When Less is More for Alex

Speaking to COSLA's annual conference last week Alex Salmond said:

"This Government will not sit idly by and accept cuts imposed from Westminster."

Looks to me like the no cuts message the SNP have been spouting for months.

Yet on Saturday at his party's General Election launch he said:

"Because at this election the message is simple.

"MORE NATS MEANS LESS CUTS"

It may be simple but it is not clear.

He's been accusing the other parties and even in this speech of having the "axe sharpened and poised" yet for all his rhetoric he has just announced that even voting SNP there will be cuts. Where was the clarion cry of "U-Turn"?

I'll be fair earlier on he did also say:

"The London parties talk about cuts as though it was all about numbers on a balance sheet. But we know different. Behind those cuts will be real people, real services, real jobs.

Thing is the Liberal Democrats are aware that having to make cuts to make up for Labour and the bankers folly can make an impact on people lives. That is why we are balancing cuts with holding back on some of our objectives. Balancing taxes so that the lowest paid don't suffer while we find ways to pay for things fairly. We've also promised to balance cuts with investment in employment and education opportunities so that those that have been suffering will have a way to make things better both for themselves and for our economy.

Salmond says "we as a community know the value of looking out for each other; the value of investing in education, in housing and in health." Dare I ask where is the new investment in school infrastructure since the SNP came to power, the investment they they promised to match brick for brick has not been forthcoming.

STV = Salmond Televion?

Is Scottish Televion (STV) truly an independent broadcaster or has the Scottish Government been manipulating it for its own PR?

The reason the question has to asked is that a letter has come to light between STV chief executive Rob Woodward and First Minister Alex Salmond. The letter gives a commitment tot STV coverage of the Scottish Government's Homecoming festival last summer and mentions plans to introduce more Scottish programmes. However a telling line is:

"I will write separately to Linda Fabiani (then the culture minister] to introduce our commercial director, David Connelly, to explore how we can incorporate our innovative thinking around television exposure to the benefit of the government."

What can the phrase 'to the benefit of the government' mean? Well The Times Scottish edition is saying that a redacted amount of taxpayers money was being used to sponsor three television series made by STV under the banner of Homecoming Scotland. The shows had an overall budget of £5 million. This from a government that is complaining that Westminister is not giving them enough money for essential elements.

I did comment that a recent SNP party political broadcast looked like a Visit Scotland advert. Is it true that three whole series have been paid from from taxpayers money to be a elongated advert for Scottishness and the SNP agenda?

As Iain Smith the Liberal Democrat Culture Spokesman said:

"Independent braodcasters aren't there to act as PR agencies for the government."

The shows in question which included Made in Scotland and Scotland Revealed replaced The Bill and Doc Martin in the schedules. The former highlighted Scottish icons and the second looked at scenery, however the first did have a over nationalistic approach in some of its subject matter and presentation.

Was this another staging post of independence by stealth?

Nicola - I Made a Mistake Over 'Mistake'

"I regret the use of the word 'mistake' to describe Mr Rauf's offence.

"As I hope will become clear from other parts of the letter, I did not intend to downplay the seriousness of the crime that had been committed.

"However, I accept the use of the word mistake was open to that interpretation."

So said Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon yesterday in her ministerial statement about her letter to the court regarding Abdul Rauf. She also went further to say that her appeal to the sheriff to consider an alternative to a custodial sentence was more in keeping with her former occupation as a solicitor than as an MSP.

The other week the First Minister saying he supported his deputy's letter 110%. Saying she was duty bound to write everything that she did. As Annabel Goldie pointed out admitting that she did not do everything right showed her candour, humility and courage. She contrasted this with the last First Minister's Questions before the recess saying:

"We got the usual Alex Salmond decibel delivery of rhetoric and arrogance.

"Where there should have been humility and reflection all we got was bluster. Where there should have been an apology, all we got was defiance."

The problem of delaying a statement from Nicola until now, and not having a plan to deal with this on Thursday 11 February when it broke was now that the First Minister has shown his knee-jerkedness once again. Instead of being a head of reason looking at the full picture, he jumped immediately to the defensive. If Ms Sturgeon had indeed been prepared a similar statement to Parliament she should have been allowed to make it then. As it was the First Minister was prepared to let this boil fester.

Sadly this is the head of the Government that is meant to be dealing with Westminster on a number of issues regarding Scotland's future. How can we trust a calm approach from him to such sworn enemies. We already know the mantra he shouts at Westminster, they are cutting Scotland's budget he proclaims, while at the same time he is arguing that Scotland can stand on its own two feet as he heads onwards with his desire for independence.

Maybe all the calls for resignation after that particular Thursday were for the wrong head. Maybe the First Minister should resign making way for the candour, humility and courage of his deputy, then maybe things can get done a little easier around here.

This Wimmen Tis Fa Turning

Once upon a time, not so long ago, a grey haired leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party said:

"You turn if you want to. The Lady's not for turning."

What would Baroness Thatcher make of this?

Before 12:30 during First Minister's questions Annabel Goldie told the First Minister:

"Many questions need to be answered and must be answered if Miss Sturgeon is to retain the confidence of this Parliament."

Yet within a couple of hours when an emergency meeting of the Bureau met to discuss the possibility of an emergency statement, the SNP said no and when it went to the vote the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Nationalist Party as they have done so often voted with the SNP so those questions will not be answered swiftly.

Annabel is not so much the iron lady, as the ironing lady, dashing away with the smoothing iron, to smooth the path for a increasingly trouble Alex Salmond and the SNP who have also announced that their plans to introduce the Referendum Bill plans were now shifting to after the general election.

A Positive, Serious Contribution Deserves a Serious Answer

No my ears were not deceiving me. That is what Alex Salmond replied to Tavish Scott's question regarding colleges admission (or not) findings and youth unemployment in Scotland.

Basically Tavish pointed out that 85% of colleges in Scotland have had to turn away applicants this year, many for the first time ever with some having seen a 800% increase in applications. In West Lothian the number of applicants has increased by 41% over last year, Oatridge college who have never had to turn away applications before saw a 74% increase in applications and turned away 300. These findings came from a Liberal Democrat survey of the the 43 colleges in Scotland looking at the numbers of applicants each has had to turn away over the last 3 years, the first of its kind to be published. On top of this the number of our young people claiming Job Seekers allowance over the past year has risen by 35%.

Jeremy Purvis the Finance Spokesperson has said about the findings in the report:

"Too many young people have been hit twice. They can’t get a job and now they can’t get a college place. What government can do is give them the opportunity to gain the skills and experiences that will help them get the most from economic recovery when it comes. Scotland as a whole will benefit from having more people ready and active for the workplace."

An increase in college places and training opportunities is one of the issues that the Lib Dems have been applying pressure on the SNP Government to provide for to help in this recession.

Alex Salmond's response to the actual question "Will the First Minister agree that action taken by his Government in this Budget must increase college places across Scotland?" is encouraging as is his acknowledgement that a recession inevitably increases the demand on college places.

Jeff has already pointed out that he thinks the answer "dropping the jousting" he gave Iain Gray and Annabel Goldie is a "clear signal that the budget would reflect Tavish's concerns" I would tend to agree, it seems that lessons have been learnt over the last 12 months on both sides.

Bursting Dale's Bubble

Yesterday modesty almost forbid Mr Dale posting some glowing comments about himself from the Daily Mail including this (readers of a delicate anti-Dale deposition should look away now):

"There are many reasons to celebrate Iain Dale. The author, journalist and aspirant politician for the Conservative Party is not only a much-valued contributor to GQ, he’s also the publisher of Total Politics magazine and has become something of an online deity because of his celebrated blog, Iain Dale’s Diary."

Well of course Total Politics is holding its own Election Question Times* at a selection of City Inns.

• 4 February, Birmingham - Andrew Mitchell MP, Jacqui Smith MP, John Hemming MP, Marc Reeves (ex-editor Birmingham Post)
• 11 February, Manchester - Hazel Blears MP (tbc), Graham Bradley MP, Mark Hunter MP, David Ottewell (Manchester Evening News)
• 18 February, Leeds - David Davis MP, Hilary Benn MP (tbc), Greg Mulholland MP
• 25 February, London - Tony McNulty MP, Eric Pickles MP (tbc), Lynne Featherstone MP, Steve Richards (The Independent)

You notice something about that list?

Not a single venue is Scotland....and....not a single SNP panellist on any of them. But do I hear Alex Salmond up in arms? Was my February copy of Total Politics confiscated at the border in its clear sleeve? Are Nats taking Total Politics down from the shelves of WH Smiths across Scotland and burning this promoter of only the Unionist parties and their politics in the streets outside?

So I guess Iain Dale is just a minor deity. One that fails to register on the great ego that is Alex Salmond's radar. In the words of Terry Pratchett but a small god.

*Panel line-up may change without notice.

What If Alex Faced the Cameras on National TV

Ok it must be Alex's time of the month. Yeah you guessed it once again he his making headlines regarding the Prime Ministerial debates. The BBC are in a sit down chat with the man who not only has no aspirations to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but who also at some point next year will no longer want to serve it from its Parliament.

I've mentioned before the different claims of other parties, UKIP the Green, the DUP and even the BNP on various factors over the man who leads the challenge in a mere 59 seats. But today I'm going to humour him and the SNP supporters and imagine that Alex Salmond actually gets to be in the debate. Now the format has not been set out for any of the three debates so questions may come the audience in attendance, a chairman or may come from the other leaders in the studio. So here we go here are some of the questions or supplementaries that Alex may have to answer.

When you become Prime Minister what would you party do for....?

I'm leaving the rest of this question blank. The only time any SNP leader becomes Prime Minister would be when they started to win seats in England, or if unfortunately after entering a coalition the SNP deputy leader took on the caretaker Prime Ministerial reigns while the larger partner went about the process of selecting the actual next Prime Minister. As this may well be the preamble to any number of questions in this debate how is Salmond or any other SNP spokesperson going to be able to play these with a straight bat without looking stupid.

Mr Salmond, you fought hard to get into this debate yet you are leaving the commons, what is the point?

It is bound to come up isn't it. Alex Salmond has been fighting long and hard to get into these debates yet is stepping down in the election. Indeed any press release from the SNP says that they want Alex Salmond in the debates so there are variations on this question. It may have the addition that many people cannot vote for you yet you have fought for your democratic right to represented (what about other UK wide parties etc).

You want a referendum on Independence but are going to have to join with the Conservative and Unionist Party to do so, is this a marriage or rather a divorce of convenience?

This could well be a question that makes both Salmond and Cameron squirm. Of course well now that such an Alliance is merely a convenience for both side. If a referendum passes the Conservative hold on power in Scotland increases, if it fails they would like like being the good guys in certain Scottish eyes and may be able to squeeze the odd nationalist vote in certain seats. For Salmond to admit that his fate lies in the hand of the Conservative and Unionist Party shows just what a level of inferiority he actually holds. He hasn't got the majority of seats or votes in Scotland that would force a hand he has to go begging bowl in hand to get the whole reason d'etre of his single issue party (let's face it there only one issue of their 2007 manifesto that is still standing in tact) moved upon.

The danger as any Lib Dem will happily tell you of appearing too eager for one specific side, other than your own, to succeed in an election but not by enough that they need your help always leads to trouble.

It leads to the follow up.

Suppose you get you referendum and it fails, will you remain in coalition and what will your party do for the people of the rest of the UK seeing as Mr Cameron won't let you vote on devolved issues?

The clash of the West Lothian answers will again have them both squirming. The Tories have suggested that they will stop Scottish MPs voting on English only matters. (I do wonder if the same will apply to only let Northern Irish, Welsh and Scottish MPs take votes on the future of their various devolved states). So shoring up a majority with the support of a Scottish only party surely defeats the object. Stopping maybe three of his own members and (I'll amuse the Nats further) 20 SNP MPs may not be enough to get any legislation through, including stopping Scottish MPs having a vote on English matters. Of course Salmond's answer to the West Lothian Question looks straight forward, do away with the Union. But thankfully most Scots are of the option that isn't the way to go.

However, the answer of what an SNP aligned with the Tories could possibly do could well harm not only the SNPs chances, and as for the Tories they will not want the Salmond claims of we can only do this with Dave's help to cause their own votes in marginals to do a wobbly and vote for the other guys. Salmond's grand plan to say Dave is our man may well unravel under the heat of the studio lights and lead onward to the ballot box.

Actually you know now that I think of all the booby traps of question for both Salmond and the leader of the Conservative and Nationalist government to answer the more I want to see Salmond in the debates. It will help the sitting Lib Dems in Tory marginal hopes. It could well lead to a hung parliament of even greater need for a strong third party to back it up, it could actually lead to Nick Clegg getting some fairness into a programme of Government. I think Salmond's persistence is going to be his undoing and in a good way with it that of Dave's agenda of words.

You know I just may have been wrong to want to steer Salmond away from the spotlight of the National stage. I do hope the questions are up to speed to show up the ludicrously of the SNP being there, their failure to keep their end of the bargain for Scotland, and makes them into a laughing stock on National TV.

All They Want for Christmas is Votes

Earlier in the month Jeff said that the "storm over Alex Salmond's choice of Christmas card really quite remarkable and not a little bit depressing." Here is the card that he is talking about from the Scottish First Minister.



He went on the say:

"The accusation that Salmond has politicised Christmas is part of a growing trend for everything to be reduced to a petty level, and I do mean all parties for that."

So he seems to admit that there is a little politicising going on with Salmond's choice of imagery, however today the Times have run a report on what the other National leaders have sent out this year.

First we have the Prime Minister Gordon Brown, his card designed by the 19 year-old winner of an environmental photography competition.



Well there is a bit of Christmas in there with the Holly and a decoration hanging on it. Though maybe this is one decoration that the Brown's will come to when unpacking them next Christmas, and years thereafter and say "do you remember when?". But then again when he is in so much danger of not living behind the famous imagery of that door is he using it as a subliminal political message to return him through that door at some point this year.

David Cameron's scene is a snow covered tree.

But obviously he has been taking advise from Tory supported Kirsty Allsop in that it is all about 'location, location, location'. The tree of course is situated right in front of the clock tower of the Palace of Westminster*. The image is also cut out into the shape of the Conservative Party's symbol.

So maybe Jeff is right all the parties are clearly at it in politicising their Christmas cards. Except we haven't seen Nick Clegg's yet.

This wasn't designed by a child in a local school in the constituency, though Jeff did condemn Ian Gray for doing what a lot of Parliamentarians do in choosing their Christmas cards in this way (including SNP ones, whoops). It is actually is drawn by 8 year-old Antonio and 5 year-old Alberto Clegg. I guess in future years the proud dad will not be allowed to employ his family members in this way.

On a personal level I like the fact that Nick's card really is a family Christmas card. My elder nephew's school produce a card for each of the kids each year (may mean I get two this year as they are both at the same school). These are now a constant part of my Christmas decoration box. They are charming and cute, a reminder of what Christmas is about or at least who it is most special for. The other three no matter how you look at it contain some sort of political subplot. The Clegg card is something that many families send out every year.

Meanwhile my two nephews are seeing their Uncle Stephen and Aunt Jacqui in the same room for the first time ever in their lives this Christmas (apart from the elder's dedication service). She does work as a paediatric Doctor in Australia so coming back at this time of year isn't always possible.

* Any of you who though it was in front of Big Ben better not be hoping to win that QI game under the tree this Christmas. Big Ben is just the name of the deepest sounding bell of the peel in the tower.

Time For Alex to Wake Up and Cut the Big Bosses Pay

Alex Salmond keeps telling us he has the right to govern Scotland and to an extent he is right, he party does have the largest block in Holyrood. But his decision in 2007 to form a minority Government means that he has to work with others to get things done. If Aaron Sorkin were to really want to top The West Wing in behind the scenes dealing he should really look at the foot of the Royal Mile.

When Labour announced the Pre-Budget Report the SNP immediate reaction was to snipe about the cuts that would end up being made to the Scottish budget. That is the reaction of opposition not Government, and here comes the rub. We are in a recession, not just in the UK but also in Scotland. Therefore the ability to raise taxes, whilst stimulating the economy and keeping up levels of spending is difficult. If Salmond doubts that he should ask any person trying to make ends meet on a tight budget.

Today Tavish Scot has offered a hand to ensure the 2010-11 budget passes. Many across the country have taken pay cuts either in actual terms or real terms over the last year just to survive. Many of these have been on the lower pay levels and took the cut to ensure that their bills would continue to be paid, after all a job is better than no job. Yet at the top end of the scale the people who have some responsibility for the budgets, the policies the initiatives that we have gotten into are insistent on maintaining the level of pay increase they have become accustomed to.

The proposal is simple, cut the pay for the top earners working for quangos, health boards, councils, universities and government agencies by 5%. By doing so it protests the pay of those working in the front line and frees up some money to maintain other budgets. As Tavish said:

"We need to see the highest paid across Scotland in the public sector taking their fair share of the financial pain that we are all in.

"And we want to make sure that we protect people on the lowest incomes working in the public sector by taking something out of the top level."

As I blogged earlier it was the question that Tavish raised with the First Minister on Thursday. There are 1,200 in NHS Scotland alone earning over £100,000.

Alex Still Swerving Tough Questions

Yesterday Tavish Scott asked the First Minister Alex Salmond about the top end of health service pay in Scotland. Here are his reasons why.



Here is the transcript of the exchange:

3. Tavish Scott (Shetland) (LD): To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet.

The First Minister (Alex Salmond): The next meeting of Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Tavish Scott: The sum of £11 billion in the chancellor's pre-budget report is marked down as "efficiency savings". It shows the depths of crisis brought upon this country by Labour that there is £1.5 trillion of consumer debt, banks are not regulated properly and public sector spending is based on a property price bubble that Labour claimed would never end.

An Audit Scotland report on NHS boards, which was published this morning, makes sober reading. On efficiency, the report says that it will be difficult for some boards

"to achieve the required level of savings without any negative impact on the services they provide."

Does the First Minister agree with Audit Scotland?

The First Minister: I agree with Audit Scotland when it praises the financial performance of the NHS in Scotland and says that most of the key targets were met. We should congratulate the national health service and its staff throughout Scotland on achieving that.

No one pretends that, given the financial clouds emanating from Westminster, budget decisions will be anything other than extremely difficult. That is why I hope that the Liberal Democrats will get behind John Swinney's financial proposals, which, of course, protect the NHS in Scotland.

Tavish Scott: It would be much easier to get behind those proposals if Mr Salmond would answer the specific question that Audit Scotland put to him this morning.

With tough times in the health service, the priority must surely be for nurses and doctors to be in post and for services to be kept open. However, health boards themselves have released new figures under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, which show that more than 2,100 people in the Scottish health service get paid more than £100,000 per year—they make a total of more than £300 million every year, £30 million of which is in bonuses. Will the First Minister guarantee that those very well-paid people—not the nurses, carers and cleaners, who earn a fraction of that money—will shoulder the burden? Would that not be a fair way to protect front-line services?

The First Minister: To protect workers in the health service we had better not follow the proposals from the Liberal Democrats in London, which, of course, would hit the pay of key workers across the national health service.

Let us look at the Audit Scotland report, which found that the national health service in Scotland has a good record on efficiency savings. It exceeded its target last year and achieved savings of £300 million against a target of £215 million. The big difference in terms of the efficiency targets of this Government, whether in the national health service or across the public services, is that every single penny of those efficiency savings achieved by the national health service is reinvested in front-line care in Scotland. That is the key difference and that is why we should have the support of Tavish Scott.

So once again Alex Salmond is ignoring the tough questions facing Scotland in efficiency savings, much in the same way that Gordon Brown seems prone to do in Westminster. He is ignoring the crux of the matter that administrators and the like are taking bonuses that is affecting the efficiency and ability of front-line services. The issue that the Lib Dems are raising on this and Banker's pay is that the important workers are those that provide the customer service.

Indeed the report Alex is praising at one hand is pointing out difficulties at the same time. He is clearly using selective reading to find the portions that praise his Government's record on health, much as he is distorting details on education to make his party look good.

Well Done Alex

You know I don't often agree with Alex Salmond but he has said the following about nasty and underground Internet comments that cause offence or are untrue.

"The internet is a wonderful tool. It gives us a means to engage with the public, to motivate activists and to affirm our positive case for Scottish independence.

"We must use the internet for positive campaigns, to build our case and not get engaged in the negative agenda. The SNP can only win and will only win on a positive agenda."

Of course I don't agree with his ultimate aim of his use of the Internet as a tool, but I respect his right to use it in a positive way to try and convince the other 75% of Scots of the need for Independence.

One does wonder if he also means to cover whenever any argument in comments threads in papers also ends up in name calling of the other three main parties.

Sadly he went on to make a few errors himself:

"There is a strong public majority for a referendum, and our job is to translate that public support into a parliamentary majority.

"Each of the three London-based parties – Labour, Tory and Liberal – say no, no, no to Scotland, in the same arrogant manner as Margaret Thatcher did."

For a start not all of those who want there to be a referendum on the subject want to vote SNP, nor do they want to vote yes in that referendum.

Second not all of the parties are London based. The Scottish Liberal Democrats are free to make their own policy decisions as far as Scotland is concerned, that is the nature of our party. That is why there are four occasions a year that we get to debate and vote on policy.

However, who really is saying no to Scotland?

The SNP have said no to Scotland over removing the unfair council tax.

The SNP are saying no to Scotland and Glasgow over GARL.

The SNP have said no to Scottish students for ending student debt.

So the SNP have said no, no, no to Scotland. In the same arrogant way that Thatcher did Alex is only saying on some of the above my way or no way.

Does Salmond Need an Education in Revealing the Truth

On 5 September 2007 Alex Salmond told Holyrood categorically that the SNPs key election pledge of cutting class sizes for all children in Primaries 1,2 and 3 to 18 or less by the end of this Parliament.

However, it appears he may already have been in receipt of information for one of the education department's senior civil servants that stated that this worthy goal could not have been achieved for 8 to 10 years. That meeting had occurred over two months earlier on 2 July 2007 according to the minute that Labour's Iain Gray produced in yesterday's First Minister's Questions. Mr Gray is now saying that the First Minister is breaking the ministerial code which states that ministers must give "accurate and truthful" advise. This is one pledge that has been repeated over and over. But this is one of the most high profile and early examples that it may have occurred while fresh in the face of contrary advice.

Mr Salmond's spokesman said as way of defence:

"The information (from officials] in July 2007 was to the Cabinet secretary for education, not to the First Minister."

With my former civil servant in a Departmental role I want to say that is not a valid defence in this case. There are two perfectly valid reasons that this would not have excluded Mr Salmond from the loop of such information.

The first is that such a high profile minute would undoubtedly have copied in the Private Office of the First Minister: there are times that the bureaucracy and officiousness of the civil service works for the good. Someone there would surely have highlighted this point and brought it to the First Minister's attention. If not, Fiona Hyslop herself on a subsequent memo in the margin against such a statement would have highlighted that one of the key blanks to the manifesto in her area was unachievable. Having worked in a devolved department in Northern Ireland I know just how much and at what level these things would have been copied over to the OFMDFM (Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister) this sort of meeting would have been one area that that memo was an automatic copy in, even the Administrative Assistant who delivered it would have noticed that as they were getting the document copied.

The second reason would be in cabinet itself. The cabinet meeting after receiving such advice I'm sure that Fiona Hyslop would have been briefed by her Permanent Secretary to raise that issue at the meeting. It would have been a crunch matter for her pre-cabinet minute briefing document, so when as most cabinets do, there is discussion of every member's policy areas she would have had this as probably one of her first two points, if not the top one.

The second reason is most serious. If Salmond does not run his cabinet, and it is only a small cabinet in such a way that Ministers aren't allowed to share their issues of the day with their colleagues he himself is clearly not capable or fit for the job of First Minister. As the Conservative's Murdo Fraser said:

"If true, this is an astonishing state of affairs and no way to run a country.

"Many will find it inconceivable that Alex Salmond was unaware his own senior education advisers had made it crystal clear the SNP's flagship class size pledge could not be delivered in the lifetime of this parliament."

From my knowledge of how the civil service works I would say as above that is is true. Further from my knowledge of how Ministers are briefed ahead of meetings with the First Minister it is also something that would not have been dropped for 2 months and would have been highlighted from numerous sources within their reading of the original memo with urgency to that level. Indeed I can well imagine they would have been several margin notes suggesting that the FM needs to be alerted to this (that is just the way civil servants are).

There are only three options:

• Either Fiona Hyslop failed to alert others of this advice. But the memo of the meeting exists so that is not true
• Or That advice failed to reach the office of the First Minister. Again there are too many civil servants who would have got hold of that information for someone not to have made sure that he did.
• Or that having received the advice in writing or in cabinet Alex Salmond chose to ignore it. It doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes the reject the improbable of the other two and come to the final conclusion.

If Salmond really thinks he can pull the wool over the eyes of the other parties about the working of the civil service, especially when two of them where in Government with that same apparatus months before, he really is the Holyrood village idiot ad should sit in the corner in the Dunce's hat and not on the front bench.

However, from the picture above one effect of the demotion of Ms Hyslop is the formation of the West Lothian triangle. The two West Lothian ladies in this party Fiona and Livingston MSP Angela Constance are now seated behind the Linlithgow born First Minister.

Salmond's New Part Time Job

Did anybody else notice that in yesterday's reshuffle Alex Salmond made himself job-share Mike Russell's old non-cabinet level brief with Fiona Hyslop?

So Alex Salmond is now not only MP for Banff and Buchan, MSP for Gordon and First Minister of Scotland, he is also Secretary for Constitutional Affairs. The last being the only portfolio of the major manifesto big pledges that is still currently standing, even if like the others looks unachievable. Wonder if he will demote himself for failure to deliver like he has done with Ms Hyslop?

SNP Crying Wolf Again

It appears that the SNP instead of being able to run a government are an unruly rabble. When threatened with the Lib Dem led vote of no-confidence in the Education Secretary that was Fiona Hyslop, they had threatened to resign en masse to force an election.

They have threatened to do so before, indeed it is a constant refrain come budget time, indeed you would expect to hear it again soon, only they have already shot that bolt. However, while the price of a child's education may be measured in monetary terms it appears that the keys to Bute House, home of the First Minister, well that is priceless.

The Tories were showing they were a party of principle too in light of all the goings on. They had also called for Hyslop's resignation. Indeed on Sunday Murdo Fraser their Education spokesman had said:

"There is a growing crisis in Scotland's schools. Alex Salmond's SNP is fast losing the trust of teachers and parents.

"His beleaguered Education Secretary is getting more isolated and desperate day by day.

"Conservatives have long argued our schools need greater autonomy to run their own affairs. But centralising all control to the woman in the ministry is a recipe for disaster."

However, given the chance to vote no confidence in that disaster area they said they would abstain. It was only when the SNP failed to woo their often times partners the Scottish Conservative and Nationalist Unionist Party that the threat of resigning became too much for the ego himself, the Thane of Banff & Buchan, Thane of Gordon who would want to be King hereafter, after all he's be thrown away out of that large Georgian Townhouse in all possibility.

However, a change at the helm of education policy isn't going to be enough, we need to move away from fantasy policy making. The only bricks that the SNP have been matching in building new schools may have been on their screens during Tetris in their think pods at Holyrood. They certainly haven't been placed on the ground, or on top of each other.

One Politician who has been Called D*******

One politician has been called by a derogatory term. It was not Caroline Righton the Conservative PPC for St. Austell and Newquay. The word that is not present here was however used by the man who has volunteered to be the first President of an Independent Scotland.

What is surprising is the word was used against the man who is currently the First Minister and the man who wants to pave the way so that the other man may be able to fill that role. Let's get it clear though the man who has spoken is Mohammed Al Fayed. Speaking of volunteering to be President Mr Al Fayed said as reported in full in the Metro:

"When you Scots have you Independence, I'm ready to be your president.

"You have been living in a coma for too long.

"It is time for you to wake up and detach yourself from the English and their terrible politicians. But I don't want this Alex Salmond. I asked to meet him but he refused. Salmond would be better off fishing for salmon than being a politician. He is a d*******."

Well of course the rant of Mr Al Fayed may well be a backlash to him not being given a UK passport after all these years. Maybe the fact that the expenses issues is making it harder for him to buy questions from MPs but he looks at how easily that other tycoon Donald Trump seems to be flashing the cash north of the border with envy.

Although he has also claimed that Scotland was founded by the Egyptian Princess Scota 3,600 years ago. That will come as a shock to many. But is also like a lot of Mr Al Fayed comments easily discredited as having no foundation in fact.

Is Now the Time for Balanced Election Coverage?

The bias of the media towards two party politics has been highlighted and condemned by Chris Huhne writing in the Independent today. It comes after Jeremy Hunt, the Conservative Party's media spokesperson accused the BBC of Labour bias and demanded they employ more Conservative-inclined reporters.

Chris point out:

"A hiring policy that sought out particular views in people who are meant to be professionally impartial would be a dangerous step towards a Berlusconi-style system. It would probably be illegal under anti-discrimination law."

What is needed is not a biased load of journalists for one of the big two parties but to a genuine impartiality. As Chris points out in all bar one election since 1979 the Liberal Democrats have climbed in support from the opinion polls one month out; the average increase being 3.9%. This is due to the media at that point having to drop their two-party view of politics in the UK and becoming more impartial. If the same happens again this time, on current opinion polls it would result in 22 more Lib Dem MPs.

At the heart of Chris's piece is the message that the media are already prejudging, indeed helping to ensure that General Elections in this country will return one of two parties as the main party and the other as the main opposition. He says in conclusion:

"Britain's broadcasters should not prejudge the voters, let alone the electoral system. The only fair approach, at a time of heightened political sensitivity, is to apply the rules as they would be applied in the general election.

"After all, both Labour and the Conservatives have recently announced their election campaigns have begun. It is time for broadcasters to begin election-style fairness too, and let the contest of ideas begin."

There has been a lot of discussion lately about the fairness of not of the proposed leadership debates prior to the next Westminster election. Alex Salmond even says it is unfair to exclude him from such a meeting.

However, one thing that Salmond doesn't have to contend with is being sidelined or excluded from mainline political discussion in the years between elections, here in Scotland the SNPs views are widely covered on Scottish news and politics shows. Yet the Lib Dems are often fighting for a voice on the national stage.

How often do you find Labour or the Conservatives not having a representative on Question Time? Never, but the same applies to the Lib Dems on a regular basis. Following that every Thursday you get This Week which has Michael Portillo and Diane Abbott as the two main foils to Andrew Neill, the Lib Dems get the even more infrequent guest slot on that.

It is an issue that Alex Salmond and his SNP don't really encounter, they are included on Newsnight Scotland and the Politics Show Scotland and therein lies an essence against Alex's argument to be on the UK-wide debate. The BBC already does make allowances for the SNP here in Scotland, indeed to some extent here too they focus on two party politics only this time between Labour and the SNP, there is however less exclusion of the others but it still occurs subliminally on the amount of airtime or positioning of the parties.

So with the main two parties, and for that matter the SNP declaring at the weekend that the General Election race is now on, why must we wait until the election is called to get fair representation of views in the media. For five months the Lib Dems could, on past evidence, be losing ground where they have been so close in recent times to overtaking Labour in the popular vote.

First Minister's Admission of Cockiness

Yes in today's Times there is an admission from Alex Salmond that he was "too cocky" during the Glenrothes by-election. That was the election that everybody it seemed, except for those of doing the Lib Dem box counts, thought was too close to call even as the ballots were being counted.

The announcement came that Salmond who personally spent 11 days in Glenrothes said he would be taking a lower profile approach this time around. Considering only last autumn he was basically braying for Gordon Brown to come up and get involved in the fight. But he now states that his too much of a hands on approach cost the SNP the election this is a strange u-Turn for the party that two years ago on their list candidates for Holyrood had 'Alex Salmond for First Minister' rather than the party name.

Maybe as John Curtis, Strathclyde University's Professor of Politics points out this isn't so much about an admission of the First Minister's cockiness, but an admission of defeat.

"If you don't think you are going to win, taking a less visible part in the contest would be the sensible strategy. You don't want to be associated with something which could be regarded as failure but I don't accept that Alex Salmond lost them Glenrothes. They lost because the SNP was out-campaigned by Labour and did not take enough notice of Labour's attacks."

Another admission from a friend is also interesting, stating that he doesn't want to overshadow the candidate former BBC journalist David Kerr, and that "He is mindful that he is not the candidate". Interesting comment in that is he mindful that he is also not a candidate in the Westminster elections coming up next year where he insists on being in on the leadership debates.

Who's Debating You? Salmond has Turned One Down

It has been a hot topic of conversation in Scotland over recent months that Alex Salmond has been saying he wants to be involved in debates in Scotland ahead of the general election. He has even threatened legal action if he is not allowed into the Prime Ministerial debates.

Well if looks like he has refused to answer a challenge from the Scottish leaders Labour's Iain Gray, Lib Dem Tavish Scott and Tory Annabel Goldie to a debate. Indeed let's also invite Patrick Harvie of the Greens and if Alex doesn't show empty seat him. I've since the first ramifications said there should be a Scottish wide debate instead or as well as one of the proposed debates. It is not a compromise but a recognition of the devolved nature of politics here in Scotland, an answer to the West Lothian Question as far as the debates issue is concerned. I'm sure a similar thing will occur in Northern Ireland and I'd wish it also happens in Wales. But Alex is letting his ego get the better of him.

He has stated his ambition of getting 20 seats in the General Election, but his super-ego is getting the better of him. He thinks as First Minister of a devolved Parliament he deserves equal billing with the Prime Ministerial contenders and at the same time thinks he above the opposition leaders in that devolved power. He is in the no mans land, not on the same stage as the others and with his one extra seat considers himself better than Grey and the rest.

Turning down this offer of a Scotland debate on terms of parity while seeking to set, control and bully the UK wide agenda (without consideration to other more nationwide parties) for his own self shows that the ego is what is ruling the SNP decisions on the debates issue.

Time to Review Stance on Referendum

Way back in 2006 I first blogged that the Lib Dems should call a referendum on independence to call the SNP's bluff. Last year in March I questioned whether my party had an approved policy on the issue that the MSPs and leadership decided we shouldn't enter in talks with them over after the 2007 election.

Well following the debate in Bournemouth where our MEP in Scotland and a leading PPC said it was time to have that referendum, the party is going to look at the situation. Yeah at the Scottish conference on October 30 there will be a closed session at which this issue will be discussed. Having been of the same opinion for over 3 years on the public record I'm sure it will come as no surprise to my readers to hear that I am happy that the party are going to discuss this issue.

Alex Salmond has scathingly said our 'position on a referendum is built on shifting sands', not so Alex we merely having officially revisited our position for quite some time. Many of us who are in the party are trying to remember when the matter was last discussed, either formally or informally at Scottish Party level. This discussion later this month is just a step on the way to opening that debate and answer that question within the party. The leader Tavish Scott has requested the consultation of the members, possibly in light of some soundings he has already received, and Ross Finnie will be carrying out this review.

If we do consider the referendum is the way forward to get on with politics as normal, the Nats can be assured we'll come out fighting, so their smiles may be only short lived. Of course if we back the referendum motion us plus the Nats comes to 63 two short of the majority they require, add in the two Greens and Margo MacDonald and there may be a vote in favour.

Oh dear, then the SNP would have to stop playing the victim and actually enact one of their key pledges and have to do something.

UPDATE: I notice that Richard Thomson is accusing us of being 'all over the place on tax, all over the place on spending, and now, all over the place on Scotland’s future'.

For starters we have been consistently seeking a fairer tax system when those that can afford it pay more. The resultant spending from that shift was also to help those who are worse off. What did happened is while there agreement in principle over a Local Income Tax there was a disagreement on implementation which the largest party unilaterally felt had to be set centrally, not making it a local tax but a Scottish Income Tax and then took any possibility of a deal off the table, again unilaterally.

As for being all over the place on Scotland's future, as I stated above we have not discussed it in well over a decade as people who have been in the Scottish party longer than my 8 years do not recall such a debate. We also know what we want for Scotland's future as Richard pointed out that is a Federalism within the UK. How we move towards that and more powers may well have been changed, but our goal is still the same as many in the party wanted back in the time of Gladstone before there even was an SNP. I'd hardly call a consistant stance of over a century on home rule a stance on Scotland that is all over the place.

Your Monthly Salmond Bite of the Debate Question

As regular as clockwork at the start of each month (see August and September) Alex Salmond seems to raise his head in the great West Lothian Question of Prime Ministerial televised debates.

The latest take is that Alex Salmond is threatening to sue if he is not included in the debates in the run up to the election. They are also threatening to block any debate that does not include the First Minister. John Swinney has said:

"It deprives the voters in Scotland of hearing the breadth of political choice that quite clearly exists here in Scotland about the input of Scotland into the UK General Election."

I have in my previous posts above already discussed compromises, so I will not repeat them here. The action that Salmond is threatening is also denying the British people who live in Scotland the chance to hear the men who will be those that decide the shape of the next United Kingdom Government. The three men that the broadcasters have invited are those key men. Even if Salmond's army where to get a clean sweep across Scotland he would only have 59 MPs not one of them being Alex Salmond.

The people in Scotland are lucky to have a vote that can count towards the opinion
shakers in Westminster. Having just had my 40th birthday if I hadn't moved elsewhere I would have had 22 years of my adult life where I could never have voted for a party that held sway in the corridors in London (apart from when the UUP held up the slim Major majority). Yet in Northern Ireland we still get to see political discussion from the UK leaders through Question Time and the like, although there is a once monthly opt out for a local QT.

If Salmond had wanted to be at the big boys table he should have brought forward the one key promise he seems intent on keeping since the 2007. If he'd already had his referendum and had his desirous result this would all be a moot point. As it is what he should be doing is sitting down with broadcasters to come up with a compromise. I mean to take his point on board should the English Democrats have a place on the debate that is broadcast to Scotland, or the Cornish Nationalists. Surely supporters of such parties are being denied the full breadth of political choice? How about those that do vote Official Monster Raving Looney?

There are holes in his argument and he needs to be sensible and discuss these rather than bully or cajole.