Selection Box: West Scotland

The final region, West Scotland, has one major eye-opener: the emerging contest in Renfrewshire North & West. Sitting MSP, Trish Godman, is standing down here, and her replacement is Stuart Clark. Up against him are Derek MacKay, the Leader of Renfrewshire Council, and Tory Leader Annabel Goldie. Now, this throws up a few interesting questions. Firstly, how well will Cllr MacKay's candidacy be received? His position will make him a well-kent face, but is this good or bad? Renfrewshire Council have, like many others, had to take some tough decisions even before the recession, so there's the possibility that he could well end up as a Peter Grant-type figure. Or his profile could carry him to top spot.

But breathing down his neck is the Tory leader, Annabel Goldie, the only sitting MSP to be standing in the seat (unless Ross Finnie decamps), and let's not forget, reasonably high-profile as the Leader of her Party. QIB would potentially turn this seat into a clear three-way marginal (it's possible that just 6% could end up separating first and third). Who will prevail? This one is worth watching next May...

Meanwhile, Jackson Carlaw is the Tory candidate tasked with 'defending' the re-drawn Eastwood, but thanks to Cunninghame South entering the region, there are still two notional Tory Regional seats, so even if Carlaw gets ranked second on the List, the big question is, who'll get third? An early figure to watch is Maurice Golden of the Glenrothes By-Election, who has been selected for Cunninghame North, but it's early days yet.

Of course, all of these, in this and the previous five posts, are just the tip of the iceberg and there are many more selections now in place. But even so, there are all sorts of twists and turns that could take place between now and next April, when the candidacies will be formalised. Anything could happen.

Selection Box: South Scotland

South Scotland isn't devoid of a few interesting contests.

For Labour, there's the vexed question of who to replace Cathy Jamieson as candidate in Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley, particularly as a QIB would make this seat highly marginal. But there's another interesting decision for the party. With Cunninghame South leaving the region, and SNP-held Kilmarnock & Irvine Valley coming in, there's now a notional Labour Regional seat, and a vacancy to fill. Moreover, the theory that the spot might prove tempting for a defeated Labour MP has been blown part by the somewhat frustrating failure on the part of any Labour MP to be defeated, so unless Lord Browne fancies doing a Foulkes, it's not clear who might come forward.

But in terms of constituencies, all eyes should be on the Borders: the new boundaries of Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale are favourable to SNP candidate Christine Grahame (suggesting that Jeremy Purvis might have to decamp to the List), while the Tories have, somewhat surprisingly, selected former Tory MP Peter Duncan ahead of Derek Brownlee, who stood in the old Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale seat. Brownlee will have to make do with fighting East Lothian instead, but this throws up another intriguing battle: with only one Regional seat (and even that's in doubt if Gillian Dykes succeeds where Murray Tosh failed and beats Elaine Murray in Dumfriesshire), and two strong candidates for it, what will the Tories do? Will they opt for old standard-bearer Peter Duncan, the former Party Chairman and Shadow Secretary of State, who quite literally put the Tories back on the map in Scotland back in 2001? Or will they choose the up-and-coming Derek Brownlee, whose negotiation during the budget process has delivered the implementation of Tory policies for the first time since devolution? It's a tough call, and there's going to be one hell of a bloody nose for someone.

(Incidentally, a correspondent who, sadly, didn't leave a name assures me that in fact, Brownlee secured the East Lothian selection before Duncan was chosen in Midlothian South, Tweeddale & Lauderdale. I must confess to being surprised by that particular alignment of events: while neither seat is a particularly appealing prospect, respectively being the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition and an SNP-LibDem marginal with the Tories shut out, but Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale was Brownlee's base for the last two elections. Does he just fancy a pop at Iain Gray?)

Meanwhile, we have the re-match between Tory MSP John Lamont and the man he defeated, LibDem Euan Robson, in Ettrick, Roxburgh & Berwickshire.

Finally, there's the SNP List, with Kilmarnock & Irvine Valley coming into the region but being absorbed into the SNP's current total of five seats in the South, and with five Regional MSPs currently, this could have been ugly for the Party. But with Mike Russell heading north, and Alasdair Morgan standing down, the SNP goes from having more candidates than slots to defend, to having a vacancy for a new face.

Selection Box: North East Scotland

This region has a few fascinating contests in store, mainly as this is the region with the truly new seat, in the shape of Angus North & Mearns. It looks like we can expect a battle between two sitting Regional MSPs: the SNP's Nigel Don, and the Tories' Alex Johnstone. And of course, it remains to be seen what effect Andrew Welsh's retirement will have in Angus South.

Meanwhile, there's also speculation that the LibDems' Nicol Stephen will stand down, leaving the LibDems with a vacancy to fill in Aberdeen South & North Kincardine.

But again, check out the list. The extra (notional) SNP constituency creates a new Tory seat on the List, so there's a question now of who might fill it, especially as no obvious name springs to mind, on account of the candidate in the one top target seat the Tories had in the area in May being a certain Mr. A. Johnstone.

Selection Box: Lothian & Mid Scotland & Fife

Moving to the Lothians, Alex Cole-Hamilton has been selected by the LibDems to 'defend' Edinburgh Central (I say this as, on the notional figures, this seat moves into the LibDem column). Cole-Hamilton was first on the Mid Scotland & Fife List last time at the expense of sitting MSP Andrew Arbuckle, who came second, and would have got in had Jim Tolson not been so inconsiderate by winning Dunfermline West. For shame! Elsewhere, Labour have a vacancy to fill in Midlothian North & Musselburgh, with the retirement of Rhona Brankin.

But the List is where the action is: for the SNP, Ian McKee is standing down (and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that Shirley-Anne Somerville may cross the Forth to Mid Scotland & Fife) so there's a vacancy there. George Foulkes is standing down so there's a vacancy for Labour. And Robin Harper is standing down so we see the first ever Green vacancy, with Councillor Maggie Chapman being tipped in some quarters to fill it. And of course, we don't yet know if Margo MacDonald will wish to continue.

Across the Forth, again, the Mid Scotland & Fife List is where the action may be, with Christopher Harvie retiring (affording an opportunity for Shirley-Anne Somerville to make that crossing), along with Tory Ted Brocklebank, creating a vacancy on the Tory list, perhaps for Bob Dalrymple, who came fourth on the List last time and was the Tory candidate in Stirling (designated a key seat) in May.

Selection Box: Highlands & Islands

In the Highlands and Islands, there are a wave of retirements on the way, with Jim Mather, John Farquhar Munro and Jamie Stone all leaving in 2011. In Argyll & Bute, Education Secretary and current MSP for the South of Scotland Mike Russell will replace Jim Mather as the SNP candidate, with Alison Hay looking to win the seat back for the LibDems and current Regional MSP Jamie McGrigor making the pitch for the Tories. Now, at this point, I'd usually mention the QIB here, but the fact that Mike Russell, who lives in this constituency, is a sitting MSP and a Cabinet Secretary to boot, probably neutralises it, along with the fact that for Holyrood, this seat is an SNP/LibDem marginal and the Tories are some distance off the pace. However, QIB would certainly apply in Caithness, Sutherland & Ross (where Regional MSP Rob Gibson will be having a go), and Skye, Lochaber & Badenoch (where LibDem Alan MacRae will be hoping to defend the seat against SNP MSP Dave Thompson). And the average bonus of a quasi-incumbent equates to a 6% swing, which would put both seats in the SNP column.

Meanwhile, it's worth flagging up that Mary Scanlon has been selected in Inverness & Nairn. If I were feeling uncharitable, I would mention that she attempted to present herself as "A New Bonnie Fechter for Moray" following the death of Margaret Ewing, but that wouldn't be like me at all, would it? In fact, she was never a bonnie fechter for Moray: she'd stood in Inverness East, Nairn & Lochaber in 1999 and 2003, and doubtless only stood in the Moray By-Election as she'd already been selected for the seat for the 2007 Election. I mention this simply to point out to those who remember that campaign that she has not been ejected from her base, she is actually returning to it.

The Return of the Selection Box: Central Scotland and Glasgow

Despite the hysteria over the 100-day of the Coalition, and the excitement over Charles Kennedy doing nothing, the Scottish political parties are in the midst of selecting their candidates for next year's elections. So, inspired by Malc's post on retiring MSPs, I thought I'd take a look.

In Central Scotland, all eyes are on Motherwell & Wishaw, not because there's a vacancy (yet), but because there's pressure on Jack McConnell to stand down after taking a peerage. It should be noted that McConnell is the fifth MSP Peer: Lords Douglas-Hamilton, Foulkes, Steel and Watson all went before him and Lord Watson (despite his fall from grace) provides something of a precedent in that he too was a Constituency MSP, and successfully sought election and re-election as a Peer of the Realm. However, McConnell is the first to become an MSP while sitting in the Scottish Parliament (normally the reverse is the case), and he is the first one to consider keeping a foot in both camps after 2011. This is significant for the Kelly Review, which proposed the end of dual mandates from the date of the next devolved elections. Now, the review referred only to "Westminster MPs", which suggests that only membership of the Commons was considered, but combining a working peerage with the Scottish Parliament would be dubious in the spirit of Kelly if not the letter. He may, therefore, end up feeling pressured to stand down. We shall see.

In Glasgow, keep your eye on Glasgow Shettleston, where John Mason (of the Glasgow East By-Election) has been selected for the SNP. Now, Mason is not seeking a place on the Regional List, and does require an 11.22% swing to win the seat. Of course, that's a considerable increase on the swing he achieved in Glasgow East in the General Election in May, but it's only about half what he pulled off in the By-Election in 2008, so it's not completely beyond the realms of possibility. But of course, this will have a knock-on effect for the List, and assuming that Nicola Sturgeon takes #1 billing, then none of the sitting Regional MSPs will want to come fifth.

Meanwhile, for Labour, a pressure has been eased with Margaret Curran's transfer to Westminster: they are no longer trying to fit nine MSPs into eight notional seats, and have already selected Stephen Curran as their candidate for Glasgow Southside. Then there are the Tories, who find themselves with a vacancy at the top of their List given the retirement of Bill Aitken. Malcolm Macaskill has been chosen as his replacement for the Glasgow Anniesland candidacy, but the actual list is yet to be determined. It's still possible that Ruth Davidson might enter the fold, but I understand that the Tories' one Councillor in Glasgow, David Meikle, has been selected in Southside, so he is one to watch.

The State of the Secretary

Following on from last week's Guest Post by Socialist Animal on who might emerge as Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland once the Labour Leadership and Shadow Cabinet elections have been and gone, I thought I'd take a look at the state of the actual Secretary's role as it stands, and its ramifications for Labour and the SNP.

So the first part of this post, then, the actual role as it stands, is going to be rather short.

What exactly is Michael Moore doing?

We're seeing that there are more direct interventions from the actual subject portfolios: Danny Alexander has, arguably, engaged more with the Scottish Parliament as Chief Secretary to the Treasury than he did in his brief spell as Secretary of State for Scotland, when his only notable public utterance was to confirm that he had nothing to add following David Cameron's words, and Nick Clegg has got into a direct row over the timing of the AV referendum and its clash with next year's Holyrood election. Even David Cameron and William Hague have got in on the act with their entrance into the Lockerbie row, and the Scottish Affairs Select Committee has resolved to discuss the end of the video gaming industry tax break with George Osborne directly. Michael Moore appears to be cut out of the process.

It may be that a lot of this is owed to bad timing: we know that he wants to push Calman forward, but this has been overshadowed with the continuing row with the US Senate over al-Megrahi, so he is, perhaps, just unfortunate. But even so, his interventions have been fewer in number and of a lower profile than those of Jim Murphy, whose spell in Dover House saw him pretty much everywhere, or indeed, Moore's counterpart in the Welsh Office, Cheryl Gillan, whose first act was to get into a row with the Welsh Assembly Government over the timing of the referendum on more powers for the Assembly.

Compared with Murphy and Gillan, Moore looks positively Trappist. And that means that Dover House is out of the picture.

And this spells trouble for the LibDems: with Clegg unilaterally scheduling a referendum to clash with the Holyrood poll, and with Alexander being put up to make the argument for budget cuts, it's LibDem ministers who are being forced to fight the main battles, and they're being forced onto the wrong side of the argument. This could spell disaster next year: five LibDem constituencies are vulnerable to just 5% swings; they risk losing their regional seat in Central Scotland altogether; even factoring in extra regional seats to balance out Constituency loses, the LibDem Group could find itself reduced to just thirteen members next year if the Party can't find its mojo again.

Meanwhile, it just highlights the irrelevance of the Scottish Tories: David Mundell is not helping matters by being mired in a row over his election expenses and an accusation that he planned a smear campaign against his current boss, but despite being the sole Tory MP in Scotland, he is subordinate to a Secretary of State who appears to have been drowned out of matters himself. Mundell is at best an insignificant member and at worst a liability in a Department which few appear to care about at this time.

Yet this, perversely, makes things harder for the Shadow Secretary of State. Now, the previous occupant of the post had difficulty making waves but I'd put that down to 1) the occupant being a Tory, and 2) the occupant being David Mundell, whose impact has been low. However, even Jim Murphy appears to have fallen down a black hole of late which suggests that the job is not all that big a draw. And it's not hard to see why: the occupant isn't in the Westminster Government; they aren't in the Scottish Government; they aren't the Leader of either Opposition and the Department they're shadowing isn't getting in the papers. The only Shadow Cabinet portfolio worse in that respect would be Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. So it's hard to shape the news agenda, and on that basis, it hardly matters who gets the Shadow job - it's currently worthless.

Of course, this means it's Iain Gray's big moment: Jim Murphy stole the show in Dover House, leaving Gray out of the picture. Now, it's his time to shine, and with the Holyrood elections next, and Gray effectively a First Ministerial candidate, that's the way it should be. But it's only a good thing if Gray and his people use the limelight well and there seem to be echoes of Labour's post-2007 behaviour at the moment. The party seemed to get its act together, and became more professional and effective when Murphy was at the front, but under Gray it seems to have gone back to form. When in a position to make common cause with the SNP on the timing of the referendum, Gray could only be grudging, noting that he agreed with Alex Salmond "for once". George Foulkes opted to use Nicola Sturgeon's wedding as a vehicle for a venomous press release about how she ought to change her name. And Richard Baker has now told the press that it is perfectly proper for politicians to kowtow to foreign legislatures, on the basis of his protests against Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill not being willing to travel to Washington DC just to say something that they've already said about a thousand times over. So the Scottish Parliamentary Labour Party is centre-stage, but on the basis of early performances, the show doesn't deserve to last too long.

In short, without Jim Murphy sitting in Dover House, Labour has gone back three years. That's not a good thing.

So this, then, is the SNP's big chance: the Scotland Office has been neutered, the UK Government ministers discussing policy in Scotland appear to be on the wrong side of an argument, and Labour have gone back to their worst. Moreover, with this being a Holyrood election, the Tory stick isn't quite as effective and besides, despite what we were told in this year's campaign, voting Labour did not keep the Tories out anyway.

But more importantly, with UK ministers directly involved, we're back to where we were before Jim Murphy's appointment. For me, a major contributing factor to the SNP's victory in the Glasgow East By-Election (though I accept that with such a close result, all factors were major contributing factors) was the party's ability to frame the contest as a tale of two governments, with each promoting and defending its record. The SNP came out on top as it had an effective frontman for that purpose, whereas the UK Government did not. It took the appointment of Murphy to spike those guns, as we saw in Glenrothes, Glasgow North East and the General Election. Although the Coalition Government has someone in Murphy's job, it doesn't have anyone performing his role as he did.

In short, Labour need a lot of creativity at Westminster and a more mature approach at Holyrood if they're to make any progress. Conversely, with a weakened Scotland Office and the Shadow Secretary of State role reduced to an irrelevance, there is a major opportunity for the SNP to seize the initiative.

But with only a little over nine months left until polling day (barring any last minute panic-driven changes to the Scotland Act), the party must move quickly.

The Magic Roundabout

This seems to sum up the state of politics at the moment. The Prime Minister - for that is what he is, remember - has announced that he is continuing merely in a caretaker capacity regardless of the outcome of coalition talks. He has announced his resignation of the Leadership of the Labour Party. However long it takes to find a new Leader, it's clear that whatever happens, the UK will have a new Prime Minister in time for the Conference season.

It's clear that, just as Con-LibDem talks have inevitably reached impasse at discussions of electoral reform, Lab-LibDem talks weren't going to seriously get off the ground if the successful outcome of such negotiations kept Gordon Brown in Downing Street. Brown has come to the same conclusion as others in his party did months, even years ago: that he is the primary barrier to continued office for the Labour Party. There will, I suspect, be more than a handful of defeated former MPs who wish that this epiphany had visited their Leader a year ago.

But still, we are where we are, and the outgoing Prime Minister (as he now is) produced a statement that was measured and dignified. I've noticed that it's often the closing moments of a Leader's tenure that brings out their best. Perhaps it's the feeling of freedom that comes with knowing that no matter what they do, the outcome is pre-determined. No one wants to breathe down your neck when you're heading for the exit. Perhaps it's the reverse, the sense that this is their last chance to make an impact. Go out with a bang. Leave them wanting more.

In any case, there appear to be four permutations of Government.

The first is the combination for which we've been bracing ourselves for the past couple of days, until the events of the past few hours blew it out of the water - the Tory-LibDem Coalition. This would (in England, at least) come with the perceived legitimacy of involving the first-placed party. But then, it smacks of a traditional first-past-the-post approach to politics: why would the LibDems support the Tories just because they're first? It would, however, be the only pairing (save a highly improbable Grand Coalition) with a majority in the Commons: 362 seats. The problem, however, is that although the maths favour this arrangement, the relations between the parties do not. It's clear that on electoral reform alone, it's been a massive stretch just to get the Tories to propose a referendum on Alternative Vote - which is still not far enough for LibDem tastes. Besides, this isn't like the Lab-LibDem Coalition in Scotland from 1999 to 2007. In that case, Labour's primary challengers in most of its constituency contests were the SNP. For the LibDems, they faced off against the Tories in their main battles. There were few Labour/LibDem contests. This time, there were a wave of battles where the Tories and LibDems were locked in combat. These contests were dotted all around Britain, but they were concentrated in the West Country and along the South Coast. Did, for example, LibDem voters in Wells just eject a sitting Tory MP to see their successful candidate support a Tory Government? I doubt it. And of course, many Tories will be horrified that the LibDems were flirting with Labour while dating the Tories. Whatever trust, whatever rapport, has been built up over the past week has surely been eroded. While expedient, this combination would not be stable and would not contain natural bedfellows.

Then there's the alternative, the First Past the Post approach: a Tory minority Government. It would be ideologically pure, and neither the Tories nor the LibDems would need to debase themselves too much in negotiations. At least, not this week. But the Tories only have 305 seats and they need 326. And while LibDems would have influence, it's questionable how well they'd be able to implement their policies from the Opposition benches - membership of a Coalition would surely get the chance to make some progress... wouldn't it? This is the dilemma the LibDems face.

But there's perhaps another way: a Labour-LibDem Coalition. The two parties are undoubtedly closer: they have clashed on matters such as civil liberties, foreign affairs and defence but the crazy thing is that most Labour supporters probably favour the LibDem approach in the first place! And on the main point of contention - electoral reform - Labour's starting point is the Tories' final offer: the referendum on AV. The party could go further (though Coalition Whips could do to lock Tom Harris in a cupboard somewhere). The scope is there. But Clegg has effectively determined who is (or at lest, who is not) Leader of the Labour Party. That ain't right: members of political parties announce who they want to lead rival parties as a joke (e.g. Labour MSPs supporting Dorothy-Grace Elder as SNP Leader, SNP Members wanting George Foulkes to lead Labour, and so on). But it's not great for the LibDems either: the person in charge when they negotiate isn't the person who'll be in charge four months down the line. And they don't know who that person is. Who will they be working with? They don't know. That ain't good. Besides, Labour and the LibDems only have 315 seats - also short of a majority. Even if you factor in the SDLP and Alliance, that comes to only 319. It's not ideal and it won't get the majority needed.

To get that, you need the so-called 'Progressive Alliance', as floated by Alex Salmond. Assume that 319 seats are in the bag: add the SNP and Plaid and you get 328. And it's certainly in the interest of the two parties to back a Lab-LibDem Coalition. At least, it's in the interest of the SNP to do so: if after 13 years in Government the Labour vote share in Scotland can increase by more than the Tory vote, then when forced to choose which side they're on, the SNP have only one way to go and this is it. Caroline Lucas would almost certainly prefer this to the alternative. So would Sylvia Hermon. Even the DUP would see this as preferable to a Tory Government given the likelihood that Northern Ireland could be on the wrong end of particularly hefty budget cuts, but on the other hand, there have been talks between the Tories, UUP and DUP before now and with both Peter Robinson and Sir Reg Empey having a bad night on Thursday, the path is clear for new leaders who might make the first tentative steps towards Unionist unity. Given UCUNF's poor showing, however, what links such a movement would have with the Conservatives is unclear. Whatever happens, the votes for such an alliance are there, but the amount of negotiation involved would make it unwieldy. It surely wouldn't last very long: it wouldn't take much for one part of the grouping to get pissed off and trigger its downfall. Then there's the principle: if you argue that the Tories don't have a mandate to govern Scotland and Wales on the grounds that they didn't come first there (there's that FPTP politics again), you have to accept that Labour don't have a mandate to govern in England. Then there's the sight of a wave of parties who have spent the last 13 years opposing the Labour Government jumping on board to support it, particularly when the Labour Party is sufficiently weak that its Leader announces his intention to resign four days after polling day. It seems... off, somehow.

So we have four options, all of which have strengths and weaknesses. It's going to be a while before this gets sorted out, and we know who's in charge - at least for the Spring. But by Parliamentary standards, it's not going to be long at all before we do this all over again.

And that's another calculation: 18 months in opposition for Labour could see them back in Government if the Tories struggle on. An 18 month Progressive Alliance could end up ushering in another 18 years of Tory Government at the end. Whatever the parties decide now, they should surely understand that what plans they make for this Parliament will impact on the course of the next one.

But then, under the circumstances, perhaps we should be grateful that one leader at least is looking as far ahead as this year's Party Conferences.

So what about this 'Progressive Alliance' then?

Alex Salmond has today floated the possibility of a 'Progressive Alliance', which basically would involve everyone but the Tories.

It would, of course, involve Labour (258 seats) and the LibDems (57). They still wouldn't command a majority (they'd have only 315), but it wouldn't obviously involve the SNP and Plaid, with nine seats together: that would yield a total of 324: enough under the circumstances, but would also involve the SDLP's three MPs, pushing it over the line. It would probably involve Caroline Lucas and the Alliance's Naomi Long as well. That makes 329 MPs.

And each of the parties involved has a precedent for working with others. The SDLP take the Labour Whip. I have it on the most excellent authority that Naomi Long will take the LibDem Whip. The SNP and Plaid are in close co-operation and sit together in the European Free Alliance Group in the European Parliament, which is tied up with the Greens so will have been working alongside Caroline Lucas for nearly eleven years.

As well as that, Labour are in coalition with Plaid in the Welsh Assembly, while they have been in Coalition with the LibDems in both Scotland (1999-2007) and Wales (2000-03). And as a result of the vote on the new Northern Irish Justice Minister, the SDLP's Margaret Ritchie now finds herself working with the Alliance's David Ford.

So the precedents are there. But really, it's not going to happen. And it shouldn't happen.

For this to work, it needs a massive array of parties to get round a table and negotiate - it's far too unwieldy. And it also requires a lot of people to get over a lot of psychological barriers due to the mutual hostility between some of the parties that's accumulated over the years. Plus which, as Jonathan Calder notes, Labour have basically laughed the idea out of the room and by extension, laughed themselves onto the Opposition benches. Well, after spending the campaign warning of the dangers of a Tory Government, if they would prefer to usher one in rather than work with the SNP, that's their circle to square!

But more importantly, it just doesn't seem right to keep Labour in office: they've been in office for thirteen years, and now find themselves shorn of their majority by the electorate. They may well be in first place in Scotland and Wales, and the alternative may well have come a poor fourth in Scotland and Northern Ireland - but the bottom line is that overall, Labour have lost first place in the UK as a whole.

Besides, I just argued in favour of a minority Government and I can't change my tune just because this Coalition wouldn't involve the Tories. A minority Government is the best solution and a Labour minority Government, under the circumstances, just isn't credible.

And I hate to say this, but how would the First Minister have liked it if, two days after the 2007 Holyrood Election, Annabel Goldie or Nicol Stephen had come out in favour of a 'Unionist alliance' which would have come together to deny him office as this proposal would deny David Cameron? He'd be sick, and rightly so.

So no, I don't see this idea working or beneficial. I don't want a Tory Government either, but sadly, there comes a time where we have to just bite the bullet and accept firstly that it's coming, and secondly that it has to come now, like it or not. And let's face it, if Labour arrogance is going to help bring it about anyway, then what else can we do?

Day 1

We're off and running.

Jim Murphy is telling us that "This is game on and we are going to fight from now until 10pm on polling day to re-elect Labour and stop the Tories winning back power."

Which shows that Labour's first priority is stopping the Tories from taking office. Once again, they're for winning, nothing more. They're against someone else winning, nothing more. And, worse still, they've emphasised the second. Wouldn't it be nice if, just once, and for the first time since 1997, a reason Labour gave for voting for them wasn't in actual fact a reason for not voting for someone else?

The Scottish Tories, meanwhile, have gone with this:



Barack Obama, it ain't. Yes, he wanted change, as do they. But he also wanted hope, and that's in short supply here.

The LibDems, on the other hand, have their Four Steps to a Fairer Britain, which includes this rather prominent feature:



So the key to fairness, apparently, is that there happen to be LibDem MPs in Parliament already, and they happen to be in second place in various constituencies. The key point here is, "If you can't stand Labour, vote for us". Which sort of undermines the rest of it. In any case, much of the content on that part of the Scottish site relates to devolved issues which aren't at stake in this election, so it might be four steps to a fairer Britain, but only half a step to a fairer Scotland. And incidentally, the "only we can get Labour out" claim has been undermined today by Chris Huhne, who'd be favourable to a deal with Labour, as long as Gordon Brown was no longer Prime Minister. Dire, dire, dire.

Compare all that with this:

"The SNP are going into this campaign with a clear message for Scottish voters: more votes means more Nats, and more Nats means less cuts. The Westminster system is discredited, and only SNP champions can protect and promote Scotland’s interests.

We can protect jobs, recovery and important local services and instead cut things like the £100,000 million replacement for Trident, identity cards, the House of Lords or the Scotland Office.”

"On polling day the people of Scotland can do more than just vote for a politician, they can elect a local champion with the SNP.”

A positive message, with a real reason to vote for the SNP, rather than against someone else. Already, the SNP stand out.

Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow

She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.

We are, of course, nearing the Final Act, and over the next few weeks, across the UK, the last scenes will be played out. Will the curtain fall, or will there be a sequel that few of us were expecting?

I'm in a dramatic mood today (hence the rejig and the culling of the blogroll) and there are times when such urges just have to be indulged. After all, tomorrow Gordon Brown will almost certainly go to the Palace and seek a dissolution of Parliament. It's going to be tomorrow: it's either then, or next month, anyway.

I was never convinced by the wave of expectation, sweeping us all towards an early General Election back in Autumn 2007. Let's face it, Brown had spent thirteen long, agonising years plotting and scheming to eject his colleague Tony Blair, and having had all sorts of golden opportunities over the period, never quite managed it: Blair went of his own accord, having announced of his own initiative that the 2005 Election would be his last. Brown's acolytes got the concession that the 2006 Conferences would be his last, but again, Brown himself was not in a position to land the final blow, and it was Blair who set his final departure date and somehow, despite everything, left the stage with the audience wanting an encore.

No, Brown had spent the time waiting, plotting and hoping, but never quite having the bottle to make the ultimate decisive move that would bring about his move next door at a time when he wanted. Why, then, having waited so long, would he risk it all in an election that could have seen him leave 10 Downing Street before his feet were properly under the desk? Why, after 13 years of cautious inaction, would he blow it on one massively reckless move? That wasn't his style and that election was never going to happen. Still, we all planned for it - just in case.

Then 2009 came. And went again. That's how it was always going to be: after an ugly git of a 2008 for the Government, and Labour (not completely fairly) getting the blame for the expenses scandal, he was never going to go last year. Again, it wasn't his style.

So why, then, am I sure that, with a choice between going to the Palace tomorrow, and leaving it a month, he'll go tomorrow?

Image. It's what did for Callaghan in the end: he thought Prime Minister 1976-79 looked better in the history books than 1976-78. Similarly, Brown didn't want the 2007 Election as he didn't want to have the shortest term of office since George Canning, who had the excuse of dying in office. Of course, Brown has metaphorically died in office many times over, but that's beside the point. Image counts, and going tomorrow gives Brown at least some dignity and credibility. Wait another month and he'll spend the next four PMQs getting filleted.

Besides, there are elections anyway on 6 May, to local Councils (including the London Boroughs), and recent history is very clear: the polls will be timed to co-incide. It used to be that Governments tried to avoid that at all costs, it was a factor in the timing of Polling Day when the Callaghan Government fell; Margaret Thatcher went to the country just over a month after local elections in 1983 and did the same in 1987; John Major's re-election took place just four weeks before local elections and European elections, until 2004, always fell a few weeks after council contests.

But it was John Major's departure from office when the approach changed: the 1997 General Election coincided with County Council elections in England; and Blair repeated the process in 2001 (delaying both due to Foot and Mouth) and 2005. He even brought forward Northern Irish local elections so they'd take place concurrently with the Westminster campaign. The 1999 Council Elections in Scotland coincided with the first elections to the Scottish Parliament, and the Parliament passed the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Act 2002, which changed the terms of office for local Councillors from three years to four so that they would continue to coincide (and thanks primarily to the Gould Report, that decision will be undone soon). Local elections were moved back in 2004 and 2009 to coincide with the European Elections, and even the London Mayoral and Assembly elections were moved back in 2004 for the same reason. Indeed, the last time two sets of major contests were held just a few weeks apart was 1999, when the European elections took place just five weeks after elections to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly (as well as local elections).

It would be a major break with this recent approach, and an act of cowardice to delay any longer.

And what of the outcomes? One gets the feeling that Gordon Brown spent so long plotting to be Prime Minister that he never actually bothered to work out what he'd do once he got the job, and we've had platitudes where there should have been a plan, as the Government has spent the last few years bouncing from fiasco to crisis, like a ping pong ball in a tumble dryer. But still, the polls aren't as unfavourable as they could be - or indeed, have been. The Tories lost half of their seats in 1997, while Labour lost just under a sixth of their seats in 1979. The reality, I guess, will be somewhere between the two and the marker for Labour is 237 seats, a loss of 119 seats or one third of the 2005 actual total. Anything higher than 237, and they can claim to have held off the worst (though as Labour found out to its cost in 1983, the worst could still be to come). Anything lower, and Labour are in disaster territory.

By contrast, you get the feeling that all the Tories stand for is winning elections and there's still no real sense as to what a Tory Government will mean. It seems that David Cameron has been trying so hard to get into Downing Street that he doesn't really know what he'll do when he gets there either - that the Party seems to face both ways on - well, basically everything - makes the sense of uncertainty even greater and that might explain the blip in the polls. Voters like policies they can reach out and touch, and the Tory Government still has this intangible quality that doesn't help its cause. The electoral maths aren't helpful either: a net increase of 107 seats on the Tories' actual 2005 total would be broadly equivalent to the gains made by Tony Blair. That increase would still deliver a Hung Parliament. With a Hung Parliament increasingly likely, 274 (an increase halfway between those of Thatcher and Blair) is the target and anything short of that would be an embarrassment. Anything higher, and the Tories are at the very least on track, and would have the necessary momentum to get their majority in 2011.

For the LibDems, the actual numbers are irrelevant: it's their position relative to everyone else that matters and their requirements are frighteningly specific. There has to be a Hung Parliament, and they - and only they - should be able to carry one party or (preferably) both over the line. If the Tories get a majority, it doesn't matter whether there are nine LibDems or ninety: it's all been for nought. And their campaign doesn't inspire confidence: vote for us, because our spokesman successfully predicted economic doom (I won a bet on Saturday that Bristol City would draw with Nottingham Forest - does that make me an ideal candidate to be Minister for Sport?). Vote for us, and our clunky slogan that's a mishmash of everyone else's. Vote for us, because the other parties are actually drawing up a manifesto specifically designed to make your life a living hell (that's the upshot of "We are the only people who believe in fairness" line). Vote for us, because, really, you shouldn't give a shit about that other lot (that's the upshot of all the SNP-bashing, despite their apparently being irrelevant, and in any case, that's a rather daft claim from party that lost its deposit in the last three Westminster By-Elections in Scotland). And I still haven't forgiven my local LibDem Councillor for saying that he's "not bothered" how I vote in a General Election as long as I vote for him to keep his seat on the Council and get a pretty community garden across the road from his house while a current beauty spot gets flattened for just two houses.

Then there's the SNP. Again, the numbers shouldn't matter too much, but the number 20 does still loom large. It's some way off in the distance, but the number is there. The SNP premise is a clear one: it won't be the Government but it can influence the Government better than its own backbenchers can. And the slogan ("More Nats, Less Cuts") is simple and effective, albeit ungrammatical. The big problem is, with the party basically cut off from the UK-wide media, how does it make sure that its message gets across to the maximum number of people? That's the challenge.

And what of the other parties? Can the Greens make the breakthrough? They can. Will they? We don't know. Can UKIP's Nigel Farage oust John Bercow? I doubt it. Can Nick Griffin get into the House of Commons? Well, if press reports are to be believed he'll have done well getting to polling day without his publicity officer murdering him.

Here are a few early calls:

1. The Tories will have the most votes, and will probably have the most seats. But unless David Cameron is capable of going without oxygen for a fortnight, he shouldn't hold his breath before getting into Downing Street. He will have to wait a while.

2. Nick Clegg will find himself with a lot of explaining to do, either to his Party not getting the result they wanted, or to the press and the public for a cack-handed reaction to getting the result he wanted.

3. No more than 1,000 votes will determine whether or not Caroline Lucas enters the House of Commons.

4. Esther Rantzen's challenge will come to nothing: the main reason Martin Bell won in Tatton in 1997 was that the opposition to Neil Hamilton coalesced around him. That isn't happening in Luton and the vote will be too badly split for her.

5. Nigel Farage will still be an MEP at the end of it all. He'll accuse the main three parties of a 'cosy European consensus' that prevented a fair fight.

6. The SNP will make a real progress in votes and seats, but Labour will attempt to portray the result as a personal disaster for Alex Salmond.

7. This is as much hope as expectation, but if there's any justice, Anne McGuire will have done to her by the people of Stirling what she did to thousands of disabled workers at Remploy.

Now, let the drama begin...

Scenes from a Campaign

Jeff is not the only one turning his attention to Livingston today.

Livingston enjoys a fascinating presence in UK political history: for the first 22 years of the constituency's existence, it was represented by Robin Cook, until his death just a few months after the 2005 Election. Now, it should be possible to eulogise and not idolise someone, and Cook was by no means a saint, but he was an impressive performer and of course, presented the most effective case against the Iraq War that anyone could have done during his speech announcing his resignation from the Cabinet. And that departure, incidentally, marked the last principled resignation from the UK Government: the only ones to come close to being based on principle were Clare Short's delayed reaction to the Iraq War and James Purnell's prediction that Gordon Brown would hand the upcoming General Election to the Tories. So Robin Cook, MP for Livingston, former Foreign Secretary and the last member of the Cabinet to resign on principle, enjoys a special place in the books. Whatever his faults, he'll be remembered as an intelligent, high-powered politician and an independent mind. And Livingston will be associated with him.

How tragic, then, that his successor, Jim Devine, should end up in the dock for fraud. That he should have falsified receipts for his expense claims, and worst of all, that he should have defended his actions by claiming that a Whip told him to do that (if the Tommy McAvoy had told him to lie face down on the Westbound carriageway of the M8, would he have done that?).

Yet now we come to the man who would be his successor, Graeme Morrice. Now, he will probably avoid the complete downfall suffered by Devine, but the omens are not good if this leaflet is anything to go by:

Now, it looks like standard fare: the memories of the Thatcher years, and the carping about the SNP - nothing unusual for a Labour leaflet. Nothing positive, nothing hopeful, a quick CV and then the usual attempts to dismiss the SNP as irrelevant while at the same time devoting a large part of the missive to slating them.

But then there's this:

Ah, yes, those memories of the Thatcher/Major years. Such a shame that a Labour Chancellor and Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury have both come out and said that they'd be far more brutal with the Budget than any of Thatcher and her Chancellors were. How ironic: he could stop George Osborne, but would he even try to stop Alistair Darling or Ed Balls when they start wielding the red pen?

And the rest? Well, see for yourself:

In short, two pages in which he misrepresents who's in charge of West Lothian Council by describing it as an SNP/Tory Council (which will be news to COSLA, who see West Lothian as an SNP/Independent Coalition: the independents in question being Action to Save St. John's Hospital, who have been airbrushed out of political history by Councillor Morrice) and poses for photos on issues which either relate to Holyrood (so he'll be able to do nothing about it) or the local Council (so he'll actually be able to do more about it if he loses and stays on the Council).

It's strange. In a way, Devine is more impressive: he, like his predecessor, has become an icon of the big political question of the day, albeit for all the wrong reasons. And Morrice's photo might not be a police mugshot, but still, his leaflet really ought to be gracing the pages of Glum Councillors. Maybe Livingston could use some anonymity, an MP who won't make waves in the Commons but will turn up at railway stations with an MSP, a placard and a photographer.

Or maybe not...

I had the pleasure of reading Lis Bardell's guest post on Jeff's blog. Lis is the SNP candidate for Livingston and managed to sum up quite exquisitely just how the scandal has hit the area. As it happens, I had the good fortune of meeting Lis at the SNP Spring Conference and found someone who knows her area and knows the people, and clearly relishes chewing over the big issues. She's clearly someone who'll be at ease with local campaigns, but will be incredibly adept at handling the wider questions that go beyond Livingston and affect all of us. In short, I spent an evening at Conference in the company of an intelligent, articulate person with an independent mind. Remind you of anyone?

Maybe a spell out of the limelight isn't what Livingston needs. Maybe, instead, what's needed is a return to the things that connected that part of West Lothian to the wider political scene for all the right reasons.

That, I think, is where Lis comes in.

A Thirst Unquenched

One of the most fascinating aspects of this Scottish Parliament is the SNP Government's unerring ability to pull rabbits out of the deepest hats. For a while, it looked as though that skill had deserted the leadership, but today, fortune opted to smile on the SNP. And I'm not talking about the reaction to Jim Murphy's "We do do God" speech, which managed to piss off everyone, of all faiths and none, by alarming the secularists who want religion not to come within five miles of politics and government, and the religions themselves, who find the idea of a Government which has ignored a fair number of their teachings preaching to them somewhat sickening.

No, what I'm talking about is the basic smothering of two '-gate' scandals.

First, we learn that the Standards Commissioner has decided that there is, in effect, no case to answer regarding Lunchgate:

"Having fully considered the terms of the complaints and the terms of your own response (jointly with Ms Sturgeon) and other evidence, I have concluded that – for the purposes of the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Act 2002 – the complaints, as submitted and insofar as within my jurisdiction, are not relevant and that there is no evidence of sufficient substance warranting further investigation. I have, therefore, dismissed the complaints for the reasons set out in the attached Note of Decision."

Now, I said at the time that in politics, facts take second place to appearances. The reality is that the lunch auctions are basically a whisky roll writ large but they looked like some sort of Cash for Access scandal, and as I said, I'm stunned that no one thought to look at how auctioning off time with a Minister would look, regardless of the good intention and target audience - who basically want lunch with someone they respect and support. Nevertheless, the background doesn't matter: what matters is the Standards Commissioner sees nothing worth looking into. The appearance now favours the SNP. Lunchgate is now pretty much off the menu (so to speak) though I suspect that a new fundraising approach may well be developed anyway - just in case.

Secondly, Nicola Sturgeon came before Holyrood today to account for her part in Lettergate, or Nicolagate, or whatever this one was called:

"In short, I assisted a constituent in good faith and for what I considered to be the right reasons, but in doing so I did get some things wrong and for that I am sorry."

It would appear that most took her statement of contrition for what it was and were content to leave it there: they were happy to accept her good faith, that she made a mistake. And I think it's cheering for a politician to admit to being human, and to hold their hands up for doing things wrong. It's now hard to see where this one can actually go, so it too is off the menu.

Except that while the Tories and LibDems opted for magnanimity (though couldn't resist a pop at Alex Salmond's characteristically boisterous defence of his Deputy), Labour still tried to go on the attack. Well, it doesn't seem to have worked, if Caron's reaction is any indicator:

So, would her gracious words have dragged the Labour Party up to a decent standard of debate. Nah. I think they realised that she had done enough to keep her job but many of them insisted on sticking the knife in to both her and Alex Salmond. I'll tell you what, I'm so glad Johann Lamont isn't my MSP. It seems that if I went to her I'd have to fill in a disclosure form at the door of her surgery. She seems to only want to represent the blameless. She asked if Nicola had performed background checks. I'm sure her staff have enough to do without turning into private detectives.

In a way Johann Lamont's words seem to sum up Labour's attitude to people. Most people who seek help from elected representatives are good people who tell the truth. Many are really vulnerable and desperately need help. Unless you have a good reason to doubt it, you have to take people's word for what they're telling you.

Iain Gray then asked her to withdraw the letter - which seems a bit daft seeing as she'd just publicly said that she'd change things and that the hearing was over and done with anyway. How can you take something off the public record as if it had never existed? A bit strange.

And there we go - everyone else is happy to draw a line under an unfortunate incident, but Labour still try to find a fight to pick, even if it means taking things to the ridiculous extent of insisting on background checks on constituents before taking up their case. But, as we already know, personal attacks are OK as long as a) they're made by Labour, or b) they're aimed at someone other than Labour politicians.

Here's something else to consider. This is what Yousuf said almost two weeks ago, as Lettergate was brewing:

And I would advise any Nationalists who feel she is being hounded to look back to what happened with Wendy Alexander.

And there it is. For Yousuf has, I fear, rather hit the nail on the head (albeit inadvertently). It speaks volumes that whatever Nationalists and others were looking at - probably the case in question on its own merits or otherwise, I'd imagine - Labour people were looking at what happened to Wendy Alexander.

That the Electoral Commission took the view that Wendy Alexander broke the law doesn't come into it.

That she was found to have breached rules on the declaration of gifts doesn't come into it.

That the only sanction she faced for breaking the law and breaching what are in effect anti-corruption rules was a one-day suspension from Parliament proposed by the Standards Committee which was subsequently quashed in the Chamber (compare and contrast that with Frances Curran, Colin Fox, Rosie Kane and Carolyn Leckie being banned for a month for acting like prats and one can't help but feel that MSPs' sense of proportion is somewhat skewed) doesn't come into it.

The only real punishment was the one she inflicted on herself: she chose to resign as Labour Leader. She was pushed out not by other people, not by procedures, but by circumstances, nothing more.

But as far as Labour are concerned she was taken down, and that's all that matters.

And they have to see someone else taken down in revenge.

After all, their attempts to lever themselves back into office in the wake of last year's Budget debacle fell apart almost within minutes, and their attempts to use Lockerbie as a crowbar with which to prise Kenny MacAskill out of office failed, but after a year and a half of searching they thought they had it. But Lunchgate, it transpires, doesn't even merit a serious investigation. So comparisons with Wendy Alexander - who endured several investigations (though was fortunate to escape prosecution) - don't hold. And Nicola Sturgeon's response to Lettergate was to stand up, apologise, and admit that she got it wrong. Again, comparisons with Wendy Alexander - who dug in and ended up surrounded by acolytes who expressed horror that anyone might want to criticise their Dear Leader for, you know, breaking the law until her position became untenable - simply don't stack up.

But that doesn't matter - since Wendy Alexander's resignation, Labour have had a thirst for blood.

It's the same petty, vindictive personal politics that they've been playing at for years. The same mean-spirited vitriolic ad hominem attacks that they're crying foul over in this, the week when Gordon Brown is on the receiving end of them.

Yet even when they're saying how appalling it is when these things happen to their man, they're still trying them on others.

Quite simply, they deserve to fail.

Let this thirst of theirs continue to go unquenched!

Brown: "The Future is Ours To Win" - McAvoy: "I'm Offski!"

It's surely embarrassing that as Gordon Brown was trying to turn this year's contest into a "Them" and "Us" election, blow as many dog-whistles as he can through the repeated use of buzzwords like "progressive" (remind me how well the 'dog-whistle' strategy did for Michael Howard?), while talking in his peroration of how the future belongs to Labour (a slightly creepy mantra, I feel), it's reported that Labour Whip Tommy McAvoy (Rutherglen & Hamilton West) has opted not to be a part of that future.

Now, McAvoy was blamed is some circles for Janis Hughes standing down as MSP for Glasgow Rutherglen, so I imagine she'll be pretty hacked off: all she needed to do was hang in there for three more years. And Iain Dale refers to the Jim Devine affair: Devine told Channel 4 that a Whip told him how to fiddle his expenses, and an internal inquiry has been launched into which member of the Whips' Office it was. Although we can't yet say for certain, it's not hard to join the dots: McAvoy is the likely candidate.

And now he's not a candidate at all.

Still, with March being pretty much ruled out as an election date (Brown may as well have stood there in Warwick and started singing Waiting at the Church as one of his predecessors did at the 1978 TUC Conference), Labour have around two month to find a candidate.

Surely, with time so short, and little or no time available to put an AWS in place, the likeliest figure is Tom McCabe, the former Finance Minister. McCabe is no longer on the Opposition frontbench at Holyrood (though he is Labour's representative on the Corporate Body) so while he's a big-hitter and it would be grim for Iain Gray to lose him as well, it won't be as embarrassing as losing yet another member of the Shadow Cabinet. It would, however, further drain the pool of talent open to Gray in the most important year of an Opposition's life: the year when it has to start looking like a Government. And no matter what optimistic Labour figures would say, when Labour MSPs start to opt for the Westminster back benches over the Holyrood front bench, as they have done, there is no way on Earth that those remaining can look like anything other than the "Second XI". They certainly can't look like a credible alternative government.

But I digress. McCabe is presently MSP for Hamilton South, which has an electorate overlap of around 31,000 with Rutherglen & Hamilton West (focusing mainly around Blantyre), so will know a decent sized part of the area, and was rumoured to be looking for selection to Airdrie & Shotts when it was announced that John Reid was standing down. He would, therefore, be the logical choice: in the short term, his move south creates a vacancy for the SPCB, which is neither earth-shattering nor a major blow, he's relatively local and he knows the area. And the new Hamilton, Larkhall & Stonehouse constituency at Holyrood - roughly analogous to Hamilton South - requires a Labour-SNP swing of 6.28% for it to be lost (especially tempting and achievable if, as is likely, the SNP candidate is a sitting Regional MSP and Tom McCabe seeks and wins the Rutherglen candidacy), while the Westminster seat requires either a 16% Lab-LibDem swing or a 21% Lab-SNP swing. McCabe would be daft not to go for it.

And that too is good news for the SNP: leaving aside the Dennis Canavan result (which, given his status as an Independent, defied swing projections), there have been four instances of a sitting Constituency MSP standing down and a Regional MSP from another party vying to take their place. The aforementioned Janis Hughes was one (Robert Brown of the LibDems stood in Rutherglen); the others being Susan Deacon in Edinburgh East & Musselburgh (where Kenny MacAskill was the SNP's challenger); Henry McLeish stood down from Central Fife in 2003 (the SNP's Tricia Marwick was seeking that one); and Ian Jenkins in Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale, standing down in 2003 (the SNP's Christine Grahame sought to succeed him). On average, the four Regional quasi-incumbents picked up a 'bonus' swing of 6.08%. That effect, if borne out in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse, turns the seat into a supermarginal, before a single vote has been cast.

On the teams I support

If you'll indulge me, I'd like to begin this post by reviewing a football match. And I'll do so from a biased perspective: the match in question is Tuesday night's English Premier League tie between Wigan and Stoke, for which I put my Latics' Season Ticket to use, and saw from my usual vantage point of the East Stand (now known as the Boston Stand).

And what a bizarre game it was! The first half was amazing, with lots of open play, attacking football and good creative manoeuvres. Moreover, the bulk of the excellent play was coming from Wigan, who were doubtless playing according to Roberto Martinez's philosophy of playing one's way out of trouble. For once, the formula was working, and Wigan were rewarded when Paul Scharner scored. Indeed, the Latics were unfortunate not to add to their tally before the break, but the performance was a good one: Emmerson Boyce was solid in defence, Chris Kirkland pulled off some excellent saves when required, Charles N'Zogbia and Hugo Rodallega were both marvellous and even Jason Scotland was putting a good shift in: a Premiership goal still eludes him but his shots were, at least, on target. Stoke offered a few meaty challenges and had the occasional spell of pressure which they couldn't do anything with, so the Wigan players went back to the dressing room with their tails up and at that point, the Wigan fans were the loudest - that doesn't happen very often.

Then came the second half, and Wigan had a decent shout early on - including an overhead kick by Hugo Rodallega that missed the target by a whisker - but that, I'm afraid, was that. I have no idea what Martinez said in the dressing room, but whatever it was, it was bad advice. Maynor Figueroa's now routine abysmal performance - plenty of dicking around to no real consequence save the increased likelihood of the opposition winning the ball - served only to prove to me why he is, barring the amazing goal he scored against Stoke at the Britannia Stadium earlier on in the season, is the Most Overrated Player in England. Titus Bramble appeared to have left his brain in the dressing room (and why has Martinez made that idiot Captain in the absence of Melchiot?), alongside that of the manager's, who decided that to make room for Victor Moses, he needed to take off James McCarthy, who is having a decent spell. Right player to bring on, wrong player to take off. Then he compounded that error by replacing Jason Scotland with the dire Jordi Gomez, who clearly has bags of potential but is patently never going to realise it in a Wigan shirt. Sensible player to take off, but if Gomez is the answer, then I shudder to think what the question was. The only one that springs to mind is, "Who can we bring on to turn a perfectly competent midfield into a sack complete and utter shite?".

Similarly, Stoke were no great shakes either until the introduction of Ricardo Fuller, and it looked like they were going to squander every opportunity Wigan gave them to play well and get something from the game. And believe me, Wigan gave them far too many opportunities. We may as well have wrapped the ball in a ribbon and affixed a tag reading, "To the Stoke players, loadsa luv, the Latics xxx".

So it was no surprise that after almost half an hour of my life that I wanted back, Ricardo Fuller breezed through a gap between the hapless Figueroa and Bramble, and crossed the ball into the box, where it met the head of Tuncay and sailed past Chris Kirkland, who wasn't expecting it to come anywhere near him. Well, it did, but he didn't get to it and it landed in the back of the net.

This meant that a game which Wigan should have won convincingly was turned into a draw, and it was the team's good fortune that Fulham and Burnley both lost while Sunderland could only draw against Portsmouth.

So why I am telling you all this?

Simple. We are now well into the second half of the Scottish Parliamentary session. The first half saw the SNP victory, the Glasgow East win, the European election victory, the abolition of bridge tolls and the Graduate Endowment, the passage of the first minority budget and the eventual passage of the second when the opposition's initial tactics backfired, while the potential bunfight over Trumpton was deflected, but targets were missed: had the funds been there, perhaps more could have been done on student debt; the Local Income tax had to be dropped; and the success in Glasgow East was not followed up with comparable results in Glenrothes and Glasgow East. But still, the SNP were on an upturn, and opposition attacks weren't coming to anything.

We're now back on the pitch for the second half. And that organised performance appears to have evaporated: an attempt to raise party funds in response to a party that has Union backing and another which has Lord Ashcroft bankrolling it has turned into a '-gate' because before we get into a discussion of what's within the rules and what isn't, it never occurred to anyone to question what selling a lunch date with the First Minister would look like in the press, thereby forgetting the Basic Rule that in politics, facts take second place to appearances. Losing John McNamee might not be the worst thing in the world, but losing an exasperated Alex Dingwall, an SNP member of 31 years' standing, to the Liberal Democrats is not news you want to wake up to. This morning we discover that the Referendum Bill is to go no further than the limbo that is draft stage for the time being. And now, in an honest attempt to do the decent thing by a constituent, Nicola Sturgeon has ended up tethered by the press to a benefit fraudster, and will be expected to turn up in Parliament after the recess to explain herself simply for trying to be a good constituency MSP but by doing right thing with the wrong person.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this - and I apologise to those of you who don't like fruity language but it needs airing: What the fucking hellfire is going on in the Party?!

The need for the SNP to keep up the strong performances of the last two years is greater than ever: we're going into a Westminster election where the choice is clear. There are Labour representatives whose only priority is to stay in power at any cost, whose Whips advise new MPs to falsify receipts (that is, if we are to believe Jim Devine, the man elected as a Labour candidate, who admitted on Channel 4 that if he had thought that he'd broken the law, he'd try to cover it up), and who has seen Scotland as little more than a source of vote fodder. There are prospective Tory MPs, whose party has somehow contrived to have even fewer ideas as to how to improve people's lot than Labour presently do and whose Scottish Leader has basically told Scotland that it'll have to get what it's given (some respect agenda, that). There are those under the LibDem banner, who have given us no indication as to what lengths they'd go to to implement their programme should the opportunity arise, whose idea of liberal democracy is to deny people self-determination and whose idea of the new, consensus politics is to slag off Alex Salmond at every opportunity. In short, an SNP providing clarity and principle is just what Scotland needs right now.

And the ability to deliver on that is still there: the people are the same ones who delivered those early successes and their commitment is as strong as ever. Meanwhile, Iain Gray looks no more credible as an alternative FM than he did a year ago and is not helped by his frontbench - which strikes me as the political equivalent of an oversized novelty cheque: it might look good for display or PR purposes, but has no practical value whatsoever. That two of its members wish to look for alternative opportunities at Westminster is also damning. Annabel Goldie's comments regarding Scotland having to just put up with a Tory government that it didn't want proves that for all her bluster about the Labour Group at Holyrood, the "apologist for Whitehall" tag will simply pass to her when David Cameron enters Downing Street. And Tavish Scott? Well, somehow, he's ended up as the most constructive and mature of the three main opposition leaders in Holyrood. And he still wants to kill SNP Ministers simply to watch them die!

So the opposition, like Stoke on Tuesday night, is still playing a fairly dire game. And yet for reasons passing understanding, the SNP - just as Wigan did - is letting them in to proceedings, and giving them the chance to take a few shots. Wigan fans once again saw, as the team should have learned by now, what happens if one of those shots hits the target. Let the SNP learn from the Latics' mistakes.

A scalp's a scalp, I suppose

Yousuf was rather looking forward to today's papers last night, expecting as he was that they would contain news of an SNP elected representative jumping ship to Labour. Jeff, meanwhile, reckoned that the defector would be in local government rather than at Parliamentary level. And so it proved, with South Lanarkshire Councillor John McNamee switching sides. Here's today's Herald:

Mr McNamee, who represents the Blantyre area, cited the decision to axe the proposed Glasgow Airport Rail Link as a crucial factor in his jumping ship, as well as the impact of the global financial collapse on small nations such as Ireland and Iceland, and the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.

Sounds fair enough. After all, if you don't agree with anything your party has done, then you should leave the party rather than make a continued tired effort to defend what you consider to be the indefensible on the doorstep. Which is why I left Labour, the party of the Iraq War, the preservation of the NHS internal market in the shape of foundation hospitals (Nye Bevan must have been spinning in his grave at that one), the continued defence of Thatcherite housing policies and the advocate of commercialised higher education in the shape of top-up fees, to join the SNP back in 2004. So while I went in the other direction, I can understand why, in those circumstances, he might wish to move. But there's more:

He has also criticised what he describes as the lack of leadership and talent within the SNP at town hall level, describing the two years he has been an elected member as being riddled with in-fighting and that he has been “operating in a political vacuum”.

Hmm. The throwing of the egg. Happens, I suppose. Though the last person to deride former colleagues for lack of talent was David Mundell, the Shadow (or should that be Overshadowed?) Secretary of State for Scotland, in a dossier about the Tory MSP group for David Cameron. That's the same David Mundell who's likely to be passed over for the actual Secretary of State job in favour of one of his apparently talentless colleagues at Holyrood. So it's not a wise move to make, and in any case, what happened to being the change you wished to see? But wait! I'm missing something! This is how the Herald introduces us to Councillor McNamee:

South Lanarkshire councillor John McNamee has quit the party, which had initiated disciplinary procedures against him over concerns over his expense claims and were investigating him over alleged “inappropriate behaviour” at a social function.

Oh dear! Surely Labour are a little bit nervy about taking him on then? Here's the man himself:

“I have spoken to the Labour Party nationally and at local level about what is essentially an internal SNP group matter with no other ramifications and they are easy with that.”

Really? Here's the Herald again:

But the SNP said that Mr McNamee was the subject of “disciplinary procedures” by the South Lanarkshire SNP Group after “concerns were expressed over his expense claims and use of council travel allowances”.

The group was also investigating allegations of “inappropriate behaviour” which Mr McNamee says involved alcohol at a Strathclyde Fire Board event before Christmas, which he attended in an official capacity.

So apart from the fact that he's been accused of fiddling his Council expenses - or taxpayers' money as they are more commonly known - and getting pissed on behalf of South Lanarkshire Council at the Strathclyde Fire Board, basically his problems are, in the world of Labour, for the SNP to sort out. Even though they're problems occurring as a result of his holding public office. Yet still Labour are willing to take this guy on - what would it take for them to get nervy? A Standards Commission investigation? Suspension from public office?

Frankly, I'm staggered that in the wake of the many scandals affecting politicians at the moment, and the Labour 'Star Chamber' that saw MPs deselected for fiddling their expenses, the party is not only willing to welcome him in with no questions asked, but to celebrate the fact. As Stephen says, this isn't news to be joyful about.

But still, when the party is on a downward track (and I'll blog about that later on), a scalp, any scalp, is to be cheered. I hope Cllr McNamee finds himself at home in the Labour Party, and I hope they find themselves comfortable with him.

More on the Telly Box

Thanks to Scott tweeting a link and suggesting that the contents were right up my alley (he is quite correct), I've clocked the draft BBC Editorial Guidance for the upcoming General Election.

Here's something interesting on Page 5:

In Scotland and Wales, the SNP and Plaid Cymru respectively gained substantial electoral support at the last General Election. UK-wide programmes must ensure that, on issues where they have distinctive policies, the SNP and Plaid are given appropriate levels of coverage in items to which the GB-wide parties contribute. In addition, UK-wide programmes should use SNP and Plaid spokespeople on other major election news stories, where appropriate.

Now, this is interesting: is the draft guidance arguing in favour of an SNP (and Plaid) presence in the Leaders' Debate?

UK-wide programmes must ensure that, on issues where they have distinctive policies, the SNP and Plaid are given appropriate levels of coverage in items to which the GB-wide parties contribute.

Here's the key: the word 'appropriate'. Is it 'appropriate' not to have a contribution from either the SNP or Plaid in such a debate? It seems not. Is it 'appropriate' to have an extra programme on the News Channel and BBC Scotland (and, of course, Wales) for the SNP and Plaid Leaders. Again, that's effectively the same as not having them in the UK-wide programme. It goes on:

In addition, UK-wide programmes should use SNP and Plaid spokespeople on other major election news stories, where appropriate.

So here's how I read it. The Debate will be UK-wide. The Debate will, in and of itself, be a major election news story. The SNP and Plaid do have distinctive policies on a number of issues that may, conceivably, be raised at that debate - unless the BBC stick solely to issues handled by both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Accordingly, it is entirely appropriate to have a place for one or both of the SNP and Plaid in that debate.

And, those lamenting that Alex Salmond isn't going to be a candidate in the General Election should note that it invites 'spokespeople' - not necessarily candidates! And who better to act as a spokesperson than the Party Leader?

Further, those concerned that inviting the SNP and Plaid means inviting the Greens, UKIP, the BNP, Respect and the entire Northern Irish political spectrum should take a look at the following. Firstly, also on Page 5:

In Great Britain, in the context of a General Election, no party other than those mentioned above [Labour, the Tories, LibDems, SNP and Plaid] has demonstrated that it has substantial electoral support.

Now, the Greens, UKIP and BNP may all have cause to dispute this, and the BBC does confer upon them a sort of "Best of the Rest" status, but the Corporation's attitudes are clear: on UK-wide issues where they have something to say, the SNP and Plaid are to be given a voice.

Similarly, this comes on Page 7:

UK-wide programmes which report on the election as it affects Northern Ireland should give similar levels of coverage to the four largest parties: the Democratic Unionists, Sinn Fein, the Ulster Unionist Party (standing as UCUNF with the Conservatives) and the SDLP. If British Conservative spokespeople are used to discuss issues directly relating to Northern Ireland, outlets should normally also ensure that the other three larger Northern Ireland parties (ie DUP, Sinn Fein and SDLP) are included.

Accordingly, if the Debate steers clear of NI-specific issues (or, one suspects, if the UCUNF pact breaks down), there's no need to invite the respective Leaders as they too are kept in a separate bracket to the others.

In short:

1. The BBC guidelines make it hard to justify the absence of the SNP and Plaid on the BBC Debate.

2. The BBC guidelines do not rule out the presence of Alex Salmond as the SNP's representative.

3. The BBC guidelines show that inviting the SNP and Plaid does not force them to push the number of participants into double figures.

Basically, this paper highlights a need for the two parties to be involved and sweeps the rug from under the key points of contention that may prevent that from happening.

However, another key word in all of this is 'draft'. It's possible that this thing could be re-drafted, particularly with a view to detailing the BBC's approach to the Debate. But if these are the guidelines adopted, then the BBC will in effect be in breach of its own rules if the participants in its Leaders' Debate are restricted to Messrs Brown, Cameron and Clegg.

2010: The Year of If

You know it's going to be an uncertain year when it starts with people arguing over whether or not we've started a new decade. So if we can't settle that, then any predictions are built on pretty shaky ground. Which is why I'm calling 2010 "The Year of If", as you'll be able to see things mapped out, but they'll all be conditional on less certain events.

SNP

So what does 2010 hold for the party of the Scottish Government? I'd say further progress, and the question is how much. You would expect the SNP to take advantage of Labour's decline - and it will - but Labour will attempt to paint the election as a choice between Brown and Cameron. Now, personally, I'd have thought that such a choice would have voters flocking to other parties in their droves, but a particularly polarising campaign could restrict the amount of opportunities open to the SNP. Similarly, you might expect the party's right flank (and seats in Tayside) to be vulnerable to the Cameron effect, but seeing as it hasn't materialised in Scotland, my money's on the SNP seeing off a Tory challenge. And on the one hand, the LibDems and SNP occupied similar political ground in 2005 but the LibDems had the benefit of a wider media profile, but the LibDem political ground has shifted and that gives the SNP a little more breathing room. So in the General Election, the SNP will advance, and the only question is how far. The 20-seat target set just under two years may have provided a hostage to fortune, but there's no doubt that SNP tails are still up.

At Holyrood, things may not go so smoothly. For the Budget, there's no hope of co-operation with Labour (they'll vote the Budget own over GARL) or the LibDems (regardless of what's in there, they'll do anything to annoy Alex Salmond). But the Tories will, for now, be amenable as their present consideration is that they do not want to put Labour into Bute House just as they're trying to eject Labour from Downing Street. That will stand, but once the Tories are in Downing Street, the landscape will change, relations may sour as the two Governments get into confrontations. So it will, once again, hinge on the Greens and it is in the interests of the SNP to listen to them very carefully.

However, with the exception of the Budget, co-operation will be thin on the ground as parties first get into Westminster election mode, then shift gears and get ready for the 2011 Election, so unless the SNP Whips know something the rest of us don't the Referendum Bill is vulnerable. But with a referendum enjoying popular support, and with the opposition policy of "Not this referendum Bill and not now" being vulnerable to fairly obvious cries of "What Referendum Bill and when?", a reverse will work in the SNP's favour.

Labour

Can you hear the ticking of the Great Clock? It's just a couple of minutes until midnight now. I see no way back for Labour and their only consolation is that the defeat might not be as bad as it might have been. But what made the Tory wilderness years so bad, and the start of Labour's time as Scottish Opposition so cringeworthy wasn't the defeat itself, but the party's reaction to it. Firstly, the jockeying for positions began before the election took place, so the parties went into the contest divided. Secondly, the parties turned completely inward and started rowing with each other in the aftermath. If Labour can avoid that, they might be back on their feet by 2011.

But the signs aren't good: Charles Clarke's trying to get Gordon Brown booted out again, there are rumours that Lord Mandelson is Unhappy. So it all hinges on a good clean Leadership contest after the election, with principles and policy at the heart of it. Unfortunately, it's going to boil down to cliques and the losing side will spend the next Parliamentary term huffing and sniping at the new Leadership, as now.

This will provide a double-edged sword for Labour at Holyrood. On the one hand, MSPs will get caught up in the in-fighting and if the new Leadership isn't enamoured with Iain Gray then he has a problem. On the other hand, if he backs the right horse, he might just cement his position. On the one hand, the departure of Jim Murphy as the effective Leader of Scottish Labour (he will either lose his seat or become Shadow Work & Pensions Secretary) will bolster Gray's profile and make him the face of Scottish Labour. On the other hand, that will force him to up his game, and if he messes up, he has no backup and no support. In a year when Iain Gray will be trying to convince us of his First Ministerial qualities (not starting sentences, "If I was First Minister..." would help), he won't need the chaos that will be going on all around him.

Conservatives

This should be a year to celebrate for the Tories, yet victory will come with a bitter aftertaste. Firstly, the enormity of the challenge they face will become very clear very quickly - I expect George Osborne's net approval rating to be something along the lines of -50% by Christmas. Secondly, the polls suggest that we're not heading for a 1997-style landslide (the Tory majority will be around 20 seats). Thirdly, this means that Cameron will have to choose between ignoring his right-wing backbenchers and losing votes in the Commons or losing the centre ground, costing the Tories votes and seats in the next Election, which may be sooner than we think - late Summer 2012 or early Spring 2013. So it will not be a happy return to Government for the Tories.

Of course, if the Tories at Westminster think they have it bad, try being a Scottish Tory! It's fairly obvious that David Mundell will not find himself Secretary of State and the words "Lord McLetchie of Morningside" appear to hove into view. Further, Scottish Tories will find themselves under pressure: on the one hand, relations between Cameron and Alex Salmond won't take long to degrade as the two Governments will blatantly wish to pull in opposite directions. On the other, the Tories will still want to keep Iain Gray out of Bute House.

This will have the greatest impact on the MSPs, who will be forced to pick one side or another: they'll either have to row with their own party, or be branded apologists for the new anti-Scottish Tory Government. But there is a way out: the election looks like yielding the slimmest of slim pickings and you will probably be able to count the Scottish Tory delegation to Westminster on one hand. The Cameron effect has never taken hold in Scotland and there are signs that Annabel Goldie's habit for keeping the ship steady and doing acceptably but no better than that is starting to wear. It may be that the Scottish Tories are de-merged with the UK Party and an arrangement not overly dissimilar to UCUNF in Northern Ireland is established, or it may be that Annabel Goldie is ditched and replaced with Murdo Fraser, with Derek Brownlee as his Deputy. Or, indeed, it may be both.

Liberal Democrats

This might be the year to be neither the Tories nor Labour, but the problem is that for too long, the only thing to stand out as far as the LibDems are concerned is Vince Cable's knack for prophesying economic doom. Aside from that, they've got nothing to go on and if the election polarises, it's the LibDems who have the most to lose, with their voters picking a side. How well they survive depends on how well they stand out and I don't have much hope of them doing that.

And at Holyrood? More obscurity, I'm afraid, and it'll be self-inflicted. At least their friends at Westminster do occasionally produce a distinctive policy or two, but Tavish Scott et al need to be told that hating Alex Salmond isn't a policy. What do the Scottish LibDems have to say on tax? "We hate Alex Salmond". Education? "We hate Alex Salmond". Health? "We hate Alex Salmond". Crime? "We hate Alex Salmond". The constitution? "We hate Alex Salmond". Fine, we get that you don't like the FM. But a political party needs to be based on something more than a visceral hatred of another man and with LibDems sounding more and more like they'd rather people voted Labour than LibDem just to dish out a bloody nose to the SNP, it does make you wonder if they could do to just merge with Labour and have done with it. But even Labour have the occasional flash of a policy. Tavish Scott offers nothing and I don't see a change in approach or emphasis a this year. Or, for those post-2011 optimists among us, next year either. They might, at some point, attempt to bring a Minister down. Then they'll blame the Tories for not playing when they fail.

Greens

This is the year of groundwork for the Greens, and with a very real possibility of Caroline Lucas entering Westminster this year, this is a chance for their profile to skyrocket. Of course, Robin Harper is to stand for the Greens in Edinburgh East - he won't be successful, but there's method in this: possibly a Green Constituency candidate in Edinburgh Central as well as Glasgow Kelvin in 2011, which is the year that counts for the Scottish Greens.

But it will come down to Patrick Harvie to back or bin the Budget, once again. After last year's fiasco, everyone will be wiser to proceedings and that will be to his benefit more than anyone else's. This will give him extra traction come 2011.

The one note of caution is this: beware another Green false dawn! In 2005, the Scottish Greens fielded 19 candidates and kept three deposits, so over-inflated expectations along the lines of every candidate keeping their deposit are to be avoided: that isn't likely to happen. The 2009 result became a disappointment when it shouldn't have been - that's the risk the Greens face this time as well. An otherwise respectable result may seem like a setback, simply because it seemed like momentum was building.

The Telly Box

It would remiss of me to enter the festive season without a few words on the Leaders' Debates. So here they are.

My personal view is that whoever is invited, they will generate far more heat than light, little of consequence will emerge from them, and unless David Cameron uses his allotted speaking time to disembowel a kitten, they won't serve to change anyone's opinion: rather, they will serve to bolster opinions already held, and everyone who has a stake in proceedings will claim that their guy has won.

However, the fact is that they are a reality. Or will be, at least.

So then, the questions are, should the SNP be there, and who should represent it?

To the first question, my answer is that in some form, yes it should. The idea of tacking some form of interview with a representative on at the end of the programme sounds pretty dreadful. One, everyone will have switched off by then (so what's the point?), and two, the whole point of having a debate rather than a set of interviews is that the participants can engage with each other. Chatting to Alex Salmond or anyone else about the issues raised after Brown, Cameron and Clegg have left the building is of no use to anyone.

And for me, the reasons are as follows:

Firstly, whatever the main UK parties may sniff about the SNP, it is relevant at the very least to Scottish voters, who will have an SNP option on the ballot paper. Indeed, more people exercised that option than the Tory one at the last General Election in Scotland, yet David Cameron's place is a given. They are no less viable as Parliamentary representatives than any other candidates. And, at the end of the day, that is who we're electing despite the Presidential nature of this debate. Accordingly, to dismiss a key political player in one part of the Union as irrelevant is complacent and insulting. If you take the few that this event is valuable to voters, then Scottish voters deserve to get the full value, and see the full choice available to them.

Secondly, it's useful even for non-Scottish voters, whatever the outcome of the election. Even if the SNP simply stood still at this Election, and even if David Cameron were returned to office with a healthy majority, it's still Parliament and MPs who call the shots. Therefore, SNP MPs could still have a stake in that. After all, Blair's 2001 majority was reduced to just 25 on Foundation Hospitals, and just five on Top-Up Fees. And the moderately-sized majority won in the 2005 Election was wiped out over terror detention, where in the end, Northern Ireland's DUP had a 'casting vote'. And there was Major's reliance on the UUP at the fag-end of his Premiership, to say nothing of Callaghan's government falling on the basis of an Independent Northern Irish MP opting to go home rather than vote to support the administration. What that means is that it surely isn't inconceivable that the SNP could find themselves in a position to tip the balance (particularly with the outcome of the next election becoming less certain rather than more) and as such, the people of the entire UK have a right to know how the SNP will affect them. If you believe that these debates will be informative, then the public of the entire Union has a right to be informed as to the SNP's intentions. What better place than the main showpiece?

Then there's the idea that to invite the SNP is to be forced to invite the Greens, UKIP and even the BNP. Not necessarily, because there's one key criterion which the SNP meets that the others do not: they are a Parliamentary reality, with MPs already in place. The others don't have that and the system is stacked against that happening. If Nick Clegg's place is a given, when the best he can probably hope for is to be Kingmaker, then the idea that they of all people can show contempt to other Parliamentary supporting acts and demand that they have no place in any debate is utterly hypocritical.

Finally, who should represent the SNP? Simple: Alex Salmond. And here's why: the other parties are complaining that Alex Salmond isn't a candidate in this election. That's true: his name will not be on any ballot paper in a General Election. But Gordon Brown's name will only appear on ballot papers in the Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath constituency; David Cameron's name will only be on papers in Witney; and people will only be able to vote for Nick Clegg in Sheffield Hallam. In the remaining constituencies, voters will have to make do with their chosen party's candidate.

So why, then, are Brown, Cameron and Clegg the players in this debate? It's simple: in the upcoming election, candidates will be nominated by the parties to stand on their manifesto, and Brown, Cameron and Clegg are the Leaders of their respective parties. SNP candidates will have been nominated by SNP members to stand on the SNP Manifesto, and Alex Salmond is the SNP Leader. That no one will be able to vote for him is irrelevant: hardly anyone will be able to vote for the other three, and where they do, they'll only be able to vote for one of them and that will be to decide whether they should be their local MP - not necessarily Prime Minister!

So if we're going to have a debate, then the SNP should have a part to play in it: they will, after all, have a part to play in the Election and a part to play in the Commons after it has taken place. And as the democratically-elected Leader of the SNP, it is Alex Salmond's right to play that part.