So it looks as though the SNP and the Greens have come to some sort of deal, something just short of a proper coalition. But I’m with Shuggy — I don’t really understand what’s in it for them.

Obviously it can give the SNP two extra votes in the Scottish Parliament. But it is only two votes, and still far short of a majority. An SNP–Green coalition is not a good deal stronger than an SNP minority administration.

Meanwhile, I am really scratching my head as to why the Greens want to get involved. When coalition talks started, there was a joke (or was it a joke? Was it real?) that the Greens had two conditions. Those conditions were no more nuclear and fewer carbon emissions — which are both already SNP policies anyway.

If the Greens wanted to maximise their influence (as you would assume they would), you would expect them to at least ask for something a bit more radical, like no second Forth Road Bridge. Obviously no deal would be made in those circumstances because it would make both the SNP about as electorally popular as Hitler, particularly in Fife. But it would be a good starting point for the Greens.

But I’ve not heard anything about demands made by the Greens, besides a few “disagreements about transport policies”, which is a bit vague. It sounds like the Greens are giving up a lot for the sake of not a lot of power (because it would still be a minority administration).

I guess both the Greens and the SNP are hoping that the Lib Dems will come to the table. Their original stance was principled, but the fact that they are refusing to even talk about it is beginning to make them look petulant.

After all, as has been pointed out by many people, any referendum on independence would probably be lost. And a multi-question referendum would give the Lib Dems the perfect opportunity to campaign for more fiscal federalism in Scotland. Even though these issues are technically reserved matters, the debate that would be initiated could also open to door to a campaign to resolve the West Lothian Question via a federal solution in Westminster.

Moreover, there is the fact that the SNP and the Lib Dems are so damn similar, apart from the issue of independence. Would it not, for instance, be a good opportunity to implement a form of Local Income Tax, which both parties favour over the current system?

Meanwhile, those rumours that the Lib Dems’ refusal to talk is really being dictated by Gordon Brown don’t go away. I don’t know how true it is. But the very idea makes me quite uncomfortable, and for as long as the Lib Dems refuse even to talk about it, it begins to look true.

Back to the SNP, and Holyrood Watcher has noted how the SNP now face the harsh realities that come with actually being in power. Compromises to be made, and the fact that there are scarce resources (I sense this is a particular weak point for the SNP!).

The one solid Green demand — to go ahead with Edinburgh’s tram scheme — is uncomfortable for the SNP to take on board. And the SNP appear to be learning that increasing spending in one area involves opportunity costs, ie. decreasing spending in another area. Doh! Why didn’t they think of that before?

Update: Just as I finished writing this post, I saw this from Brian Taylor:

So what is this deal? The SNP and the Greens agree that - they won’t build any new nuclear power stations; they’ll introduce a law to cut climate-change pollution year on year (instead of vague longer-term targets); and they’ll “work to extend the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament.”

Ha! In other words, no nuclear and fewer carbon emissions. ie. the Greens have extracted bugger all from the SNP. Oh well. And that wording, “work to extend the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament” — very weak, don’t you think? The Lib Dems would like to do that as well. It looks to me like this the plan — to bring the Lib Dems on board.

Update: Having read the actual agreement (PDF), it is actually a bit stronger than that. It mentions ‘independence’ and contains a strong hint that a referendum is still on the cards.

Smoking out the big (West Lothian) question. Apparently, “The only way to solve it once and for all would be to have no more Scottish MPs at Westminster and a fully independent Scottish state.” Er, no it’s not. How about devolved assemblies for England? (Via.)

John Reid was apparently the one who didn’t want a blanket ban on smoking in public places in England. The legislation, though, won’t affect his constituents anyway. Three cheers for democracy!

Murky has received replies from his MP and the Department for Constitutional Affairs — the latter is almost identical to the one I received.

A third reply to my letter to my MP came today (incidentally, there are brand new Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath letterheads!). This one came with a copy of a letter from unelected Charlie Lord Falconer of Thoroton.

“I don’t think there’s a real groundswell for change,” he once said regarding making my vote count. In my letter, after the initial “thank you for your letter” shite, he said:

Regarding Mr Stephen’s first concern [making my vote count], I can confirm that an internal review is currently underway within my Department, which will review the new electoral systems introduced for the devolved administrations, the European Parliament and the London Assembly. This review is at an early stage, and decisions regarding any next steps for the review will be taken in due course.

The government still maintains that a referendum remains the right way to agree any change for Westminster.

All fair enough, and it will be interesting to find out what the report makes of the current electoral systems used (particularly AMS).

Now the second bit.

With regard to the issue of the West Lothian Question, the UK Parliament is responsible for matters that effect [shouldn't that be affect?] the entire UK, including England. A fundamental principle of the UK Parliament is that all MPs have equal rights, and can therefore vote on any matter brought before them, whether they represent constituencies in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England.

The vast majority of MPs are against removing this equality, with the House of Commons rejecting a motion in January 2004 which sought to prevent Scottish MPs from voting on matters which did not ostensibly effect Scotland, by 377 votes to 142.

Well that’s all fair enough aswell, because I also happen to think that all MPs should have equal rights. But that’s not what I asked. I asked about how they intended to tackle the problem, and I suggested an English Parliament just to help them along. But they ignored all that. Instead of telling me how they intend to tackle the West Lothian Question, they told me why they’re not choosing a particular way to tackle it.

I’m not too satisfied with that one, I have to say.