Wendy Wind Blows

So, as Labour welcomes its fourth Holyrood leader, we bid farewell to Jack and extend a warm welcome to Wendy. There's no doubt that she will present a different set of challenges to the SNP than did her predecessor. However, with the SNP now setting the agenda from the Holyrood Ministerial Tower, it's also the case that she and her MSP colleagues have some new and awkward terrain of their own to negotiate.

This is the first time Labour has been in opposition to anyone other than the Conservatives in Scotland. There's a new dynamic of a Scottish government at work, which doesn't take its lead from London. Consequently, the old Labour trick of playing the Scottish card just isn't going to work any more – after all, as the advert asks, why have cotton when you can have silk?

A psychological rubicon has been crossed. The SNP is in power, and as I've remarked before, no-one has sold their first born son into slavery, the plagues of boils and locusts have yet to arrive, and the four horsemen of the apocalypse seem curiously absent from the horizon. Even the SNP's sternest doubters have been forced to admit that in government, the party has shown a maturity and sure-footedness with which few would have credited it previously.

In her post-coronation pronouncements, Alexander was quick to spell out to anyone who might have missed it that the SNP had won the election, not by some fluke, but by embracing an agenda of hope and aspiration. To that end, she set out 4 broad headings where she wanted Labour to change: developing Scottish solutions for Scottish aspirations; empowering people and communities rather than institutions; having consumer not producer-focused public services; and delivering a competitive yet compassionate economy.

In our post-ideological age there's probably not much there from which anyone would demur. Labour can lay claim to all the intellectual conceits it wishes, but for many Scots, if there was a stifling political 'consensus', Labour and its patronage networks were the problem. Labour became a byword for a proprietorial, top-down, boring, managerial and oft-times not even particularly competent style of government. As such, the ability of the party to overcome its own hard-wired producer interest is at best highly dubious.

Nevertheless, its a patronage network to which Alexander owes much herself. Hers was a gilded path, with her links to Donald Dewar and Gordon Brown predestining her for a place amongst the elect. All good for her, but it does mean that she missed out on developing some of the more fundamental skills needed by a politician. After all, why waste energy on anything so vulgar as winning people over with persuasion and skill in debate, when you can bludgeon them instead with repeated assertion before letting the party machine do the rest?

As part of the Labour ascendancy, she has formidable support amongst the Scottish chattering classes. Marriage and motherhood have mellowed her, they tell us. Well, perhaps, but the memory lingers of her undermining Henry McLeish, bringing government to a shuddering halt in protest at his attempts to hand her responsibility for Scottish Water as part of her ministerial brief. And who could forget her ludicrous 'Hungry Caterpillar' speech, as John Swinney took on a similar sized portfolio without breaking so much as a bead of perspiration?

It's a series of similar vignettes that have built up the perception of her being somewhat other worldly and near-impossible to work with. This perception is itself put down to her apparently 'formidable' intellect and the inherent misogyny of Scottish society. Again, perhaps. It still doesn't explain how Susan Deacon, who wears her postgraduate learning rather more lightly than does Alexander, managed to be infinitely more effective in office yet never attracted either the same opprobrium or gushing praise.

And that in the end is her biggest problem. If she is seen solely as an abrasive mouthpiece for someone else, will she be able to take her Labour colleagues to where she says she wants to go? How can she rebuild a parliamentary group still suffering from its Stalinist purges of the candidate list back in 1998? And will she be able to engage in the 'more powers' debate without reverting to her default pre-election demonisation of independence and the negativity which turned so many voters away from her party?

Alexander really is Labour's last chance to prevent the SNP from establishing itself as a long-term party of government in Scotland. If she fails, and Labour lose power at Westminster, who seriously expects Scotland to hang around in the union? That's how high the stakes are, and that's why we're going to have it rammed down our throats by Labour supporters in the press and civic society, whether its true or not, that Wendy is the best thing to happen to Scotland since, well, the SNP government.

Unionism might appear to be in disarray right now, but as any hunter knows, the beast is at its most dangerous when wounded and cornered. We've no reason to not be confident at the way matters are progressing, but we should never forget that Alexander has some very powerful allies and is likely to work much more closely with her colleagues in London than did Jack McConnell. For that reason, the SNP would be wise to watch her and hers very carefully as Labour begins to pick itself up from the canvass.

So, Farewell Then...

To no-one’s great surprise, Jack McConnell has decided to stand down as leader of the Scottish Labour Party. His decision was seen as inevitable following his party’s defeat at the hands of the SNP in May. It is believed that he had decided to stand down several weeks ago, but had taken the summer to ‘reflect’ – something interpreted widely as code for waiting for a Peerage or a similarly prestigious sinecure elsewhere.

Regular readers will know that I have a pretty low regard for Jack McConnell, and it would be hypocritical for me to try and pretend otherwise now. Most politicians, whatever they say about their opponents on the stump, are usually able to sink their differences in private. In my personal experience, McConnell was different. Too often, his seemed to be the demeanor of the small-time party fixer. Despite the periodic purple rhetoric, the role of national leader never seemed to sit particularly comfortably with him.

My own memory of dealing with him is when he rather cack-handedly tried to bully me over the choice of chairman for a debate I was organising between himself and Nicola Sturgeon back in 1996 (prescient or what?), when he was General Secretary of Scottish Labour and Nicola was merely a ‘rising star’. As a student, I wasn’t short of self confidence, so had no hesitation in telling him exactly where he could get off. The arrogance of youth, etc, but it seemed to have the desired effect. More amusing was his assertion at the debate itself that he had once been a member of the SNP, but had seen the light… just seconds before he managed to accidentally hit the light switch and plunge the entire lecture theatre into darkness!

That said, he did manage to sort out the Scottish Qualifications Agency as Education Minister. Having taken over as First Minister at a time when the howls of the anti’s threatened to being the whole project into disrepute, he did manage to restore some stability. ‘Doing less better’ was a sensible aim in the shorter term, but despite laudable initiatives such as tackling sectarianism, the smoking ban and raising Scotland’s overseas profile, somehow the overall package never seemed to catch the public imagination.

In his more reflective moments, he did seem to have a genuine passion for education, and took up the cause of the people of Malawi with some aplomb. His impending appointment as British High Commissioner to Malawi is a job which will probably suit him quite well. As Alex Salmond has said, McConnell leaves Scotland in a better state than he found it. For that at least, he deserves our thanks.

Where Might It All Go Wrong?

There’s been some further flutters in the Scottish Labour doocot over the last few days. This time, the cause has been the apparent leaking of a memo written by Adrian Colwell, a former Special Adviser to Jack McConnell, in the aftermath of the SNP’s defeat of Labour in May’s elections.

Colwell seems to suffer from appalling luck where his private memos are concerned. However, from what I’ve read of his analysis, it all looks pretty well spot on. Perhaps predictably, though, given their current state of denial, Labour figures are busily dismissing Colwell’s views, painting him as a ‘peripheral’ figure, somehow ‘distant’ from the campaign.

No-one should underestimate how traumatic an experience the last few months has proved to be for Scottish Labour. Nevertheless, if Colwell’s memo can be dismissed in such a summary fashion; with any campaign post-mortem being held in private; with a simple coronation of Wendy Alexander as leader to follow; and with the party grassroots continuing to be treated with disdain, it seems to me that Labour is extremely unlikely to experience any kind of recovery any time soon.

Quite simply, their self-inflicted organisational, political and financial problems are far too deep-rooted to be tackled in such a cosmetic fashion. Rather than gloat, though, it did set me thinking, about how people have reacted to the SNP government since May, and how its fortunes might fare as political criticisms, as they almost certainly will over time, begin to build in credibility.

So far, the SNP has been doing well in government. Labour’s criticisms of the SNP prior to the election – over the economy and seeking conflict with Westminster – have been shown to be little more than mendacious, self-interested scaremongering. These pre-election boilerplate criticisms have sapped Labour’s credibility, which means that their post-election critique is falling largely on deaf ears, at least for the moment.

Their discomfort is palpable. After all, Labour’s response to the SNP from the 1960’s onwards has always been to stress its ‘pro-Scottish’ credentials as the real national party of Scotland. But that starts to look like empty posturing when you always have to look over your shoulder to Westminster for guidance. Post-devolution, this became a conjuring trick that was increasingly hard to maintain.

Previously, Labour had the Scottish Establishment so stitched up with members of its own Nomenklatura that most nationalist sympathisers in public life opted for a quiet life, telling only as much truth as the times allowed. However, as it began to look like there might be ‘regime change’ in Scotland, more and more figures in business and public life began to raise their heads above the parapet. Civil servants now relish the opportunities to think more freely – a dynamic which is not necessarily nationalist, but is one which most unionist politicians always tried to keep tightly under control. As Alexander McCall Smith writes here, this change has left us with a ‘politically healthier society’.

How can Labour tackle this? Put simply, they shouldn’t even try. If the spirit of the times is running against you, you need to find a new vocabulary; a new frame of policy references with which to express your values. It took the SNP years to learn this, and despite the periodic explosions from certain donors and frustrated careerists, it’s a lesson which the Tories in England only now look like they are beginning to take on board.

However, some people will take the right course of action only after trying every possible alternative. So in attempting to counter the present Zeitgeist, we hear Labour continue to accuse the Edinburgh government of stirring it with London. They tried it over the case of the Lockerbie bomber, and fell flat on their faces. Some, like Jim Devine MP, even tried to do the same over the Glasgow Airport attack, blaming the SNP for ‘politicising’ the terrorist threat – a charge spoiled only by the public praise for the Scottish Executive response offered immediately afterwards by Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

By relying on freelancers? We’ve had Professor Tom Gallagher, a lefty internationalist (to be contrasted with all those reactionary tartan tories like me, of course), claiming that by embracing the Moslem community in Scotland the SNP was somehow pandering to extremism. And let’s not forget the ‘Bleak Midwinter’, who now decries the ability of the government at Holyrood to set an annual budget as “profoundly undemocratic” - a constitutional nicety which never appeared to trouble him unduly before now, not even when Jack McConnell first made noises about running a minority Labour administration.

By accusing the SNP of arrogance for wanting to introduce policies for which there does not appear to be a majority in parliament, such as a referendum bill on Independence? Possibly, but didn’t the other parties shun government to allow the SNP to form an administration, and wasn’t it Jack McConnell himself who was arguing recently for parties to bring their forward their manifesto pledges unreformed? How outrageous that those dastardly nats, havng been placed in government, might then actually then try to govern! That wasn’t in the script!

By criticising proposals to alter Scotland’s international role? Well, that would also take some chutzpah, given the determiniation of Jack McConnell to crowbar his way to the fore each year during Tartan Week and to carve out a role for the Scottish Executive in Malawi. And wasn’t it the late Robin Cook who once appeared before the European Committee of the Scottish Parliament to claim that there were ‘no no-go’ areas for the Scottish Executive in the EU?

By accusing Alex Salmond of using power for the financial gain of himself and his party? The accusations about taking ‘two cheques’ always seemed very tawdry and personalised, especially coming as they did from the Labour and Lib Dem parties which drafted between them the Scotland Act, which of course says nothing against having a Westminster/Holyrood dual mandate. The whiff of bitterness from the Lib Dems in particular was exceptionally unpleasant. Surely nothing at all to do with Alex having turfed them out in the Gordon constituency?

And what to make of the latest blusterings of George Foulkes, a man who has never knowingly passed up a free dinner in his life, claiming that Alex Salmond hosted a dinner at Bute House to reward high-profile SNP supporters like Sir Tom Farmer, Sir George Mathewson and Sir Sean Connery? It’s a great theory, I’ll give him that. What a shame, though, that it’s foiled only by the attendance of pro-union tycoon David Murray, and the invitation extended to House of Commons Speaker Michael Martin. Better luck next time, George…

Well, is it then about accusing the SNP of neglecting the ‘bread and butter’ issues, by deploying constantly the coma-inducing, debate-closing mantra that all that matters are ‘the real issues that matter to ordinary hard working families on their doorsteps in their local communities from day to day in their daily lives’ (c. Cathy Jamieson/Nicol Stephen/Annabelle Goldie)? Well, you know, in the long run, actually it might very well be.

All of the above mentioned hoop-lahs are of themselves exceptionally trivial – most of the headlines have already been used to wrap fish suppers and are now blowing away down the street into someone’s garden. This is just the currency of trying to discredit a so far popular government. And since it’s something the SNP developed to an art form in opposition, it would ill-behove any nationalist to start complaining too vehemently about how unfair it all is now. It comes with the territory, and we’d better get used to it. Fast.

However, the Teflon coating which allows all of this to slide off harmlessly starts to wear down after a time, and can only be replenished by an ongoing perception of competence. People are prepared to indulge the SNP a little just now - most seem quite happy to watch Holyrood spreading its wings a little, and if it eventually flies off to the high veldt of independence, then so be it.

However, this acceptance will wear off pretty quickly if things start to go off the rails domestically. It was SNP figures like Kenny MacAskill and George Reid who previously made the argument that an SNP administration would first have to prove itself in government before any more powers would reach Holyrood. These attacks are bouncing off harmlessly just now, but should serve as a constant reminder of what we need to do and keep on doing if we are to make progress on that higher agenda.

Opposable Glums

BBC Scotland held a reception in Westminster last night for Scottish MPs and their hangers-on, to herald the publication of their Annual Review. BBC Governor Jeremy Peat gave an interesting and thoughtful speech, in which he touched on the BBC’s obligation to better reflect Scotland, not just to the Scots, but to the rest of the UK as well. While sidestepping the issue of a ‘Scottish Six’, he did dwell on the now compulsory course for BBC news staff, designed to raise awareness throughout the network of the impact of devolution.

It was impeccably unionist, yet there was still enough in there to please nationalists too. A well judged and diplomatic contribution, you might think. Well, not everyone agreed. I’ll spare some blushes and preserve the anonymity of the Labour MP who flounced out half way through the speech, ranting about how Peat was ‘sounding like a bloody SNP member’. If the MP’s colleagues agreed with him, which judging by the positive outward reactions of two Government Ministers to the speech they did not, the rest at least had the good manners to keep their counsel.

As our friend from last night managed to illustrate with uncharacteristic eloquence, Labour still doesn’t seem to have any collective idea how to respond to the fact that they’re out of power in Scotland. In manoeuvring to take over from Jack McConnell, Andy Kerr has made a series of overblown and misjudged attacks on Alex Salmond. Meanwhile, Record columnist and Gordon Brown mouthpiece Tom Brown, had an ad-hominem rant in last weekend’s Scotland on Sunday, the main purpose of which seemed to be to indulge in whinging self-catharsis about the SNP having made an assured start to their period in office.

At Scottish Questions yesterday, in defending the constitution unreformed, Des Browne drew a distinction between himself and his Lib Dem questioner, by announcing proudly that he was an ‘unevolving devolver’. He might do well to remember that it tends to be the species which fail to evolve and adapt that are the ones which usually end up extinct. Certainly, on the evidence of the last few weeks, there doesn’t seem to be much indication yet of any post-election evolution in Scottish Labour.

A Memorandum and a Misunderstanding?

So. The UK government has reached a 'memorandum of understanding' with their Libyan couterparts, which will see both sides "commence negotiations" over prisoner transfers, extradition and mutual assistance in criminal law.

Let's be clear - this is unexceptional in itself. However, given the sensitivity of these issues as they pertain to the justice system in Scotland, where a Libyan national is currently serving a life sentance for the bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103 in December 1988, it is a subject which you might think would have been raised in advance with Scottish Ministers.

Alas, no such consultation ever took place, either with the outgoing or the incoming Scottish government. The outline deal was struck on 29 May, yet it took until Monday 4 June for details to be revealed to Scottish Ministers. While incidences of cock-up tend to outnumber those of conspiracy where government is concerned, it's still a massive discourtesy, and a huge embarrassment at best.

In spite of this, the Scottish Government's response has been remarkably restrained so far, with Alex Salmond writing to Tony Blair to seek an explanation. This, together with the measured tone he has adopted, must come as a bitter disappointment to those determined to find the first evidence of the SNP Executive picking a fight with London. Indeed, that was the approach taken by Newsnight, which led with the story this evening on the UK-wide section of the programme. Bizarrely, despite Salmond having already taken part in the UK programme, the later Scottish opt-out seemed able to take umbrage at his not appearing to be asked the same questions by them ("he never writes, he never phones", was their take on proceedings. Don't they get phone calls from their colleagues in London either?).

But back to the main event. Presenter Kirsty Wark took up a line of attack which even the most rabid and partisan attack dog would have struggled to sustain. And struggle to sustain it she did, repeatedly shouting Salmond down and trying to cut him off mid-sentence at the end when there was little time pressure to conclude the interview. It was an approach which seemed very out of character for a presenter who ordinarily manages to generate far more light than she does heat.

Now, Alex Salmond knows how to handle himself, and certainly doesn't need anyone's help to defend him in an interview. If it had been me, though, the temptation to tell her to away and bile her heid would have been overwhelming, so kudos to him for keeping his cool, and reminding her that not only did he accept that Westminster had the power to do what it had done, but that her supposedly 'killer revelations' that no formal deal had yet been signed, or decision made regarding any individual prisoner, were ones that he himself had already placed on record earlier in the day in Parliament.

To show how extraordinary the Newsnight approach was, here are responses from other leading figures to the revelation of the existence of the memorandum:

Labour leader Jack McConnell: "As former first minister I would have expected and demanded no less than prior consultation on such a memorandum.

Scottish Tory leader Annabel Goldie: "Tony Blair has quite simply ridden roughshod over devolution and treated with contempt Scotland's distinct and independent legal system."

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell: "The Government's ineptitude in handling this matter has given Mr Salmond precisely what he wanted. Westminster and the Labour Government have given the impression of disdain for the Scottish authorities.

Labour MP Tam Dalyell: "Surprisingly I am sympathetic to Mr Salmond. The only way that Megrahi can prove his innocence is through the Scottish legal system."

And from long-time spokesman for the Lockerbie victims, the dignified Dr Jim Swire, whose lost his own daughter in the outrage, we have: "Incredibly it seems that we are being asked to believe that this concerns other Libyan nationals, but not Megrahi. No mention of any discussion was given to us, the Lockerbie relatives. Mr Salmond should indeed remain indignant: Scotland has been insulted."

You can see the First Minister's statement to Parliament here.

A New Term and A New Time

It was back to Holyrood for me today, as the MSPs were all sworn in. The SNP has a group of 'new', but still very familiar faces about the place. There's many individual stories to tell, but I am particularly pleased to see Dr Ian McKee finally elected as a member for the Lothians. Having campaigned for him back in 1999 in Edinburgh Central, I'm delighted to see someone of his calibre finally make it. He's a weel-kent face around Edinburgh, and will garner a huge amount of cross-party and non-political goodwill across the city.


While on the subject of the new intake, I must say that it's terrific, if still a little strange, to see so many of those with whom I came through the ranks of the FSN and YSI, taking their seats in Parliament. We might all be better dressed and better fed today than we were back then, but the sense of a new generation in the SNP coming to the fore, is both compelling and wonderfully tangible.

If the glum faces at the swearing in ceremony were anything to go by, today seemed to be the day it sank in for Labour that they are no longer in the lead position in Scottish politics. I was told of an (almost) poignant moment, when Alex Salmond was whisked outside for a TV interview. Looking on as he passed by was one Jack McConnell, perhaps being confronted for the first time with the reality that the incessant clamour of journalists seeking his views on the great issues of the day, is likely now a thing of the past.


With the election of a Presiding Officer now being re-scheduled for next week, even more than usual the Garden Lobby acted as an impromptu clearing house for journalists, MSPs and their bag-carriers. As Holyrood doesn't really do quiet corners, the cacophony slackened off in the afternoon, doubtless so the informal politicking could carry on elsewhere, lubricated by a glass or two of wine and liberated from the prying eyes of others.

The faces might have changed somewhat, but the urge to make deals and build alliances, the very currency of politics anywhere, lives on as strongly as ever at Holyrood.

Curiouser and Curiouser

Over the last few days, The Scotsman has been running an online poll to ask readers whether they think Jack McConnell or Alex Salmond would make the best First Minister. It had been chugging along fairly slowly since it started, with Salmond enjoying a consistent 84%-16% margin over McConnell, albeit with fewer than 2,000 votes cast.

You can probably imagine my surprise then to find out this afternoon that McConnell had turned things round. From a position of trailing heavily, McConnell now led Salmond by 70%-30%, an achievement which had seen nearly 8,000 votes piled on in just in a matter of hours!

It seems that I'm not the only one to be surprised by this Lazarus-type comeback. So, where has this sudden rush of votes come from? Has Jack perhaps learned how to use the internet at last?

Jack - 'Out Of All My Top Priorities, This Is The Top One'

So now we know. 'Education, education, education', the infamous pre-1997 Blairite mantra, is to have yet another comeback tour if Labour get back in (watch out Francis Rossi and Rick Parfitt). After jostling with a range of issues to be the 'top priority' for Labour over the past few years, it will now take pride of place, even ahead of health, with, according to McConnell, all other departments being forced to 'cut their cloth' in consequence.

But we've been hearing this for the past 9 years, so what is Labour planning to do that it couldn't have done earlier? What's that, Jack? Get more children to learn modern languages? That sounds like a good idea, but tell me Jack, wasn't it your Executive which removed the requirement for Scottish pupils to learn a language up to the age of 16, leading to a 13% reduction in the numbers presented for examination? So would that mean that your promises on education are a case of déjà vu, or when it comes to delivery, perhaps even jamais vu? Oh dear, Jack, and you a former maths teacher and all. Go to the bottom of the class...

But licking her wounds this morning must be Cathy Jamieson. Given the task of explaining how Labour's plans to introduce extra council tax bands might work on Newsnight Scotland, she turned in an excruciatingly abject performance. She couldn't give elementry answers on how many people would be affected at each end, or explain how the numbers would add up. As it happens, by introducing a new top band and a new bottom band, Labour are expecting 11,000 householders to bail out nearly 500,000 others.

In the Orkney Islands, for instance, there are only two homes in Band H, so the entire burden will fall on either one or two householders! Labour's position yesterday was a bit of a mess, but to describe it today as shambolic would be an act of irrational charity.

Newsnight Scotland clips only stay online for 24 hours. Get it while its hot, and marvel at how Cathy could ever have been let loose on the government of Scotland. Remember - she's one of the better ones!

UPDATE: Now that the Newsnight clip has disappeared into the ether, here's a transcript of the exchange between Cathy Jamieson and presenter Gordon Brewer. My commiserations to the poor SNP press officer who drew the short straw and had to type this out!

UPDATE 2: Thanks to the wonders of YouTube, her performance has been saved for posterity!

Mr Cock-Up Comes To Town!

On Monday, wee Jack was clenching his fist with fury at SNP plans to 'wreck' the union (which on closer inspection, just meant he wasn't happy that the SNP wanted to discuss things like getting more powers from Westminster). However, in today's Scottish Parliament Business Bulletin, a motion appeared in the name of the Scottish Executive, calling amongst other things for more powers for Holyrood.

Embarrassing enough, you might think. However, not content with shooting a hole clean through one foot, this afternoon, they took careful aim at the other, then fired by amending the part of the motion which called for more powers for Holyrood 'where appropriate'.

Since it was an Executive motion, Jack would have known all about it at the time he was in full rant mode against the SNP (wouldn't he?), and presumably, was therefore in favour. He can therefore stand accused of rank hypocrisy, but now that it's been pulled, we can surely add rank cowardice to the charge sheet as well.

Who at Westminster, do we think, might have pulled his strings to get the motion amended? Where does Labour really stand on more powers for Holyrood? Who on earth is running their campaign - Gordon Brown, or Jack McConnell? And perhaps more importantly, will Scottish voters manage to emerge from their convulsions of laughter in time to cast their votes in May?

You couldn't make it up. Would the last strategist to leave the Labour party please turn out the lights? :-)

Scorching the Earth

Well, at least we can't say we weren't warned...

McConnell Starts Dirty War

"There is nothing that Labour can say that will change peoples' minds about Labour. There is no point in having a positive campaign because it doesn't wash. There isn't a bit of evidence to suggest that going positive will make any difference. They don't know Jack and they don't like Labour." - Labour Campaign Source.

Sir Menzies hits out at opponents

The Liberal Democrat leader questions Gordon Brown's "courage" to lead and attacks David Cameron.

So there you have it. Since Labour and the Lib Dems (the original Labour saving device?) have little good to say for themselves, they'll try and scare people away from their opponents; play the man rather than the ball at each opportunity; drive down the turnout and then hope for the best. Anyone fancy a sweep on how long it is before Lakshmi Mittal is paying for posters round Scotland of Alex Salmond with 'demon eyes'?

UPDATE - just found this excellent post by Will Patterson, saying much the same as me, but with far more eloquence than I feel like attempting just now. Read and enjoy.

A Song for Jack

I woke up this morning to the dulcet tones of Jack McConnell being interviewed on Radio Scotland's 'Janice Forsyth' show. However, about an hour or so on, about the only thing I can remember from the interview was his choice of music - 'Silver Machine' by Hawkwind, 'Somewhere Only We Know' by Keane, and 'Midnight Train To Georgia' by Gladys Knight and the Pips.

Fair play to him - his list looks genuine and unspun, even if it wouldn't exactly get my pulse racing. At least he didn't try to get down with the kids by revealing an unlikely admiration for, let's think now, the Arctic Monkeys.

However, I can't help but feel that the BBC missed a trick here. If they'd let their listeners choose a song for the First Minister, just think - we might have had 'Part of the Union' by The Strawbs, 'Hit the Road Jack' by Ray Charles, or even 'Wish Me Luck As You Wave Me Goodbye' by Gracie Fields.

Anyway, the comments section is open for your suggestions. A bottle of champagne awaits the best one, although I reserve the right to just drink it myself anyway! Over to you...

You wait ages for a post...

...then 3 come along at once. Check out this news report on Labour's plans to replace Trident:

'Watch as Labour First Minister runs down a corridor to hide from journalists wanting to ask why he supports spending billions on nuclear weapons of mass destruction.'

The best bit comes around 1'30" into the clip, as a press officer tries to prevent the TV crew from filming the FM as he disappears away down the corridor. Somehow, I'm not convinced this is the sort of statesman-like image he would want to project to the world...

The bin doth runneth over

In to Holyrood today and find, somewhat unusually, that I'm first into the office. The in tray is spilling over with the morning's mail, so I decide to deal with it before it gets any bigger.

There's a fair amount of important stuff, like constituent letters, ministerial correspondence and invitations to briefings, all of which is dealt with ASAP. However, by far the greater part seems to be PR puff for various organisations, some (but by no means all) in receipt of public money, trying to convince you what a fantastic job they are doing, and no doubt why they should be allowed to continue doing it.

Since no-one has the time to read through the avalanche of brochures, most go straight in the bin. It all represents the most grotesque waste of money and paper. While it's great for the burgeoning glossy brochure industry and waste management companies, I can't help but feel that actually trying to speak to people in person would be a more effective way of getting a point across, instead of sacrificing acre upon acre of forest and increasing incidences of lumbago amongst postal staff.

That said, the odd gem does come through. 'The Parliamentarian - Journal of the Parliaments of the Commonwealth', arrived, along with a list of contacts for the various legislatures within the Commonwealth Parliamentary Agency. For Holyrood, George Reid is described as the 'Presiding Officer' and Jack McConnell as 'First Minister'. Nicola Sturgeon, meanwhile, luxuriates in the title of 'Leader of the party not represented in the Scottish Executive with the greatest number of Members in the Parliament'.

It hardly trips off the tongue, does it? I bet the Master of Ceremonies for Commonwealth dinners lives in fear of the day she turns up and etiquette demands that she be introduced as such...