主播大秀

Donald Dewar was seldom lost for words. But let me share with you an occasion when he seemed stumped. Ten years ago 鈥� to the day.

The world had learned of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.

My first thought, let me stress, concerned the personal tragedy involved, the bereavement of her young family.

As a Scottish political journalist, however, a second thought inevitably intruded. We were just days from the referendum on Scottish self-government, due to be held on September 11.

What was to be done? Partisan campaigning appeared unthinkable. But would the ballot itself have to be postponed 鈥� and also the referendum in Wales, due a week later?

I called Donald Dewar to seek his views. As I recollect, I contacted him at roughly the same time of the morning as I am writing this. Ten years ago, precisely.

It would be glib to say he was in shock, a common experience at the time. However, with minimal time to absorb the facts, he was understandably struggling to produce a substantive response.

Frankly, he did not know what was to be done. I sympathised and ended the call.

As expected, campaigning was suspended. However, the decision was taken to continue with the vote on 11 September.

Offstage, another issue was canvassed. It may seem brutal 鈥� but some assessment was made, privately, as to the possible impact of the tragedy upon the referendum.

By that, I do not remotely mean opinion surveys or anything of the sort. Rather, there were clumsy, behind-the-hand conversations among those who were participating in the campaign, on both sides.

Would Diana鈥檚 death encourage people to cluster round the Royal Family? Would it make people, somehow, feel more 鈥淏ritish鈥�? Would that make them less inclined to vote Yes in the referendum?

I am not making this up. Perhaps there was a strain of collective madness loose at this particular time. Perhaps that polluted an already febrile political atmosphere in Scotland. But I heard these questions asked.

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

You know, there is an aspect of the new SNP administration to which insufficient attention has been paid. That is the role of the civil service.

From the very moment of his election as First Minister, Alex Salmond was adopted by the civil service. Greeted at the door of Queensberry House, he appeared to me to be palpably purring, just like the Executive car which whisked him up the hill to St Andrews House.

The civil service obeys the office, not the individual. However, that is to neglect the personal relationships which frequently help 鈥� or hinder 鈥� the effectiveness of government.

To be blunt, the civil service rates Alex Salmond 鈥� and, indeed, several of his senior colleagues. They think they are effective, diligent ministers.

I believe that the verdict is reciprocated. Team Salmond was, frankly, impressed by the briefing prepared for the new administration - both in its intellectual scope and its recognition of practical politics.

The SNP might be forgiven for being intuitively suspicious of the service. Perhaps they have folk memories, enhanced by recent disclosures, of past civil service actions which appeared to translate 鈥渟ervice to the Crown鈥� into 鈥渁ctive antagonism towards the SNP鈥�.

But, in reality, the contemporary relationship is good. It was built in advance when John Swinney held talks with John Elvidge, the Permanent Secretary, and others as to what a putative SNP administration might expect. Such talks, of course, are routinely held with all potential governments.

Again, Swinney was impressed. Impressed by the attention to detail, impressed by the seriousness with which these discussions were imbued.

That respect, which is mutual, has continued into office. Not least when the civil service provided the detailed, legislative analysis for the White Paper on Scotland鈥檚 constitutional future.

Just think for a moment what that involved. Servants of the Crown. Members of a common United Kingdom civil service. Drafting a document which envisages seriously and in detail the abolition of that United Kingdom.

In all, it was a thorough piece of work. I was a little intrigued, I confess, by Section 3.21 which stated, without caveat, that 鈥渁n independent Scotland would continue in the European Union and bear the burdens and fulfil the responsibilities of membership鈥�.

I had rather thought that was still, to some extent at least, the subject of political controversy, not a statement of unalloyed official fact.

However, elsewhere, the document makes clear that there would be negotiations concerning the status of Scotland 鈥� and the rest of the UK 鈥� in the EU. So perhaps we should read it in the round.

In any event, the civil service has performed its role well - serving, objectively, the administration which emerges from the popular choice.

So all鈥檚 fine and dandy? Well, not quite. I believe there are intrinsic tensions, even contradictions, in the current set-up which may require resolution or, at least, finesse.

The Civil Service Code (Scottish Executive version) advises officials in Scotland that they are 鈥渁ccountable to Scottish Ministers who are, in turn, accountable to the Scottish Parliament鈥�.

They are further enjoined that they must 鈥渁ct in a way which deserves and retains the confidence of Ministers while at the same time ensuring that you will be able to establish the same relationship with those whom you may be required to serve in some future Government.鈥� Don鈥檛 you just love that?

All clear so far. But, remember, these Scottish Executive officials are also members of the UK 主播大秀 civil service.

They are, to quote the code, 鈥渁n integral and key part of the government of the United Kingdom鈥�.

How do they square working for an SNP administration 鈥� while their London colleagues are working for the SNP鈥檚 bitter rivals?

There is meant to be a constant exchange of information between Whitehall and Edinburgh in order to sustain government. But isn鈥檛 that rather difficult when the civil service is serving two masters?

How can an official in London provide confidential briefing to a colleague in Edinburgh 鈥� in the knowledge that that briefing may go to a Minister who is the declared opponent of his Ministers in London? Ditto the other way round.

When it comes to negotiations in the European Union, the UK Government and the devolved administrations are meant to form a common line.

How is that possible when the two administrations may be pursuing different objectives 鈥� and there may be an absence of mutual trust?

I am, generally, an admirer of our civil service. Yes, it can be exasperatingly keen on process.

But it can also help take the long view, constraining the publicity-seeking enthusiasm of 鈥渉ere today and gone tomorrow鈥� Ministers (to borrow Robin Day鈥檚 splendid phrase.)

But I think our civil service has its work cut out here. That code again sums up impartiality as 鈥渁cting solely according to the merits of the case and serving equally well Governments of different political persuasions鈥�.

Wise words. But did they really envisage that the collective UK civil service would be embracing two governments of different persuasions 鈥� at the same time?

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

And so the opposition parties meet at Holyrood this afternoon.

The agenda? How to review the powers and functions of the Scottish Parliament - short, well short, of independence.

Here鈥檚 what I think they鈥檒l come up with. A formal parliamentary mechanism to consider and consult.

Think they鈥檒l table a motion at Holyrood, jointly, setting up an ad hoc committee of MSPs to look at the devolution settlement, 10 years on.

Think that committee will then open up a public consultation, engaging with civic Scotland, business, unions etc.

Not convention mark two. 鈥淪o 80s鈥�, as one put it to me.

Plus there is now a Parliament in place with elected members, with real (if devolved) clout. That cannot be sidelined. Indeed, the opposition parties will argue, it should take the lead.

Which leaves the SNP executive where? Watching with interest.

I do not believe the SNP would nominate members of this parliamentary committee. For why? Because, they argue, it is for those of a Unionist persuasion to come up with their alternative to independence.

Nationalists say they know what they want: a referendum on Scotland becoming a sovereign state. It is up to the Opposition parties - Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats - to decide what they want.

Potentially, as Alex Salmond envisaged when he launched his 鈥渃onversation鈥� white paper, there could then be a referendum providing people with three choices: the status quo, independence and the scheme for enhanced devolution adopted by the opposition parties.

There is, of course, one other aspect to be borne, strongly, in mind. If further powers are to accrue to Holyrood, that would require Westminster legislation.

The opposition parties in the Scottish Parliament have already pledged to involve Westminster in their consideration.

From a sluggish start, this is beginning to get intriguing.

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

Hey, what鈥檚 so bad about trying to be the best wee country in the world? I rather liked being greeted by the slogan when I arrived back at a Scottish airport.

I mean, there you are: breakfast in Paris, lunch in Glasgow, luggage in Geneva. Just the thing to cheer you up, to be confronted by a poster of a pipe band or something hideously high-tech, emblazoned with the words: 鈥淲elcome to the best small country in the world.鈥�
And now the SNP Executive has decided to dump it. For shame! OK, maybe it was a bit kitsch.

A bit internally self-contradictory. (We鈥檙e the best 鈥� but only in a field that we鈥檝e defined ourselves: don鈥檛 expect us to be seriously good like one of those big, nasty countries.)
But you鈥檒l notice the absence of an alternative so far. What are we going to say now? 鈥淪imply the best鈥�. Or will the nation as a whole ape Prestwick Airport and go for 鈥減ure, dead brilliant?鈥�

Just think how that translates internationally, if you don鈥檛 grasp the patois: a marketing slogan with the word 鈥渄ead鈥� in it. (Love the airport, by the way, loathe the slogan.)
Or maybe: 鈥淲elcome to Scotland 鈥� want to make something of it?鈥� I await ideas.

PS: More on the 鈥�100 days.鈥� Congrats to those of you who spotted that Labour鈥檚 sums didn鈥檛 add up. They鈥檇 said that the SNP made 67 promises: with 20 delivered in full, ten in part and 38 not at all. Total 68: as you rightly pointed out and I failed to notice, owing to endemic lassitude. Nice one.

Further, I have since learned more about the origins of the 100 days business. I had thought it started with JFK. But no: it was FDR. Roosevelt entered the Oval Office in 1933, determined to sort out, with urgency, the cataclysm that was the US economy.

I am indebted for this information to my highly esteemed 主播大秀 colleague Alan Little whom I met in the yurt at the Edinburgh Book Festival.
FDR, of course, introduced the New Deal and abolished prohibition. Bit of a way to go then, First Minister.

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

So how has it been for you? The glorious new dawn. The path to enlightenment. Come on, you know, the first 100 days of the SNP in power.

According to Nationalist Ministers, Scotland is 鈥渟marter, greener, healthier, wealthier, fairer, safer and stronger鈥�.

Or, at least, we鈥檝e made 鈥渕easurable progress鈥� in those directions.

Labour has measured that progress and come up with a rather different verdict. They set it out in considerable detail on their own website.

Their sums are as follows: 67 promises, 20 delivered in full, 10 in part, 38 not at all. To summarise, they reckon the first spell of Nationalist government has been mince.

(Actually, they say in an accompanying news release that the SNP 鈥渉as seemed to be effective鈥�. If it is appearance that matters in politics, perhaps that would do. But no matter.)

Me, I鈥檓 somewhat less than whelmed. Personally, I鈥檇 settle for a new striker at Tannadice to help Noel Hunt up front.

More seriously, I don鈥檛 think governments are judged in 100 days. But, for once, this isn鈥檛 a stunt dreamed up by the wicked media.

The SNP said on Sunday 18 March at their spring conference in Glasgow that they would do certain things within 100 days. So it鈥檚 reasonable to make a tally.

Have they done everything they said they would do? No. Have they made a start on almost everything? Yes. Are you annoyed by answer one or satisfied with answer two?

Look at the legislation. The SNP outlined five potential Bills: phasing out prescription charges; replacing student loans with grants; scrapping tolls on the Forth and Tay Bridges; a Criminal Justice Bill; and a draft Bill on an Independence referendum.

"Ah, ha," say Labour. "You鈥檝e only done one of these, Mr Salmond. You鈥檝e only published your independence Bill. That shows where your real priorities lie - and they do not coincide with those of the people."

"Hang on," say ministers. "We鈥檝e made moves on all of these. We鈥檝e looked at options on prescription charges with a view to a Bill in the autumn, scrapped the graduate endowment fee and begun consultation on the student bill secured parliamentary approval for scrapping bridge tolls, announced plans to reform communities and published the independence white paper."

But there鈥檚 a problem, here, isn鈥檛 there? Depends on wording. Does 鈥渂ring forward legislation to phase out prescription charges鈥� mean 鈥渢ake steps towards鈥� - or, as opponents would have it, publish a Bill to allow scrutiny.

Ministers say the relevant Bills will be formally published when Holyrood reconvenes.

I understand the 鈥�100 days鈥� initiative. Borrowed from JFK, it was an attempt to stress that the SNP would be active in government in the interests of Scotland, beyond the interest of their own members in securing independence.

They would not be 鈥渄oing less, better鈥� - but more, better still.

At the time, Labour seized on the document as evidence that the SNP would pick endless fights with Westminster.

Despite occasional flurries, that hasn鈥檛 really happened. By contrast, Alex Salmond鈥檚 strategy is to seem endlessly amenable - in the hope that the Scottish people will grant the SNP their wish of further power for Holyrood and, ultimately, independence.

More than that, Mr Salmond鈥檚 administration has seemed (that word again) generally pretty competent. He鈥檚 done, generally, well. So far.

However, the SNP are now open to the Labour charge of promising more than they have, precisely, delivered.

Without going through all the pledges, let me give you an example. The SNP promised a full, judicial inquiry into the Shirley McKie case.

They鈥檙e still planning that - and, indeed, I expect an announcement very soon. But it hasn鈥檛 been delivered within 100 days.

However, there are other examples where ministers have an arguable defence.

For example, there was a pledge to 鈥減repare draft legislation鈥� on replacing student loans with grants.

Labour says: 鈥渘o Bill published鈥�. But the precise promise was to prepare a draft.

Other promises, such as first home grants, will await the publication of the executive's budget in the autumn.

Is it a reasonable excuse to say that the budget has been delayed because the Treasury鈥檚 outline of the next spending round was held back? Or is that another broken promise?

You choose. As I said at the outset, I think a tick-box exercise is fairly futile.

Yes, the SNP created the challenge. Yes, it鈥檚 reasonable to assess them. But the voting public will deliver their verdict over a longer time-scale - and that鈥檚 the relevant calculation to make.

In that regard, I鈥檓 far more interested in the potential consequences of the decisions that Alex Salmond鈥檚 government has taken.

I鈥檓 interested in discovering whether the reprieve for A&E units is a sensible response to public need - or a drain on other health budgets.

I鈥檓 interested in discovering whether or not council tax benefit could be sustained under a new system of local government finance, as advocated by ministers.

I鈥檓 interested in what happens to the transport infrastructure. Were ministers right to resist the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link? Were MSPs right to insist on Edinburgh trams - against ministerial advice?

Those questions and many, many others will help form a more useful judgement on Alex Salmond鈥檚 spell in office than a snap verdict after 100 days.

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

Is devolution a process rather than an event? Who first said it was? Have you any conception how little I care either way?

Think I can clear up question two. It was Ron Davies, the former Welsh Secretary. Not Donald Dewar. Indeed, I鈥檓 not sure whether DD ever uttered said phrase.

(No doubt, someone will correct me. I warn you that I will require proof beyond mere assertion.)

Anyway, what does it matter? The particular phrase, that is. Not Scotland鈥檚 constitutional future.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have more than a passing interest in that.

History is a process, not an event. Time, post big bang, is a process, not an event. It is a meaningless squabble.

So let鈥檚 cut to the chase. Will the Labour Party countenance further devolution of powers to Holyrood?

Wendy Alexander says they might and, in particular, she refers us back to her previous reflections on the topic of financial responsibility.

She has argued in the past that a responsive political institution would have more control of revenue raising as well as political expenditure.

Is that fiscal autonomy, then? See above. Don鈥檛 get hung up on the nomenclature, consider what is on offer in practice.

Here though we run into another terminological battle. Is Des Browne at odds with Wendy Alexander? Did he call her ideas a Trojan Horse?

Well, no. He was talking about the white paper advanced by Alex Salmond which Ms Alexander had similarly dissed.

Is there, though, an underlying tension? Yes - and it is this. Even eight years on, several backbench Scottish Labour MPs have yet to become inured to devolution.

To be blunt, they resent the present set-up, let alone the prospect of further power.

And for why? Because their place in the political sunlight is overshadowed by their devolved brothers and sisters.

You want to hear real grief about Holyrood? Don't ask the Tories, ask a Scottish Labour MP, particularly one who has been around since before Holyrood was established.

Or ask a Scottish Labour councillor - particularly one who has lost power as a result of PR voting, introduced by Holyrood.

So, within Scottish Labour, there is a bedrock of internal disquiet with Holyrood. To be fair, it鈥檚 not by any means solely based on selfish considerations.

There are genuine questions as to whether coalition served Labour well, as to whether disparate voting systems are wise, as to whether further devolution of power would simply feed Nationalist demands, as to whether Scotland has been well governed.

But there鈥檚 a fair degree of raw grumpiness too. Wendy Alexander has to deal with both.

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

And then there was one. One candidate for the Scottish Labour leadership, that is. For the avoidance of doubt, that candidate is Wendy Alexander.
She received nominations from 41 out of 46 Labour MSPs. And she knows the names of the infamous five. Only joking.

Strictly speaking, she doesn鈥檛 become leader until September 14 鈥� when the party鈥檚 Scottish Executive will sit down with MSPs to sift through the vast list of contenders to succeed Jack McConnell.
But she鈥檚 wasting no time. She held talks today with Labour鈥檚 council group leaders 鈥� and she鈥檒l head off round the country to consult with the voters and the grassroots. Stand by, Inverness. She鈥檚 coming your way first.

To listen, of course. But to say what? That鈥檚 grouped around four broad themes: a competitive yet compassionate economy; consumer not producer focused public services; empowering people not institutions; and Scottish solutions for Scottish aspirations.

If she means it 鈥� and she does 鈥� then these decidedly broad themes could spell tension ahead. Institutions and producers have a habit of getting miffed when politicians suggest, even mildly, that they might care to put the customers first.

Plus is she ready to stand up for 鈥淪cottish solutions鈥� against powerful politicians in London, if necessary? Against the Prime Minister, if necessary?

When I asked her, she grinned and said she would seek co-operation 鈥� but would stand her ground.

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

Whither Socialism? Thus the billing for endless, earnest fringe events at Labour (and other) party conferences.

One answer is not, it would appear, down the road of contesting the Scottish Labour Party leadership.

The Campaign for Socialism counts five MSPs among its number. Four were prepared to nominate a rival to Wendy Alexander. Former Cabinet Minister Patricia Ferguson, it would seem, was not on that list.

To stand, a candidate needs backing from six MSPs (self plus another five.) The CfS has until midday Tuesday 鈥� but it鈥檚 not looking likely.

It was previously said on Ms Alexander鈥檚 behalf that she would welcome a contest - but I imagine that she can thole its absence.

Incidentally, asked on 主播大秀 Radio Scotland if she was a Socialist, she talked of her Socialist background. Not, I would suspect, good enough for the comrades.

But then life on the Left these days can sometimes seem a semi-permanent state of disappointment and innate distrust of the leadership.

To be fair, all the signed up members of the Campaign for Socialism have declared that they will support the elected leader of the party - and their record in the past eight years, since devolution, suggests that is a genuine standpoint.

So it looks like there won鈥檛 be a contest? Is that a serious problem? Well, arguably, it would have sharpened Labour鈥檚 inevitable internal debate had the members been presented with a choice. That was certainly the point made by the CfS.

But you cannot force people to stand for office - or to nominate someone they don鈥檛 support just to engineer a contest.

Wendy Alexander is in a clear lead - because she鈥檚 in a clear lead. Nobody will stand against her because she is the popular favourite. Folk think she鈥檚 going to win - and don鈥檛 fancy the grief of a courageous gubbing.

Further, there are many shades of opinion in Labour, beyond the ranks of the CfS, however well-defined their position might be.

Discussion need not be polarised as between the CfS standpoint and the aspirational aims outlined by Ms Alexander in her campaign launch on Friday.

The absence of a contest needn鈥檛 mean an absence of strategic and policy debate. Or do you disagree?

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

Inevitably, it was a little imprecise.

And the media folk in attendance were miffed at the lack of an opportunity to ask questions. But Wendy Alexander鈥檚 campaign launch should be counted a success.

She spoke well. A decent audience of supporters had been assembled. And she addressed, pretty bluntly, the failings in Scottish Labour.

Above all, as one senior party figure said later, she used the key sentiment: 鈥淲e lost鈥�. The SNP won - not by guile or slick PR but because they 鈥渟eized Labour鈥檚 agenda of hope and aspiration.鈥�

Anyone, says Ms Alexander, who thinks otherwise is 鈥渒idding themselves.鈥�

As to content, it was full of the language of aspiration and opportunity.

There was a line at the end stressing that the 鈥測awning gulf鈥� between rich and poor must be closed.

But, broadly, the equality on offer was one of the opportunity for self-enhancement: a help up, not a hand out.

That meant, in schools, a modernised curriculum, leadership and personalised learning; in health, help for patients with chronic conditions to manage their own care; in society, support for parents and aspirational home owners.

More immediately still, Ms Alexander and her team plainly plan a complete reshuffle of the party organisation. One aide told me that they would 鈥渞ub out鈥� the existing set-up and start again.

Not, one trusts, Mafia-style.

I think the intention is to attempt to match the SNP for professionalism and the dispersal of campaigning resources across the country.

It would also mean an explicitly Scottish Labour Party- rather than just the Labour Party in Scotland.

Autonomy over policy, organisation and presentation. Devolution, in short.

If elected, she鈥檒l put a programme for party reform to the spring conference.

Like Jack McConnell, Wendy Alexander has plainly not forgotten the aspirations of Scottish Labour Action, the pressure group to which both belonged.

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

One by one, the potential contenders to challenge Wendy Alexander for the Scottish Labour leadership are dropping out.

Margaret Curran, Andy Kerr and Iain Gray have now all declined to enter the contest.

Ms Alexander herself has confirmed that she is a candidate - but won鈥檛 launch her campaign until Friday.

That鈥檚 sensible, given that Jack McConnell has only just stood down and that the timetable for the election has yet to be determined by the party.

Strictly speaking, the post is Labour leader at Holyrood.

To stand for the post, you need to be a member of the Scottish Parliament - and you need nominations from six Labour MSPs.

Pretty tall order when you consider that Wendy is the firm favourite - and that the field of nominating MSPs has shrunk of late.

Is it really a smart career move to stand against the hot tip?

True, you engineer a contest. But the warm glow of assisting democracy fades fairly soon. The chill of self-exclusion persists.

At an earlier stage, it was said that Ms Alexander would welcome a contest, if only to foster a debate about the future of the party.

But I imagine she could summon the strength of character to survive a coronation.

Doesn鈥檛 seem to have done Gordon Brown any harm.

Re Wendy herself, she is personable, highly intelligent and a politician of substantial integrity.

As a minister until 2002, she was a dynamo at the heart of government.

Perhaps not every idea endured to action - but ideas there were plenty.

She is the MSP for Paisley North and the sister of Douglas, the International Development Secretary at Westminster.

Wendy stepped down from cabinet to think great thoughts - or, less satirically, to contribute to the intellectual debate which she plainly felt was lacking in the rather stolid, immobile Scottish body politic.

She insisted then that she intended no snub to Jack McConnell by leaving his team.

One or two Labour observers at Holyrood harbour doubts about whether she has the gutsy character to tackle Alex Salmond.

Young as she is, some also see her as part of the old guard who formed the Labour leadership at the outset of devolution.

One sceptic recalled that she had posed problems for the party with the repeal of Section 28.

Said sceptic added: 鈥淎ll we need is for Henry McLeish to come back as a special adviser and we鈥檙e set.鈥�

However, most in the party think highly of her - and expect great things, particularly in the field of policy making.

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

As promised, more on Jack McConnell. Rather a lot more.

He is to be the next High Commissioner to Malawi. But not yet.

He will succeed the current incumbent, Richard Wildash, who is currently due to complete his tour of duty in early 2009.

That would, of course, be before the next Holyrood elections which are scheduled for 2011. Under Holyrood rules, that date is fixed.

However, I understand that Mr McConnell doesn鈥檛 want to provoke a by-election (would you, given the latest polls?).

So either Mr Wildash may be prevailed upon to extend his duty or a temporary diplomat might be put in place. To be frank, I do not think these details are anything like settled.

So what do you make of that then?

Version One: this is the Westminster/Labour patronage machine in top gear, despatching a departing leader to a former colony.

Version Two: this is a signal honour for Jack McConnell, an opportunity to extend his work in Malawi with the Clinton Hunter foundation.

For myself, I think I incline mostly to Version Two - with just a tangy hint of Version One on a side plate.

Couple of reasons.

Jack McConnell is not being despatched. He is choosing to go, admittedly under the cosh of an electoral outcome.

Further, he is not going yet. He does not intend, I understand, to go full time to Malawi before 2011.

More, he is genuinely interested in Malawi and genuinely intrigued by the prospect of helping that desperately poor nation. This is not a sinecure.

However, when postings are announced by powerful colleagues, there is always the faintly acrid scent of patronage in the air. Jack McConnell, I suspect, can live with that.

As to his successor, stand by for an announcement this very afternoon from Wendy Alexander that she intends to be a candidate.

Asked to comment about her intentions immediately after the McConnell news conference this morning, she declined, saying that it was 鈥淛ack鈥檚 moment鈥�.

That moment, it would seem, has not been over-prolonged.

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

Just back from the Jack McConnell news conference - and thought I鈥檇 offer a brief burst of bloggery to stir the pot.

Might pitch in rather more later.

You鈥檒l know this if you were watching the telly last night (主播大秀, of course) but McConnell, J has decided to step down as Scottish Labour leader.

He鈥檚 taking up an (unpaid) role with the Clinton Hunter foundation helping to improve the education prospects of some of the world鈥檚 poorest kids in Malawi and Rwanda.

(The Hunter is Sir Tom Hunter, Scottish entrepreneur par excellence; the Clinton is . . . well, you know who he is.)

But Jack McC will stay as an MSP. He may, perhaps, at some stage, be offered a place in the House of Lords as well.

But the red benches don鈥檛 beckon yet.

Probably just as well. It would have smacked rather too much of Westminster patronage at this stage.

The former first minister probably feels he had enough tender attention from Westminster during the recent Holyrood elections.

Did he have to go? Probably yes, although some insiders were urging otherwise. Whether it was (entirely) his fault or not, he lost the election.

Alex Salmond didn鈥檛 gain an overall majority - or even a stable coalition. But Labour lost. He lost.

Is his record entitled to command respect? Mostly, yes.

He stabilised devolution (and Scottish Labour) after an extremely turbulent period. He voiced ambition for Scotland over issues like reversing population decline, tackling sectarianism and increasing Scotland鈥檚 stake in global affairs. Notably in Malawi where he will now work.

Who will take over? Wendy Alexander. She may take over unopposed (but don鈥檛 be on it.)

Labour will decide the timetable tomorrow. If there鈥檚 no contest, expect a new leader within a month. If there is, stretch that to two.

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

And there's more. Signs tonight of a variable response from the SNP's rivals to the White Paper.

Labour want nothing to do with it, the Tories think nothing can be done with the SNP until they sideline independence.

But the Liberal Democrats take a different line. They remain leery of Mr Salmond and his SNP. But they argue that it is significant that the SNP are now canvassing constitutional options short of independence.

They say further that this takes the SNP onto LibDem territory - strengthening devolution within the UK.

They say all parties can talk around this objective.

Being a student of subtle politics, I instantly wondered whether this divergent response signalled a willingness for the Lib Dems to talk to the SNP about coalition at Holyrood.

This, I was told, was an issue for the SNP, as the incumbent Executive. Which certainly isn't a Yes. But it isn't exactly a blunt No either.

Longer term - probably much longer term - is it just conceivable that an SNP/LibDem pact could be created, perhaps once the issue of an independence referendum is tabled at Holyrood? And duly defeated?

Just thought you'd like to know.

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

It rang a bell - but I had to look up the details. On the web, of course.

There, I was reminded that "The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer" is a 1970 film starring Peter Cook as a manipulative schemer among malleable politicians.

So why, I hear you ask, am I blethering about an unjustly neglected movie? Because a senior Labour figure invited me to compare the cinematic Rimmer with the decidedly real and present Alex Salmond.

Rimmer thrives for two reasons - he is plausible; and politicians, of various parties, fail to spot his emperor-style absence of outer clothing.

From neglect or laziness, they fail to see through him to the (lack of) substance.

Our contemporary, real-life politicians, I was told, aren't so daft.

They hear Mr Salmond say that his "national conversation" on Scotland's future contains a wide range of options. But they know, I was assured, that the First Minister is only truly interested in one option - independence.

There's a dose of truth there. Yes, the First Minister wants to tempt rival politicians into a debate in order, partly, to legitimise his favoured option of independence. He is luring them, he is gulling them.

Ultimately, though, independence wouldn't happen by stealth or guile. It would only happen if and when the Scottish people vote for it, openly, both in a Parliamentary election and in a subsequent referendum. Not really Rimmer's style.

So, will the Opposition parties take part in the "national conversation"? Mostly, no. I believe they could no more take part in this, predicated upon independence as the ultimate goal of the originators, than the SNP and the Tories found themselves able to participate in the Constitutional Convention set up by Labour, the Liberal Democrats and others.

It appears, however, that there will be a wider conversation. For one thing, I feel certain that the good and sensible people of Scotland, England and elsewhere will pitch in online and at the various public meetings planned by the Executive.

For another, the three Opposition parties at Holyrood are now committed to having a shufti again at the devolution settlement.

That means various things to the Big(gish) Three. For the Liberal Democrats, it means control of taxation and other new powers. For the Tories, it means strengthen the Union by strengthening devolution.

For Labour, it means鈥︹��.well, what exactly? The opposition statement was deliberately imprecise - although it's hard to imagine that any review would culminate in lessening the powers of Holyrood. For now, it means that Labour would rather we listened to them rather than A. Salmond. Any detail will have to await the election of a new Scottish Labour leader.

Today's document, though, is substantive. It is plainly a government publication, not party.

It sets out in considerable detail the options for further enhancing Holyrood's powers and specifies with great care the precise routes to be followed, should the popular mandate ensue.

The civil service has worked hard - and thoroughly - for their new political masters.

Whither Scotland? Despite all the words, despite all the arguments, it's really simple. Whither Scotland? You, the voters, will decide.

If you would like to join the executive debate go to https://www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/a-national-conversation

PS: Any chance of another Executive review - into the scandalous state of Scottish football refereeing? That red card for Kalvenes at Rugby Park last night was a disgrace!

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

What鈥檚 your take on the decision by Holyrood鈥檚 opposition parties to band together to review devolution and block a referendum on independence?

There are two alternative interpretations. Either, it is a grudging compliment to the SNP, conceding impliticly that Holyrood will have to be given extra powers.

Or it is a concerted effort to isolate the Nationalists by stressing that they could only participate in the promised review by sidelining their objective of independence via a referendum.

OK, let鈥檚 slow down a little. What exactly is happening?

The leaders of the three opposition parties at Holyrood - Jack McConnell, Annabel Goldie and Nicol Stephen - have issued a joint statement.

In that, they object to the SNP executive鈥檚 plans to publish a white paper tomorrow setting out plans for an independence referendum - alongside other options for Scotland鈥檚 constitutional future.

The three - now, on this issue, a Unionist opposition coalition - say that they will 鈥渘ot give succour to those who want to end the Union鈥�.

They say the SNP have no mandate for a referendum, plainly indicating that, as expected, they would block any such ballot.

But they go further. They suggest, without detail at this stage, that in the months to come they will consider 鈥渉ow best the interests of the people of Scotland can be served鈥�.

What does that mean? Most likely would appear to be a joint parliamentary review of devolution. Not a resumption of the Convention.

Labour, the Tories and the LibDems would take part - with, of course, varying degrees of enthusiasm for enhanced powers.

The LibDems have already set out plans for new tax powers. The Tories have long nodded towards a review, 10 years on from the original devolution white paper. For Scottish Labour, this is relatively fresh territory.

It is stressed also that this opposition initiative would involve not just Holyrood but Westminster too. That鈥檚 because it would be down to Westminster to legislate for any change - and because the initiative is distinctly Unionist in tone and intent.

G Brown has been consulted as have the UK leaders of the other parties.

The SNP鈥檚 initial response? 鈥淭rebles all round鈥�. They say it鈥檚 a clear sign that the ground is shifting towards more power for Holyrood.

The opposition three say, no, this stresses the Union - and distances independence, as per the intent of the original Convention. You judge.

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

And he didn鈥檛 even mention Braveheart.

Or, more accurately, Alex Salmond drew our attention to the fact that he hadn鈥檛 included Braveheart in his tally of movie cultural icons linked with Scotland. (For the cognoscenti, he listed: Local Hero, Last King of Scotland, Rob Roy, Red Road, Whisky Galore, Hallam Foe. What? No Gregory鈥檚 Girl?)

The point of all this? Alex Salmond was arguing that , properly run, could enhance the cultural - and cash - contribution already made by other creative industries.

Most notably, he argued that the Edinburgh festivals brought in millions (in cash and people). The telly and the wireless, he said, could be doing the same for Scotland, day in and day out.

Now, in response, 主播大秀 Scotland points out that it has just invested 拢188m in a new state-of-the-art headquarters in Glasgow - with facilities to produce programmes that are the envy of others.

But does the first minister have a point? Re: wider investment, many feel that he does. They point to an apparent falling-off in network investment in Scotland: that鈥檚 for programmes shown across the whole of the UK.

Certainly, that鈥檚 the 鈥減ressing鈥� issue as far as Blair Jenkins is concerned. He鈥檚 the former 主播大秀 and STV boss who鈥檚 been asked to chair the first minister鈥檚 new commission into broadcasting.

Others, like Ted Brocklebank of the Tories, also argue that Scotland has a valid case for additional network investment. Mr Brocklebank is a former senior TV executive.

Again, in response, 主播大秀 Scotland says there was a slippage after Monarch of the Glen came off the air 鈥� but that investment is already back on the up again and set to improve further.

To be frank, it would be a brave Scots politician who argued against funding for Scotland. There, though, the political consensus vanishes.

Rival parties, mostly, won鈥檛 wear Mr Salmond鈥檚 other demands: for a Scottish Six and for the devolution of control over broadcasting to Holyrood.

A Scottish Six would be a TV news programme, made in Scotland, which covered global, UK and Scottish news. Contrary to some comments, it would not focus exclusively on Scottish news.

However, there are those who argue - with some justification - that the issue has moved on since it was first voiced.

These days, more and more people access news online. They sample the stories they fancy, instead of relying upon a running order of events chosen by someone else.

Viewed that way, the Scottish Six is an analogue debate in a digital age.

However, it鈥檚 important to follow what the first minister said. He did not lay heavy stress on the Scottish Six. Indeed, he described it as 鈥渟horthand鈥� for a wider debate.

Further, he gave very little detail about what the devolution of broadcasting control might mean.

UK Ministers say such a move would be 鈥減arochial and backward-looking鈥�. Mr Salmond, you will be astonished to learn, disagrees.

Alex Salmond鈥檚 most vigorous argument concerned investment. Culture, cash, communication and confidence. He said it was 鈥渁bsurd鈥� to suggest that there wasn鈥檛 the talent in Scotland to absorb network commissions. Talent, he said, followed the money.

So, there are two verdicts possible upon Mr Salmond鈥檚 initiative.

Firstly, that he has erred by linking the case for investment with wider, partisan arguments.

Alternatively, that he is attacking on all fronts in order to secure advance in at least one, cash.

You鈥檙e the viewer/listener/web consumer. You judge.

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

As promised, to the topic of the Scottish Labour leadership.

First, the basics. Jack McConnell is thought to be very close to a decision about his own political future.

Further, it鈥檚 thought that future is unlikely to include leading Labour at Holyrood.

To be clear, no decision has been finally taken - or announced.

That is entirely down to McConnell, J. However, I think it is reasonable to deal at this stage with the most likely scenario - that he steps down.

He鈥檚 young to be leaving high office, but electoral politics is, rightly, a rough business.

He lost the election. Churn is what sustains democracy. If leaders are to be contained, we must be able to dismiss them - regardless of age or ability.

Anyway, enough of that.

Three key questions, based on our scenario.

What happens to Jack, who succeeds him - and what, exactly, is the job anyway?

Jack McConnell has his detractors - including a few outside the Labour Party. Hey, he was the top man at Holyrood.

Before that, he was party General Secretary in Scotland, a post scarcely calculated to endear him to the comrades or whatever title they currently adopt.

Plus of course there will be those who dissent from individual policies pursued by him in office.

However, I believe that most would accept he is entitled to substantial respect on two broader counts, on things that matter.

Firstly, he steadied the entire devolution project after the guddle of Henry McLeish鈥檚 departure.

It鈥檚 easy now to forget how destabilising that period was. Holyrood haters had easy, legitimate targets. Jack McConnell turned that round.

Secondly, he set out a series of longer-term ambitions, helping to ensure that debate at Holyrood was not about whether the Scottish Parliament, but whither.

It turned, finally, from the constitution per se - to the policy ramifications of reform.

Chief among these broader issues one might spotlight: Fresh Talent and (apparently successful) efforts to reverse Scotland鈥檚 population decline; action against sectarianism; and linking the smoking ban to Scotland鈥檚 health record.

Respect, if granted, includes the presumption that Mr McConnell might expect a dignified departure, should he choose to go.

Options might include a seat in the House of Lords - and perhaps a wider policy role quite apart from the patronage which the 鈥渙ther place鈥� inevitably involves.

I do not believe he would step down from his Holyrood seat.

I propose to spend much less time on Question Two - his successor, should it come to that, .

Succession would be determined by those who stand and those in the party who vote. Wendy Alexander looks to be the favourite.

Margaret Curran and Andy Kerr are other possible contenders.

Might be too early for Iain Gray who inadvertently missed out on 2003-2007 at Holyrood.

If they don鈥檛 stand, someone will, in order to engineer a contest.

And finally, to Question Three. What, precisely, is the job?

Hate to harp on about this but Labour has still, after eight years of devolution, to define exactly the role accorded to the elected leader.

Is it still, as originally intended, confined to being 鈥渢he leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament鈥�? Or has the scope now broadened to include a wider role leading the Labour Party across Scotland as a whole?

Trust me, this matters. Not enormously, but symbolically.

Every other party has a Scottish leader with that broader role - Labour is lagging behind on internal devolution.

Something for the incoming - or even outgoing - leader to act upon?

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

So what do you reckon? Do you think that Gordon Brown will call a UK General Election in the autumn, perhaps in October?
I only ask because of a certain twitchiness in the body politic which is displaying unwarranted signs of life for these dog days of August. Today, for example, we learn that the SNP are accelerating their candidate selection process, in order to be ready.

By habit and repute, these are the days when politicians top up their tan, dispelling their more customary pallid sheen. (For those, that is, who do not resort to purchasing an orange glow from sunbed establishments in our major cities.)
These are the days, too, when MPs and MSPs can reassure their constituencies of their supreme importance, free from the troublesome requirement to add yet more to the statute book.

It should be a period of calm and steady reflection. But all is not as it should be. We have a new Prime Minister. In Scotland, we have a new First Minister.
(We may soon have a new Labour leader in Scotland but more of that another day.)

Further, our politicians have become accustomed to virtually permanent election mode. They fret, they twitter, if they are not either drawing up a manifesto, dissing their opponents (including those from other parties) or massaging opinion polls.

However, there is also substantive reasoning underlying this election speculation. Gordon Brown would like his own mandate to replace the one inherited from Tony Blair.
He will call a General Election at the precise moment when he believes that consummation can be achieved. The Tories would appear to be struggling at the moment, with contrary opinion polls and still more contrary comments from the odd (occasionally, very odd) grandee about David Cameron鈥檚 strategy, or lack thereof.

Hence the speculation about October. Hence the decision by SNP strategists to order the acceleration of their candidate selection programme: a process made more cumbersome by the need to deal with different Westminster and Holyrood constituency boundaries. Nationalists, as you would expect, are organised along Holyrood lines.

So what do you reckon? Here鈥檚 my pitch. I do not believe that Gordon Brown has waited more than a decade in order to risk the Premiership so quickly.
I believe he will want to discover whether the Cameron travails are transient or entrenched. I believe he will want more stability in Britain鈥檚 military commitments, if such a thing is readily achievable.

In Scotland, I believe he will want to steady the Labour ship and to get a clear assessment of SNP minority rule at Holyrood whose influence would inevitably spill over into a Westminster contest.

Will there be a UK General Election in October? I say no. What do you say?

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