Why won't Scottish Government say if phones were hacked?

Scotland's top civil servant Sir Peter Housden is unlikely to have Willie Rennie on his Christmas card list, particularly as the Scottish Liberal Democrat leader has complained about him so many times.

Even so, Sir Peter's non committal reply to Willie Rennie's legitimate concerns over whether Scottish Government phones had been hacked by newspapers is astonishing. If they hadn't been, why on earth not say so?

His assertion that

Operation Rubicon is an ongoing investigation in which, for operational reasons, disclosure of information has been highly restricted. Even the fact of whether Scottish Government telephones have been hacked has the potential to compromise the investigation.

seems a bit weird to me. The logical conclusion is that if my house was burgled, then me writing just the fact that I'd been burgled on here would compromise a police investigation? I really don't get that. And if that's the case, has former Sunday Times journalist and now aide to Alex Salmond Joan McAlpine already compromised the investigation by revealing in her Daily Record column that her phone may have been hacked?  I don't really see how, frankly.

Liberal Democrats believe in Government being as open and transparent as possible. Things shouldn't be kept secret unless there is a very good reason. Willie Rennie had this to say in response to Sir Peter Housden's letter:

It seems clear to me that Scottish Government phones have been hacked. Sir Peter could easily have told me that the Scottish Government had not become a victim. Telling me nothing had happened would not have jeopardised any police investigation - but he didn't.

If the phones have been hacked it may have had a serious impact on national security or commercial confidentiality.

Parliament is perfectly capable of handling such information without compromising any police investigation. In fact Parliament has a responsibility and duty if such a breach has occurred.

Others, including an MSP, have been open about being hacked. Sir Peter needs to explain why the Government can't be open too. Sir Peter said he could not give me a full answer as it may undermine Operation Rubicon. Yet those who have revealed that they have been phone hacked have not been accused of undermining the inquiry.

Sir Peter Housden should come clean about whether Scottish Government phones have been hacked. There is no reason not to. After all, Alex Salmond was able to tell the Leveson Inquiry last week that he hadn't been hacked. Why the secrecy? And, why, especially, if no phones were hacked, can he just not say so?

For information, the correspondence between Willie Rennie and Sir Peter Housden is published in full below.

From Willie to Sir Peter Housden:

Dear Sir Peter,

I am writing to ask whether any Scottish Government phones have been subject to phone hacking. The First Minister has so far failed to answer questions directed to him in the Scottish Parliament about whether his own phone was hacked, arguing that he will not disclose this information until he appears at the Leveson inquiry.

I believe that refusing to answer such questions shows contempt for the Scottish Parliament to which he is accountable as First Minister. Nevertheless, whether or not the First Minister chooses to answer questions about his own phone, I believe that the Scottish people have a right to know now whether their Scottish Government has been subject to phone hacking.

There are potentially serious implications should Scottish Government phones have been hacked as ministers and senior officials could have received messages concerning matters of national security or emergency planning. There is therefore a wider interest in whether this information has been kept safe.

I’d be grateful if you could disclose whether any official Scottish Government phones have been hacked. If official phones have been compromised, has the government taken steps to mitigate any damage that could potentially have been caused?

I understand that Strathclyde Police is currently investigating allegations of phone hacking in Scotland and I am also writing to them with the same question. What discussion have you had with officers leading Operation Rubicon to ascertain whether the Scottish Government has been subject to phone hacking?

I look forward to receiving your response.

Yours sincerely,

Willie Rennie MSP, Leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats

Sir Peter's reply:

13 June 2012

I refer to your letter of 18 May, received on 21 May, asking whether Scottish Government

telephones have been subject to phone hacking.

As I think you understand there is an over-riding need not to compromise the work of the

Leveson Inquiry. Lord Justice Leveson made it explicit in a public address on 15 May that a

public debate on the subject matter of a witness's evidence may make it make it difficult or

even impossible for the Inquiry to take evidence from that witness in a fair and impartial

manner.

In addition the question of whether any Scottish Government telephones have been hacked

falls squarely within the remit of Operation Rubicon. You will I think be aware that the remit

of Operation Rubicon is (i) to examine aspects of the evidence presented during the Tommy

Sheridan perjury trial and (ii) to examine specific claims of phone hacking and breaches of

data protection in Scotland. Operation Rubicon is an ongoing investigation in which, for

operational reasons, disclosure of information has been highly restricted. Even the fact of

whether Scottish Government telephones have been hacked has the potential to

compromise the investigation.

Further, the disclosure of that information, together with the public debate that disclosure

might engender, might allow persons subsequently charged with any offences arising out of

the police investigation to argue that pre-trial publicity has prejudiced their right to a fair trial.

You will appreciate that in these circumstances I am unable to provide you with the

information you seek.

Malcolm Bruce has upset some Cybernats - but look at what he has to say on Scotland's place in the world

One of my highlights of any Scottish Liberal Democrat conference is Party President Malcolm Bruce's speech. This is a man who has spent his whole life in politics working for human rights and international development. There isn't much this man does not know about international relationships. His observations are always worth listening to.

I've been aware of a whole load of cybernats bumping their gums about his speech at the weekend, quoting a couple of bits completely out of context. So, the best way to remedy that is to publish the whole thing so that you can see where he's coming from.

Nowhere did he compare Scotland to South Sudan. In fact, he says he sees why South Sudan needed to be freed from its lawless neighbour. He talked about how the international community had worked together to help South Sudan and how the UK was the first to send an ambassador. Malcolm's story of South Sudan is a positive one in terms of that international co-operation - and illustrated how Scotland as part of the UK, how he, a Scot chairing a UK Parliament Committee, could help this fledgling nation. 

Yes, he mentioned some other countries where a destructive drive for independence had been damaging. 

 His remarks may not fit with the SNP's narrative that everything in an independent Scotland would be hunky dory and that it would be a land full of prosperity, love, peace and fluffity bunnikins. Malcolm warns of the dangers of fragmenting the world in to a succession of competing countries.

Now, Malcolm has absolutely nothing to prove when it comes to championing Scotland's cause. I remember how as leader he led us into the Constitutional Convention, how he railed against the Tory Government's refusal to establish the Scottish Parliament we so badly needed. Our Parliament is founded on years of hard work by Malcolm and others. Their sweat and words and persuasion and negotiation and engagement made Holyrood the strong institution that it is. I will absolutely not stand by and let anyone denigrate his dedication to and passion for Scotland. We could have asked no more of him. 

He may not agree with SNP policy, and some of the robust arguments he uses may not be to the taste of the nationalists on the internet but who cares?

As SNP activists selectively quote Malcolm, you can see Joan McAlpine's article in full in which she compares England to a domineering husband perpetrating an abuse of power. It's clear where she's going with her line of argument. The thing that strikes me is that marriage in itself has an inherent co-dependency that's actually quite good. Having someone to share the risks and rewards of life is actually quite a good thing.

Anyway, here's what Malcolm actually said. Read and enjoy.

In December I spent a week in the newest country on the planet. It is 98 per cent dependent on oil revenues which are currently astopped because the export pipeline has been shut down.

South Sudan achieved its independence last June after decades of war and following a Comprehensive Peace Agreement and Referendum brokered by the international community.

The country, which is also riven by internal disputes and often violent inter tribal rivalries has to build itself from scratch. It has no power or water system, only a few miles of metalled road and a severe shortage of people with basic literacy to run anything. Almost everything, food materials and skilled labour has to be imported.

The country has a President, Salva Kir, who recognises the challenges and some able ministers. It has huge support from the international community – notably the USA, the UK – the first country to recognise South Sudan and appoint an ambassador – the European Union and the United Nations.

I quite understand why continuation of the south within Sudan was not an option and I hope and pray that it will succeed in overcoming these challenges and become a viable country. 

This experience led me to reflect on the nature and circumstances of independence and to look at the cases being made for others to become independent.

It was a sobering list of countries like Republic Srpska, S Ossetia, Kashmir, Basque Region, Catalonia, Chechnya, Greenland, North Cyprus, Transnistria. Do we really want the world to break up into a growing list of tiny countries nursing their grievances through the international community?

Indeed divergences can be magnified when countries go their separate ways. Consider Czechoslovakia. Since Slovakia seceded the GDP per capita of the Czech Republic has risen to $25,600 while Slovakia’s stands at $16,288 with higher unemployment and inflation.

There are currently recognised to be 196 states in the world with about 50 with varying degrees of aspiration to join them. Alex Salmond says he doesn’t want Scotland to be better than other countries but equal but where does that end?   Scotland cannot be equal to the United States anymore than Montenegro or Malta can be equal even with British Columbia or New South Wales.

Talking of Alex Salmond, having shared a platform with him when he was wearing tartan trews – a concession to the creation of the Scottish Parliament – I know he has long asserted he will not wear a kilt in Scotland until independence has been achieved.

I will yield to no-one in my determination that every aspect of the debate from economic, through historical, legal, cultural and social must be considered in consummate detail but I have to say that I can think of one overwhelming reason to reject his plans and that must be to protect the people of Scotland from the sight of Alex Salmond in a kilt.

On the more serious implications of breaking the world into an ever growing number of competing nation states I found this on a website looking at the potential for new countries.

“Does it really make sense to have 200 separate nations to quarrel with each other and to waste our precious and fast diminishing resources? The real problems are greed and intolerance. We need to educate our children and control our politicians. Let's make them work for us instead of for themselves. To quote John Lennon ‘Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too. Imagine all the people Living life in peace... You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will be as one’

Maybe that is just an updated version of the great Englishman, John Donne’s words, “No man is an island, entire of itself” and that is precisely the basis on which Liberals will back individuals against abusive states and back human rights laws and conventions against those who want to dismantle them.

That is precisely why Liberals will always be upholders of the United Nations Charter of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights and must view with scepticism the motives behind any attempts to change them.

Of course, there are practical facts that must be addressed. Since the  Council of Europe expanded to its present level of 47 member states the European Court of Human Rights has been overwhelmed with cases and not been given the resources to deal with them.

That, of course, is why our own Human Rights Act giving British citizens the quicker and cheaper option of taking their case through the UK Courts commands our support.

But we must be vigilant at any attempt to subordinate the European Convention of Human Rights to national jurisdictions. In particular, not only must the right to appeal to the Human Rights Court in Strasbourg be protected but also the right to initiate a case there.

It is all very well for people to be outraged over our own current inability to extradite Abu Qatada – I understand that. But that is no reason to suggest that the ruling of UK Courts can set aside the judgements of the court in Strasbourg.

The UK has an exemplary record of implementing court rulings if somewhat slowly at times. But that is very different from the situation that prevails in other countries – notably Ukraine and Russia.

The UK has eight cases outstanding at the European Court of Human Rights. Russia has 100,000 cases for it.

It is a moot point whether Russia gives much regard to Strasbourg but if a country of the UK’s standing were to suggest giving national court judgments precedence it would limit Council of Europe members’ influence over Russia and undermine those within Russia fighting for Human Rights and the rule of law.

As a member of the Human Rights Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe I supported the Rapporteur on the Mikhai Khodorkovsky case. On one occasion I addressed a seminar of the New York School of law entitled “are we  back in the USSR”. The answer was brutally honest. The situation is much worse I was told since Putin came to power.  There are now more KGB trained agents in positions of power than was ever the case under the Soviet Union.

The case of Sergei Magnitsky is still more harrowing.  As a lawyer advising a UK businessman, he was arrested and so brutalised that he died in agony while in custody.  Details of those who inflicted this mistreatment have been published by Magnitsky’s supporters, who have called for an investigation and prosecution of those responsible and a refusal of right of entry into democratic countries.

This has been ignored by the Russian authorities who have allowed key witnesses to disappear and are proceeding with a posthumous criminal prosecution against Sergei Magnitsky contrary to Russian law.

Yet Vladimir Putin is set to be re-elected as President after a laughably fraudulent election where no credible alternative candidate was allowed to stand.  No doubt if one could translate recent street demonstrations in Russia to Scotland the slogan would be clear. Putin must be put oot!

Before you begin to consider the economically uncertain world in which we live and in which the SNP want to cut Scotland adrift, this is the confused international background we face. It is quite extraordinary that we should be considering cutting historic ties and launching ourselves into this maelstrom.

For more than 300 years Scotland and its people have been defined as a distinct nation with a proud legacy. From the eighteenth century enlightenment through the industrial revolution and the scatterlings of Scottish engineers, accountants, traders, administrators, soldiers, sailors, tea and rubber planters and countless more, Scots of every kind have shaped the modern world.

It is not an accident that Banff is the jewel of the Canadian Rockies or that the last spike to link the east and west coast of Canada was driven at Craigellachie.  Across the Americas, Africa, Asian and Australasia Scots have left their mark.

I have had the privilege to visit many of these places and view from the other end of the telescope how the UK and Scotland are viewed. It is perhaps part of our character to be self critical but wherever I go I find many people who look to the United Kingdom with respect and often admiration and affection.

Scottishness is a distinct part of the British character that is recognised and respected. But Scotland is also part of what Britishness means too.

Why would we reject that? Why should we cut ourselves off from what has shaped our character? Why should we shrink the footprint we make in the world?

We can be Scottish and British or we can be just Scottish. Why limit ourselves?

The UK is not a great power anymore and we do not aspire to be. But nor are we peripheral. When Alex Salmond sneers at the UK’s seat on the Security Council or role in NATO, Europe, IMF and the World Bank he is not just being anti British, he is relegating Scotland to the margins.

If these things count for so little, why do Brazil and India aspire to their own role with UK support? On many of the big councils of the day Scotland is directly or indirectly inside the room.

We are a long way from a world where all nations are equal. Liberals are striving for that and for institutions that give a voice to people as people rather than nations.

That, of course, is why we are so firmly committed to our UN Overseas Development Assistance obligations focussed on poverty reduction           and the Millennium Development Goals.

You know I suspect that most people think that Scotland’s main commitment to overseas aid is in Malawi, Sadly, this country is not in a good place and High Commissioners have been withdrawn.

In fact, of course Scotland is the home of half of the headquarters of the Department for International Development (DfID) located at East Kilbride. The UK development budget is currently £8.5 billion and is set to rise to £11 billion.

 I have heard nothing as to how the SNP would find £1 billion a year if they were to stay true to Scotland’s share of the UK’s UN pledge. Or indeed, what would happen to the more than 500 jobs based in Scotland in support of the UK’s development policy.

Whether we are talking of DFID, the BBC, the World Service, the British Council or other internationally renowned institutions the question we have to ask ourselves is why would we want to disassociate ourselves from such expressions of our culture that the world so admires and of which Scotland is such an integral part?

Scotland’s role in these could never be replicated under a tartan ten per cent.

I am proud to have been the first leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats. In that role I led our delegation in the Scottish Constitutional Convention which laid out the framework for the Scotland Act.

We should not allow the SNP to forget they walked out of that process after attending just one meeting – and then only for the purpose of walking out. Similarly, they took no part in the Calman Commission which is putting into practice some of the tax suggestions considered by the Convention but not then agreed on.

Throughout the process of delivering a Scottish Parliament the SNP have totally disengaged on the straightforward grounds that the SNP existed quite simply for independence nothing less.

So let us be quite clear. Now the SNP has a majority in the Scottish Parliament it has the mandate for one constitutional question only. Should we become independent or remain in the United Kingdom?

For Liberal Democrats, we are on the road to a federal United Kingdom but that can only be taken forward once Scotland has decided to stay as a self governing part of the UK.

It is also a decision for the whole of the United Kingdom. It concerns intimately the people of Wales and Northern Ireland. But it requires England to be recognised as a self governing part of the UK too.

Building a Federal United Kingdom is a Liberal Democrat mission but the first step is to secure the backing of the people of Scotland to stay in the family. We are surely stronger together.

The world will look on in astonishment if the UK were to break apart. We would all be the weaker. Ask the Canadians how Quebec separatism damaged them economically and politically.

The constitutional debate will define how we deal with the world. Liberal Democrats hold the strongest hand for the simple reason that we have consistently held out for what all the evidence suggests the people of Scotland want – Home Rule within the United Kingdom.

So let us – Liberal Democrats - raise the banner of federalism high. Let us – Liberal Democrats - lead a proud Scotland to a dynamic role in a reformed United Kingdom. Let us – Liberal Democrats – show a country  comfortable in its own skin and at ease with the world – a truly United Kingdom.

Joan McAlpine does it again - compares Scotland to an abused wife

It's not that long since SNP MSP and senior aide to Alex Salmond Joan McAlpine suggested that the unionist parties were acting in an anti Scottish manner. Their crime? Not agreeing with SNP policy on the referendum.

Now, courtesy of a lucrative new deal with the Record (I have no idea what she's being paid, but I can't imagine she's doing it for free), she's published her first weekly column for them. 

Now, why would a Labour supporting paper sign up a Nationalist prone to fairly poisonous comments? They clearly feel her particular sort of vitriol needs an airing, but what do you think their motive is?

Joan certainly didn't disappoint them today, with her column comparing Scotland to a wife trapped in an abusive relationship. 

This is wrong on so many levels. It insults genuine victims of domestic abuse for a start. 

Joan doesn't seem to get the concept of partnership. She also seems to think that independence would automatically create this dream world where there was no poverty or unemployment. And what a cheek to suggest that they were responsible for free university tuition. She might have a degree in Scottish History, but she's a bit hazy in that period after the 1999 elections when the Liberal Democrats stopped Labour from introducing fees in the first coalition.

If an independent Scotland were going to meet its international obligations on climate change, I suspect it wouldn't be cutting taxes on petrol by that much, either. The thing is, none of the problems she mentions are guaranteed to be resolved by independence, sadly. 

I'm glad to see Jo Swinson has called McAlpine out, saying she should apologise or resign for her remarks. Jo holds a similar role as McAlpine to Nick Clegg and I'm fairly certain that he would have something to say about it if she came out with such poisonous language.

Jo said:

“There should be an immediate and unreserved apology from Joan McAlpine and if one is not forthcoming Alex Salmond should sack her as his parliamentary aide. “This is a deeply offensive comment that shows profound disrespect for the many victims of domestic violence which is an appalling crime.
 “The relationship between England and Scotland within the wider United Kingdom is a successful partnership; one based on mutual respect and shared values. “To imply otherwise and compare it to domestic abuse for partisan political ends is abhorrent.”

McAlpine's words bring to mind what Willie Rennie said in his speech to Conference the other day about cybernats, the people who are not one nation nationalists.

That’s us. Constructive in opposition and delivering in office.I think it’s positive politics.It is an approach that accepts that you have to work with other people.It’s a generous approach, that recognises that people may have different ideas.And it poses a massive challenge to parts of the SNP.The SNP ‘heavies’.
The cyber-nats.
The people who attack personally anyone who disagrees with them.It’s ugly politics.
And they will hunt down one-by-one on the internet those who stand in their way.Faking letters from academics, telling cross-party groups they can’t criticise the government; telling airlines to downgrade Jim Wallace.They talk-down Scotland’s place in Britain and cause division between people.They are not one-nation nationalists.
If they are not careful they will cause Scotland to become a divided country, setting Scot against Scot for a generation.My message to the SNP is simple: please don’t question my loyalty to my nation just because I don’t agree with your policy.It’s not all of those in the nationalist camp.There are many sincere, generous, liberal-minded people in the SNP.But it is their behind-the-scenes stalkers and abusers who need to be tackled.The SNP leadership needs to rein them in, to tackle the abuse, to overcome the division-creators.Their leaders need to act. And act now.

He's right. I want the progressive forces in Scotland to unite against independence and win in a positive campaign. I don't want us to win because people like Joan McAlpine have spent 1000, or 500 or however many days spreading a message of hatred. Like I've said before, we have to wake up the day after the referendum and all live with each other, to get on.

Labour's "attack dog" silenced, so why does Joan McAlpine still have a job?

So far, only the Sun in its usual inimitable style, appears to be reporting the story I heard on Good Morning Scotland that Tom Harris, pugnacious Labour MP for Glasgow South has been forced to stand down from his post as Labour's New Media Adviser. This is because he put out a You Tube video satirising the comments by Alex Salmond's parliamentary aide Joan McAlpine that the unionist parties were "anti Scottish."

The video was yet another Hitler parody. The Guardian wrote a couple of years ago about how this phenomenon of using that scene from the movie Downfall to satirise current events was getting a bit old. In fact it's not the first time it's been used to make fun of events in Scottish politics. Just after the SNP won Glasgow East, that scene was subtitled to make it seem as if the news was being brought to Gordon Brown and his subsequent tantrum. It wasn't just comparing Brown to Hitler, but was highly offensive to the people of the constituency who had just rejected Labour. A few months later, there was another one after Labour held Glenrothes depicting Salmond as Hitler. 

The difference with "Joan's Downfall" of course was that neither of these previous efforts had any clear links to anyone in either the SNP or Labour. We all watched them, we may or may not have guiltily laughed at some elements, but we couldn't pin them on anyone. Tom brazenly published this one on his You Tube channel.

I had a conversation with Tom Harris on Twitter last week about how I wanted the referendum debate to be conducted in passionately positive language. He disagreed with me, saying that "attack dogs" were needed. I'm not convinced raising the temperature of the debate is particularly helpful. although certainly the SNP's plans need to be robustly analysed.

Tom is many things, but stupid is not one of them. I suspect he knew exactly what he was doing and that he would have to resign for it. But how big a tragedy is that? New Media Adviser? It's hardly ruling the world, is it? Thing is, he associates himself, on new media, with something pretty tasteless. Within hours, before there is even that much of a fuss, Johann Lamont has him in and tells him to sling his hook. 

This does not compare well with the SNP leadership standing full square behind Joan McAlpine. Her comments were much more divisive and sinister. If anyone was ever more deserving of the sack, I've yet to come across them. 

You could be forgiven for thinking that Harris had done this on purpose to underline the distinction.

Kenny Farquharson wrote in yesterday's Scotland on Sunday of the importance of playing nice during this long referendum campaign:

Our politicians have a responsibility to acknowledge this danger and commit to conducting themselves in a way that minimises such antagonism. With the eyes of the world and the eyes of history upon us, each side should bear in mind that no matter which vision of Scotland’s future wins out in the end, it has to be a united Scotland that gets on with the business of making it work.

Gerry Hassan suggested that those on the Nationalist side should do more to understand those coming from the other point of view. And I'd add that a bit of reciprocation is also necessary.

We all have to live with each other when this is over. This referendum can't be allowed to fracture and polarise our society, our communities, our families or our friendships. We can't allow our lives to be poisoned by intemperate and personally offensive language.

Whether Tom Harris' latest stunt is contrived or not, Joan McAlpine, guilty in my view of much worse and unrepentant, should not still be in a job as close to the First Minister as she is. Salmond's condoning of her behaviour is a strong signal to others who hold the same view that they can do what they like without fear of sanction.

How very dare you, Joan McAlpine!

 I make absolutely no apology for saying that the Liberals, the Labour Party and the Tories are anti-Scottish in coming together to defy the will of the Scottish people and the democratic mandate that they gave us to hold a referendum at a time of our choosing, which, as the First Minister said, would be the latter half of the parliamentary session. The sight of those parties cosying up on the sofas of various Scottish television studios will really alarm the people of Scotland.

Joan McAlpine MSP  Official Report, 12 January 2012


I have to say I was livid when I first saw Joan McAlpine's comments that those who don't agree with all the details of the SNP's plans for the independence referendum were "anti-Scottish." To suggest that I want to act against the interests of the country I love, where I was born, which I yearned for so much it actually hurt during the 11 years I had to live away from it, simply because I don't agree with SNP plans for the independence referendum is outrageous.  


They say you should sleep on things before you say react. Well, I have, and I'm still livid, hurt and saddened at this poisonous attack on political opponents. I really can't stand this sort of thing, no matter who it comes from. 


I have defended the SNP on several occasions against jibes from Labour that they were not patriotic. It literally makes my flesh creep when this sort of stuff is used as a political weapon. Can we not just all accept that we all love and care for Scotland, whatever view we have?

Nobody doubts the SNP's mandate to hold a referendum on independence, but if wanting that poll to be fair, clear and legal, expecting both my Governments to work together to achieve that,  makes me anti Scottish, then, really, what is the world coming to?

What's more worrying is that senior figures in the SNP have tolerated this sort of language. Nicola Sturgeon defended her on Question Time last night and even the brightest of their new generation, Humza Yousaf, while saying that he wouldn't have used that language himself, didn't rebuke her anywhere near enough on Call Kaye this morning. That is more of a problem to me than the remarks themselves. Nicola referred on Question Time to those who talk Scotland down - that's pretty much become code for anyone who disagrees with SNP policy. So much for them listening and being inclusive.

If the SNP allow this sort of language to go unchecked, as my friend Allan pointed out on Facebook yesterday, it could be the biggest impediment to them being successful in their referendum. I don't quite agree with him on that because I think the evidence will prove the benefits of the Union but he has a point.

But, sadly, the story doesn't end here.

As the debate unfolds over the coming weeks, there will be a clear dividing line between patriots and nationalists.  

This came from new Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, in the same debate and has gone largely unnoticed in the media. To my mind, that's just as bad. I don't want to hear this kind of stuff from anybody.

How rubbish are we going to feel after 3 years if the debate has been full of bitterness and poison? I want to come out of this process uplifted by ideas expressed in a passionate and positive way. This kind of row suits the SNP, though,  - for yet another few news cycles they are not challenged on the mechanics of independence, its practical effect on our daily lives. Sadly, I have a horrible feeling the run up to the referendum will be permeated with such comments.

Joan McAlpine is turning herself into the Jan Moir of the SNP. She's exhibited the same sort of narrow minded intolerance that Moir does with her ill informed rants. If she can't sincerely apologise and withdraw her remarks, then she really should be sacked from her job as the First Minister's Parliamentary Liaison Officer. I won't be holding my breath for either of these things to happen, though.

Come the day after the referendum, we're all going to have to get on and live together, whatever the result. There will be a winning side and a losing side. The divisions will need to be healed.  That process will be much easier if we avoid corrosive language, conduct the debate with civility and mutual respect,  acknowledging each others views, right to hold them and genuine love for Scotland. It'll get passionate, angry and fiery at times, but there are limits to what's acceptable and we should all make efforts not to cross the line.

Willie Rennie tells the SNP to grow up over Scotland Bill

Last night I finally got around to watching Wednesday afternoon's Politics Scotland show. Yes, I know, I call myself a political blogger and I choose to watch Celebrity Masterchef when it was going out live. Disgraceful!

Anyway, Wednesday's programme contained a gem of an interview with Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie and the SNP's Joan McAlpine.

In it, Willie made the very obvious point that the Scottish Parliament is being given a whole load of new powers, the biggest devolution since the Act of Union in 1707. You would think the SNP Government, which wants independence, would be delighted. Instead they are stalling and prevaricating about it. He pointed out that we can't have more responsibility and expect there to be no risk whatsoever. And if the risk of the Scotland Bill is too big, then what on earth is independence?

It seems from what Joan McAlpine was saying that we might end up with the farcical situation where the SNP vote for the transfer of powers because they don't want to be seen to be voting against it, but they'll not agree the timing, the Commencement Orders.

Asked how Michael Moore would resolve the impasse, Willie said that  it was clear that he was prepared to be reasonable and deal with the complicated issues in a spirit of constructive engagement. He then made the very valid point that:

"their idle threats to thwart this bill which, as I say, is the most substantial transfer of power in 300 years actually goes counter to what they claim which is more powers for the Scottish Parliament. I just think they're mucking about with this and they need to be a bit more mature."

If you want to watch the interview, you can do so here.

The SNP need to stop faffing and make a decision to either back the Bill or not. If they choose not to, they make a mockery out of their claim for independence.  With power comes responsibility and uncertainty - although the Bill contains mitigating measures to help Holyrood cope with fluctuations.

The SNP seem to want to have their cake and eat it over this.  They just can't. So they have to make a decision that they, and only they, will be accountable for.

And finally I get around to writing about #picamp - the Political Innovation Edinburgh event

A week ago on Saturday, I attended a fantastic event in Edinburgh at which political bloggers, campaigners, activists, elected representatives and people who work in public affairs got together to discuss, basically, better ways of doing politics. The Political Innovation event was the brainchild of Paul Evans and Slugger O'Toole's Mick Fealty. It was great to meet people in the flesh who I'd only known online. It's just a pity Andrew Marr wasn't there to see that bloggers actually are very pleasant, friendly, real and genuine people, so he could then stop spouting nonsense about us.

We all had to wear badges, sticking labels on ourselves as to whether we were politicos, wonks, geeks, campaigners or bloggers. I only had a bloggers badge as they'd run out of campaigners, so I felt a bit grim reaperish as they were edged in black while the others had nice bright colours.

So this is my magical mystery tour through a useful and fun day at which arguments were had and friendships made.  Part of the reason it's taken me so long to write it up is that almost immediately on going home that evening I ended up with a vile cold which laid me up for a lot of last week. I can't really blame James from Better Nation who was sipping some remedial potion from a flask all day, because I don't think germs multiply that fast, even in my pathetic excuse for an immune system. Anyway, enough distractions:

The Venue


I almost forgive the University of Edinburgh for taking up some of the car park I used to use to build this marvellous Informatics Forum to house all their various computery sciency departments. The building is beautiful, although I'm not sure the view from the glass wall is particularly spectacular. As you'd expect, it's all very modern and lovely and we all had access to free wifi. Not that I really used it much. Sometimes I think there's a conflict between live reporting on something and actually enjoying it. I actually spent too much time blethering to really have the time to tweet much and there was no question of there being time to blog. It was useful, though, especially to keep up with the F1 qualifying session from Abu Dhabi.

The Food


This deserves a section on its own as there was a seemingly limitless supply of cake and fruit along with water and juice throughout the day. I actually missed out on that because again I was too busy chatting. Lunch, though, was sublime. I was expecting the traditional buffet - some chicken legs, sausages on sticks and egg mayo sandwiches, that sort of thing. Maybe if we were lucky we might get a samosa. Err, no. Little tiny bowls filled with various bits of hot food. Sausages and mash with a little bit of onion gravy, or haggis, neeps and tatties, or a vegetarian option which I never got anywhere near. For pudding, the most delicious almondy, apply, fruity crumble with custard, or white chocolate mousse with little cookies. I say or, but you could have had as many as you wanted in whatever combination you liked. It was utterly delicious. So, this is the place to go if you are having an event in Edinburgh as far as I'm concerned.

The Unconference nature of it all


There was no structured agenda although people had been asked to submit ideas for sessions throughout the week. Given the free-spirited nature of assorted geeks, this could have resulted in chaos. It didn't. It was actually very well organised, with quite a firm hand,  but without anyone feeling like they were being ordered around. Very clever. At the opening plenary session, each suggestion for a session was put on that most cutting edge of technologies, a yellow post-it and the sessions were allocated on the timetable. There were 5 rooms available so there was plenty of room for all the suggested events. I attended 5 in total so I'll try to give you a flavour of each.

The politician's surgery - and how social media can help


This session was the brainchild of Gill, who writes the lol scum blog, based on her experience of working for the Scottish Government. She felt that many of the queries she had in her government role from elected representatives could have been much more effectively and quickly dealt with had they come to her direct. She'd also talked about the difficulties she'd had in contacting her MP, finding out how to do so, and then waiting a week for a reply giving details about a surgery she couldn't attend.

The session covered people's expectations when they contacted their elected. Sometimes it could be more effective to just refer them to where they could get the information themselves. but people often want their MP, for example to be seen to do something for them.

Mark Lazarowicz, MP for Edinburgh North and Leith, made the point that you did have to be careful about not giving priority to online casework, even though people who e-mail expect an immediate response. You have to be careful not to penalise someone who doesn't have access to the internet. From my experience as an MP's caseworker, we certainly didn't do that. It was the urgency of the issue which dictated the priority. If someone needed immediate help with benefit/housing or any other issue, they got it regardless of how they contacted him.  He took casework from all sorts of places - from going out knocking on doors, surgeries (which we preferred to hold where people were, like supermarkets and shopping centres), e-mail, phone, visits to the office, and latterly a fair chunk from Facebook and Twitter.

The main themes which came out of the discussion is that it would be better if people had more information about who the best person to contact was for their issue, that debate shouldn't be dominated by people who had online access and that there was a use for social media in political engagement because people weren't so intimidated by the idea of contacting someone on Facebook as they were by maybe going to a surgery.

Can we win elections online?


This was a much bigger session which basically reached the conclusion that there was no substitute for knocking on doors, nor for having a message which resonated with people. However, online and social media campaigning had a role in reinforcing the message and in organising activists. Obama and the SNP had used phone apps, for example, to organise contacts to get activists phone canvassing.

Someone mentioned that impact of the Leaders' Debates during our General Election. On places like Facebook and Twitter, people could get immediate social proof of how people were reacting to what was going on.

I made the point that online engagement could make the difference in a close election, although on the ground campaigning was most important. I also mentioned how the SNP weren't that great with either their online or on the ground campaigns in 2007 and their success had been based primarily on the air war in the media. I live in Livingston which was closely fought in 2007 and was won by the SNP's Angela Constance. They certainly didn't run anything like the sort of campaign on the ground  that I would have thought you'd need to win - and nor are they doing this time, to be honest. It was all about the message for change, their "it's time" campaign which permeated the country's consciousness and resonated with the voter.

Edinburgh campaigner Lily Greenan, (who doesn't blog but should because we could do with some more Scottish based blogosphere feminism) talked about it being easier to disseminate and analyse information online. She mentioned an infographic produced by the Democrats to illustrate that under Obama more jobs were being created than under Bush. I did a bit of digging and found this interesting article showing what I think she's talking about and how Fox News distorted the same figures.  Lily also made the point that people were protesting again on a level not seen since the 1980s and the internet was a key tool in doing that more effectively than in the past.

Can Scotland harness the power of its own blogosphere?


This was the first session after lunch and was the only session of the day which was based around a panel discussion. Mick Fealty had asked me earlier in the week to take part in this. He also mentioned that the panel would include journalists, something which scared the life out of me. I said that I'd only do it if he could find some other bloggers to take part. I'm also not quite so confident in my ability to talk and think at the same time, which is why I write.  I heard nothing more so I made the mistake of assuming that I was off the hook. Ten minutes before the event was due to start, Mick asked me again to take part and said all sorts of reassuring things about how it would be fine. So, I took my place out front with Shuggy, James Mackenzie from Better Nation, Irish journalist  Peter Geoghegan and Pat Kane.

Bearing in mind that I'd done zero prep for this, I was just ever so slightly freaked out when Mick said that each panellist would talk for 3-4 minutes and then handed me the microphone. What followed sounded pretty dire to me at the time, so I was pleasantly surprised when Moridura got the gist of what I was trying to say about wanting my blog to encourage people who might not normally be interested in politics to take part in all sorts of discussion about politics and ideas. I was very happy about  his description of me as gentle, consensual, effective and truly liberal. Definitely one of the best compliments I've had online. He did call me a bit for saying that I tried not to be too tribal and then mentioned that I was a Liberal Democrat. Well, you know, I am a Lib Dem, and proud of it, but I've said time and time again that I generally assume that people get involved in politics, in all parties, for good reasons, wanting to improve people's lives and that we should work together wherever we can.

I wasn't taking notes from this session because I was so closely involved in it but it is online somewhere. I haven't watched it and I'm not linking to it because I really don't want you to see how rubbish I was, but I'm sure you'll find it if you really want to.

I did, however, feel a great deal more comfortable with the questions we were asked, first about how the blogosphere could help shape debate in the run up to the campaign next year. I felt, and James agreed, that there wasn't enough proper debate and discussion about how we were going to cope with the cuts. They're coming whether we like it or not, and it would be very useful if there was a proper debate on how we wanted our public services to look like, what we needed, what we could get rid of. Joan McAlpine disagreed, saying that the best use of the blogosphere was to advance ideas for the future governance, independence or otherwise, of Scotland.

Other topics covered included the Twitter Joke Trial  - coming the day after the #iamspartacus campaign where thousands of people on Twitter repeated Paul Chambers' original joke and how the blogosphere could work on and research stories that wouldn't otherwise have broken because newspaper editors wouldn't give the time and resources to them.

I have to say that I'm quite grateful to Mick for inviting me to do this and putting me on the spot like he did. I'd never have done it otherwise and I would feel better about doing something similar again - although I'd be better prepared.

Can the Blogosphere have the proper debate around independence that the mainstream media avoids?

This was a session run by Joan McAlpine where she talked about how the mainstream media tended to casually dismiss the idea of independence if it discussed it at all. Peter Curran who writes Moridura, who's an SNP member after years of Labour activism, made the point that it would most likely be Labour who would run an independent Scotland - although I would hope that if it did ever happen, we'd choose a proportional electoral system which would encourage consensual politics. I chimed in that I understood Joan's frustration in a way because I really don't like the Liberal Democrats being bracketed in as a unionist party - we're a federalist party, which is quite a different thing.

Women blog too - who knew? Making women visible online


Guess whose idea this one was? I had been a bit worried that nobody would want to come, but we had a super discussion. The main idea that came out of this session, and Joan's before, was that a Scottish blog aggregator might be a good idea. I certainly think that Lib Dem Blogs was a tremendous help for me and I would love to see some sort of Scottish equivalent that works along the same principles - ie that it's open to anyone to join and every post is fed in.

Lily Greenan said it would be good to have online learning tools for bloggers in a safe supportive space. She was covering the session via Twitter and we were able to chat with The Burd who suggested that the lack of childcare at our event meant she had to miss it.

Another suggestion from someone else who wasn't there, but was elsewhere in the building, speech and language technology scientist Maria Wolters was this blogpost, called "Be the Visible Bitch" from a blog called Young Female Scientist. It's not about visibility online but things it suggests, like making yourself known to key figures, arguing, and making sure you aren't ignored could be transferred to the internet. There was some feeling in the room that we didn't want to be bitches - but that can be a term used by others to describe any sort of assertive behaviour. All the things the author mentions are things that men do easily with no fear of reproach or recrimination and that women can sometimes shy away from.

And finally.....

I don't think that the world is going to change as a result of either this event, or the blogosphere's collective or individual action, but it was useful in terms of meeting people, listening to different ideas and discussing different ways of doing things. You can't knock something that tries to encourage us to do things better - although there's an argument that the people to ask about doing politics better aren't just the people who are doing it and writing about it at the moment. I had a really enjoyable day and found it all very positive and illuminating. Others did too - notably Joan McAlpine, Moridura, Shuggy and Scot Goes Pop.