You're Gagged

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand

Between their loved home and the war's desolation!

Like all National Anthems the Star Spangled Banner has more verses than the one commonly known, in this case song before any sporting or public event no matter what the level. But the lines above coming from the opening of the fourth verse are particularly poignant. Of course the recurring theme through the verses is, the land of the free.

America revels in its freedom, free speech, state free from religion, freedom to bear arms. It's history is full of periods and places were men have gone into the unknown to stake claims on land. Admittedly not all of that was totally unoccupied, the native Americans often suffered at the settlers hands. But now one of those Americans is taking freedom too far and the wrong way.

The American in question is Donald Trump. Last I looked he was not an elected representative in nay part of the UK. He may own some land over here but even then he would only have one vote, if he were to settle etc. However, his latest attempt to get his golf course development through planning is to attempt to ban the four most vocal opponents on Aberdeenshire Council banned from taking part in forthcoming decisions about the development and any use of compulsory purchase orders he is hoping to push through.

Yeah the man from the land of free is not elected to serve the people of Balmedie, where Trump owns the Menie Estate. Indeed George Sorial, the Trump executive running the project, has gone so far as to say:

"Enough is enough. The organisation will no longer tolerate their lack of respect for ethical standards. These scoundrels have to be stopped."

There are a lot of ethical questions that have been raised by this development. Although some where answered last week when the Standard Commission found that Debra Storr had not breached the Code of Conduct following Trump complaints. Compulsory purchase orders for a for profit development. Trying to apply English and Welsh trespass law over Scottish right to roam law. Trying to stop elected representatives from going about their constitutional rights to visit constituents or represent them over a matter that directly affects them. It sounds like the Trump Organisation want a Politburo in the council chamber to do what the supreme one with his floppy hair says no matter what the cost.

• The cost to an Area of Special Scientific Interest.
• The cost to the families, some of whom have lived there for generations.
• The cost to his own reputation.
• The cost to democracy itself.

Yes the cost to democracy itself. If our councils give in to one super rich landlord over his planning applications it sets a precedent. Where does it go from there? Then it will become the landlords who dictate things rather than those who are elected to represent the people. Last I looked we still lived in a representative democracy not some business related reality show where whatever the man behind desk said went.

Like many planning applications before him Trump was turned down when it was first presented. No matter what people, from Trump's Organisation, say it wasn't clear cut. However, Sarah Malone, executive vice-president for the Menie Estate development, says that the four councillors should be prevented from taking any further part because they have ' have not remained objective, which is their duty'.

I love the words that Paul Johnson comes up with to counter that claim to disbar him, Debra Storr, Sam Coull and Martin Ford, he says:

"If Mr Trump continues to complain about people, just because he doesn't like their views, he will be seen as vindictive and, indeed, ridiculous in the eyes of the public.

"It cuts both ways. Every councillor who has expressed support for the
development, on the basis that it is best thing since sliced bread, would also be debarred."

Which could leave a rather echoey council chamber if only those with no preset opinion were ever allowed to take a planning decision. Martin Ford adds:

"It is my duty to raise it and talk about and seek to get the issue addressed in a way that is proper and fair to residents."

For indeed it is the public duty of those elected to stand up for those in the area. To be the voice that is heard to voice their concerns. Trump may be able to trumpet on from his his very public profile but that is not the only voice that needs to be heard. This is a matter for moral judgement as Mike Rumbles MSP has said. If Trump has the lack of moral to bulldozer over democracy before he bulldozers his neighbours compulsory purchased houses he has lost any moral leg to stand on.

I'd say to Trump.

Enough is enough. The residents will no longer tolerate the Trump Organisations lack of respect for ethical standards. These scoundrels have to be stopped.

My Response to Brian Adam (and Jeff)

Hat tip to PJ who pointed out that Jeff had passed comment about the Lib Dem amendment to put aside a referendum bill for this Parliament. Jeff as the first part of his blog's name* would suggest takes the Nat approach that it is win-win for the SNP. However, he seems to have waylaid the middle 'tactical' part of his original remit.

I can assume that my public pronouncements on the subject of a referendum mean that I am clearly counted when the Nat Whip Brain Adam says:

"Mike Rumbles said he wanted the party to decide their policy - a party in which we know many members favour a referendum, as do the vast majority of Lib Dem voters."

Now while I am counted in the many, of the party, from the number of our voters I have met the vast majority have not given any preferred stance on this issue. Indeed it has never been a issue that any who have expressed a preference for the Lib Dems have proffered as one of their top three concerns.


However, the tactical side of me would suggest that looking at the First Minister's handling (or lack of) of the impending recession now is just the time to call a referendum if you wanted to maintain the Union. My reasoning being that in times of crisis people tend to stay to the status quo rather than take a risk on change. Therefore to volunteer to shelve it is actually a brave step that the battle will still be won when things have stabilised.



I also notice that rather ironically Jeff is abiding by the UK Government's predictions of when the recession will be over. Of course that is one of the most optimistic predictions, mid-2009 didn't I just read yesterday that deflation would be at it's worse in September. Also this belief in Labour propaganda is surprising for someone who has attacked them for having myopia on a number of issues (including the economy).



However, give Jeff his due he does agree that there is no appetite for a referendum right now. Something I said on Saturday while backing John Farquhar Munro's call to not shy away from a referendum is that unlike last summer when Mike Rumbles stood on the party deciding the policy there are more pressing policy considerations to be taken right now. Something the Nats seem to have forgotten in their pursuit of the one goal that identifies them.

I'm glad that Tavish has clarified that he isn't against a referendum just sees that the time is not before 2011. The Nats can moan all they like about be obstructed at every turn but they'll need to do something about something that really matters.

*SNP Tactical Voting (in case you're not a MacBlogosphere follower)

Retained Fire Fighters: Keep the Opt Out

There is a need to keep the retained Fire Fighters in our communities. 321 of Scotland's 391 fire stations were staffed by part-time retained fire fighters. Below
Tavish Scott with Mike Rumbles and Rosemary Bruce discuss the issue.



You can join the campaign at www.keeptheoptout.com

The Lib Dems Aren't for Playing With Scotland's Future

I see that Jeff has taken time out from his extended break in the Far East and down under to ask ""what are the Lib Dems Playing at?". Well strangely I think exactly the same with regards to John Swinney.


In October 2007 the spending review issued plans for this budget period. This was long before most parties the SNP or Labour woke up to just what was going on in the world around them. It was indeed a long time before John Swinney or Alex Salmond told us that an "economic storm" had engulfed Scotland. The change is this budget over those spending plans is only 1%. That is the weakest, most miniscule reaction and attempt to boast their economy of ANY Western democracy to the current crisis. It is indeed the budget of do nothingness when everyone is crying out for action.

Jeff earlier today also passed comment on here that the Lib Dems should not vote against the budget stage 1, as they did, but sit down and get some of our 2007 manifesto pledges discussed. In case Jeff hasn't noticed while swanning around the Far East and Australia, on his banking bonuses I guess, people have moved on from the 2007 manifesto. They are concerned about the budget, that of their own pockets. People are now more likely to shop around for a bargain. Indeed you now see far more people scouring the reductions at supermarkets before they get marked down than a year ago when hey merely waited.

The Lib Dem proposals offer £330 pounds back into the pockets of the low and medium earners of Scotland. £330 pounds that in the words of one person I saw on TV last week would make the difference between having to decide whether to heat or to eat but allow the luxury, shame though it is to say that, to do both.

While his and his fellow Nats criticise the Lib Dems for not knowing fully where the savings can come from what is clear is that at least we are looking they clearly haven't had a major rethink. Oh and as for there needing to be more spending as well. That is because while giving money to the poorest will instil some economic stimulus it is also the time for Government to step up to the plate.

So what are the Lib Dems doing to answer the question? We're not looking for a quick fix we know that isn't possible. We're also not prepared to sit back and take a lily livered approach to Scotland Future as we trust that by doing next to nothing Scotland will end up going deeper and staying longer in this downturn. This is most definitely not a time for business as usual budgets which is what the SNP have offered up, in that actually both Labour and the Conservatives so somewhat agree even if they allowed the passage of stage one. Neither of those other parties support can be said to be in the back.

Vince Cable, who is widely regarded as one of the few who saw this coming, has back Nick Clegg's proposal for real and permanent tax cuts for the lower earners as part, not all, of the required stimulus at this time. While the Lib Dem position has been ignored at Westminster with their sizable Labour majority, We here in Scotland through Tavish Scott and Mike Rumbles who was sent to show intent have a Parliament that is meant to rely on consensus so we laid down a challenge to not be as timid as Gordon and Alistair the Scots running thing for the UK. However, Alex and John are actually proposing less than even the little that those other Scots are doing.

And the Winner is...

Contrary to rumours which Jeff at SNP Tactical voting was starting to circulate Mike Rumbles is not the new leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats. That honour with 59% of the first preference votes goes to Tavish Scott. Ross Finnie was second with 21.3% with Mike Rumbles on 17.9%.

On a 61% turnout of party membership I hope that the winner does take onboard some of the issues and discussions raised by his opponents in taking hte party forward.

Leadership Campaign: Edinburgh Hustings 4 The Q&A Session

Yesterday I covered the opening speeches of the 3 candidates Mike Rumbles, Ross Finnie and Tavish Scott. Today I'll look at the answers they gave to the 10 questions that ended up being put to them from the floor. Plus take a brief look at the impact this hustings seemed to have on some of the people present. (If the question setters are reading this and I haven't totally accurately reported the question I trust I have the main thrust of what you asked.)

Q1. Given that this is likely to be only a 19 day honeymoon period between the naming of our leader and the announcement of another party's group leader in Holyrood how will the candidates make the most of this period of focus on our new leader?

Mike said his campaign was about change and that would be picked up by the media when he won. Ross said when he won a different approach would be the theme, his working with the party to create a new narrative, which he expected would start quickly after the result. Tavish said that the next day he would name the three keys issues affecting Scotland and challenge the SNP government on their policies in these areas.

Q2. Asked how the candidates would respond should the Calman Commission differ in view from the Steel Commission.

Ross started by pointing out until Calman reported this was a hypothetical question, but pointed out that the Steel Commission pointed out that the greatest weakness devolved Scotland had from other federal systems was the lack of taxation powers. He was hopeful that rather than differ Calman would merely add more detail to this and other areas. Tavish said that if they differed he wanted to make the Lib Dems a vital part of the debate for a) a strengthened Parliament, if Calman was weak on this aspect he would oppose those moves and b) to ensure a responsible balance sheet. Mike said it would not be an either/or question should it arise, but that the party should not abandon Lib Dem beliefs. Therefore if Calman Commission is liberal and democratic in the right direction he would back it.

Q3. How do the candidate marry our green environmental thrust with the current fuel problems facing the population?

Tavish admitted there has been a tightening in the economy but that climate change still matters. Energy was an important debate and recently nuclear energy was returning to the table from people who hadn't been advocating it previously. He said that as we watch the Olympics we may well be getting a visual aid as to the importance of seeking cleaner energy, but said that the SNP's fund cutting for research into alternative energies was wrong as there was no better time for this funding to be there. Ross said the issue was bigger than merely energy but our failure to live sustainably. We shouldn't allow the excuse that energy is a difficult problem to be solved to overshadow our own failings. We need to be pushing for better resource management. Mike said we have a moral imperative to strive of greener energy solutions as well as the management of our resources.

Q4: Asked the candidates how they would set about the management of the party ensuring the Lib Dems had better results and a higher profile.

Mike said this would be achieved by having a clear message, which we have lacked. He would empower membership more and encourage debate, just because we have a policy on something doesn't mean we can't revisit it and debate it again as times and issues change. Tavish said we needed to work on the linkages between the high profile Holyrood representative and the grassroots. He said MSPs spend too much time working on their 4 minute speeches which received minimum coverage and needed to get out to the local parties where the real issues were affecting real people. Ross put his hand up to admit that recently the party has become Holyrood-centric. We don't have the mechanism in place at present to allow us to oppose the SNP in one place in the Royal Mile while working with them in partnership slightly further up the hill. He aims to make the sum of the many parts greater than the whole and make sure they work together.

Q5. (This was when the Leader of our City Council stole my question, sort of*) The SNP have mentioned entering discussions with us over implementing Local Income Tax (LIT) what did the candidates feel about that?

Ross said that he was not aware of any formal approaches from the SNP regarding talks on LIT. If however they do want to talk some preconditions would have to be set, most importantly that the rate has got to be set locally as with all previous local authority tax raising systems. Mike pointed out that John Swinney had spoken vigorously and voted against Tommy Sheridan's centrally set Service Tax replacement to council tax. What was the difference now? The whole point of LIT is about local decision making both in setting and spending the monies raised. Movement would need to be made by the SNP rather than the proposal to follow their LIT for a few years before moving to ours, that is not compromise. Tavish turned to the other two and the room while saying we want to get rid of the council tax. He said that the SNP have had 3 position on what they want to do to get rid of it in the last 4 days. He said he wouldn't believe the SNP proposal until he saw it in writing either in a policy proposal or a letter from the first minister outlying his proposals for discussion. However, what they currently are proposing isn't a Local Income Tax but a National Income Tax.

Q6. Was that in light of some other politicians would the candidates be guided by reason or religion?

Tavish said that ones own beliefs should remain that, personal. He added that it is a worrying sign if a politician like George W. or Tony Blair wore them on their sleeves. Ross agreed adding that anyone like him with strong religious belief has to draw a distinction between a secular political sphere and a personal religious belief. The two should not become blurred. Mike answered straight out that reason should the guide. Evidence, argument and persuasion are how you take people with you he said.

Q7. What would the candidates do to give us a national profile to help win target seats?

Ross reiterated our need for a clear narrative. Our policies and our values are relevant to Scotland. We just need to have an consistency and clarity to our message. Mike said we need a relevant message that grows. One that says why we're relevant and give people a reason to vote for us rather than merely not for someone else. Tavish echoed the others by saying we need a clear message and added we need to campaign locally. However, he did seem to stress too much the single importance of next year's European election naming the candidate who tops our list 3 times in quick succession.

Q8. Was a rambling question about the locality of paying LIT ie where it should be paid.

Mike started by saying we're proposing the fairest that we know but as nobody like tax you will always have someone trying to knock wholes in any system you try and introduce. Tavish said it need to be set locally and the fairest way to do that is based on where you live rather than the ramifications of doing it where you work. Ross said that of course residency is how we should collect our local council's tax, it was a fundamental unshakable principle. The highest degree of local autonomy is how we move forward. He also stressed that the SNP were arguing two different things firstly they wanted more powers devolved to Holyrood yet were taking it away from local authorities much as they complain Westminster does from them.

Q9. How do we embed economic liberalism? Less tax (the questioner put) was a good idea how do we achieve this?

Tavish started by saying that the size of government is overlarge, but the control of size sometimes clashes with our liberal instincts. He agreed with Nick that Gordon Brown has managed to make a complete mess of the tax system, as well as targeting the poorest unfairly who just exceed the threshold for paying, and that savings can be made through simplification. Mike said our taxes should provide like our supermarkets the best quality at the lowest price. We need sustainable economic growth and if we control it ourselves we'd have more control how how we can achieve that. Ross agreed it was a difficult balance, he often finds it hard reconciling Adam Smith and John Meynard Keynes yet they both are members of the party. He went on to say we aren't 'outcome' based on measuring our services, huge amounts of funds are misdirected and wasted but our government only looks at the amount spent rather than the effectiveness of the outcome of that spending.

Q10. Was a veering away from tax for the last question. It was on the issue of sport and how each candidate viewed it for the health of Scotland.

Ross said by saying just as there is word ad numeric illiteracy we have a whole generation that are growing up physically illiterate. People are out of the habit of getting physical activity, which aids cognitive ability, and we need to assist were possible. Mike said we have many good policies in this area but we have misused, misemphasised and miscommunicated them in the past. Tavish went on about the importance of bringing large events to Scotland as a key to encouraging greater involvement in sport (no offence to some of my fellow football fans but that isn't always the key).

Conclusion and Opinions

At the coffee break and afterwards I was mingling with some people and gauged a few responses. One person though that Tavish's speech was like a McDonald's meal, "It filled you up for 5 minutes but left you hungry." Several people had come with open minds and were tempted to change some of their voting intentions. The majority seemed to shift Tavish down the order with either Ross, Mike or both moving up. Although I did talk to one person who was moving Tavish up to their first preference.

I'll leave the last opinion to the son of Edinburgh Councillor Charles Dundas who has recently celebrated his first birthday. While sat amongst the candidates literature he seemed to think that all were highly disposable though contrary to his father endorsement he did hold onto and cuddle Ross Finnie's leaflet for longer than any before rejecting it too.

*My question on this theme would have been: In light of the reports in the Scotsman that the SNP are prepared to ditch a centrally set rate for LIT to invite us into talks with the aim of moving this policy (which they originally seemed to lift from us) forward. What is your view on 'entering talks' with the Nats on this or other future policy issues with some common ground?

Leadership Election: Edinburgh Hustings 2 Mike Rumbles

This morning the Scottish Liberal Democrat leadership candidates were addressing the members in the central belt, Edinburgh in the morning and Glasgow this afternoon. I attended the Edinburgh event armed with pen and not book to take copious notes in order to blog how the three fared in what I hope is a balanced way. The order in which they spoke was drawn by lot and after their 15 minute presentations (which the other two were not present for) all three returned to face questions from the floor. The order of today's blog entries will follow that order with Tavish Scott, Mike Rumbles, then Ross Finnie followed by a summary of the questions and answers given.

Mike Rumbles

Mike started by highlighting his career thus far and how he joined the party. He'd written off to all the parties to see which best suited his opinions on how to change the world. When he read up, without consulting anyone else he felt that the Liberal party was the one for him, so at 15 he called up to join, he second question was where could he meet other Liberal members in Jarrow, to be told he was the local party. He stressed the fact that he was not a career politician having trained as a teacher before joining the army where he spent 15 years in various postings. The military of course frown on political activism from its ranks, but he was allowed to keep his party membership just as long as he didn't tell anyone. So with a life outside politics and indeed outside the hurly burly of party political politics is how he was positioned before returning to party activism.

Mike stressed that now is a most important time for Liberal Democrats in Scotland and we have to allow decisions to be made as locally as possible. We are a party that has many policies that many people agree with but why are they not voting for us? Mike feels they don't know that we stand for what they believe in because we haven't been telling them, he doesn't want to wake up on election day ever again to think that PE in schools is the most important we have to say.

The SNP stand for independence, it's not as popular as they like to make out but at least the people know what they stand for. What about us? By the time we start to explain some of our thoughtful and worthwhile issues they have started to turn off. We need to express the things we stand for that are popular, liberal and easily articulated.

He then went on to state where he saw the party going and echoing Gladstone of old he advocates we should radically be the party calling for home rule for Scotland within the UK. Having a greater control of our own affairs, having greater responsibility for our actions. This, as he said, chimes far more favourably with the people of Scotland than independence or the status quo or even a step back. He wants to see Scotland change for the better. Ensuring that everyone has a decent affordable home. The health inequality across Scotland ceases to exist. Opposing ID cards but more importantly the data that the government wants to keep on us all in a growing surveillance state. Freedom outwith constant government interference. For example not banning under 21s from off sales but effective imposing the laws that are in place already. Promoting effective green measure as part of sustainable economic growth.

What Mike thinks the Scottish Lib Dems need is a unique, popular and effective message to take to the people. Our membership he acknowledges is low. To improve that he want members to be empowered to make important decisions. That will be meaningful debates at conference even on controversial issues.

What we need to a change is style of leadership. We have to acknowledge we are no longer governing Scotland. He admitted we, as a party, have made mistakes in the last year. We should learn to work with ideas we agree with and vigorously oppose those we don't

He concluded by saying the party needs a radical platform for change not continuity. The SNP have a false optimism over independence and Labour and Conservatives want to have devolution-lite. The Lib Dems if he were leading would be looking for powerful and effective Home Rule in Scotland within the UK.

The Leadership Campaign: Literature

OK I realise that tomorrow is the Edinburgh Leadership hustings for the leadership of the Scottish Liberal Democrats and I've so far been fairly quiet on that front. (Although there are 4 unpublished drafts back here which you lot can't see) Bernard Salmon has asked his questions and got his answers from the three aspirants. Both he and J. Arthur McNumpty also point out the sad state of online presence that this entire campaign seems to lack. So I'd thought I'd take an objective look at the literature that arrived on my doorstep last weekend along with my ballot paper (plus the one that Jim Wallace sent me on behalf of Tavish as I've forgotten which leaflet was which). I'm waiting for the comments tomorrow as I suspect I know who may be behind a couple of them.

Policy/Attitude to Leading:

This is clearly of vital importance when making a decision such as this. let's look at them one by one.

Tavish Scott: pretty light on details of policy, lists a number of key core Lib Dem value issues and a couple of non-controversial areas of policy we all agree on. Echos Nicol Stephen's leadership approach to leadership when he says he too will be out campaigning with local parties every week. focuses on his communication skills and strengths with little application of what these will achieve. Seems to be putting across a business as usual message, no change here, almost a complacent approach from the media perceived front runner.

Ross Finnie: Acknowledges that the 'political landscape is changing fast', that is though and that 'stormy waters' need to be navigated when necessary. These could apply both to the party and the parliament. He promises to take on the other parties on his terms, suggesting taking the fight on issues to them proactively rather than reactively and says he will position the Lib Dems to wins. Suggests that change may come.

Mike Rumbles: Goes further still acknowledges we're now in opposition, which he states needs a more robust sort of leadership. He's not afraid to mentioned 'perceived failings' at grass root and media level of the party in the past 14 months or so. Says he has a duty to listen, work with other party's where possible and oppose where that is needed. Also states that conference has lost its nerve to debate controversial issues and as a result the party may have lost its cutting edge. Not merely hinting change but saying it is most certainly required.

I think the three of them have set out pretty clear stalls on where exactly they stand as regards taking the party forward.

Supporters/CV:

Its always interesting to see the diversity of supporters given on the back page of these leaflets.

Starting with Mike who picks just 4 pictures each with comment, one each of MP, MSP, Councillor and ordinary member. Given them more prominence than his own political CV on the back page expressing a man of the people approach.

Ross has ten pictures, a couple of MSPs, Cllrs and ordinary members although some are ex-office bearers in Scotland. Three comments next to bigger pictures prominent at the top of what for his is a two sides A4 style leaflet. His CV is one the front. but bullet pointed reasons to vote below the supporters.

Tavish's list reads like a who's who it would appear that any elected official (and to be fair there is a fair number) who has pledged support is listed Lords, Ladies, MPs, MSP, Cllrs, PPCs, PSPCs. Even the 'ordinary members' are actually far from ordinary. Clearly presenting himself as the establishment candidate again.

Quotes:

Ok both Ross and Tavish mix a selection of press and members quotes. Of course very few of the press quotes give a clear context of just what they are about the name and some choice words heavily edited. Mike avoids these (honestly because the media don't like Mike and getting good quotes from them would be impossible).

However, I'm choosing one each of the members quotes which stand out because they aren't gushing the usual vitriol and hyperbole of politicianspeak (I guess that statement is also going to get me into trouble with friends who quotes I've not used below).

"Ross is just what a Liberal Democrat should be - warm and witty, and talking language we can all understand" Cllr Margot Clark

"They [the other parties] will know that they are not in for an easy ride with Mike as leader." Mike Pringle MSP

"I've been impressed with Tavish's ability to convey our message to the general public." Shabnum Mustapha PSPC Glasgow Cathcart

Pictures:

Obviously common themes though all three, the candidate campaigning, the candidate with some link to the fishing industry (from Tavish in waders with nets, through Mike with Crab pots, to Ross sampling and talking to industry employees) and the obligatory picture of them all in front of their named giant diamonds (they are elected Lib Dem MSPs after all). However, only the ones holding Tavish Scott diamonds seem shy in showing their faces. Not much difference in them all except Tavish has one of him in front of a media camera as if trying to assert that he is the only Lib Dem in the whole of Scotland with media training.

Facebook Canvassing

This is the first leadership campaign during which I've had a facebook presence, so I'm quite intrigued that this time instead of my email it is my facebook inbox that is getting the requests to support various candidates. Ironically this is despite me already pinning my colours firmly to the mast of another candidate and joining his Facebook group.

Obviously my Facebook Scottish Liberal Democrat friends are just sending to all their Lib Dem friends but surely a little bit of targetting e-leafletting wouldn't go amiss.

For the record I've had more Facebook supporters for Ross than Tavish trying to sway me away from Mike.

It's in the Name

Somebody surfed through to here last night looking for the meaning of Tavish. So my curiosity was spiked so I decided to look up the meaning of the three Liberal Democrat leadership candidates names.

Tavish is of Irish and Gaelic origin. A variant of Thomas therefore possibly 'twin', or may also be linked to 'teeve', an Irish word meaning hillside.

Ross is of Scottish and Gaelic origin, and its meaning is 'headland, cape'. A place name in Scotland. May also be derived from the Gaelic word for 'red'.

Michael for Mike is of Hebrew origin, and its meaning is 'who resembles God'.

So we'll either had a hillside, a headland or one who resembles God leading us forward. Considering the ruggedness of Scottish geography and politics not a bad array of names.

Then There Were Two; Third Maybe Fourth Expected

Ross Finnie said he had received a "very good measure of support" when he announced his intention to stand in the Scottish Liberal Democrat leadership election to succeed Nicol Stephen. He joins Mike Rumbles as those who have already thrown there hat into the ring.

He set out his stall by saying:

"I think that far too many people that I see and speak to began to wonder 'what is the Liberal Democrat message?', 'why should we trust the Liberal Democrats?', 'what do they stand for?'

"I think the new leader has a big job in ensuring everything we do, everything we say, every message, every time we appear on radio or television, we are actually saying something which people will resonate as being Liberal Democrat, and that we can rebuild the confidence that people will actually allow us to go forward as a credible party that could be considered for government."

The media are waiting for Tavish Scott to declare that he will stand and are also speculating that Jeremy Purvis may also enter the race to lead the Lib Dems North of the border.

Three Quarters Right

Well it looks like when I wrote this I was three quarters right.

Later today it is widely expected that Tavish Scott and Ross Finnie will both announce that they will be contesting the election for the leadership of the Scottish Liberal Democrats. They will join Mike Rumbles on the ballot paper for the STV one member one vote election which closes on 26 August.

Stephen's Step-down Shocker

I'll admit last night the news that Nicol Stephen had stepped down as leader of the Scottish Lib Dems still leaves me stunned.

Most of the recent leadership changes had not been out of the blue like this one. Jim Wallace had led a decent campaign into the 2005 General Election but felt it was time to go, Charles was a long drawn out affair which came to a head like a raging bull even though the BBC were calling me up for interview in the morning to support him still not a surprise, even Ming's short stint was back-dropped by ugly rumours from Westminster or knives being readied.

Nicol was young and as a result did have a young family and it was they, and his marriage to Caris, who have taken priority according to his resignation statement:

"Everyone involved in politics knows that there are stresses and strains on family life. But when it goes beyond that, when it crosses a line, something has to be done. And at that stage — when you have to make a choice between family and politics — there can only be one answer. The health and well being of your family has got to come first.

"With four children between the ages of 4 and 12, my family has got to be my priority."

I can fully empathise with him on that as everyone who knows me knows just what sort of personal toll the 2005 election took on me personally and how I've had to reappraise the balance of things since. In 2005 he stood out as the dynamic person to take our party on to the next challenge and I think he was the quickest candidate for leadership I've ever stepped forward to support, the day he announced I believe.

Yes he's had a tough time with the return to Scottish politics of Alex Salmond who overshadows so many others at Holyrood these days. But unlike Wendy Alexander he didn't appear to make doing much wrong, the issue over whether he should have at least talked to the SNP after last Mays elections aside.

So with the leader gone who is likely to be next. It has to be one of the other 15 MSPs in Holyrood under the party's rules who is the Leader of the Scottish Party.



The papers are already speculating that Tavish Scott the Enterprise Spokesperson is the strong favourite. He was the Minister of Transport up to last May, a role he followed Nicol Stephen into. Is he ready to follow Nicol's footsteps again? Well he has cabinet experience, was a loyal lieutenant of Nicol during his leadership election and is very similar in standpoint to Nicol. So if nothing has changed and the party still feel that the course we set out on is correct he would be an obvious heir.

On the negative side is the reason that Nicol resigned, as MSP for Shetland Tavish with his three young children will have to consider the balance between his family and the demands on him should he become leader, the same trouble may well be too much for him. It is a sad situation that the party has this past year lost one leader due to him being perceived as too old and another though young due to family pressures. However, if he weighs it up and considers he can strike the right balance his would be a strong contender.


Already declaring he will stand againis Mike Rumbles the only challenger to Nicol 3 years ago. He stood on a distinct platform from Nicol then and though seen as a bit of a maverick is not scared of straight talking and laying out his stall. Having taken 23.4% of the vote last time he said last night;

"I am heartened by the numbers of people contacting me and asking me to stand. Having stood before I am ready to do it again. I feel I have a lot to offer the party."

It may be possible that a strong voice is just what the party needs against the pugnaciousness of Mr Salmond. Mike would certainly not be easy fodder for the First Minister on a Thursday at FMQs, The two of them could conceivably go toe to toe. While single mindedness can be an asset at times is it the right mindset for the leader of a democratic party where he would have to follow the policy decided by the party at large. Mike has been at the forefront of shaping some of that in the past occasionally against the majority of his Parliamentary colleagues. That of course doesn't make his course wrong as visionaries often stand out alone, just look at Churchill before War broke out, it could be a brave and courageous step if the party went for Rumbles.

Casting my eye of the rest of the party after the obvious two I can see possibly only two other people with a serious chance of taking on the challenge, of course I may be proved wrong.



Of the rest I see Iain Smith as the strongest other potential candidate. Iain is greatly admired throughout the party has held junior minister roles in Holyrood as well as leading positions in the party. He would make a little bit of history if he were to stand and win as he would be the first opening gay leader of any major political party in the UK. Iain has learnt from a master as his Westminster Parliamentary colleague in North East Fife is Menzies Campbell for whom he was constituency agent and organiser. The one thing that may prevent Iain from standing is potentially the fact that he is seen by many as a natural successor to step up to Westminster when Ming finally retires from his seat. if he were to stand however I could well see Ian being a dark horse that might upset the pundits predictions.



The only other contender I could see emerging from the pack could be Ross Finnie the former Rural Development Minister. He served as Minister for the full first eights years of the Scottish Parliament a feat only matched by Jack McConnell. He was in charge of Scotland's good handling of the food and mouth outbreak in 2001, as well as taking the fight of Scottish fisheries to the EU. Although having undergone heart by-pass surgery 4 years ago Ross may well consider the top seat in the party in Scotland may be too much for him and his health, he certainly is a man with enough experience to take the party forward.

So apart from Mike Rumbles we have yet to see who will step up to plate though that may become slightly clearer later today once others talk to family and friends and consider their positions.