Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

There are a few points i would lke to make about the election.
The SNP did win and are therefore have legitimacy both from seats won and the numbers of votes cast for them.It should also be noted that the SNP did very well in the council elections too.
The "burach" of the mechanics of the elctoral process together with the momentous change in Scottish politics, will keep this election in the news for a long time to come.
I have been a member of the Scottish Liberal Democrats for a number of years. I joined them as i believed that they were more democratic than their rivals and listened to the populace rather than sticking strictly to a party ideology. Having heard Nicol's comment that the SLD will not support a referendum on independance that would give the people of Scotland the opportunity to choose. I did not renew my membership and voted SNP.
Returning to my earlier points, i would urge the other parties in the Scottish Parliament to review the voting figures.Take into consideration that ballot papers were confusing but the Scottish people were not. There have been enough insults to democracy in this election.

George foulkes called Alex Salmond the lowest common denominator of a politician! Is this the start of labour sour grapes campaign.Foulkes will one day mess up and one of our SNP members will be there to witness it.all we can do now is look forward to a new Scotland on the world stage.
Foulkes stick wi fitba. Brian Taylor I salute you for this blog and the coverage during the election many thanks indeed I think I speak for many.Look forward to referendum coverage in 2010.

Brian,

I'm afraid it's not over. It's only just begun.

I disagree that a coalition is out of the question. Labour could still jump into bed with either:

1) LD, Greens and Morag MacDonald.

2) Conservatives and the Greens (an interesting threesome perhaps).

3) Just LD and form a minority coalition government (my preference)

Best,
Ian

It seems we may have just escaped another US-style electoral travesty, where one party got more popular votes and another got more seats. Hardly anything either in Holyrood (unlike local councils) for the "rainbow" parties, which is a great pity. Future Holyrood and local elections should all use STV, to keep things simpler for the voters and give the smaller parties a better chance.

My prediction - the SNP form the coalition with the Lib Dems and the Greens but do not insist on the other two parties supporting their referendum bill. In the long run this is a better strategy than holding fast on the referendum and ending up with a minority government.

A Scottish Executive composed largely of members who believe in independence raises numerous philosophical questions relating to political legitimacy. Moreover, on all issues not relating to independence on which the SNP have Lib Dem and Green support, they could make life very difficult for Gordon Brown and the Westminster government.

It's an interesting scenario. Would a unionist pact to deny Scots a referendum, as it were, be just what the SNP needed to win a mandate at the General Election (particularly if a Tory victory looked possible)?

does anyone seriously think that the libs will say no to a wee bit of power ?

They won't get independence, regardless of what they do. Independence is still a long way away (if ever). The Scottish people wanted a change, that's why they voted SNP. Not because they (all) want independence. Alex Salmond will look an idiot, because it simply won't happen.

Surely now the SNP are the largest party the Sun will explode and we'll all die? No need for a referendum then.

Minority Government might be no bad thing, provided that the opposition acts in a responsible manner. It'll sting at first, but they are capable of it.

Would a referendum on a defined list of increased powers, short of full Independence, be doomed to fail? For a start, how about repatriation of control over Scottish Parliament elections, from the useless Scotland Office?

So, even if Annabel Goldie can be persuaded to take on the Presiding Officer role, where on earth are the deputies going to come from? Neither Labour nor SNP is going to be prepared to lose a single seat, the Greens couldn't be expected to, and it would ruin the Lib Dem's chances of doing a deal with either of the big ones. Seems like a stalemate to me, before we've even tried to elect a First Minister!

Don't be so quick to rule Labour out just yet!

Just wanted to say I've enjoyed reading your blog, Brian. Great way to keep in touch with events, particularly for those of us far from home.

What about the unthinkable? An SNP/Lib Dem/Green coalition has the advantage of being vaguely on or around the same political page but the slight disadvantage of a pathetic majority. It will be like the Commons of 1951, with a government run ragged by a mischief making opposition (with absolutely nothing to lose). What if Labour swallowed the elephant and entered into a pact with the Conservatives and the Lib Dems? To tell the truth, their political beliefs are not so far apart these days, and for a party (the Greens) to play kingmaker with 85,000 votes (2% of all votes cast) rather sticks in my craw.

What's the alternative? Minority government feeling its way issue by issue? Ugh. A Lab/Lib Dem/Con pact would have a credible 14 member majority and would represent a massive swathe of the electorate. Sounds good to me.

Cant see much/any media comment re drop in number of women MSPs - 42? - down from 51 in 2003.....

we are two scottish artists -son and daughter of the land
this day is one of our proudest-we salute the commonality of this great land for their courage to change their own history and move forward.
we salute alex salmond-a man of vision
never have we had a better chance of shaping our destiny-
tonight as we write this our country --our great land-filled with jock thomson,s bairns can justly say to itself-we have moved on --we have started the road to join other nations is taking command of our future .

Brian,

The braces were bright, but not as bright as Scotland's future!!!

Well done to wee Eck & co!!!

Whilst it's nice to see Labour getting the bloody nose they deserved for nearly a decade of inactivity and - hopefully - Jack McConnell getting the boot, one wonders what will come of all this?

No party has a majority even if they hop into bed with another as part of a coalition. Are we doomed to four years of a talking shop where nothing gets done because nobody can agree on anything?

I hope Alex Salmond will keep his promise and work for the benefit of Scotland even if this may mean putting some of the SNP's long term ambitions on the back boiler - particularly as, despite their successes, the result is hardly a ringing endorsement for independence.

Only time will tell.

Hi Brian, So how is this going to pan out. How will policy be decided. It's confusing.
Hugh

Labour has no moral authority to govern! Can the Party that is principally responsible for the disgrace of an election. An election that has made Scotland a laughing stock in the yes of the world. Can the Labour Party be seriously considered!?
I think only Salmond has the ability to restore Scotlands democracy and reputation in the eyes of the world!
Certainly not Wendy Alexander and her ilk! When asked about the anarchy at the polls - she could only laugh about it!
As for Nicol No No No to the SNP! The next time you see him Brian - wave the Steel Report in his face!
Also remind Nicol that he came close to losing his own seat to SNP! As did a few of his colleagues! Perhaps you should remind him of the seats that they did lose to the SNP - What does that say about his NO NO NO position in the eyes of the electorate!
Does Nicol really want to drag his Party into another 4 year relationship with the likes of the hysterical and less than intelligent elements of Glasgow Labour Party (you know who I mean) or does he enter an agreement with a Statesmenlike Alex Salmond to restore not just Scotlands image in the eyes of the world! But also to restore the reputation of Scottish democracy!? The Lib Dems as part of the last Scottish executive are somewhat culpable for the farce that was the election in Scotland 2007!?
Perhaps in the process he can restore the reputation of his own Party which is also tarnished today!

Clearly - if he goes into another coalition with Labour he will be going into a coalition with a Party that has shown a hysterical disregard for the voice of the Scottsih electorate! Gordon Browns satements about not working with Salmond shows anti-democratic tendencies and a flagrant contempt for the Scottish electorate! Nicol will be doing Scotland and his own Party great damage if he does so!

Well from what i see, is if they can be given a chance to run the country in some manner(after all the wrangling)then that might just give other people who did not vote snp a cause to do so.

this is a turning point in Scottish politics,which is good for the country,lets get away from westminster politics and focus on Scotland.

I know the SNP promised a referendum for Independence but i feel they should let that slip by and just show the country that they can run it,,then after another election they may get the full run of the house!

we will see!

yours mark binnie (a scotsman abroad!) in akron ohio

Thanks for all your blogging over the last few weeks Brian. I have enjoyed your commentary. And - oh - what a 48 hours it has been! I am very curious to see whether the taste of power lures any of the parties into coalition with SNP. My instinct, like yours, is probably SNP going it alone.

It's over! what about it's only just begun (you led me into that one Brian) well, the wind of change is in the air, more like a hurricane and you know what there is no great surprise,no sudden gasp! why? because there is one major pile up in the middle of the political road,every body what's to grab the centre ground,including Mr Salmond,whether A.S. likes it or not he is in the hands of the politically correct mob,he is simply in the position of led but not leading mode and the furious HURRICANE will come from the electorate,who will once more see very little of the promises come through,politic's it's just a highly payed job with condition's>

Yes Brian it's over.

I did my best to swith you off Thursday night Friday morning but couldn't, finally got to bed 04:00, slept in lost cash etc etc.

While the electronic counters/ shredders were an issue as were those voters who hadn't a clue what to do through no fault of their own it all added to the excitement, frustratation and hunger for an outcome. I've waited 20 years for the SNP to win an election and I don't care about anything other than that. It was worth the wait.

I prefer the system of voting for local authorities and the parliament at the same time. In principal, it's efficient, its the setup that's wrong. It shouldn't be difficult to fix either afterall we've done it before. Number them all and scrap the 'X', only one number on this paper and the next but on the council elections you number as many as you like in order of preference. Either that or give people one paper at a time, sorted.

Electronic counting excluded, I like the system and it would be a shame to scrap it. Keep what's good snd dump what's bad. Fix it don't scrap it.

The SNP won, I'm sorry that 100,000 votes were spoilt, but the SNP won. The SNP won.

Why is there an assumption that the SNP and the Lib Dems can't do a deal? Whether Salmond goes it alone or does a coalition deal, the fact remains that the parliamentary arithmetic is against him ever winning a vote for an independence referendum. Surely then Salmond would rather ditch the referendum demand in the interests of stable coalition with the LibDems/Greens of which they have many policies in common?

Your thoughts?

Is there a case to hold the elections again? Hearing some of the recounts have been different from the originals by as much as 4 candidates in a party is terrifying - plus, almost 1 in 20 papers wasn't counted!

What Salmond and indeed the Scottish people should say to the Liberal Democrats (and indeed any other party that will listen... if politicians ever listen!) now, is: Ok, be against independence, tell us it is wrong and a bad idea but it would be undemocratic to state that Scottish people should never be given the choice. I personally voted for SNP, and would now like to see them given a chance to govern. At the moment I'll vote NO to an independence referendum because I feel we would be better served staying within the UK. HOWEVER, I feel in a democratic society it is wrong for any political party to say that the Scottish people are not allowed their democratic right to have their say.

So we have a chance for scotland to become self-governing,there are still hurdles to overcome. If Alex Salmond becomes first minister will Gordon Browne or whoever becomes Prime Minister be keen to have a problem with Scotland? At least we (Scots) might feel we have more autonomy and not have a First minister beholding to London Parliment. I say bring it on let us be more responsible for our own goverment-sink or swim let's try it.
One other point, if we continue with Jack Mcconnel nothing changes as far as the London goverment is concerned, and surely Jack must be held responsible for the farce of the election- he was the only voice that wanted both votes on the one day-or is that what he was told to do?

47-46?....The 'Labour moral defeat' spin insults our intelligence...especially coming from a party without an equaly solid social basis (but with assistance from eroding SSP vote, Health-candidates, and a leader-centred campaign)

You should know Brian always expect the unexpected.
Scottish Lib Dem's policies are not far removed from SNP's, apart from Independence, but bearing this in mind, which mainstream party polled the lowest amount of MSP's?
It is up to the Lib Dem's to live up to their democratic responsibilities and put the voters first rather than achieve none of their manifesto.
Local Income Tax, Schools, Health, Education,Renewables, there all on the SNP agenda,+ Independence Referendum, the SNP will stand by the voice of the electorate in this referendum, are the Lib Dems, so undemocratic?

If i was Alex Salmond, I'd put the refurendum question on the 'back boiler' and get the coalition going. The Lib Dems share similar views on a lot of issues and they have government experience. In 4 years time we will have another election. By this time we may have a Conservative Government at Westminster (unless there was a massive shift in popular support for the Tories in Scotland, I'd reckon this to be a vote winner). I'd be relatively confident of holding onto the 47 seats as most of the gains came from minority parties. After 4 years of government the SNP would have a track record. In this election the SNP targeted 20 seats. They didn't get them but made significant inroads. Win these and a couple of others and the SNP have an absolute majority in the Scottish Parliament (or a worst could top this up with the Greens). The SNP would have a mandate for a refurendum and a majority in Parliament to get it passed. What's 4 years when you've been waiting 50 years. Or for some of the party faithful 300 years!

If there is no clear agreement and Alex Salmond cannot win enough support to be elected First Minister, how many attempts can be made before the Parliament is dissolved and we have to endure another Election?
A bit of an incentive to make that deal to the smaller parties if not Labour?
Intersting though, can a minority government be formed without the party leader as First Minister - say:- SNP have most seats; a deal is struck to make someone else First Minister (Nicola Sturgeon?)to block AS, the SNP use their voting power to back (in some rainbow coalition manner) her candidacy, and the SNP govern as a minority? Maybe the rainbow coalition is the answer?
What are your thoughts now after a bit of shut-eye?

Brian

Will you maintain this blog of some of the more off-the-wall and behind-the-scenes aspects of Scottish politics, rather like your colleagues in London (Nick Robinson & Evan Davie).

Scotland needs to know the story behind the headlines, and all too often there is not time on the news programmes to cover it all.

I guess you could start with coalition negotiations.

Seeing you typing away during the live show showed that it was your thoughts we were getting!

Why did Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Scotland give no TV coverage of the Scottish Council elections - not even on their Friday night election special? We knew much more detail of what was happening in Plymouth local elections for example than in Aberdeen.

In your article elsewhere on this website you imply that some politicans are guilty of what amounts to manipulation of the electoral process: "Let's redraft the ballot paper so that it shafts the minor parties". Please clarify the following: (1) Why can't you state the names of the politicans who are responsible for this manipulation? (2) When did you become aware that this was being done - before or after the election? (3) If it was prior to the election why didn't you take personal action to prevent or expose it? You rightly state the election process was a disgrace, but you also seem to be admitting you did nothing about an equally disgraceful attempt to cheat the electorate! The people deserve some straight answers don't you think?

So if the SNP want their 65 member coalition, they'll need the presiding officer to be a Labour or Conservative MSP, or Margo MacDonald.

Goodness knows who will want to put themselves up for the position when the numbers are so tight!

I see Labour are considering mounting a legal challenge to the outcome of the election they made a horrible mess of.
Perhaps they should look more to their winning candidate in Anniesland:
"If you loose, you shouldn't be a sour loser. Grow up."
Personally, I don't think it's sour, more rich than anything else...

Brian - I'm a little tired of reading about the 'Blair' factor (or indeed any other Labour mistakes) being *solely* responsible for the SNP victory.

For certain - I think it'd be pertinent for you to remind people about the electoral environment that exists (every day) - for this nationalist party in Scotland.

In the run-up to this election, we've had an entire Labour scaremongering campaign, bordering on the absurd. Certain pro-labour tabloids there to amplify such fears and concerns. Claims of 'social ties' dissolving (Mr.Blair/Brown), of the 'Balkanisation' of the UK (Mr.Brown), and the ineviatble Al Qaeda attack (Mr.Reid).

Incongruous as ever - frequently this nevertheless amounted to little more than pure, unadulterated, lies. No surprise there then.

Of course, it didn't work.

A coalition government was *always* going to be the case here, 47-46 is the same as 50-43 - as you well know...

...and as the mass media also know.

It's not a 'scoop', nor a surprise. Had the 'score' been 50-43 we would be hearing exactly the same concerns from all and sundry, which I'd like to touch on in this post.

I've been very glad to see Mr.Stephen reiterate the fact that the winner is the 'winner'. Incontestable. An incontrovertible fact.

Now - the Lib-Dem rationale and strategy, throughout their *entire campaign*, has been about empowering the parliament.

Yes?

The SNP have said they'll happily offer an option to that end on any referendum paper.

Yes?

Ultimately, the options would be there, for the people. *In a clear manner*. People make their vote - nay or yah.

That's democracy. Not a politicians dastardly (or even 'smug') master plan - rather, a positive chance at term - then a chance in turn for the people to judge that term, and their country's future.

If I were really cynical, I would be thinking of Misters Blair and Brown taking their baggage train North again - to wax lyrical about 'true democracy'.

If I were being really, really cynical - I'd think that a union think-tank might figure that the best strategy against the SNP would be to not dance with coalition - at all - thus disallowing Mr. Salmond from actually taking the country forward, as they had planned.

Ask yourself - ultimately, who would suffer via the position of minority govt. and such a stance?

The people. This is no time for selfish and plotted unionist meanderings.

There has to be a coalition to allow the winning party to have their chance at coming good on their policies. The Labour party had such an opportunity - a rather extended one - and so dreadfully failed to live up to their own.

Frankly, if the Lib-Dems only 'go through the motions' these next few weeks - then it's a slap-in-the-face for democracy.

I would also suggest this would be an entirely unwise position for Labour to adopt. Thinking back to some of the scenes during those long, painful hours when the results stuttered forth...

...if they want to create a schism in the country - a *real* rupture - a *true* separation - that would be exactly the way to do it.

Finally - before any unionist comes on barking about the 'legitimate' nature of a Lab-Lib coalition - I beg to differ.

Unionists you may be - but create and control your campaign based on your own distinctive *political principles* you did. Enough of that nonsense.

Instead, both Labour and Liberals should take a wee step back and really take in the weight of the opportunities at hand. The juncture at which we find ourselves. Help us make Scotland a better - a *far* better place, than it is just now.

At the end of the day, no politician has any mandate to fear the will of the people. The SNP deserve their four years. They deserve their chance. The people, on the day, deserve theirs. That outcome *is* theirs, entirely.

With the buzz of a historical night in our ears, lets make this work.

Otherwise democracy would reasonably demand 500,000 people on Princes Street.

One final point. Shortly before the final result (Mr.Salmond's 'lawn' speech) the Herald Editor suggested he was acting gingerly - waiting to pounce on the no-votes debacle, should the SNP lose, and make the most of it.

To my mind, thus far we've heard:

- Mr.Salmond clearly state he would accept the winner's position - and respect the people's first choice, whoever that would turn out to be - *before* the election.

- From broadcasters during the counting crisis '...all parties have essentially agreed to accept mutual impact...'

Labour - and one Mr.D Alexander are responsible for this mess in the first place. Let's not forget that.

Am I finally going to lose that remaining single last shred of respect for the Labour Party? - should they require a 'legal challenge' on the nights proceedings?

i.e. '..lets question it, moan some, while the issue is hot..'?

There is *no* issue - and people are watching.

For posterity's sake - again, ** no politician nor political party has a mandate to fear the will of the people **. Anything else is a farce and should be outed as such.

Back in 1990, even before the web was invented, I posted an article on Scottish self determination to the Internet. You can read it here.

The opening part of the Claim of Right, signed by the Liberal Democrats and chaired by David Steel reads:

"We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount."

The Claim of Right led to the basis of the Scotland Act and hence the Scottish parliament. Yet it is only the SNP which is now favouring a multi-option referendum in line with the above claim to accept the right of the Scottish people to determine the *form* of government best suited to their needs.

Therefore, I call on all the elected members of the Scottish parliament to accept the Claim of Right, the founding principle behind the Scottish Parliament.

As such, in order that the people can decide the *form* of government best suited to their needs, we the people must have the chance in a multi way referendum to decide. The options in this referendum should be put forward by the parties that have now been elected to serve us.

This is not only a founding principle of the Claim of Right and the Scottish Parliament but of democracy itself. It is not only a model of democracy for Scotland and would go a long way to counter the shambolic way the count has occurred, but would serve as a model for nation states around the world.

Please understand.

If the Labour Party insist on telling the people of Scotland voted for the SNP by way of protest, and not a vote for independence/massive change - then they can't with conscience say that a vote for the three other main parties is a vote for the Union.

Lets out this nonsense for what it is. Soure grapes and anti-democratic plots.

The arithmetic? Try a difference of over 50,000 souls Brian.

Not a lot - but enough to stand up to democratic reason.

Correct me if im wrong but surely the Scottish Parliament does not have the powers to pass a referendum bill legislating on its own authority?

Would this bill not have to be passed at Westminster as the powers required are outwith the Scotland Act 1998?

Can I just ask (since there's no obvious place to ask this, and, hell, the pre-moderation here means SOMEONE'll see it) why spoiled/rejected papers aren't included in the results on the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ News website? Even under normal circumstances it's useful information. This time, it's essential.

Does Nicol Stephen think that the Scottish people are not old enough or grown up enough to decide if they want to be an independent nation? His comments about not supporting independence or a referendum on independence is totally out of order, the Scottish people have spoken through the ballot box by voting SNP. His is a party that has been nowhere and never will go anywhere in Scotland, and the only glory they will ever get is playing second fiddle to SNP and Labour. He reminded me of when Jim Wallace was leader of the lib dems and the first Scottish parliament was formed and he was grinning in to the television cameras saying the they would be able to implement some of there election manifestos policies, HELLO? The Scottish people did not want there policies then or now or they would have voted for them. Nicol Stephen should stop milking the attention of the media, and let the Scottish people decide if they want to be independent. The huge increase in votes for the SNP should tell him how the people feel, and he should let them be grown up enough to decide for themselves, or is he just an other politician with his heed buried in the sand .

Congratulations to Brian for all his doings over the past few days. For an expat like me, his input on telly provided shafts of light amongst all the waffle and spin. But a question.... has anybody ever considered the chances that if a UK-wide referendum was held at some stage on Scotland's independence, the English voters might vote in favour, just to get rid of the whole raft of irritating Scottish issues once and for all? Of course it depends on the outcome of negotiations on things like North Sea oil and gas revenues, but I'd suggest it's not an altogether unlikely scenario.

This nonsense of 'people didn't vote for Independence' wont rub.

1 - the SNP campaign wasn't based on Ind. It was based on giving people the choice. i.e. the very heart of politics!
2 - the 'Unionist' parties have their own politic rationale and beliefs. They have their own politics.
3 - If you are suggesting that people are not voting for Independence (wrong assumption - above) then can we conclude that people were *NOT* also voting for unionism?

I swear, the only travesty here - on the back of a fumbled Labour-led election process (which has nevertheless fired back on them) would be the travesty that we're even talking about a Lab/Lib pact again.

I would duly hope the people of Scotland would see the Brown/Menzies Campbell interference direct - realise that such interference is NOT in the interest of the Scottish electorate and take to the streets in their hundreds of thousands.

If Labour continue on this vein then they will see a real rupture - an *actual* separation of the Scottish people.

Concerns over ballots papers, disputed counts, a majority of a single seat, a LibDem party that has a choice of parties to strike a deal with. The LibDems, Labour and the Tories won't budge on the referendum issue, and the SNP have pledged a referendum.

If no FM is chosen within the next 28 the countries will have to go to the polls again. But, hey that ain't gonna happen! Perhaps the fear of losing one's seat in a follow-up election will be the motivation to get a FM chosen and some sort of a deal struck soon. It will be interesting to see how the LibDems and the SNP make this agreement.

If the unlikely did happen and no FM was chosen due to a stalemate between the SNP and the LibDems, you can bet that there would be a few less LibDems in parliament due to the polarising nature of a second election. Oh, jings, maybe the LibDems don't hold all the cards afterall!

I completely agree with the previous person about the coverage of some areas of the Scottish Elections, we seem to have had more coverage of the French Elections that we have with the Scottish Councils etc.

It appears there is nothing democratic about the Liberal Democrats! What breathtaking arrogance to deny the people the right to have their say on Independence simply because they don't agree with it.

Brian - the Lib-Dem/SNP coalition failure - this was always on the cards.

Whereas the Lib-Dems have folded like a cheap suit in the past nursing the chance of power - giving up key pledges to sleep with Labour (students/education etc) there has very obviously been some general unionist bartering here.

Knocking back labour is a smokescreen to appear reasonable.

Not wanting to deal with the Nats is the most damaging thing *all* the unionist parties could have wished for. I suspect this was the outcome they had settled on very early on.

It now means that the SNP cannot govern in a progressive manner - in a manner that would benefit Scotland.

It now leaves the inevitable prospect of Labour mocking SNP *failures* as their tabloids will doubtless report it. Everytime the SNP get knocked back, it will be a *win* for Scottish democracy etc.

It's a sham - and the Lib-Dems, rather than grasping on to history, and putting themselves in a position for real change, have proved they are again the most spineless bunch of politicians at Holyrood.

Having sold their principles down the river before, several times, they reject a party that has a great deal in common with them - and even *offers* the choice of 'more parliamentary powers' the Libs have been banging on about for moons.

Report it for what it is Brian. Unionist bully-boy tactics.

Let's ask the question:

Why are the Lib-Dems, having campaigned on 'empowering the parliament', having seen that the SNP are willing to put the third option on the referendum paper - *not* willing to do negotiate on any terms?

If the Union - as Labour would have us believe - is as safe as houses - *what* have they got to be scared of?

Ask the question Brian. The Sunday Herald stands alone in doing so. Can you ask?

Why? Because the Unionist parties are scared of SNP progress at Holyrood. Actual progress. They are scared of any 'democracy' that occurs after such progress.

The SNP are willing to go for it - put it to the *people* - see if this unionist support comes through. Remember - it could very well do. Does this stop the SNP putting it to the country? No!

So *why* do the Labour and Liberal parties not support it?

I'll tell you why! The prospect of SNP success and people voting on it.

They're scared that Scotland will see beyond toilet roll like the Daily Record and The Sun and start to build their self-confidence - heaven forbid - as the SNP have their term at Holyrood.

This is - without a doubt, a slap-in-the-face for democracy.

This is the most un-Liberal behaviour you could ever hope to envision.

The Libs have binned stable, progressive govt. for their country - for Westminster fears.

Let's out their cowardly, undemocratic, selfish, anti-progressive, anti-people policies and expose this travesty for what it is.

"Will you maintain this blog of some of the more off-the-wall and behind-the-scenes aspects of Scottish politics, rather like your colleagues in London (Nick Robinson & Evan Davie)."

I agree with this sentiment - please keep up the blog Brian, it's been a fascinating perspective of Scottish politics.

It seems to me that our Scottish cousins are slow learners when it comes to using different voting systems. Northern Ireland voters have been using different systems for 20 years without difficulty. The Scottish fiasco paled into ignomy compared to the ultra-efficient French system in action last evening.
Still, at least the Union of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland has been saved by lack of voter savvy. Bravehearts all!

I would like to know if the rumours about Gorden Brown and Menzies Campbell doing a deal are true. I have heard that Gorden Brown has been in talks with Menzies Campbell about a future Lib/Lab coalition in Westminster if the Lib-Dems refuse to deal with the SNP.

Eric Cochrane #2 above has splendid idea about Nicola. It could run. Would be lovely to see Alex have to run as second fiddle