There are two criteria for the Burdz choice for our next Presiding Officer. That it be a woman – and a separate post on why and potential whoms is available for viewing at A Burdz Eye View. And that it be anyone but Tavish.
And if that sounds and seems awfy personal then that is because he made it so.
Back in 2007, Nicol Stephen, then leader of the Liberal Democrats, was minded to go into coalition negotations with the newly-elected SNP Government. But at the Lib Dem group meeting, he was met by vehement opposition from two MSPs in particular, who were smarting at Alex Salmond’s defeat of one of their own, Nora Radcliffe, in one of their heartlands. They were so opposed to even talking to the SNP about a possible coalition that they threatened to resign if discussions went ahead. I am reliably informed that one of them was Tavish Scott.
Further back in the mists of time, I attended one of the many receptions held in 1999 by various lobby and interest groups to welcome and of course, nobble MSPs. This was the COSLA one and no I wasn’t elected but at the time, but was one of a handful of SNP people with experince of working with COSLA, having served on cross-party task forces. Few knew who I was. So I happened to be standing in a group of folk at the centre of which Tavish was holding court. The discussion focused on the months ahead and how the new Labour-Lib Dem coalition executive would govern. Thinking he was among friends – and how naive was that – Tavish guffawed that he didn’t care what they did so long as they stuck it to the SNP and Salmond. I think sweary words might even have been deployed. Everyone roared with laughter apart from the two COSLA officials either side of me who were very discomfited by such partisanship – no really – and were embarrassed on my behalf.
For years, Tavish Scott has harboured an inexplicable but visceral, almost pathological hatred of the SNP and of Alex Salmond in particular. For these reasons alone, he cannot be allowed to become Presiding Officer. Oh he’s entitled to hate whom he likes, but a Presiding Officer needs to have very little baggage or at least not wear his true feelings on his sleeve.
George Reid infuriated the SNP by being amenable and even friendly to people from the other parties. He had worked on the Group that put in place the procedures and structures for the new Parliament, working closely with Henry McLeish, its convenor, amongst others. And he set his sights on becoming Presiding Officer and behaved accordingly from 1999 onwards. As Presiding Officer he was as harsh on the Nats as on others whom he deemed to have transgressed. But he did the job that was required of him and he did it well. I doubt that Tavish Scott who has shown few such avuncular tendencies over the years could do likewise. Leopards do not change their spots.
But there are other reasons, just as pertinent. This is a man who has just led his party to its biggest electoral defeat in years. Yes, the coalition with the Tories down south did not help – at all – but as I blogged at Bella Caledonia, the Scottish people punished the Lib Dems for breaking their compact with them too. And now he wants to be rewarded for such ignominious failure with the second biggest job in Scottish politics?
Moreover, if he steps into the non-political Presiding Officer role, he leaves his rump of Lib Dem MSPs utterly without influence or role. To secure a place in the Parliamentary Bureau which determines the business of the Parliament and where deals are struck to ensure business flows, a parliamentary group must have five members. A Lib Dem group of only four MSPs would lose its entitlement to any say whatsoever in the day to day goings on at Holyrood.
You might argue, plausibly, that with 69 MSPs the only group going to have any say in what happens at the foot of the Canongate for the next five years is the SNP. But Alex Salmond has already said publicly – whatever plans and thoughts he may have privately – that the SNP will be inclusive and wants to win hearts and minds. With such a large majority – he has more MSPs than all the other groups put together – he can afford a little magnanimity in triumph and also during the lifetime of the Parliament. The Bureau is likely to be where deals can be brokered on opposition debates and even on members’ bills. The SNP will not be averse to business coming forward from other party manifestoes that fits well with its own commitments.
Given that the Liberal Democrats are the only other party to support local income tax, they could become the policy’s parliamentary champions and members’ business might be a way of testing the waters and teasing out some of the issues surrounding a change to local taxation. That might suit the SNP very well.
But without a seat at the table, the Lib Dems will not be able to put such a proposal forward, nor shape any part of the next five years. Reduced to a rump, they will become increasingly irrelevant and meaningless. At the next election, without any exposure through parliamentary and media activity, they might disappear altogether.
Tavish might be minded, given the events of the last few days, to start looking after number one, but the burd reckons he owes his party and its members more than that.
#1 by Douglas McLellan on May 8, 2011 - 12:57 pm
I agree that it should not be a Tavish for the exact reason you stated about needing 5 MSPs to join the Parliamentary Bureau. And the need to have our 5 MSPs cover a wide range of portfolios.
As for the hatred of the SNP I think that every party has elected politicians and activists who reserve most of their bile for one opposing party above all others. Just ask James and Jeff about their feelings on the Scottish Lib Dems.
#2 by The Burd on May 8, 2011 - 1:26 pm
I agree Douglas – which is why in the post that he is free to hate whom ever he likes but we can’t have someone so openly anitpathetic in the PO role. Hoist by his own foibles on that one I’m afraid. And actually he might have made a very good PO without this baggage and in other circumstances.
But yes, he cannot do this to the Lib Dem group surely?!
#3 by Gryff on May 8, 2011 - 1:11 pm
Where is the idea that Tavish is going for this coming from? I’ve seen it on Twitter, but only from you? – not seeing anything independent of that?
#4 by The Burd on May 8, 2011 - 1:24 pm
It’s in Scotland on Sunday and the Sunday Herald today – which means there is a campaign going on behind the scenes by “his” people.
#5 by Rosa Alba Macdonald on May 8, 2011 - 1:15 pm
I am minded to agree. I agree with Kenny Farquharson’s suggestion on Twitter or Margo or perhaps Robin Harper.
#6 by Douglas McLellan on May 8, 2011 - 1:35 pm
Regretfully, Mr Haper is now retired and is no longer an MSP.
#7 by Alex Buchan on May 8, 2011 - 1:23 pm
Thanks for a very clearly put and reasoned argument for Tavish Scott not being the Presiding Officer. Although the information you provide about his hatred of the SNP and Alex Salmond was clearly not in the public domain, I think it has been obvious to everyone that the tone he has adopted in any references to supporting a referendum on independence and more recently in his ferocity of his comments in the Perth Leaders’ Debate has left little room for doubt about his underlying antipathy. This may indeed have been part of his reason for standing down as his feelings clearly influenced his approach in the latter part of the campaign in a way that spectacularly backfired on the Lib Dems.
#8 by Munguin on May 8, 2011 - 2:00 pm
I agree that it should not be Tavish for the reasons stated. I don’t agree that it should be a woman. It should be the best person for the job. The convention suggests that it ought to be Labour. I’d like to see Malcolm Chisholm.
#9 by AliMiller on May 8, 2011 - 2:12 pm
Its a bit off topic but I need to vent this: how wonderful to see Tavish destroyed after he spent the last 4 years trying to trash the SNP government, without making a positive contribution to the parliament. I remember with anger his dodgy statistics on “high pay” which he set at a number which NHS consultants pay had increased over due to pay agreements made by him (£98k to £100.7k) which made it look as if there was a £50 million increase in high pay.
As for those who were booted out: Purvis deserves it for his disgraceful opposition of the Retail Tax, a proposal he should have backed given his apparent support for small shops. Then there was the highly arrogant Rumbles who despite often making good points was less than constructive in his approach. I remember his antics at the SVR debate.
A real shame about Robert Brown and Ross Finnie though, excellent representatives and thoughtful contributers. The best acheivment of the parliament in my view was the new justice policy, and Brown was instrumental in that.
#10 by aonghas on May 8, 2011 - 2:15 pm
OT: seen the Sunday Times front page? Something about Cameron planning a ‘snap’ referendum?
#11 by Jeff on May 8, 2011 - 2:16 pm
I have to say, I’m struggling to get excited about who the next PO will
be. Alex Fergusson did a decent job, maybe could have clamped down on the hullabaloo a bit more, but he has a PO presence if that makes sense.
For that same reason, I can’t see Malcolm Chisholm being a good choice. He is too meek, which is a compmiment in one way but I don’t see him commanding the respect and obedience of the chamber.
I also don’t think it should be a woman just for the sake of it. I suppose having 3 chaps in a row isn’t ideal but the best person for the job should
get the gig if we’re serious about equality.
That said, Christine Graham. Or Roseanna Cunningham would be my suggestions, if they fancied it. I can’t imagine too many MSPs from any party fancy the role as you have to step away from the enjoyable
rough and tumble of politics.
Maybe the PO should be an external appointee? Why does it need to be an MSP anyway?
#12 by Doug Daniel on May 8, 2011 - 4:16 pm
“Why does it need to be an MSP anyway?”
I don’t understand this either. Surely the whole point of electing an MSP is that they will serve their constituents in Holyrood, rather than sitting in a chair trying to keep the peace? I want my MSP taking part in debates and votes. I also don’t think it makes sense having an odd number of MSPs, then removing one to leave an even number, leaving the possibility of 64 vs 64 in votes, and giving the PO a casting vote, which he must use to vote in favour of the status quo (thus making it a completely pointless vote).
Why not just have some non-politico permanently in the job?
#13 by James on May 8, 2011 - 5:29 pm
The 64/64 thing I totally agree with. But that does cut both ways. Imagine we had an even-numbered chamber – still plenty of ways that could be tied at election such that no-one would want to give up a seat.
And it needs to be someone who commands the respect of the chamber, which is why it has to be one of their peers, plus that’s why they have a casting vote – a non-MSP couldn’t do that (and ties will always be possible). The only other option would be an MSP from the last session, but that’s complicated too. One who stood down only? Or elect them as the last act of the session for the next session, then they know they don’t have to fight a partisan campaign? That might work (but do tell me why not).
#14 by Doug Daniel on May 8, 2011 - 6:31 pm
Ahh, an interesting idea. I was toying with the idea of a newly-retired MSP doing the job, and I can’t see any problems with the election mechanism you suggest. It certainly would have to be one who stood down only, as it might be more difficult to command respect when everyone knows you were just booted out by your electorate. So with that in mind, there’s absolutely no reason why it couldn’t be the last act before dissolution. DPOs could still be elected as per usual. If the PO died in office, one of the DPOs could assume the role, resign their seat and trigger a by election?
I had a feeling the respect and casting vote issues would be why it needs to be an MSP. But as I said, with the casting vote having to side with the status quo (or so I believe), it makes it a fairly moot point, surely? As for the respect issue, I would hope they would be grown up enough to be able to accept that the PO had authority. Would a PO directly elected by the public be a step too far?
#15 by James on May 8, 2011 - 6:37 pm
It’s perhaps easier still. if you do it before the dissolution then the winner would obviously stand down and know that he or she had a job after. Losing candidates could stand down or contest elections as they saw fit.
#16 by dcomerf on May 8, 2011 - 5:14 pm
I agree it shouldn’t be a “chap” – and this is a moniker which probably could be applied to Steel, Reid and Fergusson. Avoiding the “chap” label could equally be achieved by someone more like Gorbals Mick than by someone female.
#17 by Jeff on May 8, 2011 - 6:11 pm
Jeez, pedant alert!
#18 by dcomerf on May 8, 2011 - 7:06 pm
no – just trying to bring class into things as well as gender 🙂
#19 by ratzo on May 8, 2011 - 2:26 pm
Well said.
The rise and fall of Tavish Scott has been a disaster for the lib dems.
He tried to spin their destruction solely as a consequence of Westminster politics but it was his peculiar obsession with the SNP that lead to the successful experiment with minority government and the further marginalisation of his own party. If there had been an SNP-Lib coalition in Scotland in the last four years its doubtful that the scale of the disaster would have been so great, and he might still be leader today.
#20 by Scouriebeast on May 8, 2011 - 3:25 pm
Correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that although not a written down rule the practice was for the role of Presiding Officer to be taken on a “party rotation” basis and that is why Fergus Ewing reluctantly took on the role.
Is it not the Labour parties responsibility to put up a candidate for P.O that is acceptable to the majority of the Parliment?
#21 by Scouriebeast on May 8, 2011 - 3:27 pm
arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh meant to write Ferguson but had Winnie ewing on the brain sorry
#22 by Doug Daniel on May 8, 2011 - 4:18 pm
Too much info, mate.
#23 by rullko on May 8, 2011 - 5:18 pm
Your anecdote is unsurprising. Tavish was a malign and small-minded replacement for his thoughtful predecessor, and although what happened on Thursday wasn’t due to him, it was the epitaph he deserved.
The PO should be one of the less partisan Labour folk. Sarah Boyack seems like she’d be good. Margo would be suitably neutral, as she dislikes everyone equally, but she has lots of important legislative ideas and it would be a waste of her time to spend five years sitting in the chair telling people to shut up.
#24 by cynicalHighlander on May 8, 2011 - 7:05 pm
PO also allows or rejects prospective bills as such an SNP PO is the only one that can guarantee that a referendum wont be blocked/delayed.
#25 by John Ruddy on May 8, 2011 - 9:59 pm
Which is the argument why it shouldnt be an SNP member. A presiding officer is supposed to be neutral – and not partisan to his/her own side. Choosing a PO just so that a certain piece of legislation can be deemed competant is wrong!
#26 by The Burd on May 8, 2011 - 10:04 pm
John, if you visited my complementary post on this on why I’d like it to be a woman, you’d see that while I’m not averse to the next PO being a Nat, I do acknowledge the risks. But actually think given the strength of Salmond’s personality, it might take someone from inside to keep him in check. I just want a strong, decent PO, preferably female – Parliament too important for it not to be.
#27 by John Ruddy on May 9, 2011 - 10:23 pm
I agree – I dont mind a SNP PO this time, I’m agnostic about it. As long as there is the confidence that they could stand up to the inevitable pressures put upon them by their fellow SNP members (such as cynicalHighlander above) to let things go through to favour their own side. To allow legislation that is not competant, or legal would be wrong – no matter who did it, or which side they favoured.
The PO is supposed to be impartial – from the SNP point of view, a SNP PO may have to be TOUGHER on them than on the opposition, to prove that they are being impartial. It is probably time a woman was PO, but I wouldnt want one just because she was a woman – as I’m sure you wouldnt either. She has to be the right person – and better than the other candidates.
#28 by Dubbieside on May 8, 2011 - 7:16 pm
Just a thought, but why should the Scottish parliament slavishly follow what is basically the Westminster model for speaker.
After three parliaments is it not time to look at things like how we elect the Presiding Officer and what is the criteria for people standing. Is it such a big leap to say people who have previously served in the parliament can be eligible for election, if they want to put their name forward?
Under such a scenario Robin Harper or Henry McLeish would do a worthwhile job.
#29 by Charles on May 9, 2011 - 12:28 am
Posted on the other blog but i think Richard Simpson could be a contender. He is well respected and has the gravitas to hold down the position.
#30 by Gavin Hamilton on May 9, 2011 - 1:10 pm
Not being on the inside I am not privy to any of the personal detail on Tavish.
It sems to me the LibDems decimation was not down to Tavish, rather the coalition and tuition fees – and the success of the SNP positioning which has built a broad coalition of support across Scotland – including the ground occupied by the LibDems.
I don’t think he should be PO for the reasons stated about maintaining a bloc of at least 5 – he has a job to do as a LibDem.
As for the LibDems opposition to the SNP. It seems to me that, in many many ways, the LibDems have more in common with the SNP position on most things than they have with Labour or the Tories – or even the Greens.
However, Liberals are internationalists not nationalists, and being opposed to the SNP on their nationalist agenda is entirely reasonable if that is what they believe.
Before, the LibDems exist as a non socialist alternative to the Tory party – and a non nationalist one.
And don’t forget, Tavish is a Shetlander, traditionally they are wary of Edinburgh separating from London. I think they see themselves as Orcadians and Shetlanders first, Scots andd Britons next – much in same way many of us see ourselves as Scots first.
This is a legitimate view for a part of Scotland to take.
I also thought in 2007 it was wise to not just jump from biggest party to biggest party in perpetual coalition.
I can’t comment if anything since has been in any way unconstructive or personal.
I suspect Willie Rennie – as someone with energy, humanity and who has helped a lot of people and businesses will be the man with the unenviable task of leading the Libdems in Holyrood now.
He has the charisma and intellectual strength to do that and I hope Tavish can make a positive contribution to add substance to his team.
#31 by Jeff on May 9, 2011 - 1:24 pm
Good point Gavin, I’d agree with your points on Willie Rennie, he is probably most deserving of a shot at the title, though a lack of Holyrood experience is a risk.
I would disagree with your assertion that “the LibDems decimation was not down to Tavish”. The simple fact that Tavish led the obstruction to an SNP/Lib Dem coalition means that it was pretty much solely Tavish’s fault. Carping from the sidelines didn’t fair the LDs very well and their fate was compounded when Clegg went for the DPM job. A Deputy First Minister would have had a great pedestal to voice his party’s rejection of the Westminster Lib Dem’s decisions but, as only the 4th leader at Holyrood, his objections went largely unheard.
You’ve got to ask, where did turning the SNP down in 2007 get the Lib Dems? Nowhere I would venture, and that’s Tavish’s fault I’m afraid.
And, ironicaly, the SNP has Clegg to thank for getting its independence referendum. If Westminster had a minority Tory Govt then the SNP would probably not have won a majority.
#32 by John Ruddy on May 9, 2011 - 10:26 pm
Are you saying that if the Lib Dems had gone into coalition with the SNP in 2007, they would have survived going into coalition with the tories in 2010?
No. Their betryal in Westminster came across onthe doorstep loud and clear as the reason for Lib Dem voters deserting their party. I’m just gutted that the ones in Angus North all told me they were coming across to Labour, but didnt!
#33 by The Burd on May 9, 2011 - 10:29 pm
They swung late in the day John. But I do think the narrative behind Thursday’s vote is more complex than all sides currently claiming. Yes they got whacked for coalition with the Tories but they broke the unspoken compact with the Scottish people which was the expectation that they would always play a junior partner role. By not doing that in 2007 they proved themselves irrelevant. And that is a pretty simplistic way of putting it I know but it is one of many motivations methinks
#34 by Douglas McLellan on May 10, 2011 - 1:54 am
It is quite probable that you got many of the Lib Dem votes. And a number of your voters went to the SNP.
#35 by James on May 13, 2011 - 6:59 am
Agreed!
#36 by Gavin Hamilton on May 9, 2011 - 1:49 pm
I dont disagree with you that come this may these have been some of the consequences in Scotland but I think the opposition to the referendum in 2007 was just because they opposed it, no more no less.
There is a certain irony that the course of the coalition at London has contributed to a sea change in Scotland but that would not have been a driver for what is and is not done re coalition.
I do however, hope that Clegg listens to his LibDem group from Scotland (and the north of England)
Radically Liberalism is very much part of the Scottish tradition and part of his party and he needs to be midful taht is leader of that party and that intellectual inheritance.
Jeff,I would be very much interested to read of how your view of the political agenda changes with your perspective now you are a London Scot.
I know that living and working in the south – and the coming back to Scotland – changed my perspectives subtly. But they have never changed me from being a proud Scot.
I think this view of nationalism from afar, from a nationalist sympathiser, would be a very interesting blog post from you at some point.
Gavin
#37 by Jeff on May 9, 2011 - 1:51 pm
Thanks for the suggestion, I reckon I’ll take you up on it. There’s a story in the London Standard saying that a majority in the City would like to see Scotland as independent. The UK may ‘divest’ itself of Scotland yet!
#38 by Indy on May 9, 2011 - 6:20 pm
Gven the latest news Annabelle |Goldie would seem to me to be almost perfect for the job.
#39 by Jeff on May 9, 2011 - 6:22 pm
Seconded
#40 by Hanta on May 13, 2011 - 4:58 am
Excellent post. Thanks for giving us all a heads up about Tavish Scott… I had my suspicions.