And the Winner is - SNP

The recent local elections in Scotland produced one clear winner - the SNP and one clear runner-up - Labour.  Below is the final tally (with 3 councillors from Dunoon still to be elected) of councillors won by each party, with changes from 2007 in brackets.

SNP 424 (+61)

Labour 394 (+46)

Conservatives 115 (-28)

Liberal Democrats 71 (-95)

Greens 14 (+6)

SSP 1 (-)

Others 201 (+8)

So not only did the SNP secure the most seats, they also enjoyed the biggest gains.  These figures come from the Scot Goes Pop blog and the full article can be read here.  This is by any standards quite a remarkable achievement.  To get an indication of just how good this performance is by the SNP, we need look no further than the Tory party.  In the local elections in England and Wales the Tories did very, very badly losing over 400 councillors.  Many Tories have tried to excuse this poor showing by pointing out that the Tories have been in government in Westminster for two years and that this is just a mid-term blip.  Yet the SNP has been in government in Scotland for five years and is still making gains!

If you relied on the mainstream media, including alas the BBC, for your information you could be forgiven for failing to spot this great SNP victory.  For all the press and the BBC have gone out of their way to portray the results as a victory for Labour and a shattering setback for the SNP.  For details of the misleading, if not outright lying by the media see this post from Wings Over Scotland.  

Not only have the media tried to present the outcome as a setback for the SNP, they have ferociously tried to somehow turn these local elections into a dress rehearsal for the referendum on Independence.  The Daily Mail for example had that well known ultra Unionist, Gerald Warner screaming:  “If they can’t take Glasgow, how can the Nationalists hope to rip Scotland out of the Union?”   Quite why Glasgow should be singled out as opposed to the overall results in Scotland as a whole is never quite explained.  Even in Glasgow, which Labour did retain, the SNP still managed to improve their position on the council.  If this is the best the Unionists can come up with then they are in serious trouble.  For this is the none too subtle subtext to all the media reporting.  Talk up the Unionist vote, even at the expense of the truth.  We have reached the sorry state that arch right wing Tories are now cheering Labour victories.  Anything to preserve the Union.  Whether lying and scaremongering is the best way to save the Union is debatable, but that they have to resort to it does show how desperate the Unionists are.

Scottish Elections - Whither the Unionist Parties?

The recent Scottish Parliamentary elections were a disaster for all three Unionist parties, with each recording their worst result ever.  Their leaders in Scotland have all announced that they will stand down.  So at the very least a new leadership is required.  However a much more serious root and branch review is probably needed.  Already, it seems that every Tom, Dick and Mary has jumped in with their tuppenceworth.  Not to be left behind all this fun, after all when better to kick someone than when they are down, here are some of my own thoughts on the future prospects for the Unionist parties.

From some of the forests of words already written by Unionist politicians and bloggers, one of the great dangers they face is that some of them are still not willing to face up to the scale of the disaster that overtook them last Thursday.  I have just read one Labour supporter claim that the lack of campaign money was the major reason for the scale of Labour’s defeat.   If the Unionist parties are to have a long term future in Scotland then they need to focus on four key issues - policy, mindset, structure and personalities.  

Policy is vital for any political party.  It is even more vital in Scotland where there are currently five parties represented in Parliament, and previously there have been six parties at Holyrood.  So to succeed you need to have a set of policies, or vision for the country, that is both distinctive and inspirational.   While negative messages have a place in any campaign I would contend that a party is likely to more successful if its distinctive message is primarily positive.  That way it is more likely to motivate people to come out and vote and more important to get people to talk to others about the party and their policies.

From a policy perspective while the Tories did as usual have their own right of centre message to offer, it clearly did not inspire many voters.  The LibDems and Labour on the other hand had very little in the way of a clear and easily articulated vision of what kind of Scotland they wanted for the future.  The most distinctive parts of their manifestos were pathetic, narrowly focussed policies - a non-mandatory but somehow mandatory policy on carrying knives for Labour and save the status quo of the current police structures for the LibDems.  Really inspiring stuff!  Neither party had anything constructive or positive to say about how they would make Scotland a better, more prosperous country.

A major problem for the Unionist parties in developing a coherent vision for Scotland is what I term their mindset.  They are after all Unionist parties and as such their prime focus is the UK as a whole.  This works doubly to their disadvantage.  Any vision they have for Scotland is constrained within the UK and the limited powers available to the Scottish Parliament.  While they are prepared to consider some limited additional powers for Scotland, they are all, with the possible exception of the LidDems, at least while in opposition, unwilling to give significant financial and economic powers to Holyrood.  So the most they can offer is to manage Scotland - a little bit of tinkering here and there.  In no way can they even begin to imagine how to transform Scotland - that would require real powers for Holyrood.  To make matters worse, faced with a resurgent SNP all the Unionist parties have retreated into a “save the Union at all costs” mindset.  The more they think about how to preserve the Union the less they question the value Union itself.  Thus every option they come up with has to be framed within the primacy of the UK.  It is this that surely explains why just about all Unionists continue to assert that Scotland is too poor to go it alone.  They are currently trapped.  If the Union is to have any chance of surviving they need to break free of this mindset and more or less start afresh.  Start from the perspective of Scotland first.  In the 21st century, with Scotland as a member of the UN, the WTO and the EU, what additional benefits does Scotland get from the UK?  What benefits could it get from a changed, reformed UK?  Unionists need to come up with some kind of coherent and inspiring answers - soon.

Linked to the mindset issue is the question of the structure of the Unionist parties in Scotland.  While all have the word Scottish in their title, this means little in practice.  Because they are primarily UK parties the word Scottish means nothing more than the location.  Thus the Scottish Labour party is no more than the (UK) Labour party in Scotland.   This of course is a major factor in reinforcing the mindset I referred to above.  It is most clearly seen in the Tory and Labour parties, neither of which has a Scottish leader.  Both Ian Gray and Annabel Goldie were merely the leaders of their respective Parliamentary groups in Holyrood.  Their is no overall leader of either party in Scotland.  In fact the real leader of their parties is their leader in Westminster.  The LibDems have mover furthest in separate structures, in that Tavish Scott, their leader in Holyrood, is also the leader of the whole party in Scotland.  However the Scottish LibDems do not exist as a separate party - they are when all is said and done merely the Scottish branch of the UK LibDems.  This was most evident last year after the UK general election.  The  Scottish LibDem MPs all worked more closely with their fellow MPs from the rest of the UK than they did with their fellow LibDems in Scotland.  Given what everyone knew was likely to happen to the LibDems in Scotland once the UK party went into Coalition with the Tories the question is would a separate Scottish LibDem party ever have agreed to participate in such a Coalition?  

Will any of the Unionist parties go along this route, sometimes dubbed the CSU model.  After the experience of the Christian Democrats in Germany, where in Bavaria the Christian Democrats do not exist as a party, but instead are represented by another party altogether - the Christian Social Union.  The two parties work very closely at the Federal level and have so far at least always presented a joint platform for Federal elections.  However the CSU is and remains primarily a Bavarian party, with no outside interference from elsewhere in Germany.  Once again it all comes down to the mindset of most Unionists.  At present their main focus is the UK.  Until they are prepared to change that and make Scotland their main focus, then little will change, whatever rearrangements are made on the deck.

Finally a word about personalities, and in particular the personal qualities of the leaders.  There are two aspects to this.  One is the public persona of the leaders.  Here there is no doubt that the SNP benefitted from having Alex Salmond as their leader.  After all, even their own supporters recognize that the phenomenal success of the SNP is due in large measure to the larger than life personality of Alex Salmond.  None of the other parties has as yet managed to find anyone of his stature.  Quite why is an interesting question and worthy of further thought.  However it is not only the public persona of leaders that matter.  Their own personal preferences and antipathies all come into play.  For example it is widely claimed that it was the personal hostility of Tavish Scott towards the SNP which prevented the LibDems from even entering into negotiations with the SNP after the previous Scottish elections.  So not only do political parties need to have a leader who can articulate their vision, assuming they have one, and motivate the electorate, they also need to ensure that their leader does not carry any deep seated personal baggage that may scupper their prospects in any coalition negotiations.  Back to the all importance of that mindset again.  Given the scale of the SNP victory last Thursday open hostility to the SNP and by implication the people who voted for them, may not be the wisest move to make.

Scottish Elections - Historic Win for SNP

Well, well, well - after a pretty miserable and uninspiring campaign we end up with the most unexpected and spectacular election result possible.  Against all expectations the SNP win an absolute majority of seats in the Parliament.  Something that everyone thought was impossible.  Scotland uses a modified form of the PR system used in Germany and it was designed pretty much to prevent any one party winning an overall majority.  Yet the SNP did.  The map on the left shows the extent of this success.  The yellow areas show the constituencies that are now SNP.  Red areas are Labour, blue are Tory, while the two orange coloured islands to the north are all that is left of the former LibDem strongholds.  What is even more remarkable about this victory is that in Scotland we have four major parties, five if you include the Greens, contesting elections.  Such a stunning achievement is just way beyond anyone’s wildest imaginings that we still haven’t really got over the shock yet.  To win 45% of the popular vote in a four/five party system is just amazing.  I am of course absolutely delighted and wish the SNP well in their challenging tasks ahead.  Once the dust has settled all sorts of experts will pick over the pieces of the election and try and work out how this all happened.  Here are a few of my initial thoughts.

While the SNP did exceptionally well, the flipside is that all the other parties did exceptionally badly.  Not just the LibDems, but the Tories and Labour.  Even the Greens did badly.  For Labour, Tories and LibDems these are the worst results ever for these parties in Scotland.  Some Tories are trying to claim they came out not too badly.  Not true, their share of the vote went down, while it went up everywhere else in the UK.

A major factor in the vote in Scotland was the collapse of the LibDem vote.  Due primarily to their misguided decision to enter into coalition with the hated Tories at Westminster.  While this might seem to suggest that this was an example of UK politics influencing the Scottish election, I do not think so.  In the first place many LidDem successes in the past were due to gathering the anti Tory vote.  This was certainly the case in North East Fife, where I used to live.  Many people voted LidDem primarily to keep the Tories out.  This was not just for UK elections but for all elections.  Once the LibDems got into bed with the Tories, then their attraction as the anti Tory party went out the window.  Secondly their actual voting record at Westminster and in particular their incomprehensible decision to vote in favour of raising tuition fees for students in England and Wales.  The key here was that all LibDem MPs had signed a written pledge not to do so.  To then so early in the life of a Parliament to break such a solemn pledge took away any credibility they had left.  And of course if they could do this at Westminster then they could do it at Holyrood.  The anti Tory vote had deserted them and you couldn’t trust them anyway.  No wonder their vote collapsed.

A key question then is why did Labour not pick up any of these disgruntled former LibDem voters?  This goes to the heart of Labour’s monumental failure to understand the election up here.  Labour, no doubt buoyed by their success in last year’s UK election, tried to do a simple re-run of that campaign.  Their main strategy was to focus on the core Labour vote and bring that out.  Hence the initial focus on the Tories as the main enemy and bogeyman.   And to a large extent it worked.  The Labour vote did hold up in Labour areas.  Unfortunately for them no-one else seemed interested in voting Labour.  For this was not a re-run of the last UK election.  People were electing a government for Scotland and Labour did not seem to offer much in the way of a positive and practical vision.  One example of this was was the promise to introduce mandatory prison sentences for anyone caught carrying a knife in public.  Widely dismissed by almost all the other parties and by experts in the field, including the police, this was however, probably very popular among core Labour voters.  Alas it almost certainly put off any potential LibDem voters thinking of switching to Labour.

The final point about the election was that this was a Scottish election.  This was another area in which Labour failed badly.  Their initial tactic of trying to fight the Tory government at Westminster and their claim that a Labour victory would annoy David Cameron all gave voters the impression that Labour was more interested in using the election as a way off getting back to power at Westminster rather than presenting themselves as a credible government for Scotland.  For throughout the campaign one message that kept coming up again and again was that most people wanted someone to stand up for Scotland, someone who would put Scotland first.  And all the other main parties, excepting the Greens, are perceived to a greater or lesser extent as branch sections of UK parties.  None of the UK wide parties have as yet fully adjusted to the realities of devolution.   All of them need to somehow become more clearly Scottish.  

What next?  The stunning victory is a bit of a double edged sword for the SNP.  Now that they have an overall majority in Parliament they can get any measure they want passed.  Equally of course they will have no one else to blame to things go wrong.  This will be most clearly felt in relation to independence - the raison d’être of the SNP.  They have promised to hold a referendum on independence within the next five years.  But when?  As everyone knows only a minority of Scots are currently in favour of independence.  How will the SNP go about trying to convince a majority of Scots to take that next step?  And how will the Unionist parties react?  All this against a background of weak economic growth and severe cuts in the Scottish budget coming from London.   Politics has just got much more interesting. 

Scottish Election - only a week to go!

We are now into the final six days of the campaign and according to recent opinion polls the SNP have managed to overturn a substantial Labour lead to become the party most likely to win the election.  As Scotland has a modified form of PR, very similar to that used in Germany, winning an election rarely, if ever, means winning an overall majority of seats in the Parliament.  It looks like the SNP is on course to become the largest party, but nothing can be taken for granted.  Polls continue to show a large number of Don’t Knows and a lot can happen in the last few days.

So Labour might still pull it off and win most of the seats.  It does look unlikely and in truth they do not deserve to return to power.  They have a very weak and uninspiring leader in Ian Gray, who has twice been caught out running away scared.  Once from meeting members of the public and once from meeting up with Alex Salmond.  The Labour campaign has been pretty pathetic.   They have run a relentlessly negative campaign and with the exception of their discredited policy on carrying knives, have come up with nothing new or even interesting to offer the Scottish electorate.  They even started by trying to fight a rerun of the last UK election.  Belatedly they have now turned their ire on the SNP, but by pinching key SNP policies, such as no student fees and a council tax freeze, Labour has very little positive to say.  As Malc, one of the contributing bloggers on Better Nation, puts it, “I don’t know that much about what Labour are about - and I really don’t know what they’d do in government.”

All in all it has been a pretty uninteresting campaign.  Both the LibDems and the Tories have been hamstrung by the Coalition at Westminster.  Most Scots just don’t trust the Tories and the LibDems are suffering the consequences of their sell-out in London.  The Greens, as usual, have been pretty much ignored by the media, despite their regular presence at Holyrood and appear to be on course to increase their number of MSPs, if only slightly.  While the far left has never overcome its disastrous split.  Which has left the SNP and Labour to slog it out.  The SNP has run on its record as a minority government and offers a bit more of the same.  A competent, if unadventurous team.  It may be enough and should be enough, given the lack of thinking from the Labour party.  However there are a lot of serious issues facing Scotland in the near future, in particular the structure and delivery of public services.  It would have been nice to have seen them debated in seriousness during the election.

Not everything can be blamed on the parties as this has been a most unusual campaign.  While the parliamentary elections have been the main topic up here in Scotland, there have been two other matters of UK wide significance battling for media and popular coverage.  The AV referendum has taken up more of the airspace on UK wide media, while there has been the small matter of a royal wedding to distract everyone.  The wedding seems to have gone off successfully and as Alex Salmond was invited to attend, let’s hope that the SNP have an equally successful day on May 5th.

Labour running scared of the SNP?

This seems to me the rather surprising impression from reading about Labour’s manifesto for the upcoming Scottish Parliamentary elections.  This was also confirmed by the Ian Gray personal political broadcast the same evening.  For what both have in common is that Labour in Scotland has decided to focus their fire on the Tories.  Which is rather strange given that the Tories have never been in power in Scotland since the start of devolution way back in 1999.  The big two parties in Scotland are Labour and the SNP and the SNP is the party currently in government.  So why the reluctance to take the fight to them?

This can only be because Labour know that in a straight Labour v SNP contest, the SNP would win quite handsomely.  Recent opinion polls have confirmed that the SNP is winning considerable electoral support against Labour.  However if the fight is between Labour and the Tories, then Labour win at a canter.  This is essentially what happened last year at the UK general election.  Scotland was the only part of the UK where the Labour vote held up or even increased.  Labour presented itself as the only party which could stop the Tories from winning power at Westminster.  However despite their success in Scotland, we still ended up with a Tory government, albeit in coalition with the LibDems.  

Voting Labour last year did not stop the Tories winning power and nothing that happens in May in Scotland will remove the Tories from power in London.  So why make opposing the Tories the central, almost the only plank of your campaign?  It can only be a sign of desperation on the part of Labour to think this tactic can work again.  Now that the Tories are in power in Westminster, who is more likely to stand up for Scotland - Labour or the SNP?  Only likely to be one winner here.  Perhaps the focus on the Tories is also further evidence that Labour in Scotland is still very much in thrall to its masters in London, where the Tories are the enemy.

As regards the commitments in the manifesto, there is nothing very radical or inspiring and a lot that seems impractical or very costly.  The emphasis on economic renewal and job creation and the promise to eradicate youth unemployment by the end of the next parliament is very ambitious and to be welcomed if it can be achieved.  However there is only a limited amount that any Scottish government can do in economic matters as these are almost wholly reserved powers for Westminster.  It seems odd for a Unionist party to make the central plank of their promises something that is almost wholly dependent on what the Tory led Westminster government does.  Labour can hardly start advocating for more and more economic and financial powers to be given to Scotland, can they?  The SNP can though and no doubt will.

The manifesto also seems to contain some very badly thought out, and badly costed commitments.  For example the policy to impose mandatory jail sentences for all those caught carrying knives in public.  Neither Ian Gray nor Andy Kerr seem to have any real idea of just how many more prisoners this policy will mean nor just how much extra money it will require.  Not to mention that senior police officers believe this policy could result in criminalising more people than it deters.  If this policy is anything to go by, then Labour’s whole manifesto is an accident waiting to happen.  For a more detailed analysis on this policy the ever informative Lallands Peat Worrier has some interesting facts and comments.

Scottish Elections - the campaigning has begun

At long last Parliament has been dissolved and the campaigning has now begun in earnest.  As the actual election is not until 5th May, there is a lot of campaigning to go.  It has kicked off with another opinion poll and various policy announcements from the main parties.  We have even had the first of three TV debates involving the party leaders.  Well, at least four of the parties.  For some reason the Greens, despite representation in each of the three previous Parliaments, have been excluded from these debates.  

Early impressions.  Policy wise there does not seem to be a great deal of difference between Labour and the SNP.  Labour has after lots of dithering finally decided they too would freeze Council Tax for at least the next two years.  Nobody really likes the Council Tax and how to change it was a big issue four years ago.  With just about everyone in favour of a freeze it is unlikely to be such an important issue this time around.  Which is a great pity as the whole future of the structure, functions and financing of local government is a major issue facing the country and ought to be a central issue for debate during the election.  Obviously too controversial for the main parties.

What will be the main issues this time around?  Too early to say, as yet.  Everyone is in favour of growing the economy, increasing employment and protecting public services.  Well, apart from the Tories, who are all for cutting swathes of public services.  A couple of issues may emerge as significant - funding universities and nuclear energy.  With the massive changes in university funding in England, especially the rise in tuition fees to up to £9,000 per year, the future funding of Scottish universities has suddenly become a bit of a hot potato.  Again, apart from the Tories, all the other parties are against introducing tuition fees in Scotland.  This though could prove difficult for the LibDems, as their colleagues in Westminster are part of the Coalition which has raised tuition fees down south.  Who will trust them up here?  Labour too have a bit of a problem as it was previous Labour governments which first introduced tuition fees.  Can they really be trusted on this issue?  If this does become a major issue then the SNP and to a lesser extent the Greens are the likely beneficiaries.  The recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan has brought nuclear energy back to the forefront of political debate.  As the recent Land elections in Germany have shown nuclear power plants are even less popular than before.  Once again the Tories are a bit out on their own here as firm advocates of nuclear energy.  However, the LibDems and Labour have a bit of a murky past to overcome.  Some senior members of both parties are still active supporters of nuclear power.  While in government at Westminster Labour was committed to building more nuclear power stations, as are the LibDems as part of the Coalition deal with the Tories.  So, as with tuition fees, if this does become one of the key issues, then the SNP and the Greens, who have both consistently opposed any new nuclear build, will be the clear beneficiaries.

 The big elephant in the room is of course the money which will be available to the new Scottish government.  As part of the Coalition’s programme to cut the UK deficit, the block grant which Westminster graciously sends up to Edinburgh will in real terms be reduced year on year for the lifetime of the next Parliament.  While most parties, again with the exception of the Tories, will oppose these cuts, there is not much they can do about it, lacking any power at Westminster, which controls the purse strings.  So it will be all about how to manage the cuts here in Scotland.  In this, the SNP and the Greens have a possible important advantage in that they can and no doubt will argue that with independence there would be no need for any of these cuts.  So they can try to deflect at least some of the criticism that will come their way by putting all the blame on the Tory/LibDem Coalition in London.  Labour will try to do the same, but have two major handicaps with this approach.  Firstly Labour was the UK government in charge when the financial crisis broke and at the last UK election Labour promised severe cuts, just not quite as severe or fast as the Tories.  Secondly Labour as a Unionist party, cannot use the option of independence as a way out of the crisis.  As for the Tories and the LibDems it would be very difficult for them to argue persuasively against the cuts while their colleagues are in power in London.   Once again if the issue of who is best placed to protect Scotland from the worst excesses of the LidDem/Tory Coalition emerges as a significant factor in the campaign, the SNP and the Greens are likely to benefit most from this.

However as yet the campaign has not really caught on with the public at large.  All the parties have still to publish their manifestoes.  The TV debate was a pretty dull affair, most noticeable for Labour’s leader, Ian Gray’s snarling finger jabbing interventions.  Alas he had little of substance to say.  Annabel Goldie for the Tories, was as charming and irrelevant as usual.  Alex Salmond was the clear winner for most observers, without ever having to do very much.  The most recent opinion poll confirms that the SNP seems to be closing the gap with Labour - they are now virtually neck and neck.  The LibDem vote continues to disappear.  This could well be the crucial factor in the final outcome - where do the previous LibDem voters place their vote?  For, unless there is a dramatic reversal of fortunes for them, the LibDems are on target for one of their worst electoral results since God knows when.  We will need to wait for a few more opinion polls for some enlightenment on this one. 

The polls also show that Alex Salmond is by far the most popular of the party leaders, with even Annabel Goldie pushing both Ian Gray and Tavish Scott into near oblivion.  As this is not a presidential election and there are still lots of undecideds out there, we should not read too much into this.  However it does show that if the election comes down to who do you most trust to lead the country as First Minister, then the SNP are likely to do well.  As Labour have seemingly decided not to compete against the SNP on policies, then this may be a key issue after all.

Vote Labour - Friend of the Big Supermarkets

As the start of the Scottish election campaign draws ever closer it will be fascinating to see how the Labour party tries to present itself to the electorate.  Recent shenanigans do not seem to have helped them that much.

First up is the recently passed Scottish Budget for 2011.  In an effort to mitigate at least some of the swingeing cuts imposed by the Tory\LibDem government in London, the SNP proposed to raise £30 million by an additional levy on the largest supermarkets and out-of-town retail parks.  Money which could go to keep some people in jobs.  But the Labour party, along with the Tories and the LibDems voted the proposal down.

Now I can understand why the Tories, as the traditional friend of big business would vote this way.  But why would the Labour party, the so-called representative of the working man and woman, whip their MSPs into line in order to defend the rising profits of big supermarkets?   Not clear how easy it will be for them to defend this decision during the election campaign.

Labour seem to have compounded their potential difficulties over the budget by voting against it in the final vote.  This, despite the fact that the final package included additional funding for apprenticeships, which Labour had claimed was one of their key demands.  Yet they tried to vote the budget down.  Seems they will vote against anything, no matter if they agree with it, just to oppose the SNP.

This can even more clearly be seen with the recent revelations about the decision to release Al Megrahi on compassionate grounds.  The investigation into the background to this decision reveals that the then Labour government in Westminster was very keen to secure Al Megrahi’s release.  They feared the consequences if he died in a Scottish prison.  They even went so far as to facilitate the Libyans with details of how to apply for compassionate release.  Yet when the decision to release Al Megrahi was announced, the leadership of the Labour party in the Scottish Parliament let all hell break loose with their condemnation of the decision.

What we need to know now is did Ian Gray know that his own government in Westminster was actively promoting this result?  Or was he kept in the dark by Gordon Brown and his Labour colleagues at Westminster?  If so it shows that the Labour party at Westminster either did not trust Gray or at best regarded him as a nobody.  In which case why should the Scottish people have any faith in him.

Of course if he did know, then he is an outright liar and hypocrite.  I suspect he was kept in the dark.  However it does somewhat beggar belief that after the decision had been taken, that he made no effort to find out what his masters in Westminster thought of the matter.  Remember the Prime Minister was Gordon Brown, a fellow Scot and MP for Dunfermline West.  Nothing easier than picking up the phone and asking.

Ian Gray made much of his assertion that if he were First Minister, then Al Megrahi would not have been released.  This just does not ring true.  We are to believe that Ian Gray would have rejected the strong and forceful arm twisting that Gordon Brown, on behalf of the UK government and the leader of the Labour party, would have exerted on him?  I think not.

Yet Gray and the Labour party in Scotland still stick to the line that they knew nothing and asked nothing.  Just about sums them up.

Scottish Election 2011 - Runners and Riders

Although the election itself will not be held until early May, we already have a good idea of the field.  All the usual suspects will be there with one or two surprise runners to add a bit of excitement to the race.  As the elections for the Scottish Parliament use a modified form of Proportional Representation - based on the German system - this means that no one party is likely to win an overall majority.  Also the smaller parties are more likely to win a few seats than at Westminster.  All of which adds to the interest and uncertainty of the election and makes predictions even more foolhardy.  Not that that has ever stopped anyone.

The Runners

While we will not know exactly who will stand where until April, we do know that the election will be dominated by the four main parties in Scotland.  Here is how they currently stand.  The SNP, who are the current incumbents, have held up surprisingly well in opinion polls.  Despite the inevitable opprobrium that attaches to all governments and the fact that as a minority government the SNP has been unable to implement most of its key proposals, the SNP are on course to do as well or even better than four years ago.  Which when you consider that all the mainstream media - TV, newspapers etc - are all agin them, is quite an achievement.

What  somewhat tarnishes this achievement is that Labour appear to be doing even better.  For the last year or so they have consistently been in the lead in voting intentions.  So this is very much an election for Labour to lose.  What seems to have helped Labour in Scotland is losing power at Westminster.   As the Tories are still a very toxic brand in Scotland, Labour has presented itself as the party best able to protect Scotland from the worst excesses of the Tory/LibDem Coalition in London.  This may prove more difficult as the election draws nearer.  By then Labour will have to spell exactly how it will protect Scotland and what cuts it will make in public services.  At some point they will have to stop just blaming the SNP.

The LIbDems and the Conservatives are in a potentially very dodgy situation up here.  The Tories nave been pretty much persona non grata in Scotland since the early 1980s.  They only survive due the use of PR in Scottish elections - ironic, given that they are still vociferously opposed to any form of PR.  Their vote rarely rises above 17/18%, so it probably represents their core support.  In which case they may not lose much if any votes in the election.  Still no evidence of a Cameron bounce for them up here though.

Things are very different for the LibDems.  Unlike the Tories the LibDems have for decades had a very positive image and profile in Scotland.  They have benefitted from a succession of well liked leaders, going back to Jo Grimond and more recently Ming Campbell and Charles Kennedy.  They have also positioned themselves on the left of the political spectrum and were successful Coalition partners for Labour in the first two Scottish governments.  However all that has changed, perhaps utterly, with their decision to enter into Coalition with the Tories at Westminster.  Much of their support, as I know from my own personal experience, came from potential Labour or SNP voters, eager to stop a Tory from winning.   They are unlikely to benefit from any anti Tory vote now.  Some of their candidates are well known and liked, so there is unlikely to be a complete meltdown of their previous vote.  However it will be difficult for them to make a convincing case for voting LibDem, given the shambles of their broken promises at Westminster. 

As for the smaller parties, it is shaping up to be quite a mini race of its own.  The Greens have done relatively well in Scottish elections and have managed to get at least one MSP elected in each of the three previous elections.  They currently have two MSPs, though one is retiring.  Though their MSPs are well liked and highly regarded the Greens as a party have still failed to make much of an impression on the electorate.  Though they do have a positive vision for Scotland, too often the media only highlights what they are against.  And that seems to be a lot of fairly popular things - cars, roads, bridges, airplanes etc.  At this stage it looks like the Greens will do well to stick at two MSPs.

Much of the excitement from the election and most of the blood and guts is likely to come from the left wing parties.  Not sure at the moment how many of them will stand, but it seems that at three socialist/left wing parties will stand.  In 2003 combining as one party they managed to get six MSPs elected.  However with the self-immolation of their star turn, Tommy Sheridan,  each little party has gone its separate way and they currently have no MSPs in Parliament.  What will add to the fun and games is the likelihood that two star turns will be competing against each other in Glasgow.  George Galloway, having lost his Westminster seat in London, has turned up once again in Glasgow, as the standard bearer for the Respect party.  While a well kent face, he is possible up against another well kent face, and arguably a prettier one, in Gail Sheridan, wife of Tommy.  Promises to be a humdinger of a fight.  One that is sure to generate lots of media coverage - almost certainly for the wrong reasons.  Whatever the case the prospects for all of these minor left wing parties does not look good.

The Riders

Unlike the race amongst the parties, the leadership race seems a pretty much a one horse affair.  Alex Salmond, current First Minister and leader of the SNP, is so far ahead of his competitors that in boxing terms it would be called a mismatch.  For a decade or more Alex Salmond had been the outstanding politician in Scotland.  Eloquent, witty and charming he is a formidable campaigner.  Though Labour are well ahead in the polls, no-one should underestimate Salmond’s ability to expose Labour’s claims.  If we take in the other key positions as well, then John Swinney and Nicola Sturgeon would also appear a more attractive and competent pair than anything Labour can offer.

None of the other main parties has anyone of Salmond’s stature or experience.  Ian Gray, Labour’s leader is as leaden and uninspiring as his name suggests.  Annabelle Goldie of the Tories is regarded as a well liked great aunt, but has made no advances on increasing the Tory vote.  Tavish Scott, leader of the LibDems, has so far made little impression on the wider electorate.  Though their biggest problem is likely to be the albatross of their participation in the nasty Coalition in London.

As mentioned above, both George Galloway and Gail Sheridan are likely to bring a bit of glamour to the hustings if not much else.  In previous elections at least one well-known person has been elected as an independent MSP.  Margo MacDonald, one of our most loved and formidable politicians has stood and been elected as an independent.  Alas she is to stand down, on health grounds this time.  It is unlikely that anyone of similar stature will replace her.

This is a brief overview of the likely runners in May.  In a short while we should begin to get some details about what they would like to do if they ever did win power.  After all this is not just a game.