A Pandora's Box - Privacy, media and the internet

The world's worst kept secret was revealed yesterday by the Sunday Herald newspaper who finally named the 'unnamed footballer' that apparently had an affair before covering it up through the courts. However the website Twitter had already ensured that most people were aware of this identity for weeks beforehand. So where does this leave the media and issues of legal secrecy now?

In some regards the media do themselves - or least some sections - a disservice when they focus on tawdry gossip in privacy cases because it obscures any public interest discussions about information-sharing. Many people will believe that the only reason they want to avoid legal restrictions is because of the often legitimate belief that they're only in it to sell 'papers and make money

The Sunday Herald will of course paint their actions as being part of an attempt to stop any limits being placed on press freedom in this country. This is a worthy enough goal although perhaps it's unfortunate that they made this stand based on a topic which is of near zero real importance. Also doing it at a time of massively falling sales figures suggest at least another influence behind their decision.

So what happens next? Given that the footballer in question has taken time out of preparing for a big game next Saturday to sue Twitter it may be that he will turn his attentions next to this newspaper. Equally the courts may step in too. All this supposes of course that the injunction actually extends north of the border rather than covering English media outlets only.

Let's assume for a moment that the Sunday Herald have broken the law and face action. Would they be supported by other parts of the media in an "I'm Spartacus"-style movement? If they did it's hard to see how all of them could face action. Not only that but combined with online discussions it would surely make a mockery of the British justice system adopting a 'see no evil, hear no evil' policy.

Which ultimately means that this is the end of secrecy. If the internet and mass media decide that they can just ignore legal restrictions where does this end? In the case of overpaid footballers or other celebrities it may be that the public decides it could care less. But what happens when this extends to other substantial issues which the courts currently control e.g. reporting of criminal court cases?

The media are currently covered by restrictions when reporting who has been charged or arrested in connection with a crime. They can also extend this to not giving details about children involved in cases. There are other limits which can apply too. As we have seen with the Joanna Yeates murder there are good reasons for this and yet the media will ignore this when it suits them.

If we accept that the internet means the end of secrecy then this at least creates a level playing field as the ability to stop media outlets publishing information is something only the rich can afford. It's not even the case that only the rich get their indiscretions reported as Sunday tabloids used to feature regular stories about a village vicar having an affair with a head teacher, or such like.

But as above what happens if we accept that secrecy can no longer exist in any context, which is ultimately what newspapers (including the Sunday Herald) are pushing for? Footballer indiscretions may be fairly minor but they are the tip of the iceberg if the media no longer have to abide by legal restrictions. What happens when the first person is killed because a newspaper prints details about a wrongly-accused person?

The internet means we are flying down the wing of a new information age and it does seem foolish to try and hold back the news tide when the internet makes it impossible to do so. However it is also worth remembering that restrictions on media reporting do still play an important role in a fair society e.g. in ensuring that an accused person has a chance at a fair trial.

As long as newspapers want to write about actors, singers, footballers or other 'celebrities' then there will be a battle between these groups about what can and cannot be published. But we should also be very careful about just giving up all legal restrictions because it surely creates a Pandora's Box of problems for wider society.

2011 elections: What next for... The Independence Referendum?

Third in a series of articles about what happens next following the 2011 elections

It’s often said that the one thing the public hates more than elections is minutiae discussions about elections. If this is the case they’re going to really love the debate about the independence referendum. 

Just to be clear this is not about independence itself and what it might involve and result in – although that discussion is clearly already ongoing – but rather what the vote itself should look like and involve.

There’s already some confusion. Opposition parties who spent the last four years saying ‘no way, never’ to such a vote are now demanding it takes place immediately. And the tentative hints from the SNP government are that it might not be a simple ‘yes or no’ ballot.

And we’re still not completely sure about how many votes there will be. Or even what question the public will be asked. All this before we’ve really started to have a substantive analysis of the vote; the public surely can’t wait.

In a simple world there would be no confusion; the SNP want a vote, the public will get asked ‘yay or nay’ and whatever the result we’ll all move on. Except it isn’t even in the ballpark of being that easy.

First of all let’s take the wording of whatever question eventually gets asked. This will be fought over by all sides (although ultimately the SNP will surely get their way because of their majority) and you can deliberate how much it matters.

In a strictly legal sense it's a legitimate debate. The SNP previously proposed this wording:

“The Scottish Parliament should negotiate a new settlement with the British government, based on the proposals set out in the white paper, so that Scotland becomes a sovereign and independent state”

Quite wordy and, if it does matter, slightly ambiguous. After all someone may agree to negotiating a deal to leave the UK but want another vote to decide on whatever they manage to agree. Maybe unlikely, but possible.

If this is the case then an argument will surely be made that two referenda are needed; one to agree that the SNP can discuss terms of leaving the union and another to agree if the deal is adequate. So for the politically bored they can look forward to numerous votes as well as discussions!

However it’s hard to think that the public will be too caught up in this, if it is a one question vote. They will turn up knowing if it’s going to be ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ for them and place their cross accordingly. But the wording above probably does need altered.

This assumes that it is a one question vote, and this isn’t clear either. The SNP leadership have spent the past few days suggesting that they could have a multi-option referendum looking not only at ‘independence v status quo’ but also additional devolved powers too.

The tactical reason behind this could be that the SNP leadership know that people in Scotland will not vote for straight-up independence and fear that a crushing defeat kills any hope of this for more than a generation.

A multi-option vote not only dilutes any option’s victory but as long as people did not vote overwhelmingly for the status quo would allow the SNP to argue that Scotland was moving towards independence, even if it was not there yet.

Of course this dilution works both ways and could also hurt independence’s chance of winning. It could also lead to a certain level of confusion amongst voters. How would each option be represented? Would it be a preference voting system (1,2,3) or one choice (x)?

However the main reason a multi-option (one paper) referendum seems unpalatable is that it’s surely in Scotland’s interests to have it settled one way or another, rather than running on and on. Although those opposition parties complaining would do well to remember that they could have dealt with this problem previously when the SNP were a minority.

The one option here which would not cause outright confusion for votes may be to mirror the referendum which took place in 1997 to set up Holyrood. The first paper could ask if people wanted independence and if so the second one would be superfluous. If outright independence was rejected though then the option of devolution-plus (paper 2) could then be counted.

Whatever the eventual vote looks like – and the fact a vote will take place is the only certainty – it's in the Scottish Government’s interests to settle these matters as soon as possible, even if it means conceding some ground to opponents.

Not only will this look magnanimous but the longer it runs on the more people will tire of the whole issue. If I were Alex Salmond this prospect would worry me just as much, if not more, as losing any battle of the arguments.

SNP and independence: what happens next?

One of the main ways that the SNP’s momentous Holyrood triumph really has shaken Scottish politics is the fact that independence is now being discussed in real and not theoretical ways.

For too long the debate on both sides has been lacking in any real analysis, boiling down to “we shouldn’t do it” or “we should, it’d be great” and little beyond this.

This is no longer case. Slowly but surely there now appears to be a quickening of discussions about if it should happen and, particularly, what the SNP want it to look like. And here’s where the splits could come.

Churlish it may seem following such a massive victory to point this out but political parties never remain happy and united forever. And it’s usually power that causes these splits. The SNP over the past four years have been remarkably good at putting on a united front but there are obviously disagreements which are now, little by little, emerging.

So recent days have seen drip-drip stories from both sides (but mostly the SNP leadership) which portray a different idea of independence from that which many in the SNP believe in. There have been stories about Scotland continuing to share embassies with the UK, the monarchy, parts of the armed forces and even – shockingly – potentially retaining Trident in Scotland.

Now this approach can be interpreted in numerous ways. Either it’s Alex Salmond selling out the SNP’s core belief. Or Alex Salmond settling for what he can get now. Or Alex Salmond getting a bit more now whilst still allowing independence further down the line.

As with most parties the SNP have various opinions within their ranks. Many favour outright independence, some believe in a gradualist approach and others recognise that these concepts are outdated in the 21^st century. Some even may eschew independence!

It’s the so-called fundamentalists that will be Alex Salmond’s biggest challenge in the oncoming debate. Anyone who has paid even cursory attention to these groups cannot have failed to notice a devotion to a form of ‘pure nationalism’ which most certainly does not include what is talked about above.

So how will these people – who certainly include some SNP MSPs – respond when they are faced with such a situation before possibly the only independence referendum which will take place in their lifetimes?

It’s depends upon how pragmatic they are willing to be. But the difficulty for the SNP is that if polls suggest that the leadership’s approach is not working it will only lead to more splits emerging, which would be fatal to any hopes of a referendum victory.

Whatever happens with this aspect of the debate though one thing is for sure - the SNP face a challenge in handling it in a way which does not undermine their work in government.

The 2007-2011 government can point to numerous successes and recognisable policies; the 2011-2016 one will seek to emulate this. However as with all parties the manifesto cupboard is actually relatively bare; a five-year council tax freeze, minimum alcohol pricing and some demands from the Scotland Bill are the most notable features.

The only other one is of course the referendum on independence. Many famous previous promises carry with them a sting in the tail; dare the SNP rock the boat in any way before such a vote takes place?

For instance, introducing a Local Income Tax may be popular but will also alienate some groups who in turn may then vote against independence. This same argument can be made for other policies which, in Yes Minister-speak, could be deemed ‘brave’.

This creates a dilemma; introduce new laws and policies which show a dynamic, forward-thinking SNP which can be trusted over independence but could also alienate supporters? Or do little, which means no-one is scared or much impressed either?

A lack of notable policies also creates the danger of vacuum for the SNP. If they are not setting an agenda in the media then either other parties will or, even more dangerously, the media themselves will create one. And they can only focus on Labour’s new leadership for so long.

The most damaging thing would be if the SNP allow the independence debate to become an internal one; the minute theoretical internal fights become the order of the day is when the public switch off. And if they keep watching it’ll probably only be to reject the notion.

Winning an unprecedented majority was of course a famous and fabulous day for the SNP. But asnoted at the time a hangover often follows a night of celebrations. How long that hangover will last – or if there is even to be one – will only be known over the coming weeks, months and years.

How can we get more varied people involved in the Scottish Parliament?

Following the previous two posts which examined our MSPs' professional background, this last post considers how this can be changed and broadened.

The growth of a political class, effectively a group of people who have only ever known political life, is not confined to Scotland or even the UK. Across much of the Western world many express concern that their politicians are remote from everyday lives.

However merely complaining about this fact is not going to change it. So what is the solution to this?

The obvious one that requires no new rules or intervention is to have more people stand for election from a cross-section of society and for voters to take an active interest in the experience and ideas their candidates have rather than just their rosette colours.

This obviously isn’t going to happen and as such requires more tangible action; term limits would be an obvious choice. If MSPs knew that their job was only temporary (even if for four terms or 16 years) would this force them to develop a more rounded career before entering?

Rather than going straight from university into politics and never leaving someone may realise that if they are older and more experienced when elected they have a greater chance of achieving high office. Of course they could use up their 16 years at a younger age but in the long run they might achieve less than they otherwise could.

Not only this but they would have to give serious thought to their post-politics life before entering and during their term of office. If someone is going to stand down anyway it may lead them to be more independent in their thinking and thus create a more effective parliament.

In planning for life after politics they would also have to ensure they had a requisite amount of experience to go back into a ‘real’ job, again meaning a delay in entering parliament. You could of course enter parliament at 23 but would know you were leaving at 39; what job could you then start doing with little prior experience?

There are of course huge downsides to this idea which is one of the reasons term limits have never been introduced (plus the fact that politicians who would lose out decide if it should happen). An obvious one is that a popular and effective parliamentarian, possibly one who is First Minister, could be forced to go even when the country wants him to stay.

In addition to this it is possible that a party or the entire parliament could lose a raft of experienced MSPs at the same time, if they had all entered together. Would this leave our parliament weaker if Holyrood and the government had to be staffed by those with little or less experience?

And of course, linked to a point above, there is the point that, as President Bartlett put it, we already have term limits; they’re called elections. If people are not happy with a politician or party they can vote them out, they should not have this choice forced upon them by statute.

Indeed it may be that solely considering the role of elected members when considering how to get more people involved and interested in the Scottish Parliament is the wrong approach. Perhaps there are other opportunities such as Citizens' Juries or such like but again something needs to happen.

As with most things there is not a perfect solution which causes no problems at all. As such with or without term limits we are going to face some sort of challenge; the question therefore is which idea or option causes least harm.

Term limits are not without their faults but they are at least a step towards creating a more balanced parliament with varying ideas and perspectives. The alternative – unless there are other suggestions – is to continue to see a trend where the only people in our parliament are those without any sort of life experience beyond politics.

Does it matter what jobs MSPs did before being elected?

Following my earlier post which examined the professional background of our MSPs, this latest comment considers the implications of this.

Whilst people get much exercised about the credentials of politicians it’s worth asking how important it actually is. No person has done every job e.g. business, medicine, teaching, etc. so is it irrelevant what jobs elected members have done before entering politics?

Up to a point it will depend on the individual. Some people from an exclusively political background will be very effective policy makers whilst many from a ‘real’ background could prove utterly ineffective in this role.

However it’s hard to escape the notion that people who have experience elsewhere are likely to, generally, be more rounded and effective in their work. As much as anything else they will surely avoid the myopic tendencies that some political people can develop of thinking their side and their side alone have the answers.

Not only that but they can provide a more critical approach to the development of new policy ideas. When vested interests make a suggestion or the civil service propose an idea it can be easy if you have never worked in a ‘delivery’ job to just think that it sounds great and so should be done.

Anyone who has worked in a job outwith politics will be aware of the fact that this is not always true. Whether you work in a school, supermarket, court, police station, hospital, office or anywhere else you will be aware of how the jobs actually work versus how some policy makers theorise it.

A life outside politics is also important because of the need to not have ‘political robots’ (whose only job is to obey their leadership) being elected. If the only life you know is in politics and you have little or no outside experience you may be less likely to say what you think for fear of de-selection, especially List MSPs.

In all of this it’s worth providing a cautionary note about yesterday’s post. Some 2007-2011 MSPs will have worked in jobs outside politics before being elected, they can thus use this experience in their current roles.

Furthermore we obviously need some political experience in parliament. Whilst we do not want a parliament staffed exclusively with people from a full-time political background we also cannot ignore the benefit of know-how. Unless we want a one-term limit for MSPs (which would be ridiculous) then clearly many will be continuing MSPs.

However the figures presented in yesterday’s post shows that a fair balance is not being achieved. In an election where one-third (45 out of 129) MSPs are new, only one third of those new MSPs came from outwith politics. And only 14% of our entire parliament can point to working outside politics in the past four years.

This suggests a massive growth of the professional politician which for all of the reasons above can only be bad for our democracy. We require political experience in parliament but we also have to ensure that outside voices and perspectives are heard in the debating chamber.

Next up, how can we go about addressing this situation?

What jobs did our MSPs do before being elected?

When the Scottish Parliament opened it had many laudable goals but a primary one was being different from Westminster in the general life experiences of its members.

There are numerous complaints about Westminster but one is that many members tend to be in post for decades and the experience pool from which they were drawn is limited.

In recent years as well as continuing these complaints another worry has been the growth of ‘professional politicians’ whose only experience in life is working in full-time politics, often taking the university-researcher-councillor-MSP/MP route.

So after last week’s results what state does this leave Holyrood in terms of the experience of its members, returning and new? This post examines the jobs that our MSPs have done between 2007 and 2011 to find out.

Graph 1: All MSPS including MSPs in non-political jobs, 2007-2011

Graph 1 indicates the extent to which the ‘new’ Holyrood is in fact mostly filled with professional politicians. Out of 129 MSPs only 18 have not worked on a full-time basis in politics over the past four years (shown in light blue in each category).

It is additionally worth noting that some of those 18, although they have experience outside politics in jobs such as law, business and the voluntary sector, were also previously full-time politicians who either stood down or lost their seat; 2011 represents their return to frontline politics.

Graph 2: Percentage of MSPs in non-political jobs

We can break these figures down further by showing the percentage of all MSPs from each party that have worked outwith politics in the past four years. Graph 2 shows this in greater detail.

Across the entire parliament only 14% of current MSPs were not in full-time politics (elected or otherwise) between 2007-2011. Perhaps thanks to the number of new MSPs they have the SNP have the highest figure with 19%, Labour being on 11% and the Conservatives with 7%.

The Lib Dems, Greens and Independents have no MSPs that were not full-time politicians since 2007. However these figures are obviously skewed by the relatively low number of MSPs in these categories.

Graph 3: Percentage of new MSPs in non-political jobs, 2007-2011

The final graph (3) that is interesting to consider is one which looks at the previous occupations of all new MSPs. There are 45 new members of the Scottish Parliament and around one third (36%) of them were not working in full-time politics these past four years.

In terms of party-specific figures 48% of new SNP MSPs come from outwith politics, 27% of Labour do the same whilst 100% of new Conservatives can say this. Again though the Tory figures are skewed by the fact they only have one new MSP.

So these are the hard and fast figures. At present they are put forward solely for people’s personal interest and interpretation, rather than me skewing it with my own views. Further post will follow tomorrow on what this actually means for politics in our country and how to change it.

A note on the methodology: The figures in the graphs were put together based on the job that each current MSP did between 2007 and 2011. New MSPs who were councillors or MPs during this time were counted as working in full-time politics. It is possible some of them also had jobs outwith politics. All details on new MSPs were gathered from each party’s candidate biographies. The summary figures are in the table below.

	Number of MSPS	Number of new MSPs	MSPs (non-political jobs, 2007-11)
SNP	69	27	13
Labour	37	15	4
Conservative	15	1	1
Lib Dem	5	1	0
Green	2	1	0
Independent	1	0	0
Total	129	45	18

Elections 2011: What’s next for… Scottish Labour?

Second in a series of articles about what happens following the 2011 elections

The scale of the SNP's victory made it inevitable that the initial focus post-election would focus on them but the reality is that Labour have been equally if not more affected by Thursday's outcome.

Labour's loss in 2007 was not entirely unexpected. Having been in power for in the UK for ten years and in Scotland for eight (to say nothing of council control) they were going to have to lose at some stage and even then did so narrowly.

2011's defeat is an entirely different matter. Clearly there have been numerous difficulties over the past four years and talk of the need for major reviews but that has not happened. It also remains to be seen the extent to which it's needed.

Defeated parties have to tread a well-worn path; they have to apologise for getting it wrong, talk about the need to listen and learn and then say they will come back reformed and ready to win support again. And to some extent this is a nonsense because winning isn't as simple as this.

Yes you have to look at previous mistakes - and learn from your opponents' strengths - but there is also an extent to which you have to lose eventually and just have to take it. In politics if you're not up you're down so when you struggle naturally your opponents will seem to have an energy and momentum.

Labour's question now is how to get to the stage of having this momentum. For all the SNP's success this cannot go on forever and at some stage (possibly after nine years of government) voters will look elsewhere. This premise is true for devolution or an independent Scotland.

With Iain Gray having announced he will resign as leader this Autumn Labour have a chance to re-group around a new leader, the only problem being that many of their likely candidates have just lost MSP seats. It's unclear who the next person to take on Salmond will be.

Had the election results been closer Gray may have stayed longer and then the next leader would be someone not simply to try and rival the current First Minister but the next likely SNP leader, Nicola Sturgeon. This is no longer a luxury that Labour have and they need someone to rejuvenate them immediately.

The SNP took two defeats (1999 and 2003) before they fully took on board lessons learned and changed; perhaps Labour needed that long too. The immediate question is one of personnel; in terms of leadership, current MSPs and candidates for 2016.

There will be talk about a Scottish Labour MP coming into Holyrood (or even a former one like Alistair Darling). This seems unlikely not least because it would be characterised as London coming to the rescue, a slightly unfair point given that this is exactly what Alex Salmond did in 2007.

After selecting a new leader Labour's main priority should be candidate selection. In reality they should be thinking about potential 2011 MSPs now (just as the SNP's Peter Murrell did after 2007) and begin working on developing a campaign profile for them in their area.

Alongside this they have to be pay closer attention to the List MSP seats. The loss of experienced MSPs has not completely been balanced by high-flying List replacements, at least not in all cases. Not only that but the party should rethink its opposition to candidates standing in constituency seats and on the List.

The SNP's success is partly linked to their strategy of allowing candidates to do this meaning their big hitters are secure. Nicola Sturgeon for example was always going to be re-elected, even if she had lost her constituency seat. Labour would do well to mirror this, not least because the electorate couldn't care less.

And once they have sorted candidates - or rather alongside this - they have to consider seriously what they stand for, what policies best represent this and how they can appeal to a broad section of the electorate. Apart from jailing knife carriers and echoing SNP pledges on council tax, etc it's hard to remember a distinctive Labour idea in this election.

How they achieve this is debatable. Populism isn't perhaps the best way to run a country but it probably has to be part of the picture. A serious engagement process with all parts of civic Scotland (public and private sector) may be a way to start building support as well as ideas. But it will take time and money, not something there's much of in John Smith House.

2007 seemed a watershed moment for Labour but in reality 2011 has turned out to be much more difficult. Labour's challenge now is not to point fingers about blame which can only lead to infighting and leave them further away from a return to power. So that's the challenge; it remains to be seen if it will be taken up.

Elections 2011: What’s next for… the SNP?

First in a series of articles about what happens next following the 2011 elections

Political thesauruses up and down will have been worn out today as people look for words to fully describe the scale of the SNP’s victory. In spite of all recent polls even the most optimistic supporter could not possibly have predicted that the SNP would win an outright majority, a feat which seemed impossible under Holyrood’s voting system.

Talk of Scotland’s political landscape being changed is legitimate and it’s understandable that SNP supporters, workers and politicians will want to celebrate. However once the elation turns back to the mundane task of actually governing there remains numerous challenges for the SNP. The most obvious is the one Barack Obama has suffered from.

Even the politically disinterested – it’s worth remembering that turnout was only a little over 50% - will be aware of the SNP’s victory and so look to them to deliver. In other words there will be a huge and optimistic belief about what lies ahead, expectations which are often difficult to actually achieve.

The size of victory – and the majority it brings – means that the SNP are now very much responsible; in 2016 there will be no-one to hide behind if the country faces any problems. This will be particularly true if this momentum carries on into next year’s council elections allowing the SNP to run more local authorities across Scotland, possibly even as a majority party.

So what can and will the new SNP government do and what opportunities and challenges will this present? Well obviously a council tax freeze has to happen, although surely that will inevitably lead to complaints as some parts of public services face spending freezes or cuts.

Local Income Tax must now seriously be on the table too. For this to work there has to be winners – some people pay less – but this means there have to be losers too whether in terms of less public finance available or some people paying more. This may be the correct course of action but will not be popular with some.

The previously rejected alcohol proposals will also be back on the table, certainly minimum pricing if not banning off-sales to under-21s too. Again these may be worthy plans but will not be without their critics.

And lastly, the independence referendum which we will certainly be going to polling stations to decide upon. If the vote goes for independence then this is the SNP’s dream but the worry is what happens if it doesn’t. They would then face going into 2016 after losing the vote and being in government for 9 years, surely not a good combination. 

In fact the referendum makes for an interesting judgement call from the SNP. The negative-positive mix referred to above in terms of possible policies means it’s debateable some of them will actually happen for fear they scupper support for independence.

Of course these points do perhaps focus on the negative; the flipside is that as well as the win being a tremendous achievement the very reason for the points above is that the SNP are now in a position to do everything they want. And if they have got that programme for government correct presumably it could even enhance their support, particularly before a referendum.

One final factor worth considering is the First Minister’s future. He will obviously stick around to see the referendum but depending on the result what might he do after that? If polls suggest another SNP victory he would surely stay for this and then hand over to Nicola Sturgeon. But if not could go sooner?

President Obama’s fortunes have turned in recent times because of Osama Bin Laden and it may that this one action will reverse his falling opinion polls. He faced unpopularity simply because the burden of expectation on him could never have been fully met.

The challenge the SNP government now face is to avoid this. So for now it’s still time for Alex Salmond and his team to celebrate before attempting to deliver. One way or another the next five years will make for interesting times.

Elections 2011: What’s next for…?

As in nature where many animals cannot stop or else they'd die, so too does politics never really get a chance to take a breath.

Thus whilst the champagne corks still pop in the SNP and 'No' campaign headquarters it's already appropriate to consider what happens next for numerous groups affected by electoral results.

Over the next few days there will be posts considering what happens next for:

* The SNP
* Labour in Scotland
* Election turnout and democratic interest
* The UK coalition

First up tomorrow, the SNP and how they deal with their landslide victory.

Holyrood 2011: Well, that was unexpected...

There are some events where it's exciting to sit and watch the drama unfold, others where it's easier for your sanity to just wait until it's over and see the final set of results.

The 2011 Scottish Parliament results might not yet fully be available (as at 630am) but the indications are absolutely clear - it's been a landslide for the SNP.

For the governing party to sweep seats right across the country - wiping out much of leader's most experienced MSPs and almost costing them their leader - is quite simply an incredible achievement.

The polls had of course been pointing in this direction but it was hard to escape the feeling that their volatility must have meant there was a soft element to them. Apparently not.

As the rest of today unfolds we will get the full extent of the results including the list seats that will now become crucial for Labour in areas such as Glasgow where their need was previously unthinkable.

Until we know the final scores it's hard to fully predict what happens next but surely this places the prospect of an independence referendum centre stage.

Previously rejected SNP measures such as minimum alcohol pricing will surely again be re-examined although as suggested earlier this week victory does not mean smooth sailing ahead for the good ship SNP.

For Labour it is even more of a blank canvas for the months and years ahead. It is difficult to see Iain Gray remaining as leader although he may do so at least for a period while the party adjusts.

There will also be a huge change of personnel for Labour. Losing people such as Andy Kerr, Tom McCabe and Sarah Boyack will leave a large hole; they will have to hope they have properly filled their list seats with go-getting new MSPs.

As was also noted previously perhaps Labour needed this loss in the same way the SNP did in 2003. Losing two elections forces a major re-evaluation of approach and even personnel; this is certainly their chance to do so.

In 2016 the SNP will find it much harder to repeat tonight's result (purely because they'll have been in power for nine years) and so many of tonight's seats could be won back. This means their attention will surely quickly turn to considering how they can really do this.

And as for the other parties it's hard to say for sure. The Lib Dems look to be doing badly and suffering from the effects of their UK coalition however it will be the list seats that tell us how everyone else - including Labour - are really doing.

So a fairly stunning set of results and a shock that may not yet be finished - not just for today for politics in the Scotland over the next number of years.

The downside of winning the Scottish Parliament election

After what seems like the longest political campaign since, well the last one, the end of the 2011 Scottish Parliament election race is almost upon us. 22 hours from now polling stations across Scotland will open to let people choose the next government of Scotland (and of course vote in the AV referendum too).

The smart money is currently on an SNP win although Labour publicly believe it's still all to play for. And of course it's only going to be one of these parties that will emerge as the largest party. As in any competition everyone wants to win. However remembering the notion of 'be careful what you wish for' it's worth asking how damaging victory could be for either side tomorrow.

One concern that some people have expressed about the campaign is the way that all sides are eager to promise big spending commitments as we still suffer from recession. Glasgow University's Centre for Public Policy for Regions highlighted the fact that all parties appear to have made uncosted, rash promises that they will struggle to deliver in government.

After the elation of victory and champagne wears off whoever wins tomorrow could find a whole new set of headaches over the coming years. Public spending will be cut (arguably more than now) and the governing party will face certain public anger over this. How much worse will it be if they also have to contend with 'broken promises' criticisms?

This attack will be particularly prominent from the media and whoever wins. Labour's 2007-2011 strategy largely focused on this theme; namely that the SNP made numerous promises which they failed to deliver e.g. house grants, writing off student debt, and so on. Whether Labour lose again or the SNP do this theme will surely continue in earnest.

And what about the effects on the two main parties if they win? Well as the SNP currently appear to lead it's worth considering the challenges they could face. Certainly the point above about broken promises will haunt them if again they have to drop any major pledges, although they apart from the 5-year council tax freeze they have made less this time round.

Apart from being able to fund what they have promised - and just meet general public expectations - the SNP's main challenges will centre around the independence referendum and (possibly tied to this) the future of Alex Salmond as First Minister and party leader.

It is surely inconceivable that - with or without a majority - an SNP government can again fail to put a referendum bill to the Scottish Parliament. Failure to do so (as noted before) must at some stage lead to party divisions and a question about whether or not the leadership actually care about it any longer.

So when to do it and with what effect? Well Alex Salmond has already confirmed that any such referendum would likely take place in the second half of the parliament (so probably 2014, 700 years after the Battle of Bannockburn). If it takes place and is won then of course this is the SNP's greatest triumph; if it's lost it is surely a huge torpedo to their 2016 re-election hopes.

Either way, what about the current First Minister's future? Alex Salmond is easily the most dominant politician in Scotland; whilst that's generally good for the SNP now it could also hurt them when he goes and the next leader inevitably lives in his shadow. At 56 he still has a few years before retirement but he may wish to go out on a high, rather than after possibly losing the 2016 election.

The question of succession for the SNP is not who (because it's surely deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon) but rather when and why. Salmond will want to lead them into a referendum but if it's lost, or simply doesn't take place, he surely will not want to bow out after being ousted from government. An SNP win tomorrow surely makes a 2016 loss all the more likely, just like Labour after two terms.

The potential downside of winning however does not restrict itself to the SNP - Labour would face many challenges and questions too. Like the SNP they would also face the problem of paying for any pledges made (2-year council tax freeze, jailing all knife carriers) and also simply the complaints involved in dealing with a falling budget.

Another key issue would be that of the leadership. Iain Gray's position seemed secure enough when his party had a significant poll lead in January, in recent weeks however the SNP resurgence has resulted in complaints and background briefing against him. If he loses he will surely certainly be replaced although the question is by whom?

The problem for Gray and Labour is that even if he wins it does not guarantee that much of the complaints won't continue. Certainly victory will buy him some time but eventually - and if Labour have a faltering start - people will turn their attentions to whether he is the right man to continue. This will be problematic enough in opposition but could be a disaster if it happens when in government.

Holyrood has never yet had to deal with a First Minister being ousted from office by his own party (Dewar died, McLeish went over financial issues, McConnell lost) and so it would surely result not only in a media frenzy but also charges from other parties of a lack of democracy and - in a parliament of minorities - potentially a new government.

If this were to happen - or even be talked about - it would also force Labour to seriously evaluate its future goals and aims. Losing tomorrow might not be a disaster because like the SNP in 1999 and 2003 it may be that it takes two defeats before a party can truly evaluate and reorganise itself. This is difficult enough to do in opposition but could be disastrous in government.

So as each party makes final effort to secure votes they would do well to also consider the downsides. As much as anything else for whoever wins if any of the scenarios above come to pass the fallout could cost them not only the 2016 election but possibly 2020 too.

Of course the reality is that as with all competitive activities everyone wants to win. It's also true to say that there is a downside to winning any election not just this one. The flipside is of course a chance of power and to implement your party's goals, aims and beliefs. So good luck to all parties tomorrow but, remember, be careful what you wish for.

Events, dear boy, events: Weddings, Bin Laden and Holyrood 2011

When asked by a journalist what was most likely to disrupt or distract a government, UK Prime Minister Harold Macmillan said simply "events, dear boy, events". He meant that you could never predict what might occur - only that something would.

As we approach the final few days of the Holyrood 2011 election these words were never more true. This topsy-turvey election - which has seen Labour race to a huge early lead at the start of the year before the SNP now doing likewise - might still have had some twists to take. Recent events probably rule this out.

The coverage of the Royal Wedding was always going to distract coverage away from the Holyrood race; the sheer magnitude of the coverage meant that, beyond political anoraks, most people will have paid little attention to political debate these past few days.

The wedding's impact was also a bit of a conundrum; would an outbreak of UK national fervour hurt the SNP or might the wall-to-wall coverage of union flags and royalty awaken a Scottish nationalism to benefit them?

Just when we might have been given a chance to find out - or at least have some analysis to this effect - the next big story to hit comes along: the death of Osama Bin Laden.

The death certainly will influence elections.In a US sense Bin Laden's death has surely all but sealed President Obama's re-election. Interestingly its impact may not be dissimilar to that enjoyed by an unpopular Margaret Thatcher when the Falklands War took place.

In a Scottish sense what it will also certainly do is reduce the small amount of media space left for political parties to either seal their win or - more pressingly - make some headway into the SNP's poll lead.

Whilst there will obviously still be coverage of the Scottish election most media - and so public - attention will be focused on events in Pakistan. And this will not diminish before Thursday, meaning that most people now will surely vote based on what has already gone before.

Which leaves us looking likely to have another SNP administration (in spite of previous predictions) unless the polls really are wrong or complacent SNP voters stay at home whilst Labour voters are inspired to turn out in high numbers.

Neither of these situations are impossible. But they are unlikely. The only exception could have been if some politician said something foolish about Bin Laden's death - as in Alex Salmond's Kosovo statement in 1999 - but there is no prospect of that mistake being repeated.

Activists and politicians will of course ignore this and continue to fight for all votes before Thursday - the current glorious sunshine will give them some cheer as they do this. But it's hard to believe that door-to-door campaigning will trump blanket media coverage of events thousands of miles away.

Although just to really prove that "events" can always conspire to politics unpredictable, it seems that even after the recent sunshine Thursday's weather forecast is for heavy rain. So, whose voters are most likely to brave the torrents and actually vote...?