WHO'D have believed it? Back in the old days, before the SNP’s Feisty 56 changed everything, most folk had no idea who their MPs were, what they got up to in the Commons and whether important votes affecting Scotland had been passed or defeated. Now the antics of those crazy Westminster folk have become the talk of the steamie, unlikely full fiscal autonomy (FFA) supporter Sir Edward Leigh and all.

This new focus on life at Westminster is welcome and necessary. Greater scrutiny on important legislation, ludicrous Commons traditions and the grinding certainty that each eloquently argued SNP proposal will be outvoted – all of these realities remind Scots that a new way of doing politics is urgently needed.

However, a few other things flow from our Westminster-centric focus. The first and most obvious is that Scotland’s alternative media – including this paper – need more resources to provide a running commentary on events in the Commons chamber and committees.

The failure of BBC Scotland to analyse Labour’s decision to abstain on the FFA vote and woeful Scotland Bill coverage suggest reporting of contentious issues at Westminster is not safe in their hands. Surely Scots need an equivalent of Radio 4’s Today In Parliament – covering Westminster and Holyrood and doing it in a lively way. BBC Radio Scotland used to have a 10 o’clock news programme with MSPs discussing the Holyrood debates of the day. With all due respect to most of those involved it was rarely riveting. Grinding axes and party political rivalries were the order of the day – common sense, blue-sky thinking, honesty, or first hand experience were usually missing.

Of course with new direction and resources, an evening parliamentary update programme could be different. But since the referendum windfall has been spent and BBC Scotland’s priorities are still stuck in the days before the nation’s political awakening, that’s very unlikely to happen. In part also because of the second big consequence of Scotland’s new focus on Westminster – the undermining of Holyrood.

Does anyone really know if MSPs are sitting right now and what they are discussing? Is anyone following Holyrood debates tweet by tweet as they follow prolific Westminster communicators such as Tommy Shepherd, John Nicholson or Mhairi Black? I doubt it. And yet Scottish Parliament votes have a direct impact on Scots and are more susceptible to argument and pressure than any of the predictable outcomes down south. Yet Scottish Parliament legislation is being eclipsed by Westminster antics and we’re getting a less critical focus on Holyrood than the paltry coverage we had before. Take for example, the Community Empowerment Bill which is reaching the final stage in the Scottish Parliament this week. It’s been described by the Scottish Government as a way to make sure communities’ voices are heard on decisions affecting them and a way to take over derelict or abandoned land and buildings. The Bill will extend the community right to buy to the whole of Scotland removing the restriction to rural areas and will introduce a right to buy neglected or abandoned land even if there is no willing seller.

Blighted areas, which have been an eyesore to communities for years, could be brought back to life through the legislation, says the Scottish Government. But will that happen? According to the most savvy communities, the value of land and buildings they’d like to take over is a major stumbling block. Councils usually try to recover the “book value” of a building not the “market value” which might be much less. The right to buy only means the right to register an interest – if the asset never comes up for sale that right is meaningless.

The Government’s decision to tackle abandoned and neglected land is praiseworthy because the whole idea makes government lawyers so nervous – but how should it be done? Unlike the compulsory sale order recommended by the land reform review group, where a public auction would help drive down prices, any community purchase of derelict land will once again be based on “market value” and may be unaffordable. The new right to participation in the provision of council services may be ground-breaking – but only Scotland’s developed Community Trusts will have the capacity to help deliver services effectively.

Meanwhile, there is no talk about the pressing need to tackle one of the greatest sources of community disempowerment – the enormous size of our existing local authorities. Even Cosla, which represents Scottish councils, recognise its population size (12 times the European average) is too big to encourage participation.

According to Angus Hardy of the Scottish Community Alliance: “Community empowerment and ‘local’ democracy are two sides of the same coin – something akin to our system of community councils (albeit properly resourced, probably restructured and with effective national representation) could be the bridge between the two. If the purpose of empowering communities is not working towards such a genuine local democracy, could someone let me know what is?”

That is a vitally important question and if neither the conventional nor alternative media give it and other domestic issues airtime – then shame on us all.