ĂŰŃż´«Ă˝

Perhaps you will permit me to share a thought, an emotion, with you.

Nothing to do with Holyrood. Nothing, for once, to do with politics.

This morning, I arrived for work at the ĂŰŃż´«Ă˝'s imposing HQ in Glasgow, on the banks of the Clyde.

My gaze turned instinctively towards the river, carpeted in icy fog. I peered through the mist at the Glenlee, the Tall Ship. I glanced towards a Vital Spark-style puffer, moored on the north side.

I thought of an image I had seen of this area, Pacific Quay, crowded as it once was with vessels of all kinds.

And my thoughts turned towards the missing crew of the tugboat, sunk pursuing the Clyde's ancient purpose.

For those who can, a contented Christmas and a guid New Year. For those who can't, for whatever reason, my sympathy.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Yuletide spirit? No chance. At least, not at Holyrood.

Alex Salmond heaped scorn and anger upon Nicol Stephen (for his comments about the Trump affair). Then he barked: “Happy Christmas.”

Today’ session of FMQs was decidedly sparky. The prime contenders were, mostly, on good form.

It was Wendy Alexander’s best outing yet (who said that wouldn’t be hard? Take that person’s name).

Seriously, Wendy was persistent and controlled, having sensibly seized upon a potentially questionable element in the government’s explanation of how the Trump issue was handled.

She questioned why the MSP for Gordon (one A. Salmond) had phoned the chief planner in the Scottish Government (Leader: A. Salmond) to investigate the possibility of said planner meeting Team Trump.

Mr Salmond had a robust reply: that, as constituency MSP, he was querying the feasibility of such a meeting, in the light of events. He did not request the meeting. That was done by Team Trump. He had acted at all times with propriety.

Indeed, generally, Alex Salmond was on potent form. He tackled Ms Alexander head on. He had the grace to laugh when Annabel Goldie got him with a deft funny.

And he was brutally assertive in slapping down Nicol Stephen who, last week, had claimed to detect a scent of sleaze around the issue (Mr Stephen, incidentally, had chosen not to pursue the Trump matter, opting to challenge the FM on health provision in Aberdeen).

Does this all go anywhere? As billed previously, I rather suspect not. Even those who have helped orchestrate the Holyrood committee investigation forecast a “slap on the wrist” for Mr Salmond. No more.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

And so Alex Salmond is to be called before a to account for his role (or absence thereof) in the Trump planning application? Is he quivering? Not so as you’d notice.

The notion of an external inquiry (proposed by the Liberal Democrats) has gone, replaced by a Parliamentary investigation (first proposed by the Conservatives.)

The Local Government Committee now plans to take evidence from the First Minister; John Swinney, who called in the application; the Scottish Government’s chief planner, Jim McKinnon; and Alan Campbell, the chief executive of Aberdeenshire Council.

It is to be hoped that the inquiry by the Local Government Committee is searching and thorough. It is to be hoped that the politicians and the officials will be subject to detailed, precise interrogation.

But at Holyrood – and this is purely impressionistic – this doesn’t feel like an insuperable problem for Mr Salmond.

For one thing, he wanted a Parliamentary inquiry. For another – and, again, this is impressionistic – I don’t detect among opposition parties any real sense that they can “get” the FM over this, can inflict lasting damage.

A further point. The Trump plan has cross-party political support and, it would appear, widespread backing in the North-east. Which makes it more difficult to mount a sustained political attack if that might be perceived as undermining the project itself.

PS: I have, of course, been making daily checks re progress in the Electoral Commission’s inquiry into the funding of Wendy Alexander’s leadership campaign.

Don’t expect anything, now, until early in the New Year.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Isn’t politics brutal? There sat Ming Campbell, visibly moved, as - just - as the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

And the emotion that was visible? Partly pride that his erstwhile protégé has made it to the top. But partly regret.

Interviewed by the ĂŰŃż´«Ă˝, Sir Menzies said it was a “day for looking forward, not looking back”.

Maybe so - and Nick Clegg praised him warmly - but Ming must know, he does know, that his own leadership term scarcely enhanced his own reputation, which was previously highly burnished.

Sitting next to Sir Menzies at the declaration was Vince Cable. He stood in as leader for a couple of months – drawing praise on all sides, most notably when he caricatured Gordon Brown as moving effortlessly “from Stalin to Mr Bean”.

How Ming Campbell must wish he had confined himself to a period of relatively untesting interim leadership.

He declined to contest the top job when Charles Kennedy first won.

How he must wish he had stuck to that approach after Charles stood down.

I suppose, to a certain extent, you choose your luck. Ming Campbell chose to become leader, for real, after a period of extraordinary turmoil in his own party.

Vince Cable became leader, for a spell, during a period of extraordinary turmoil – in Gordon Brown’s government.

Now it’s Nick Clegg’s turn. He takes charge with the LibDems out of office in Scotland – and under general assault from rivals, especially the Tories.

Mr Clegg’s opening address was, inevitably, somewhat platitudinous. Listen to the people, unite, engage.

Perhaps he’ll take another tip from Vince Cable who has engaged with popular culture by performing on Strictly Come Dancing.

Never mind the Single Transferable Vote, Nick, how’s your pasa doble?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

There are moments when the spirit lifts – and times when the heart sinks. Today’s publication of drug misuse statistics tends to fall into the latter category.

As the Minister, Fergus Ewing, puts it: “More than 50,000 people in Scotland are fighting a personal battle with drugs.”

The Minister promises a new strategy in the New Year, with a “greater emphasis on prevention” allied to enforcement.

In response, the Conservative leader Annabel Goldie, who has pursued a persistent campaign on the issue of methadone, urges an enhanced use of rehab, linked to zero tolerance for those who profit from drugs.

One can only hope that, singularly or collectively, Scotland’s politicians can come up with productive ideas.

I cannot say I am optimistic. Perhaps I have simply witnessed too many brave new starts in this field.

But let’s contribute to the debate here. What would you do? Would you, mostly, tackle demand with education initiatives and rehab? Would you, mostly, tackle supply with law enforcement?
Would you decriminalise certain drugs? Would you decriminalise use – but not supply?

Would you, as one MSP previously suggested, be inclined to remove young children from the care of drug abusers?

Politicians don’t have all the answers. For the avoidance of doubt, I don’t remotely blame them for that. This is a really complex issue. So what would you do?

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

This blog is styled Blether with Brian - and, customarily, I am more than happy to indulge.

However, the big story in Scottish politics today is one that does not lend itself to blether, whatever the temptations.

A 43-year-old man was first detained and then charged with perjury, a criminal offence which, upon conviction, can attract a prison sentence.

That bald statement is not altered by the fact that the 43-year-old male in question is Tommy Sheridan, erstwhile Socialist MSP.

Reaction there has been, of varying content. at the manner of his detention and vowing to clear his name.

The party he founded, Solidarity, say they are behind him.

The party he left, the Scottish Socialist Party, say they are focused upon other matters.

The newspaper he successfully sued, the News of the World, declined to comment.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Excitable points of order at Holyrood tonight as MSPs gathered for division time when they vote on the day’s business.

First, Alex Neil for the SNP, then Robert Brown for the Liberal Democrats, sought to revisit the earlier exchanges over the Trump application.

Mr Neil was seeking sundry apologies from opposition critics. Mr Brown felt that ĂŰŃż´«Ă˝ Scotland had been misled by the government in answers offered earlier today (see previous entry on this blog).

Presiding Officer Alex Fergusson solemnly offered his view that these were not points upon which he could rule.

They were points of argument with regard to the controversy now surrounding the application by the US billionaire.

Mr Fergusson then invited members to acknowledge and welcome a distinguished visitor sitting in the gallery, witnessing all this.

His name? R. Nicholas Burns, the US Under-secretary for Political Affairs.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

All in all, not the first minister’s finest hour in the Holyrood chamber. Indeed, notably uncomfortable as he faced .

To recap, the plan affects Alex Salmond’s own Holyrood constituency. He is therefore barred from intervening as first minister. As a minister, he cannot comment either in favour or against the plan.

The scheme was rejected by an Aberdeenshire Council committee on the casting vote of that committee’s convener.

Mr Salmond subsequently met representatives from the Trump organisation at their request, at the Marcliffe Hotel in Aberdeen where the Trump team has based itself. Mr Salmond says he was duty-bound, as a local MSP, to respond to that request.

The following day, the application was called in by the Scottish Government for decision. Mr Salmond is adamant he played no part in calling in the application and did not know such a move was happening.

It has now emerged that the Scottish Government’s chief planner, Jim Mackinnon, made a call to the chief executive of Aberdeenshire Council while members of the Trump team were in the room with him at government HQ.

Alan Campbell, the council chief exec, requested that the Trump team leave the room.

In a further, separate call, a couple of hours later, Mr Mackinnon informed Mr Campbell that the planning application was being called in.

That statement was, they say, inadvertently mistaken.

Equally, Aberdeenshire Council clarified their position to stress there were two calls - but hours apart.

The first call was about procedure. It was only during the second call - with the Trump team long gone - that the question of call-in was raised.

See elsewhere on this site for reports on the full controversy.

Politically, what is happening?

Does Labour welcome a diversion from the controversy over Wendy Alexander’s campaign funding? Yes - although the lead in the chamber today was taken by the Tories and, most sharply, by the Liberal Democrats (who claimed to detect a whiff of sleaze.)

Perhaps Ms Alexander didn’t feel entirely ready, just yet, to challenge the FM on issues of probity.

Is it right that Mr Salmond should be pursued on this issue? Yes.

It is parliament’s role to subject government ministers to scrutiny. Further, it is claimed that the controversy itself may jeopardise the project by opening an avenue to legal challenge.

It is up to Alex Salmond and his government colleagues to provide answers. They accuse their opponents of “inaccuracy and innuendo” and of “scraping the bottom of the barrel.”

Are others under scrutiny? Yes. John Swinney took the decision to call in the project. He is now being questioned over a visit he paid to the Trump Westchester golf village in the USA on Monday 3 December.

The government points out that Mr Swinney was there attending the first regional conference of the Globalscot network in New York, which was held at Westchester.

He didn’t meet anyone from Trump. He has never met anyone from Trump.

As of tonight, that is where we are. Opposition critics believe the rules have been bent. The government insists that correct procedure has been followed by all, including the first minister.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Gordon Brown was asked about police officers pay in the Commons. Twice. It’s hard to judge which was the most uncomfortable for the prime minister.

Firstly, Tory MP Michael Fabricant shook his resplendent yellow locks at the PM before offering a new version of the West Lothian question.

How could it be right, he proclaimed, that police in Lichfield would be getting a poorer pay deal than those in Linlithgow? (Guess which constituency Mr Fabricant represents. Hint: it’s not Linlithgow.)

Then Angus Robertson MP bestowed his own special brand of beatific smile upon Mr Brown as he invited him to praise Alex Salmond (born, incidentally, in Linlithgow) for the police pay deal on offer in Scotland.

You’ll recall that the Scottish Government has decided to backdate the police deal in full while officers elsewhere in the UK are subject to an outbreak of relative stinginess from the ĂŰŃż´«Ă˝ Office.

Mr Brown’s answer in each case was the same: a tirade against Scottish ministers for falling short on their promise to deliver one thousand new police officers on the beat in Scotland.

I say “answer” - but perhaps “response” would be more strictly accurate.

SNP ministers could scarcely believe their luck when the ĂŰŃż´«Ă˝ Office took the decision on pay, accompanied by a leaked document evincing hope that Scotland wouldn’t cause too many difficulties.

I imagine that posed a real dilemma for the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. I see him consulting his officials and special advisers.

“So”, he pondered, “give me this again slowly. For the price of a few million quid, I look like the good guy, I get the Scottish cops onside just when I need their help over redeployment. AND it’s a huge pain in the neck for Labour at Westminster. Where do I sign?”

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Are you prejudiced against anyone, any group? Muslims? Gay and lesbian people? Gypsies/travellers?

, some 29 per cent of Scots feel they are justified in answering “yes” to that question.

But it would seem that prejudice is floating rather than fixed. Rather than being rigid, it is malleable, open to persuasion or the influence of circumstance.

The survey, conducted by the estimable Scottish Centre for Social Research, discerned an increase in prejudice against Muslims compared to a decline in such attitudes towards gay and lesbian people.

Let us be clear what we mean by prejudice. We mean unthinking hatred, dislike or suspicion of an individual based solely upon that individual’s membership of a particular social group.

It is quite different, utterly different, from an empirical approach to an individual.

Think back to when you were at primary school. Say another child routinely punched you. You would be entitled to form an aversion to that child, to avoid that child’s company.

By contrast, when we succumb to prejudice, we are extrapolating from the general to the particular, with no reference to individual evidence. We have formed a view upon a group – and we translate that view into hostility towards individual members.

This is, quite simply, illogical and wrong. It is demeaning, debasing.

To their credit, politicians from all parties at Holyrood have said so at Holyrood today. Without caveat.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Wasn’t that a simply fascinating little al fresco speech by David Cameron in Edinburgh today? I was particularly intrigued by the sub-plot.

This was a speech defending the Union. However, it was plainly also designed to bolster the Conservative and Unionist Party.

Annabel Goldie has had to endure a few murmurs of discontent since Thursday when she committed the Scots Tories to working with Labour and the Lib Dems to set up a Commission to review devolution.

There have been one or two grumbles to the effect that this was scarcely the moment for the Tories to be on the same side as Scottish Labour and their leader Wendy Alexander.

Should not the Tories, say the grumblers, be adding to the perturbations afflicting Ms Alexander, rather than backing her in a Parliamentary motion?

No, says Ms Goldie. The prize is bigger than that. And no, says Mr Cameron. Ms Goldie, apparently, is to be applauded for her “courage and determination”.

However, there was another sub-plot to the Cameron speech. The Tories, he said, would continue to pursue such tricky matters as the West Lothian question and the Barnett formula.

But not, it would appear, with particular vigour. Or, more accurately, not if such vigorous investigation should threaten the Union itself.

Mr Cameron spelled it out: “Better an imperfect union than a broken one. Better an imperfect union than a perfect divorce.”

Why this compromise? Because, apparently, there are “those in England who want the SNP to succeed.”

These individuals, we were told, “seek to use grievances to foster a narrow English nationalism.”

Would this band of absolute rotters include the (Tory) backbenchers who complain, frequently and volubly, about “subsidies” to Scotland?

Does it include the (Tory) frontbencher Alan Duncan who suggested that Gordon Brown couldn’t become PM because he represented a Scottish seat?

Perhaps wisely, Mr Cameron did not say. He confined himself to arguing that he would choose the Union over an objective of “constitutional perfection”.

Which means what, in practice? The Tories will question Barnett – but only as part of a UK wide review of funding.

The Tories will look at English votes for English issues in the Commons – but won’t shout about it too much in case it frightens the horses in the Union stable.

Every Conservative leader since John Major lost power has been tempted to play to an English gallery over grievances, real and exaggerated.

Every Conservative leader since John Major has concluded that such a strategy, while superficially attractive in terms of votes, runs counter to supporting the Union.

I believe David Cameron has now arrived at the same position.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?

The Scottish Government has just published a list of ministerial engagements for this coming week.

Fascinating stuff. Busy little beavers, every one. May I wish them happy governing?

However, I suspect you would scan recent lists in vain to find notice of the meeting Alex Salmond had with Team Trump re the luxury golf plan for Aberdeenshire.

That is, of course, because this was a constituency meeting, not a government event. Mr Salmond was there as the locally elected MSP, not as the first minister.

The following day, the entity that is the Scottish Government decided to call in Mr Trump’s planning application which had been rejected on the casting vote of an Aberdeenshire Council committee convener.

I say “the entity” because Mr Salmond has a self-evident conflict of interest which he, rightly, reported to parliament when facing questions at Holyrood last week.

Having properly declared that conflict of interest and having stressed that he could not comment on the application, I seem to recall that he then encouraged backbenchers to pitch in.

Do you think the entity that is the Scottish Government is minded to say yes to Donald Trump?

Here’s a clue. They called in the application immediately after it was turned down by the council.

I don’t imagine they did so in order to turn it down twice, in order to ensure that it was firmly consigned to an ecologically-friendly dustbin.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Caught a splendid little quiz on the wireless last week. On ĂŰŃż´«Ă˝ Radio Scotland, of course.

Tuned in midway so I’m not quite certain of the format but it seemed that school pupils were pitted against adult programme guests.

The pupils - who were from the great and noble city of Dundee - performed splendidly. Their accompanying teacher sounded bright and enthusiastic.

All dandy - until the teacher was asked, en passant, aboout standards in contemporary schooling.

The habit of texting, she said, tended to compound problems in spelling and grammar. But there were “other methods of communication” which were valid.

I understand. As a teacher, you want to encourage. You don’t want to spend every waking minute correcting spelling and syntax.

But, to be frank, those words sound to me like surrender.

Those "other methods of communication” may work in a social environment.

They don’t work in the office or the wider world of employment which is likely to become more, not less, demanding with international competition.

You can use text dialect as a shorthand alternative, provided you can also deploy standard written and spoken English, consistently and well.

I thought of this today when musing over an that an OECD study has suggested reforms to Scottish education, including phasing out Standard Grade.

Our secondary schools, according to the report, are too academic and should provide earlier opportunities to pursue a trade.

I confess my spirits sank. A comparable sensation, I imagine, trickled down the collective spine of Scotland’s staff rooms.

Yet more change, yet more reform, yet another exam to be abandoned or changed. If, of course, ministers assent to these suggestions.

Let me stress that I am offering no view either way on these particular ideas, including the notion in the report that all pupils should be subject to testing.

I would merely comment that so much of this debate seems to me to be, in itself, academic. It is conducted among strata of researchers, analysts and observers.

They seem to me like eager young medical students, clustered around the bed of an ailing patient.

Enthralled, they discuss the symptoms, pore over the diagnosis, float various cures – then move on to the next bed, leaving the patient bemused and unsure.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Charlie Gordon MSP is less than content. He had promised on his political future by the end of this week. It duly emerged today.

Is he quitting his seat? Is he resigning the Labour whip at Holyrood? Neither.

Instead, the statement is a prolonged tirade against those who have, apparently, been stirring up “snide innuendo” about his business connections while a councillor in Glasgow.

I rather suspect - and this may come as a shock to you - that Mr Gordon has in mind some of his erstwhile comrades on the city council. He believes, in short, that there are people out to get him.

Now you might think that he has done a fairly good job in that regard without external assistance.

He it was who solicited a donation of £950 from a Jersey businessman for Wendy Alexander’s leadership campaign.

He had earlier attracted the same sum from the same source for Glasgow South Labour Party.

Both donations proved to be illegal.

Mr Gordon’s defence is that he had thought they were paid via a UK registered company. This was wrong.

In his statement today, Mr Gordon says he will deal with whatever emerges from the Electoral Commission in due course. Meantime, he stays in office.

That is the substance of the statement. But far more content is devoted to a lengthy defence of his period on the city council, including six years as leader.

His detractors, he says, tend not to mention the regeneration of Glasgow in that time.

Instead, he says, they indulge in “snide innuendo” about gifts, hospitality, business trips, planning consent and the like.

Such matters, he says, are strictly regulated by the local authority. Further, “the notion that one person can control planning decisions is absurd”.

Three things occur to me:

One, Charlie Gordon is plainly hurting.

Two, Glasgow City Council is plainly not the epitome of comradely fellowship one had always imagined it to be.

Three, this entire affair will remain unresolved until the Electoral Commission rules. Or the police intervene. Or both.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Wendy Alexander was in London yesterday. She was, I’m told, holding talks with the Scottish Secretary Des Browne.

The topic? Well, I would imagine that one or two side issues arose - but the core subject was, apparently, today’s debate at Holyrood on Scotland’s constitutional future.

So let’s remind ourselves what is going on, perhaps with a brief recap re Ms Alexander’s speech last Friday which was somewhat swamped on the day by the matter of party donations.

Right now, MSPs are debating the notion of setting up a commission to consider the devolved settlement.

As you would expect, the debate is rather lively, if a little acerbic.

The Commission is a Labour wheeze - but it has been agreed by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

Which means it will get through. It will happen.

What will it do? It will provide an “expert led, independent” review of devolution, including devolved powers.

It will provide an alternative discussion to the National Conversation opened by the First Minister. (Hint: it will not feature independence.)

Ms Alexander helpfully offered a few pointers to her thinking in her speech last Friday - which was, incidentally, a thoughtful contribution, assessing frankly the flaws in devolution while asserting the proclaimed merits of the Union.

I was intrigued by what she said - and what she didn’t say. Nothing, for example, on Scotland in Europe.

On finance, she indicated that Holyrood should be less reliant on the block grant. That would mean reverting to the original Convention plan of assigned revenues - which was sidelined in the final version.

Under that system, cash raised in Scotland through particular taxes is retained in Scotland - instead of being sent to the Treasury for subsequent disbursement.

But there were limits. Ms Alexander was sceptical as to whether, under EU rules, Scotland could vary VAT or corporation tax.

They might be partially assigned - but Scotland could not alter their rate.

Further, she offered a vigorous nod in the direction of those in England who complain that Scotland is over-funded.

Naturally, she did this subtly, stressing the requirement to be “fair to all parts of the UK.” But she was promising a needs assessment, presumably instigated by the Treasury.

I have long argued that such a needs assessment, perpetually desired by the Treasury and repeatedly resisted by Scottish Secretaries and First Ministers, will happen eventually.

But we should not pretend that it would be anything other than a challenge to Scotland. Unless a vigorous defence could be mounted, Scotland would be likely to lose funding.

That might be right, it might be fair - but it would be a tough exercise.

Further, Ms Alexander floated the West Lothian question - without in any way offering an answer. She talked about regionalism - knowing, I believe, full well that regionalism does not answer West Lothian unless the regional assemblies have legislative power.

The issue was, she argued, “for UK colleagues to consider”.

Be clear: that is an advance. It replaces the customary Labour position that the best way to answer West Lothian is to stop asking it.

Both these positions - finance and West Lothian - will have been agreed with Des Browne. And therefore with the UK Government. Hence yesterday’s further talks.

Hence Labour’s willingness to enter a concordat with the other opposition parties in Holyrood.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

The phrase “in good faith” has been deployed rather frequently in the controversy over the donations to Wendy Alexander’s campaign team.

It was used by Charlie Gordon who solicited the donation which subsequently proved to be illegal.

It forms the substance of Ms Alexander’s defence: that she did not break the law intentionally, that she acted in good faith.

Now that argument has surfaced again. This time from Paul Green whose cheque is at the core of the controversy.

I interviewed Mr Green today in the studios of ĂŰŃż´«Ă˝ Jersey.

The interview was broadcast live by “Good Morning Scotland” and has since been used by other ĂŰŃż´«Ă˝ outlets. (It is incidentally the lead story in Jersey itself.)

While outwardly affable, Mr Green is angry.

Furious that he has been, as he sees it, drawn into a political row by muddle, confusion and mismanagement on the part of the Labour Party.

He says he was approached by Charlie Gordon and asked for a donation to Wendy Alexander’s campaign. He sought and received assurances re legality.

That done, he stumped up, signing a personal cheque, with a personal covering letter – and despatching that from his Jersey home address to Mr Gordon.

Couple of clues there, one might think, to suggest that this not a corporate donation.

The cheque was payable to the WA Campaign.

The snag? Jersey, while part of the British Isles, is not part of Britain.

It is a Crown dependency. Its citizens, including Paul Green, can’t vote in the UK – and so can’t contribute to UK political parties.

Paul Green fervently hopes that his interview with me is the end of the matter for him.

One rather suspects it is not the end of the matter for Charlie Gordon, Wendy Alexander and the Labour Party.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?

I have not spoken to Wendy Alexander today. .

However, I have spoken to several other individuals in Scottish Labour - close to the controversy, on its margins or simply observing with bemused horror.

I believe that Wendy Alexander is tonight tugged two ways. Instinct, personal integrity and perhaps the long-term interests of the Scottish Labour Party tell her to quit.

Loyalty to the Prime Minister - who is facing the biggest crisis of his short leadership - pulls her the other way.

(The SNP tonight expressed that issue another way, suggesting that Wendy Alexander was being used as a “human shield” for Gordon Brown.)

Put simply, if Wendy Alexander is obliged to quit because of an unlawful donation of £950, where does that leave Mr Brown’s deputy Harriet Harman who is facing questions over a donation of £5,000?

That dilemma explains why there were prolonged and fraught discussions today before a relatively anodyne statement was issued in Ms Alexander’s name.

In that statement, she denies “intentional wrong doing”, arguing that, once the full facts are known, she will be exonerated.

These fulsome facts, she says, will be disclosed to the Electoral Commission. Further comment would be “inappropriate”.

Next key moments? The Labour group of MSPs meeting on Tuesday. Consideration - and an opinion - from the Electoral Commission. An investigation by the police - in response to a complaint lodged by an SNP researcher or, more substantially, if and when the commission alerts the constabulary.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Newsvine |
• |
• Reddit
• - What's this?