Sadly it was legendary for all the wrong reasons, for observers and psephologists the most interesting thing was that it had a 13% turnout. The campaign itself all rather failed to set the heather alight, even before weather that would have done for a reasonable lump of thermite. For the electorate (and certainly for the activists) the most remarkable thing was probably the rain that never ended.

This had once, in the dim and distant pre-STV days, been a Tory ward and with the inclusion of places such as Dowanhill in the enlarged ward and the on-going Lib Dem Apocalypse they were likely to benefit, particularly given the rather unconservative candidate they ran in the pro-drug-reform Ewan “Cavonia” Hoyle – a perfectly sensible policy but perhaps a rather brave decision here, minister. The Greens did well, as you’d expect in their strongest ward in the city, Stewart Leckie comfortably consolidating the 2nd that the well respected Martha Wardrop achieved in 2007. The SNP had an effective ground campaign and a solid candidate in Ken Andrew, Labour ran them close with the redoubtable Martin McElroy but didn’t quite manage to overhaul the 2007 1st the SNP had in a single seat election.

Afterwards, the SNP rather predictably claimed holding onto 1st in a ward they’d won was a sign of Glasgow being “anxious for change” and equally predictably Labour pointed out that a 13% turnout was no basis on which to do much analysis and it was very wet after all. I think it’s fairly safe to assume that, had the votes fallen the other way, similar claims of “stopping the SNP bulldozer” and turnout would still have been made with the roles reversed. All so very yawnsome.

Probably the most interesting things happened in the “other” category – there was a continuity-BNP candidate, Charlie Ballie, running under the Brittanica banner who was frequently out and about around Byres Road with his “security” and Neil Craig running for UKIP, who had previously stood as the Independent “9% grow party” and blogs here.

And so, to the count itself, and more importantly the transfer pattern which is interesting if you’re me and if it’s not I’d probably go find something else to read.

Still here? Then let the psephological minutiae begin!

Round 1: Britannica  got 11 votes,  of which 2 didn’t transfer and of the remaining 9 2 went to the Tories, 3 went to the Lib Dems and the SNP, Greens, UKIP and Labour got 1 each. Which struck me as odd.

The next couple of rounds were predictable,  redistributing the UKIP votes to no-one or the Tories, half the Lib Dems vote went to the Greens or didn’t transfer, most of the Tory vote didn’t transfer what did split SNP/Green/Labour in that order and then we’re down to splitting up the Green vote.

That went more or less evenly 3 ways – 208 didn’t transfer, 212 went to the SNP and 219 went to Labour, which I thought was interesting but not really sure what to draw from it. It’d be interesting (would it, Aidan? Would it really?) to see if the Green votes that didn’t transfer were the Lib Dem / Tory transfers in.

The Fortnum 145, for those not in the know, is not a cheap version of the Fortune 500 but a group of people who were arrested for a sit-in protest at Fortnum & Mason, a posh shop which, the protesters allege, has not paid its fair share of tax charges recently.

By most accounts, this 12 squared plus 1 of socialist die-hards conducted themselves with respect for the owners and even elicited compliments from the police. Indeed, given its politeness and tweeness, it was the Fortnum & Mason of protests in more ways than one.

The Fortnum 145 claim boldly on their webpage that ‘Demonstrating is not a crime’. Well, it is at best hazy as to whether legal peaceful protest extends to disrupting the trade of a private entity.

The rights or wrongs of the protesters’ arguments are neither here nor there, much as it was with Dale Farm and much as it may well prove to be with the Occupy protests at St Paul’s Cathedral and elsewhere. I might have disagreed with sections of the Gaddafi family ordering the killing of their own people to cling onto power but that doesn’t mean I can get away with heading round to Highgate and smashing up their dynastic London home.

That may be a drastic example to prove my point but the 145 were charged with aggravated trespass which is:

if he trespasses on another’s land and carries out any act with the intention of disrupting a lawful activity being carried out on or adjacent to that land.

It sounds like an open and shut case to me I’m afraid and so one has to wonder about the overall wisdom of the venture when FOI requests and pressure on MPs and Ministers may bear more fruitful rewards, legally so into the bargain.

It all reminds me of the old Mark Thomas ruse when he realised he could make some poor PC’s life hell and highlight a silly law (in a silly way) by arranging hundreds of individuals to hold hundreds of separate protests at the same place on the same day. Mark was so pleased with himself, and many of Mark’s devotees think it’s genius, but what point was being made and what was achieved? It all sounds like a silly waste of time to me.

And that’s the problem these days, there’s relatively little to fight for so we inflate our heads with a sense of self-righteousness over the smallest of things and believe we are beyond reproach, whether it’s illegally naming a footballer, making a right pigsty of London’s main tourist attraction or gathering a full 144 of your mates and distracting old ladies from buying new stocks of lovely tea.

It’s not on really. Many readers here may not want to be the full British shilling but I think they’d largely agree that rules are rules and we have a perfectly open and decent democratic process to air, share and blare your views for all to see and vote on.

The Fortnum 145 should have known they were taking a risk when they took their protest onto private property and should realise that there are no shortcuts in a true democracy, whatever an individual believes. If you believe in something then Parliament through the political process is the place to take it. That might sound considerably more dull than camping out on a shop floor, occupying a stock exchange (a patch of gravel round the corner from it at least) or winding up ‘the man’ but it’s the only realistic path to change and it comes with the added bonus of keeping one out of prison. Mostly.

Having been personally (in fact, physically) chastised by a senior member of the Scottish Government this week for negativity during #fmq, today I’m all sunshine and light. Below are two contributions to the weekly feast of motions we believe are worthy of commendation, and nothing worth wasting a Better Nation #wmotw booby prize upon.

First up is Kenny Gibson’s staunch defence of the democratic principle, using the bankers’ coups in Greece and Italy as the basis, but allied to a more local democratic deficit. The second is technically an amendment, but in practice Jim Hume is doing here what oppositions should do: holding the Government to account. Bravo gents!

S4M-01381 Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party)
That the Parliament notes with concern the accession to power of new so-called technocratic governments in Italy and Greece; believes that this is an affront to democracy, akin to the UK Government having unelected members of the House of Lords serving as ministers; considers that many fledgling democracies will look with alacrity at what has happened; believes that countries should be run by people who are democratically elected, and urges a return to what it considers democratic control in Greece and Italy as soon as possible.

Motion S4M-01346.1 – Jim Hume (Scottish Liberal Democrats)
As an amendment to motion S4M-01346 in the name of Alex Johnstone (Housing), leave out from “notes” to end and insert “recalls that the SNP manifesto commitment was “to build over 6,000 new socially-rented houses each year”; notes that, since the election, ministers have referred to a target of 6,000 affordable homes rather than to the manifesto pledge and believes that the Scottish Government must clarify whether this manifesto commitment has now been replaced with a different, weaker commitment, which relies on people on low incomes being able to secure a mortgage; further notes that the Scottish Government has announced a 25% cut in the budget available to registered social landlords for housing adaptations despite adaptations being shown to generate significant health and social care savings; considers that such a substantial cut to the housing adaptations budget contradicts the Scottish Government’s commitment to preventative spending, and believes that adaptations have a key part to play in the drive to prevent health and care problems and enable older and disabled people to live independently in their own homes.”