Does the Scottish Affairs Select Committee face an English takeover?

I was slightly surprised to see Pete Wishart quoted on the Scotsman website as saying it was "very generous" of the Tories to give up two of their six allotted seats on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, so that the SNP can claim them instead.  Obviously it's better than nothing, because it at least heads off the ludicrous possibility that the eleven-strong committee might have only one member who actually represents a Scottish constituency.  But it does still mean that, unless Labour are even more "generous", it's very difficult to see how the committee will have even a bare majority of Scottish MPs, which you'd think would be the minimum requirement.  If the Tories stick to their guns, I can only see two ways in which that could now happen...

Option 1 :

SNP 6
Conservatives 4
Labour 1

Option 2 :

SNP 5
Conservatives 4
Labour 1
Liberal Democrats 1

The reason those are the only possibilities is that David Mundell and Ian Murray are presumably unavailable, leaving Alistair Carmichael as the only non-SNP Scottish member who can conceivably be drafted in (which would be hugely controversial to say the least).  Either way, Labour would have to give up three-quarters of their four allotted seats, while the Tories would only be giving up one-third of their six.  Doesn't seem a very likely basis for an agreement, does it?

Realistically, the Tories are going to have to give more ground, otherwise Westminster will face the PR disaster of a sham "Scottish" committee with a clear English majority.

*  *  *

To celebrate the thrilling news that Iain "the Snarl" Gray is BACK as Scottish Labour leader, it's nostalgia night here at Scot Goes Pop.  If you've ever wondered how to say Iain "the Snarl" Gray in ten different languages - including, naturally, Portuguese - you're bang in luck this fine evening.

ENGLISH:  Iain "the Snarl" Gray

GERMAN:  Iain "das Knurren" Gray

HUNGARIAN:  Iain "a Vicsorog" Gray

MAORI:  Iain "te Ngengere" Gray

DANISH:  Iain "den Snerren" Gray

PORTUGUESE:  Iain "o Rosnar" Gray

MACEDONIAN:  Иан "на метеж" Греј

AFRIKAANS:  Iain "die Warboel" Gray

CHINESE:  伊恩 "在咆哮" 灰

MALTESE:  Iain "l- Ħajt tas-Sejjieħ" Gray

Step inside the online polling Tardis

Say what you like about the Scotsman, but it can't be denied they allow people a much more generous amount of time to vote in their online polls than any other news outlet I can think of. For instance, still running in the sidebar of some articles (and billed as "today's vote") is this one from 2008...

"Who would make the best Scottish Labour leader?

Iain Gray
Cathy Jamieson
Andy Kerr"

Vote Gray - you know it makes sense.

'Scottish Labour don't make mistakes, Stevie'

It’s happened at last – a newspaper has finally challenged Labour on its bizarre claim that Iain Gray has "beaten Alex Salmond three-nil" since he became leader. The bad news is that the newspaper in question is the Larkhall Chronicle. Still, it's a start, and in the forlorn hope that it might shame the national papers into doing their job properly, I thought I'd post Steven Brodie's article here in its entirety (it's only available in the print edition of the paper).

A local Labour councillor has launched an astonishing attack on his own party chiefs – for being too MODEST. Gavin McCulloch, elected to South Lanarkshire Council for the first time in 2007, reckons that Scots Labour leader Iain Gray's claim to be leading the SNP’s Alex Salmond 'three-nil' in elections doesn't go far enough.

"The 'three-nil' basically just refers to national elections, like the general election, and the Glasgow North-east by-election a couple of years back," explained Councillor McCulloch at the weekend. "As a local representative I find it typical that local elections are getting scrubbed out of the picture yet again, and I’m slightly ashamed that my party are the culprits! The truth is that if you take local by-elections into account, the score is a sensational eight-nil to Iain Gray. He's a phenomenally popular leader."

Councillor McCulloch later drove the point home by taking to the streets of Larkhall, and handing out stickers featuring a picture of Iain Gray – who didn't appear to be smiling – along with the slogan "Go Go Gray, let's make it nine in a row".

But since then the Chronicle's minions have been doing some ferreting, and have discovered that the 'eight-nil' claim may not be all that it appears. Armed with a dossier of facts, dates and figures, I paid a visit to Labour's headquarters in the town to challenge the councillor on some of his facts. First of all, I put it to him that even the original suggestion that Mr Gray had beaten Alex Salmond three times in a row since becoming leader doesn't really make sense.

Councillor McCulloch seemed bemused. "I was anticipating that people might not be ready to take local by-elections seriously, but even the Larkhall Chronicle can't deny the wonderful results Labour have been enjoying at national level since Iain first electrified us with his visionary leadership."

But, I replied, doesn’t the 'three-nil' claim airbrush from history the European elections of June 2009, which the SNP won by a significant margin? That, after all, was a national election, and therefore surely more important than by-elections. It also took place in between Labour’s victories in Glenrothes and Glasgow North-east, which on the face of it would make it impossible to truthfully claim that Gray’s successes had occurred 'in a row', or indeed that Alex Salmond was on a score of 'nil'.

Councillor McCulloch paused. "Look, Stevie. I’m a local man, I’ve got my roots in this area, I live and breathe Larkhall. I’m not steeped in these strange international elections that involve other countries."

But, I persisted, the European election was a national election, it took place when Iain Gray was leader, every single person in Scotland was entitled to vote, and the SNP won.

Councillor McCulloch sighed. "Well, of course I'd dispute that."

Dispute what, I asked? That the SNP won, or that the election took place when Iain Gray was leader?

"One or the other, Stevie," he replied with a laugh. "As I said, I’m not steeped in these international elections."

In that case, I went on, how could he possibly be sure that the Chronicle had its facts wrong?

"Because Labour are three-nil ahead in national elections, that's something we all know. I'm more interested in making sure we update that figure to take into account how local people up and down Scotland have been saying Yes to Iain and No, No, No, No to that snake-oil salesman Salmond."

But, I countered, people only 'know' that the three-nil figure is correct because Labour keeps repeating it. The Chronicle's dossier has just shown that it isn't true.

"Scottish Labour don't make mistakes, Stevie."

I could see we had arrived at something of a stalemate, so I decided to change tack and ask about the councillor's own claim in relation to local by-elections. I put it to him that, while it was quite true Labour had won a number of contests since Gray became leader, so had other parties, including the SNP. Again, it was hard to see on that basis how Labour could seriously claim to have won eight elections in a row, or that the SNP’s score was 'nil'.

Councillor McCulloch seemed incredulous. "I’d be interested to know which by-elections you think Labour haven't been winning!"

With as much nonchalance as I could muster, I flicked through the pages of the Chronicle’s dossier to find a couple of choice examples for the councillor’s perusal. One was Maryfield, gained by the SNP from Labour six months after Gray became leader, and the other was Kilbirnie and Beith, also an SNP gain from Labour on a huge swing. The latter contest took place just weeks after the very different result in Glenrothes.

Councillor McCulloch tutted. "I've never even heard of Kilbirnie and Beith!"

It's in North Ayrshire, I replied.

"Well, there you go."

It was my turn to be slightly dumbfounded. Was the councillor seriously suggesting that results in North Ayrshire don’t count?

"No," he sighed. "Look, Stevie, what I'm saying to you is that you've come up with a local election result in North Ayrshire. No disrespect to the people there, but it's a bit of a stretch to put that on a par with Labour’s sensational win in Glasgow North-east."

I was confused. Wasn’t the councillor's whole point that local by-elections should count for just as much? And if that wasn’t the case, surely all of Labour’s local by-election wins had to be discounted as well?

A flash of anger crossed Councillor McCulloch’s eyes. "Frankly, I find that suggestion insulting. And, no, It’s not an insult to me, but to the thousands of decent, hard-working people across Scotland who have turned out in local by-elections to show their support and love for Iain, and to send Salmond homewards tae think again."

Except for the 'hard-working' people who had voted for the SNP in Maryfield, Kilbirnie and Beith, and other wards?

"Kilbirnie and Beith is in Ayrshire."

Was the councillor really sure that made such a difference?

"Scottish Labour don’t make mistakes, Stevie."

A strange realisation began to dawn on me. Although the councillor's claims simply didn't tally with the facts, his conviction that what he was saying made sense seemed absolutely sincere. And perhaps that's ultimately what really counts?

I wouldn’t be surprised if the editorial staff of the Record, the Herald and the Scotsman all agree with that closing sentiment. They do seem to regard Labour’s 'conviction' as far more important than the actual facts. The difference is that at a national level it seems somewhat less likely that the conviction is in any way 'sincere'.

Salmond eases to debate win - as expected

First things first - if we're only having three leaders' debates, what on earth was the point of staging the opener five-and-a-half weeks out from polling day? The cynic in me wonders if the ITV network schedule might have been a factor in that decision, and even as it is the Border TV area seems to have been deemed as having only 'associate membership' of the Scottish nation for the evening.

I also intensely dislike STV's habit of starting debates with opinion poll findings. They've done it for years, but it really isn't good practice. Debates are supposed to provide a level playing field for the parties to reach out to the electorate on the basis of the quality of their arguments, and presenting Tavish "Two Hoots" Scott with a poll showing that only (concidentally) Two Per Cent of the public think he would make the best premier left the tallest of the party leaders looking about Two Feet Tall. It was rather funny, admittedly, but still wrong as a matter of principle.

Bernard Ponsonby generally did a good job of persistently homing in on the leaders' most vulnerable points, and seeing if they could wriggle free. There was one glaring exception, though - perhaps because of time constraints, Iain Gray's utterly fantastical assertion that Megrahi wouldn't have been freed if he had been First Minister went completely unchallenged. The Labour leader claimed there were three tests for whether compassionate release should have been granted - well, in fact in his case there would have been a fourth and absolutely decisive one, namely what his overlord Gordon Brown privately wanted him to do. A Labour government in Holyrood would indeed have made a fundamental difference to the outcome of the process - Megrahi would have been released for the wrong reasons, not for the right ones.

The general impression I got from watching Iain Gray was that his advisers must have urged him in advance to be consensual wherever possible and at all costs to resist the overwhelming temptation to snarl - but he just kept forgetting, especially when he had to depart from his prepared lines and think on his feet. The 'Snarl' effect is multi-faceted - it's not just the facial contortions, it's also the jabbing finger and the vengeful 'neutered Dalek' voice. He might just about be able to get away with such pointless belligerence in the bearpit of First Minister's Questions, but in the context of a more conversational TV debate it looks utterly ghastly.

Alex Salmond was in such fine form that he didn't need a lot of external assistance, but even so the opening question about whether Scotland had become a fairer place over the last four years worked in the SNP's favour in an unexpected way. Both Annabel Goldie and Tavish Scott were keen to highlight their own achievements in the Scottish Parliament, but that necessitated a concession that, yes, indeed, Scotland had become fairer, which left Gray entirely on his own as he surveyed a landscape of SNP pestilence and devastation. An audience member - who didn't seem to be a Nationalist plant - delivered the coup de grâce by noting that after all the predictions of disaster of what would happen if the SNP came to office in 2007, they'd actually done pretty well. Nothing fantastic, but pretty well. For an incumbent government at the end of a four-year term, that's high praise indeed.

Gray's convoluted answer on the potential for a post-election coalition was telling - it seemed consistent with the conventional thinking that he is still personally hellbent on a toxic pact with the Lib Dems, but is keeping the option of minority government open to mollify colleagues who have thought the matter through rather more carefully. If the direction of travel for both Labour and the Lib Dems in recent polls continues, that may of course prove to be a somewhat academic dilemma.

Anyway, here is how I scored the leaders on their performances tonight -

Alex Salmond 9/10
Annabel Goldie 7/10
Tavish "Two Hoots" Scott 5/10
Iain "the Snarl" Gray 4/10

A statement from Comical Ali, now in employ of a man who can snarl in Portuguese

These crooks, these liars, these cheats, Salmond and Sturgeon, they tell you they invented policies on a council tax freeze, on protecting A&E departments, on keeping higher education free. They lie! These are glorious original policies of the People's Party, but these creemeenals, these mer-sen-arrries, Swinney and MacAskill, they lie, they steal, they puff and pant to catch up. These crooks and cheats even invent time machine so they can travel back four years and make it look like they were implementing council tax freeze, saving Monklands A&E and abolishing tuition fees before glorious People's Party devised these original policies last week. As for this creemeenal Salmond and his supposed "charisma"? Pah! Stolen by his pack of time-travelling wolves from the glorious Gray, who they give unappealing snarl to with their reality-distorting technologies. We will crush them, these creemeenals, these cockroaches, these mer-sen-arrries. In fact, we already have crushed them - the score is three-nil to the glorious Gray!

An election that might tell us a little something

At the start of the year, I noted that the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election was a contest that told us almost nothing about the parties' prospects for Holyrood, partly because the circumstances were so unusual, but mainly because Scotland has of late seemed totally cut adrift from UK-wide trends as relating to Labour and the Tories. However, the Lib Dems might just be a different matter, and their utter humiliation in Barnsley Central this evening offers further reason to suspect that their Westminster alliance with the Tories stands to cost them a number of Scottish Parliament seats in May.

As I've noted before, a poor performance for the Lib Dems is ultimately bad news for Labour. Not only might it harm Iain "the Snarl" Gray's chances of becoming First Minister, it also reduces the likelihood of any government he leads being stable. If he finds himself forced by the arithmetic to look beyond the Lib Dem (and possibly Galloway one-man-band) ranks, his options for reliable allies over the four - or five? - years ahead will be distinctly limited.

UPDATE : Stuart Dickson alerted me to this little gem. Note the commendable dedication to accuracy in the visual representation of a general election result in Barnsley Central that had Labour on 47.3% of the vote, and the Lib Dems on 17.3%. Note also the refreshingly open acknowledgement that there was a virtual dead heat for second place, with the Tories just six votes behind the Lib Dems. Those of us who support lesser parties can but feel humbled in the face of yet another example of the Lib Dems' legendary honesty and moral rectitude.

Which begs only one question - do they have a bar-chart template for elections in which they're starting from sixth place? I'm sure they must have all eventualities covered...

A silver lining from YouGov

After the excitement of the recent Ipsos-Mori poll, YouGov have provided a reality-check for the SNP, but certainly not an extinguishing of all hope that the calamity of an Iain "the Snarl" Gray premiership might yet be averted.  Here are the full figures -

Constituency vote :

Labour 41% (+1)
SNP 32% (-2)
Conservatives 15% (+1)
Liberal Democrats 8% (-)
Others 4% (-1)

List vote :

Labour 40% (+4)
SNP 26% (-5)
Conservatives 15% (-)
Liberal Democrats 7% (-1)
Greens 6% (-)
Others 5% (-)

The SNP have already raised an important technical objection to the poll, namely that the raw figures have been reweighted in accordance with party identification for Westminster elections, which certainly seems counter-intuitive given the traditional disparity between Westminster and Holyrood polls.  I've no idea how much credence to give to that complaint, but if it is true that the unadjusted figures showed a double-digit lead for the Nationalists, it's at least worth keeping an open mind on the point.  But there are a number of other crumbs of comfort for the SNP as well -

1) For a poll showing a significant Labour lead, the SNP are proving remarkably resilient on the constituency vote - just 1% down on their winning position from 2007.

2) The greater Labour lead on the list vote doesn't pass the 'smell test' somehow.  In all of the three Holyrood elections to date, the SNP have managed to retain more of their constituency votes on the list than Labour have, and it's hard to think of any particular reason why that pattern should be completely reversed now.

3) The dire showing for the Lib Dems continues to jeapordise Labour's chances of cobbling together a stable parliamentary majority, whether in coalition or a looser arrangement with Tavish Scott's party.  On the seat projections from this poll, the two parties would just about have a majority between them, but there's very little room for slippage from Labour's heady current standing.

4) Although Patrick Harvie seems to be touting the Greens as potential alternative partners for Labour, his party's level of support remains very much on the borderline between a breakthrough in terms of seats, or a 2007-style result.  In any case, if they couldn't find sufficient common ground with the SNP four years ago, it seems somewhat doubtful that they'd be able to suffer the 'born to rule' arrogance of Gray's mob for a full term.

It's also worth pointing out that the Ipsos-Mori poll arrived in the wake of Scottish issues (the budget and the Megrahi report) featuring very prominently in the news.  With the recent blanket coverage of the revolutions in the Middle East, the reverse is true this time round.  We'll have to wait until the formal campaign to get a proper sense of how the stark choice between Salmond and Gray plays with the public when placed before them on a nightly basis.

UPDATE :  Stuart Dickson has forwarded me this email he sent to YouGov's Peter Kellner and Anthony Wells, raising a further issue I hadn't previously spotted -

BPC disclosure rules - new YouGov/Scottish Green Party poll published in today's Sunday Herald

Hello Peter and Anthony,

I note that the detailed tables for this YouGov poll...have not appeared yet at the YouGov website. You have been very good lately, so I look forward to perusing the detailed tables as soon as possible (later today?).

It is unsatisfactory that the newspaper article ONLY reports the "certain to vote" VI figures: this is non-standard for YouGov polls, and I can only presume that it is designed to mislead. Please slap the Scottish Green Party / Sunday Herald on the hand.

COPY OF MY POST ON UK POLLING REPORT:

A new YouGov poll on behalf of the Scottish Green Party is published in today’s Sunday Herald.

Dire for the Lib Dems, but unclear whether it is good for Labour or the SNP. Prior to weighting being applied the SNP were 13 POINTS ahead!! After weighting was applied, the SNP were suddenly 9 POINTS behind !! Go figure.

But I am confused by one thing: why on earth are the SH only publishing the “certain to vote” figures ?!? YouGov polls are not normally reported in this fashion. Anthony, can you provide the normal headline figures, as they will appear when YouGov get round to publishing the full tables? Thanks in advance.

On one point YouGov can probably be absolved of blame - it's not unusual for them to wait until Monday to put the details of a Sunday poll on their website. However, if Stuart is right about their normal practice in relation to certainty to vote (they've changed their methodology so many times over the years I've lost track) the partial reporting of this poll in the Herald does seem a bit suspicious. Given that the Scottish Greens commissioned the poll, it's hard not to wonder whether the figures restricted to those certain to vote just happened to be more favourable for Patrick Harvie's party.

Richard Baker : "And we did not seek their view either..."

Many years ago, I became reasonably well-read on the scientific research into the human form of mad cow disease. I've probably forgotten about 80% of what I learned, but at the time I was knowledgeable enough that when a news story cropped up on the subject, I was able to meaningfully judge for myself whether it stacked up, and if so what the true significance was. As a result I was genuinely shocked to discover just how often journalists in the quality press and television news - ie. the ones you trust, not tabloid hacks who you fully expect to lie and distort at every turn - make sloppy factual errors, or exaggerate wildly for sensationalist effect. The angle on any given day would always be one of two extremes - the BSE scare was over, or else it was "much worse than previously thought". Either the best-case or worst-case scenario of what the science was saying would be selectively reported to suit the occasion. Nuance was never an option, even when that was precisely what the facts demanded - which they invariably did.

So it really is quite a jolt when you first get to the point of knowing enough about a subject to realise just how amateurish journalists can be, but it's happened to me a number of times since then. Today was an absolutely textbook example. The only thing anyone can find to pin on the SNP government in the documents released on the Megrahi affair is the apparent belief in Whitehall in late 2007 that Kenny MacAskill was looking to do a deal on slopping-out compensation and the devolution of legislative powers on airguns. Alex Salmond has explained very convincingly the good reasons for taking that belief with a bucket-load of salt - if Jack Straw was going to win concessions from his colleagues, it suited his purpose to present the position as "MacAskill looking for a deal". But whether or not we believe that a deal was actually proposed, it's a relatively minor revelation, because it didn't relate to the release of Megrahi. By definition it couldn't have done, because the UK government didn't actually want Megrahi freed at that point - it wasn't until the following year that the policy changed, as a direct result of the diagnosis of the Libyan's illness. When it did, we learn from Gus O'Donnell that London Labour's rather startling strategy for "facilitating" Megrahi's freedom basically consisted of saying as little as possible to the SNP - for fear of "irritating" them! The fact that communicating any desire for compassionate release was seen as totally "counter-productive" tells its own story, and essentially kills the conspiracy theories of any SNP collusion with London in 2009 stone dead.

But have the gentlemen and ladies of the London press noticed any of this? With a few honourable exceptions, the answer is - don't be daft. Even the normally authoritative Channel 4 News baldly claimed at the start of tonight's show that the documents "also show a Scottish government trying to gain other advantages for sending him [Megrahi] back", in spite of the fact that the dates render that a logical impossibility. Upon seeing a near-identical example of journalistic sloppiness (or should that be consciously cavalier treatment of the facts in pursuit of a sensationalist story?) from Paul Waugh, I couldn't resist getting the following out of my system -

"Paul, for the love of God, even the most cursory look at the dates would tell you that conclusion is logic-bending gibberish. The alleged "footsie playing by the Scots" supposedly happened in 2007 - a whole year before O'Donnell claims the British government changed their policy and decided they wanted Megrahi released. How could the Scottish government have gained concessions by offering to do something the UK government didn't actually want at that point? Hint - they couldn't, and therefore, fairly obviously, they didn't.

The allegations of a proposed deal - which Alex Salmond has refuted strongly, and offered credible reasons for doubting - related solely to the possibility of the Scottish government dropping their public opposition to a PTA with Libya that didn't specifically exclude Megrahi. That would have been a relatively minor shift on their part - but it was, for the record, one they didn't make. This is pretty basic stuff, and all in the documents. Now forgive me for lapsing into cliché, but the fact that so many London-based correspondents seem incapable of comprehending what is there for them in black and white really does call the standard of journalism in this country into severe question."

But however frustrating the distortions of today have been, I'm in little doubt that the SNP have taken a stride forward as far as the "long game" is concerned. On all the salient points, the documents bear out what they've been saying all along, and have left Labour - especially Scottish Labour - looking like rank hypocrites. The latter now have very little option but to stick to the absurd line that "if Iain Gray had been First Minister, Megrahi would still be behind bars", but there can't be a single person in Scotland who seriously believes that anymore. Whether Gray's personal stance in 2009 was sincere or not (and I have my doubts), the only premiership of his in which Megrahi wouldn't have been returned to Libya is a purely theoretical one in which he paid no attention whatever to the wishes of his colleagues in London. Everyone knows that could never have happened, because he's Labour, and the first loyalty of Labour First Ministers is always to the UK party leader - not to his or her own values, let alone to the people of Scotland.

Thankfully, one news source we can absolve of the charge of sloppiness tonight is Newsnight Scotland, which zoned straight in on the key question - when Scottish Labour were sanctimoniously denouncing the decision to release Megrahi, had they already been told that their London masters wanted him freed? Richard Baker's answer when pressed on that point spoke volumes -

"And we did not seek their view either."

Note the omission of the obvious word "no" at the start of that sentence. That makes it a non-denial denial, something which generally isn't issued by a politician without very, very good reason.

It's the eternal question : 'What Would Iain Do?'

Back at the height of the controversy over the release of the convicted (if unlikely to be the actual) Lockerbie bomber, Iain "the Snarl" Gray informed the Scottish Parliament that if he had been First Minister, Megrahi would still be behind bars. The only possible interpretation that could be put on those words is that Gray would have issued binding instructions to that effect to whoever had been his Justice Secretary - an utterly extraordinary admission, given that the legal position is that decisions on compassionate release must be taken by the Justice Secretary alone, and indeed on a quasi-judicial basis, free from political considerations.

All the same, given Gray's refreshing keenness to share with us how he would act in a variety of hypothetical scenarios, I wonder if he'd now care to tell us what he would have done if he'd been...oooh, I don't know, a junior Labour minister in the Foreign Office just after Megrahi's illness was diagnosed? Would Mr Gray have helpfully advised the Libyans on how to apply for compassionate release as the actual Labour junior Foreign Office minister Bill Rammell did at the time, or wouldn't he? Come on, Iain, you don't even have to - hypothetically - contravene the law in answering this one...

An election that tells us almost nothing?

I must say I felt strangely disengaged watching the coverage of the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election.  With less than four months to go until the Holyrood poll, I'd normally be looking for clues about which way the wind is blowing, even in an English election.  Generally that would mean hoping for Labour to do as badly as possible.  But Scottish Labour's fortunes in the general election seemed so totally detached from what was happening elsewhere that I wonder if there's any real relevance.  Perhaps we should be relieved that Labour didn't win by a wider margin than they did, although John Curtice's benchmarks of how they "should" be doing in a by-election at this stage in the electoral cycle always seemed a bit unconvincing given the unique circumstances that brought this contest about.

It would also have been encouraging to see the Lib Dems collapse, given that Iain "the Snarl" Gray is likely to be either directly or indirectly dependent on them should the worst happen and he becomes First Minister.  But their resilience tonight isn't at all what it seems - it's fairly clear that a large chunk of their 'authentic' vote drifted off to Labour, only to be wholly offset by Tory supporters wanting to express support for the 'top coalition candidate', in turn leading to a somewhat artificial Tory collapse.  All in all, then, an election in which very little can be taken at face value, and thus from which very little of value can be learned.

Happy New Year!

And, for pedants everywhere, Happy New Decade as well.

I don't think any of us really need to think about our New Year's resolution this time round - it can only be to defy the bookies and ensure 2011 doesn't turn out to be the Year Of The Snarl after all.

(For the avoidance of doubt, this is a pre-scheduled post!)

Mixed news for SNP with Ipsos-Mori

The latest full-scale Scottish poll conducted by Ipsos-Mori contains sobering news for the SNP on the constituency vote, with Labour's lead increasing from three to ten points.  But that story is almost completely reversed on the list vote, with Labour's lead slipping from nine points to four.  Here are the full figures -

Constituency vote

Labour 41% (+4)
SNP 31% (-3)
Conservatives 13% (+2)
Liberal Democrats 11% (-2)
Others 5% (+1)

List vote

Labour 36% (-2)
SNP 32% (+3)
Conservatives 12% (-)
Liberal Democrats 9% (-3)
Others 10% (+1)

Despite the conflicting signals here, and in spite of the fact that the list vote is (in theory at least) the more important of the two, I'd have to say this looks more like bad news than good for the SNP.  The constituency vote is requested first and that will usually give the most accurate indication of the electorate's attitude towards the parties.  However, there's the customary better news on the leaders' ratings, with Alex Salmond comfortably outstripping Iain Gray in the popularity stakes, and with Tavish Scott very tellingly being the only one of the four leaders to suffer a negative rating.  That at least offers some grounds for optimism that the SNP's fortunes may improve once the campaign proper gets underway and the leaders are pushed to the forefront.

Woolas today, the Snarl tomorrow?

To turn now to a meatier aspect of the Phil Woolas ruling (assuming it stands), the first thought that occurred to me is that it's only a matter of weeks since Iain "the Snarl" Gray appeared in a Labour Party Conference Broadcast and uttered the extraordinary words "over the last three-and-a-half years, the SNP have broken every single promise they have ever made". If we are now going to have a firm legal precedent that politicians cannot knowingly make statements that are demonstrably untrue, presumably in future the SNP will be able to challenge such broadcasts. But what an immense pity Gray didn't make such an absurd claim during the formal period of an election campaign...

SoS opinion poll analysis : compare and contrast

According to Tom Peterkin in Scotland on Sunday, Labour's opinion poll leads of six and five points over the SNP are, in spite of having just been roughly halved, "solid".

But he also reassures us twice that Alex Salmond's seventeen-point lead over Iain Gray as the best First Minister is "not irretrievable" and "not insurmountable".

Answers on a postcard...

YouGov : SNP trim Labour's list vote lead by five points

At long last, there is a new full-scale Scottish opinion poll out. It was conducted by YouGov for the Scotsman, and makes slightly more encouraging reading for the SNP than the figures from early September, when Labour enjoyed a comfortable ten-point lead on both ballots. Here are the full figures -

Constituency vote :

Labour 40% (+1)
SNP 34% (+5)
Conservatives 14% (-2)
Liberal Democrats 8% (-3)

List vote :

Labour 36% (-)
SNP 31% (+5)
Conservatives 15% (-)
Liberal Democrats 8% (-4)
Greens 6% (-)

The Scotsman's reporting of the story focuses on two points - that Labour is "maintaining" its "solid" lead over the SNP, and that the Lib Dems are finally taking the long-anticipated hit for going into coalition with the Tories. But this seems to me to miss an obvious point - not only have the SNP eaten into Labour's lead somewhat, but on the face of it that extra support seems to have come directly from the Westminster coalition parties, while Labour have remained roughly static. That may be a wholly misleading impression, but equally it could offer some grounds for optimism about what might happen if the coalition's (and especially the Liberal Democrats') support is squeezed yet further. Either way, I'm sure most SNP supporters will just be relieved to note that this poll shows them still very much in the game.

Another concern facing enthusiasts for the nascent Iain "the Snarl" Gray/Tavish Scott Dream Team is that, on these figures for the Liberal Democrats, such a coalition may quite simply not be arithmetically viable - even if Labour emerge as the largest party. A second consecutive minority government (of one colour or another) is looking somewhat more likely tonight.

'Independence is not everything'

A sentiment which many of the fundamentalists within his own party have of course long suspected Alex Salmond of treacherously harbouring, so it's somewhat ironic that his uttering of those words at the SNP conference heralded a reorienting of the party's strategy towards making a full-blooded case for independence. It's a paradox that in order to do that you really have to start off by declaring that independence is not the be-all-and-end-all, but as the First Minister acknowledged in his speech, it's quite possible that many people are under the false impression that nationalists do merely hanker after the sterile trappings of statehood, such as flags and anthems. In fact, I'd go further - I'd suggest that impression is so deeply entrenched for some voters that they will be extremely resistant when they hear Salmond make a passionate case for independence in economic and social justice terms. They'll instinctively suspect that this is a phoney after-the-fact rationalisation for the nationalist impulse.

So what can the party do in the face of such scepticism? The successful 2007 strategy was to essentially opt-out of the problem - using the prospect of the referendum to 'quarantine' the issue of independence, and instead making the election about what could be achieved within the devolved powers of the parliament as they stood, or possibly as they would be under 'devo plus'. Make no mistake, if today's speech was a declaration of intent, that strategy is now defunct, and the SNP's mission will in future be to tackle head-on the cynicism and apathy encountered in various segments of the electorate about the cause of independence. It's a mammoth task, and perhaps even one that is not wholly achievable in the space between now and the election - but making a start now could pay long-term dividends, regardless of who wins power in May. I'm sure the SNP leadership have been acutely aware for some time that a strategy designed to secure a referendum on independence could be spectacularly counter-productive if the groundwork to win that referendum has not been done in time.

With the benefit of hindsight, perhaps one thing we can be grateful to Labour for is that in their foolishness of replacing Wendy Alexander's (admittedly chaotic) imagination on the subject of a referendum with Iain "the Snarl" Gray's knee-jerk rejectionism, they may well have bought the SNP more time to make their case. Due to the economic climate, winning a referendum on the planned date this year would have been a long-shot - it looks like Salmond, shrewd gambler that he is, is resolved to ensure that the odds are firmly in the SNP's favour whenever the referendum does finally come.

McKechin's appointment leaves 'the Snarl' in the spotlight

Just about the only Shadow Cabinet appointment that was utterly predictable was Ann McKechin's as Shadow Scottish Secretary - as a very low-profile Scottish MP who somehow managed to get elected to the top team, it was a no-brainer that she would draw the short straw. The most important practical upshot is that, for the first time, Iain "the Snarl" Gray has effectively become the 'real' leader of Scottish Labour, no longer in the shadow of Jim Murphy. In principle, it's of course entirely right (and long-overdue) that the Holyrood leader should have primacy - in practice, it leaves them with a rather obvious weakness.

As for the other appointments, my instinctive reaction is disappointment that Miliband has ducked out of the choice between husband and wife for the key role of Shadow Chancellor, and appointed Alan Johnson instead - that looks very much like a sop to the Blairities, and thus a step backwards.

We interrupt this optimistic broadcast to bring you a snarl...

In line with my disquieting new habit of feeling something approximating to goodwill towards the UK Labour leader, I actually found myself watching a Labour Party Political Broadcast this evening without any discernible steam coming out of my ears. That is, until Iain "the Snarl" Gray popped up uninvited midway through (in a clumsily inserted Scottish Labour 'opt-out' from the main broadcast) to make this utterly extraordinary comment -

"Over the last three-and-a-half years, the SNP have broken every single promise they have ever made."

Whether or not it's true that Ed Miliband "gets" Scotland, it's depressingly clear that Iain Gray does not "get" the modern Scottish electorate, and probably never will. In fact, the new contrast with Miliband's sunny disposition is simply going to make Gray's relentless carping, sourness and pointless belligerence ever more unappealing to voters. It's his enormous good fortune to find himself in the position of being favourite to become First Minister almost entirely through no actions of his own, but he could yet throw it all away with his own actions if he carries on like this.

Rest assured that there will have been seven-year-old children shaking their heads in disbelief this evening, asking their parents - "have the SNP really broken every single promise they ever made?". To which the only possible response would have been "no, darling, that man's just being a wee bit silly". If a politician repeatedly uses such stupidly overblown rhetoric, there comes a point where it's a debased currency and people just completely stop listening. Has that even occurred to Gray? It appears not. I believe that's what's known as a lack of 'emotional intelligence' - a failing Gordon Brown often used to be charged with. That was actually slightly harsh in Brown's case, but not in Gray's.

Can the Lib Dems have their coalition and eat it?

In a couple of posts a few weeks ago, I explained my theory that a reconstituted Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition was an unlikely outcome after next May's election.  However, Professor John Curtice's views clearly need to be taken seriously, and in his appearance on the BBC's Politics Scotland this afternoon, he seemed fairly convinced that both Iain Gray and Tavish Scott were inching towards that outcome (assuming the arithmetic allows them to, which of course remains a very big if).  Certainly there can be little doubt from Tavish Scott's increasingly hysterical Nat-bashing rhetoric of late that he at least is positioning his party for the possibility of coalition with Labour.  But I still struggle to see how all this stacks up from Labour's point of view.  Yes, I can see Curtice's point that they will not want to be hobbled by the limitations of minority rule as the SNP have been.  But there's surely another consideration that easily trumps that concern.  The very life-blood of any new Labour administration will be in portraying itself as Scotland's protector against the Tory-led UK government.  How can they do so if they effectively relinquish their licence to demonise that government's man in Scotland, ie. the Lib Dem Secretary of State for Scotland?  Even more general attacks on the UK government would have to be somewhat nuanced if they weren't to risk breaking an alliance with the Lib Dems apart.

My guess is that the Lib Dems' best (and perhaps only) hope for a stable partnership with Labour in Scotland is, ironically, that Hamish Macdonell in the Caledonian Mercury turns out to be right, and that their Westminster coalition with the Tories is already doomed.

Labour are the party in greatest need of allies, whether they realise it or not

Via Joan McAlpine's blog, I've just caught up with the story about a "senior SNP figure" supposedly sounding out Labour about a post-election deal. Of course, in the terms in which it was reported by the Scotsman, the story is a pure slab of Labour delusion. It presupposes that the SNP are resigned to defeat (in spite of two opinion polls putting them just fractionally behind Labour), and are so desperate for a deal that Labour can essentially dictate its own terms - ie. the dropping of the policy of independence, only dealing with the bits of the SNP they find less objectionable, and naturally Salmond would have to go. The complacency that is seeping out from Labour's every pore at the moment makes me wonder how on earth they would cope with the psychological trauma of a second defeat next May that could still very easily happen.

But let's just assume for the sake of argument that Labour do emerge as the largest single party, and then find themselves entertaining the idea of a deal with the SNP. Obvious question - if they're doing that in the first place, doesn't it indicate that they have no real choice? And if that's the case, who exactly is going to be dictating terms to whom? The lesson of the Westminster coalition negotiations this spring is that it's the smaller party that holds the whip-hand - after all, it was Nick Clegg demanding Gordon Brown's departure, not the other way round. So if Labour-SNP talks take place after the Holyrood election, it's safe to infer that Labour are the party with the most to lose. Indeed, from where I sit, the SNP already look like the party with the greater range of options for post-election cooperation - Labour can't credibly do even an informal deal with the Tories, and while it would be premature to completely write off the chances of a renewed understanding with the Lib Dems, it's hard to imagine such a relationship being anything other than deeply uncomfortable and unstable for as long as the Westminster coalition is in being. So how are Labour going to function, even as a minority government? A deal with the SNP may be 'unthinkable' at present, but as the UK Tories discovered in May, when something is the lesser of several unthinkable options, it can often be the one you end up pursuing.

It's clear from the original Scotsman article that this penny hasn't quite dropped yet, but in such a scenario Iain 'the Snarl' Gray and co are going to need the SNP far more than the SNP will need them. So at some point they'll have to forget the hubris about remaking the SNP in their own image under a more pliant leader, and start thinking instead about what carrots they can offer - which probably means either the prospect of an independence referendum, or the beefing up of Labour's own policy on further devolution. The Scotsman cites the example of the Labour-Plaid Cymru coalition in Wales, suggesting that Plaid 'reduced its constitutional aspirations' in order to secure the deal. In truth, of course, it was entirely the other way round. Labour knew that without Plaid they might very well not have a role in government at all, and consequently simply swallowed hard and conceded what the nationalists had been seeking all along - an early referendum on Scottish-style powers for the Welsh Assembly. Something similar in scope will be required from Gray if he shortly finds himself in need of nationalist friends.