Selection Box: West Scotland

The final region, West Scotland, has one major eye-opener: the emerging contest in Renfrewshire North & West. Sitting MSP, Trish Godman, is standing down here, and her replacement is Stuart Clark. Up against him are Derek MacKay, the Leader of Renfrewshire Council, and Tory Leader Annabel Goldie. Now, this throws up a few interesting questions. Firstly, how well will Cllr MacKay's candidacy be received? His position will make him a well-kent face, but is this good or bad? Renfrewshire Council have, like many others, had to take some tough decisions even before the recession, so there's the possibility that he could well end up as a Peter Grant-type figure. Or his profile could carry him to top spot.

But breathing down his neck is the Tory leader, Annabel Goldie, the only sitting MSP to be standing in the seat (unless Ross Finnie decamps), and let's not forget, reasonably high-profile as the Leader of her Party. QIB would potentially turn this seat into a clear three-way marginal (it's possible that just 6% could end up separating first and third). Who will prevail? This one is worth watching next May...

Meanwhile, Jackson Carlaw is the Tory candidate tasked with 'defending' the re-drawn Eastwood, but thanks to Cunninghame South entering the region, there are still two notional Tory Regional seats, so even if Carlaw gets ranked second on the List, the big question is, who'll get third? An early figure to watch is Maurice Golden of the Glenrothes By-Election, who has been selected for Cunninghame North, but it's early days yet.

Of course, all of these, in this and the previous five posts, are just the tip of the iceberg and there are many more selections now in place. But even so, there are all sorts of twists and turns that could take place between now and next April, when the candidacies will be formalised. Anything could happen.

Selection Box: South Scotland

South Scotland isn't devoid of a few interesting contests.

For Labour, there's the vexed question of who to replace Cathy Jamieson as candidate in Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley, particularly as a QIB would make this seat highly marginal. But there's another interesting decision for the party. With Cunninghame South leaving the region, and SNP-held Kilmarnock & Irvine Valley coming in, there's now a notional Labour Regional seat, and a vacancy to fill. Moreover, the theory that the spot might prove tempting for a defeated Labour MP has been blown part by the somewhat frustrating failure on the part of any Labour MP to be defeated, so unless Lord Browne fancies doing a Foulkes, it's not clear who might come forward.

But in terms of constituencies, all eyes should be on the Borders: the new boundaries of Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale are favourable to SNP candidate Christine Grahame (suggesting that Jeremy Purvis might have to decamp to the List), while the Tories have, somewhat surprisingly, selected former Tory MP Peter Duncan ahead of Derek Brownlee, who stood in the old Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale seat. Brownlee will have to make do with fighting East Lothian instead, but this throws up another intriguing battle: with only one Regional seat (and even that's in doubt if Gillian Dykes succeeds where Murray Tosh failed and beats Elaine Murray in Dumfriesshire), and two strong candidates for it, what will the Tories do? Will they opt for old standard-bearer Peter Duncan, the former Party Chairman and Shadow Secretary of State, who quite literally put the Tories back on the map in Scotland back in 2001? Or will they choose the up-and-coming Derek Brownlee, whose negotiation during the budget process has delivered the implementation of Tory policies for the first time since devolution? It's a tough call, and there's going to be one hell of a bloody nose for someone.

(Incidentally, a correspondent who, sadly, didn't leave a name assures me that in fact, Brownlee secured the East Lothian selection before Duncan was chosen in Midlothian South, Tweeddale & Lauderdale. I must confess to being surprised by that particular alignment of events: while neither seat is a particularly appealing prospect, respectively being the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition and an SNP-LibDem marginal with the Tories shut out, but Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale was Brownlee's base for the last two elections. Does he just fancy a pop at Iain Gray?)

Meanwhile, we have the re-match between Tory MSP John Lamont and the man he defeated, LibDem Euan Robson, in Ettrick, Roxburgh & Berwickshire.

Finally, there's the SNP List, with Kilmarnock & Irvine Valley coming into the region but being absorbed into the SNP's current total of five seats in the South, and with five Regional MSPs currently, this could have been ugly for the Party. But with Mike Russell heading north, and Alasdair Morgan standing down, the SNP goes from having more candidates than slots to defend, to having a vacancy for a new face.

Selection Box: North East Scotland

This region has a few fascinating contests in store, mainly as this is the region with the truly new seat, in the shape of Angus North & Mearns. It looks like we can expect a battle between two sitting Regional MSPs: the SNP's Nigel Don, and the Tories' Alex Johnstone. And of course, it remains to be seen what effect Andrew Welsh's retirement will have in Angus South.

Meanwhile, there's also speculation that the LibDems' Nicol Stephen will stand down, leaving the LibDems with a vacancy to fill in Aberdeen South & North Kincardine.

But again, check out the list. The extra (notional) SNP constituency creates a new Tory seat on the List, so there's a question now of who might fill it, especially as no obvious name springs to mind, on account of the candidate in the one top target seat the Tories had in the area in May being a certain Mr. A. Johnstone.

Selection Box: Lothian & Mid Scotland & Fife

Moving to the Lothians, Alex Cole-Hamilton has been selected by the LibDems to 'defend' Edinburgh Central (I say this as, on the notional figures, this seat moves into the LibDem column). Cole-Hamilton was first on the Mid Scotland & Fife List last time at the expense of sitting MSP Andrew Arbuckle, who came second, and would have got in had Jim Tolson not been so inconsiderate by winning Dunfermline West. For shame! Elsewhere, Labour have a vacancy to fill in Midlothian North & Musselburgh, with the retirement of Rhona Brankin.

But the List is where the action is: for the SNP, Ian McKee is standing down (and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that Shirley-Anne Somerville may cross the Forth to Mid Scotland & Fife) so there's a vacancy there. George Foulkes is standing down so there's a vacancy for Labour. And Robin Harper is standing down so we see the first ever Green vacancy, with Councillor Maggie Chapman being tipped in some quarters to fill it. And of course, we don't yet know if Margo MacDonald will wish to continue.

Across the Forth, again, the Mid Scotland & Fife List is where the action may be, with Christopher Harvie retiring (affording an opportunity for Shirley-Anne Somerville to make that crossing), along with Tory Ted Brocklebank, creating a vacancy on the Tory list, perhaps for Bob Dalrymple, who came fourth on the List last time and was the Tory candidate in Stirling (designated a key seat) in May.

Selection Box: Highlands & Islands

In the Highlands and Islands, there are a wave of retirements on the way, with Jim Mather, John Farquhar Munro and Jamie Stone all leaving in 2011. In Argyll & Bute, Education Secretary and current MSP for the South of Scotland Mike Russell will replace Jim Mather as the SNP candidate, with Alison Hay looking to win the seat back for the LibDems and current Regional MSP Jamie McGrigor making the pitch for the Tories. Now, at this point, I'd usually mention the QIB here, but the fact that Mike Russell, who lives in this constituency, is a sitting MSP and a Cabinet Secretary to boot, probably neutralises it, along with the fact that for Holyrood, this seat is an SNP/LibDem marginal and the Tories are some distance off the pace. However, QIB would certainly apply in Caithness, Sutherland & Ross (where Regional MSP Rob Gibson will be having a go), and Skye, Lochaber & Badenoch (where LibDem Alan MacRae will be hoping to defend the seat against SNP MSP Dave Thompson). And the average bonus of a quasi-incumbent equates to a 6% swing, which would put both seats in the SNP column.

Meanwhile, it's worth flagging up that Mary Scanlon has been selected in Inverness & Nairn. If I were feeling uncharitable, I would mention that she attempted to present herself as "A New Bonnie Fechter for Moray" following the death of Margaret Ewing, but that wouldn't be like me at all, would it? In fact, she was never a bonnie fechter for Moray: she'd stood in Inverness East, Nairn & Lochaber in 1999 and 2003, and doubtless only stood in the Moray By-Election as she'd already been selected for the seat for the 2007 Election. I mention this simply to point out to those who remember that campaign that she has not been ejected from her base, she is actually returning to it.

The Return of the Selection Box: Central Scotland and Glasgow

Despite the hysteria over the 100-day of the Coalition, and the excitement over Charles Kennedy doing nothing, the Scottish political parties are in the midst of selecting their candidates for next year's elections. So, inspired by Malc's post on retiring MSPs, I thought I'd take a look.

In Central Scotland, all eyes are on Motherwell & Wishaw, not because there's a vacancy (yet), but because there's pressure on Jack McConnell to stand down after taking a peerage. It should be noted that McConnell is the fifth MSP Peer: Lords Douglas-Hamilton, Foulkes, Steel and Watson all went before him and Lord Watson (despite his fall from grace) provides something of a precedent in that he too was a Constituency MSP, and successfully sought election and re-election as a Peer of the Realm. However, McConnell is the first to become an MSP while sitting in the Scottish Parliament (normally the reverse is the case), and he is the first one to consider keeping a foot in both camps after 2011. This is significant for the Kelly Review, which proposed the end of dual mandates from the date of the next devolved elections. Now, the review referred only to "Westminster MPs", which suggests that only membership of the Commons was considered, but combining a working peerage with the Scottish Parliament would be dubious in the spirit of Kelly if not the letter. He may, therefore, end up feeling pressured to stand down. We shall see.

In Glasgow, keep your eye on Glasgow Shettleston, where John Mason (of the Glasgow East By-Election) has been selected for the SNP. Now, Mason is not seeking a place on the Regional List, and does require an 11.22% swing to win the seat. Of course, that's a considerable increase on the swing he achieved in Glasgow East in the General Election in May, but it's only about half what he pulled off in the By-Election in 2008, so it's not completely beyond the realms of possibility. But of course, this will have a knock-on effect for the List, and assuming that Nicola Sturgeon takes #1 billing, then none of the sitting Regional MSPs will want to come fifth.

Meanwhile, for Labour, a pressure has been eased with Margaret Curran's transfer to Westminster: they are no longer trying to fit nine MSPs into eight notional seats, and have already selected Stephen Curran as their candidate for Glasgow Southside. Then there are the Tories, who find themselves with a vacancy at the top of their List given the retirement of Bill Aitken. Malcolm Macaskill has been chosen as his replacement for the Glasgow Anniesland candidacy, but the actual list is yet to be determined. It's still possible that Ruth Davidson might enter the fold, but I understand that the Tories' one Councillor in Glasgow, David Meikle, has been selected in Southside, so he is one to watch.

Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow

She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.

We are, of course, nearing the Final Act, and over the next few weeks, across the UK, the last scenes will be played out. Will the curtain fall, or will there be a sequel that few of us were expecting?

I'm in a dramatic mood today (hence the rejig and the culling of the blogroll) and there are times when such urges just have to be indulged. After all, tomorrow Gordon Brown will almost certainly go to the Palace and seek a dissolution of Parliament. It's going to be tomorrow: it's either then, or next month, anyway.

I was never convinced by the wave of expectation, sweeping us all towards an early General Election back in Autumn 2007. Let's face it, Brown had spent thirteen long, agonising years plotting and scheming to eject his colleague Tony Blair, and having had all sorts of golden opportunities over the period, never quite managed it: Blair went of his own accord, having announced of his own initiative that the 2005 Election would be his last. Brown's acolytes got the concession that the 2006 Conferences would be his last, but again, Brown himself was not in a position to land the final blow, and it was Blair who set his final departure date and somehow, despite everything, left the stage with the audience wanting an encore.

No, Brown had spent the time waiting, plotting and hoping, but never quite having the bottle to make the ultimate decisive move that would bring about his move next door at a time when he wanted. Why, then, having waited so long, would he risk it all in an election that could have seen him leave 10 Downing Street before his feet were properly under the desk? Why, after 13 years of cautious inaction, would he blow it on one massively reckless move? That wasn't his style and that election was never going to happen. Still, we all planned for it - just in case.

Then 2009 came. And went again. That's how it was always going to be: after an ugly git of a 2008 for the Government, and Labour (not completely fairly) getting the blame for the expenses scandal, he was never going to go last year. Again, it wasn't his style.

So why, then, am I sure that, with a choice between going to the Palace tomorrow, and leaving it a month, he'll go tomorrow?

Image. It's what did for Callaghan in the end: he thought Prime Minister 1976-79 looked better in the history books than 1976-78. Similarly, Brown didn't want the 2007 Election as he didn't want to have the shortest term of office since George Canning, who had the excuse of dying in office. Of course, Brown has metaphorically died in office many times over, but that's beside the point. Image counts, and going tomorrow gives Brown at least some dignity and credibility. Wait another month and he'll spend the next four PMQs getting filleted.

Besides, there are elections anyway on 6 May, to local Councils (including the London Boroughs), and recent history is very clear: the polls will be timed to co-incide. It used to be that Governments tried to avoid that at all costs, it was a factor in the timing of Polling Day when the Callaghan Government fell; Margaret Thatcher went to the country just over a month after local elections in 1983 and did the same in 1987; John Major's re-election took place just four weeks before local elections and European elections, until 2004, always fell a few weeks after council contests.

But it was John Major's departure from office when the approach changed: the 1997 General Election coincided with County Council elections in England; and Blair repeated the process in 2001 (delaying both due to Foot and Mouth) and 2005. He even brought forward Northern Irish local elections so they'd take place concurrently with the Westminster campaign. The 1999 Council Elections in Scotland coincided with the first elections to the Scottish Parliament, and the Parliament passed the Scottish Local Government (Elections) Act 2002, which changed the terms of office for local Councillors from three years to four so that they would continue to coincide (and thanks primarily to the Gould Report, that decision will be undone soon). Local elections were moved back in 2004 and 2009 to coincide with the European Elections, and even the London Mayoral and Assembly elections were moved back in 2004 for the same reason. Indeed, the last time two sets of major contests were held just a few weeks apart was 1999, when the European elections took place just five weeks after elections to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly (as well as local elections).

It would be a major break with this recent approach, and an act of cowardice to delay any longer.

And what of the outcomes? One gets the feeling that Gordon Brown spent so long plotting to be Prime Minister that he never actually bothered to work out what he'd do once he got the job, and we've had platitudes where there should have been a plan, as the Government has spent the last few years bouncing from fiasco to crisis, like a ping pong ball in a tumble dryer. But still, the polls aren't as unfavourable as they could be - or indeed, have been. The Tories lost half of their seats in 1997, while Labour lost just under a sixth of their seats in 1979. The reality, I guess, will be somewhere between the two and the marker for Labour is 237 seats, a loss of 119 seats or one third of the 2005 actual total. Anything higher than 237, and they can claim to have held off the worst (though as Labour found out to its cost in 1983, the worst could still be to come). Anything lower, and Labour are in disaster territory.

By contrast, you get the feeling that all the Tories stand for is winning elections and there's still no real sense as to what a Tory Government will mean. It seems that David Cameron has been trying so hard to get into Downing Street that he doesn't really know what he'll do when he gets there either - that the Party seems to face both ways on - well, basically everything - makes the sense of uncertainty even greater and that might explain the blip in the polls. Voters like policies they can reach out and touch, and the Tory Government still has this intangible quality that doesn't help its cause. The electoral maths aren't helpful either: a net increase of 107 seats on the Tories' actual 2005 total would be broadly equivalent to the gains made by Tony Blair. That increase would still deliver a Hung Parliament. With a Hung Parliament increasingly likely, 274 (an increase halfway between those of Thatcher and Blair) is the target and anything short of that would be an embarrassment. Anything higher, and the Tories are at the very least on track, and would have the necessary momentum to get their majority in 2011.

For the LibDems, the actual numbers are irrelevant: it's their position relative to everyone else that matters and their requirements are frighteningly specific. There has to be a Hung Parliament, and they - and only they - should be able to carry one party or (preferably) both over the line. If the Tories get a majority, it doesn't matter whether there are nine LibDems or ninety: it's all been for nought. And their campaign doesn't inspire confidence: vote for us, because our spokesman successfully predicted economic doom (I won a bet on Saturday that Bristol City would draw with Nottingham Forest - does that make me an ideal candidate to be Minister for Sport?). Vote for us, and our clunky slogan that's a mishmash of everyone else's. Vote for us, because the other parties are actually drawing up a manifesto specifically designed to make your life a living hell (that's the upshot of "We are the only people who believe in fairness" line). Vote for us, because, really, you shouldn't give a shit about that other lot (that's the upshot of all the SNP-bashing, despite their apparently being irrelevant, and in any case, that's a rather daft claim from party that lost its deposit in the last three Westminster By-Elections in Scotland). And I still haven't forgiven my local LibDem Councillor for saying that he's "not bothered" how I vote in a General Election as long as I vote for him to keep his seat on the Council and get a pretty community garden across the road from his house while a current beauty spot gets flattened for just two houses.

Then there's the SNP. Again, the numbers shouldn't matter too much, but the number 20 does still loom large. It's some way off in the distance, but the number is there. The SNP premise is a clear one: it won't be the Government but it can influence the Government better than its own backbenchers can. And the slogan ("More Nats, Less Cuts") is simple and effective, albeit ungrammatical. The big problem is, with the party basically cut off from the UK-wide media, how does it make sure that its message gets across to the maximum number of people? That's the challenge.

And what of the other parties? Can the Greens make the breakthrough? They can. Will they? We don't know. Can UKIP's Nigel Farage oust John Bercow? I doubt it. Can Nick Griffin get into the House of Commons? Well, if press reports are to be believed he'll have done well getting to polling day without his publicity officer murdering him.

Here are a few early calls:

1. The Tories will have the most votes, and will probably have the most seats. But unless David Cameron is capable of going without oxygen for a fortnight, he shouldn't hold his breath before getting into Downing Street. He will have to wait a while.

2. Nick Clegg will find himself with a lot of explaining to do, either to his Party not getting the result they wanted, or to the press and the public for a cack-handed reaction to getting the result he wanted.

3. No more than 1,000 votes will determine whether or not Caroline Lucas enters the House of Commons.

4. Esther Rantzen's challenge will come to nothing: the main reason Martin Bell won in Tatton in 1997 was that the opposition to Neil Hamilton coalesced around him. That isn't happening in Luton and the vote will be too badly split for her.

5. Nigel Farage will still be an MEP at the end of it all. He'll accuse the main three parties of a 'cosy European consensus' that prevented a fair fight.

6. The SNP will make a real progress in votes and seats, but Labour will attempt to portray the result as a personal disaster for Alex Salmond.

7. This is as much hope as expectation, but if there's any justice, Anne McGuire will have done to her by the people of Stirling what she did to thousands of disabled workers at Remploy.

Now, let the drama begin...

Devine Retribution?

It looks like the Sunday Herald's penchant for political hatchet jobs has rather neatly combined with the Telegraph's political reporting being sub-contracted to the Witchfinder General, and Jim Devine, MP for Livingston, has been ditched by the Labour Party's NEC.

Devine's deviation was two-fold: firstly, he claimed two grand in expenses for re-wiring work done to his flat. The problem was, the company that billed him didn't exist. Devine claims that the electrician was to blame for this. It might have been possible to give him the benefit of the doubt were it not for another £2000 claim relating to 66 metres of shelving, bought from a local pub landlord. The shelving turned up not in Devine's office or home, but in the cellar of the aforementioned pub, and didn't resemble the specifications given for it. As Karen Dunbar used to say, "I smell shite!", and so did the NEC. Despite the support of his local party, Devine will now no longer be considered a Labour candidate for the next election.

It's fair to say that Robin Cook's successor, elected in the September 2005 By-Election, has taken this badly. He protests his innocence and asserts that he has been hung out to dry. He is therefore tempted to exact revenge on his party, and follow Ian Gibson by quitting, and forcing an early By-Election.

So, Labour faces contests in Glasgow North East, Norwich North, and potentially Livingston as well: the latter would be significant for the second By-Election in one Parliament. The last time this happened was Bootle, which saw By-Elections in May and November of 1990, when the winner of the first poll, Michael Carr, died just 57 days after his victory.

This might not be as bad for Labour as they think: I'd wager that Norwich North will go blue, if the Council elections this year are any indicator; Glasgow North East looks guaranteed Labour on paper, especially given the European election results showing Labour on top here, but still, with momentum behind the SNP (and against Labour), bearing the current mood in mind, and remembering that Glasgow East looked guaranteed Labour on paper, I wouldn't put any money anywhere near that By-Election.

Livingston, however, is a different kettle of fish. Angela Constance slashed the Labour majority in the 2005 Election, and now represents the Scottish Parliamentary constituency of the same name. On paper, given the present state of the parties, this looks to be a hotter prospect for the SNP, and if the two Scottish seats are ranked in priority order, Livingston surely comes first. Indeed, the SNP had a more successful result in that By-Election than in the Glasgow Cathcart By-Election for Holyrood which was held on the same day, and where it looed like victory was being handed to the SNP on a silver platter. That didn't happen, but the strong result at the other end of the M8 deflected concerned eyes from that outcome. Again, the two battlegrounds would be Glasgow and West Lothian, but a smart strategy would see the SNP aiming at the seat that gave them a better return the last time that happened.

So with progress in Livingston begetting further effort begetting further progress (and perhaps victory) for the SNP in Livingston, the Party would be looking East. That would allow Labour to look West, and avoid the humiliation of another possible political earthquake in Glasgow.

It would, therefore, be in Labour's interest for Devine to go now, and get all three By-Elections out of the way on the same day. Norwich North, and the likely Tory gain, would take the headlines, but Labour could spin this easily - anger at Ian Gibson, 'local' issues (these always gets mentioned even if they're not defined), the recent election results showing us that this isn't anything new. The SNP could well take Livingston (especially if, as is rumoured, Devine were to stand for re-election as an Independent), giving them their moment of glory but again, spinnable for Labour - the end of the late Robin Cook's personal vote, anger at Devine, 'local' issues, recent election results showing us that this isn't anything new. But Labour could also win Glasgow North East, giving them something to crow about there. All three parties can come away with something, and would be able to dismiss the other results. If I've called this correctly, everyone wins, except the LibDems.

So for Labour, the worst political aspect of this isn't necessarily the possible By-Election, merely the morass of sleaze that accompanies the expenses row, which has triggered this wave of votes. And strangely, if they fight on three fronts, they might have a better chance of victory on one of them than if they fight on only two.

If I were in Labour now, I'd be goading Devine into Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, and timing every By-Election for the same day. It's their way out of this stramash.

Yes, I know, I'm a cynical bastard, but when an MP claims £2000 for seemingly non-existent shelves, and £2000 for a payment to a non-existent contractor, can you blame me?

Out of the Frying Pan

Since I came to this House 30 years ago, I have always felt that the House is at its best when it is united. In order that unity can be maintained, I have decided that I will relinquish the office of Speaker on Sunday 21 June. This will allow the House to proceed to elect a new Speaker on Monday 22 June. That is all I have to say on this matter.

And with those terse words, one can of worms was placed in the bin, to be replaced with two more.

The first is who will replace him as Speaker - and who would want to. We have, at this stage, only one declared candidate, and so he is, by default, the frontrunner: Sir Alan Beith, LibDem MP for Berwick-upon-Tweed. He is the bookies' second favourite, at 5/1. The favourite is Sir George Young, at 4/1. Vince Cable, David Davis and anne Widdecombe have all ruled themselves out. Mutterings from the Labour benches point towards Tory MP John Bercow. Mutterings from the Tory benches point towards Labour MP Frank Field. At this stage, it's far too early to say who will emerge.

The second is who will replace him as MP for Glasgow North East, with his departure from the Commons all but certain. Strictly speaking, there is no incumbent party, with the Speaker standing for re-election as an apartisan candidate, but had that not been the case, this would ordinarily be seen as a Labour fortress. Nevertheless, we have a little more knowledge about party strengths merely on the basis that, as you'd expect, the SNP haven't really been all that impressed by the convention that the Speaker isn't challenged. If you make the shaky assumption that all the people who voted for Michael Martin would have voted Labour, and that all the people who would have voted Labour voted for Michael Martin - and neither of those assumptions hold much water but we have to start from somewhere - the SNP would require a swing of 18% to win a By-Election: more than was required (and far more than was acheived) in Glenrothes, but less than what was needed and attained next to this seat in Glasgow East. On that basis, we can't yet read the tea leaves, and I don't yet envisage the European Elections shedding any light on how the By-Election would progress. I shall simply say that for the SNP, a victory would be best characterised as it was in Glasgow East - improbable but not impossible - while for Labour, victory is nothing short of an absolute must.

There's then the question of the candidacies. Conventional wisdom used to have it that Paul Martin was a shoo-in for the Labour nomination but hereditity might not go down overly well right now but combined with Margaret Curran's intention to fight Glasgow East again, it might provide a vacancy for Steven Purcell at Holyrood (might that make Frank McAveety a possible candidate?). The SNP have a PPC - Grant Thoms, the Tartan Hero - but as we know from Glasgow East, PPCs for the General Election don't necessarily fight a By-Election. However, he's in place, he's on the Party's NEC, he's a strong campaigner so you would see him as a frontrunner. All the same, these are unusual times, and the assumptions we would normally make can be called into question very easily indeed. All bets are very much off.

So, Michael Martin's exit creates two vacancies, and two elections: one winner will emerge from the benches of the House of Commons; the other winner will take a seat on them. But at this stage, we can't even say for sure who will be on either ballot paper, much less who will emerge on top.

We await with bated breath.

The Sack Race

With two Opposition parties' Leaders gone, tongues are being placed firmly in cheeks as discussions about Annabel Goldie's future begin. However, it's a mark of how well she's done that the lines are in jest: no one, save the rather unsurprising figure of Brian Monteith, is seriously suggesting that her time is up. Contrast that with eighteen months ago, when the Scottish Tories were perceived as limping towards the finish line, and Goldie would be gone almost immediately after the election. The Tories did OK - not great, but OK - and Goldie has exerted a large amount of influence in Session 3 of the Scottish Parliament. She'd be mad to go.

Besides, there's a more obvious target if you know where to look. I am looking at Robin Harper, Co-Convener of the Greens. Let me begin by asking: when was the last time you spotted Robin Harper anywhere? By contrast, haven't you noticed how often it's Patrick Harvie speaking for the Party? That's the first sign that Harper's foot is slowly coming off the pedals.

Secondly, remember who the other Co-Convener is: Alison Johnstone, Green Councillor in Edinburgh. That's an Edinburgh City Councillor and MSP for the Lothians. See the problem there? I know I do. An all-Edinburgh Leadership strikes me as being unsustainable and something has to give. No, Johnstone's ascent marks what I believe is a phased transition: the first step of Harper's withdrawl.

Shiona Baird had to go first - there's no doubt about that and her main asset was her Membership of the Scottish Parliament. When she lost that, her position was untenable, particularly when there were Green Councillors in Scotland's two largest cities who could take her place. But why did the Party go East - where Robin Harper is - rather than West - balancing the party in geography as well as in gender?

The answer is the concluding phase of Harper's departure: Patrick Harvie is the obvious choice to succeed Harper. Where is Harvie based? Glasgow. So electing a Glaswegian woman to the joint Convenership in 2007, then having her be joined by a Glaswegian man a little while later would concentrate power in Glasgow, and on the basis of a longer term than the current Edinburgh concentration will now provide. No, it was impossible to elect a Glasgow Councillor in 2007, when the Glasgow MSP is on the way in. It is, on the other hand, logical to turn to an Edinburgh Councillor, when the Edinburgh MSP is on his way out. In short, Johnstone in means Harper out, and Harvie in.

Then there's the timing? Does it really have to be this year? Yes, it does. We are entering an active phase in Scottish politics: 2009 is the year of the European election; 2010 the Westminster election (and maybe the Referendum); 2011 is the year of the next Holyrood Elections and 2012 appears to be when the local Elections will be held. Now is the time to go: before the cycle starts and just before the point in the cycle about which, to be blunt (and I apologise to MEPs who may be reading), the fewest people care. The Autumn Conference is the best time to depart for Robin Harper.

Which is why he's next to go.

LibDem runners and riders

Well, my earlier hunch that Mike Rumbles was not overly enthusiastic has been somewhat overtaken by events as he was the first one out of the blocks. Perhaps he's more like a Kenneth Clarke figure - wants to be Leader, might be a very good Leader, but we'll never know.

Tavish Scott is weighing up his options and they are likely to be favourable. He will stand. He will win.

Ross Finnie is also thinking about it. It's 50:50 whether or not he'll stand. If he does, he'll come second and could even force Scott to rely on transfers from Mike Rumbles.

Jeremy Purvis is toying with the idea. Assuming he can muster any meaningful support (and I'm not convinced he can) he would be unwise to. His campaign, if it ever starts, will end early, and end ugly. More specifically, it will end in the Murdoch press.

Margaret Smith has ruled herself out, and some names are suggesting Iain Smith. I hope so. I would very much like to see him stand - even if on this occasion, he'll have to face the juggernaut that will be the Tavish Scott campaign.

Could Scottish Labour be without a Leader?

The BBC thinks so: Wendy Alexander is preparing to make a statement at Scottish Labour HQ, where she is expected to quit. Glenn Campbell reckons that she's had enough, saying:

"There was the decision the other day by the standards committee of the Scottish Parliament to take action against her for failing to register the donations that her campaign for the leadership received, and then the decision to suspend her from parliament for one day, which has pushed her to a point where she has had to seriously consider her political future. I think she has now decided to stand down from that post after less than a year in charge."

Hmmm. I'll believe it when I see it. We were expecting a statement like this all the way back in December: she made a statement which said she was carrying on. She's taken blow after blow but kept coming back. So unless the men in grey suits have been to see her, I just don't see why the crappy little slap on the wrist she got from the Standards Committee would finally push her to do what she didn't view as necessary when she was caught breaking the law.

Glasgow East looks set to be without an MP

The rumour mill is now at maximum: David Marshall is said to be standing down for health reasons. The 67-year-old was first elected to the House of Commons back in 1979, as the MP for Glasgow Shettleston. Before that, Marshall was a Glasgow City Councillor, and Strathclyde Regional Councillor.

Glasgow Shettleston, which overlaps with his current seat, has been held by Labour (or the ILP) since 1922 (for the first four years of its life, it was Tory). Glasgow Baillieston has been Labour since it was established in 1997.

I'm not, at this stage, going to make any comments about the prospects in this seat: I'll wait until there is a formal vacancy. But if the story is correct, then Marshall has done the right thing - his health is more important and it takes guts to say "I'm no longer able to do this job, it's time to go", especially when the decision will horrify Gordon Brown, who will now face another By-Election, after losing Crewe, after coming fifth in Henley - behind the Greens and the BNP - and while chickening out of the Haltemprice & Howden poll.

And whatever the outcome, there's been no major Scottish electoral test since May 2007. Marshall's health will have a massive impact on the health of the Government.

Motherwell & Wishaw will be without an MSP for quite a few days

Why? Because it's been pointed out - quite sensibly - that it will be rather a tough ask for Jack McConnell to be High Commissioner to Malawi and the MSP for Motherwell and Wishaw. Even McConnell agrees, saying that he won't be both at the same time, while asserting that Malawi won't go without a High Commissioner. This means that the idea of the By-Election co-inciding with a General Election is pretty much dead.

That implies quitting Holyrood at Christmas. That in turn suggests a By-Election by the end of March 2009. And it will be delayed until then because no one would ever want a By-Election in January or February if they can help it, so Motherwell & Wishaw could go the full three months without an MSP if both of McConnell's statements are true. And Labour will want to avoid that.

But is there an alternative? Yes. There could be attempts to keep Sir Richard Wildash - the current High Commissioner - in place until May 2009 at the latest. That would enable a By-Election to take place just under a year from now, on the 11th of June.

Why then? Simple. It's the date of the European Election in Scotland. It would couple the By-Election to a poll that's already happening - saving money for Labour - and drive up turnout. Labour activists would hope that it boosted the Labour vote in the area as well. Or, indeed, they may hope that the European performance keeps the seat Labour.

No, that's when the By-Election will be - people have forgotten the European Eection as a possibility and it's the most likely: turnout will be abysmal in January, February and early March, and unless Labour are convinced that they can not only hold the seat but hold on to their vote, they won't want an embarrassing result in the run-up to June. So they'll hold the two together. And to avoid the bad publicity of no one representing Motherwell & Wihsaw, and letting the SNP's lead over Labour in terms of Parliamentary seats double for a couple of months, it'll be a short campaign. That suggests that he'll quit in May.

And Malawi? Well, here's what McConnell told the press:

"There will be absolutely no time when I'm still a member of the Scottish Parliament and High Commissioner in Malawi."

That's clear-cut. He's making a statement of how things are going to be. There are no qualifications and he's stated that it will absolutely not happen: he will not, at any time, be both an MSP and a diplomat. But here's the next bit:

"There will also be no time, I'm sure, when Malawi's without a High Commissioner."

No absolutely, and the "I'm sure" actually puts doubts on the situation. The first bit is a statement of intent: this is how it's going to happen - it sounds definite. With the "I'm sure", he sounds like he's giving an opinion, or a prediction. I was sure that Portugal would win Euro 2008. I was sure that Rangers would win the SPL last season. Being sure of something happening doesn't mean it'll happen. In fact, the way it's delivered, the minute you actually utter the words "I'm sure", you add something unspoken to the sentence. When you say the words, "I'm sure Malawi won't go without a High Commissioner," what you're actually saying is "I'm sure Malawi won't go without a High Commissioner... will it?" There's something about those words that makes the statement more about re-assurance for the speaker than for the listener.

Which is why Malawi's going to get shafted. And all because Labour want to win the odd Parliamentary vote criticising the SNP's policy on paper clips.

Paul Murphy?

This week, Alex Salmond met Paul Murphy MP to discuss the resurrection of Joint Ministerial Committees. This is an odd meeting, as Murphy is Secretary of State for Wales. Now, obviously, there needs to be a Welsh dimension to the JMCs - is for ll the UK nations after all - but it was Paul Murphy of the Wales Office, and not a member of the Welsh Assembly Government. There was no representative at all from either the Northern Ireland Executive or Northern Ireland Office. The Ministry of Justice wasn't there either. Or the Scotland Office.

So what's going on? Could it simply be a matter of finding something for Paul Murphy to do? Perhaps. Or could it be something more? Ever since 1999 there have been mutterings about the idea of axing the Scotland Office, Wales Office and NIO. Those mutterings gathered momentum after the 2003 Elections, once devolution had bedded in, at least on the mainland. Indeed, Tony Blair tried to do that, then changed his mind, maintaining the Scotland and Wales Offices as sub-departments in the Department for Constitutional Affairs (now Ministry of Justice) and keeping the title of Secretary of State, though tying it to another Cabinet member who already had a department.

But the mutterings persisted. Appointing the Secretary of State for Defence the Secretary of State for Scotland didn't go down well, and since last May, Des Browne and David Cairns (the Minister of State, who Gordon Brown said does all the work anyway) have been walking, talking arguments for their own abolition, slagging off the SNP, and undermining the leadership of Wendy Alexander, by pooh-poohing, then hi-jacking, her Constitutional Commission before it even got going. And if you look at the main rows between the two administrations, the argument over al-Megrahi kicked off when the UK Government failed to brief the Scottish Government on what was going on and how an agreement with Libya might affect them, the row over compensation payments started when DEFRA promised something then changed its mind, and the row over LIT started when Gordon Brown sent minister after minister over the border to denounce the policy. So the Scotland Office's role as a go-between, smoothing relations between Whitehall and Victoria Quay is a failure.

Meanwhile, the idealists' belief that the Scotland Office is Scotland's voice in Cabinet is muted by the fact that on any issue where Scotland has got a raw deal, its Ministers appear to have been utterly ineffectual in terms of softening the blow. The most recent Budget, for instance, was unkind to Scotland, with its tax hike on whisky. Where was Des Browne then?

And then there are the cynics, who see the Scotland Office as the Government's voice in Scotland. But on Scotland-only matters, the Scottish Government is the one in charge now, so Whitehall doesn't need a voice, while any of the political parties who could feasibly form a UK Government have presence in Holyrood so even in terms of partisanship, the Scotland Office doesn't need to be Labour's voice in Scotland: that's Wendy Alexander's job. Should the Tories win the next election, they don't need a Scotland Office to be the Conservative Party's voice in Scotland: Annabel Goldie performs that role. And on UK matters, why do we need to hear from an interlocutor at all? Why can't we hear about, for example, Work and Pensions matters from James Purnell?

So the Scotland Office appears to be fulfilling a sum total of no functions. The Wales Office is so busy that Paul Murphy can go to Scotland for a chat with Alex Salmond, so you have to wonder what its value is in 2008. That leaves Northern Ireland, which until last year was, you could argue, the biggest argument against a combined Department for the Nations and Regions: devolution was unstable, the NI Assembly had been suspended. It took the St. Andrews Agreement and the March elections to put the Assembly on a firm footing, and no one is talking about how long it's going to last anymore: the Assembly is, and right now, that's not being questioned. The one thing left to sort out is justice and policing matters, still in the hands of the NIO. If and when that gets sorted out, the Northern Ireland Office becomes as meaningful and important as the Scotland Office, with its part-time head, and the Wales Office, with its underemployed chief. That is when Gordon Brown is going to create a DNR, if he's ever going to create one.

Here's my guess:

1. Time will be allowed for the new DUP Leader Peter Robinson to get his feet under the desk as Northern Ireland's First Minister.

2. Negotiations on justice and policing will begin, most likely in August. They will take a few months to sort out. Conclusions will be reached around Christmas time.

3. Assuming successful negotiations, the transfer of powers will take place in the Spring of next year.

4. Assuming that a General Election will not be held until 2010, there will be a Cabinet re-shuffle following the European elections (or the English County Council elections if they are kept in May rather than moved back to co-incide with the election to the European Parliament). While those elections will be the trigger for the reshuffle - as the 2006 local elections were the trigger for Blair's Cabinet reshuffle that year - the final transfer of powers to Northern Ireland will be justifiation of the abolition of the Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Offices and the creation of the DNR.

So with Des Browne likely either to stay in Defence if he's lucky, or get dumped on an unwilling Duchy of Lancaster if he isn't, who is that Secretary of State going to be? Paul Murphy of the Wales Office, or Shaun Woodward of the NIO?

Revenge of the Hands

Yes, folks, it can only be Margaret Curran's Hands, the most vigorous, aggressive hands in Scottish Labour. The Shadow Health Secretary and MSP for Glasgow Baillieston - and one of the few people ever to terrify my mother, who will happily punch drunken Shettlestonians who are about half a metre taller than her - has confessed to briefing against Wendy Alexander.

The Sunday Herald reports that a newspaper article was run at the end of February, which quoted sources as damning Alexander's performance as "shocking and appalling". There were also questions about the competence of the Labour press office (this is obviously unfair - you try running a slick PR operation with Labour's staff turnover!). It turns out that in internal discussions, Curran used language that was eerily similar to the criticism used in the press.

Indeed, it was so similar that even Jackie Baillie noticed, and Baillie failed to notice that her microphone was turned on when she described a press conference in positive, yet colourful, language. Baillie therefore called Curran in for a chat, where Curran confessed, thus saving any further rows.

So you do have to wonder about the future of Margaret Curran on a Wendy Alexander front bench. She may be out quite soon, and Andy Kerr might be drooling at the chance of getting back an actual portfolio rather than the borderline-meaningless "Public Services" title he has right now.

Of course, it's now customary at times like this to wonder about Wendy Alexander's future: her own frontbench team is briefing against her; Scotland Office Ministers are performing routine flip-flps on just exactly what her Constitutional Commission will discuss (even Jack McConnell managed to stand up to Brown, even if it meant going into Opposition to do it); and an unprosecuted Charlie Gordon is sitting on the backbenches he was (probably) forced onto, a ticking timebomb ready to take the Leadership out.

Nevertheless, Wendy may just be safe: Curran was one of the potential successors, and if she's stupid enough not to check that the language she uses isn't similar to what she's said anonymously in the papers, then she's doomed to failure. Labour will hope she fails as a challenger/candidate. Other parties will hope she fails as a Party Leader, but it won't come to that: whatever doubts people may have about Wendy, Margaret Curran no longer looks like a viable alternative. Whether people remember this incident for her disloyalty or her stupidity, people will remember it, and Curran has, I feel, cost herself any shot at the Labour Leadership over this.

Speaker's Corner

There is, of course, considerable chatter about the future of Michael Martin, the MP for Glasgow North East and Speaker of the House of Commons. Most of the chatter revolves around his expenses, and us of Air Miles racked up on Parliamentary business to treat his family to a Christmas break in the Big Apple, though some Opposition MPs mutter that he's more favourable to his old colleagues in the Labour Party.

Now, George Foulkes, among others, have cried foul, suspecting that good old-fashioned prejudice and class warfare has more to do with it, and you could argue that Foulkes is trying to generate Labour support for the Speaker (and quell any mutterings on the Government benches) by invoking the old demons of the "Tory toffs". Of course, this would have worked better in the days before Old Fettesian Tony Blair, and before Quentin Davies and Digby Jones joining the party, so raising the Red Flag in defence of Mister Speaker isn't perhaps the wisest course of action.

I hate to admit it, but Foulkes might just have a point. Given the Tory view of the West Lothian Question, you have to ask if Martin is just too Scottish for them. And looking at the Parliamentary sketches in the right-wing press (branding the Speaker "Gorbals Mick", for example), you have to ask if he's just too working class for them as well. Now, Betty Boothroyd was working class as well, but 1) she isn't Scottish and 2) she sounds authoritative, almost schoolma'amish. Plus which, she is a woman and a former dancer, so I wouldn't be too surprised if she wasn't fancied by a large number of Tory MPs who had fantasies of her calling them to order in the bedroom. No disrespect to Mister Speaker, but I can't see him having the same allure.

But does that mean he should stay in the job? Quite the reverse. The Speaker's job depends on authority, and on carrying the respect and trust of both sides of the House of Commons. While some of the hostility to the man is based on spite more than anything else, he doesn't have Tory MPs' respect or trust. Therefore, he has no authority, and sadly, it would be better for him and the House if he were to head for the Lords as soon as he can. You could argue that it's giving in to the prejudice, but in this case, he can't chair proceedings if a significant number of MPs want him out.

The Tories would certainly welcome the decision: they would get a new Speaker - one of their own, perhaps.

This would benefit Labour too: the Tories would have one fewer MP, and there'd be a By-Election in Glasgow North East. Labour would be certain to win this, so they'd gain an additional MP. Plus which, Wendy Alexander and Gordon Brown could enjoy a morale-boosting victory.

And even the SNP would have something to cheer: it would be very difficult for the Party to win a By-Election, but there'd most likely be a significant swing to the Party, helping to cheer activists and continue the momentum enjoyed since last year. "OK," party chiefs could say. "We haven't won this seat, but on this swing, there are plenty of other seats that we would win!"

So three winners there, plus the Speaker himself, who would get out before he lost all authority. Oh, and lots of geeks like myself would get a By-Election to be excited about.

One final thought: convention dictates that the three main UK-wide parties do not challenge sitting Speakers, but Tories often sniff that the convention only seems to apply when it's a Speaker from the Labour benches, and either Labour or the Liberals have found a reason to challenge Tory Speakers. Given Tory antipathy to Martin, if he does fight another General Election, why not make the point in the open, rather than briefing against Martin in the press? Obviously a Tory candidate in Glasgow North East has no chance of actually unseating anyone, but why not show cojones and make the point that the Tories would oppose Mister Speaker's re-election?

If those circumstances arise, will they dare?

Every dog has his breakfast

...and today, Fido's tasty morsels come to him from the Pedigree Boundary Commission range. Delights include Clydebank and North Renfrewshire, which straddles the Firth of Clyde, the decison to replace names of specific areas of Glasgow with compass points - and North Central Glasgow is one of the crappest names for a constituency ever conceived - and the decision to have seats named East Aberdeen and East Aberdeenshire. Indeed, the names will probably get the biggest protests and will go through several revisions until the final proposals come on the table. Good thing us electoral geeks have our wits about us!

Anyway, I've had to spend only the evening digesting the new boundaries, so ASwaS has done most of the hard work already, and it would be idiotic of me not to point you in his direction when most of what I say will be on similar lines.

So instead, let's indulge in some mindless speculation - who'll seek election where?

The North East sees Aberdeen basically swallowed and sicked up again (much like a dog's breakfast, in fact): Goodbye Aberdeen North and Aberdeen Central, hello West Aberdeen and East Aberdeen, both of which ASwaS estimates to be SNP seats, so Lewis Macdonald might be advised either to pick one, start schmoozing the minute the Westminster election finishes and hope for an SNP implosion, or try to displace Marlyn Glen on the List. Brian Adam can go for one Aberdeen seat, but what of Schools Minister Maureen Watt? Will she go for the other, and defend a notional constituency, or will she take aim at South Aberdeen and North Kincardine, and go toe to toe with Nicol Stephen instead? The former would probably be the most sensible. Also, the North East sees the creation of a new seat, with the development of West Angus, and East Angus & Mearns. Both of these are rich pickings for the SNP, and if SNP eleder statesman Andrew Welsh - he's the last member of the First Eleven still to be a member of any parliament - fancies carrying on, EA&M would be tempting for him.

Assuming that Labour forcibly retire Trish Godman, then Wendy Alexander would probably be a cert for the Central Paisley & West Renfrewshire selection, if she is still Leader and wants to stay on. The big question is then, will Annabel Goldie want to keep this as her stomping ground? If so, and if Alexander survives the various bear-traps that seem to be a feature of her Leadership, then we're looking at two major party leaders going head to head on the same ballot paper. Unfortunately for Bella, the presence of any part of Paisley makes it likely that she will come off second best, so she has every reason to decamp. But she might face resistance from fellow West of Scotland Tory MSP Jackson Carlaw, who was the candidate in Eastwood last time, so ought to have first dibs on the new look East Renfrewshire seat, which has a notional Tory lead. Ken McIntosh could try and move to South East Paisley and Barrhead (so he'd keep a few constituents), but Hugh Henry might have something to say about that. The selection battles in Renfrewshire will be a joy to behold.

Edinburgh goes through very few traumas, except that East Edinburgh loses Musselburgh, but gains Gilmerton and Moredun. Otherwise, the Commission's report lists the wards and seems to follow nearly every ward number with '(part)'. I am therefore forced to conclude that a Commissioner's four year old niece took personal charge of the Edinburgh proposals, deploying her favourite red Crayola to put her case together.

The South East is another area with interesting changes - Musselburgh finds itself linked with North Midlothian, but the biggest news is that Christine Grahame could finally do it in 2011: the SNP have a notional lead in in South Midlothian, Tweeddale & Lauderdale. LibDem MSP Jeremy Purvis - who stands to lose his job through this - is already crying foul and demanding changes.

And Central Scotland is the usual free-for-all. Karen Whitefield might find Lanark, Shotts and Whitburn a pleasant home, thus freeing Coatbridge & Central Airdrie for Elaine Smith. This creates a Labour slot in Kirkintilloch, Chryston & Kilsyth which would be just right for Cathie Craigie. Why? Because Cumbernauld & East Airdrie looks like an SNP notional, so Craigie staying in KCK would enable her to be on a ballot and avoid getting beaten by Jamie Hepburn. However, the big news, and perhaps the biggest surprise of this review is the evolution of Milngavie & Bishopbriggs, which could best be described a four-party free-for-all with, and again I cite ASwaS, the Tories squeaking ahead in first place. David Whitton at risk - to a Tory candidate as well? Could he try and chicken run to KCK? Will Cathie Craigie let him?

However. I've saved the most entertaining contest till last: the Glasgow selection battle. At first glance, this looks like a potential row between Frank McAveety and Margaret Curran's Hands, but my guess is that either Bill Butler or Patricia Ferguson will lose out. One of them will be lucky and get West Glasgow. This will make space for Paul Martin to fight North Glasgow, give Margaret Curran's Hands a clear run in East Glasgow and allow Frank McAveety to avoid a direct confrontation with Her With The Aggressive Hand Gestures. Govan seems to schlorp into South Central Glasgow, which will be a big ask. But she must fancy her chances. After all, who would the Labour candidate there actually be?!

While I'm here, a few final notes on those places that stay the same: Orkney and Shetland are protected by law; the Western Isles was not and was considered a possible seat for the chop, but Commissioners deemed it impractical to absorb it into another seat. They have, however, Gaelicised it to Na h-Eileanan an Iar. And the only changes to Falkirk East and Falkirk West is that they become East Falkirk and West Falkirk. Otherwise, they are the only mainland Constituencies not to be amended.

For once, I am actually looking forward to Valentine's Day

No, my expectations of romantic success haven't shot up, but the 14th is when the Boundary Commission for Scotland publishes its provisional proposals for the First Periodical Review of Scottish Parliament Boundaries. ASwaS has already picked up on this, and I'm now getting excited to the point where I'm toying with the idea of taking the 14th off work, using the extra flexitime hours I've accrued by getting a lift with someone who gets there at 7:30, so I can go through it.

Anyway, the principles guiding the review are as follows:

1. The new boundaries have to pay attention to Council area boundaries.

2. However, as far as possible, the constituencies have to have more or less equal electorates, so some Councils have to be grouped together.

3. In some cases, though, practicality and common sense may mitigate against these rules actually working in practice, so the Commission can throw them out the window when necessary (the Highlands and Islands).

4. Orkney and Shetland have their own rules: they're guaranteed one seat each.

5. The Western Isles are not, but common sense and the actual practicality (or lack of it) of a seat that covered the Western Isles and a large tract of the Highlands might just save the seat.

6. For the first time, and as a result of the new larger STV wards, Council wards are no longer necessarily the building blocks for Constituencies. While I imagine that the Commission will use them as a template to a large degree, don't be too surprised if you see wards split into two for review purposes.

So what do we know about the review? We know that Glasgow will lose one of its nine seats (by the way, anyone who tells you that Glasgow has ten seats is in error... despite the name, "Glasgow Rutherglen" is almost entirely in South Lanarkshire, so there!). However, for every loss, there's a gain: ASwaS has been looking at where it might be, and I rather fancy the idea of a seat straddling Aberdeenshire and Angus. That will make a mouthwatering prospect for the SNP.

And then there are the Regions, but we won't know about them until the Constituencies are settled.

I'm a total geek. I freely admit that. And right now, I can barely contain myself.

And so, we wait

Despite this blogger's predictions - and hopes - Wendy Alexander is still Leader of Scottish Labour. She is waiting for what the Electoral Commission say, and in fairness to her, there is a logic to that. If Charlie Gordon - or, as Navraj Ghaleigh would have it, David Whitton - were to be the fall guy who takes the blame, then a Wendy Alexander resignation would serve nothing and she would live to fight another day. She would be wounded, there's no question about that, but she could survive.

More interestingly, and from Wendy's perspective more dangerously, Charlie Gordon has confounded everyone by announcing that he's staying and fighting. He too is waiting for the Electoral Commission to report and has tided himself over by attacking practically everyone, mostly on his own side, and particularly former colleagues in Glasgow City Council's Labour Group.

Firstly, this decision does not square with his original decision to resign as Shadow Transport Minister. Is he now going to un-resign? Would Wendy let him? Why was it that the facts made his position on the frontbench untenable, but we have to await confirmation from the Electoral Commission before his position on any bench becomes untenable?

Secondly, Wendy now has a threat. Gordon has been hung out to dry. If they both survive, Wendy has an enemy on the backbenches, who could wreak havoc, Gordon did more than many to undermine Jack McConnell - the two were not exactly bosom pals and Gordon threatened to act as a stalking horse if McConnell's leadership had continued. Charlie Gordon now provides a destabilising influence - as if it were needed - on the Labour benches. Will his colleagues rally round to him? After his combattive statement, it's doubtful, but Wendy has a threat, a potential critic, with an axe to grind. One public critic has a habit of generating a second, even if the two have different grounds for their position, different criticisms to make, and can't stand each other. None of that matters: once one egg is thrown, a second can follow. Then a third, and so on.

Thirdly, should Gordon be damned by the Electoral Commission and has to resign, it doesn't matter whether or not Wendy is in trouble as well, she's still toast. And the reason is simple: by not going with dignity right at the start,Gordon has chosen to fight on and prove his innocence. But if there is no innocence to prove, what then? Gordon has committed the same false indignation that did for the likes of Jonathan Aitken. And what happened to his party? Anyway, Gordon's reputation would be in the mud, Labour would be bounced into a By-Election they didn't want, and with Gordon having attacked everyone, key figures in the local - and national - party would be at each other's throats. This would all but hand the seat to the SNP and that would kill off Wendy Alexander's leadership. Weak performances at FMQs are one thing. A scandal is another - we do not yet know if Wendy has what footballers call 'bouncebackability' so she may survive this. But an electoral defeat to the SNP, in combination with those other factors, may prove to be the final straw, and the Labour MPs who have been supporting her to keep Brown safe may start looking nervously to their own seats, their own majorities, and gently suggest that out of the 44 other people who would be available, one of them might have a better shot of getting Labour back on the success vector than Wendy Alexander.

In any case, Wendy Alexander and Charlie Gordon have both publicly tied their futures to the Electoral Commission, so those hoping for a quick beheading will be disappointed. Wait we must, and wait we will.

Or must we? This story has been driven primarily by the Sunday papers, most notably the Sunday Herald. Who will get what coverage this week?

Perhaps we need only wait a couple of hours to see what will happen: if the story dies down, then the Commission will have the final say. If not, the vultures will be circling. Perhaps they may even be preparing to swoop.

So the fate of the Scottish Parliament's main opposition party rests in Paul Hutcheon's hands. We await his next move.