Â鶹ԼĹÄ

You can say what you like about the Monarchy but they have definitely grasped the notion of Scottish self-government. The Palace gets it. They understand the concept.

The Royal Firm have acted with notable diligence to ensure that they have a continuing role to play in the new Scottish democracy.

From the outset of devolution, the Palace has been on the case. When Alex Salmond was elected First Minister, Her Majesty the Queen flew to Edinburgh especially to welcome him.

And today, once again, the dignified section of the constitution was on splendid display for the Royal Opening of Parliament in Edinburgh. (You'll remember Walter Bagehot divided the state into the dignified and efficient sections.)

Yes, it was pomp and flummery - although there was careful attention paid to the role of the people.

But it was pomp with a purpose.

The Palace is keen to ensure that it continues to play its part.

In response, both Alex Salmond and Alex Fergusson, the Presiding Officer, referred to Her Majesty as "Queen of Scots" - contriving simultaneously to lay stress on both the Scottish and royal dimensions to the day.

Mr Salmond's speech, though, provoked long faces on the Labour benches. Labour MSPs told me later that they felt he had strayed too far from impartiality - and had entered the realm of the partisan - contrary, they argued, to the spirit of the occasion.

They objected to his description of Scotland as a country in transition.

They objected to his reference to his support for an independent Scotland (albeit he noted that others take a different view.) They were decidedly unhappy.

In response, the Nationalists insist that Mr Salmond was simply reflecting upon the changing circumstances, that Her Majesty had similarly noted that there had been change in Scotland since devolution - and that Mr Salmond had merely been arguing for honest, sincere debate.

Unusually for me, I'm not going to stray into this one. I'll leave it to you.

PS: It may have been the formal opening of Parliament. But MSPs now head off into recess. As a consequence, my bloggery may be rather less frequent over the weeks ahead.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I’ve been doing my sums and I reckon Alex Salmond has until Friday 24 August to publish his White Paper on an independence referendum.

In Holyrood today, the first minister said that he would stick to his promise to release the document within his first 100 days in power. Calculating from the date he was elected FM, I make that August 24.

Other pledges in that “100 days” schedule are unlikely to be sustained. That’s because the SNP lacks a majority.

But the independence White Paper will definitely be published. Rather close to the deadline, I suspect: at least, in August.

Opposition leaders wondered why. Indeed, Nicol Stephen voiced exasperation that civil servants’ time was being wasted in drafting the document, given that Holyrood arithmetic meant there was zero prospect of implementation.

I have some slight sympathy with his point - although I doubt that all that many person hours will require to be devoted to this task. I doubt that the document will require legislative precision.

For a White Paper, it will have a decidedly Green edge.

Alex Salmond has also been doing his sums. If the opposition parties can gang up to enforce Edinburgh trams, they can do the same to block moves towards independence.

And they will.

So the anticipated WP will be more of a starting point for a conversation with the people of Scotland than a programme for scheduled government action.

Why, then, not publish it as a party policy paper - rather than an executive document? No doubt that would be Nicol Stephen’s view.

I think, however, it is legitimate for the elected executive to outline formally the principal policy in their manifesto, which is to hold a referendum on the question of Scottish independence. It is then legitimate for Holyrood to debate the document - and endorse it or otherwise.

Of course, the business of parliament must not be utterly dominated by causes which are likely to be lost.

As an issue, however, independence is of a rather different calibre from individual policies.

Is it not right to test it?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

And so the SNP government gave way. To a degree.

Defeated by the combined might of the opposition parties, John Swinney, the finance secretary, announced in Holyrood tonight that he was conceding.

Edinburgh trams will go ahead - and he’ll look again at the project to build a rail link to the capital’s airport.

So the will of parliament prevails.

SNP ministers calculate they can bank some goodwill by giving ground on this - goodwill they may need to cash later in still more troubled times ahead.

But up to a point, Lord Copper.

Mr Swinney accepts the terms of the motion enforced upon him by the three main opposition parties.

That means any cost overrun will land upon the city council.

And while Mr Swinney will review the airport link, he says bluntly that he thinks it’s “had it”.

Stand by for an alternative, much less ambitious scheme.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

This is getting interesting. The SNP Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson says he’s still not impressed by the case for Edinburgh trams and a rail link to the capital’s airport. He says he’d rather spend the cash electrifying the Glasgow to Edinburgh rail line.

Opposition parties say that’s bogus: the projects are years apart and don’t clash. As billed here, Labour, the LibDems and the Tories have ganged up against the SNP.

They want the trams to go ahead - with the caveat that cost over-runs land on the city council. They want action to sort out EARL.

In a few minutes, MSPs will vote. They’re certain to back the opposition line. So what do ministers do? Give way - or go their own way.

Watch this space.

PS: There’s even gossip that there could be a no confidence motion against Mr Stevenson if the executive remains defiant.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

At Holyrood, there’s gossip of an emerging deal over Edinburgh trams - at least, among opposition parties.

Looks like Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Tories might band together to amend an executive motion on transport due to be discussed tomorrow.

The deal could be - yes to the trams - but with a caveat that any extra cost lands upon the local authority, not the Executive; but only maybe to the Edinburgh Airport Rail link, unless problems of management can be sorted out.

Remember that ministers can go their own merry way, regardless of what parliament advises.

But I wouldn’t be at all surprised if, in the interests of wider harmony, the SNP Executive gives a grudging “aye, OK” to the trams - eventually.

As to EARL, it still looks in big trouble.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Do you remember Taking Stock? No? It was the Tory exercise in considering options for the governance of Scotland, short of devolution.

As I recall, the phrase “we will take stock” was first used by John Major in an interview with my late (and much missed) colleague Kenny MacIntyre.

The then Prime Minister was indicating that, while opposed to devolved self-government, the Conservatives would look at the way Scottish affairs were handled if they were returned to power at the 1992 General Election.

The Tories were duly returned, they duly Took Stock – and they duly concluded that there was relatively little they could do. (At the time, of course, they didn’t quite put it that way, preferring to stress the ground-breaking nature of their conclusions.)

The practical outcome was that the Scottish Grand Committee of MPs became a peripatetic affair, a political travelling circus.

Actually, those meetings around Scotland – with sundry demonstrators in tow – were rather fun. Didn’t prevent the Tories from losing every seat and didn’t pre-empt devolution. But fun while they lasted.

I think there’s just a whiff of Taking Stock about one challenge facing our new Prime Minister. Gordon Brown, of course, has rather a comprehensive agenda - Iraq, the new EU constitution, his new Cabinet, public spending, the next election.

But lurking in the background is the Scottish Question. Or rather questions.

How can it be right that Scotland gets more money for public services than England? How can it be right that MPs from Scotland (including G. Brown) can vote on exclusively English issues at Westminster?

Mr Brown has already indicated that the constitution is in his in-tray. But, predominantly, he means re-building concepts of popular and Parliamentary sovereignty plus, perhaps, further reform in the House of Lords.

However, he has said that his government, his administration with soul, will pay heed to the interests of the entire UK, not least the 85 per cent of the population who happen to live in England.

I suppose the salience of the Scottish Question depends upon the number of times it is asked by the Conservative opposition.

Tory leaders are pressing for English votes on English issues in the Commons – but it seems to me they have tended of late to lower the temperature on this issue, aware that it has the potential to challenge the Union which the Tories are intrinsically pledged to support.

Plus, of course, there is another Caledonian matter confronting Team Brown - how to handle the circumstances created by Alex Salmond’s victory and Labour’s Scottish electoral defeat.

Still, though, Gordon Brown knows that he must display his British credentials. He knows that whoever he appoints to handle Scottish affairs in his Cabinet must have an eye to the broader Scottish or West Lothian question.

But what can he do? Scottish independence, of course, answers West Lothian but, from Mr Brown’s perspective, rather defeats the purpose.

There’s minimal support for full-scale federalism. Ditto limited English regionalism – which, in any case, doesn’t answer West Lothian.

Cut the number of Scots at Westminster? Mitigates West Lothian – but might also cut Labour’s chances of retaining power. Announce a needs-based review of expenditure?

Ultimately likely but wouldn’t be quick and doesn’t address the legislative aspects of West Lothian.

Taking Stock anyone?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

More on what SNP Ministers will and won’t do. Mutterings of discontent tonight over the proposed Scottish climate change bill.

Environmental campaigners like the objective of curbing emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.

They are, however, less impressed by the fact that the SNP manifesto promise of three per cent annual mandatory carbon cuts has been shelved.

John Swinney insisted that the target was equivalent to three per cent per year. There would be annual monitoring. But he would consult on targets based on average reductions over a five year period.
Executive insiders say that is to allow for peaks (and, presumably, troughs). The Greens – who entered a co-operation agreement with the SNP – say they’re disappointed.

Friends of the Earth welcome the announcement, urge early legislative action – but warn that the change in tack could generate slippage.

Mr Swinney says the legislation puts Scotland in the lead in this field. However, he acknowledges that there may be differences over the detail. I suspect he may be right.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Department of Too Much Information. The disclosure that Alex Salmond occasionally broadcasts to an astonished nation in the nip. Without his jim-jams. Wide to the world.

Those of us who regularly bother the citizenry over the wireless frequently resort to use of an ISDN line to allow us to broadcast in quality sound from home.

This is particularly useful when sundry programmes want us to participate in the middle of the night – which is anything before 0800 in my book.

Of course, in line with Â鶹ԼĹÄ tradition, I always don formal morning dress for such gigs. But it would seem the First Minister sometimes skips the nuisance of garbing himself.

Perhaps he follows Tom Jones’ advice and leaves his hat on. Frankly, I couldn’t bring myself to ask.

Anyway, it offered an opening to Jack McConnell – one of the few he’s had since the election. In Holyrood today, he said that his successor was now palpably the “emperor with no clothes on”.

What could be better than citing Hans Christian Andersen? More politicians should study Andersen, the Grimms, Perrault and fairy tales generally. It would give them a new perspective on reality.

But what was Jack’s point? It was that Alex Salmond was a modern toom tabard. That he was unable or unwilling to pursue aspects of his manifesto, that he was in office but not in power.

Herewith a key struggle ahead. Labour will claim that the SNP are ineffective, that they cannot deliver. Ministers will point to their core announcements such as scrapping the graduate endowment.

Then there is another category: policies which the Executive will introduce, knowing that they face possible/probable defeat.

Into this category comes local taxation. Alex Salmond said today that he would introduce legislation to scrap the council tax. The SNP favours a local income tax.

As discussed previously, Ministers may not be able to command a majority for their scheme. (Tories and Labour want a reformed council tax, the LibDems favour LIT but with local variation, the Greens want Land Value Taxation.)

In which case, A. Salmond will hold up his hands and blame the wicked opposition for thwarting him.
Which could foreshadow a propaganda battle as the various parties seek to persuade the people wherein lies the path of truth and justice. Fairy tales anyone?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Would they dare? Would SNP ministers dare to defy the will of parliament? Or, expressed in a less pejorative fashion, would they have the chutzpah to cancel a major transport project if MSPs vote for it to go ahead?

With delicious irony, the renewed controversy over new transport schemes for Edinburgh broke today just as the capital was putting up the “no entry” signs to motorists because of serious congestion on the city bypass and the M8.

Let’s recap. The previous administration - and parliament - endorsed plans for trams in Edinburgh and for a new rail link to Edinburgh Airport. The SNP stood on a manifesto of cancelling both, arguing that public transport needs could be better served by other expenditure.

John Swinney, the finance secretary, asked the auditor general, Robert Black, to review the schemes. His verdict? The trams scheme benefits from "sound financial management".

And the rail link? It suffers from “lack of agreement over governance arrangements.” Translation: nobody has a clue who’s in charge, leading to substantial uncertainty as to progress and cost.

Which brings us back to the opening question. John Swinney will deliver his verdict to MSPs next Wednesday - and then invite parliament to choose by voting.

I expect Mr Swinney to attempt to adhere to his manifesto line. Executive sources say the airport link, EARL, is “dead” – and that ministers are also still far from convinced by the trams plan.

It’s hard to be precise at the moment. Depends what the motion is next Wednesday - and whether there are amendments inviting a separate judgement on the trams and EARL.

But, right now, I would guess that parliament might, just, vote to back the trams - but not EARL. For one thing, the Greens support the trams - but oppose a new link rushing folk out to their cheap ozone-threatening flights. For another, the Tories want assurances on a cost cap - and on sorting out the governance issues with EARL.

My guess is that the Black report makes it difficult for parliament to back EARL with any real enthusiasm. But trams are a different story. Executive sources are privately pointing out flaws in the trams scheme - but the Black verdict is fairly generous.

So, if the voting structure allows, trams could get the go-ahead from MSPs. John Swinney (and Alex Salmond before him) stress that ministers can ignore that. Or, to use their language, they note that, constitutionally, the Executive is not bound by ordinary motions in parliament.

That is true. Primary legislation passed by parliament has, as you would expect, the force of law. Binding votes include the choice of first minister - and a confidence motion. However, ordinary, everyday motions don’t force the executive to do anything.

But there’s more. Ministers need a degree of consensus in parliament. With an eye to the autumn spending statement, they don’t need to stir up hostility at Holyrood which might encourage opposition parties to press home their demand for shared control of the executive budget.

Right now, ministers want to dump both transport projects. They don’t like them. They’re against them. But might they just, just be persuaded to let the trams scheme go ahead - in the interests of wider harmony? Depends entirely how parliament votes next week.

PS: One respondent to my blog queried whether I am responsible for selecting the answers which are featured. To stress, I have nothing to do with this function which is conducted by the talented, enthusiastic and expert News Online staff. Further, they tell me that virtually every response is posted on the site. So keep writing.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Question: Will Alex Salmond exempt students from Northern Ireland from paying tuition fees at Scottish universities?

You have 30 seconds to answer.

Examination candidates should not attempt to write on both sides of the paper at once.

Give up? If you answered no, you win a coconut.

If you answered yes, brush up on your practical politics by dipping into the works of Niccolo Macchiavelli.

The issue arises because Mr Salmond was challenged to address this point when he met Northern Ireland Ministers at Stormont. He said he’d look into the matter.

The formal document which emerged from the talks was published today, outlining proposals for joint action on areas like transport, education and tourism.

So why, given the evident goodwill at the Stormont talks, do I think that concessions on student fees are unlikely?

Two reasons. It would be costly and it would infuriate the good and sensible people of England and Wales - who also pay student fees at Scottish universities.

Remember that this conundrum was not created by the present administration.

When Labour and the LibDems scrapped upfront tuition fees, it emerged that, under European rules, they had to provide a comparable deal for students from other EU member states.

But that did not extend to students from elsewhere in the UK.

Which creates a particular dilemma on the island of Ireland.

Travel from Dublin to study in, say, Edinburgh. No charge.

Travel from Belfast to St Andrews. Stump up.

When Mr Salmond said he’d look at the issue, he meant just that.

He’ll look at it.

Scottish Executive sources say, for example, they might encourage a bursary scheme - in Northern Ireland itself - to provide help.

But I do not believe they will drop fees for the many students from Northern Ireland who choose to study at Scotland’s excellent centres of learning.

Friendship goes only so far.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

So, what was the chat at Stormont today? A busy day. Members of the Legislative Assembly, recently reconvened, were discussing the mop-up exercise after last week's floods. (ÂŁ1000 for every household affected.)

They were tackling details of a new bill to reform the welfare system. They were agonising over the tragedy of a triple suicide involving students at a single Northern Ireland school.

And, among all that, a meeting of minds between a Scottish Nationalist, a fervent Unionist and an Irish Republican.

Alex Salmond was paying his first visit furth of Scotland since his election as Scottish First Minister.

He chose Northern Ireland, stressing the common links between the people in both communities.

Like Jack McConnell before him, he addressed MLAs in the senate room at Stormont - once the grandiose citadel of Unionism, now the site of revived shared, devolved power in Northern Ireland.

But things have changed since Jack McConnell spoke here in Stormont. Labour has lost its first election in Scotland for 50 years. The SNP has won its first in its history. And full devolved power has been restored in Belfast.

A curious, remarkable day. Dr Ian Paisley, the DUP First Minister of Northern Ireland, has faced some criticism from rival Unionists for being willing to work with Alex Salmond - a political leader who seeks the end of the Union.

Questioned by me, Dr Paisley said it was "arrant, damnable nonsense" to suggest that he had any illicit pact with Mr Salmond. Rather, he said, it was important for the devolved territories to work in areas of common interest.

Same aim advanced by Mr Salmond in his speech. And also by Martin Mcguinness from Sinn Fein, the Deputy FM. He told me that compromise and caution were the watchwords for now, working within the existing structures.

Of course, the longer term aim for Sinn Fein remains a united Republic of Ireland. And Mr McGuinness said he regarded the election of a Nationalist in Edinburgh as a plus.

Next for Mr Salmond, a trip to Wales. Completing the triumvirate, as Dr Paisley described it.

A potential alternative axis of power, to some extent challenging London.

Truly intriguing developments.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Bigotry, it seems, is devolved.

More accurately, Scotland and Northern Ireland are contriving to share experiences in tackling the problem.

Today a team from Northern Ireland is at Holyrood explaining how they attempt to counter sectarian awareness and, hence, bigoted attitudes in children as young as three.

Scotland, it is suggested, might follow suit.

Here’s a personal reflection.

When I first moved to Glasgow (from Bonnie Dundee via London), I was struck by the extent of casual
sectarianism.

Middle class suits regularly made passing remarks, supposedly droll, about religious division.

Newspaper diaries were replete with tedious tales about Coatbridge and/or Larkhall, the Orange and the Green.

It was seemingly endemic, unchallenged - and mind-numbing twaddle.

To some extent, of course, it was Northern Ireland lite.

Football fans were apparently keen to spend a spell guarding walls across the sea - or were anxious to assure us that soldiers were they.

Hopefully, both tendencies are in decline.

Each time I visit Northern Ireland - and I shall be back again on Monday - it is the mundane which intrigues me, not ancient tensions.

When Jack McConnell visited Stormont - and spoke very well - he was questioned in detail about basic policy; from education to fisheries to housing.

There was plainly a hunger for elementary politics, quite apart from the constitutional maze that commonly characterises our view of Northern Ireland.

On Monday, Alex Salmond will hold talks with both Dr Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness.

Think of it.

The Scottish National Party, the Democratic Unionists, Sinn Fein.

All diverse, all with different agendas.

But all ministers with devolved power, seeking common cause - partly as a counter-weight to London power.

All alert to historic and constitutional tensions. But all constrained to deal with the mundane.

To educate their people, to keep them healthy and to find them work.

Compared with those challenges, sectarianism and bigotry are bogus nonsense.

PS: Sports news. So there I was, taking part in a Dads v Lads football match. (Whaddya mean, grow up? I’ll have you know that 20 years and several pounds ago, I was a notably average football player.) So it gets to a penalty shoot-out. Then sudden death. And, yes, I blootered my spot kick over the bar. Cue hysterical shrieking from our youthful opponents. And you tell me you’ve known pain.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

And so, when it finally happened, it was a royal command performance. Tony Blair has written to Alex Salmond - on behalf of the Queen.

You’ll recall that Mr Salmond previously satirised the absence of communication from the current denizen of Downing Street, 10. (“He never phones, he never writes.”)

Now a letter has arrived. Not a missive of congratulation, but an offer to put forward Mr Salmond for membership of the Queen’s Privy Council.

The letter begins: “Dear Alex” and closes: “Yours ever, Tony.” Mr Salmond has graciously accepted, with only a tiny smirk at the irony of it all.

A couple of questions. Why wasn’t Alex Salmond offered membership of the Privy Council previously, when he was leader of the SNP group at Westminster? Donald Stewart was made a privy counsellor when he led the SNP group.

Answer? Nominations are made by the prime minister of the day.

More to the point, what’s the gig? What is the first minister joining?

The Privy Council used to be deeply serious stuff. Early monarchs, both in England and Scotland, relied upon their separate councils for big-league governmental advice (Scotland’s council was subsumed at the Union).

In these more democratic days, the Privy Council has declined in importance to the point where it is largely ceremonial - although it retains powers over the status of universities and its judicial committee still has clout, notably over colonial and Commonwealth disputes.

(More recently, said committee was empowered to rule over disputes with devolved administrations - but that role is being shifted to the new Supreme Court.)

To join, you swear an awful (literal meaning) oath, including the promise to defend Her Majesty “against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States or Potentates” who might wish her ill.

Even today, if a PM wishes to share sensititive information with Opposition leaders, the conversation is said to take place “on Privy Council terms.”

Some might wonder why a political leader who wants to end the British State would agree to join one of its key organs of dignified, established power?

Answer – to reflect the status of the office of first minister. Either way, the (soon to be) Right Honourable Alex Salmond is now definitely PC.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Does Scotland need a full-time Secretary of State in the UK Cabinet?

Probably not. Yet such a prospect has now been revived.

Media speculation has it that Gordon Brown might consider such a move.

The expectation has long been in the other direction - that the post of Scottish Secretary would vanish altogether, perhaps subsumed within a new department for dealing with the devolved territories.

So what has changed? Scotland has an SNP First Minister. Labour lore has it that he wants watching. Hence the suggestion in some quarters that the post of Scottish Secretary, presently part time, might rediscover its past glory.

Again, though, would Scotland – as opposed to the Labour Party – benefit from such a development?

Commenting this afternoon on questions to the present SofS at Westminster, I was again struck by the inevitable constraints upon the role.

Douglas Alexander, who doubles as Transport Secretary, has no responsibility, as a matter of course, for devolved matters.

At one point, indeed, he invited an opposition MP to take his complaint to the First Minister - who possessed the power to act.

I am not remotely blaming the estimable Mr Alexander for this - he is merely reflecting constitutional reality.

So, given the paucity of responsibilities, why would Scotland again need a full-time SofS?

Turning the issue round, I am also sceptical about Alex Salmond’s demands for the full panoply of Joint Ministerial Committees with Westminster to be revived. (Or, more accurately, vived – since they never worked in the first place.)

It is argued that this structure would prevent Megrahi-style “misunderstandings” between Westminster and the devolved territories. I hae ma doots.

Rather, it is eminently possible that the JMCs would meet, would log endless minutes - but that the bureaucratic guddle / political bungle which attended the Megrahi row would be repeated.

Arguably, it would give Scottish Ministers a forum in which to protest / grandstand.

But would it really pre-empt such controversies in future?

Is it not arguable that what is needed is not a grand over-arching design but a low-level commitment to communicate on the ground?

To build and sustain links, refreshing these for each successive tranche of Ministers and civil servants?

The updated Memorandum of Understanding which confirmed the JMCs in 2002 noted that it was not a legally binding agreement. “It is intended to be binding in honour only.” Quite.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

So how much do you know about the Bluefin Tuna?

Fairly little, I would guess. Certainly much less than Richard Lochhead, Scotland’s Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs.

He’s in , briefed to the gills about said tuna as he participates in EU Council of Ministers talks.

In search of enlightenment, I surfed the web about the Bluefin Tuna.

Top of my list was an article advising me that the BFT is being fished to extinction, with France, Italy and Spain named as key culprits.

Alongside that, incidentally, was a sponsored link tempting me to “feed my passion” for BFT and indeed every other marketable commodity on the globe or within its waters.

What strange beings we are.

But back to Mr Lochhead.

This is his European baptism. His chance to learn that the EU speaks umpteen public languages, each mutually incomprehensible - while the real dialogue is conducted, sotto voce, in Eurospeak; a curious tongue where each word carries a coded meaning which varies according to the recipient.

Not so much doubletalk as multispeak.

Mr Lochhead will already have been advised of the need to be co-operative.

He will have been reminded, gently, of the acquis communautaire - the body of law and custom which underpins the EU.

Right now, he will be meeting and greeting, chatting and discerning.

And quite right too.

He is new, he is utterly inexperienced. He needs to learn where the levers of power are.

And then of course, as the SNP forecast, he will be ready to take the lead in future fisheries councils.

Or not.

Standing in his way - ever so polite but ever so persistent - is the Fisheries Minister at Westminster, Ben Bradshaw, and his boss, David Miliband.

Both are in Luxembourg today, fretting about the Bluefin Tuna.

I’m told the atmosphere on the UK side has been cordial and constructive.

You bet it has. No-one needs a row at this stage.

But what if Mr Lochhead should embolden himself to the point where he seeks to implement the ambition set out in the SNP’s “100 Days” document, published in March?

What if he says: “Ah, quota negotiations for the white fish fleet - I’ll handle those.”

Expect the cordiality to evaporate, with Westminster ministers pointing out the constitutional reality - that the UK leads in Europe.

PS: Lord George Foulkes has helpfully noted that an investigation into alleged rendition flights is being conducted by the Government Intelligence and Security Committee at Westminster, on which he serves.

He said he was advising the first minister in order to avoid any further Megrahi-style misunderstanding between Westminster and Holyrood.

Nice one, George, but we could probably hear you more clearly if you took your tongue out of your cheek.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Just to make sure, I looked up the phone number for the Scottish Executive. Had they gone ex-directory? Were calls barred to Scotland’s domestic government?

Apparently not. A few seconds web-trawling and I was informed that the Central Inquiry Unit at the executive can be reached on: 0845 7741741.

Now Downing Street’s switchboard is legendary. They can patch a Cabinet Minister through to the PM at whatever point he’s reached in the globe during his farewell peregrinations.

Seemingly, though, it was all too tricky to let the executive know about a deal with Libya which had potential implications for a somewhat high-profile prisoner held in Greenock gaol under Scottish jurisdiction: one Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, convicted of the .

Should Downing Street have tipped off the Scots? Yes, of course. Putative devolved co-operation is specifically cited at one point in the Memorandum of Understanding with Libya. Scottish Ministers should have been given an opportunity at the very least to comment before their powers were featured in an international agreement.

Is this cross-border row The Big One – the much feared/anticipated bloodbath between the new executive and Westminster/Whitehall? Nah, don’t think so.

As is widely recognised, Megrahi will remain in Greenock nick until either he appeals successfully or he is despatched to Libya by Scottish ministers. They hold the key, as Lord George Foulkes commented.

However, in his staunch defence of Downing Street, George might care to reflect that he is in a different parliament now. One where his group leader said that the lack of consultation was “deeply regrettable” (while also chiding Alex Salmond for political role-play.)

Let us extend that verdict. Such behaviour by Downing Street would have been “deeply regrettable” even before Alex Salmond took power. It would have been deeply regrettable under Jack McConnell - (and don’t think there weren’t occasions when Labour/LibDem Ministers were tearing their hair out at the crass insensitivity of Westminster.)

More to the point, it would have been wrong even before the advent of a Scottish Parliament. Scotland had a distinct and separate legal and judicial system long, long before the present devolved powers. It dates back to the old pre-Union Parliament.

Way before 1999, then, it would have been the correct course, in such an eventuality, to inform the Lord Advocate and/or the Scottish Secretary of a proposed treaty which had a potential impact on Scotland’s legal system.

So where do we stand? Is Alex Salmond making hay with this? Yes. Is he entitled to protest? I tend to agree with Annabel Goldie that the Nationalists have been handed a gift, wrapped in constitutional ribbon. Will this turn into a long-running and damaging conflict?

See above: don’t think so. It would - if the Megrahi case was ripped out of Scottish jurisdiction. Downing Street stresses that won’t happen - and, indeed, was never envisaged.

To speculate for a moment, it’s not utterly beyond the bounds of belief to consider that our new first minister might, eventually, care to burnish his consensual statespersonlike image – by allowing Megrahi to return to Libya, under Scottish dictat, in the interests of international diplomacy.

Not unthinkable - if rather less likely given the stances adopted in the past few hours.
That number again: 0845 7741741.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

How could he do it? How could he? Such shameful neglect. Wilful, almost. Believe it or not, Alex Salmond opened First Minister’s Questions without a word of praise for Scotland’s magnificent triumph at football. I mean, I know this is new politics. But does he have to show such utter disrespect for long established tradition?

Let me remind the first minister. If Scotland win - at anything - it is customary to refer to said triumph at FMQs. This produces a satisfactory harrumph of agreement from the chamber. Honour is served. Past FMs have contrived to sound proud, for example, at young Tracy grabbing the Egg and Spoon trophy at the Ecclefechan games. (Well done, Trace, your country is counting on you for the finals.)

Alex Salmond claims to be a football fan. (He supports Hearts: there’s a difference.) Could he not have squeezed out a word or two about Scotland’s 2-0 annihilation of the might that is the Faroes? We manage to beat loadsa big guys, all called Johannsen. And does the FM give it a mention? He does not.

Mind you, he skipped over a few other matters too. Mr Salmond was evasive. Brilliantly, wittily evasive. But evasive. Faced with tough ones, he frequently resorted to ad hominem drollery - or appeals for support from the toughs in the cheap seats. (Actually, they aren’t all that tough - and no seats are cheap at Holyrood. But you get the image.)

The only one who got anything like a straight answer today was Jack McConnell - and it was the last thing he wanted. JMcC laid what he thought was a well-sprung trap designed to place the FM on the side of evil-doers. He wanted the executive to agree, as in England, to keep the DNA of non-convicted people who had been interviewed by the police.

Alex Salmond’s answer? Pausing only to query why this hadn’t been done by the previous executive (Prop: J. McC), Mr Salmond said, personally, he could see merit in the notion - and would work with Mr McConnell, now that he was freed from those pesky Liberals. Jack could be seen muttering “thank you”. Or maybe it was “blast you”.

But others? Ross Finnie was neatly lampooned when he tried to ask about executive spending. Andy Kerr asked about health policy – and was told that his visage had improved since the “greetin’ face” he had displayed to the world yesterday.

And Nicol Stephen? He tried, gamely, to pin down whether the exec would ignore parliament over Edinburgh trams and the airport rail link. The answer, of course, is yes: if it comes to it. But Mr Salmond was too smart to give that answer.

Instead, he tied Mr Stephen up in knots trading quotations from an earlier, comparable controversy. Again, it was brilliant. It was well worked. It was witty. But it was evasive. And he still hasn’t mentioned the Faroes score.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

What makes a politician happy? Aside from winning elections, of course.

Well, the small fry mostly take delight in securing minor internal party gains. Ousting Fred from the branch chair. Dissing Wilma at the delegates meeting.

The bigger fish, those in government, crave more. They want either to stiff their (external) opponents or to win popular acclaim for their actions.

Today at Holyrood, the Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon neared Nirvana.

She overturned a decision by her predecessor Andy Kerr, infuriating him in the process. And she was cheered from the public gallery in so doing.

The ? To maintain Accident and Emergency services at Ayr and Monklands hospitals in line with the SNP’s election pledges.

We can dispense fairly swiftly with Joy Number One. New governments frequently overturn decisions taken by their opponents. There would be little point in changing governments if they didn’t.

Let’s look more closely at Joy Number Two: the public reception.

Ms Sturgeon was cheered by hospital campaigners in the gallery - and no doubt will never have to buy her own drinks again in Ayr or Airdrie. But, in the by-going, she evinced a theory of governance which may prove intriguing.

She said: "Public opinion cannot and should not override genuine concerns about the safety of services. But neither can public opinion be ignored. Health Boards and responsible government must balance local views and circumstances with wider considerations of clinical quality, sustainability, safety, and value for money."

At one level, unexceptionable. The minister was merely saying that, all being equal, you should do nice things to people rather than rotten ones. But link this with her further announcement of an independent scrutiny panel to review the reshaped hospital plans in Lanarkshire and Ayrshire.

Two points occur. Firstly, I rather agree with Ross Finnie of the LibDems who queried, ever so gently, what the scrutiny panel will now do, given that the minister has already ruled that A&E will continue at Ayr and Monklands.

Secondly, it is envisaged that this scrutiny panel mechanism will be routinely used in future. To what end? To enforce public opinion? Or to shape it, to mould it to accept the inevitable?

First principles. The people are never wrong. If only the politicians would listen and act accordingly. But what do the people want, given a choice? Do they want smaller, community units - or larger hospitals with greater certainty of 24-hour expertise?

The answer? We want big, expert hospitals. And we’d like one at the end of the street, please.

You see, I do not believe it is about “consultation”. I do not believe the good folk of Ayr and Monklands would have changed their minds one whit, regardless of how extensive the consultation had been. I do not believe an independent scrutiny panel would have made any difference whatsoever.

Rightly or wrongly - they firmly believe rightly - they wanted their A&E units kept open. They cheer politicians who say yes to that. They hiss those who say no. End of story.

Self-evidently, Scotland cannot station a hospital the size of Edinburgh Royal Infirmary at the end of every street. Particularly given the pressures on staffing and sustaining expertise, Scotland has to choose. That means ultimately that elected MSPs, Ministers, have to choose.

This was a confident, assured performance from Nicola Sturgeon. She had prepared well - and was ready for her critics. She has chosen to retain A&E at Monklands and Ayr.

It will be fascinating to watch the reception if and when she follows her principles and takes a decision contrary to local opinion because of the “wider considerations” noted above.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

So who do you think will blink first? Richard Lochhead or Ben Bradshaw?

What do you mean you didn’t know there was a contest? There’s a big one - that goes right to the core of devolved government.

Let me backtrack a little.

Today Linda Fabiani is in London attending a Joint Ministerial Committee on Europe.

Big deal? Very big.

Like most ministers in the SNP executive, Ms Fabiani commands a bewildering array of remits.

Quite apart from the unalloyed joy of serving in Alex Salmond’s office of the first minister, she has responsibility for Europe.

Hence the London talks.

The formal JMC mechanism fell into disuse somewhat under the previous executive.

Scottish Ministers and officials found they could sort out most things by a private call to their counterparts.

From the other viewpoint, unless prompted, Whitehall officials often didn’t see the need to involve Scotland at all. You know the feeling: they never write, they never phone.....

But things are rather different now. There is an SNP executive in Edinburgh.

There is a DUP/Sinn Fein administration in Northern Ireland.

These guys are not going to accept for a nanosecond that the “man in Whitehall” automatically knows best. They are going to want proof.

Which brings us to Lochhead/Bradshaw.

Lochhead is Scotland’s cabinet secretary for rural affairs - including fisheries, to which the SNP attaches great importance. Bradshaw is the minister in Whitehall with responsibility for fisheries.

There is a European Council of Ministers meeting scheduled for next week to discuss fisheries.

During the election, the SNP said their government would seek to lead for the UK in EU fisheries talks - because the fishing grounds are mostly in Scottish waters and the industry is of disproportionate value to Scotland.

They derided the impact of previous executive ministers.

In response, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in Whitehall has gently pointed out the constitutional position: which is that the UK Government leads for the UK in European negotiations.

So who will blink first? Is Richard Lochhead really going to insist on leading not just for Scotland, but for the UK, when he has never been a minister before and, consequently, has never attended an EU Council of Ministers as a participant?

Scotland’s previous representative at these talks, Ross Finnie, held the post for eight years.

And what of the UK Government stance? Will they stand on constitutional rules - and tell Lochhead where to get off? Or will they give ground?

My guess is they give ground - but not too much.

The history of the British state has been one of accommodating to circumstances, slowly and carefully, to avoid wider conflict.

My guess is Bradshaw blinks, stressing the importance of absorbing and reflecting Lochhead’s contribution, while never at any point conceding the absolute right of the UK Government to deal with Brussels.

Is that enough for the SNP?

It may have to be. The UK Government has the law on its side.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

There now, that wasn't that hard, was it?

Gordon Brown has finally phoned Alex Salmond to say "well done" on becoming first minister.

Tad late, perhaps. In fact, a fortnight late. But there you go.

Strictly, I suppose, the phone call should have come from the Prime-Minister-in-Office rather than the PM-in-Waiting.

But Mr Salmond says he isn't bothered.

I guess he'd rather talk to the guy in (potential) charge rather than the one on an extensive farewell tour.

Does any of this matter? Not vastly, no.

It was somewhat rude and curmudgeonly of Downing Street, 10 and 11, to ignore the new elected FM in Scotland.

After all, in their years in power they will have gritted their teeth and conversed with political leaders they disliked.

Difference was Alex Salmond had committed the unpardonable folly of defeating Labour on their "own" territory.

More to the point, where will power now lie?

Will Gordon Brown co-operate with Alex Salmond?

Answer: yes, where it's needed.

See previous blogs as to why the "Brown will snub Salmond" canard was always bogus.

They're both democrats: They'll work together where they share a common perception of the public interest.

Where will they differ? Independence.

Alex thinks it's a grand wheeze, Gordon thinks it's dumb.

That cannot be elided - so it will simply have to be factored into whatever relationship they develop.

More to the point, again, where does power lie in Scotland?

Ever so gently - and with wit - the first minister reminded MSPs yesterday that the executive cannot be constrained by everyday, ordinary parliamentary resolutions.

The presiding officer later confirmed that the exec could only be bound by .... formal legislation or a vote to vary Scottish income tax.

Oh, and one more - a vote of no confidence in the first minister and his government.

It's showdown time right away.

The FM wants to scrap the Edinburgh trams and airport rail link. The other parties want to go ahead.

Parliament has legislated approval. But the executive controls the money.

Alex Salmond now says he'll produce financial evidence - which will undoubtedly show that the trams and rail link would require largesse on the scale of the South Sea Bubble and the Darien Scheme combined. (Memo to civil service: If it doesn't show that, stand by for one unhappy FM.)

Then the crunch.

The only serious sanction available to MSPs if the executive refuses to fund the new transport projects is to lodge a confidence motion.

Earlier, a reader asked me what happened if the SNP lost a by-election. Herewith the answer.

The SNP executive is brought down the moment its first minister suffers a defeat in a formal confidence motion.

And by no other means. Losing individual Holyrood votes doesn't do it.

But think on.

For the opposition parties to use this option, they would have to be certain of having a replacement FM in mind - one who could command a majority in Holyrood.

Otherwise, it's down the big snake to square one - and a rerun election.

Can't see the voters liking that.

This is a tough one.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?