Baby P, Brandon Muir and political expediency

Even though Sharon Shoesmith's dismissal has been deemed "procedurally unfair", it's difficult to feel sympathy for the former director of children's services at Haringey Council in view of the damning report on her department following the death of Baby P, not to mention reports that her eventual compensation payout could reach £2 million.

But last week's Court of Appeal ruling can perhaps be construed as underlining the fact that her sacking by former education secretary Ed Balls was politically motivated - in effect she was used as a scapegoat for wider failings, and thus hung out to dry.

In turn this underlines the contrast with events surrounding the killing of Dundee toddler Brandon Muir in Dundee at the hands of the violent drug-abusing boyfriend of his drug addict, prostitute mother.

As blogged here previously the obligatory report on the circumstances leading to Brandon's death seemed like a classic Establishment fix, with a former senior police officer finding failings in procedures and systems, but these seemed to exist in some kind of bureaucratic vacuum where human error and frailty was simply not an issue, hence the blame lay wholly in processes rather than people, with the Dundee political reaction split along party lines.

Which was convenient indeed in view of the fact that politicians all the way from Dundee's social work convener up to first minister Alex Salmond had effectively exonerated social work staff in relation to Brandon's death before any investigation into officialdom's role in the tragedy had even begun.

Of course, it certainly often seems the norm that fawning politicians consider that public servants can do no wrong, in contrast with their political opponents who can do no right, but as usual the truth very probably lies somewhere between the two extremes.

But the Shoesmith case provides a very useful contrast to the reaction to Brandon Muir's tragic killing. Of course, even without examining the minutiae of the two cases it's self-evident that they are not directly comparable, but what's equally clear is that there were significant departmental failures in both cases.

Also, while we should neither absolve Sharon Shoesmith from any blame nor condemn Dundee's social work department out of hand, it's clear that in the former case political expediency dictated that she should carry the can in relation to Baby P, while in the latter national and municipal politics in Scotland dictated the opposite.

But whatever the precise motivations in play, they certainly seemed not wholly consistent with truth, justice and the need to learn uncomfortable lessons from the tragic deaths of yet another two children.

New MSP should 'resign forthwith'?

(An abridged version of the following was sent as a letter to the Edinburgh Evening News.)

I was bemused to read Martin Hannan's piece (May 24) in which he used the 'Taxigate' affair as a stick to beat his political opponents with.

This "good SNP member" had suggested that the prosecution/persecution of taxi drivers for using Holyrood Park was illegal (subsequently confirmed by the procurator fiscal), and now says that to the extent that Edinburgh Council was involved then heads should roll.

However, earlier this month the Sheriff Court delivered a judgement - conveniently dated the Friday when the Holyrood election results were announced - declaring unlawful the council's method of allocating a limited number of new taxi licences.

While the allocation of such a licence could mean the difference between a so-called carpetbagger being handed a licence to print money (almost literally) or a working driver's position in the trade being significantly enhanced, the council intended issuing licences via a waiting list which had been closed for a number of years, hence the involvement of the courts regarding a process which was self-evidently lacking in fairness and transparency.

Presiding over all of this was Councillor Colin Keir. However, rather than being subject to Mr Hannan's reference to the time "when moral decency was a prerequisite for public office", and hence "if councillors were found to have...done things that were outwith the law, knowingly or not, then resignation followed instantly", the SNP's Mr Keir has recently won an effective promotion to the Scottish Parliament.

So where does Mr Keir stand in relation to Mr Hannan's scale of "inadequacy and incompetence on a grand scale" and call to "resign forthwith", or does this only apply to political opponents?

Power games and the blame game

Those who claim that the SNP's administration will have no hiding place this time round because of its decisive Holyrood majority are perhaps ignoring the effectiveness of Alex Salmond's so-called 'girn and grievance' agenda vis-à-vis Westminster. The argument goes that the first SNP Government was able to point to its lack of parliamentary majority for its inability to implement radical, ground-breaking measures, but clearly this excuse will be unavailable for the next five years, hence the Nationalists will be exposed.

But of course the other major facet of the SNP's ability to shift the blame was the lack of Holyrood powers rather than the inability to use them because of the parliamentary arithmetic, and since the latter argument won't work now it's self-evident that the former will be afforded greater emphasis.

Thus in the first couple of weeks since the SNP's landslide Alex Salmond has wasted no time in demanding this, that and the next power be devolved from Westminster in view of the decisiveness of his mandate, despite the fact that the matters he's raising weren't exactly making the headlines during the campaign.

But of course it's win-win for Mr Salmond: he either gets the powers, and this represents further steps down the gradualist path towards independence, or he doesn't, and the lack of powers can be blamed for a lack of progress in the next few year, hence both shifting the blame to Westminster and providing impetus for the drive towards independence.

Indeed, London will be blamed for the difficult economic and public spending environment likely to be increasingly in evidence once the euphoria of May 5 subsides, while the corollary has for some time been that if only Holyrood had the requisite powers then the unencumbered road to 'grow Scotland's economy' would stretch ahead like a motorway at 3am.

For example, in CalMerc Pat Kane says: "Yes, full fiscal autonomy will support a jobs-creating business environment in Scotland". Yes, it really is that simple; as every other state entity in the world with full economic powers ably demonstrates. Not.

But one prominent example of this ethos is Mr Salmond's desire to have corporation tax powers devolved to Edinburgh. This would presumably reduce the size of the block grant from Westminster, and since Mr Salmond's rationale seems to be to reduce the corporation tax rate (to attract inward investment à la Ireland) then this would add to what's generally accepted is a bit of a black hole in the SNP Government's expected revenues versus its spending plans. But of course the SNP leader wouldn't be the first politician to keep digging when finding themselves in a hole. Or perhaps the intention is to fill that particular black hole by creating a borrowing black hole, which would of course be worth it because of the fiscal stimulus it would provide to economic growth, as indeed Ireland - and the UK, of course - have not ably demonstrated when things go askew and the whole thing comes crashing down. It doesn't seem difficult to use borrowing powers to produce a debt-fuelled boom, but it's the bust that often follows which also has to be considered, something that many a credit card user has found to their personal cost, not to mention the same basic principle at work at the level of the nation state.

A refinement on the Nationalist argument is that the short term reduction in corporation tax revenue would be reversed in the longer term as the economy powers on, hence economic growth results in higher total tax revenue with a lower tax rate.

All well and good then, but in the current economic climate is there really so much potential corporate investment looking for a home that it would fundamentally change Scotland's economy if only we could have our own lower corporation tax rate? Or, perhaps more importantly, is Scotland likely to prove a haven for business investment in the next few years in view of the uncertainty over the independence question, for example in relation to the currency issue*. According to a Scotsman leader today, Mr Salmond asserts that something called the 'Laffer curve effect' would pertain - thus a reduced corporation tax rate would mean higher total revenues - but theories don't always work in practice, thus the Laffer curve laugh could end up being on Scotland.

Of course, the corollary to the SNP's argument on corporation tax is that it would make England and Wales less competitive in terms of attracting investment (while Northern Ireland is self-evidently more in competition with the Republic's lower rate) hence it's unlikely to happen at all, particularly since the Nationalists keep telling us how well the Scottish economy is doing compared to the rest of the UK.

But matters such as the economic literacy surrounding these arguments are of little relevance in view of the stance outlined at the outset - it's all London's fault, stupid.

Of course, the bigger issue is not the Nationalist strategy per se but how it plays with voters. Clearly the 'blame London' shtick has always had a degree of traction, but to the extent that London may be perceived to be less blameworthy with a majority SNP Government in situ then those 69 MSPs could turn out to be something of a poisoned chalice.

Equally, Mr Salmond has always been aware - even before the landslide - that an independence referendum was unwinnable, thus the intention to hold it three years or so hence. But since his rationale for this is that the election night tsunami was due to Holyrood factors rather than a mandate for independence, then he may be playing the wrong card with his constant attempts to blame London and the lack of Scottish Government powers.

Perhaps voters who endorsed the SNP rather than independence are wondering why Mr Salmond currently seems preoccupied with enhancing Holyrood's powers rather than getting on with running Scotland with the ones he's got.

*Meanwhile - and highly pertinent to the foregoing - in a letter published in today's Scotsman one of the SNP's list candidates in May has solved the party's euro/sterling conundrum by stating that an independent (sic!) Scotland could retain the pound but make monetary policy more relevant to Scotland by having a seat on the Bank of England's monetary policy committee.

Oh aye! If the MPC's decisions are inappropriate for Scotland's economy while part of the UK then I can't really see them changing direction much after Scottish independence, representation on the committee notwithstanding! Of course, as a former arch-euro enthusiast Mr Orr could perhaps be excused for looking as if he's clutching at straws on the currency issue.

Cannae wait to see Jim Fairlie's reply regarding what Mr Orr characterises as him being "permanently stuck in a time warp with his various narrow nationalist statements", which until recently sounded more like a Unionist critique of Nationalism rather than a Nationalist criticism of, er, Nationalism!

I always thought the Nationalist fundamentalist v gradualist debate was about the means to the same end, but perhaps it's really more about consistency and principle versus 'make it up as we go along and dilute the concept as far as needs be to win a referendum'.

As Michael Portillo claims, perhaps the word 'independence' won't even appear on the referendum ballot paper!

The UK frying pan and the EU fire, part 2

Gerry Hassan's articles are always a must-read, and it's been difficult to keep up with him since he went into overdrive after...um...what was it again?

Anyway, his critique of Scotland and its politics is particularly compelling, but as regards his solutions he often seems to have his head in the intellectual/idealistic clouds in a manner which could be characterised as Hassan-Kane-esque . One obvious manifestation of this is the paradox of his scepticism in relation to the SNP with his unbridled enthusiasm following the election of an SNP Scottish Government enjoying an unparalleled majority in the Scottish Parliament.

And this post from a few days ago pointed out the contradiction between Gerry's criticism of authoritarianism with the surely pettifogging approach of the SNP to aspects of human behaviour.

But perhaps his argument - although he doesn't state it explicitly - is that the SNP are merely the means to the independent end, and then we can get on with the real agenda of his vision for Scotland.

Clearly that's debatable, particularly in relation to what's often regarded as a large degree of progressive/centre left political consensus in Scotland, with only the independence/separatism question dividing the two dominant party political players in Scottish electoral politics.

However, as regards independence per se and the wider political ramifications, one particular passage stood out from one of Gerry's latest pieces, this one in the Guardian:

....there is the European dimension. Does Scotland remain part of the UK’s tortured, semi-detached relationship with the EU? Or does it aspire to be part of the core, integrated project, assuming it survives its current crisis?

First, as regards the independence question and the related fundamental question of sovereignty, there is of course a profound question mark over how far Scotland could be considered truly independent if it cedes significant powers to the EU, and Friday's post outlined the Nationalist contrast between the supposed unsuitability of a London-centric currency and monetary policy with the apparent desirability of the euro and interest rates decided by the bankers in Frankfurt.

Thus there's a huge contradiction between repatriating powers from Westminster/the UK and then ceding sovereignty to Brussels/the EU, which in terms of political union is like comparing the Dundee Wheelchair Taxi Association to the Transport and General Workers Union (neither of which exist anymore, I think, but you get the point).

A previous post tried to reconcile this contradiction by suggesting that the growth of support for the SNP/more Scottish autonomy was due to differences with Westminster/UK political philosophy rather than the attractions of independence/sovereignty per se - the major benefit of an independent Scotland is that it would entrench a certain political outlook which is in stark contrast with what Westminster has on offer, particularly after the new Labour years and the prospect of a Tory Government. Which of course is consistent with the voting shift from the Lib Dems (as part of the Westminster coalition) to the SNP at Holyrood evidenced earlier this month. By the same token, the perceived communitarian ethos and progressive philosophy of the EU probably seems more attractive to the Scottish political psyche than that of Westminster, hence the sovereignty paradox. And the fact that Brussels is possibly even more institutionally corrupt, bureaucratic and self-serving than Westminster is conveniently ignored.

But perhaps the UK/EU paradox can be resolved by what in another article Gerry calls "post-nationalist politics, one of shared, fluid sovereignties". Which on the one hand is probably a realistic reassessment in an increasingly complex world, whereas on the other it sounds a bit like the tension between Gerry's vision of a quasi-anarchistic society and the environmental aspect, the latter requiring strong micro and macro-level regulation. At the supra-national level the notion of "fluid sovereignties" just sounds a bit too disorderly and uncertain when global issues such as terrorism, environmentalism and economic growth require a large degree of order and certainty.

Of course, Scottish Nationalists who also support the oxymoronic concept of "independence in Europe" could plausibly argue that whatever sovereignty is ceded to Brussels is already lost via the UK's EU membership, thus to that extent an independent Scotland would at least repatriate these powers currently reserved to Westminster which are outwith the EU's jurisdiction.

A fair point, but of course there is the issue of the euro and the SNP's proposal for an independent Scotland to eventually adopt the single currency, although for obvious reasons there's certainly less emphasis on this policy these days, albeit that the party's precise stance on it remains unclear.

On the other hand, Gerry's earlier quote contrasts the "UK’s tortured, semi-detached relationship with the EU" with whether Scotland should aspire to be part of the "core, integrated project", and the language used suggests that he prefers the latter.

This approach would thus include euro membership and other measures that the UK currently excludes itself from like some employment legislation, and is presumably also sympathetic to the impetus towards the so-called European superstate. Thus so much for sovereignty in an independent (sic!) Scotland, whether of the "shared, fluid" variety or the more traditional type!

And moving away from the question of sovereignty per se, the vexed question of immigration is one EU-related issue which perhaps demonstrates the potential for conflict between idealism and reality.

Thus elsewhere in Gerry's Guardian article he also mentions the "American-style market fundamentalism which has disfigured British politics". Yet there can be nothing more fundamentalist in (labour) market terms than the mass immigration resulting from the EU's free movement of workers policies, but in this case he's presumably alluding to other aspects of the market while ignoring inconvenient aspects of fundamentalism.

Of course, the progressives and idealists generally view immigration in cultural terms, using positive terms such as 'integration', 'tolerance' and 'inclusiveness', while ignoring the economic consequences of decreased earnings and hence conflict between indigenous and immigrant workers, with those pointing out the latter problems often deemed racist.

Therefore that is perhaps one example of where a one-dimensional idealism could be stoking up problems in an 'independent' Scotland as part of the EU. Of course, the same people who will be shouting 'racist' at the mere suggestion that immigration can be in any way problematic will point to the fact that issues evident in some northern English cities (say) simply aren't apparent in Scotland.

A reasonable response, but the point is that immigration per se simply isn't so obvious in scale in Scotland, and it's surely fair to say that the issues evident in some parts of England - such as the rise of the BNP - would be more prominent here if immigration was simply more significant in numerical terms, which could well be the case in future if an independent Scotland was a fully-paid up EU member while the residual UK moves towards a more restrictive stance on immigration.

Thus clearly not a perspective likely to be particularly popular in a Scottish nation now apparently imbued with 'civic' nationalism, but just one facet of the idealistic new spirit of Scotland which could well blow up in someone's face one day.

And indeed the lack of clarity and uncertainty over precisely what an independent Scotland would mean is likely to be detrimental to the pro-independence movement over the forthcoming couple of years; voters prefer certainty and a united front, and once the debate gains some momentum and as hard choices have to be made in the run up to a referendum, the tensions are likely to come to the surface.

At the moment the euphoria of the victory has managed to keep such potential splits largely under wraps - and the online Nationalist community has predictably managed to shift the blame onto the Unionists for trying to foster division, which is to an extent plausible - but once the debate gets down to the nitty gritty and difficult decisions have to be made, what price a less united front becoming more evident? By the same token, the anti-separatism movement will exploit this lack of clarity and division for all it's worth.

Out of the UK frying pan, into the EU fire?

(Published as a letter in the Scotsman)

Regarding what he characterises as "silly misunderstanding" and "clumsy distortions of SNP objectives" from independence sceptics, David Hill (Letters, 19 May) claims the party's position has "not changed at all".

But, for example, I seem to recall that independence envisaged a Scottish currency rather than sterling.

Then came the idealism of the euro, and whereas interest rates set by the Bank of England in London were considered inappropriate for Scotland, the European Central Bank in Frankfurt seemed more palatable.

More recently sterling seems to have become more attractive, but in a recent TV interview Nicola Sturgeon deflected her inability to address the issue by reverting to a "best interests of Scotland" style of answer, thus hardly consistent with Mr Hill's claim.

By the same token, it seems strange that the SNP would like to leave our domestic union but then cede sovereignty to a substantially bigger one in the form of the European Union, where Scotland's influence will surely be less than in the UK context.

Of course, Mr Hill will argue that an independent Scotland would choose to cede sovereignty to the EU, as compared with the current relationship between ourselves and the UK.

However, the weakness of such a stance is that the people of Scotland haven't demonstrated any desire to leave the UK, which is why Alex Salmond does not want an independence referendum at this time.

This will no doubt be formally tested in due course, but in the meantime those who portray Scotland as some kind of Western Tibet fundamentally misrepresent the (currently) settled will of the Scottish people.

Could AS 4 FM ruse have changed the course of history?

Yesterday's events in the Scottish Parliament - serving as a reminder that the First Minister is actually chosen by MSPs and indeed formally appointed by the Queen - brought to mind polling day a fortnight ago.

For personal and local reasons I decided not to vote for the SNP in the constituency vote, opting instead for the Labour candidate (as I recall it this was my first ever such vote). However, since the national poll was a two-horse race and Labour were distinctly overwhelming overall, my intention was to endorse the SNP via the list vote.

But I was sufficiently annoyed by the "Alex Salmond for First Minister" ruse employed by the Nationalists on the list ballot paper that my vote actually ended up, er, elsewhere, since unfortunately this seemed all too symptomatic of the kind of chicanery employed by politicians to hoodwink the public, and which helps bring the whole political system into disrepute.

As I opined in this letter published in Scotland on Sunday a couple of weeks before the poll, as well as representing cheap sloganeering which should have no place on the ballot paper the phrase could also mislead the public into thinking that they were voting directly for Alex Salmond, and also that this vote was cast in some kind of quasi-presidential contest.

However, several sources of evidence seen subsequently confirmed the impression that the intention was to mislead rather than to merely sloganeer.

First, a full page newspaper advertisement featured a portrait-style photograph of Mr Salmond, and prominently featured was the following text (and graphic), which read:

ON MAY 5, BOTH VOTES SNP.

Alex Salmond for First Minister SNP X

Your local SNP candidate SNP X


The juxtaposition of the 'Alex Salmond for First Minister' phrase from the list ballot paper with the text 'Your local SNP candidate' from the constituency paper surely exacerbates the misleading impression.

This was yet further underlined by various leaflets distributed both locally and nationally, which additionally included text along the lines of that shown in the graphic above, viz: "First, vote to re-elect Alex Salmond as First Minister. Then vote for your local SNP candidate".

Similarly, an SNP promotional video featuring celebrity backer Elaine C Smith featured the comedienne saying:

"What you do is look down there for Alex Salmond's name, put a cross next to that and that's you voting for him". [...]

"Vote for Alex Salmond on the salmon coloured paper".

At around the same time a Scottish Sunday Express article quoted Sir Sean Connery as saying:

“If you want Alex Salmond to be First Minister you have to vote for the SNP on both ballot papers.

“The salmon coloured one is for the list vote, which decides the First Minister and the government of Scotland.”

With some irony, during a Channel 4 News interview following the SNP's victory, Ms Smith said: "We've got a very sophisticated electorate in Scotland who understand completely the way our voting system works".

Which combined with the video suggests that she herself doesn't have a clue how the system works, or alternatively that she's patronising voters and treating them as if they're zipped up at the back, à la Mary Doll in Rab C Nesbitt.

As for the other actor (and knight bachelor), it's perhaps more charitable to suggest that as a resident of the Bahamas he's unaware of how the Holyrood ballot works rather than deliberately trying to mislead those of us actually living here, but considering the fuss the Nationalists (and SNP supporters in particular) made of Iain Gray's retreat into a sandwich shop, it's surely hypocritical to exploit in this way someone who left the country rather than stay to fight for his beliefs.

Of course, the SNP did have some kind of official explanation for all of this, but it was entirely lost on yours truly, presumably because it was either total bull or that I lack the necessary sophistication.

Anyway, apologies if I've got it wrong, but as I recall it was along the lines that MSPs elected via the list vote were more important to the subsequent selection of the First Minister than the constituency MSPs.

Which seems ridiculous in view of the fact that the latter substantially outnumber the former, and all MSPs have an equal vote as regards the choice of First Minister.

And it seems that the experts consider that this time round the SNP performed better in the constituencies than in the regions anyway, but of course the latter is a voting system corollary of the former.

But - and eventually cutting to the chase of the post title - could the AS 4 FM skulduggery have materially influenced the result, and to that extent perhaps made the difference between a minority Holyrood administration and the actual majority SNP Government, hence an independence referendum and a whole host of other measures which would have been impossible with a minority, and thus fundamental to the history of Scotland and the United Kingdom?

Well this blogger certainly lacks the sophistication to provide the definitive answer to that question - the dominance of the SNP in the constituencies anyway perhaps suggesting an answer in the negative - but what's in any case disappointing is that the SNP adopted this essentially dishonest strategy in the first place, presumably on the assumption that it would gain more votes than those lost (from those like myself irritated by the whole thing) and to that extend influence the result.

Of course, the basis of the whole thing was to put the emphasis on the popular Mr Salmond rather than the more anonymous list candidates, who the vast majority of the public will never have heard of, which will unfortunately still be the case at the end of their term.

Ironic, then, that during the campaign Mr Salmond dismissed suggestions that his party was a one-man-band by claiming it was an "orchestra". Thus a tad inconsistent with trying to portray the poll as 'Alex Salmond for President', but if it's not a one-man-band then the SNP is certainly more Rod Stewart and the Faces than the pipes and drums of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards.

And it's also unclear why the opposition didn't make a bit of a fuss about this issue - rather than Labour's ludicrous complaint about the free Midge Ure concert, for example - but perhaps Labour thought this would invite scorn along the lines of an 'Iain Gray for First Minister' comparison, and of course ridicule seems as important in politics as substance.

A bit of perspective

Words like 'seismic', 'earthquake', 'tsunami' and 'landslide' have been repeated almost ad nauseum in the past ten days or so, and of course the media, politicians and politicos can be excused a bit of excitement and exaggeration in view of the recent Holyrood election results, even if the use of words alluding to natural disasters always seems a bit bizarre for something supposedly positive.

However, now that the hangovers have subsided - induced either via elation or disappointment - perhaps a bit of perspective is in order.

For a start, the word 'landslide' to describe the SNP's election victory is perhaps overegging the pudding a bit. The Nationalists secured 53% of the Holyrood seats, whereas in the electoral context a landslide victory seems to refer to a significantly greater margin of victory.

On the other hand, since the part-PR voting system militates against overall majorities, then to that extent 'landslide' is perhaps more appropriate here than in the Westminster context (say), where somewhere nearer 60% of the seats is required to use the term.

Granted, the SNP's 44% share of the poll would very probably equate to a landslide at Westminster, but clearly this is still a good bit off a majority of the popular vote. And given the quasi-presidential nature of the election, how does that compare to US presidential votes, for example?

However, irrespective of the electoral arithmetic, the SNP's vote share points to the more obvious facet of the reaction to events that needs a reality check, and that's the portrayal of Scotland as a nation that has fundamentally changed in terms of, well, for want of a better word, zeitgeist.

Of course, in this regard the most important caveat is turnout, and with only 50% or so voting the SNP actually secured the support of around 23% of the public. Also, despite the Nationalists making much of the positivity of their campaign, many of their votes have self-evidently been secured for negative reasons, most obviously the Lib Dem rout pertaining to the Westminster coalition, the hopeless Labour campaign (and notwithstanding that, the party's overall share of the vote decreased only marginally) and the seemingly perpetual "toxic Tory" legacy.

Moreover, the SNP had the assistance of a significantly more supportive press, a relatively large campaign war chest financed by wealthy donors, and a host of backers from showbusiness and, er, real business.

In this context the party's endorsement by 23% of voters compared to 17% in 2007 hardly seems to represent a seismic shift in public opinion, or that the Nationalists now truly represent the spirit of the nation. Of course, supporters of the SNP or independence more generally could perhaps be forgiven for thinking otherwise, but back in the real world people seem a bit more circumspect about it all, assuming they have even given it much thought at all. But of course the voting system - and the corollary of the meltdown of the three main opposition parties in terms of the poll, and in view of subsequent events - means that the political implications in what the Daily Mail (only 20p!) calls Alex Salmond's "one-party state" are significant indeed.

But for Lesley Riddoch to say in the Sunday Post that the election "ushered out the enduring caricature of the Scots and dour, negative and pessimistic - hopefully for ever" and to refer to "seismic cultural change" seems a tad optimistic and overdone, respectively; at the very least she has presumably never read this blog!

By the same token, a clearly excited Gerry Hassan - like Lesley Riddoch no SNP slave - seems to have gone into article overdrive, with numerous pieces almost salivating at the prospect of the Caledonian liberty, equality and fraternity likely to be ushered in by a 'yes' vote in a couple of years' time.

And one particular line of his caught the eye in a kind of 'prepare to be disappointed' moment. Says Gerry: "Goodbye to Labour authoritarianism, telling us what we cannae dae, and acting like a mean minded parkie out of a DC Thompson comic."

Is this the Scotland/SNP of the smoking ban, control of tobacco displays and the banning of cigarette vending machines, minimum pricing for alcohol and a ban on under-21s buying carry outs that he's alluding to, not to mention a raft of other measures and proposals which are presumably just the tip of the 'authoritarian' iceberg?

But that's certainly consistent with this post from the other week, which compared what looked like Gerry's quasi-anarchistic vision of Scottish society with his green agenda, which of course entails strict regulation which many would characterise as authoritarian.

And indeed his specific mention of a "mean spirited parkie" perhaps alludes to the recent near-riot at Kelvingrove Park, and the fact that the environmental lobby would happily consider attempts to deal with such people turning our public spaces into a rubbish tip to be symptomatic of a police state, but would jump up and down if someone put their household waste into the wrong bin, thus underlining a distinctly selective approach to what constitutes authoritarianism and concern for the environment.

Which is digressing ever so slightly, but assuming a five-year term for the SNP, and even assuming a won independence referendum by then, by 2016 it seems highly possible that there will be a lot of disappointment with Alex Salmond and the SNP, and although this two-years-old post may have been a bit pessimistic at that stage, the basic conclusion still holds; it's just a matter of time! (Of course, those who see the election of an SNP administration as an end in itself - and more so an independent Scotland, of course - may adopt a different perspective, but the analysis refers to the electorate more generally.)

And there's also the big caveat regarding how far May 5th's tsunami can be equated with support for independence (even ignoring the various factors above which detract from the hyperbolic perspective). That's because the commentariat has been telling us how the highly sophisticated Scottish electorate is increasingly distinguishing Holyrood from Westminster votes, thus while last year the Scottish Labour Party trounced the SNP in the UK General Election, the reverse was the case this time round, with the former being highly suggestive of an affirmation of the UK, and the latter perhaps confirming an increasingly differentiated approach to Holyrood voting since the first devolved elections.

Again that hardly represents a particularly devastating insight, and of course Alex Salmond is well aware of the limitations of the Holyrood 'landslide' as regards support for independence, hence the delay in the referendum timing.

(This post was intended for last week, but the Blogger shut down - and the fact that it destroyed much of the draft! - thwarted this, hence the above may appear slightly out of sync.)

Sillars suggests nuclear option on independence

Today's Scotsman carries a perhaps seminal article from independence fundamentalist Jim Sillars, who suggests that an independent (sic!) Scotland might retain UK nuclear weapons at Faslane as one of a number of compromises intended to make the proposed referendum winnable for the Nationalists, characterising this as the "art of the possible" rather than the "politics of perfection", and emphasising that defeat in a plebiscite could put the issue to bed for a generation.

The opinion column from the former SNP deputy leader is one of several pieces in this morning's edition of the newspaper centred around research by Professor James Mitchell on SNP attitudes to what constitutes independence, and the results suggest that dominant Nationalist thinking is more fluid on the issue than was hitherto thought.

Of course, it's now pretty well established that the monarchy would remain in an independent Scotland, while there might also be co-operation with the UK on matters like defence and foreign affairs. But other areas being mentioned now include the DVLA, pensions and social security, and Treasury oversight of devolved fiscal powers on the basis that Scotland would retain sterling (with the SNP increasingly likely to distance themselves from the euro option anyway in view of recent events, but of course an immediate volte-face would look like admitting to an error of judgement, which would never do!).

Thus while the Scotsman's front-page headline characterises all this as the 'independence-lite' approach, precisely how it would be defined objectively is anyone's guess. Jim Sillars calls his approach a "confederal relationship" with England, while in CalMerc Hamish Macdonell says:

This does tend to reinforce the view that independence and unionism are not poles apart and separated by an ideological divide. Rather that extreme unionism and extreme nationalism are at opposite ends of a spectrum with many different (and subtly nuanced) variations dotted out between them, ranging from the current devolution settlement, through fiscal accountability, fiscal autonomy, federalism, independence-lite to old-fashioned, complete separatism.

There are also other fundamental questions to consider, such as whether or not a quasi-federal relationship with the UK would require separate Scottish membership of the EU, but on the other hand a continuation of the current arrangement vis-à-vis Europe would at least avoid awkward questions regarding an independent Scotland and adoption of the euro, which seems to be a precondition for new members.

But perhaps all this suggests that the dominant Nationalist strategy is not to have a referendum on independence per se, but to ascertain what degree of autonomy from the UK would be acceptable to the electorate and then put it to the vote. And indeed the accepted wisdom seems to be that most Scots support more powers for Holyrood, thus it's just a question of ascertaining how far this can be taken before they are frightened off.

Of course, however this degree of autonomy should be objectively characterised it would be portrayed by the SNP leadership simply as independence. Obviously that would not satisfy all Nationalists, but Alex Salmond's difficulty will be in balancing what the public will stomach with the extent to which the fundamentalists will compromise.

Some would grin and bear it, while others would be apoplectic. Thus appeasing the public could to an extent split Nationalism, but of course the easy ride to a fully separate Scottish state portrayed by some in the last week was never going to happen anyway.

Responsible or reckless?

As usual Ben Thomson of the Campaign for Fiscal Responsibility makes a good rhetorical and theoretical case for more fiscal autonomy for Scotland in the Scotsman, but it's never precisely clear what's meant in practical terms by arguments regarding such concepts as responsibility and accountability.

However, it's perhaps instructive that in relation to "tailoring taxes to improve economic growth" Mr Thomson mentions Dublin. Perhaps by accountability he thus means going cap in hand to the EU or IMF when a nation state nearly collapses under a sea of debt?

And post-devolution Scotland's politics seem to have been dominated by public spending profligacy contributing to UK public borrowing, with the SNP blaming London for the belt tightening necessitated now that the bills for all this have to be paid.

Indeed, the evidence suggests that a fiscally autonomous Scotland would combine things like no income tax increases, slashed fuel duty, lowered corporation tax and council tax frozen for nearly a decade on the one hand, with free prescriptions, free higher education and numerous other costly spending pledges and freebies on the other.

Of course, the circle would be squared in the form of borrowing powers, but hence the danger of another Brown-esque debt mountain, which would be consistent with the barely credible spending commitments made during the recent Holyrood election campaign, thus perhaps more fiscally reckless than responsible.

And with Alex Salmond steering the SNP towards abandoning the cash cow oil industry in favour of the subsidy-junkie renewables sector, the danger of another Ireland or Iceland seems more likely than the prudence of Norway.

Of course, all this is consistent with crude Nationalist rhetoric about having more economic powers to "grow the economy", as if some magic wand could be waved to overturn the laws of economics and world experience if only the SNP were given the chance, which is redolent of the again Brown-esque economic alchemy of "no more boom and bust".

For example, does the Nationalist endgame entail retaining sterling with interest rates set by the Bank of England, once considered by the SNP to be inappropriate for Scotland?

Or is the party still wedded to the idea of euro membership, with monetary policy decided by bankers in Frankfurt and which has been instrumental in crippling the economies of some eurozone member states?

And the latter two points relate to one facet of the question regarding precisely what independence for Scotland entails - if indeed dominant SNP opinion desires a degree of greater autonomy that could even reasonably be called independence - which will of course become increasingly prominent and vexed in the coming handful of years.

But when earlier this week Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman questioned Nicola Sturgeon on the choice between the sterling and euro alternatives as regards the currency and monetary policy, under pressure she eventually reverted to the "whatever's in Scotland's best interests" response. (And as regards what the concept of independence would mean for Scotland it's perhaps instructive that a purely Scottish currency isn't even mentioned any more.)

And when SNP MSP Linda Fabiani was grilled by Newsnicht's Gordon Brewer a few minutes later on the efficacy of one of her own party being elected to the position of Holyrood's presiding officer and on the question of scrutiny and accountability generally in a unicameral legislature with a majority governing party, she too defaulted to the "best interests of Scotland and its people" reply.

Roughly translated that probably means "we havnae got a clue" or "cannae think o' a credible answer"!

AV referendum turnout didn't turn out as Henry thought?

Last week's post on the AV referendum was a tad sceptical about Henry McLeish seemingly thinking that a reformed voting system would somehow enthuse voters and reverse the disconnect between politicians and the general public. The former first minister talked of a "renewed sense of purpose", starting to "address public disenchantment and disappointment with politics" and "rebuilding trust with electors". In particular, he said:

In parts of Scotland in recent years, there have been Westminster constituencies where only 4 out of 10 people have bothered to vote. This represents a scathing indictment of the strength of our democracy and raises questions about how representative our Governments are and how effective the political parties have been in promoting the hopes and aspirations of the public.

Of course, it hardly represented a huge political insight to point to the likes of Scotland's re-formed parliament as suggesting that Mr McLeish's assessment might be a tad optimistic, both in terms of turnout per se and regarding the ability of democratic reform to galvanise voters, whatever the 'vision' posited by idealist members of the political class.

Thus turnout in London - the only region where voters weren't artificially, er, enthused by other elections taking place (most notably the Holyrood vote in Scotland) - was a paltry 35%. Only 40% voted in favour of the AV system, thus 14% or so actually took the opportunity to endorse this chance of epoch-making change. What was that about four people out of 10 voting amounting to a "scathing indictment of the strength of our democracy"?

No doubt Mr McLeish would argue that if only change had been endorsed - even by 20% of the electorate (say) - then his posited reinvigoration of participative politics would have come to fruition.

But, in short, I sincerely hae ma doobts, as I suspect the referendum turnout ably demonstrates.

Meanwhile, having spent most of the last few days before last week's vote blogging about the Scottish independence referendum while most others were ignoring it, there seems little that's happened since to change the stance taken then, which was essentially that such a vote would be lost by the Nationalists, and that there's still a reasonable chance that such a poll won't take place at all, à la the first Salmond-led administration.

Obviously, however, the chances of it happening and Scotland voting for separation have increased since last week, but as Lesley Riddoch rightly pointed out in yesterday's Scotsman the vote will take place if and when the SNP think they will win it, and posturing by both sides on the issue has nothing to do with principle, and everything to do with political expediency and getting the timing right.

A lot could happen in the next handful of years, and those who think the size of the SNP's Holyrood majority - and thus the certainty of a referendum if the party leadership wants it - has put to bed the gradualist/fundamentalist divide for the meantime should consider that it could have the opposite effect if popular support for independence doesn't manifest itself, and the fundamentalists get restless about the timing or likelihood of a vote.

To that extent the whole issue could end up being Alex Salmond's poisoned chalice.

Of course, the smart money is still on a plebiscite happening, but a couple of years is a long time in politics. After all, the Nationalists keep pointing out that opponents claimed Scotland would never have a parliament, that the SNP would never form the government and then that the party would never have a majority, but of course all that has now happened.

By the same token, since an independence referendum is now portrayed as a certainty, in actual fact it might never happen. Things can work both ways!

But the SNP's Scotland v UK strategy has essentially been to see Holyrood throwing the debt-fuelled Westminster public spending largesse around like it was going out of fashion and then blame London when the bills come in and belts have to be tightened to pay for it all. And also to claim that if only Scotland had the powers to 'grow the economy' - from the same economic delusionists who were a handful of years ago advocating potentially crippling euro membership and the likes of the Scottish Futures Trust to perform miracles - then we'd in no time be transformed into a renewables-fuelled Brigadoon and indeed leading the vanguard as the world's environmental saviours.

The success or otherwise of that narrative in the next couple of years will be instrumental to the fate of a referendum on independence for Scotland.

It was Nick Clegg wot won it, not the Sun!

While there's some debate on whether or not the endorsement of newspapers helps the electoral fortunes of the relevant parties, what's surely beyond doubt is that the political coverage in the press and MSM generally is instrumental in forming the merely cursory opinions held by the vast majority of voters, who of course decide elections rather than the tiny minority who get their politics from more arcane pursuits like reading blogs and party manifestos.

Thus while the Sun's formal support for Alex Salmond may not have changed many minds, its generally positive coverage for the Nationalist cause will have helped cement the impression of the SNP as a safe pair of hands. And, by contrast, the newspaper's rather petty coverage of Iain Gray's Subway and subsequent Asda moments no doubt helped underline the view of the Labour leader as an ineffectual individual, keen to dodge both the public and his political opponents. Therefore events of little objective significance were elevated into pivotal campaign moments, gleefully perpetuated by Gray's opponents, and making Alex Salmond's victory speech call for an end to negative campaigning seem rather hollow (indeed, much of the online Nationalist community seemed preoccupied with a fear and loathing agenda of their own, namely concerning Labour generally and Iain Gray in particular - so much for positivity, hope and vision!)

On the other hand, it seems unlikely that the Sun afforded much attention to Alex Salmond hiding behind taxpayers' money spent on legal action to keep secret the facts regarding his local income tax plans, for example. Neither did it highlight the fact that Sir Sean Connery left the country rather than fight for his principles, which perhaps puts Iain Gray's actions into perspective.

Of course, Sir Sean's predictable endorsement of Alex Salmond will also have helped develop the impression of the SNP as the 'It' party, with celebrity after celebrity jumping on the fashionable Nationalist bandwagon, thus helping convey the impression with voters of a party on a roll, helping create a virtuous circle of endorsement and momentum.

Of added importance in this regard was the endorsement and thus financial support from Stagecoach mogul Brian Souter, whose lucre helped bankroll other cosmetic devices such as posters, leaflets and advertising. Then there were the other symbolic gestures such as campaign visits by the big hitters, with Alex Salmond's donor-funded 'Saltire 1' helicopter visits contrasted with Iain Gray's people carrier, perhaps also nicely representing Nationalist dynamism versus the Labour plodder as well as the contrast in the size of their war chests.

A related issue is of course the gloss and glamour of the manifesto, and as no one in the real world actually reads these things the only way they can impress voters is via the notion conveyed via the media, with the slickness of the SNP's manifesto launch contrasting with the fire-alarm disrupted and rain-soaked Labour launch, the latter adding to the ridiculed and slightly risible campaign.

The manifestos outline the parties' policies, thus again voters rely on a relatively superficial engagement in this regard. Of course, most will be aware that objective opinion viewed both Labour's and the SNP's manifesto commitments as unaffordable, unattainable and unrealistic - and most voters probably expected that anyway - thus it's the soundbite-level engagement that wins the votes. Hence the council tax freeze was probably the most prominent issue in this regard, and when Labour cynically copied the SNP's pledge the latter merely extended it, presumably looking the less opportunistic of the two.

The culture of celebrity endorsement also extended to the politicians themselves, with the SNP clearly happy to depict the vote as a quasi-presidential contest - neatly encapsulated in the 'Alex Salmond for First Minister' ruse on the list ballot paper - thus pitting the charismatic, experienced and sure-footed Mr Salmond against the insipid, unknown and bumbling Mr Gray. The celebrity/presidential aspects of the campaign were also consolidated by the televised leaders' debates. And this was all aided by Alex Salmond managing a Mr Hyde-Dr Jekyll transformation from his bombastic and confrontational FMQs style to one characterised by a more unassuming and statesmanlike approach.

Thus Alex Salmond had the elusive X Factor that Iain Gray didn't, and this also extended to their respective front bench teams, and to a lesser extent down through the ranks of candidates. And the SNP was able to convey the impression of competence, having successfully - by political standards at least - completed a term of minority government.

By the same token, indirectly instrumental was probably Nick Clegg's loss of his television-induced X Factor, gained around thirteen months ago but squandered in the wake of the perception of his unprincipled Westminster coalition with the Conservatives. The consequent hemorrhaging of the Lib Dems' Holyrood vote seemed to primarily benefit the SNP, with Labour's share of the vote ironically largely unchanged on 2007.

And as regards the perception more generally that Labour were wrong to focus on what was happening at Westminster, perhaps their problem here was that this factor benefited the SNP more, since the latter were more readily identifiable with the Scottish interest, whereas last year Labour were the more plausible Scottish opposition in the overall UK context.

And while all this oversimplifies a complex dynamic, the various factors interlink - the press help cast the X Factor politicians and the deluded no-hopers that we can all have a laugh at, for example, while doing much the same at the soundbite-level treatment of policy, helped along by the gloss and the helicopters by virtue of wealthy celebrity backers - gelling together and helping increase that all important momentum and positive cycle of support and perceived success.

Sceptics may scoff at the strengths and relevance of these various factors, but it's worth recalling that little over 1 in 5 of the electorate actually voted SNP - thus casting doubt on Mr Salmond's "national party of Scotland" characterisation, unless in the purely geographical sense - and to achieve its 'seismic historic landslide' victory the party only had to achieve a net gain of little more than 6% of registered voters, or around 1 in 15, thus a relatively select group of the electorate had to have their minds changed by the myriad influences.

Of course, the lamentable 50% or so turnout is as usual the elephant in the room regarding these paltry figures on totals and shifts in support for the winning party.

But with the campaign as usual beset with the numerous factors alienating the electorate from politics - the cult of the quasi-celebrity politician; patronising and dishonest soundbites, manifestos and campaign visits; the perception that celebrities, business and wealthy donors can exert undue influence - this overall lack of public disengagement is perhaps easier to rationalise than the victory itself. And this also puts into perspective another of Mr Salmond's victory speech claims: that there should be "no more insults to the intelligence of the Scottish people".

Aye, right. Perhaps he was just being ironic.

A tale of three leaders

To paraphrase Tony Blair slightly, now is not the time for clichés and hyperbole, but the scale of the SNP's Holyrood victory leaves me gobsmacked and indeed politically shell shocked. In fact even caught up in the Nationalist fervour to the extent of thinking that perhaps the SNP are a great party, Alex Salmond deserves to be president and Scotland should be freed from the shackles...oh, stop it, things will be back to personal reality pretty soon!

Like many I thought the polls were exaggerating the scale of the SNP victory, but if anything it looks like they were underestimating it, thus the landslide victory, or at least as close to one as could ever be expected in the Holyrood context.

Equally, now is perhaps not the best time for any kind of detailed analysis, but perhaps the most significant electoral factors were three of the party leaders. Of course, one of the great turnarounds in personal fortunes in recent years has been that of Nick Clegg's, from the hero of the Westminster leaders' debates last year to the villain of the Lib Dem's unpopularity following their coalition deal with the Conservatives.

On the other hand, Labour under Iain Gray has failed to capitalise on the consequent Lib Dem meltdown in Scotland, and although perhaps more ridiculed than reviled à la Clegg, clearly Scottish voters were unimpressed by his insipid personality.

By contrast Alex Salmond is often called the only 'big beast' in Scottish politics, which the SNP exploited in terms of the contest's quasi-presidential feel, in particular taking advantage of the Lib Dem rout to the obvious detriment of Labour - despite the latter's share of the vote remaining largely unchanged - including the scalps of some of their more heavyweight Holyrood politicians (or perhaps 'middleweight' is more appropriate, even in the context of the upper echelons of Scottish Labour).

Clearly all this will put the SNP on a huge roll, at least until the realities of office catch up with them and the age of austerity takes hold, and it's that poisoned chalice scenario again, perhaps paradoxically exacerbated in view of the scale of the Nationalist victory. This situation is excellently portrayed by Ian Macwhirter in yesterday's Herald and by Professor David Bell in today's Scotsman.

Of course, Salmond & Co will attempt to blame it all on Westminster - the positivity, vision and hope only goes so far - and the extent to which this impresses the electorate will be crucial in the coming few years.

Equally, even the more realistic of the Nationalists will be hugely encouraged by the results as regards the winnability of an independence referendum, and indeed how this might play out in a few years time will depend to a large extent on whether the public blames Westminster or Holyrood for the cuts agenda.

But Iain Macwhirter's claim on TV earlier that the results demonstrated Scots had "lost their fear" of independence is surely overegging the pudding at this stage: the pundits are always telling us how the sophisticated Scottish electorate is able to differentiate Westminster from Holyrood (thankfully!), and by the same token they can also vote SNP for the latter without it representing support for independence.

In the meantime, however, the SNP can surely be excused a bit of triumphalism. For a day or two at least.

Is it right for sceptics to hope for a poor turnout?

Campaign hostilities are often forgotten about on the eve of polling in a sort of dewy-eyed rallying cry for democracy. We fought long and hard for the right to vote, martyrs jumped in front of galloping horses, think of suppressed and disenfranchised people in nations like North Korea, Tibet and Scotland, don't forget the Arab Spring, blah, blah. Thus we're exhorted - in a purely non-partisan way, of course - to exercise our precious franchise.

But should this apply to those alienated by the political process, and does abstaining and hoping for a low turnout perhaps disrespect democracy and maybe also those who died to secure the universal franchise, are currently fighting for it or live in a country where it isn't really even on the agenda?

One mark of disenchantment with and alienation from politics is the increasingly low turnouts, and today's Holyrood poll will lucky to break the 50% mark, with even that perhaps looking healthy compared to the AV referendum.

To that extent a low turnout is a verdict on politics and politicians, thus if you don't like what's going on then don't vote, and this will send the appropriate message. The Scotsman says we "have less right to complain about the outcome if we don't vote", and adds that this applies even though everyone knows that politicians are less than perfect.

Which is fair enough to a degree, but what if people consider politicians to be a lot less than perfect, and the party political oligopoly - like Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury's and Morrison's in retailing - means there is little choice away from the mainstream, little point in voting for fringe candidates and little chance of any new party making a breakthrough.

Thus in the absence of a 'none of the above' option on the ballot paper it's surely conscionable enough to 'conscientiously abstain'.

After all, that's surely what our forebears in effect fought and died for.

Of course, the problem is that although the low turnout should arguably engender a degree of humility even among the election victors, the opposite is likely to be the case, with the lack of voter interest lost in the political triumphalism on one hand and despondency on the other, and only the analysts and anoraks affording it a passing mention.

Voters should be encouraged to turn out and have their say - in fact I've already been to the polling station, having drafted this earlier! - but only if they want to rather than feeling beholden to some sort of civic duty.

Planet Politics declares for, um, the Scotsman

Today's Scotsman contains a lengthy and compelling front-page editorial on tomorrow's Holyrood vote that this blogger can only agree with, in broad terms at least.

The Greens, although up-front about their policies, are too left-wing, the newspaper says, and thus would "seriously damage Scotland". The Lib Dems are paying the price for the "duplicity" of their London colleagues, unrealistically reject tuition fees and police reform, and support a "crippling and unstable" local income tax.

Labour's Iain Gray has "lacked leadership", the Scotsman claims, while failing to "spell out any compelling vision for Scotland".

On the other hand, the Tories "have distinguished themselves as being the only party to come close to telling the electorate the truth: that cuts will have to be made, that graduates may have to contribute to the cost of the education they receive, that everything cannot be free".

The SNP's record in government is "mixed" and it's "Hello!-style" manifesto "contained a series of proposals that most objective analysts viewed as optimistic to say the least". But Alex Salmond is the only "big beast" in the Holyrood political jungle and Scotland needs a strong First Minister and government.

However, "only one party can push the SNP towards a greater realism: the Scottish Conservatives" and the newspaper says that a formal coalition between the two would be preferable, likening this possibility to Alex Salmond's "Clause 4 moment".

And while this blogger didn't really intend endorsing any particular party - despite Scotland no doubt holding its collective breath in anticipation! - the Scotsman's analysis seems eminently sensible and compelling, at least in view of the fact that the likelihood of the SNP not being the biggest party come Friday now seems remote indeed.

Thus some kind of SNP tie-up with the Tories would provide the best of both the former's numerical strength and leadership, and the more realistic approach of the latter, and might also provide another excuse for Alex Salmond not to proceed with that independence referendum.

Meanwhile, the Sun, News of the World, Sunday Express and Sunday Herald are all backing the Nationalists, while the Sunday Mail and Daily Record support Labour. The Herald will apparently "maintain its long-standing neutrality", while the Sunday Post says it's "proud to be impartial and see it as our job to report on all the parties fairly".

Not sure about others like the Daily Mail - but I doubt if it will be endorsing the SNP - while the Caledonian Mercury seems not to have declared as yet. The other new kid on the online block - Newsnet Scotland - is "backing Alex Salmond for a second term", which is a tad surprising in view of what many of its contributors claim regarding its balanced and impartial approach. But as one contributor says regarding its decision to finally "come out of the closet", its "editorial team had the common sense to approach this idea from a starting position of neutrality" and that they were "doing their best to be as neutral as they could be", while another says: "I do not think that NNS is pro SNP I think it is pro the truth, rationality and facts. As Mr Spock would say it is LOGIC that leads it to an apparently pro-SNP position not emotion or partisanship."

And naturally Planet Politics can only wholeheartedly endorse this kind of detached and analytical approach, if not necessarily always agreeing with the conclusions.

The worst argument for AV

Whatever the merits or otherwise of AV, they seem largely insignificant, and to that extent not worth the candle. In particular, the notion that AV will mean MPs will be somehow endorsed by a majority of the electorate seems a bit contrived. If the end result is the same under AV as FPTP then the reality is that the winning candidate will be no more supported by the former than the latter - in all probability the second preference votes that may be used to provide a majority will no more actually support the winner than they did previously.

If AV does change the result on the basis of second preference votes then this isn't necessarily any more representative than FPTP because, for example, none of the second preferencers might actually really support the winner at all, while at least the FPTP victor would have in a sense enjoyed a more decisive endorsement.

Anyway, there are certainly good arguments in favour, but in the final analysis the advantages seems too marginal to bother about. It's not really a debate worth having, as a PR proposal would certainly be.

And my main objection is that it's not really about us the voters, it's essentially a political fix for the politicians; the sop for Nick Clegg to abandon his principles, and not much of a sop at that.

But perhaps the best argument against is inadvertently provided by Henry McLeish in today's Scotsman. The former first minister takes a more abstract approach to the benefits of AV, talking of a "renewed sense of purpose", starting to "address public disenchantment and disappointment with politics" and "rebuilding trust with electors".

Aye, right! Holyrood is partly elected on the basis of PR, and as Henry McLeish himself should know the benefits posited for AV haven't quite materialised there, so what chance a half-baked shift from FPTP at Westminster? He says:

In parts of Scotland in recent years, there have been Westminster constituencies where only 4 out of 10 people have bothered to vote. This represents a scathing indictment of the strength of our democracy and raises questions about how representative our Governments are and how effective the political parties have been in promoting the hopes and aspirations of the public.

And our shiny new Holyrood democracy has improved on Westminster turnout and "promoting the hopes and aspirations of the public" how?

Indeed, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating in this regard, because even if AV is adopted what proportion of the electorate with be sufficiently enthused by this chance of a "renewed sense of purpose" to be "bothered to vote" for AV?

A lot less than the 40% that Henry McLeish considers so lamentable, that's for sure.

The SNP's neverendum

Any chance of a debate of substance in the election campaign was always likely to be thwarted by the last weekend before the vote coinciding with the wall-to-wall coverage of the Royal wedding. Ah, but there was last night's leaders' debate of course. But that was relegated to a very late evening slot, so presumably the BBC isn't interested in maximising public engagement.

Never mind, there's still three clear days of campaigning left. However, the inconvenient death of Osama bin Laden has just been announced, so that'll dominate today's news schedules.

Oh well, it probably wouldn't have made much difference if none of the above had happened anyway, but probably the most interesting part of last night's debate was when Alex Salmond said that a referendum on independence would be delayed until the second half of a five-year term, which is consistent with my recent ramblings on the SNP trying to avoid a plebiscite because it couldn't be won. Even more interesting is the excuse, which is that it's important to get the Scotland Bill through in the meantime to provide the powers to 'grow' Scotland's economy, whatever that means precisely.

Which is interesting because my impression was that the Scotland Bill's powers were considered by the Nationalists to be inadequate for the task in hand, so why delay the march to independence? If additional powers are so important then surely it's even more important to move to the full powers of independence ASAP?

Of course, the rationale for the delay is more than likely that a referendum couldn't be won and Mr Salmond hopes that conditions will be more favourable towards the end of the SNP's second term, or that another excuse can be dreamt up by then.

Which kind of brings to mind the concept of a 'neverendum', which is a referendum repeated ad infinitum, or at least until the desired result is obtained.

The SNP's repeated delays on the independence referendum is beginning to look like a variation on this, with the 'never-ending' element of the neverendum portmanteau referring to the wait for the referendum to actually take place!