Is Scotland now committed to free personal care?
In principle, yes. During the course of yesterday's heated debate, first minister Henry McLeish made it abundantly clear that the voice of the Scottish parliament could not, and would not, be ignored. The majority of MSPs in the parliament are clearly in favour of full implementation of the Sutherland report which called for free personal care. When faced with the prospect of an embarrassing defeat, the Scottish executive committed itself to bringing forward proposals for "free personal care for all".
What did the executive say?
In an emergency statement just minutes before the vote, parliament minister Tom McCabe said that proposals would be brought forward "as soon as practicable" after a development group to consider the practicalities, costs and implications has produced its report in August. He did add ominously though, that any proposals would be accompanied by a full analysis of the costs and implications.
What does this mean exactly?
Just what it says. The executive has really only committed itself to coming up with proposals. There is no mention of any timetable for implementation, as was demanded by the original Liberal Democrat motion. When pressed on the detail, the Scottish executive has refused to confirm whether it has accepted the principle of free personal care or whether it was now committed to accepting the proposals. This clearly upset Liberal Democrat health spokesperson Keith Raffan, chief Sutherland protagonist and author of the motion, who has offered his resignation to leader Jim Wallace. The SNP, meanwhile, is calling for a clarification of the executive's statement.
What do the opposition parties feel about it?
The largest opposition party, the Scottish Nationalists, can barely contain their rage. Although they appear to have got what it wanted, the prospect of an executive defeat slipping through their fingers seemed almost too much to bear. An inconsolable SNP health spokesperson Nicola Sturgeon later described the climbdown as a "shameless exercise" in political skin-saving. The Liberal Democrat leadership is understandably ecstatic that it has succeeded in reversing the executive's policy and is claiming a great victory. The Tories, meanwhile, claim the Lib Dems have been bought off cheaply because, without any definite timetable, the executive's commitment falls well short of what was originally demanded.
So where does that leave the Labour-Lib Dem coalition?
According to Mr McLeish after the debate, the coalition is working well, and for the time being there doesn't seem to be any danger of a major split. The Lib Dems are no doubt be happy that they have been able to exercise a bit of political muscle and are likely to make great play of it, along with previous concessions on student tuition fees, in justifying the coalition to both their supporters and the electorate.
And what about Mr McLeish?
Ironically, he seems to have got what he wanted all along - although his means of achieving it may strike some people as somewhat bizarre. Whether it was all down to some Machiavellian plot or just plain crisis management, no-one knows. He certainly didn't seem fazed after the apparent "cave-in" just minutes before yesterday's crucial vote. And if, in the coming months before the general election, he should get a lot of stick from Tony Blair and Gordon Brown for causing ripples south of the border, he can always say: "Well, that's democracy for you."
