Moving on.

I’ve been thinking about how to tackle this blog both in the immediate short term and over the course of the next few years. What I’ve decided not to do, at the moment at least, although this may change, is to launch into a lecture by lecture regurgitation. I think that would quickly become stale and even more uninteresting than I intend it to be. So, periodically, it’s my intention to update this hallowed blawg with my amateurish insights into the Scottish Legal System, pertinent in this semester Scottish Criminal Law and Scottish Legal Methods. This will, of course, be in addition to anything that happens to catch my eye in current affairs, sufficient to annoy me enough to rant about it on here. I call this the Warsi principle.

We’re now in week 3 and I’ve just come back from my 3^rd lecture on Criminal Law. I’m not sure I can speak for every student of law in this regard; however I have to say that the subject matter at hand is sufficiently fascinating to ensure that the lectures fly by. Already we’ve covered acts which should and should not be covered by criminal law (the harm principle, morality etc), the actus reus (the criminal act), mens rea (the behavioural element), defences, strict liability, crimes against property and art and part liability.

One thing that’s caught my eye thus far is how dynamic criminal law in Scotland can be. Scots Criminal Law is governed not primarily by statute, but by common law. The most obvious crimes (and by that I mean crimes which are clearly criminal in themselves – ‘mala in se’ – such as murder, fire-raising, theft etc) are not primarily governed by statute (by acts of parliament) but have been developed through case law over many years through setting precedent.

There are obvious advantages and disadvantages to this form of law making. There is an argument from a political point of view that it is in itself undemocratic. However, I see the lack of immediate political input as an advantage.

Politicians are likely to complicate matters and often make matters unintentionally worse. With common law, legal experts are able (free of outside interference or fear of backlash) to honestly and impartially judge each case on the facts and make a judgment based on the evidence and the context of the case in front of them. They are then able to set guidelines based on the case in question which can be used in guidance for future cases similar in nature.  

However, the High Court in Scotland has a rather controversial (if very rarely used) power to declare an act as criminal – known as the ‘Declaratory Power’. Technically, (and I say technically as it’s a power last used in 1838 and now contravenes Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights) the High Court has the power to declare an act which was not hitherto criminal, a criminal offence and deal with it accordingly.

Whilst this power to retrospectively declare an act a criminal offence was, as I mentioned, last used in the case of Greenhuff (1838), Lord Cockburn’s dissenting view is of great interest in that he stated that the Court should not declare a new criminal act, but to judge whether a criminal act had been committed in a new way. Thus, years later ‘joyriding’ was not a new offence when cars became more commonly used (and stolen and left in fields), but was recognised as coming within the remit of the crime of theft.

To wind up then, why is any of this of any importance? Well it offers the basis of my understanding of Scots Law and how I aim to progress. The wonder of law is how dynamic it can be, the great debates that are had, the differing legal perspectives in judgments and how the courts play such a vital role in allowing the criminal law to remain effective when new scenarios are brought in front of them. Contrast that with the rigidity of a system which would try cases on the basis of a laid out set of criteria which had no scope for deviation.

I’ve not touched on everything I’ve learned thus far. In fact the intention of this post was to ramble on about art and part liability – but that can wait. Overall I think I’m getting a grasp of what is an entirely new discipline and I’m enjoying it thus far. Over the course of the weeks ahead I’m hoping that I can offer more of an insight into my thoughts of how my understanding fits with more pertinent events as they come up.

Any advice on how I should progress this blawg would of course be welcome, so too the pointing out of any glaring inaccuracies. :o)

A new beginning!

Today I began a new, and hopefully fruitful, chapter of my life as I attended the LL.B induction at Strathclyde University. I decided to walk to the University (about an hour’s walk from my house) as I wanted to clear my head and think about what lies ahead, not only over the course of the day, and over the course of the next year, but beyond.

It’s fair to say at this stage that my aspiration is to be a Solicitor. Now there are numerous avenues of law in which to practice although on my walk this morning I was thinking more along the lines of Criminal Law. Doesn’t everyone? It is probably the most reported area of law in the media and numerous television shows and movies have been made about courtroom dramas. However, I thought about the other areas in which I’m likely to be interested and the more I thought, the more I got excited. Whilst this is undoubtedly going to be challenging and incredibly time consuming, like everything else, if the work goes in then the rewards are boundless.

That said, I think it’s fair enough to suggest that my feet are well and truly on the ground in terms of my ambition and what I expect. My own financial outlay is considerable and therefore I feel more effort has to go in, in order to justify this expenditure. It’s a good focus point. Anytime I feel I may procrastinate I might just dig out the invoice! My social life is also going to take a hit. However, in the immediate short term (at least) it is my intention to keep a Saturday evening free. I work Monday to Friday and my classes are Tuesday and Thursday (6-8) together with Saturday tutorials. I’m not expecting (nor do I want) an easy ride.

So with all these thoughts twirling around in my head I entered Strathclyde University for the first time as a registered student and I was impressed. I was impressed by the staff, the dedication of the people who will teach me and mark my work. 

Thereafter, I left a lot more encouraged than I was before I arrived. That isn’t to say that I expect it to be easier. Far from it. However I am confident that as I put the hours in, the rewards in terms of grades will come naturally.

Moving on then, what awaits me over the next Semester? Well on Tuesdays, accompanied by a 169 page handbook) I’ll attend Criminal Law lectures. The details are on MyPlace and, geek that I am, I’ve already done some basic reading in preparation. I’m really looking forward to this course and just can’t wait to get started – although ask me about this in a month’s time! On Thursday, it’s Legal Methods.  I’m also looking forward to this class.

Overall then, I’m positive about this. I think I’ll learn a lot, not just about the law but also about the discipline of studying law – which is as much a motivating factor for me as anything else. I’ve always been struck by a lawyer’s attention to detail and their analytical mind. This is something I aim to learn and develop over time. I am also hopeful that I will acquire a more critical mind, but more than anything else I hope I build on my current skills and start to “think like a lawyer”.

Finally, the workload doesn’t frighten me or put me off. In fact I embrace it. I remember an episode of the west wing in which President Bartlett spoke of throwing a cap over an insurmountable wall – forcing yourself to either climb it or lose your cap. This is how I feel. Any procrastination or slacking will be ruthlessly exposed and I’ll fail – deservedly so! So I’m throwing my cap over the big wall and getting ready for a new, but exciting challenge in my life. I look forward to the new found knowledge, the experience and the new friends I hope to make along the way.

I hope you’ll share my journey with me, in the form of this blawg! :o)

A personal, therapeutic post.

Growing up, I had two dads. Both the same person, but still, I had two dads.

Sadly, I grew to like the unhealthier, weaker role model of a dad better than the sober, stern father I disliked as the authoritarian, clandestine alcoholic suffering withdrawal symptoms, harsh and irrational (although never violent)! I’ve grown, even still, to facilitate the former. I’ll come back to that. Like all father and son relationships – it’s complex.

Much of my peer group from my adolescent years are dead. By peer group I mean friends of my dad. Succumbed, one and all, to the demons of their own personal illness. Some may say weakness, some addiction, there are numerous definitions. Me, I see illness. An illness which pervades society irrespective of social class, personal strength, employment status or whichever label those of their own bias attribute to it. It’s an illness!

The reason I write this blog is that, for the first time in my life, I have had to reconcile myself with the fact that I will lose my dad prematurely. I will lose him through alcohol. It will likely be on a random day in which I least expect it – called to a hospital and, if I’m lucky, I’ll  have a chance to say goodbye. He’ll never cure himself, he has no genuine desire to. There are always obstacles, there always new “friends” dragging him down, there is unemployment (a state he’s been in most of my life) but there is just simply the fact he is an alcoholic and he’s not wanting to be cured.

Well he has, he’s tried, I’ve seen it and I’ve liked the dad I got to know, briefly, when he was completely sober. Alas, in my 31 years, I make the record of complete sobriety to be about 8 weeks. Heart-breakingly, the last time I saw him sober for any duration was this time last year. I liked him. I liked the dad, the real dad, the one I never actually got to know – or ever will. I’ve surrendered myself now to this, make what I can of what I have, for I’ll always be the son of two dads – never the third.

Never the third I liked immensely and who would have been a pleasure to grow up with as a positive role model. That’s not to say I don’t love them all, I do. Even the stern dad is one I can understand. I never could as a child, but I can now.

I write this for therapeutic reasons alone. Sometimes it’s good to get thoughts on a bit of white paper and let your thoughts take you where you may not otherwise go. I’ve tried tough love.

Once I told my dad all this. I told him that I never really got to know him, as usual he had a drink in him. I’ve come to realise that’s his most natural state. However I did tell him I love him. I can’t do tough love. He is what he is. I can only be a son and I can only hope, as unlikely as it is, that one day he will realise he needs help and goes wherever he needs to go, and that they can help. I can’t, we can’t as a family. I, we, are part of the problem. I/we facilitate. As I say, I/we can’t do tough love.

This has not been an easy, or eloquent post. However I hope that in some way there may be someone, somewhere like I was 10 years ago, who can see beyond the “shame” of an alcoholic father and realise that not only are you not him, but that you should never fear being defined as your parent. My Mother is the finest, most upstanding and honourable person I know and yet I see myself as my Dad – or as the potential to be him. All things said, I’d never deny him, he’s in all forms a good man, but he is defined by his weakness. He allows himself to be.

I can only hope, yet may fail, that I remain the person I was in my adolescence that saw the negative role model I had and chose to lead a different life. Time will tell. That’s not to say I am not thankful for the role he’s played in my life, there have been numerous kindnesses and a lot of love. I’m just now at the point I feel desperately sad for I feel this is now an illness that I can reconcile myself with in terms of how he is, but sadly, he never will. If I’m right, well this will be his eulogy.

I pray, still, that I am wrong.

Complaint to the BBC

A copy of my complaint to the BBC, regarding their slur on the Celtic Support during the Scottish Cup Final programme on 21st May 2011.

I would like to complain, in the strongest possible terms, about comments made by Rob McLean and Pat Nevin during half time in the Scottish Cup Final programme, pertaining to alleged "sectarian singing" by a section of the Celtic Support.

This allegation was baseless and unsubstantiated, yet was afforded a full discussion, effectively tainting the Celtic Support with unfounded accusations of sectarian behaviour. I would ask, under what authority Messrs McLean and Nevin commented on alleged singing, which they admit they didn't hear. McLean himself mentioned "reports from outside the ground". Is it BBC editorial policy to comment on and give credence to uncorroborated reports with no right of reply?

I also note that in response to previous complaints on alleged sectarian singing from the Rangers Support in the CIS Cup Final, made available to me, your department averred that  "...it is not and has never been custom and practice for our commentators to offer opinions on chants from the crowd. They are there to describe the game."

I would be grateful if you could point me in the direction of the editorial change to those guidelines - or clarify if they were in fact changed on a whim by a commentator. If the latter is true, I believe this calls the impartiality of said commentator into question.

I believe that the BBC, this season, are open to the allegation of having acted openly and clearly to an anti Celtic editorial line, devoid of any notion of neutrality. This allegation, given the above, was given further vindication during yesterday's programme.

As a licence fee payer and a Celtic Supporter, I would ask that Messrs McLean and Nevin apologise for clearly deviating from their remit as commentators and bringing your guidelines into disrepute. I would, further, request that a clear and unequivocal apology is offered to the Celtic Support for this groundless slur as a matter of urgency.

I look forward to your response.

A personal tribute to David Cairns, MP

I’ve debated whether or not to post a blog on the premature and tragic death of David Cairns, MP for Inverclyde. However, as a former constituent and someone who previously campaigned alongside him, I feel it may be therapeutic to get some thoughts on paper.

A lot has been said of David, and it is to his eternal and deserving credit that he has been universally recognised as a man of great intellect, humour and undoubted integrity. Many of us on Twitter have lost a man of great and cutting wit. I can say that, in what I knew of David, his twitter account was reflective of his personality and that has been corroborated by those who knew him most.

Moreover, the universal praise being bestowed on David is awe inspiring. The Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, his colleagues and friends from all parties have united in one to praise a good man, who was in politics for the right reasons.

All of these things, from the various times of having met him, I can testify to. However I would go one step further. David never took the voters for granted. He genuinely believed he had to work for every vote – however he did that, not just in campaigning at election time, but by being an MP that any constituent would be proud to have. He made it a point not only to say that he represented all of his constituents, regardless of how they voted, but consciously and assiduously did so!

David held the safe seat of Greenock and Inverclyde from 2001, with a majority consistently around the 13,000 mark – increasing to 14,000 in 2010. A personal endorsement of the man!

He will, to varying degrees, be missed by a great number of people. I am one of them.

Rest in Peace, David – the bhoy from Broomhill Court who became a Minister of State.

What next?

As polling day approaches, and with only the benefit of opinion polls at my disposal, I’d like to spend a bit of time following up on my previous blog in terms of the ‘primary’ discussion.

In my previous blog I suggested that the predominance of safe Labour First Past The Post (FPTP) seats in the Scottish Parliament has had a detrimental effect on the party’s ability to provide opportunities to new, up and coming politicians more attuned to the modern day campaign.

I rhetorically asked whether someone elected in 1999 could still, in 2011, after 12 years in a safe seat, offer the same intellectual input into modern political debate – particularly if that person has offered little more than a backbench position in a parliament of 129 MSPs.

That said, I’m a supporter of FPTP, although I do accept that it does – on occasion – offer the problem of creating safe seats. Needless to say that AV does not in any significant way solve this problem.

However, I believe that whilst any member of a party will strive to be selected for a safe seat and the parties themselves love having them, it can in ways offer a pyrrhic victory in terms of that party’s quest to remain relevant and in government.

This is best illustrated by the Scottish Parliament in which of 129 seats, 72 are  FPTP and the bulk of which (until tomorrow) are safely Labour.

Is Labour’s position strengthened by its reliance on the army of FPTP MSPs it can rely on? My contention is that, not only is the answer to that question no, it is in fact detrimental to the party and offers an almost insurmountable obstacle to identifying and nurturing new talent.

I'll mention no names, however it is likely that the same old faces, doing very little, will be elected on the basis of a labour rosette tomorrow evening, whilst some very talented people are rejected by the electorate. Is that any way for a party to progress?

If the opinion polls are correct and the SNP do in fact win, then that may be as a result of a system that allows the SNP to remain dynamic and to nurture talent, whilst the Labour Party stagnates with, by and large, the same faces since 1999.

Incidentally, I use the Scottish Labour Party as an immediate example, however the problem of safe seats offered the same problems to the Conservative pre-1997!  

Therefore, I contend that every party should consider a means of implementing some degree of ‘primary’ system throughout the Country. This will, in my opinion, be of benefit to parties with safe seats, if done properly.

Involving the electorate prior to the election itself could reinvigorate a system currently considered stale and party orientated. It isn’t right that only a small selection of people (a local party membership) can select someone for a safe seat. It leads to lobby fodder and generic candidates who know what to say and when to say it.

The Labour Party has particularly bitter experience in this regard and should embrace the primary idea. The Conservatives have done so with some reward!

I have consciously lived through two proper Labour Leadership elections. Blair and Ed Miliband. You’ll note a leader in between.  A leader responsible for a defeat similar to that suffered by Michael Foot in 1983 in terms of percentage share of the vote. The same leader who did all he possible could to avoid a leadership election when the then PM Tony Blair resigned.

Accountability is key! The days of preservation of political self interest, particularly for the labour party given the example just outlined, should be over! No person, regardless of their devotion or servitude to a party, should be guaranteed a place in parliament! That is the sole preserve of the electorate!

I, for one, am sick of a party system being used to engineer certain people of adequate sycophancy or servitude to a party message, being elected to seats for which they will rarely be held truly to account.

A primary system, open to an electorate outwith party membership, could be a truly revolutionary development in modern day UK politics. I believe this will serve two purposes;

Firstly, it will allow political parties a wider and more positive scope for selecting potential candidates.

Secondly, it will bring forward a new group of people who may not necessarily feel the need to conform to narrow party political prejudice or its leadership, but more to the concerns of the electorate at large - even the diverse electorate of the beneficiary party in any given safe seat!

There will be many people in this country who do not particularly like or associate with their MP/MSP but who will, through loyalty to a party (and fear of another party), vote for that person. Now if that’s the case in a single seat, what worth does that representative have to the Country and, overall, to the well being of his or her party?

Come tomorrow, I think the Scottish Labour Party may have a serious period of introspection on its hands and the aforementioned idea should be considered in the up and coming debate. That said, the problems outlined are not the sole preserve of the Scottish Labour Party and should be equally considered in the aftermath of the failed AV referendum.

Let's have a debate on the electoral system, but most importantly, let that debate take place outwith the flawed pretext that AV is the only reform in town.

The end is nigh...

Napoleon once said “...never interrupt your enemy when he’s in the middle of making a mistake” and I’m certain that this message was relayed to SNP campaign offices across the Country. In truth, Alex Salmond, the First Minister, has not had much to do in terms of gaining the initiative. He has looked measured, assured and confident throughout this campaign.

This is in stark contrast to the display of prospective First Minister Iain Gray whose campaign will be terminally associated with seeking refuge in a Subway store, in full view of the TV cameras. Perhaps the defining moment in an otherwise lacklustre campaign, together with poor performances in the TV debates. Tonight’s STV poll showing an SNP lead of 18% in the constituency vote will have a few Labour MSPs sweating this evening.

However, having cast a critical eye over the campaigns of all parties I’d make the following observations. In terms of credibility, both the SNP and the Scottish Conservatives come out (irrespective of the end result) with their reputations enhanced. The SNP have produced a solid, efficient and effective campaign and have managed to portray their message as one of hope, positivity and vision. Admittedly, they’ve not been held to a great deal of scrutiny, however it is now increasingly likely they will be rewarded with a second mandate to govern.

The Conservatives, ably led by the affable Annabel Goldie, have gained respect for their unapologetic message that certain policies in Scotland are unsustainable – most notably the issue of Higher Education funding. There is an admirable honesty in giving the electorate a message they may not want to hear. Whilst this is unlikely to be rewarded to any great extent this election, the Conservatives have at least re-positioned themselves as a credible political movement in Scotland.

Moving onto the Lib Dems – led by the amiable, relatively articulate, but somewhat ineffective Tavish Scott. Mr Scott’s message to the country has been that his Scottish Lib Dems are a different entity to the National Lib Dems and that he would safeguard certain policies, such as the now infamous pledge not to increase tuition fees. Unfortunately, this is a message likely to fall on deaf ears. Too long were the Liberal Democrats able to pontificate from the sidelines and make pledges on which they were never likely to be held to account. The Scottish Lib Dems are irrevocably associated with the toxic brand of the Clegg deceit on the one fundamental issue which gained them support in previous elections. The electorate will simply look at the protestations of the Scottish Lib Dem leader and disregard them. Once bitten, twice shy.

This leads onto the “doorstep campaign” being waged by thousands of labour activists the length and breadth of Britain. The commitment of these voluntary foot soldiers is deserving of great credit. However, the comrades have been badly let down throughout this campaign by their leadership.

They were not helped by the aforementioned subway incident; they were not helped by the Andy Kerr performance on Newsnight in which he single handedly demolished the party’s mandatory sentencing for knife carrying policy; and, most importantly, they were not helped by an appalling, unapologetically negative campaign based on a re-run of the 2010 General Election and the subsequent relaunch of the unsuccessful 2007 campaign. To use a Geoffrey Howeism – it is rather like sending your opening batsmen to the crease, only for them to find, as the first balls are being bowled, that the team captain is back in the shop as he bought the wrong kind of bat in the first place!

This election will be, if polls are correct, a bitter pill for the Scottish Labour Party to swallow and I make no apologies for saying this. Too long have they been open to the accusation that they take the Scottish electorate for granted. This will be denied, but what other conclusions can be drawn from a campaign based on demonising the UK Government in a Scottish Parliamentary Election?

What other conclusions can be drawn from a party which sends its brightest and best to Westminster? With no disrespect intended, whilst one can easily envisage a UK Cabinet consisting of Alex Salmond, I have great difficulty envisaging likewise of anyone on the current Scottish Labour front bench. Moreover, one must ask why Cathy Jamieson saw fit to swap the front benches of the Scottish Parliament for the backbenches of Westminster?

Every party will have something to learn from these elections, but it is often the party with most to lose that has most to learn. A loss for Scottish Labour this week should precipitate a clear out throughout the Scottish Parliamentary Party. There are too many Labour MSPs who have been sitting on safe seats for too long, offering very little in return for their generous parliamentary salary. Come the next election, there will be more than enough Labour MSPS who will have been in their seats for 17 years and undoubtedly seeking a further 4 year term. That would be unacceptable.

Post election, the Labour Party should embrace the now seemingly forgotten issue of local primaries in every Constituency in Scotland – whether or not that seat has a sitting Labour MSP. In fact,  especially if it does!The whole electorate should be given the opportunity to vote – not just the small group of labour party members – and candidates should be encouraged from all sections of society. If sitting MSPs are strong enough to retain their seats then they will do so, otherwise – they will not.

For the sake of the Labour Party in Scotland, the days of incumbent MSPs (and MPs) sitting in safe seats until they stand down or lose a selection vote should be numbered.  Every party should be open to bringing in new, fresh people with ideas relevant to the modern day campaign. Otherwise there will be stagnation, loss of political relevance and perennial election defeats. As long as Scottish Labour continue to fight the battles of the past and wage negative campaign warfare on an electorate looking for vision and ideas – the longer it will remain in opposition.

An Inaugural Welcome!

Welcome to my inaugural blog post.

I aim to use this blog to muse on areas of importance to me; including politics, law, football and the odd piece of random information thrown therein. I hope you enjoy my posts and that you will become a frequent visitor. The purpose of this post is not merely an introduction to myself and my blog, but also a small (mischievous) commentary on the Scottish political scene as I see things emerging, following the Scottish Parliamentary Elections in May.

As a brief aside, I aim to use this blog as objectively and as free of party political bias as I possibly can. This is because, due to a hectic work schedule and hope of studying for the LLb from September, any political activism will (in the immediate short to medium term) take a back seat as I set off on a new direction in life. As the name may suggest, it is my intention to utilise this blog as a means of diarising my progress through the part time law degree at the University of Strathclyde – which is, in 6 months time, set to eviscerate my free time and obliterate my budget.

However, as I imagine similar to all political geeks, one of the main passions in my life manifests itself at times of national elections. In Scotland, we are set to elect the 129 parliamentarians who will control the Scottish budget, set the domestic legislative agenda and blame Westminster for everything that goes wrong – including things of their own doing! This will be the 4^th Scottish Parliamentary Election, with the SNP the incumbent minority government.

With my holiday booked for the day after the election (yes, I am that sad!) I am now looking forward to a hard fought campaign. That said, it is my supposition that the real action will begin when the results have been announced and, for the fourth time, no party is in a position to form a majority administration. For those not familiar with Scottish politics, the Nationalists currently form a minority government under the Leadership of Alex Salmond. Polls, up until recently, have suggested that Labour held a commanding lead in the polls and were set to become the largest party. Not anymore.

An opinion poll for the Scotland Debates programme on Scottish Television last night found that 37% favoured the current First Minister as the man to retain the job; Annabel Goldie (Con) came second with 9% (technically ‘undecided’ and ‘none of the above’ came 2^nd and 3^rd respectively); Iain Gray (Lab) with 7% and Tavish Scott (Lib Dem) on 2%. Further Opinion Polls show that Labour and the SNP are effectively neck and neck.

This got me thinking. It is quite possible that, on May 7^th, the Labour Party are returned as the largest party but quite some distance short of an overall majority. The SNP may be a handful of seats short of Labour. Now don’t turn off when I divulge my next thoughts, for I feel they are worthy of some consideration and, in a land in which the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats can sit relatively comfortably in Government, anything is possible in terms of the dark art of coalition.

This will undoubtedly be anathema to activists of both parties, but sometime in May, I envisage the announcement of an SNP led administration, propped up by their friends and allies – the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, led by Annabel Goldie.

Still here? I’m aware there will be those of a Nationalist persuasion who would sooner direct their vital organs in the direction of an active blender, than give this any serious consideration. For the record, I’m equally sure of Tory activists who’d happily plug it in. However there are dual benefits and if you give this scenario a bit of thought then it isn’t that unlikely – particularly if Labour are returned as the largest party!

The Nationalists want to stay in power and they want a referendum on the Constitution which includes the option of Independence. It’s a referendum I believe they’re likely to lose. If such a demand were to be made by the SNP on condition of forming a coalition, it is one the Conservatives could accede to, not only on the basis of the AV referendum currently taking place in the UK, but also for an overarching, multi option referendum – with independence and further powers on the ballot paper. The Nationalists get their elusive referendum, the Tories get into power whilst securing a referendum on their policy of additional powers for the parliament. Oh, and they both keep Labour out of power.

The Conservatives would, in my seemingly implausible scenario, find themselves in a position that was thought impossible on the formation of this parliament – back in government. Albeit this would be as the junior partner in a coalition, but it would afford them the opportunity to prove their worth to the people of Scotland.

The Scottish Conservatives do not, in my opinion, currently enjoy the support of Scottish Conservative electors. I am not convinced the number of Tories in Scotland amounts to 15% of the electorate (latest poll rating) and they’ve languished in political obscurity since their wipe out in 1997.

If such a Government progressed on traditionally strong conservative themes such as law and order, together with competent ministers such as Annabel Goldie, then the seeds of a Tory recovery may emerge. Align that to a potentially wounded SNP on the loss of a referendum and there is a means to foresee a realignment of Scottish voting intentions in the future – particularly given the additional exposure Scottish Tory ministers would have.

So, 2011 is fine and as I say I’m looking forward to the election campaign and the results. However, beyond that has the potential to change the Scottish political dynamic irreversibly from 2015. If, between 2011 and 2015 the Scottish Constitutional question is settled in the form of a no vote to independence – then the SNP would be discredited as a viable political alternative in Scotland and the matter would be settled for a generation or more, allowing the Scottish Tories an avenue back into the electoral mainstream.

Then again, the people might vote yes – which just does away with the SNP!