Less than half weddings are now religious there. And so the importance of religion diminishes yet further.

Victory for the SNP and the likelihood of a Labour victory (or even hung parliament) at the next election diminish into almost nothing. Glasgow East is in no way typical of any other area of Britain but after this calamity Labour morale has surely declined to the level where no Summer boost can save them. As this article points out a failure of this scale on a national level would leave both the Chancellor and Prime Minister unseated.

The SNP have seen their power solidified and their claim to Scotland strengthened. This suits the Conservatives immensely in terms of electoral success, but they are far from the party best equipped to deal with the long-term fallout, that is to say the constitutional crisis that Scottish attempted departure would trigger.

I would love to draw the conclusion from this that there is room in Britain for a left-wing party to replace Labour, but drawing any such evidence from Scotland is highly unwise.

So then, a result which leaves the political landscape somewhat more certain but yet more distinct from the norm.

And now for something completely different: a post not on London!

Today, Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander called upon the SNP to hold their referendum on independence ealier than the promised 2010. The political logic behind this seems clear. Scottish Labour feel threatened by the steady dominance of the SNP, especially since they haven’t done badly in government. The SNP would only truly face destruction if they lost a referendum convincingly. Alexander’s bill thus aims to catch the SNP - who might find it difficult to reject any referendum on independence - before it’s really ready, and so deal it a heavy blow.

And, perhaps, Alexander carving out a seperate identity for Scottish Labour. Senior Labour sources have already called the plan “harebrained.” Given how badly the party is polling at the moment, such a distancing may be exactly what Alexander wants…

Such reasoning sounds sound (hah…). But is it? There’s no evidence to suggest that the SNP will find it difficult to reject the bill. Perhaps, if they’d set no solid date for the referendum, as they’d have little excuse then. But they’ve said 2010, and they’ve said that consistently. They (say they?) want to show Scotland can govern itself before moving towars full independence.

Regardless of your views on the SNP, this is more convinving than the current line offered by Alexander, for its consistency alone. The SNP are clearly committed to Scottish independence, and will have a referendum - in 2010.

Contrast this with Alexander’s own behavior here - which can only be described as a complete U-turn.

Previously, her party has opposed such a referendum outright. They do not want Scottish independence, or any chance of it. How she can then turn round an accuse her opponents of wanting, “to be unionists for two years,” and even think she looks convincing is beyond me. If the SNP had broken their timetable for independence, her points might look valid - but as it is, opportunistic is a better word.

Of course, this is all speculation based on a swift reading up on the last couple of years of BBC articles on Scottish politics, and may be wildly wrong. If someone more familiar than I notices, please do correct me…