Strange But True
Isn't it strange that the Holyrood Parliament is run by a minority SNP government - while the Westminster Parliament is governed by a coalition?
Because the Holyrood Parliament was designed to ensure that no single party could easily win overall control - the aim was to promote more compromise and consensus - recognising that no political party had all the solutions.
And for two terms of the Holyrood Parliament that's exactly what happened - Labour struck a deal with the Liberal Democrats - and a programme for government was agreed - on the basis that no single party had a mandate from the electorate.
In the third term of the Holyrood Parliament, the same thing happened - only this time the SNP turned out to be the largest party - and decided to govern as a minority administration since they could not make an agreement with the other parties.
But while the SNP administration has done some good things - and been a breath of fresh air from years of Labour dominance - I think it is stretching credibility to say that minority government has been a roaring success.
So, if Scotland wants stable government - and to get things done after next year's May elections - a coalition looks like the only game in town - just as it is in many of Scotland's local councils.
Meanwhile in Westminster - where the first past the post system is designed to deliver a strong 'winner takes all' government - we have a coalition in place.
The opposition howl that the coalition has no mandate to govern - no mandate from the people on key policies - without facing up to the crucial fact that Labour and other opposition parties have no mandate either.
Because of course they lost the election - the plain truth is that voters didn't trust any of the political parties sufficiently - and that's why we are where we are today.
With all the attendant difficulties and problems - my money's on coalition government returning to Holyrood - after the next round of elections in May 2010.
Because the Holyrood Parliament was designed to ensure that no single party could easily win overall control - the aim was to promote more compromise and consensus - recognising that no political party had all the solutions.
And for two terms of the Holyrood Parliament that's exactly what happened - Labour struck a deal with the Liberal Democrats - and a programme for government was agreed - on the basis that no single party had a mandate from the electorate.
In the third term of the Holyrood Parliament, the same thing happened - only this time the SNP turned out to be the largest party - and decided to govern as a minority administration since they could not make an agreement with the other parties.
But while the SNP administration has done some good things - and been a breath of fresh air from years of Labour dominance - I think it is stretching credibility to say that minority government has been a roaring success.
So, if Scotland wants stable government - and to get things done after next year's May elections - a coalition looks like the only game in town - just as it is in many of Scotland's local councils.
Meanwhile in Westminster - where the first past the post system is designed to deliver a strong 'winner takes all' government - we have a coalition in place.
The opposition howl that the coalition has no mandate to govern - no mandate from the people on key policies - without facing up to the crucial fact that Labour and other opposition parties have no mandate either.
Because of course they lost the election - the plain truth is that voters didn't trust any of the political parties sufficiently - and that's why we are where we are today.
With all the attendant difficulties and problems - my money's on coalition government returning to Holyrood - after the next round of elections in May 2010.
