a politician who miraculously contrives to make Tony Benn seem modest, Paddy Ashdown sincere and David Cameron patrician.

Coventry? Bizarre. Not as bizarre as coming to the conclusion that the party are either full of parasite or racists. Did the SNP slag off that North West city once and Alan has been waiting to wreak his revenge ever since?

There are countless examples out there. Columnists who write much more regularly (who I shan't name) who it seems desperately look for any angle with which to hammer the SNP for all they are worth.

And even fellows MSPs can't hold back on occasion. Weren't the SNP called xenophobes at the last election? And Salmond compared to Hitler? Weird.

I am all in favour of the Government of the day being given a rough ride and their performance put to the test and I was too politically wet behind the ears to know what Jack McConnell and his team faced so maybe the SNP's abuse is just par for the course.

I just can't help but shake the feeling that it's all a little bit personal and comes from the pit of certain journalists' stomachs when they write.

Tories nit-pick on Megrahi

I'm afraid the national embarrassment over the Al-Megrahi decision is far from over and when I say national embarrassment I don't, of course, mean the decision itself but rather the petty opposition and nit-picking that is coming with it.

The SNP have already been accused (twice) of misleading the Parliament in the past year and each time they were not only exonerated but on one occasion the opposing parties were warned to choose their complaints more wisely.

It seems the Scottish Tories have not heeded that warning.

Per The Times:

Kenny MacAskill was accused of misleading Holyrood and the public yesterday after Scotland’s largest police force cast serious doubt on a key part of the Justice Secretary’s explanation for freeing the Lockerbie bomber to return to Libya.

Annabel Goldie, the Scottish Tory leader, accused Mr MacAskill of “painting a picture” that it was impossible to keep al-Megrahi in Scotland and deflecting responsibility for the decision on to Strathclyde Police.

In a statement, a Strathclyde Police spokeswoman said: “If a decision had been made to release Mr al-Megrahi in Scotland, we would have provided whatever security was required.
“We were asked how many officers would be required to provide security and we provided that advice. All we are saying is that we were asked about the level of security which would be required for al-Megrahi, members of his family and the local community should he be released.

First up, the hospice idea was always going to be unworkable aside from security implications, particularly the impact it would have on other patients in the building when all they would want is peace and quiet.

Kenny MacAskill asked the police how many officers would be required to guard Al-Megrahi in a hospice. The Justice Secretary was told 48 and decided that that figure was too high and moved on.

That's what Kenny said to the Parliament, that was the decision he took, what exactly is the problem?

The trivial point-scoring on such an important, international topic must surely be depressing for all involved. And if this story is padded out for another week on the back of such trifling matters when in reality the crux of the matter is now done and dusted, Scotland may end up looking very small and very parochial indeed.

And that would be much worse than a few uncontrollable Saltire flags fluttering in Tripoli.

Brown to be released on compassionate grounds

In a move that has stunned the political world, Gordon Brown is to be released from his prime ministerial duties as it becomes clear that his political life is nearing its natural end.

‘He should be allowed to see out the rest of his days with his loved ones – it’s just not fair to watch him suffer,’ said Home Secretary Alan Johnson, answering critics who insist that Brown should pay for the lives he has ruined.

However SNP leader Alex Salmond says that Gordon Brown should be imprisoned in his native Scotland. ‘As it happens we have a cell that’s just become vacant.’

hat-tip/(ripped off) from - NewsBiscuit

Labour needs to cut and run

Per The Guardian, Gordon Brown is due to announce significant cuts to the UK Budget.

Despite this being a welcome move for us taxpayers given the levels of debt we are facing and the (albeit fading) prospect that as a country we could simply run out of money, there are a plethora of PMQs quotes that the Conservative party can now use to hit Gordon over the head with between now and the election. Mr 10%? Increased capital spending till the Olympics? 0% rise? "You don't cut public investment at a time like this. You support families and businesses through a downturn."?

Take your pick Dave.

Gordon loves the cuts vs investment debate, he just cannot get enough of it. We saw Labour win 3 elections on the back of it and we also saw Gordon personally prepare the ground for election battle number 4 with this tried and tested theme at the heart of it. Even though there wasn't enough money in the bank to successfully convince the public that investment is what we need right now, Gordon was good-to-go with his favourite pitch.

So today's news comes out of left field and probably leaves Labour without a core election strategy going into Spring 2010. Indeed, I suspect Gordon Brown is being dragged into this necessary action by his Chancellor who seems to have a stronger understanding of the risks Britain plc faces than Gordon does.

Alastair Darling deserves a lot of credit after a tumultuous year. His budget assumptions were laughed out of the room at the time but it looks increasingly likely that they are going to be fairly close to correct. The modest MP for Edinburgh South West even allowed himself a rare flicker of smug satisfaction in a recent Sunday Tims interview. And who can blame him.

Brown will never win in a head-to-head with David Cameron, poll after poll has put paid to that possibility but, in my opinion and I daesay in a lot of other peoples' opinion, Alastair Darling is a significantly more preferable Chancellor than George Osborne is. Pushing the mild-mannered Scot front and centre over the next few months and making him the poster boy for calm financial management could go a long way to reversing the party's fortunes if it comes with the shaky Osborne being scrutinised under the microscope a little bit more.

Let's remember that the Tories objected to every measure that Labour brought in to combat the recession and, credit where it's due, the majority of Labour's measures worked. If only the Government had stopped spending so heavily a good bit earlier we might be out of recession already just as France, Germany and Hong Kong are.

Labour are doing the right thing in finally making public sector cuts but it is coming far too late and after far too much hypocrisy for the party to earn any respect or credibility as a result of it.

They need to change direction away from the Investment vs Cuts debate as quickly and cleanly as possible to avoid serious and well-deserved embarrassment.

Al-Megrahi - Where we stand today

In the end, I didn't get to hear a single word of the Justice Secretary's statement or any of the questions that followed it from yesterday. But thanks to the wonders of Twitter, I feel that I was there in the Parliamentary Chamber for most of it.

There's little doubt that yesterday was a waste of time and will probably serve to pull the sting from this entire episode. Most people, many of them grudgingly, seem to accept that Kenny MacAskill did well and no blows were landed by the Opposition.

So, hopefully bringing this matter to a close, here is a neat little round-up of where we are:

Kenny MacAskill is safe, Alex Salmond is ebullient, Tavish Scott is facing in the wrong direction, Annabel Goldie is heartless (re: hospices), Iain Gray is a cartoon character, Patrick Harvie is under-appreciated, Malcolm Chisholm is a hero, Gordon Brown is a wimp and Nicola Sturgeon is perhaps not the next leader of the SNP after all.


There, that wasn't too tricky, I'm off for another syrup waffle...

Lib Dem Tactical Voting

A fascinating poll is out this evening. Not fascinating for the topline results (T - 41, L - 25, LD - 19, Oth - 14) but because 56% of Lib Dem voters would like to see a Cameron Government while only 36% would prefer a Brown Government.

I would have assumed, if anything, that Lib Dems would prefer a Labour Government as, historically at least, Labour are more to the left than the Tories are.

Clearly, there is plenty of scope for Lib Dem tactical voting towards the Tories (and probably the SNP) to get Gordon Brown out. Given that the Lib Dems enjoyed a bumper year in 2005 during the height of the Iraq War, there are a lot of votes that are ready to fall into other parties hands next Spring.

Faithfully translating this poll for Lib Dem tactical voting towards the Tories in Scotland, this throws up potential surprise results in certain constituencies, starting with my own.

Edinburgh North & Leith - The Lib Dems seeing their vote go to the Tories could help Iain McGill win the constituency for the blues or clear the way for Calum Cashley to take the seat for the SNP given the area is a genuine 4-way fight. (A 5-way fight if the Green party field a candidate). It could even split the field to such an extent that Mark Lazarowicz hangs on for Labour.

Other seats that could go the way of the Tories are Aberdeen South; West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine; Argyll & Bute; Ayr, Carrick & Cumnock; Central Ayrshire; East Lothian; Edinburgh North & Leith; Edinburgh South West and Stirling.

Even Lib Dem stronghold Edinburgh West comes into Tory sights if the tactical voting is particularly prevalent.

And this is all on top of the Tories being favourites to take Berwick, Roxburgh & Selkirk; Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale; Edinburgh South and East Renfrewshire.


Note of course that Lib Dem tactical voting towards the Tories could see the SNP significantly improve their chances of taking seats like Dunfermline & West Fife; East Kilbride; East Lothian; Stirling; Edinburgh North & Leith; Falkirk; Glasgow South; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey; Gordon; Midlothian and Cumbernauld, Kilsyth & Kirkintilloch East on top of the numerous seats that they are already favourites for.

I really do think the Lib Dems are on track for a collapse next Spring, particularly north of the border where they have no tangible policy position on, well, anything really.

The Iraq War issue was played well in 2005 and Charlie Kennedy was a thoroughly attractive leader up in Scotland.

Chris Clegg and ID cards just don't have the same charm I'm afraid.

As has already been suggested in the Euro election, the Lib Dem vote looks set to splinter next Spring and it's the Tories and SNP who look ready to capitalise.

Poll on Megrahi decision

PoliticsHome has conducted a poll to canvass British opinion on the release of the Lockerbie bomber.

The results are:

Approve - 35%
Disapprove - 53%

(sample size 1,024)

By party this becomes:

Tory
Approve - 23%
Disapprove - 67%

Labour

Approve - 42%
Disapprove - 47%

Lib Dems

Approve - 52%
Disapprove - 35%

The SNP are a Scottish party so to conduct a British-wide poll to ascertain the impact on the party's fortunes has an obvious flaw.

Precious few SNP voters will have been included in this poll while a considerable level of Tory voters will. This comes despite the Tory proportion across Britain being considerably higher to their proportion in Scotland with the SNP enjoying ~30% support across Scotland which, of course, won't have been reflected in the 1,024 respondents.

As shown by the Tory split above, the further to the right a party is, the more likely its member will be in favour of the decision taken by Kenny MacAskill. Consequently, although we still do not know what the Scottish public's opinion is, we do know that it won't be too far off 50/50 once an SNP and Tory correction is made. Perhaps even a slight majority in favour.

Certainly the rapturous applause at the book festival this weekend when an author stated that Kenny MacAskill is a national hero helps to suggest this (h/t Freedom and Whisky)

Even allowing for a higher proportion of Labour voters in Scotland than in England would result in the split coming closer to 50/50.

So the reaction of the party leader's can now be brought into sharper focus as we know, British-wide at least, what their members think.

David Cameron seems to have gauged his party's mood correctly when he said the decision was a mistake and a bad error of judgement. I still reckon the one-sided nature of his comments will ensure he is a dangerously shallow PM to have leading the UK.

Jack McConnell seems to have gone too far with his statement when he said that the decision had "damaged the reputation of Scotland, has damaged our justice system and has brought shame on our country."

42% of Labour members seem quite happy with this 'shameful' decision so it is perhaps lucky that the other former Labour First Minister, Henry McLeish has adopted such a reasonable stance on the matter. (Incidentally, with wall-to-wall radio spots, is Henry just bored or planning a comback?)

For Tavish Scott, the Scottish Lib Dem leader, he has dug himself a very deep hole indeed. Arguably, his criticism of the affair has been the most severe (and the most tiresome) and yet a clear majority of British Lib Dems are in favour of the decision.

"The SNP Government's unilateral decision to release a convicted mass murderer has brought Scotland's standing in the world to an all-time low.

"The SNP's credibility at home and abroad is in tatters. Scotland's must not be allowed to follow with it."

Unilateral? Grow up Tavish. No-one attacked Iraq.

The Green party leader, Patrick Harvie, summed up the incident very well with a simple 'Tweet':

It's a humane decision, however woodenly delivered.

Patrick may well have avoided the headlines this past week, but his contributions may ultimately prove to be the most intelligent and relevant in this afternoon's debate. I still like the idea of the Green party calling for Megrahi to be sent home to Libya by Megabus though...

One party leader's opinion remains outstanding of course and with 67% of the UK against this decision, if any public announcement is to be made by Gordon Brown it must surely be to condemn the SNP. And that's when the fun and games could really start, the media on both sides of the border are not going to pass up a story on Salmond vs Brown with the whole world watching on.

As for polling, I have no doubt a Scottish sub-sample of a UK poll will be conducted at some point, if not a distinctly Scottish poll in its own right. And if the media can bring themselves to publish it, I reckon significant vindication for MacAskill's decision will come with it.

Until then, judgement should be reserved on whether 'MacAskill spoke for Scotland' even if some people (who agreed with the decision in the first place) have made their mind up seemingly based on little more than sensationalist headlines.

I believe the Holyrood debate kicks off at 2:30pm this afternoon. I will be working to fight off the recession (remember that?) during the whole afternoon so any news or reviews from inside the Parliament via the comments would be most welcome.

Keep in mind I allow anonymous comments so that famous Holyrood leash can come off if you are in Holyrood and wish to have your say....

Kenny MacAskill faces fellow MSPs

Holyrood will finally reconvene today as Kenny MacAskill faces questions from fellow MSPs on the decision to release Al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds.

As far as I understand it, there will be no votes of no-confidence and there will be no motions put before the Parliament this week. These could only be put forward by opposing parties next Monday when Parliament was originally due to come together.

Any such motions or votes would merely politicise a situation that would surely cheapen such an important debate.

Personally I think the media are overhyping how tomorrow will go. They may say the pressure on Kenny MacAskill is intensifying but I don't think the objections from Richard Baker and Bill Aitken will be a step up from those from Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

The Sunday Herald has a list of "the questions our Parliament must pursue" (sadly, no online link available)

(1) Why did Megrahi abandon his appeal?

Is that really a question for MacAskill to answer? The Justice Secretary has already stated that the dropped appeal had no impact on his decision so there is little more that needs to be discussed as far as I can see.

And anyway, the appeal was not due to reconvene (due to an ill judge) until Megrahi had died. The prisoner probably calculated he was more likely to be released on compassionate release if he abandoned his push to clear his name. With three months to live, perhaps it doesn't get murkier than just a bit of game theory.

(2) Who was giving the Justice Secretary legal (and political) advice?

As the Sunday Herald says itself, this question is beyond the scope of any Holyrood debate but even still, MacAskill can quite simply list an array of people he has discussed this case with, as he has done previously.

There is little doubt that he has followed Scots Law and due process throughout the case.

(3) Why did MacAskill meet Al-Megrahi in the run-up to his decision?

MacAskill's defence I believe stems from him saying that under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement he had little choice but to meet the prisoner. This is something that Scott at Love and Garbage (fiercely) takes issue with and it seems there is some curious legal reason why it was a bad move.

Personally, being a non-lawyer, along with 99.9% of the Scottish population, I can't imagine this is a question that will capture the public imagination as it's so far removed from whether the overall decision was correct or not.

(4) Will other prisoners who have less than 3 months to live be granted compassionate release?

One can only hope that they will. Clearly if there is a threat to the public then there should be safeguards or maybe even requests denied but in theory I would imagine Kenny would be perfectly content to say that Megrahi's release is par for the course going forward.


And that, as far as I can see, is that. The Greens of course have more or less agreed with the line taken by SNP and their concerns will no doubt amount to asking why the prisoner was flown home when surely the appropriate transport would be the Megabus to Tripoli.

Today will be interesting but there is a very big chance that for all of the grandstanding and posturing of Tavish Scott and Jack McConnell, it will be something of a damp squib.

Incidentally, the biggest fallout from all of this could be between unionist party leaders and the many members of their parties who agree compassionate release was the correct conclusion.

How some reasonable Liberal Democrats can now look up to Tavish Scott as their leader given some of the ludicrous statements he has made this past week is beyond me....

Gordon Brown and The Ashes

Can Gordon Brown reasonably congratulate the England cricket team for their Ashes victory while his opinion on the release of the Lockerbie bomber remains outstanding?


I have no such dilemma.

Well done England, I don't really follow cricket but that runout by Flintoff is a particularly awesome way to bring the curtain down on an eventful international career.

Our not so opinionated Prime Minister

If the continuing furore over the release of the Lockerbie bomber has afforded us one positive outcome it is that it is clearly ok to hold an opinion.

Opinions are coming out of the blogosphere and Sunday papers like they are going out of fashion. They are splintering in all manners of directions to such an extent that it has riven the Scotsman (History will record Megrahi's release as the right decision) and the Scotland on Sunday (MacAskill was wrong) in two with their respective editorials.

I just hope the Johnston Press doesn't believe in a newspaper-equivalent of Cabinet Collective Responsibility or at least one political journalist will be honourably stepping down soon.

The various editorials and commentators out there are not shy in sharing their opinions today either and would have us believe that Kenny MacAskill's decision is "a tribute to our decency", "a merciful release" and "in keeping with the normal operations of Scotland’s legal system".

David Cameron's opinion (one that means I have lost all of the gradually built-up respect for the man as a potential Prime Minister for it lacking even a scintilla of flexibility on the matter) is that it was a "very bad" judgement and "completely nonsensical". Refusing to even contemplate another viewpoint or state his understanding for the decision reached is a startling position to take and I do not feel comfortable having a one-dimensional, blinkered person leading our country.

The opinions bitterly oppose each other but are pleasing just by their very existence. And on one topic all people have seemed to coalesce around a shared opinion, Gordon Brown's lack of an opinion is shameful.

The only excuse put up by a Cabinet member is that this is a devolved matter and, presumably, it is not the PM's or Minister's place to comment.

Poppycock.

I know, strong language, but I feel the situation merits it.

There is no government rule which says UK ministers don't criticise Scottish ministers on points of policy.

Take December 2007 for example when Kenny MacAskill was once again in the eye of a cross-border storm over police conduct during stop and search incidents. I can't recall any problems when Tom Harris (Transport Minister at the time) invited himself into the situation and shared his disagreement with a public letter criticising our Justice Secretary.

Opinions matter, they ensure debate is healthy, open and ongoing.

For the Prime Minister not to have an opinion on the most important domestic and international issue for months, then it serves only to confirm what we already know.

Gordon Brown is now a stop-gap leader of the country, merely holding the reins as Harman or Mandelson have over the past few weeks, before he hands over to the Tories. There is no leadership, no political instinct, no moral compass to guide us and no backbone to his Cabinet who have similarly, shamelessly avoided sharing an opinion.

There is simply nothing left in Labour's tank.

I would say the General Election can't come quickly enough but I honestly don't know who I have stronger reservations with, the frustratingly incompetent Gordon Brown or the dangerously shallow David Cameron.

Maybe independence wouldn't be so bad after all...

Why was Andrew Marr cancelled?

Pardon my cynicism, but was it not a bit strange that the Andy Marr show was cancelled this morning? Maybe there was a perfectly valid reason but today's newspapers are even advertising that it should have been on so it does seem a bit strange.

Given the big news story today is the Al-Megrahi decision and Gordon Brown was facing some fairly intensive questioning over what his opinion is on the matter, is it possible that a deal was done to save the PM any embarrassment?

As far as I am aware, no Cabinet Minister has offered their opinion on Kenny MacAskill's decision.

Has the Brown bunker just sunk a little bit deeper into the terrain?

The shame of Green bloggers

The Top Green blogs have been announced and Scotland's sole representative has scooped second spot. Congratulations to James, fellow bridesmaid. I am well aware of the esteem he has for The Daily (Maybe) so I'm sure he isn't too disappointed to be second for the second year running.

Upon reading the top ten, I couldn't help but think about the recent news that having a black background on a website is significantly more environmentally friendly than having a white one so I thought I'd see how each of the Green bloggers are doing on that score:

1 (1) The Daily (Maybe) - Bright white. 0/10
2 (2) Two Doctors - Bright white. 0/10
3 (9) Peter Cranie - Mostly white with some light green. 2/10
4 (3) Another Green World - Mostly white with darker green. 3/10
5 (10) Barkingside 21 - Mauve? 5/10
6 (7) Philobiblon - Bright purple. 7/10 (an extra 1 for style points)
7 (6) Green Ladywell - Mostly white with some light green. 2/10
8 (18) Rupert Read - Light yellow. 1/10
9 (16) Ruscombe Green - Bright white. 0/10
10 Green Reading - White and light blue. 1/10


So, all in all, an epic fail for the leading Green bloggers. Very disappointed....


(Incidentally, this is post is clearly just banter. And if it's any consolation, I think I recruited a particularly intelligent and switched on person into the Edinburgh East Green party last night (a constituency the party seems to be doing very well in). Needless to say, my initial recruitment drive didn't work out too well.)

Edinburgh Festival and Independence

I had a classic night out at the Fringe yesterday evening.

No plan, no real direction, saw a top show or two, met some friends a bit randomly. All in all, no problem.

Best gig was Miles Jupp, surely the Tory Boy of the Edinburgh festival, though he did assure us all that he is a left-wing snob in that he believes in free education, free health and free housing for the poor people, he just doesn't want to meet any of them. In context, trust me, it's wonderful stuff and to my personal delight he talked about Politics for the first half hour. A solid 4 stars*

Post show, the politics chat continued and I was delighted that a straw poll of 7 people showed that all 7 thought Kenny MacAskill made the right decision this week and that I can assure you is from a distinctly non-SNP population. Six of the seven may have thought the delivery was woeful but still, it was nice to see real people make a mockery of headlines such as this one.

Anyway, I said I was done with Megrahi on blog and I will make good that promise, again.

Another straw poll showed that at least 6 of us would want a referendum on independence. Given that I was the only one around the table who would have any chance of voting 'yes' in said referendum I found that rather interesting too but some clever questions arose.

First up, who would get to vote in an independence poll?

My initial answer that whoever votes for the Scottish Parliament elections would surely get to vote on independence was probably factually correct but is it fair?

One chap amongst our number is Scottish but lives elsewhere. He doesn't mind missing the parliamentary votes given that MPs and MSPs can be out on their ear after only four years if they are not up to the job. An independence referendum, presumably, is for life. What if Scots abroad want to return home to their native land? Should they be granted a vote in absentia?

The person's overriding point was that non-Scots who are living in Scotland for a mere 6 months will get to vote whereas genuine Scots abroad probably won't. Personally I think you can't have it both ways, you can't move away from the country and still expect to vote on things. You have to draw the line somewhere.

As much fun as it would be to give Sean Connery a vote and all the press palava that would bring, it seems a bit of a stretch.

The other notable topic of discussion was tax. Another person said they would be tempted to vote for independence but just didn't think we had the money for it. Which, not knowing much of the detail myself, seems a reasonable stance to take but his particular reason for such a view struck me as being slightly dubious.

His belief was that people who work and live in Scotland for companies that have Headquarters in London (or outside of Scotland I should say) would not be paying their income tax to Scotland, it would go elsewhere.

I was appalled, aghast and dumbfounded, but mostly because I wasn't 100% sure if he was right or wrong.

I'm reasonably certain he was incorrect and I just wonder how many people out there have that misguided view as the main barrier between voting 'yes' and staying grudgingly in the 'no' camp when it comes to this decision.

Of course there will be a lot of scare stories and untruths told by all sides in any independence campaign, but I think I might have seen my first glimpse of why the SNP are so confident that if they get their message out, they might pull off a win after all in any vote.

They just have to make sure they have the right size of electorate or some Tory Boy left-wing snobs from abroad may come along and, albeit with wonderfully witty lines, spoil the Nationalist party!

(Seriously, Miles Jupp, top notch stuff. Don't go if you happen to be Jacqui Smith though...)

Anyway, I'm off to see more shows starting with Foodies at the Festival.

Tally ho!

* For what it's worth Russell Kane - 5 stars, Dan Antopolski - 4 stars, Celia Pacquola - 4 stars, Daniel Kitson - 4 stars, Rob Rouse - 1 star, St Kilda - well, boy, that deserves a review all of its very own but Orkney Wine may be involved and it won't be pretty viewing for some.

Megrahi and Glasgow North East

Ok, this is my last post on Al-Megrahi, I promise. Mostly because the story has been going on too long but also because I keep thinking I am spelling the man's name wrong.

The more I think about the opposite view of the situation, the more I wonder why I don't share in it. Man kills 270 people in terrorist attack, man spends rest of his life in prison. It's pretty clear cut I suppose.

However, the reason I see this issue differently probably stems from my upbringing. Juggling attending a Catholic school and being an active member of the Catholic church with a rather intense Church of Scotland Sunday school, it's fair to say that my younger days were heavily laced with religious overtones.

At the very top of these has been the lesson to turn the other cheek, to instantly forgive and to strive to have love at the forefront at as many of the decisions you make as possible.

If you were being mean, you would say I have a big streak of yellow through my centre. If you were being kind, you'd call it compassion.

I'm not saying the 'lock up and throw away the key' approach is right or wrong in comparison with my own approach, but it did get me thinking.

I believe I am right in saying that the Glasgow North East constituency has a strong Catholic population in it.

I know this is a big leap and perhaps I'm even inviting claims of 'MacAskill set Megrahi free to win a by-election' but is it possible that the events of this week might make a difference in November's contest?

Personally, I think education, health and the economy will always be the key issues but events like this week set a tone for parties and on a level apart from policy bunfights, people can respond to that in a significant manner.

Anyway, as I say, it's just a thought....

Top Scottish Blogs

Well, it's all over, the Top Scottish Blogs are out and the top order has been given a good shake.

First up, I am delighted with 2nd so thanks very much for any votes that came my way and for those with a particular interest (or even a financial one!) I'm sorry I couldn't overhaul Tom Harris, the Usain Bolt of Scottish blogging.

Seriously, I reckon Tom's blog is ace. And perhaps I indulged in some scurrilous tactical voting of my own by not lending him a vote or 7 when he was kind enough to give me his 3rd spot.

So congratulations to the man for the dual win of Top MP and Top Scottish blog. Is there an MP out there who comes close to doing what he does online? I know blogging and doing your job are two different things (some would say mutually exclusive) but it's pretty clear Tom is indeed wasted on the backbenches.

I must admit I'd never heard of the excellently-named Underdogs Bite Upwards who finished third so I will correct my myopic view of the Scottish blogosphere forthwith (as I'm sure the next editor of the Scottish Round Up will!)

And congratulations to high flyers Malc in the Burgh and Caron Lindsay, the highest placed female in the list I reckon?

Also an awesome effort from top ten new entrants Yousuf and Scottish Unionist.


But looking up and down the list (and swapping Malc's 'SNP' label with J Arthur MacNumpty's 'NA'), one has to wonder if the SNP dominance of the Scottish blogosphere is at an end?

My reaction to the Lockerbie reaction

Like circling vultures, they are swooping and ripping apart the fresh carcass of this story already. Everyone wants a piece, a new angle with which to attack, a choice chunk of MacAskill's flesh that they can take back to their editors or display on their blog as some sort of ugly prize.

Frankly, it's tragic.

The decision ultimately came down to whether leaving the convicted man in prison until his dying day is preferable to showing mercy in letting him go home for his last, painful months. Put simply, it was justice vs humanity and humanity won out.

Both approaches are valid and justifiable. Both should be respected.

We'll never know if the media and blogs would have went quite as radio rental as they currently have if Kenny had made a different decision but my goodness haven't they gone rabid? We thought MPs expenses and Damien McBride smear stories were bad but no, letting a dying man spend his last weeks outside of a prison cell is what really gets a journo's dander up.

At the heart of many complaints is the fact that MacAskill dared to speak for 25 minutes and explain his decison in full.

What did people want? For the Justice Secretary to shuffle on to the platform, meekly mumble that Megrahi will/won't be released and shuffle off again, embarrassed for having the temerity to be in the position to make this decision?

What a shambles.

Scottish Tory Boy's boneheaded response was to conclude that it was a "disgusting decision from an increasingly ridiculous Justice Secretary". Get a grip of yourself lad.

Caron momenarily lost leave of her senses with this Tweet: "two things shocked me - trying to drag UK Govt down with him and making out Scots have monopoly on humanity"

A monopoly on humanity? What on earth are you talking about? It's all the more bizarre given that Caron actually agrees with the decision taken by the Justice Minister.

Iain Dale predictably was against the decision. From his deep blue wool he bestowed this vacuous view:

His failure to comprehend the magnitude of his crimes and say sorry to those affected by them should have meant that he died in the place he belongs. Prison.

Yes, except Al-Megrahi has consistently protested his innocence so to base this decision simply on whether the man has said sorry or not is nonsensical. A forced confession may have worked for Kenny Richey but we, thankfully, are more considered than the US on such issues. (And there goes my chance of a Daley Dozen tonight, oh well)

Douglas Carswell says "the excuse is compassion". An excuse for what? Is Doug suggesting that the SNP have secretly wanted to free this man for a while now?

According to Tory Bear, the Nationalists are "scum" and "dangerous and deluded fools". The "lunatic-fringe pressure group", the "jumped up county council" "embarrassed themselves today" with a "cold and cynical calculated move".

I think the post pretty much speaks for itself in its lack of wit or wisdom.

Total Politics thinks the result shows the Scottish Government has 'teeth' though the suggestion that the decision was taken for Scotland to "flex its muscles on the international stage" betrays a serious misunderstanding of the due process.

I don't know what's more galling, outsiders who want to see Scotland back in its box or Scots who would happily put us back there if they could.

Today was a great day for Scottish devolution. It horrifies me that others are so keen to portray it as anything otherwise. What did we want the Parliament for in the first place if not for decisions like this one?

I don't think I'm overreacting when I say I feel a little bit ashamed about how this has been received. Some objections have been measured and considered but the vast majority have been hysterical with scattershot reasons as to why the sky has just fallen on our heads.

A bleak day for Scotland claimed The Spectator. Yes it was, but for a very different reason than Fraser Nelson proffers.


Apparently we grow an inch overnight. With that in mind, I hope tomorrow morning a lot of people out there can cool down and find a way to stand a little taller than they did today.

We don't do eye for an eye or tooth for a tooth in this country, even the New Testament didn't want a piece of it. The decision today was the correct one. It's what John Lennon would have wanted.

Jesus too.

Kenny MacAskill couldn't win

So the Scottish Government has decided to release Al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, on compassionate grounds. The Justice Secretary is delivering his verdict as I type.

It is inevitable that Kenny MacAskill will face intense media attacks over the next few days but there was no way to avoid this. He has done his very best on this issue and his best has been more than enough.

But, with a hostile press, he couldn't win for the following reasons:

• The timing of the announcement. If the Justice Secretary had brought the decision forward, he would be caving to media pressure. If he waited for all of the evidence, he would be procrastinating.


• The news is released at 8am US East Coast time. Consequently, according to Scottish Unionist, "the chosen timing will maximise the public awareness here of the negative reaction from the USA. What do you think the SNP administration’s possible motive for that might be?". But of course, if the timing had been any different, released at 3am US time, there would be accusations of insensitivity for the American families of those who died.


• Hillary Clinton calls the Scottish Government to protest at the decision. If Kenny refuses to grant compassionate release, then he is caving to international pressure. If he accepts the compassionate release, he is pushing a nationalist agenda, deliberately thumbing his nose to the Americans to advance Scotland's standing on the world stage.


• If Kenny leaves Megrahi in jail to die he is a monster, if he sets him free he is weak.

I think, as the Justice Secretary speaks to the world, he has played a blinder over the past few weeks and months and should hold his head high.

Indeed, all of this could have been a chance for Scotland to rid herself of that Scottish cringe, to show we can take big decision on the biggest stage and not be embarrassed or awkward about it. Sadly, I am not holding my breath.

Douglas Alexander lets women down

On Newsnight last night, Douglas Alexander was pushed by Kirsty Wark to promise that the UK will withhold some of the £500m that we give to the Karzai Government unless Afghanistan removes the abhorrent law that a man cannot commit rape inside of marriage.

Douglas, despite being asked the same question a few times, would only say that he is not going to pre-judge the results of an election.

Pretty squalid, spineless stuff to be honest. I can understand there are promises Douglas can't make and this could have been one of them but at least tackle the issue of this terrible law head on and be on record saying you are against it. Don't just wash your hands of the whole affair in claiming you don't know who is going to win tomorrow, particularly when Hamid Karzai is clearly going to walk it.



I would ask what the hell are we doing out there but the news that terrorists will chop off fingers of anyone who votes tomorrow should be enough to stiffen our resolve in helping out a country that clearly needs it.

World watches as Scotland gets set to free Megrahi

Well, as was heavily, heavily trailed, Kenny MacAskill has made his final decision on the fate of the Lockerbie bomber and, in his 'quasi-judicial role', is expected to let the Lockerbie bomber go free on compassionate release.

There has been so much said on this matter already that it's almost not worth saying anything else on it. It even comes as a sort of blessed relief that the story will now finally begin to leave the news cycle so I can't imagine how Megrahi himself will take it, particularly if he's innocent.

Not that that matters, this decision should not be interpreted as a suggestion that Al-Megrahi is innocent, it is strictly based on his illness, a move similar to that of the release of Ronnie Biggs.

I remain convinced it is the right decision to take and adamant that would-be Justice Secretaries from other parties in the same position would have taken the same view but of course there's no way of knowing for sure.

What is certain is that Kenny MacAskill was focussed throughout. The media, Westminster, the victims of the atrocity, US Senators and even the Secretary of State had their say, generally pleading with the Justice Secretary to keep Megrahi behind bars, but the decision was clearly Kenny's own and the rather ludicrous quantity of news on the matter seemingly didn't rush his decision.

The headlines all around the world are being released this evening and Scotland and the SNP are the centre of the attention but they can both hold their heads high over this whole affair I reckon, except for some of the more hysterical parts of the media that is.

The suggestion that the SNP have mishandled the affair seems totally misplaced, particularly as the most glaring cock-up over the past few weeks was Peter Mandelson's decision to holiday with Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi's son at such a sensitive time. The charge of a backroom deal on the back of this is unavoidable though probably inaccurate.

Glen Campbell's tiresome contribution that Al-Megrahi has served 2 weeks for every victim that died in the atrocity is loaded with political poison. The prisoner's guilt or innocence is not the issue and the use of such emotive language can only really have one aim.

Even the generally sensible Brian Taylor took an odd view of the situation, questioning what is in it for "us" in letting Al-Megrahi go, seemingly unable to comprehend what a selfless, compassionate act actually is.

At the end of the day, the thought of a dying man who is now no threat to anyone seeing out his last days behind bars was too cruel a scenario for Kenny MacAskill to entertain.

Those who died as a result of the Lockerbie attack suffered a horrible end but that is not the template on which we should base our humanity and that is why the correct decision will be announced tomorrow at 1pm.

Twitter will save the world

Patrick Harvie is becoming more famous for his Tweeting than for his Green policies.

He certainly helped that reputation today by attending the Festival of Politics 3pm debate on 'new media' in Committee Room 1.

What was on at 3pm in Committee Room 3? A discussion on how to combat climate change.

Nice to know the Green leader has his priorities straight.

That said, despite being able to tweet his thoughts during parliamentary debates and dinner with the Prime Minister, there were sadly no Twitter messages from today's event.

Maybe Patrick was actually concentrating for once?

Fair train fares experiencing heavy delays

If I was a floating voter, I am pretty sure that as a childless, healthy, employed man with an ambivalence towards Europe, religion, abortion and constitutional affairs and with no desire to own a car but a hunger to travel a lot, my vote would be up for grabs on one issue and one issue only.

The cost of trains.

I am constantly struck by how ludicrously expensive it is to get around on the greenest form of transport we have at our disposal in this country.

Like last week when I wanted to bring my Nationalised Express journey forward a few hours and it would have cost me £86, more than double what the original ticket cost.

Or when I want to visit family in the West and I am ashamed that I occasionally talk myself out of it because £20 return seems far too much for such a short trip and back.

Or when I thought I'd join some friends who were on a cycling trip in the Western Isles and getting to Oban would have cost me a small fortune given it was last minute.

Or when I calculated the cheapest way to get to Stansted airport from Edinburgh was just to hire a car, load up on Percy Pigs and drive there direct. The train was the 3rd cheapest option behind flying.

Maybe I'm just disorganised, maybe there are cheap fares out there if I pulled my bicycle clips up and went out and found them. The Super Duper Extra Advance Saver ticket that you have to buy at 2pm on a Tuesday when the sun is sitting just so-so in order to get a 63% discount. Maybe that is the answer after all.

But really, who has the time, inclination or memory to read the small print of tickets to make sure they minimise the price? Why should travellers be punished for buying their tickets 5 minutes before they travel as opposed to 3 weeks before? How can train companies possibly be losing money when trains are bursting at the seams?

I believe there was a report out recently that confirmed that we in the UK pay the most for our trains and receive the worst service. As if we needed such a suspicion confirmed. Something clearly has to change and with the political narrative recently being squarely on the NHS, public spending, bonuses and MPs' expenses, the transport ball is yet to be picked up and ran with in advance of May 2010. (Or March 2010)

Political parties talk about how 'radical' they are when, in reality, most of us don't really want radical. The NHS doesn't need radical changes nor does education and nor does our EU status, they just need managed a bit better. And even then, it's truly only "a bit".

But for transport policy, radical is the appropriate adjective. The first cut in rail fares in decades is a 0.4% reduction in 'regulated' fares (season tickets). Big wow*. A Glasgow to Edinburgh annual season ticket is £3,024. £3,024!!. A 0.4% reduction will make this £3,012. The cut is not exactly something to shout from the rafters is it?

And given how precious few jobs there are out there I daresay more and more people will have to make the dreaded East-West commute in the short term and perhaps even into the long-term. This is all not to mention that £3k out of the average salary of £16.6k (net of tax) is a serious chunk of change. And even with this paltry 0.4% decrease in fares, there is an expectation that such a reduction will be offset by increases in leisure fares. The mindset that the cost of travel should only move upwards has clearly, regrettably, taken hold.

Couldn't we just make all train travel free? And punt up taxes to make up the difference? Alarm bells will no doubt sound in many heads at this concept but why?

There is a general acceptance that we should provide free education and free healthcare (except for the Daniel Hannans of this world). Why not extend this to free travel? If the environment is such a pressing concern one could argue that free green(ish) travel is even more of a necessity than free access to schools and hospitals. After all, what's the point in learning Modern Studies and getting that earache sorted out if Armageddon is approaching platform 12?

Maybe free train travel would harm our income from petrol prices and road tax, not to mention foreign Euros and Dollars, but my goodness, what a statement to make that Britain is serious about tackling climate change and getting cars off the road.

Would we even need a third Forth Road Bridge if train travel was free? There's a potential £2bn (plus overruns) saved for a start.

Maybe that's too radical. There are limitations on what politicians can deliver even if there are no such limitations on what they can promise.

So should we ensure that all rail companies are run on a not-for-profit basis? I don't know what the latest profits were for the Scotrails and NetworkRails or whoever the leading private companies are but Tesco style profits should, of course, not be allowed.

Why not go the whole hog and re-nationalise the trains? Wasn't Cathy Jamieson including such a promise in her charge to lead Labour north of the border? I'm sure Cathy could have another go at making it a reality and use her popular public profile to lead a campaign. It might not succeed but it would be a great debate to have and probably long overdue.

I understand we can't have high speed rail links down to London and services between Glasgow and Edinburgh every 15 minutes without paying for them but something in our transport policy just doesn't stack up.

We shouldn't have to beat the system to save the pennies, the system should be working for us rather than against. Let's leave the price elasticity business plan to Ryanair and Megabus, shall we and just have low, flat fares.

There's a big, radical idea waiting to be embraced with trains in this country. I may not know what it is but whichever party grasps it first and gets it out there, it could win the commuter vote with a very simple signal change.



* I can't believe I just used the phrase "big wow" for the first time since circa 1989.

Nationalism and Megrahi

I was asked an interesting question in an email yesterday evening, one that my questioner will hopefully clarify as I am still not too sure what he was getting at but the gist of it is this:

Is Al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, more likely to be released because it is a Nationalist Government that is in charge?

I was stumped.

I personally believe that a Justice Secretary of any of the main parties would be going through the same deliberations as Kenny MacAskill is and I also believe many would end at the same conclusion which is a release of the prisoner on compassionate grounds.

The opposition we are seeing is partly for opposition's sake and partly reasonable. The calls for the medical evidence being sufficiently convincing which is a fair line to take on the matter.

But does it make a difference that the decision has landed at the feet of the SNP?

The party has proved its compassion credentials in fighting for certain immigrants to stay in Scotland over the past few years when mere technicalities would have had them sent back to their native countries so maybe that makes it more likely that they will show a similar compassion with Megrahi.

Further to this, I reckon Hillary Clinton's interventions will, if anything, make it more likely rather than less likely that MacAskill will order Megrahi's release back to Libya. With Iraq and more recently Gary MacKinnon showing we are in the thrall of America's global might, I think a bit of a poke in the eye for the Americans might go a long way in showing we can take decisions for our own without guidance from the West.

Indeed, Salmond has cleared the way for such an approach with his comments yesterday:

"There will be no consideration of international power politics or anything else. It will be taken on the evidence in the interest of justice."

And needless to say, the SNP showing they can take the tough decisions in the face of hostile opinions from the most powerful country in the world could go a long way to boosting their independence credentials. America's poodle, Scotland is not.

Far from this decision being "a bit embarrassing" as the Scottish Secretary would have us believe, it may be a fortuitous opportunity to boost the SNP's profile home and abroad.

Wikio's Flaws

As many bloggers wait impatiently for the Iain Dale top blogs lists to run their course, it may be easier than usual to gloss over the monthly Wikio rankings that have quietly gone about their business and slowly grown in prominence.

Given the egotistical nature that bloggers supposedly possess, one could argue that any ranking system will attract attention like moths to a flame (or flies to a jobby as my personal, cruder preferred analogy goes)

However, the recent UK Cision rankings did not make much of a splash given an alleged flaw in their formula so merely cobbling together any old top 50 is not enough to earn universal respect.

The Wikio rankings seem to have successfully escaped such derision and are keenly anticipated each month. This is no doubt due to the formula having sufficient depth and covering enough variables to provide a meaningful set of results.

Needless to say, the requirement to register one's blog with Wikio has not proved a barrier to a satisfactorily full population. The average blogger's willingness, nay eagerness, to be sliced, diced, numbered and catalogued has seen to that.

Where I do think Wikio does fall down and where Iain Dale's ranking system succeeds is that the latter is a fan's favourite, subjective considerations are brought into the picture and, crucially, certain variables that Wikio can't avoid are excluded.

One such variable is a blog reader's starting point. If I click onto Malc in the Burgh first thing in the morning and then use his links to go to Holyrood Patter to find that the latter has linked to the former, then I'm hardly going to head back to re-read something I have already.

Further to this, people no doubt have favourite blogs that they read every couple of days without ever linking through elsewhere. Such loyalty is not reflected in Wikio but you can be sure it'll have 8, 9 or 10 points of loyalty in the Total Politics rankings.

And another Wikio flaw is the patronage that the big guns can bestow upon bloggers in the same party further down the food chain. Labour List will regularly link to Labour bloggers just as the mighty ConservativeHome and fairly strong Lib Dem Voice will. There is no doubt an unfair bias for the bigger UK parties in the system.

This will assist Scottish bloggers such as Kezia Dugdale, Tory Boy and Stephen, the latter who beat me by one place in the last set of Wikio placings and, needless to say Mr Glenn, September can't come soon enough! (note the lack of a direct link, got to play dirty in this post just to give myself every chance...!)

One again I find myself pining for an SNP Home.

So Wikio is good and a wholly worthwhile list to check every month but it has flaws.

Iain Dale and his seemingly neverending Top x lists remain the Oscars of the blogging world.



UPDATE: I didn't link to a certain blogger in the interests of banter but since he has been a bit put out on Twitter and in retrospect I realised I was being childish, I thought I would put the link in. I had to type it in from memory so I hope I got the spelling correct.... ;-)

Glasgow NE - Are you local?

Good to see that, after a brief lull, the Glasgow North East by-election is getting a bit of attention even if we are still 3 months away from the poll date itself.

Political Betting speculates on whether the by-election will be a Glenrothes or a Glasgow East. A fine question and I would personally wager it will fall some way between the two. A fine night for the SNP but not enough to take the seat. Consequently, the 8/13 bet for Labour to win that Mike Smithson raises probably is good value.

In the Daily Record, Magnus Gardham brings us news of a couple of local skirmishes that have already kicked off.

Labour are fuming after SNP hopeful David Kerr described himself as a "local" candidate.

More precisely, he describes himself as a "strong local voice for Glasgow North East" in a letter to voters.

Fair enough really. In Glasgow East, Labour's Margaret Curran made the mistake of claiming to be from the constituency when she wasn't and it may have made the difference to her winning or losing the seat given the margin was 365 votes in the end. The SNP don't need to try too hard on this one unless Willie Bain's genuine local credentials are a particular threat.

I did enjoy the SNP's response to this story though:

"If he's elected he'll be the local voice,"

It isn't a far cry from "Oh, bugger off will you please".

Anyway, the other scrap involves funding for schools:

He (Kerr) says Glasgow's Labour-run council are cutting school funding by £7million.

That claim was first made by the SNP several weeks ago when the Scottish government published provisional figures on local authority spending.At the time the council said the figures were out of date and insisted they were actually set to increase education spending.

The SNP are aware of this but yesterday defended their cuts claim saying it was based on "the most up-to-date official figures".

Another bit of skullduggery from the SNP as far as I can see it but all's fair in love, war and by-elections and if they get a net gain from such a push then maybe it could be seen as justified.

For me however, they are a couple of pretty low blows from the Nationalists and it all adds to the inauspicious start of last month.

On current evidence, it looks like Glasgow East will go the way of Glenrothes.

Twitter Wars!

It truly must be election time as the political fight is officially moving onto the unlikeliest of battlefields..... Twitter.

Kerry McCarthy has been chosen to train MPs and candidates on the best use of the internet and the Twittesphere. Rather worryingly, Kerry has said she will build on the preparatory work carried out by Derek Draper.

Granted, DD did a good job with Labour List but I would have thought his predecessor would have wanted clear red water between themselves and the disgraced media man.

In the grand scheme of things, I suspect today's announcement will all amount to not very much and is little more than winning an easy headline during a quiet recess. I sometimes read Kerry's blog and follow her on Twitter but I've hardly been captivated by either outlets in the same way that I have been by other politicians' or wannabe politicians' blogs and tweets. Indeed, her announcement of today's news comes across as much as a giggly schoolgirl would announce they've just been made a Prefect:

because the folks that run Twitter limit people to 100 tweets per hour, it seems that I've exceeded my limit

100 tweets in an hour? Is that some kind of cruel joke?

And my pessimism regarding Kerry's adequacy has been compounded by her criticism of Iain Dale in the following quote:

Don't think @iaindale 'gets' Twitter http://tinyurl.com/kndy37 - it's better than blogging because on twitter everyone is equal.

To suggest Iain doesn't "get" microblogging is a bit like saying Tiger Woods doesn't really know how to two-putt or Michael Schumacher is a Sunday-driver.

Indeed, all of this helps to legitimise the question I was going to ask anyway - why was the much-respected Tom Harris not selected to take on the mantle of Labour's person on the internet?

Tom's blog has been a roaring success, particularly in the last year, and he is defending a very safe seat in Glasgow which can't be said of Kerry McCarthy who is facing likely defeat in Bristol East in May 2010.

Outside of Government in the short term and staring at the opposition benches in the long term, Tom will have plenty of time on his hands in the next few months not to mention the next several years. Between frantically wearing out canvassing shoes in the run up to the election just to keep her job, will Kerry really have time to show fellow MPs how to set up blogging accounts and do re-tweets? Not likely.

Tom's is arguably the only non-downwardly mobile Labour blog that has made it onto the A-list of UK political bloggers (sorry JP and Alastair) although it is an independence from the party that has fuelled such success and that same independence is probably sufficient to ensure Tom is out of favour with Brown's bunker team not only for Government roles but also for fluffy 'Twitter Tsar' ones too.

A further thought I've had on this news is that this is another example of the three main parties making further moves deep into the internet and using it as a campaign tool while some other parties watch on, if they are even paying attention at all. Similar to my recent post on a possible SNP Home, are the Nationalists missing a trick in not having its own Twitterer-in-Chief? After all, Patrick Harvie out-tweets the entire SNP benches and to positive effect.

It's more than just being 'down with the kids' as the Green leader has shown with instant reaction to breaking news, posting updates on policy discussion and plugging appearances/articles. Indeed, locking horns with plebs like myself (and more commonly Scottish Unionist, not that he's a pleb) as Patrick is happy to do is a very easy way to win yourself some easy respect while showing that Politics doesn't just happen in some remote room. It's an ongoing national debate that should touch every crevice of the country, offline or online.

So I reckon Labour are on the right path here with their Twitter Tsar, even if I suspect, with all due respect, they've picked the wrong person for their new venture and given them the wrong job description.


PS Rumours that the Lib Dems are to have a Chief Twitterer named 'the herd' are unfounded. Even if "you are now following the herd" would be a suitable welcome line for those under that particular umbrella. (I've been waiting for months to get that gag in somewhere)

Scottish mini-poll

The detail of the recent YouGov Westminster poll has been released with the following result for the Scottish subsample:

Labour - 35%
SNP - 23%
Tory - 21%
Lib Dem - 13%

Sample size - 196

As this poll does not follow the trend of the SNP being in front, I can only conclude that it is a rogue poll given the small sample size!


More seriously, could this be the first, small indication that Scottish voters are starting to concentrate minds on the choice of a Labour or Tory Government to the detriment of the SNP?

The Tory share is up slightly and Labour are seemingly marching ahead.

As unpalatable as it may be for SNP members, the above share of the vote might not actually be too far off the May 2010 final result as the Nationalists find themselves squeezed out.

With two Parliaments and two Governments, we are in unchartered waters after all and don't really know how the voting will go...

Speculation does not always lead to accumulation

There seems to be a lot of speculation going around at the moment.

The recent Al-Megrahi media storm was quickly dismissed as "complete speculation" by one of the few people who actually knew whether the prisoner was to be released this week or not. This didn't stop Hillary Clinton getting on the phone to the Scottish Parliament and the Scotland on Sunday's conclusion that the incident was either "cock-up or conpiracy" was characteristically narrow and distinctly tiresome.

And while we're on the subject, I have to say, recent claims that Kenny MacAskill had some sort of live tv ban enforced by SNP HQ were made to look a bit silly this weekend when I switched on BBC World News in my Venice hotel to find the Justice Secretary talking sense on the Lockerbie case at the top of their main bulletin.

"do they (SNP) live in fear of an an agitated MacAskill saying something stupid on live tv?" - not likely.

More recent supposed "speculation" relates to the plans to introduce minimum 'carry out' drinking prices to the Scottish masses to reduce the £2bn cost that excessive alcohol intake racks up on an annual basis. Per the Sunday Herald and an anonymous party spokesperson, Labour is set to vote alongside the SNP in a rare showing of Holyrood harmony on this issue which would strengthen the country's resolve in facing our alcohol problems head on.

However, this has now been qualified by another anonymous spokesperon as being "speculation" and Labour are waiting to see what the proposals are. I guess it's fair enough to say you're not going to vote for something until you know what it is but the debate has raged on long enough that a party line on whether minimum pricing at around 40p a unit will be adopted or not.

And is it just me or is saying one thing to an anti-minimum pricing pub periodical and another thing to public newspapers a bit two-faced? Cock-up or conspiracy indeed... I thought that was the Lib Dem's game.

That said, the Lib Dems to their credit have got onboard with minimum pricing and although the Tories take a view that I don't share in, keeping pricing free of regulation, at least it's pretty clear which side of the argument they are on.

Further speculation arose earlier in the week when it was suggested that Labour are due to add a 'property tax' to their as-yet-unwritten manifesto. However, given the story only originated on the back of a journalist threatening to write about Labour not having any policies, this one has to go down as a speculative rushed job.

So yes, speculation is a dangerous thing, particularly when it can't be controlled. If you're not on attack then you are on defence and generally the best thing to do in such an instance when speculation rears its ugly head and puts you on the backfoot is to knock it out of the park with as straight a bat as one can muster.

Kenny MacAskill certainly tried that. Stepping up to the plate himself in front of the world's press and making clear that a decision is not imminent, a move which should have cleared the media's frenzied speculation.

Labour's two unnamed 'spokespersons' have contradicted each other in the space of two days and the speculation can only intensify rather than dissipate given the anonymity and the apparent confusion in the ranks.

Indeed, the suggestion that the SNP have fabricated the initial minimum pricing story to smoke out Labour's position on the topic coupled with the suggestion that a hack forced Iain Gray into revealing the party's hand on Council Tax can only spell bad news for the main opposition party.

If you have to be dragged kicking and screaming into a debate by opposing parties and journalists alike, controlling the speculation out there must be the least of your worries.