Backing of the Party?

FMQs has come and gone and Wendy has said that she does want and early referendum (which is odd as yesterday Gordon Brown said she wasn`t calling for an early election…).

Its fairly clear that Wendy doesn`t have Brown’s backing, various MPs and MSPs have been briefing off the record that they don`t back her sudden U-turn on the election.

But does she have the backing of other parts of her party? Well the referendum plan certainly doesn`t have the backing of North Edinburgh councillor Elizabeth Maginnis.

In her blog she says “The question Wendy should be addressing right now is how to renew the appeal of the Labour Party. It certainly won't be achieved by allowing the SNP, new darlings of the media, to play on its own ground, to its own strengths - especially when, lying behind the stratagem is an apparently unspoken acknowledgement, that Labour is weakened and may only do worse in a General Election.

This is very risky territory: I, for one, am totally opposed to the idea of Scotland as a separate State. I am yet to be persuaded this tactic can maintain a United Kingdom.”

Looking for a back door…

Malcolm Chisholm and Iain Gray have been deployed by Wendy Alexander to spin their little heads off and try and argue that black is in fact white (Watch Newsnight Scotland on the BBC Iplayer and view Iain Gray’s performance in awe), in a valiant attempt to try and find a backdoor out of the referendum issue.

The latest wheeze from Labour is that they aren`t happy with the question the SNP would want to set in a referendum. They aren’t very clear on what it should be. But lets look at exactly what they have said on the matter.

Wendy herself has said that "I am very attracted to the idea of a straight choice for or against independence”.

After the Labour group meeting their spokesman Duncan McNeil MSP said “we are now in a position where, as a group, we will not vote down any Referendum Bill that comes into the Parliament”.

“will not vote down” – So it seems that Labour may be preparing to do what they did on the budget and abstain to allow the bill to pass but without giving it their formal backing. The pretext for abstaining and not voting in favour being issues such as the nature of the question – despite what Alexander has declared this week that she would like a straight choice for or against independence.

More Insight from Brian Taylor

More insight into the rapid unravelling of Wendy Alexander’s leadership from the peerless Brian Taylor. He’s updated his blog post PMQs.

At PMQs Brown said that the work of the Calman Commission would be complete before Labour would bring a bill to the Scottish Parliament for a referendum (which as Brian points out and others have picked up on is out of the question due to the standing orders of the Scottish Parliament).

Brian Taylor has spoken to Wendy and despite the clear difference between what she has been saying and what Brown said at FMQs she is insistent that they are singing from the same hymn sheet. Given that Wendy is now clearly involved in fantasy politics why don`t we give it a go too.

So no introduction of Bill until after the Calman Commission reports which is expect in Autumn 2008 (as Brown says). For arguments sake let’s say it will report by Mid October of 2008.

Labour could start the process of introducing a bill at the start of November 2008, again just as an example. There would be a standard 3 month consultation for a members’ bill I suspect. So we’re in February 2009 before the bill ends the consultation and comes before parliament at the earliest.

Wendy then says it will be at least 12 months passing through the Scottish Parliament...so the bill passes in February 2010. Then a couple of months to organise the practicalities (such as having an up to date electoral register that will be getting updated around the Feb of 2010 for the UK general elections possibly in May of 2010). Because of this you are looking at April or May 2010 going by a combination of Wendy’s 12 month rule, Gordon’s statements today and the poll clashing with the UK General election.

Different scenario... Calman Reports in Mid-September 2008. Labour brings a bill in October 2008. The have no consultation phase and cite that national conversation in its place. The bill takes the 12 months that Wendy says and we are in October 2009. The bill gets royal assent and all the logistics are put in place at speed (including the refreshed register) and we’re looking at December 2009 at the earliest.

For Wendy this means that at best having it in 2009 and starting the process after Calman means she’d be going for a December 2009 Referendum – hardly going early is it?

Best Laid Plans

You can imagine the scene. In the early hours of Saturday the phone in the Alexander-Ashcroft household rings and the voice at the other end says ‘worst result since the battle of the Somme and Boris has won London...’.

But which way to turn? Support for independence continuing to rise, the SNP Government gaining in popularity and Annabel Goldie being hailed by the press as the real leader of the opposition. What was Wendy to do? Something decisive, something bold...but what?

After being up most of the night she picked up the phone and gave the instruction that the Sunday Mail, favoured organ of Labour, would be briefed that Labour were considering calling the SNP ‘Bluff’ and supporting a referendum. Oh and they were to make it sound like Gordon was on board. It would be enough to create a distraction and could be denied later on...

Gordon was not on board. Gordon was in a darkened room, refusing all visitors having said for a long time that forcing a referendum would be to play into the SNP’s hands. But then again no-one was really listening to him these days.

Wendy goes on the BBC is gentle pressed on the possibility of Labour backing a referendum and after protest she cracked and declared ‘bring it on’. The distraction was now taking on the momentum of a runaway train. She declares that this is all due to the SNP not being able to introduce a bill and hold the referendum in the same year.

Declaration made the Labour MSPs had no choice but to accede and leaving their spokesman Duncan McNeil to say that they would support ANY referendum brought forward. A few MSPs quietly point out that yes the SNP could bring a bill forward and have the referendum in 2010. Panic sets in, the runaway train was not under control...so the declaration is made that if the SNP Government don`t bring forward a bill then the Labour party will...

Wendy thinks she’s back on track and back on the front foot...until Gordon starts getting asked questions...Gordon ain`t for backing it, or her on this. They’d talked it over in the past and he has said ‘no’.

Voices start emerging from both MPs and MSPs calling the plan ‘hair brained’. Gordon is pressed by David Cameron on the issue at FMQs and appear to have lost any grip on reality or the Scottish Labour party.

But Wendy clings to the threat of bringing forward a referendum bill, hoping that means she stays in control of the runaway train. Alas, like many best laid plans (and like other plans made on the hoof such as this one) even this has been snatched away from her.

Brian Taylor and the BBC observes that “Ms Alexander's threat to bring forward her own referendum bill to Holyrood may fall at the first hurdle because of Scottish Parliament rules...MSPs proposing legislation need the support of 18 colleagues from at least two of the major parties. The rules also state that the lawmaking process cannot be started if the Holyrood government of the day plans its own legislation on the same proposal within the parliament's four year term. “

Since the SNP Government plans to hold a referendum in 2010 using a Government Bill then this supercedes any Members Bill that Alexander may plan to bring forward. She’s now caught in a trap of her own making. They now have to support the future Government Bill on an Independence Referendum, on the Government’s timescale. She doesn`t have the backing of Gordon and the party is fragmenting around her.

Apparently in the Scottish Labour party it used to be said that Henry McLeish had ‘Nationalist Accidents’ where Jack McConnell had ‘Nationalist Intentions’. What must they be saying about Wendy?

‘Bring it on’

As I watched Wendy Alexander on the BBC’s Politics Show on Sunday I was open mouthed as she effectively confirmed that she and Labour (in a remarkable volte-face without precedent) be supporting a referendum on Scottish Independence.

Why this sudden change of heart? Well she never really explained beyond saying that it was a ‘tactical’ decision. When pressed her boned of contention is that she says that Alex Salmond has said that the bill to hold the referendum will be introduced in 2010 and that the SNP have said they’ll hold the referendum in 2010.

She says that this would be impossible as a bill takes 9 – 12 months (depending on which interview with her you read or watch) to work its way through the Scottish Parliament. Her logic goes that since the bill will take 12 months then it can`t be introduced and held in the same year. By her logic that means the referendum would have to be held in 2011 and that wasn`t good as it was at the ‘fag-end’ (her words) of the parliament.

Now I don`t recall it being announced that the bill would be introduced in 2010, I can only recall Wendy making this assertion. But, let’s take her word for this and that the bill will be brought forward in 2010.

A bill taking 9-12 months to work its way though Holyrood? As Calum Cashley quite rightly observes...

“Then there's Wendy's assertion that a Bill takes nine months to pass through Parliament - erm, no it doesn't. Abolition of Bridge Tolls Act - introduced 3rd September 2007, passed 20th December 2007, became law 24th January. Graduate Endowment Abolition Bill - 22nd October 2007, 28th February 2008, 4th April 2008."

"I was puzzled about this - she used to be a Minister after all - so I looked at her Ministerial career: Communities Minister 1999-2000, Enterprise and Lifelong Learning 2000-2001, added Transport to that 2001, resigned in 2002. The only Bill she saw to completion was the Graduate Endowment (tuition fees) Act - and Nicol Stephen started it. She was never responsible for seeing a Bill all the way through the process - that's why she doesn't understand how Parliament works.”

Wendy says that it’ll be 12 months as it’s such an important topic. Well let’s look to the history of referendum bills on the constitution in different parts of the UK.

The obvious one to start with is the Scottish Referendum of 1997 –

Bill Published – 15/05/97
2nd Reading – 22/05/97
Date of Poll – 11/09/97

That’s under 4 months between the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill being introduced to Westminster and the Referendum itself being held. For my money this was a very important and complex issue yet in under 4 months the process was complete from start to finish.

I think, though, there is a better example than the Scottish referendum of 1997.

The Northern Ireland (Border Poll) Act 1972 is a fascinating piece of legislation, the referendum itself had two options – do you wish NI to remain in the UK or do you wish to join a United Ireland.

This referendum and the legislation behind it is perhaps more relevant that the Scottish referendum of 1997 as it allowed for a part of the UK to leave the UK.

With this option of Northern Ireland leaving the UK the debate on the bill in Westminster must have been lengthy as this is surely equal to Scotland leaving the UK – a referendum debate that Wendy says needs 12 months.

Bill introduced on - 01/11/72
2nd Reading on - 21/11/72
Royal Assent on - 07/12/72
Poll Date - 08/03/73

Again roughly 4 months for the Northern Ireland (Border Poll) Bill to go from being introduced to the Poll being held. And just 37 days between the Bill being introduced and receiving Royal Assent.

On the bills highlighted by Calum Cashley and on the two referendums I`ve highlighted it’s very clear that introducing the bill in 2010 and holding the poll in the same year is more than comfortable.

Wendy hasn`t said by when the poll referendum should be held – only that it should be as sooner rather than later and that it shouldn`t be in 2011. OK, Wendy, it`ll be in 2010 like we said in our manifesto.

After the Labour MSP meeting the chair of the Labour group Duncan McNeil was giving the new Labour line on the referendum that:

“we are now in a position where, as a group, we will not vote down any Referendum Bill that comes into the Parliament... That's the change in the Labour group's position today. There is a sense that we need to get some sort of settlement on this issue, resolve the issue, and the opportunity is there now for the government to bring that forward... We are asking them to bring forward that Bill as soon as possible. It is a manifesto commitment."

The manifesto commitment is for a referendum in 2010 following the National Conversation (which is ongoing). He has said that they will not vote down any Referendum Bill – so I`ll take it they won`t be seeking to make any amendments to the one that will be brought forward.

It’s fairly clear now that given Labour won`t give an alternative due date and will only say 2011 is too late that they must be more than content with a referendum in 2010.

Unstable resource?

Oil, as the UK government insists to anyone who says it’s a Scottish resource, is an unstable commodity. Apparently. Not forgetting the fact the UK government has used tax from oil to prop up its own finances for years of course.

But still if anyone suggests that oil tax revenues to accrue to the Scottish Parliament up comes the cry from the London Exchequer ‘ohh but its an unstable resource, the value could drop!’.

Since the revelations that were contained in the McCrone report it became all too clear that the UK government have been ‘at it’ on this issue since the early 1970s. Its been fairly clear that as a resource Scottish oil could have been marshalled far better than has been in the last 40 years. The example of how Norway used its oil resource for the benefit of the country now and also investing for generations to come.

If we could get Scottish oil tax revenues transferred to the Scottish parliament it may not be too late to emulate the Norwegian success. Despite the cries of ‘unstable!’ from the London treasury it seems that the expert view is that oil prices aren`t going to be dipping any time soon.

Who are these radical experts who would dare to hold a contrary view to the UK treasury? These troublemakers are surely some fly-by-night operation with no international respect whatsoever if they would hold such a shockingly different position to the UK government?

None other than that those dangerous subversives…Goldman Sachs, the largest investment bank in … the world.

A chappie called Gioavanni Serio, Goldman Sachs senior analyst, has been visiting Norway this week and at an energy seminar he observed that the oil industry moves in 20-year cycles. North Sea Brent hit $109 per barrel this week after new figures revealed a surprising decrease in storage the week before.

Serio predicted that "The oil price and marginal costs stayed low in the 1990s. Now that it has become far more expensive for the oil producers to retrieve oil, the price is going to rise correspondingly…Oil companies are lacking professionals and rig rates have exploded from around USD 100,000 per day in 2002 to USD 500,000 per day this year."
According to reports the Goldman Sach analyst expects oil prices to fall in the short-term, to about $90 per barrel, but said it is "unrealistic" that the price would fall under $70 per barrel in the coming years. By the end of 2008, he expects the price to be well over USD 100 per barrel.

Perhaps not as unstable a resource after all.

To the Victor...4th place

In the SNP our two sitting MEPs get no special treatment and they have to be selected and ranked alongside the other potential candidates.

A little birdie tells me that this is very different to how things are done in the Labour party. The story, as it was told to me, is that the people who got the number 3 and 4 slots on Scottish Labour’s European list got significantly more votes than the two sitting MEPs. But Labour rules means that the two incumbents automatically get the top two slots on the list - despite being beaten in the internal vote.

Number 3 for Labour is Mary Lockhart – who Labour MEP Catherine Stihler beat to be selected as Labour’s ill-fated Dunfermline Westminster by-election candidate. Number 4 is a chap called Paul McAleavely who I am led to believe actually got the most votes of any candidate. But the incumbent factor combined with gender zipping means he’s in the 4th slot.

I`m Backing...

In the sidebar you will see that I’ve put three new buttons. I quickly put these buttons together in advance of the SNP spring Conference as we’ll be selecting the 6 candidates that will stand for the party in the European elections in 2009 (feel free to copy the buttons to your site if you support them).

Of the confirmed candidates I`ve heard so far there are three that I`m supporting. Alyn Smith MEP, Aileen McLeod and Duncan Ross. Why these people I`m sure you are wondering.

I`m backing Alyn as he’s one of the hardest working MEPs in the entire European Parliament. He has worked to make the European Parliament relevant to Scottish life by raising issues both serious (calling for an EU wide organ donor register) and the not-so serious (confirming Scotland can enter Eurovision). He’s been a great credit to the European Parliament and the SNP.

Aileen McLeod is someone who I`ve campaigned with up and down the Country and for my money she is one of the most informed people on EU issues and functions that I`ve had the good fortune to meet. Her website is up and running (www.aileen-mcleod.eu) and it’s an excellent resource for learning more about how Europe impacts on our lives. I think she’ll make an excellent MEP for Scotland and ambassador for the SNP.

Te third person I`m backing is Duncan Ross, the National Secretary of the SNP. I first campaigned with Duncan during the last European elections. Duncan was the SNP’s 8th candidate for a list of 7. Despite the fact there would be no chance whatsoever that he would stand a chance of being elected he campaigned up and down the country for the others and for the party. From what I saw other than the top two candidates on the list he was the most voracious campaigner. Besides that he is intelligent, articulate and a damn nice fellow with it.

I don`t yet have a full list of the potential candidates, but I heard a few other names who would also make excellent candidates if they go forward. These three though are definitely going to be at the top of my list.

Paying for the President

I have what could only be described as an unhealthy interest in elections. Regardless where they are taking place I like to keep an eye on trends, voting systems, swings, big issues etc etc. It has made for following some pretty interesting elections that pass most folk in Scotland by. The Swedish election of last year for instance was fascinating for the manner in which the centre-right after years in the political wilderness managed to get 4 different parties to hold a common platform as an alternative to the ‘Socialistic’ tendency of the then Government. Remarkably this coalitions of the centre-right willing narrowly won out.

It was also interesting for examining the Swedish electoral system (which makes our look like child’s play). They have the fantastic option of writing in the name of the person they want to see elected. Which in the south of Sweden lead to a truck driver being official elected after just one person wrote his name down next to a party who had enough votes to get an extra candidate elected to the local council. The fact that the person who wrote his name in was his own father who was drunk at the time and did it for a joke and the fact that he was not even a member of the party he was supposedly elected for didn`t matter. Just for info he decided not to take up the seat. American presidential elections generate the most interest in Scotland of any foreign elections. You only have to look at Jeff, Malc and Kezia’s site to see that.

But there is a desire for people to somehow get involved. Particularly amongst the Scottish bloggers...many of who are involved in politics and campaigning is a way of life. Kezia is promoting limited edition Scotland Supports Obama t-shirts while Malc is looking for pro-McCain material.

However, due to US Federal law on political donations neither can directly donate to the presidential campaigns or to PAC s (political campaign organisations involved in elections). Only US Citizens (including those who live outside the US) and permanent residents of the US (a foreign national with a green card) are permitted to donate to the campaigns.

There may be a way of donating to organisations in the US in a manner which is legally permissible. Organisations who are not directly involved in campaigning for a particular person or office but whose actions may, arguably, ultimately favour one candidate over and another. An article in the Guardian before the last Presidential elections suggested that this may be helpful to candidates and was legal.

I’m of the opinion that Hillary Clinton doesn`t stand much of a chance of getting the Democratic nomination so I`ll focus on Barack Obama and John McCain.

Barack backers may consider donating to the US organisation the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). The NAACP do a lot of good work and they say that they are “a 21st century advocacy organization that fights for the advancement of minority groups by bridging the gaps in seven advocacy areas including education, economic empowerment, healthcare, criminal justice, civic engagement, international affairs and poverty issues”.

Barack Obama was by far and away the winner of the NAACP Democrat hustings and young black people are among the groups with the lowest turnout in the US. If the NAACP can encourage a greater turnout from the black community, particularly the young black community, then most assessments would be that this would be to the strong benefit of Obama.

They have their ‘Think Hard, Vote Hard’ campaign running at the moment which has some ambitious targets. So if you want to donate to help the Obama campaign why not consider donating to the NAACP.

For supports of John McCain an organisation that may be considered for your legal donation is the American Legion (AL). The AL is a military veteran organisation that is “a not-for-profit community-service organization which now numbers nearly 3 million members, men and women, in nearly 15,000 American Legion posts worldwide.”

They do have a voter registration programme to encourage veterans to vote in elections. Veterans have been shown to be voting for McCain in significant numbers so an effort to increase the veteran vote would be to his benefit. So if you want to donate to help the McCain campaign you could support an organisation such as the American legion.

It should be stressed that both the NAACP and the American Legion are non-partisan. There efforts in raising the vote are not targeted to benefit one candidate over another. Simply that the demographic that they are seeking to encourage have been polled as showing a greater support for one candidate over the other.

I won`t be donating to these campaigns at this stage as I spend most of my donations in Scotland and Ireland. But should you wish to get involved in the American Presidential elections through donations then donating legally to these kinds of organisations may be your best way of going about it. If I was to be making a donation between the two candidates on officer then the NAACP would be getting $50 of my money.

Gutter Politics

Today should be remembered as a day when the Lib Dems took gutter politics to a new low.

Fiona Hyslop MPS, the Cabinet Secretary for Education, has been in China to finalise some cooperation in education programmes such as undergraduate summer schools between Scotland and China and “Sino-Scottish scholarships for PhD students which could see Scottish postgraduate students studying in China and vice versa”.

Last month Tavish Scott MSP of the Lib Dems said that Hyslop should cancel the trip because of the situation in Tibet. The Scottish Government said that it would be going and would use every meeting it had to stress its concern over human rights abuses and the situation in Tibet.

Indeed, it was confirmed that on day one of the trip, in the first meeting, these issues were raised with the Chinese authorities (which must have made Hyslop a popular guest!).

John Watson, the programming director of Amnesty international, said that on balance he supported the Scottish Government going to China and using it as an opportunity to raise these issues as “Amnesty believes that engagement can provide the opportunity to push for change."

I agree with both John Watson and Amnesty International that using all means to get the message through the China that the world is watching is vitally important. Will Hyslop raising these issues suddenly make the Chinese authorities change their ways and stop all of their human rights abuses – I suspect not. But it is part of a combined effort from Governments and people around the world. Recently the Prime Minister of New Zealand has also called for China to engage with the Dalai Lama and the situation in Tibet.

Hyslop’s actions add to this growing chorus calling for change from China.

And the Lib Dem’s reaction to this?

Jeremy Purvis MSP said that it was “wholly inappropriate given the international concerns expressed over the current situation in Tibet...It jars that a Scottish minister seems to be content with ignoring international concern and only making glib comments on human rights issues for the benefit of the Scottish press, whilst at the same time leaders such as President Sarkozy have a much clearer stance...We called on the Scottish Government to postpone the visit during this sensitive time and we have been proved correct given the recent powerful demonstrations around the world."

Lets look at what he said –“Ignoring International concern”...despite Amnesty International saying that on balance using the opportunity to engage and get the message across was better than not going. Despite nations such as New Zealand undertaking similar actions of taking the message direct to the Chinese authorities.

“leaders such as President Sarkozy have a much clearer stance”...nice that he is placing Hyslop in the same bracket as Sarkozy (she will be pleased). That will be the same President Sarkozy who went on a 3 day visit to China around 5 months ago and where “Mr. Sarkozy's three-day visit was expected to focus on economic ties with China while playing down human-rights concerns that would be sure to receive a cool reception from Beijing”. Not to forget on the same trip that Sarkozy managed to secure a contract for French firms to build two nuclear power stations in China – valued at around 20bn Euro.

Sarkozy’s recent (welcome) announcement was that while violence in Tibet continued, and while there was no dialogue between China and the Dalai Lama, then he may not attend the opening ceremony of the games. Indeed on this front it could be argued that Gordon Brown has done more to facilitate dialogue between the Dalai Lama and Chinese authorities following his recent meetings with both sides. Although there is no sign of such a meeting taking place.

It seems that during her meeting with the Chinese authorities Hyslop went further in pressing the issues of concern than Sarkozy – held up by the Lib Dems as the exemplar.

Purvis of the Lib Dems also said that the Scottish Government should postpone the trip (not cancel mark you– postpone) because of demonstrations against China’s actions in Tibet and human rights abuses. So after the demonstrations have gone and the world isn`t watching then it would be fine for them to go?

What a ridiculous position. Are the Chinese administrations human rights abuses any more acceptable when there are no demonstrations? Of course not, but that is Purvis’ position.

Perhaps the worst part of the Lib Dems gutter tactics here is to ignore their own actions in the past. As recently as 2006 when Nicol Stephen was Dep First Minister he went to China on a similar trip to Hyslop’s to try and foster Sino-Scottish links. And back in 2005 there was little word from the administration he took part in of these concerns.

I`m afraid I don`t have time to scoot around the net to see if he did raise concerns over human rights, perhaps someone can have a look at let me know. I would hope, and I expect, that he did raise concerns over human rights abuses.

The gutter tactics from the Lib Dems of trying to latch onto valid and necessary international protests over the situation in Tibet and try to tie it into an anti-SNP message is frankly appalling.

Rather than snipe at Fiona Hyslop for taking the concerns held by the people of Scotland over the situation in Tibet and human rights abuses to the Chinese authorities perhaps they might want to reflect on their own actions in the past and look as to how they can constructively join the chorus of those people around the world who are calling for the Chinese authorities to change their ways.

Rise of the Tallymen!

I have returned from my travails and to get back into the blogging swing of things here is an enormous post on a subject only of interest to electoral geeks. Don`t say I`m not good to you.

Hands up all of those who have heard of ballot box sampling?

Those with their hands up are probably in political parties and have taken part in a sample. Those with their hands down who are happy learn more about this particular form electoral geekery should read on…

…Those who don`t should probably go and have a nice cup of tea.

To understand ballot box sampling you first must understand the process of votes being counted. The simple version is that there are constituencies in which we vote. Those constituencies are made up of polling districts, and those polling districts are made up of polling places.

Those polling places will then have all the streets in their area divided among a number of ballot boxes. Your address determines which box> polling place> polling district and ultimately> constituency in which you vote.

When polls close at 10pm the ballot boxes are sped to a central counting point. The boxes are put in the counting hall ready for the count officials to take action. The count hall itself is divided into a number of tables who have a few count officials waiting at them. There are a number of more senior officials who supply the tables with votes to be counted.

Also in the hall, behind a rail away from the count officials, are representatives of the different candidates/parties as well as journalists etc. The rail that separates the parties etc and the count officials means that the parties can see the votes being counted and point out if errors are made – but prevents the parties etc from directly interacting with the votes themselves.

The vote takes part in two stages, the ‘verification count’ and the count proper. The verification count is simply to count how many votes there are in total in each of the ballot boxes. The reason for this is so that when the count proper takes place there can be a ‘verification’ that the right number of votes have been counted.

A table of count officials will be presented a box. The box will have a code written on it which identifies which box it is – and hence which polling place, polling district and constituency it belongs to.

While this verification count is being carried out the votes cast are visible to the parties and reps. At this stage the rep will try and Tally as many votes as they can from a given box. The rep now has a rough Tally of the votes cast in that particular ballot box. Along with other reps from their party who have taken Tallies of other boxes they can use the codes provided on each box to piece together not only a rough Tally for the constituency but also for each polling place and polling district.

But why do this I hear you ask? Why not wait for the result itself which is but hours away?

There are a few reasons. Chief amongst them is to try and get a rough idea if your candidate has won. If you have a decent Tally which shows your candidate getting a narrow victory then come later in the evening when the count proper is taking place and it shows you candidate narrowly losing then the knowledge of the ballot box sample can bolster you to challenge for a recount.

Additionally this information is useful to the parties. While the count is going on there is of course round the clock TV and radio coverage. Until such times as the results start flowing in after a wee while the party reps are going to run out of things to say. These ballot box samples allow the parties to gauge before the count has really begun how they are likely to do. So if Party A has spent the campaign saying that they are going to form the government and the ballot box sample shows them falling well short of that aspiration then their reps on TV and radio can start backtracking before the real pain of the results begin. As well as a hundred other uses – ‘we’ve done a lot of work in constituency X and I`ve got a good feeling about it’…you get the idea.

After this verification count stage and the ballot box sampling then we move onto the count proper. Which, of course, produces the actual results.

This fine a noble art form of ballot box sampling seemed to be dead in the water when electronic counting was unveiled for Scottish Parliament and Local Authority elections. Electoral statistic geeks from across the party political divide heaved a weary sad sigh.

With electronic counting there would be no chance to sample the verification count. Because the machines were meant to be so whizzy even if you tried watching a machine you wouldn`t get the code from the box it was counting so you wouldn`t know where it was from. Also unlike in a hand count one machine could count from different constituencies one after the other rather than doing only one constituency as the count officials would in a hand count.

The only ballots you would see were the ones the machines couldn`t identify. Sampling these was useless as, again, you couldn`t tell which ballot box they came from. Like me the other Tallymen and Tallywomen packed away their sample sheets and pencils. We packed away our laptops with our excel spreadsheets. And watched this fantastic new system that was destroying our very way of electoral geek life…

We watched on as the ballots began to be loaded into the scanners…looks were shared between Tallymen from different parties. Adversaries who had stood side by side at counting tables for years joined together in the mutual knowledge that the Scotland Office had entrusted the counting of Scotland’s votes to a room full of dodgy photocopiers.

It was then that we Tallymen realised that we may be down, but we were not out.

In the time after the election it became clear just how much of a shambles the count was. We made our case for electronic voting to be consigned to history until it was at a stage it worked.

We were denied. Electronic counting was here to stay they said. STV would be too much hassle to count by hand they said.

The Irish general election came and was, of course, hand-counted. The results came through and the drama of an STV election was allowed to unfold. But in the RTE studios they had a rough idea of the result. But how could they have known? The Tallymen told them what the result would be. Such is the importance of the role of the Tallymen in Ireland that RTE themselves had a crack team of Tallymen at the counts for them.

A few council by-elections came and went in Scotland. And again the electronic counting made a hash of it.

It seems that now hand counts may be used for council by-elections at least but following the Gould report there is a desire to improve the electronic counting system rather than scrap it. Although the Scottish Government concedes that public confidence would have to be foremost in considering these things.

So electronic counting is to remain for Scottish Parliament votes and local authority votes for now. Council by-elections, Westminster and EU elections will all still be hand-counted.

Tallymen and Tallywomen may have been bruised by the introduction of electronic counting, but we are not yet beaten. We will wait quietly in the background, Tallysheets at hand waiting for the call and the rise of the Tallymen!

In defence of MPs…

I never thought I’d find myself writing in defence of MPs…hang on, this is beginning to feel a bit familiar.

The rather splendid Tactical Voting blog from Jeff has a recent posting on MPs (as recommended by today’s Scottish Blogging Roundup) about MPs. The post says…

“Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 600 employees and has the following statistics?

- 29 have been accused of spouse abuse
- 7 have been arrested for fraud
- 19 have been accused of writing bad cheques
- 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
- 3 have done time for assault
- 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
- 4 have been arrested on drug-related charges
- 8 have been arrested for shoplifting
- 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
- 84 have been arrested for drink driving in the last year

Which organization is this?

It's the 635 members of the House of Commons, the same group that cranks out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.”

Truly shocking…and utter bollocks.

I first remember seeing this list a couple of years ago in an email and had the normal reaction which is a combination of ‘typical, knew it etc etc’. Then on second glance I thought something didn’t fit.

“635 members of the House of Commons”

There are 646 members of the House of Commons. So where has this list come from? 635 is the key. The US Congress has 535 members and the US Senate has 100 Senators – 635.

Is US politics then so broken that this list is accurate? Again, its bollocks.

Snopes, a website dedicated to debunking urban myths, has the background to the list. Apparently it originates from an American Libertarian website from 1998. As Snopes observes the information isn`t independently verifiable and names no individuals, to avoid a lawsuit no doubt,

Our political and media culture tells us that all politicians are potentially dodgy characters which is why we are so quick to believe this sort of list. The truth is that the vast overwhelming majority of politicians are decent law-abiding people.

However like every other profession there are those who let not just themselves down but also their entire sphere. Which is perhaps what I find most aggravating about the ongoing Wendy Alexander saga is the damage it does to all of politics.

Alexander getting dodgy donations and being investigated for fraud in relation to the Scottish Industry Forum only adds fuel that all of politics operates on her potentially illegal standards.

What this tells me is that collectively we’ve got to give our politicians a bit of a break and a fairer view, but if one of our politicians (like Alexander is at the momebt) is involved in a breach of the law they’ve got to take responsibility for their actions.

Kosovo

Kosovo has this afternoon have made a unilateral declaration of independence. The declaration stressed that Kosovo should be a multi-ethnic, secular, democratic European state.

Serbia’s Prime Minister has responded by saying that the USA, EU and other nations recognising and encouraging the declaration is ‘violence’ against international order and that they refuse to recognise the new state.

He said that peaceful rallies are to be held against the move. We must now hope that peace is maintained on both sides. Kosovo has many of the necessities of a state but is still to formalise a few things. There is a draft constitution (in German at this stage) and a number of flags under consideration. Most pictures of supporters of Kosovan independence are shown flying Albanian and American flags.

Apparently the smart money for the new flag will be one inspired by the EU and Bosnian flags. Blue background with stars (representing the different ethnic groups).

Update: The new flag has been unveiled and it is based on the blue background with stars but is slightly different to the one above. Here is is flying in Pristina just a few hours after the announcement.

Having the Full Support of the Chairman

In football you can generally tell when an under pressure manager is about to get the sack. It comes just a wee while after its publicly announced that they have the full support of the chairman and the board. Tomorrow on the BBC’s politics show Gordon Brown is going to give his full public backing to Wendy Alexander’s leadership.

In the same interview he also has a thing or two to say about the Scottish Constitutional Commission…or review as he insists on calling it.

He’s reported as saying that “there is a very strong case for moving forward with this review [ahem], a strong case for looking after 10 years of devolution at what is the right steps forward…There is an issue about the financial responsibility of an Executive or an administration that has £30 billion to spend but doesn't have any responsibility for raising (that)."

Which to me sounds like that he’s support more fiscal powers for the Scottish Parliament. He was asked this directly and said "Well this is what any review should look at…Nobody should pre-judge it…There is a case for saying that in any other devolved administration in the world there is usually a financial responsibility that requires not only the spending of money by the administration but also its responsibility to take seriously how it raises money."

This is significant policy shift from Labour and is a remarkable intervention after in the last week David Cairns described the calls for more powers as being only of interesting to the ‘McChattering Classes’. He also said that the UK Governments “position is that we think the current fiscal arrangements benefit Scotland. There are stable, transparent increases in public spending in Scotland. There is no case for the massive restructuring of that.”

Also reported in the Herald last week was a senior Scottish Labour MP (he has attempted to remain anonymous) who said that “This is an agenda [the commission] that is run by a very, very small minority of people within the Labour Party who I don't think are representative of the Labour Party in Scotland."…Overwhelmingly there is hostility towards it[among Labour MPs] and hostility that Wendy proposed this without reference to MPs. Frankly, the view is that whatever the commission comes up with, it has to get a majority in the House of Commons and it won't get that."

On one hand Cairns and the mystery M.P are saying no to the review and definitely no to new fiscal powers…and Brown tomorrow saying the ‘review’ has his backing and that fiscal powers are on the table.

What does Brown’s intervention tells us. Not only that Labour are still all over the place on this issue but also that Alexander has no authority left is needs to try and borrow some from Brown. Only time will tell whether Brown’s clunking fist is enough to save Alexander.

You’ll have had your (secret fundraising) tea then…

As I`m told folk o’ these pairts are want to say. No such reaction in Renfrewshire a few years ago from the now since dead, and yet unlamented, Scottish Industry Forum (SIF) held a dinner to raise fund for…

Well that rather depends who you ask. Tom Gordon of the Sunday Times broke the story yesterday that Wendy Alexander may have been on the receiving end of yet more dodgy donations. The SIF dinner was apparently sold to the paying guests as a fundraiser for helping out the local area.

Guests included some Conservative, and SNP backers as well as the broadcaster Bernard Posonby (who in a previous life was a Lib Dem candidate). They gave their money in good faith to help Renfrewshire regeneration prjects. Yet somehow their donated funds (some £12,000 according to reports) ended up in the coffers of Wendy Alexander in the form of sponsorship from the SIF.

In the Sunday Times report it says that “Labour gave conflicting accounts of the nature of the SIF. Lord Foulkes, a Labour peer [and MSP], said that the forum was “never billed as politically neutral”. A Labour spokesman said the forum was separate from the party. “

So which was it? Well to paying guests it was portrayed as an independent organisation but to Labour officials it seems it was a fundraising arm. When Wendy Alexander was questioned by the press about this issue today she said that “"The Scottish Industry Forum have made clear that they were the main Labour business organisation for more than a decade. They were part of the prawn cocktail offensive”

So both Alexander and Foulkes say it was a Labour organization, yet the Labour spokesman says they weren`t? And if it was a Labour organization used for fundraising activities why then was this concealed from the guests at the Renfrew fundraising dinner?

It was also reported in the Sunday Times that “Sir Alistair Graham, former chairman of the Commons committee on standards in public life, said that if the allegations were true she should consider resigning. “It is fairly fraudulent to invite people as a paying guest to discuss one subject, when the real purpose is to collect money for a political party,” he said.”

The Sunday Times piece also looked at a donation from a developer but others (Calum Cashley) have explored this and its worth a wee read.

I recall that Foulkes was chair of the SIF at one point but I`m not sure if this was when the money was gifted to Alexander. If the Scottish Industry Forum was a Labour organisation then why was Helen Liddell speaking to them in her capacity as then Scottish Secretary in January 0f 2003?

Also if it was a Labour organisation as Wendy Alexander and George Foulkes proclaim today then why when it commissioned independence bashing polling in 1999 was it at pains to stress that -

“The Scottish Industry Forum is an independent business organisation set up in 1995 to facilitate dialogue between the business community and the government. It has no political affiliation and does not require members to have any particular political views. The Scottish Industry Forum is a not-for-profit organisation funded by member subscriptions. It carries on a series of working groups for members including Business Opportunities Post-Devolution, Indigenous Development v Inward Investment, Training Post-Devolution, Scottish Parliament and Europe and Incentives for Investment.”

Based on the SIF proclamation of no political affiliation made in 1999 it seems that what George Foulkes ([SIF] ‘never billed as politically neutral’) and Wendy Alexander ([SIF] ‘made clear that they were the main Labour business organisation’) have said in the last few days is looking an awful lot like lies.

SIF…Labour organisation or Independent?
Renfrewshire dinners…Labour fundraiser or Regeneration fundraiser?

The waters appear very very muddy on this issue. According to reports its already been referred to the electoral commission and the police.