Good to see free NHS 111 number promoted

I was pleased  today to see Alex Neil  promoting that ringing NHS 24 is going to be free in a few months' time, using the NHS non emergency number 111.

This makes an awful lot more sense than the Police chief who suggested charging 50p for 999 calls as a deterrent to people who use it when there's not really an emergency.

Something the Health Secretary said, though, reminded me of something I've been banging on about for a long time - GP surgeries with 0844 numbers. Alex Neil said that a third of people with access only to a mobile phone were deterred from ringing NHS 24 because of the cost. This got me to thinking about the cost of dialling a surgery. Before these numbers were free on landlines, I once racked up £15 during a horrible month of quite serious illness in the household just calling the surgery. And my surgery can be a nightmare to get through to. You can be hanging on for 10 minutes and more after the call has been answered and then as soon as you get to the front of the queue you get cut off.

I contacted my MSP Angela Constance several years ago and she did a whole load of work on this, including raising it in Holyrood with then Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon. My practice is still using an 0844 number and Angela said on Twitter today she'd look into it again for me. In 2010 it was only a very small number of practices, 4%, that were doing this, but if we can get rid of them all, that would make a difference. Let's face it, those on lower incomes are more likely to have to rely on mobiles to ring the doctor and they are likely to need to do so more often. It's not fair for GP practices to expect these patients to use premium rate numbers - free at the point of use and all that.

Poor Angela Constance...#scomnishambles

I really feel for Youth Employment minister Angela Constance. While every other politician in Scotland was living it up in luxury at the posh Prestonfield House Hotel in Edinburgh for the Scottish Politician of the Year awards, she was doing the rounds of the tv studios with Hugh Henry, defending the indefensible - Alex Salmond not just getting the figures on FE funding wrong, but in such smug, pugnacious style.

Sending Angela out there is a sign that not all has gone to seed at SNP Towers. There are still brain cells in there capable of having the odd good idea. It is actually impossible to dislike Angela. She combines intelligence with a genuinely pleasant manner. If they'd sent Mike Russell out there, or Kenny MacAskill, there would have been a very unedifying, massive row. Angela just got on with her impossible task.

Now, Hugh Henry by rights should have wiped the floor with her. He didn't, though. I've never met him so I don't know what he's like in real life, but his manner came across as an unappealing hybrid of dour and smug, sour, perhaps?

Angela took a bit of a novel line on the Scotland Tonight sofa that she didn't dare repeat to Gordon Brewer on Newsnight. She said it was comforting that we had a First Minister who was willing to admit when he was wrong and apologise genuinely for it. Oh, Angela. Comforting is a steaming plate of buttery mashed potato, comforting is chicken soup, or a lovely bar of dark chocolate, or a lambswol shawl or a puppy. Comforting is NOT Alex Salmond in that pin striped suit that makes him look especially shifty being pulled up for getting his facts wrong. Again.

At best, it was a score draw, but I think Angela actually had the edge, despite one major blooper. She said that Salmond's error was in fact tiny considering that the FE budget was £500 billion. Err, no, the entire Scottish budget is £34 billion. She meant million.But I guess it's only a zero, and that's nothing, really... I'm surprised Brewer didn't call her on it

Hugh Henry was doing his damnedest to have a row with Angela, but not getting anywhere because she was not having any of it. He was the one who actually looked defensive as she calmly made her points. I would probably have gone at her with the Kirk Ramsay stuff sooner. I don't have a heart of stone. I can forgive an error with figures, quickly recognised. I have a much bigger problem with Mike Russell's ridiculous over-reaction and abuse of power over the Stow College chairman. There's an argument that he should have made people aware he was recording the proceeedings, but he had a good reason for doing so and he didn't use the information inappropriately. He did not deserve to be put in a position by the Cabinet Secretary from which he had no option but to resign. Had Angela been the Education Secretary, I cannot imagine that she would have done something so ill-judged over one mistake. I'm sure she would have had the good sense to realise that forcing one of your biggest critics out of office is simply not a good look.

There was quite a lot being said on Twitter last night about how if this was Westminster, there would have been a real crisis. Yes, when Gove got his school numbers wrong, there was a huge stooshie but he kept his job after the story rumbled on for a few days. The thing is, mistakes happen in everyday life and as long as you acknowledge them and put things right quickly, that should be an end of it. He got a figure wrong. Nobody died. Move on.

The bigger problem is the culture of this administration which is becoming increasingly out of touch, arrogant and sleekit. Spending thousands of pounds of our hard earned taxes on covering up that you haven't got legal advice you created the impression you had does not show any respect for the people who elected you. What people see is not the debates on late night telly only watched by political geeks. They see that there have been a series of events where the SNP has been seen to say one thing and do another, or get things wrong, or behave with arrogance. They might get away with sending the nicest person they can find out to defend them for a little while, but it won't work indefinitely.

You can watch Newsnight here and Scotland Tonight here. Newsnight is particularly worth watching for its extended coverage of Salmond and Russell's gloatathon on the way from the Chamber after FMQs to the lift where they said, variously, that Labour were silly and that Johann Lamont had failed in what she had tried to do. Ouch!

In which I was on Brian Taylor's Big Debate

So, I'm lurking outside the conference hall on Wednesday morning just before Jo Swinson's speech when my phone rings.

The unfamiliar voice from the blocked number announces herself as a producer from Brian Taylor's Big Debate.

She asks me if I'd like to come along on Friday as it was in Livingston.

I wonder if they are struggling for audience members and are ringing round the usual suspects.

Then she says "as a member of the panel."

I just about jumped out of my skin.

Well, I can hardly complain about lack of women on panels and then refuse to do one when I'm asked and available,  can I?

So, that's the story of how an ordinary mum from Livingston found herself on the panel of a popular radio show along with Youth Employment Minister and my local MSP Angela Constance, Labour MEP Catherine Stihler, Colin Borland of the Federation of Small Businesses and Ross Martin of the Centre of Scottish Public Policy.

I arrived at Howden Park Centre just before 11:30 and sat with the other panellists. My mouth was dry and I was trembling with fear.

I think I managed not to screw up majorly - although the words got garbled en route from brain to gob a few times.

I did enjoy it though. I need to be a little more assertive about butting in next time, if they should ever let me back on.

I am incredibly grateful for all my friends online and on the phone who kept me sane and reassured in the run up to the event. That's even the one who, when told what I was about to do chose not to say "you'll be great." Instead she just burst out laughing. I'm also really thrilled with the friends who would never normally be seen dead listening to a political debate, will never get that hour back again and who were very kind about my performance.

It's here if you want to listen.

Secretive SNP's double standards on legal advice

It won't be long before some nationalist comes along and accuses me of smearing the SNP. That's what tends to happen when you disagree with them or point out that they may be guilty of saying one thing and doing another.

This week, they are blowing our hard earned taxes on fighting a ruling by Scotland's Information Commissioner. Labour MEP Catherine Stihler asked them if they had taken any legal advice on an independent Scotland's membership of the EU. The SNP argue that Scotland would have the same rights, the same opt outs on the Euro, and would automatically be part of the EU. They have not provided one shred of evidence to back that up. Their position seems fanciful at best in light of the comments of European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso who said that all new states would have to apply to join and be accepted by the others.

SNP ministers have refused to even tell us if they have any legal advice. You can read the Information Commissioner's ruling in full here. It's important to point out that the Commissioner says that if they did have that advice, at this point in the policy formulation process, they would be entitled to keep that secret for the moment. However, as the Referendum gets closer,that information could be very relevant to the debate.

The Commissioner is aware that the Scottish Government is committed to a referendum on the matter of Scottish independence. In her view, the question of whether independence will result in Scotland automatically remaining a member of the EU, or automatically being excluded and having to apply for membership, could have a bearing on how people vote in the referendum, depending on how they view the consequences of either of these outcomes.

In the Commissioner's view, the disclosure of legal advice on this matter could, if it existed and was held by the Ministers, inform the public in making their choice in a referendum, and in participating in the referendum debate.

However, although the contents of such advice could remain secret for the moment, the Commissioner ruled that there was no reason for ministers to refuse to tell us if it existed.

On balance, the Commissioner is not satisfied in this case that it would be contrary to the public interest for the Ministers to reveal whether the legal advice requested by Ms Stihler exists or is held by them. In particular, and as noted above, the Commissioner considers that there is a strong public interest in enabling scrutiny and better understanding of the procedure followed by the Ministers in their policy development processes.

Consequently, the Commissioner concludes that the Ministers were not entitled to refuse to reveal whether the requested information exists or is held by them in terms of section 18(1) of FOISA. The Commissioner has set out below the steps which she now requires the Ministers to take as a result of this conclusion.

I find it extraordinary that the SNP are defying the Information Commissioner and appealing her decision in Court. It's bad PR if nothing else. It looks like they're trying to hide something, especially when they're refusing to publish the Risk Register on independence and to gag a parliamentary committee at the same time.

If the SNP were in charge of an independent Scotland, clearly information would only be released on a need to know basis, with them deciding who needed to know. However, they didn't always think that way. Way back in 2005, Alex Salmond was insistent that the Labour Government should release its legal advice on Iraq.

No doubt nationalists will come up with some reason why there should be one rule for others and another for them. No doubt they'll dismiss me as some unionist harridan with an axe to grind, but they certainly can't do that with Kate Higgins, who supports independence, is actively campaigning for it and is doing all she can to up the quality of the debate. Last month, in a post called Just because you're paranoid, she wrote:

This is not how good government works.  Nor is it the way to gain the trust of the people in what will be the biggest political decision of their lives.

If the SNP Government wants the people of Scotland to trust them enough to vote yes to independence, they need to rediscover the spring in their step of the earliest days of government and put an end to this creeping fog of paranoia, suppression, fear and nervousness.

 I had been hoping that Nicola Sturgeon, now in charge of independence related matters, would have brought some sense to bear on this one. She and Angela Constance between them tend to have more common sense than all the rest of the SNP ministers put together and I just can't imagine why they would think that the secrecy would be a good idea.

A chance to improve children's lives - but let's give children a say too!

When Willie Rennie tweeted this morning asking for question suggestions, the subject I suggested was children's rights and services.

The Scottish Government has today launched a consultation on a new Children's Rights Bill. This will form the basis of a new Children's Services Bill in 2013. This is a real opportunity for Scotland and its politicians to work together to really make life better for children.

The range of subjects this could and should cover is enormous. Let's look at some examples.

if we're serious about adhering to the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, we have a long way to go on Article 27:

States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.

Thousands of children are growing up in poverty and in horrendous housing. Tackling that will take some effort.

Then we have to look at those kids who are growing up in households where alcohol or drugs are abused. It's stressful enough for adults to live with addicts - but so much more confusing and frightening for children.

The education we provide has to suit all children. Curriculum for Excellence is helping with this, but often parents struggle to get the right help if their children have difficulties at school.

There is a huge emphasis on early intervention - tackling problems before they get out of hand. However we do have to be careful that resources are targetted effectively and take account of different ideas and lifestyles. Even if we don't agree with it, we have to respect parents' rights not to have their children vaccinated, or to educate them at home. These decisions should not automatically trigger social services knocking at the door.

Promoting healthy body image is also essential - and, I think we also need to look at the dangers of the easy availability of internet pornography. It scares me half to death to think that the boys my daughter is mixing with are probably already watching stuff which portrays women in a subjugative role. This is bound to shape their expectations about how relationships work - and not for the better.

I also think supporting parents, particularly in the early years, is so important. I'd like to see better breastfeeding support, for a start. So many people who give up in the first few weeks really would rather not - and often if they had better quality information and support, it would help them through the difficulties they faced. I also want to see health visitors giving out advice which reflects current research on the long term impact of such things as sleep training. There are more options available than the "controlled crying" technique, but these are rarely even discussed. We need to look at how and when we educate about the needs of babies and young children - I think school, not the ante natal support group a few weeks before you give birth is the best place to start.

I wish it wasn't just groups and civic bodies which were being invited to give their responses. As a parent, a former member of a parent council and someone who has been involved in supporting parents I'd have loved the opportunity to share my views and experience.  I would have liked the consultation to be open to everyone who wants to to contribute. And do you know what, looking at the list of invited respondents again, there doesn't seem to be one single child..... That has to change, I think. We need to be listening to kids of all ages too.

I have barely scratched the surface here, but these are the issues which first came to my mind. I am encouraged that the Children's Minister is my local MSP Angela Constance. Her heart is absolutely in the right place and I know that she will work with organisations and representatives of political parties to do the very best she can.

In her covering letter she said:

As a society we have a moral obligation to do the right thing by our children: to ensure they have a happy and healthy childhood; and that they have every chance to realise their potential as they grow. By recognising and respecting their rights in law, we can ensure that everything government does systematically places the interests of children at heart and that their voices and needs shape the support they should receive.

This consultation and subsequent legislation must translate into tangible action which helps our children. I remember going to a SAMH hustings during the election where it was clear that all the politicians thought that mental health services and treatments were better than they actually were because of laws that they had passed. We'd better not muck this up!

Alex Cole-Hamilton wows Brian Taylor's Big Debate

Liberal Democrat candidate for the Lothians list and Edinburgh Central Alex Cole-Hamilton took part in Brian Taylor's Big Debate on Radio Scotland this lunchtime, along with Angela Constance from the SNP, Lawrence Fitzpatrick from Labour and Edinburgh Central Tory candidate Iain McGill.  It was held in West Lothian College in Livingston so I went down to be part of the audience.

Ok, I know I'm biased, but Alex put in an awesome performance. He was confident and assured and had a good, people centred answer for every single question he was asked.  There was much discussion about cuts in the FE sector and young people. West Lothian College has had its budget cut by 10%. Alex talked about there being a crisis in FE and how the Liberal Democrats would throw it a £21 million lifeline. For someone who is a education spokesperson on the Council, Lawrence Fitzpatrick was shockingly bad, spouting rhetoric about Labour protecting working class kids backed up with absolutely no substance to back it up.

There was only one person who had any time at all for the Tory plans to allow people to leave school at 14, many making the point that there aren't enough college places and apprenticeships for 16 year olds, yet alone 14 year olds.  I loved it when Alex took Angela to task on Scottish Government interference and expectations on teachers - suggesting that teachers might have a bit more time to get on with making lessons more engaging if they didn't have to spend time filling in forms for ministers in Holyrood, or reading through instruction manuals the size of telephone directories.

The room was so stacked with SNP members, that even Lawrence Fitzpatrick decided to out himself as being in favour of a referendum on independence. Seems to be a bit of a habit from Labour. First it was the Council Tax Freeze which they'd opposed for 4 years. Then it was free prescriptions which they'd also opposed. I managed to make a point about this - seriously, nobody, absolutely nobody that I come across outside politics, in my normal everyday life, nobody at the school gate or the zumba class talks about this. They talk about being worried about losing their jobs, or about the amount it costs to fill the car or get their weekly shop, or the failure of the Council to clear the roads in Winter, but I don't sense a burning desire for a referendum on independence. Angela Constance jokingly replied to me that I need to get different friends.

Labour's natural desire to suck everything into the centre came to the fore when discussing the idea of a National Care Service. There was very little support for it in the room - certainly in West Lothian, you wouldn't really want to fix something that's not broken, although I'm not convinced the set up is as unique as they think, because it sounds similar to what they do in Edinburgh, joint working between the NHS and Social Services to make sure people get decent care and aren't kept in hospital longer than necessary.  I don't think Labour really think of people as individuals, just as some amorphous blob with the same needs when in fact people have all sorts of unique circumstances and need their care to be tailored to them, not delivered according to the diktats of some bureaucrat in St Andrew's House.

The last question was about free prescriptions. I totally get the logic behind it, but I feel a bit guilty about it because I can afford to pay £3 or £5 for the drugs I need and I feel that giving me free drugs is costing money that could be better used elsewhere - and now the charge has gone, I don't even have the option of paying as I did sometimes - I have a condition which exempts me from all charges. Anyway, I got the chance to make another point - taking the Tories to task for the fact that they would charge everyone on £16000 plus for prescriptions at the same time as giving a £200 tax cut to rich pensioners - a point which was then made much better than I did by Alex.

You can listen to the the whole thing here. 

Just as an aside, I also managed to get a photo of Angela, wearing her ubiquitous orange scarf

I kid you not - she is wearing that scarf as part of the same outfit in every single photo in her recent leaflet - at the local community centre, at the hospital, at the school, at the local park, and so on. Now, she has visited these places many, many times. You could never accuse Angela of not being interested and involved in the local community - she has supported local schools and organisations all through the 11 years I've known her and before that. She'd obviously just been round and had all the campaign photos taken in one day, so I teased her about it. As she said herself, it's not like she doesn't have enough clothes. On the other hand, I teased Jo Swinson way back in 2005 for putting out leaflets which showed her over a period of about 18 months with about 6 different hairstyles, so maybe I just like being contrary.

I was really proud of Alex today - his persuasive and down to earth manner, and his grasp of the issues would make him a formidable force in Parliament so I really hope he gets there.

In which my MSP becomes a Minister

Congratulations to my MSP Angela Constance who was yesterday appointed as Skills and Lifelong Learning Minister in the reshuffle following the resignation of Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson who reckoned that

 I feel that I could have done much more to ensure that members of the public who were caught up in a difficult and frightening set of circumstances were better informed of the situation.

I don't really get the rush to resign, to be honest. Ministers have taken a great deal more grief and stayed in office. I agreed and still do with Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Megrahi, but he was under sustained pressure for a long time. Nicola Sturgeon got into hot water with a letter she wrote for a constituent on benefit fraud. Again, I felt more of a fuss than necessary was made of that, but while she came close to losing her job, she survived after making a reasoned and respectful statement to Parliament. It took ages for Salmond to replace Fiona Hyslop as Education Minister. Broken promises have come under the spotlight a lot in the last week - so maybe we need to look at the SNP's pretty dismal record on education and the promises they haven't kept on class sizes and teacher numbers. However, just one muck up and Stevenson heads off into the political goodnight like a little lamb.

I am not entirely convinced that anyone (well, except Ross Finnie) could have dealt any better with the horrendous conditions we've had over the past few weeks. Certainly Stevenson mucked up last Sunday. If I could tell from the BBC Weather website that it was going to snow heavily for 6 hours at 8am last Monday morning, then someone in his Department must have known more and could have warned people not to leave home. Having said that, after a week of chaos, employers would have been foaming at the mouth if their workers had said they weren't even going to try to get to work because of a weather warning. In fact, I know of people who called into work regularly during fruitless and frightening 5 hour bus journeys in whiteout conditions who were given extremely short shrift from their bosses. Apparently because it was snowing lightly in the centre of Edinburgh, then it must be the same elsewhere.

It has certainly been a bit weird over the last couple of weeks to see Alistair Carmichael and Tavish Scott commute quite successfully from the northern isles while West Lothian has been pretty much cut off from the rest of the world. People who relied on public transport to get to work have been in dire straits for the last fortnight. Trains weren't running from 1st December until this weekend and the replacement bus service was a joke. One single deck coach to replace an entire train? Ridiculous. Apart from that the bus service to Edinburgh was withdrawn for much of that time and the roads were a nightmare. I was not therefore terribly chuffed to hear Stewart Stevenson talk about Network Rail in much more friendly terms than he should have in response to a question from local MSP Angela Constance:

We will ask Network Rail to examine that issue further. The organisation has done well, but it, too, feels that it will have lessons to learn.

In what universe is failing to run a service for the better part of a fortnight doing well? While their profits are doubling, could it be that they're cutting corners? I mean, much colder countries seem to have functioning rail networks which aren't brought to a crashing halt when the temperature slides into minus figures.

So, not a good performance from Stevenson, but resignation material?

The letters exchanged between Stevenson and Salmond were peculiar to say the least:

I am also conscious there has been a lot of party politics in the last few days and that my continued presence in government would be used politically by our opponents.

I have not devoted my adult life to winning Scottish independence and to working for and serving in this first SNP government to allow that to happen.

Nothing that the other parties have done during this Parliament comes close to matching how much a pain in the backside the SNP were in opposition, when they just dug their heels in and said no for the sake of it, and made loads of noise in the process. For them to accuse others of playing party politics is the stuff of the pot and the kettle. As Salmond's bullish response illustrates:

There were indeed problems with communication with those suffering extreme difficulty, but just as no man can tether time nor tide, sometimes the elements are beyond anyone's control.

It is reprehensible that while you have been concentrating on addressing the practical issues facing our people, some of our opponents have been engaged in no more than parliamentary game playing.

So, if it's just game playing by a febrile opposition five months from an election, why allow your minister to be sacrificed unless there's something we don't know?

But anyway, the reshuffle was required and Keith Brown becomes transport minister while Angela Constance, my MSP, becomes Minister for Skills and Lifelong Learning. Andrew thinks these appointments are political, designed to promote MSPs in marginal seats ahead of the election, but I disagree.

Angela is one of the brightest people in the Parliament, let alone the SNP. She's also one of the most decent people in politics with her heart firmly in the right place. She should have been given a ministerial role a long time ago. Given the SNP's shameful record on further education, for example cutting back college places during the recession, and doing nothing to deal with the runaround Siemens were given on the wind technicians' course at Carnegie College in Dunfermline, she's got her work cut out for her. Unfortunately for her, she's just not being given enough time to make an impact and change things and she's going to  have less time for campaigning in the constituency. It's going to present her with quite a challenge. It'll also be interesting to see how the former student activist will cope with her boss Mike Russell's mixed messages on higher education. He's telling a Parliamentary Committee that there may have to be consideration of a graduate contribution of sorts and then telling the NUS that there won't be any fees. Whatever you call it, it's still money out of graduates' pockets. We'll see more when the Green Paper is published this week, but ducking the issue until after the election isn't going to wash.

Angela Constance questions Nicola Sturgeon on GP surgery high rate phone numbers

Regular readers of this blog will know that I have thrown an occasional strop because my GP surgery has an 0844 number. This means that calling to get an appointment or a prescription costs me an absolute fortune. There was one month when the costs purely of contacting the surgery were over £15. Now, I can afford to take that hit, but there are many who can't. Most landlines don't include 084 numbers in their free calls, nor do mobile companies who charge a fortune for them. You also have to bear in mind that many of those on the lowest incomes don't have landlines these days and so are reliant on mobiles.

I raised this some time ago with my local MSP Angela Constance, and she's been really good at continuing to work on this and keep me in touch with what she's been doing on the issue.

Yesterday she raised it with Nicola Sturgeon at Question Time in Holyrood. Here's the exchange:

General Practitioner Practices
(Premium-rate Numbers)

9. Angela Constance (Livingston) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive how many GP practices use 084 premium-rate numbers and whether it has any plans to actively discourage the use of such numbers by GP practices. (S3O-10892)

The Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing (Nicola Sturgeon): As at 3 June this year, there were 44 GP practices using 084 telephone numbers, which represents just over 4 per cent of the total number of practices in Scotland.

We intend to discuss the issue with the Scottish general practitioners committee, which is supportive of the idea that all patients should pay local telephone rates and is considering offering guidance to those practices that use 084 telephone numbers to encourage them to review their current telephone contracts. The Scottish Government would support that.

Angela Constance: I am sure that the cabinet secretary will recall the representations that I have been making on behalf of many of my constituents, who are having to bear the increased costs associated with the use of such telephone numbers by GP practices. Does she agree that it is wholly unacceptable for patients to bear those increases in their phone bills, which, for the many who need to make regular and repeated calls to their doctor's surgery, have been significant?

Nicola Sturgeon: I can understand that view and the frustration on the part of patients. I am sure that Angela Constance will appreciate that only a small number of GP practices in Scotland use 084 telephone numbers, but the practice can lead to increased costs for the patients who use such services. That is why it is important that we work with the general practitioners committee to encourage GP practices that use such numbers to offer local telephone rates instead, if possible. I will be more than happy to keep Angela Constance updated on the progress of those discussions.

I'm grateful to Angela for continuing to pursue this. I know it's only a small number of practices across Scotland, but that will still affect thousands of people who incur extra costs. I guess what I'd be looking for is that if the GP Committee's polite requests were ignored, then legislation should be brought in to completely ban the use of such numbers for all public services.

If your surgery uses a premium rate number like this, please let me know, and if you want to see things change, ask your MSP to take action.

Does Labour's truculence over Sturgeon show a vengeful trait?

I wrote yesterday about Iain Gray and the Labour Party's truculent refusal to accept Nicola Sturgeon's apology over her letter in support of Abdul Rauf.

I was taken by this post by Mr MacNumpty last night which suggested that Labour may have been motivated by a desire for revenge over what happened to Wendy Alexander.

If so, this would appear to show an unpleasant and spiteful trait. I remember reading reports in the press in 2007 which suggested that Labour were being uncooperative when it came to arranging a pairing arrangement for Angela Constance MSP's maternity leave. When I put my ear to the ground, I heard whispers that this was in retaliation for the SNP playing silly beggars when Labour MSPs wanted similar arrangements in the previous parliaments.

Parliamentarians tend not to take a huge amount of tiime of on maternity leave anyway, and they're never really away from the job, but the flexibility not to have to be in Edinburgh at 5pm in the early days of motherhood is quite important for all sorts of reasons. Why on earth, when we have the technology, we can't arrange remote voting or something is beyond me anyway.

If Parliamentary business managers have ever tried to make life difficult for a pregnant MSP, then that is utterly vile. If a party ever tried to inflict difficulty on an MSP as a payback for things that she had no control over and happened at a time when she was not even in the Parliament, then that is contemptible.

There's a really nasty thread running through a lot of what we see and hear from Labour, whether it be on issues of personality or policy, from Megrahi to Sturgeon at Holyrood, from Darling's forces of Hell to the disgraceful lack of compassion of the Home Office at Westminster.

Then we have the lie that they are trying to force down our throats that this election is between Labour and the Conservatives. In Scotland? Are you having a laugh? Like their excuses about the Glasgow North East by-election, it just doesn't hold water? Scotland knows perfectly well that the Tories are irrelevant. Labour's attempts to peddle that line show contempt for people's intelligence.

A Morning at the Pantomime - Holyrood Megrahi Debate misses the mark

So, our Parliament gathers to scrutinise one of the biggest decisions ever taken by a Scottish Minister. Yes, the mood is going to be tense, but you would expect an air of industry, of gravity. You expect the contributions to be full of detailed analysis and careful consideration. You would think that everyone would absolutely be on their best behaviour, knowing that the rest of the UK and potentially America is watching.

This is a Parliament that usually produces some quality when the chips are down. In its ten years it's done some great work to pass some great legislation, such as abolishing tuition fees, the smoking ban, a fair voting system for our Councils and giving mothers the right to breastfeed in public. The contributions of MSPs from all sides working together have made these laws better. We have good reason to take pride in Holyrood.

Unfortunately, our MSPs can occasionally be relied upon to behave with all the decorum of a roomful of 2 year olds fighting over a single bag of sweeties and today was one of these occasions. It was as if the nation had dressed its parliamentarians up in their best clothes for the big occasion and crossed its fingers and hoped for the best that they would be on their best behaviour.

It didn't take long for the fun and games to start. You would have thought that Alex Salmond, as First Minister, would see for himself a certain responsibility to ensure that the debate started on the correct note of solemnity, of gravity. I am not immune to the man's many charms and talents. At his best he can be funny, engaging and persuasive, but, like the girl with the curl in the centre of her forehead, when he's bad, boy is he horrid! He can be boorish, aggressive and more interested in showmanship than substance. Today, unfortunately, was not a good day. Before the debate had even started, he was on his feet cheekily asking if it would be in order for Labour to amend their motion given the developments overnight (of Bill Rammell confirming that Brown didn't want Megrahi to die in a Scottish jail). It was blatant political posturing, and you could actually feel the atmosphere in the Chamber, even diluted through the television, turn ugly and hostile. He did himself no favours, and I count myself as being on his side for the purposes of this debate. He certainly doesn't make it easy for people to take his side, sometimes.

We then had Kenny MacAskill propose his motion which he did competently except for one significant point. I think from what he said, and I'll edit this posting and put in the exact words, that there is sufficient reason to doubt whether Megrahi was advised that he did not need to drop his appeal for his compassionate release application to be considered. Like many, I would have preferred to see that appeal come to fruition. It also seems that Kenny MacAskill couldn't really remember what was said at the meeting. Surely all this should have been properly recorded. He did make one very good point though - telling Parliament that no compassionate release application where the evidence presented was in favour had ever been turned down by a Minister.

Richard Baker followed for Labour and to be honest, he was lamentable. All he seemed to be interested in doing was getting the SNP rather than properly examining the issue. His erratic delivery of a poisonous argument did him no credit.

Things started to improve after that. Bill Aitken for the Tories talked a lot of rubbish about how Megrahi could have been cared for in Scotland - completely ignoring the fact that his family were in Libya - but he did seem to at least get the tone right.

It had been a bad start, but it started to seriously get better from this point on. I always expect great things from Lib Dem Justice spokesperson Robert Brown. I might not always agree with him, and I wouldn't have voted for his amendment today, but I totally respect what he had to say. He made some very serious and measured points about whether the Minister had been properly advised, and whether he had read and followed all the guidance on compassionate release. It was a valid point to make, and one which never really got a proper answer. It did highlight a flaw within the process which I think a future Justice Minister would do well to learn from. Unfortunately, that's as far as I got with his speech because the tv coverage stuttered to a halt and he'd finished by the time it came back on.

Patrick Harvie got it spot on - pointing out that the features of the justice system lauded by Labour as being as far as compassion should extend, parole and appeals, were actually the bare minimum that you'd expect.

Elaine Murray, the MSP for Lockerbie gave a passionate and emotional account of the effect of the events of 21 December 1988 on the town. She felt very strongly that MacAskill, if he was taking representations from the US Families, should have actually met the people of Lockerbie who might not have lost anyone in the incident but were still traumatised by the events of that night. She described the account of one woman who had contacted her who had been terrified for herself and her 3 month old baby as the plane fell out of the sky. It was appropriate that Parliament should hear these accounts so that the people of Lockerbie could at least feel that someone was taking notice of them. Jim Hume, the Lib Dem MSP for South of Scotland echoed this call.

My own MSP, Angela Constance, also gave a solid and worthwhile contribution. Others from the SNP benches did the usual toadying Government bench stuff, but she actually had some different and good points to make. She talked about how she'd been around the constituency listening to people's views and she got the impression that most people were calm about it whether they agreed with MacAskill's decision or not. I'd say she was spot on with that. She also pointed out that Hillary Clinton, although she'd condemned the Scottish Government's decision, had also met with Gadaffi's National Security Adviser.

Michael McMahon started his speech with some low political blows and I was just about to leave the room in disgust to make a cup of tea when he started to take Kenny MacAskill to task about the "Higher Power" comments in his earlier statement. I'm glad somebody did - although McMahon didn't do it quite as well as Kelvin.

Other contributions which impressed me came from Dr Ian McKie, who, as a GP will hav treated many Cancer patients and will have witnessed at first hand how quickly things can change and how a condition can deteriorate, and Shirley Anne Somerville whose speech was pretty anodyne but at least got some of the good international press for the decision on the Official Report.

The end of the debate was not conducted in such a principled tone, though. Rather than giving Kenny MacAskill the chance to respond to the debate and answer the many valid questions that had been raised, Salmond decided to do his usual pugnacious grandstanding, throwing political punch after political punch was just not appropriate. Certainly, he'd had to listen to the same sort from the other side, but I'd hoped he'd rise above it. He said at the beginning of his speech that he'd respond to the political rubbish first and then the serious points - but he never got to the serious stuff

While Salmond ended the debate badly, I was determined not to end this posting on a negative note. I'd say that the man of the match was again Malcolm Chisholm, though clearly and calmly sticking by his principles and stating that if it was not a free vote he'd back the Government. Exactly the sort of principled stand you'd expect from someone who has shown such courage and wisdom before. I think that many people across Scotland, across the political spectrum, will admire what he did today.

I hope that there is a chance to move on, now. Parliament has now had its say and the Government has been, unfairly in my view, defeated.

Mark's MPs Meme

The UK's third most influential Lib Dem blogger, Mark Reckons has challenged us to name all the MPs who had ever represented us.

That'll be a breeze, I thought, being the political geek that I am, they will all just trip out of my brain, just like that.

Not so - most were easy, but a couple took some checking on the internet.

I've been lucky enough to have been represented by a cabinet minister, and a good one who resigned on a matter of principle, a couple of ministers, a Scottish Party leader, a UK Party leader and a complete maverick - not so bad. I've lived in mostly safe seats, but with a couple of marginals in there too.

So, in chronological order, here they are:

1967-79: Russell Johnston, passionate about both home rule and Europe. I'm sorry that I was just that bit too young to get to know him properly, although I met him on several occasions.

1979-87: Robert Maclennan. Bob was the last leader of the SDP and one of the most decent people I've ever known in politics. Although I moved away from Caithness in 1985, I continued to go back to help in elections there until 1992. If you read this blog regularly, you'll be fed up of hearing how I got detention for skipping school to go canvassing for him in 1983 when I was 15!

Those of you who have known me for a long time will know that I was in Aberdeen for a couple of years as a student but I never came off the electoral roll in Caithness so I could vote for Bob in the 1987 election. Just to show I'm a geek, my local MP in Aberdeen North at that time was Robert Hughes

1987-88: Ron Brown, who added colour to the House of Commons and who eventually pissed Labour off so much that they deselected him.

1988-89: The one and only Lord Foulkes.

1989-92: After we moved to England, I was quite disconcerted to be represented by a Tory for the first 3 years, and one with a very Scottish sounding name, Andy Stewart, at that. He lost his seat in the 1992 election that saw John Major cling to power. Paddy Tipping, the Labour MP who succeeded him, is still there.

When we moved back here in 2000, we not only had a Westminster MP but an MSP too. Robin Cook, Foreign Secretary at the time and Bristow Muldoon had seemingly unassailable majorities at the time.

Sadly, Robin, who resigned from the Cabinet over the Iraq war, passed away in 2005 to be replaced by Jim Devine, who, it has to be said, is significantly down the food chain and who has recently been deselected by the Labour Party over his expenses.

Bristow lost his seat in 2007 to the SNP's Angela Constance. I've known Angela ever since I moved here when I was on the local Community Centre's management committee. As a local councillor, she attended practically every meeting. I have a lot of time for her. She works very hard and has always been very friendly and polite.

It's quite disappointing that I had to wait until I was almost 40 years old to be represented by a woman. The preceding list is depressingly male, and white for that matter. The issue of getting more women elected is something I want to explore more more fully over the next few weeks.

I am not going to tag anyone with this, so just go ahead and do it if you want to.

LibDig This!