Patrick Harvie's Clock Up

Surely there has to be an easier way of getting something done in the Scottish Parliament than this?

How much has it cost in terms of staff time and effort for Patrick Harvie's question - "to ask the Corporate Body whether they will consider installing a clock in the Garden Lobby" - to be processed? Could he not just have had a wee word with the Presiding Officer and ask her to bring it up at the next meeting? It's cool to talk, you know!

As for the principle - do people not have watches and smartphones these days? Why do they need a clock?

Actually, the person who needs a timepiece most is the Presiding Officer, Tricia Marwick. I'm disappointed that she's letting standards which already left much to be desired at First Minister's Questions slip even further. She lets the leaders' questions drag on for way too long. It was nearly twenty five past by the time Willie Rennie got to even ask his question today. And outside the leaders' questions, there seems to be nothing but a succession of fawning questions from SNP members which surely must have been written by the Whips.

First Minister's Questions is there to hold the Government to account through its leader, not to massage his already substantial ego.

Willie Rennie surely showed how to properly question a Minister today.

Mason's motion must not be allowed to frame the equal marriage debate

Checking Twitter last Thursday when I was in London, I saw discussion of an "equal marriage" motion from John Mason MSP. That surprised me, knowing that his views on this are not within a million miles of my own lifelong enthusiastic support for the cause. Could he really have changed his mind?  When I saw the text, it was clear he hadn't.

That the Parliament notes the current discussion about same-sex marriages and the Scottish Government’s forthcoming public consultation concerning equal marriage; further notes that, while some in society approve of same-sex sexual relationships, others do not agree with them; desires that Scotland should be a pluralistic society where all minorities can live together in peace and mutual tolerance; believes that free speech is a fundamental right and that even when there is disagreement with another person’s views, that person has the right to express these views, and considers that no person or organisation should be forced to be involved in or to approve of same-sex marriages.

Twitter was wrong to describe that ill-informed homophobic rant as an equal marriage motion as it was nothing of the sort. What we are seeing is a blatant attempt by John Mason to make this a debate about persecution of Christians rather than equality and fairness.


There is simply no way that any religious organisation will be forced to conduct same sex marriages against their will. What the proposal will do, however, is to give those who do want to, like the Unitarians and Quakers, the right to do so.  


Churches turn down people for marriage for all sorts of reasons. I couldn't get married in church even if I'd wanted to because my husband had been divorced before I met him. Other couples are turned down for not attending Church frequently enough. To my knowledge, there haven't been any of the court cases that John Mason has worried about on those issues. He's chucked a colossal red herring into the proceedings and he shouldn't be allowed to get a way with it.


And he hasn't been. Step forward Patrick Harvie and Willie Rennie who each submitted their own response. Willie said on Twitter that he hadn't seen Patrick's at the time he submitted his and has also signed Patrick's. They are slightly different, Patrick's emphasising that polls suggest a majority of Scots favour equal marriage:

As an amendment to motion S4M-00586 in the name of John Mason (The Equal Marriage Debate), leave out from “desires” to end and insert “considers that the balance between these views has changed substantially over recent decades, with the 2006 Scottish Social Attitudes Survey showing 53% in agreement with equal marriage and only 21% in disagreement, and a poll in 2010 showing 58% support with only 19% against; congratulates the Scottish Youth Parliament on the launch of its Love Equally campaign for equal marriage and civil partnership, a campaign that it voted to select after consulting over 42,000 young people across Scotland; believes that the Scottish Government is recognising this shift in public attitudes with its forthcoming consultation on equal marriage; considers that allowing same-sex marriage and mixed-sex civil partnerships would in no way undermine the rights and freedoms of those who do not wish to participate in them, and further believes that it would be both right and popular for secular and religious Scots alike to be free to reach their own view on the legal status that is right for their own relationship instead of being banned by law from having their relationships recognised on equal terms.”

Meanwhile Willie says it's all about fairness,equality and allowing those religious organisations who want to to be able to marry same sex couples. They are both good motions and I hope MSPs sign them both.

As an amendment to motion S4M-00586 in the name of John Mason (The Equal Marriage Debate), leave out from "the Scottish Government's" to end and insert "looks forward to the Scottish Government’s forthcoming public consultation concerning equal marriage; aspires for Scotland to be one of the most fair and equal places in the world; supports the extension of legal marriage to lesbian and gay couples, and believes that, while there would be no requirement on religious organisations, those religious denominations that wish to celebrate marriages for lesbian and gay people should be free to do so."

I was a bit worried, however, to see journalists Kenny Farquaharson and Euan McColm were seeking to make every MSP choose which side of the fence they were on right now. I'd like to see a grown up, mature, intelligent, respectful debate and dialogue on this so that we can win over not only the hearts and minds of MSPs who will be voting on this, but also more people in the country too. There's no harm in getting that pro figure up from the fifties to the nineties and I had that discussion with Kenny on Thursday. 

Let me give you an example of how minds can be changed. When Jamie Bulger's killers were released, even basically liberal old me had a bit of a hard time getting my head around it. Yes, I was reacting with my emotions and it was irrational - but, as Jennie said yesterday, we all act irrationally sometimes. I think in my case it was because Anna was around the age Jamie had been when he was murdered. Now, when I expressed those views in a secret part of the internet frequented by wise liberals, they didn't call me names, they didn't abuse me. They just spent time gently making me question my views and I realised that they were right and changed my mind. 

I was, frankly, disappointed by the number of MSPs who openly supported the equal marriage campaign in the last parliament from all parties, most especially my own at that time. At the time of writing this, only 21 of the 129 MSPs have signed either motion - and it's worth noting that Mason has lost 2 of his 5 supporters, with Gil Paterson now signing Patrick Harvie's amendment.  That shows there's a lot of work to do, a lot of gentle and respectful and grown up persuasion. There's a long time to go before this comes up in Parliament. Nobody needs to make their mind up just yet if they haven't already. Let's just make sure that the debate is founded on the positives as outlined by Patrick and Willie, and not the misinformation put out by Mason.

And can I just say that it's really important that every single person who supports equal marriage responds to the consultation. Opponents will be really well organised, and our side can be a bit lazy. I am not entirely convinced yet that the SNP Government wants to legislate on this although many of the party members support it. Let's not give them an excuse to kick it into the long grass.

I also commend to you two excellent posts on this. The Burd raises the spectre of Souter while LPW shares my desire for a tolerant and respectful debate.

The Leaders' Debates, Patrick Harvie and a missed opportunity

A couple of weeks ago, Jeff over at Better Nation started off a petition to get Patrick Harvie of the Green Party included in the leaders' debates in the run up to the Holyrood elections, building on a post written the day before by James, who works for Patrick. This campaign has garnered quite a lot of support since from people like Lallands Peat Worrier and The Burd.

Much as I can see their point, to be honest, I've been a bit rhett butlerish about the whole thing so I thought it was maybe time to explain why, frankly, I'm finding it hard to give a damn.

Patrick Harvie appears in my list of Top Ten MSPs, so it's not that I have any aversion to him, it's just that I think the Greens here had a really good opportunity to put into practice the sort of pluralist approach that they are supposed to champion.

Let me explain. Patrick Harvie is not the leader of the Green Party in Scotland. He is the Co-Convener, an office he shares with Eleanor Scott, who was between 2003 and 2007 a Green MSP for the Highlands and Islands. I actually think that rather than push for Patrick, I'd have been a lot more engaged with the idea if they'd decided against putting another middle aged bloke in a suit on that stage, where, frankly, there are already enough of them, and gone for a woman who has equal authority and status in their party.

Not only that, but having Eleanor on would have shown a bit of confidence on their part that their ambitions weren't just limited to Glasgow and Edinburgh this time, that they hoped to represent the whole of Scotland.

I know that the Greens will come back and say that Patrick's their leader in the Parliament - but why not get out there beyond the Parliament?

I guess I'm just a bit disappointed that the Greens haven't been a bit more imaginative about how they've played this. It just screams of blokes in a huddle again, not looking at the bigger picture. They want Patrick in the debates to give them more balance, but they've missed the chance to show that they are aware of and act on other sorts of imbalance. They have missed the opportunity to really challenge the conventional way of doing things and that's why the campaign for Patrick just hasn't grabbed me. 

The pressure mounts on Bill Aitken

This time last week I was a bit worried that I seemed to be the only voice in the Scottish blogosphere writing about Bill Aitken's appalling comments about a series of horrific rapes in Glasgow. Thankfully that's not the case as Jeff at Better Nation, the Burd,  Bella Caledonia and Lallands Peat Worrier have also called for him to go. There is even a Facebook group calling for his resignation.

Aitken's comments were truly repulsive and certainly not appropriate for the convener of a respected parliamentary Justice Committee. The only person responsible for rape is the rapist, and comments from a senior politician blaming the victim could act as an even greater deterrent to women to report this crime.

I am perplexed as to why the media haven't been more vocal about it, though. Aitken's comments were in my view even worse than those made by Richard Keys and Andy Gray on Sky Sports and we all remember the furore about that - although that may have been more about getting one over on Murdoch than any concern for the issue.

A stooshie on the internet is one thing, but I'm pleased to note that Green MSP Patrick Harvie has actually taken action within the Parliament by tabling a motion calling on Bill Aitken to resign. I am assuming that this is one of these EDM-like motions which won't actually be debated but which MSPs sign up to. I'm hoping that this will attract enough cross party support for him to realise that he doesn't command the support of the Parliament and to go quickly. I am shocked that Annabel Goldie is allowing him to stay in position. She presumably has given him a telling off and she certainly said all the right things, but it does her no good to keep him in office.

I said last week that I might be prepared to forgive and forget if he really made a genuine effort to understand the issues. Last week was the time for him to do that. It's too late now.

The text of Patrick Harvie's motion is as follows:

Unacceptable comments by the Convenor of Justice Committee - That the Parliament condemns the attitude shown by Bill Aitken MSP on the subject of rape during a recent interview with the Sunday Herald newspaper; considers that Mr Aitken’s comments during this interview betray a disregard for the seriousness of rape, and imply support for the view that a victim can be held responsible for this most vicious crime; believes that this view, though disturbingly widespread, is rooted in misogyny and ignorance; considers these comments to be incompatible with the role of Justice Committee Convenor; believes that the Parliament’s credibility to deal proactively with issues of sexual violence would be undermined if the proximity of dissolution resulted in failure to hold Mr Aitken to account for these odious and shocking comments; and calls for Mr Aitken’s immediate resignation.

Can I suggest that everyone brings this to their MSPs' attention and asks them to support it in whatever way they can?

Tavish demolishes SNP on "Tartan Tax" - speech in full

I can't really remember that many really spectacular speeches  that are so good, that capture the mood of the moment so perfectly that they give you goosebumps coming from the Holyrood Chamber. Patrick Harvie and Malcolm Chisholm on Megrahi come to mind. Malcolm Chisholm on Trident was another good one. And Patrick Harvie's speech on the 2009 budget may not have helped him in the long run but it was utterly brilliant to listen to. Today Tavish Scott showed why he deserves to be in that elite group.

He gave what was to me the speech of the day, if not the session during the debate on the SNP's failure to maintain the Parliament's power to vary the rate of income tax. Delivered with real passion, anger and forensic clarity, he completely demolished John Swinney's argument and the SNP's position that it wasn't really their fault and it didn't really matter that much anyway.  Several times he asked whether the situation had arisen because of SNP deceit or incompetence and questioned the SNP's very credibility and trustworthiness on constitutional matters. Audacious, definitely - but entirely justified.

It's clear that Swinney's biggest mistake was not to tell Parliament what was going on in the three and a half years between them taking office and Michael Moore's letter to Party leaders last week - but Tavish asked how that could simply be a benign error when they'd talked about using the power to implement a local income tax when they must have known that was impossible.

The speech was so good that I've decided to publish the whole thing below. The words themselves are good, but nothing can really compare to actually seeing them come to life.

When this Nationalist Government is in a hole two things happen. We’ve seen it before.

The SNP dissemble, shout, scream, throw mud, make it up and blame anyone else they can.

Then they wheel out Alex Neil.

 I thought Ministers had to behave. Not after last night.

There’s only one further step they can take – Mike Russell.

The facts of this disgraceful episode are simple  - and what they show is either SNP deceit or incompetence.

The first fact is this.

That this Parliament was given the power to vary income tax by the people of Scotland in a vote. Not a party, not  minority government, not a First Minister, not a Finance Secretary but the Parliament.

Fact – There is a cost to retain the mechanism to allow that power to be exercised.

Fact – how much that was is now a political slanging match.

But the point that matters on this constitutional power is that the SNP have stopped that power being used not only now, but for the new Government elected next year.

Fact – Mr Swinney, nor any of his Ministerial colleagues, and most certainly not Mr Salmond, at any stage since 2007 informed, debated or discussed with parliament this decision. Was that deceit or incompetence?

Fact - Yesterday Mr Swinney said MSPs were “too busy” to be told about this 2007 decision.

Since 2007, the Finance Secretary has had the opportunity to present his position on 110 separate opportunities:

·       Presented 4 budgets

·       Published 8 budget revisions

·       Participated in 15 budget debates

·       Made 24 appearances in front of Finance committee

·       Delivered 29 ministerial statements to Parliament

There has also been:

·       A debate on ‘strategic budget scrutiny’

·       2 debates on the strategic spending review and

·       6 debates on the Scottish Government’s programme

Presiding Officer, there’s also been one debate on ‘Improving Accountability’,

John Swinney chose not to speak in that one.

Too busy?!

Too busy to find ways to explain the Government’s decision to Parliament.

Deceit or incompetence?

Fact  -  when proposing the Local Income Tax, the SNP Government said they would use the tax varying powers to make that happen.

The Government statements on how LIT would be implemented, misled Parliament, and misled any voter who supported LIT on the basis of that change. At no time in explaining why the SNP had dropped LIT, did Mr Salmond or Mr Swinney explain that they couldn’t implement LIT because the tax power could not be used.

Mr Salmond, on the day of the ditch, looked me in the eye in the back of this Parliamentary chamber and explained why LIT was being dropped.

As always Mr Salmond didn’t give the truth that day.

So Presiding Officer, was all that deceit or incompetence?

Fact – in the Budget debate exactly a week ago, the Finance Secretary’s Budget document said this, from the Budget 2011-12 document:

“Our opportunities to vary taxes are limited to the Scottish Variable Rate, which no Scottish administration has chosen to use since Devolution, and some discretion over non-domestic rates. We confirm that we will not use the Scottish Variable Rate power.”

In addressing Parliament last Wednesday, the Finance Secretary implied that he had considered using the tax varying power and dismissed it. If that’s not misleading Parliament I don’t know what is.

Was that deceit or incompetence?

·       So, are using the tax powers of this Parliament available? No.

·       Was Parliament told in 2007, 2008, 2009 or 2010? No.

·       Can LIT be implemented? No.

·       Has Parliament been misled? Yes

·       Has the Finance Secretary had 110 separate Parliamentary occasions to say what’s going on? Yes

·       Has a minority nationalist Government misled Parliament? Yes

·       Has the SNP treated the people of Scotland who gave this power to this Parliament with contempt? Yes.

While Mr Swinney is put up today, the blame for this is not his alone. It sits next to him.

We’ve had one sanctimonious lecture after another from Alex Salmond on the respect agenda.

Today defines Mr Salmond’s respect for the Scottish people and for this Parliament.

Mr Salmond, respect is something you earn. And no one will respect you again on the constitution, on Scotland’s future and on the Government of our country.

Mr Salmond expects to pass a Budget. To negotiate with other parties. After this. After the way he handled Local Income Tax. After his Finance Secretary’s speech a week ago. There’s no one else to blame. This is the Salmond government. And today its shown its real colours.

What Mr Salmond and his Government have utterly failed to do today is explain whether all this mess is deceit or incompetence. Deceit and incompetence are the two words his government will be known for.

Respect?  – Not  a chance.

And amid all this just imagine for a moment what would have happened if the Nationalists were in Opposition.

What would they have said about a Government giving up powers the people had given Parliament?

·       Many would have howled – full moon or not.

·       Some would have shed real tears.

·       A few ambitious backbenchers might have gone on hunger strike until the powers were returned.

These are people who make a constitutional crisis out of which museum has the Lewis chessmen.

Yet they, the SNP sign off and sign away the choices and powers of Scotland’s own Parliament – the wish of one and a half million Scots discarded without a murmur.

I care about this place. I am deeply proud of it.  I am honoured to be a Member – to represent Shetland. Most of us here share that.

So I do utterly condemn the cavalier and arrogance with which Salmond’s SNP Government treat Scotland’s Parliament.

The Scottish Parliament was designed to be a clean break with some of the worst practices of Westminster. Today is the worst of Westminster forced on Holyrood by nationalists.

Today is absolutely not a day to be proud of:

Today this Nationalist Government is betraying the word inscribed on Parliament’s mace – ‘integrity’.

Respect?  – Not  a chance.

The Liberal Democrats support the amendment tabled in the names of Mr Gray, Ms Goldie, Mr Harvie and mine. Any Government worth its salt would get it when all the Opposition parties get it together – do you get it Mr Salmond?

Holyrood: The Budget Battleground

Last year the SNP Government was only able to get its budget through after a highly dramatic Holyrood showdown. Will the various groups in the Scottish Parliament be able to conduct themselves in a constructive manner this year, working together to pass a budget that meets the needs of the people of Scotland? After reading the articles in today's Sunday Herald where the Party Leaders set out their positions, I'm not convinced.

We need more from John Swinney than what amounts to a plaintive wail that the big boys in London ran away with our money. If I in my own household budget have to deal with the impact of Labour's recession, then why shouldn't John Swinney with the Scottish budget. It's not pleasant, but you just have to get on with it, work out what's important, and stop whinging that it's all someone else's fault.

Let's look closer at Swinney's boasts that the Scottish Government has delivered a surplus of £2.6 billion over 3 years. I don't usually have much good to say about how Labour have managed the country's finances but you can't really compare the Holyrood and Westminster budgets in terms of responsibility. I mean, how many banks did John Swinney save? To say that the current economic crisis strengthens the arguments for independence is patently ridiculous. Look at the real pain that the Irish people go through as their Government made huge cuts make monstrous cuts in public spending in 2 emergency budgets last year.

As for Iain Gray, he concentrated most of his space on slating the SNP over the cancellation of GARL and blinding us with figures which supposedly show that the SNP has had plenty money but it just hasn't used it wisely. His words just seem to be an extension of Labour's inability to talk honestly about the financial mess we're in on a UK level. He also fails to recognise that one of the factors making things worse for Scottish businesses is London Labour's abject failure to properly regulate the banks, to use our ownership of them to keep them lending to sustainable businesses. Labour wants to see an extension of the concessionary travel scheme to those on the minimum level of DLA and more investment in housing as well as the reinstatement of GARL.

And still the Salmond-Goldie love-in continues as, get this, all the Tories want, their big idea, when Scotland's businesses and households are struggling, is that the Government should publish online any expenditure over £25,000. That's it. How is that going to help? The Tories are very keen on this kind of pledge. I remember Boris Johnson saying during his election campaign that he would publish every pennny he spent on his website. I'm not sure he's delivered on that in any meaninfgul form.

Patrick Harvie says some good things about investment in renewables and insulation but he'd be more than happy to ruin the economy of Fife by cancelling the vital new Forth crossing.

In contrast to all of the above, Tavish Scott's piece is mainly full of positive, practical stuff. That F word - fairness, highlighted by Nick Clegg this week, a principle of virtually every Liberal Democrat election campaign I've ever been involved in, is at the fore of what Tavish is saying.

First, he wants an end to the top earners in the public sector being able to award themselves big bonuses while those at the bottom end of the pay scale get nothing. He wants action on paying six figure salaries to doctors who also work in the private sector. I agree with him that if we're paying that sort of salary, we deserve to have them full time. If they want to work part time in the private sector, then their salaries should be reduced accordingly.

He says that urgent investment is needed to get young people into work, highlighting a 45% increase in claims for Job Seekers Allowance among young people.

He also highlights practical examples of how businesses are suffering, being turned own for credit even when their proposals are sound, being dealt with remotely by people who don't know their history and their business.

It's notable that Tavish is the only leader to report on constructive discussions with John Swinney which seem to be going somewhere. I like the fact that he's chosen to emphasise that dialogue.

Labour and the SNP don't escape focused criticism, but Tavish is much more positive in his presentation than the others. Labour gets it for its myriad economic failures, the SNP for the failure of its Scottish Futures Trust which "continues to consume millions of pound but still builds absolutely nothing."

If I have to say one thing about the Liberal Democrat proposals, is that they don't mention at all one of the biggest issues to me - housing. When you have some local authorities and housing associations able to house barely a fifth of the people who need housing, when large families are crammed into 2 bedroomed houses, often in hellishly poor conditions, damp, with inadequate heating with no hope of a move to something bigger, when you have families in bed and breakfast accommodation because there's nowhere else to house them, something has to be done. Tavish understands this. When I and other bloggers interviewed him just after he became leader, he wanted to see more invevstment in social housing to save the construction jobs haemorrhaging during the recession. I don't think that this can wait for action - we need to do more to help these people now. Only then will we have a budget for all of Scotland.

The first act of the budget drama plays out this week. Let's hope that the process is more serious production and less pantomime farce.

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.