We're in uncharted territory on the budget process. With £30bn or so in play, the procedures have gone through the Scottish Parliament fairly smoothly in the past eight years, with the majority administration facing no risk of defeat. Not so for a minority government.

Finance Secretary John Swinney needs to make sure he passes his Budget Bill when it reaches the vital vote on 6 or 7 February. If the SNP adminstration can't pass its budget, it can't really call itself a government in any meaningful way. If the Bill is defeated, the rules say money could still be released to fund public services, as
allocated for the previous year and on a monthly basis, so there's no risk of government grinding to a halt. But politically, the loss of this Bill would probably be death for the SNP government.

But the signs today are that Mr Swinney can rest easy. Not only are the rules proving to be strongly favourable to the government incumbent (only a minister can table an amendment), but the opposition is proving to be disunited. Only if Labour, Lib Dems and Tories got their act together could they defeat the SNP, and there is not a hint
of them doing that.

On the contrary. The interesting ones to watch are the Tories. They set out modest but achievable targets in the budget process; more money for policing, faster introduction of a small business rates relief scheme and more for drug rehabitation. The latter is now being addressed by discussion of how the money is spent rather than how much. The amendments for which they got SNP support in finance committee on Tuesday urge the minister to find ways of boosting police recruitment beyond the 500 financed so far. This isn't quite a coalition, in that the Tories remain in opposition, but they are showing what they set out to demonstrate last May – that you can get some results while being in opposition to a minority adminstration.

The Lib Dem position seems most baffling. They wanted lots more spent on universities, but did not table an amendment to that effect. Perhaps they guessed it would fail and the rules required them to identify the areas in the education budget from which equivalent cuts should come. Labour has shown them the problem with doing that (as explained in the next paragraph). The Lib Dem finance committee
member, Liam MacArthur, was more notable for his abstentions in the crucial amendment votes. That suggests the party will also abstain on the Parliament's budget vote. John Swinney would be happy enough with that. Abstentions reduce the number of votes he needs in favour.

In contrast with the Conservatives, Labour is showing how not to make an impact as the opposition. They put forward amendments, but failed to put in the groundwork that would draw in support from other parties. All the amendments were thus doomed to failure. The party argues that it has fought for the vulnerable and for spending on skills and vocational schooling. But it meant Labour also had to show
where the cuts would come. The SNP is delighted to find its rivals suggesting the budget lines on anti-terrorism measures and on road maintenance would be cut. That doesn't put Labour in a good place politically. A Nationalist backbencher suggested Labour's proposals could cost lives.

That leaves two Greens and Margo MacDonald. Their votes could be crucial to ensuring the SNP wins its Budget Bill votes. The independent from Lothian can be relied on to abstain, because she has already secured a promise of a review of Edinburgh's funding in light of its capital city status and responsibilities. In America, bringing the goodies home for your constituency that way is called pork barrel
politics, and Ms MacDonald is not above that. The Greens continue to threaten they will vote against the Budget while it promises lots of cash for road building in Glasgow and round Aberdeen and not so much for public transport. They are also highlighting their demands on housing. Don't be surprised if talks and concessions behind the scenes at least draw them into abstaining.

Party politics dominates all this. But look again at the finance committee report. There's an interesting section where it gently points out that around £10 billion of spending on councils looks suspiciously like a blank cheque. It highlights the lack of any guarantee of what specific outcomes there will be from council spending, in what are called Single Outcome Agreements. There is no robust system for measuring councils' achievements, or a baseline from which to start measuring. Nor has it got an answer to its question about ring-fencing of grant allocations to councils if performance targets are not met: could it be reversed? Then there's a question of what contingency plans are in place if ambitious efficiency savings targets of 2% per year over the next three years are not met. None, and Mr Swinney badly needs those savings if the rest of his figures are to add up.

There's lots more work to be done on those issues, and lots more politics to be played out too.