IN Scottish political life, there is more argument than agreement. The former often does not lead to the latter.
So, it was good for Scotland, in my view, that all parties have combined in agreement in making a joint submission to the UK Government about the impact which defence cuts may have on our jobs and economy.
The Armed Forces have great support in the Highlands. People distinguish between the valour of soldiers, aircrew and sailors, and decisions taken about going to war made by UK governments.
The contribution made by RAF Lossiemouth and Kinloss to the economy of the North is massive. Closure would have very serious consequences.
I hope that the UK Government do not ignore the commonly expressed voice of Scotland on this issue.
ONE of the most common political tactics is to misrepresent your opponent's plans or policies. So our opponents argue that the Scottish Government have "broken our manifesto pledges". In fact, we have (so far) implemented 77 out of 94. I wish I had done as well as this in my exams at school!
This week, for example, I attended a community policing initiative and was able to say that we have in Scotland, as at June this year, 17,424 police officers, 1,190 more than in 2007, when we came to power. Our promise before the election was an additional 1,000. So we have exceeded this particular pledge.
Though not complacent, we have seen crime reduced to the lowest level for 32 years - and the work now done to tackle anti-social behavior, agreed by myself and Labour councillor Harry McGuigan has seen us drive down some of the worst of this, by getting to the root of the problem.
Our approach is supported by the police, the fire service, social work, youth representatives, social work leaders, drugs and alcohol workers, and violence reduction units - and Uncle Tom Cobley esq! Agreement, not argument.
IT was disappointing that this week in Holyrood, the argument over our plans for a minimum price for alcohol, did not lead to an agreement in committee - despite all the medical experts supporting us.
We have sought to change the law to tackle the problem we have with abuse of alcohol. With just 47 out of 129 seats in the Parliament, we will have to further argue our case at Stage Three.
But as a minority Government we may be prevented from getting this through because we need more SNP MSPs to have a majority. There is a message there which I will leave you to infer!
ONE area which blights the lives of some people in Scotland is having a high hedge which blocks out the light, and often causes bitterness and difficulty between neighbours. This can cause real misery.
As Minister responsible, I put forward a detailed consultation last year, which saw 600 responses - and this week had a meeting with MSPs of all parties to explain my proposals for action - argument to build agreement.
These are to introduce a law which for the first time will provide owners with a new legal right of reasonable enjoyment of property and that will be held to be broken by a high hedge.
The law will need to be accompanied by a code or guidance to give examples of what is not acceptable. Much further work must be done and this means the law cannot be introduced before next May, when the Scottish Elections are held. But my aim was rather to build up a cross-party agreement that this proposal is the best way ahead. Because, if all parties agree, they can all put in their manifestos next May, a pledge to bring in such a law.
The impression I have from discussions with MSPs from other parties, following the meeting I chaired is that there may well be such agreement.
If so, this will provide an answer to a problem which we have as a parliament failed as yet properly to solve. Agreement not argument will prevail.
But as the writer, Ralph Waldo Emerson said: "When we quarrel, how we wish we had been blameless."
And as I say: it is never too late to do the right thing.
