Better Nation

33 Comments

• #1 by Douglas McLellan on June 5, 2011 - 12:43 pm

  

  Whilst you have a certain world view that suggests any criticism of Tricia Marwick was due to her being a woman I have to disagree. Prior to letting the First Minister give answers as long and in fact as relevant as War & Peace the Presiding Officer had shortened a question being put during by Jim Hume to Richard Lochead on National Forestry Treasurers.

  Was this topic of more “real import” the FMQs? Surely, no matter your feelings on any given topic, a basic level of respect for parliament suggests that every week all topics are of “real import”? I would argue, by the way, that care for older people is an important topic. I know its not your favoured topic of children but this is a country with more than one age group.

  But the actual question doesnt matter. The PO had set a tone. Short questions if you please. So why was she so immediately hypocritical in failing to ask for short answers from the FM. Failure to reign in the FM on day one of this session has set the tone of speeches rather than answers. And it is not a tone that the Scottish Parliament should be happy with.

  • #2 by The Burd on June 5, 2011 - 12:54 pm

    

    The point of the post is to question why people are so quick to attack Tricia Marwick’s failings in her first outing at FMQs and General Questions when they did not do so for other POs who probably didn’t pass muster on their first go at it either.

    I agree that the current tone for FMQs and Question Times generally is not good – and am sure I blogged on this a while ago, linking to what Jack McConnell had to say about it all.

    Care for older people and what is going on in the care system for adults and older people at the moment is of huge concern to us all – that’s why I blogged about it earlier in the week over at the other blogspace.

    And I’m well capable Douglas of knowing that there is more than one age group in Scotland without snidey wee comments from you pointing it out.

    • #3 by Douglas McLellan on June 5, 2011 - 12:58 pm

      

      You were the one being snide by stating the questions were not of real import.

      • #4 by The Burd on June 5, 2011 - 1:02 pm

        

        And where did I say that?

        • #5 by Douglas McLellan on June 5, 2011 - 1:03 pm

          

          “Was there anything at the first First Minister’s Question Time of any real import? No.”

          • #6 by The Burd on June 5, 2011 - 1:11 pm

            

            Yes but there is a context to the whole article which is that the timing is everything. Do you really believe that anything that is asked or answered at FMQs has any impact on the political agenda? If it does it happens very rarely. The whole thing is grandstand politics. If people are serious about getting an issue tackled they know not to take it through FMQs frankly.

            And the comment wasn’t snide. It was short and to the point. But that is different.

            • #7 by Phil Hunt on June 18, 2011 - 10:25 pm

              

              Then maybe FMQs should be abolished. I’m sure the unnecessarily adversarial nature of this an PMQT put a lot of people off politics. The level is generally along the lines of: “Does the Primes Minister realise his policies are all crap, and that his party is morally and intellectually bankrupt?” — “On the contrary, it is the leader of the opposition who is morally and intellectually bankrupt.”

  • #8 by GMcM on June 6, 2011 - 9:38 am

    

    I agree.

    I don’t see how you can claim the criticism of Tricia Marwick is due to gender.

    The reason for the increased scrutiny is not because she is a woman but because the situation we find ourselves with is a first. A first overall majority for a single party and that the PO is of that party.

    Tricia Marwick had to set the tone on day one that she would act without fear or favour. She has failed to do so and will have to work hard to overcome this I feel.

• #9 by JPJ2 on June 5, 2011 - 1:06 pm

  

  Frankly I think the attacks on Tricia Marwick are essentially anti-SNP rather than anti-women.

  • #10 by The Burd on June 5, 2011 - 1:13 pm

    

    I think it was both – the fact she is a woman makes her an easy target in the sub-conscious of hte political press pack. And allows them to make a bigger anti-SNP point. I just wish everyone would calm down and write about something useful that matters in the wider scheme of things. There are 5 long years ahead – if this is still going on in a year’s time, that is the time for everyone to jump up and down and complain about it.

• #11 by Alex Buchan on June 5, 2011 - 2:01 pm

  

  I think you’re spot on about the double standards in relation to relation to female politicians. I’m not sure if this is just a problem in Scotland as Harman and Spelman seemed to have been singled out for similar treatment in England. I’m not sure if blogging about it will change much, perhaps it needs female journalists (or any journalists) to point it out in a column in one of the offending papers – but would they print it?

  If you can be bothered to sit through the televised Welsh FMQ you would see that the problem doesn’t just lie with the press. Wales is an extreme case of relatively non-confrontational politics where question do get straightforward answers; Northern Ireland’s FMQ is about half way between this and what we have in Scotland’s. FMQ in Scotland is the one closest to Westminster in style, which might suggest that part of our problem is our need to ape Westminster in order to believe we are the equal of England. As Alan Cochrane says in the linked article it isn’t really the PO role to intervene in how a politician chooses to answer but there is an issue of the length of the answers and Cameron is a lot briefer in his responses.

  I personally feel there is a general problem in the body politic in Scotland the politicians and journalists both seem more interested in following agendas rather than discussing detail in a measured way. Strangely, given Labour’s behaviour in the last Parliament, Iain Gray seemed the only person on Thursday who was trying to put the new politics into practice. Perhaps it’s because Scottish divisions over the union have an almost sectarian intensity that our politics is warped in the way it is.

  • #12 by The Burd on June 5, 2011 - 2:38 pm

    

    These are very good points well made. I long for a sensible and rational Qs and As session cf the Welsh. Or the Lords manages it as well I think. In fact the quality of their debate really does show ours up in a poor light. We live in the age of soundbite headline politics in Scotland and everyone has fallen into that trap a bit I think. And yes I do think the constitutional divide creates an unappetising atmosphere, as does the fact that there is not really a lot of difference between any of the opposition parties and the Government. Yes on a few issues but even then, it’s difference in scale largely which leaves not a lot of substance to get good meaty debates from.

• #13 by Alex Buchan on June 5, 2011 - 3:27 pm

  

  There’s one important point I’d like to add about the FM’s style. In PMQ’s Cameron most frequent response to backbenchers is “The member makes a very important point….” before going on to address the point. This is his stock initial words when a backbencher raises an issue even when they are on the opposition benches.

  Now this may not seem like honest politics but it works at another level which is to give the impression that PMQs is a forum where problems can be brought to the attention of government at the highest level and receive attention. This is his way of indicating that Parliament, especially PMQs, is a serious forum and is the capable of being the focus of the nation’s concerns. This also makes Cameron look good and is good politics.

  Contrast the FMs style which is the opposite of this. Instead of being inclusive he comes across as exclusive and, by not answering, gives the impression of being paternalistic and authoritarian. His style on Thursday could be summed up in the phrase: everything is under control and we don’t need to learn from anyone.

• #14 by Tony on June 5, 2011 - 4:43 pm

  

  Unbelievably hasty and mis-directed attacks, whic are as others have pointed out perhaps in lieu of attacks on the SNP itself. Gie the lassie a chance, I hardly even noticed her on Thursday, and in fitba not noticing the ref is a good thing, especially if you are like me a celtic man. ;¬)

  I kinda likes adverserial politics as life and politics are boring enough. Holyrood has become a wee bit more dramatic and theatrical at times, which may not be too everyone’s tastes but again I like it. I’ve tried watching a bit of the stuff on offer from cardiff and Belfast and frankly I’d rather watch paint dry.

• #15 by Doug Daniel on June 5, 2011 - 8:25 pm

  

  I agree with most of the points in your post, but not necessarily with the idea that Tricia is receiving this “special” treatment because she is a woman, and in that respect I would agree with JPJ2 that this is anti-SNP rather than anti-women.

  I don’t see any suggestion that the reasons for her supposedly allowing Big Eck to make a mockery of FMQs is because of her being a woman. It all points towards the general theme being created by the press of an SNP takeover of Holyrood, which is why I would say it is anti-SNP rather than anti-women. The question to ask yourself is “would we be seeing these same articles if the PO had been a male SNP MSP?”, and personally, I would say the answer is “yes, most definitely”.

  Bearing in mind that inequality has been a theme of several of your post-election blogs, I wonder if you’re perhaps getting a tendancy to see any criticism of female MSPs as sexism? I say this because of your assertion, “Did male Ministers or MSPs come in for such attention? Dinnae be daft.”

  Karen Whitefield getting caricatured because of her weight? I’m sorry, but when I think of MSPs that are slagged off for being fat, the one that immediately springs to mind is Alex Salmond. What about the character assassination that many people (myself very much included) have conducted on Iain Gray? Or Richard Baker? There are others: people call Tavish Scott a viking or tell him to go back to his farm; numerous uncomplimentary comparisons have been made between Stewart Stevenson and cartoon characters; it did not go unnoticed that Jeremy Purvis spoke with a lot of saliva in his mouth at times. I could go on and on…

  Politicians (and people of fame or power generally) are always being slagged off for their personal traits rather than (and often in spite of) their abilities, so it’s a bit rich to suggest that this is a treatment reserved solely for women. As a result, I would suggest that you might want to take your own advice about picking your battles, because doubtless there are examples of anti-female agendas that stand up to scrutiny, and it would be a shame if they ended up being ignored as cases of “girl cries wolf”.

  But on the general point – that it’s ridiculous that they are already criticising the PO after just one FMQ session – I agree wholeheartedly. But then, this whole month has been about the SNP being judged before they’ve even had a chance to do anything, as typified by Willie Rennie’s “steamroller” comment before anyone had even sat down in Holyrood.

  • #16 by The Burd on June 5, 2011 - 10:21 pm

    

    I do wish people would read posts properly… the point about misogyny was directed at the political press corps and how they have portrayed women politicians and written about them since 1999.

    I am well aware of the personal attacks made by some bloggers and commentators in the blogosphere and through social media but I tend to try to ignore them. They are very tedious and do no one’s cause any good at all. With one exception – Lallands Peat Worrier does it well and with humour.

    And thanks for the advice about picking battles Doug – but having managed for many years without it, I’ll ignore that too. I know exactly when to pick a battle and when not to. Unlike some cyber nats I could mention.

    • #17 by Doug Daniel on June 5, 2011 - 11:44 pm

      

      Well, again, I’ll direct you to your own advice and suggest you read comments properly. Fair play, when I mentioned Purvis I was alluding to LPW’s excellent characterisation; but I think you’ll find it was indeed the printed press that led the comparisons between Stevenson and Beaker from the Muppets, the same printed press that needed little prompting to join in the “Gray Man” jousting, and the same printed press which is not beyond highlighting the First Minister’s over-fondness of curries. Incidentally, it’s also the same printed press that went well over the line when it came to mocking Gordon Brown for some of his personal traits.

      I’m not doubting that there is an anti-women agenda in the press – after all, most newspapers are extremely conservative, so it would be no surprise to find that most of their employees believe a woman’s place is in the kitchen – but I was just making the points that a) the sentence of yours that I quoted was daft, as there are plenty of examples of male MSPs getting slagged off for similar things; b) that this particular attack seems far more in line with a general anti-SNP theme in the press than any anti-female agenda; and c) that looking for anti-female agendas where there isn’t one does more harm than good to the long slog towards equality.

      You’re quite right, “cyber nats” can be just as guilty when it comes to picking battles over perceived anti-SNP agendas or overtly pro-unionist press coverage – I regularly see it on this blog, on Newsnet Scotland, and on other blogs I read, and I dare say I’m prone to it myself, especially around election time. However, I hate to say it, but declaring that you know “exactly when to pick a battle and when not to” gives the impression that the opposite is perhaps more likely to be true.

• #18 by Catherine on June 5, 2011 - 9:33 pm

  

  Since it’s inception, there has always been a certain level of sexism surrounding the Scottish Parliament. This is especially true for the female Labour MSPs, who took a real battering intge first session. This was both at the hands of the opposition and the press. I think most of them were victims at some point and the scars still run very deep.

  In the same vein, I think Trisha Marwick was always going to get a rough ride first time out. But she could have done more to rein Salmond in and tbh I still think she was far too tribal a member of the SNP to be PO. But we are where we are.

  If Marwick turns out to be a good PO then she’ll silence her critics. If this is still the standard in six months then the criticisms will be fair, but let wait to pass judgement.

  Btw to all the cybernats, there is not an anti-SNP agenda in the press. They have a right, justified in my opinion, to criticse the now lack of scrutiny in the Scottish Parliament. Get over it.

  • #19 by Doug Daniel on June 5, 2011 - 10:32 pm

    

    They have a right to do so when we get some actual proof of the SNP using their majority to push through things that people never asked for. Until then, SNP supporters are quite entitled to question why majority government only became an undemocratic evil when the SNP were the majority government. Where were the similar deluges of articles warning of “elected dictatorships” in Westminster over the past 30 years?

    Perhaps it just shows how successful the SNP minority government was that people have already forgotten that it was an anomaly in terms of the history of UK politics.

    • #20 by The Burd on June 6, 2011 - 12:16 am

      

      Well said!

    • #21 by GMcM on June 6, 2011 - 12:26 pm

      

      I think you’re missing the point here slightly.

      Westminster is set up to provide a majority as a rule with a hung parliament an exception to that rule. The committees in Westminster provide ‘checks and balances’.

      No-one would complain of an ‘elected dictatorship’ when Labour-Lib Dems were in power because they are two separate parties who would have to compromise on each policy (in effect a checks and balances within government).

      When the SNP led a minority administration the opposition parties provided the checks and balances as the SNP had to compromise on each policy.

      The difference this time is that the majority administration is made up a single party. The PO is of that party and vast majority of the committees will be headed by members of that party.

      The SNP over the next 5 years will have the ability to ride roughshod over the Scottish Parliament. Whether they do or not we will see.

      I hope they prove to be an inclusive government as AS promised, however the initial skirmishes with the Supreme Court seem to suggest we’re in for 5 years of the SNP doing what they want; exactly what Labour warned of, namely being distracted from the things that matter by stoking up tension between Holyrood and Westminster.

      • #22 by Indy on June 6, 2011 - 2:42 pm

        

        I thunk you are slightly missing the point as well.

        Well, there are 2 points really – the first being that the SNP did not set the parliament up so it is a bit rich for the party which DID set it up to start bandying about phrases like elected dictatorship.

        The second point is that you have to accept that the electorate, collectively, knew what they were doing when they chose to give the SNP such a large majority, It may have taken everyone – including the SNP – by surprise but that doesn’t make it an accident.

        So, yes, maybe the situation throws up issues in terms of how proportional the system really is and in terms of the way the work of the parliament is structured and organised.

        But those issues don’t over-ride the will of the electorate.

      • #23 by Doug Daniel on June 7, 2011 - 10:18 am

        

        No I’m not. The fact is we’ve had a whole month since the election and it has generally consisted of the unionist press and parties:
        a) pinching themselves and trying to figure out what happened;
        b) trying to undermine the new Scottish Government by thinking up various ways to wreck the independence referendum, and when they realised this wasn’t working;
        c) harping on about how the SNP are going to ride roughshod over the parliament despite the complete lack of evidence so far.

        The fact that the PO is of the same party as the government is of no consequence – the PO is meant to be neutral, so it should not matter which party they are from. The suggestions that it will be a problem seems to indicate that people think the PO is there to hold the government to account, but that is the job of the opposition (which can be done regardless of numbers if the opposition are of the ability we would expect from our MSPs – it’s entirely possible/probable that the two Greens will do a far better job of this than the other parties), not the PO. The past FOUR (may even be more, I can’t be bothered checking) Speakers at the House of Commons have served while their party stands in government, but as the difference between Betty Boothroyd and Gorbals Mick showed, the ability of the speaker/PO is far more important than their party affiliation.

        The initial skirmish with the Supreme Court does not suggest we’re in for 5 years of the SNP doing what it wants; it merely suggests that the SNP intend to do what they’ve always done, which is stand up for Scotland when they feel its sovereignity is being threatened. This startling change after 50 years of Labour’s woeful inability to hold the Westminster government to account is part of the reason the SNP have proved popular as a government, even among those who don’t support independence. The SNP government was elected because people knew they would govern in the best interests of Scotland. If these interests cause tension between Holyrood and Westminster, then that’s just how it goes. The alternative – meekly bowing down to Westminster to avoid confrontation – is not what people want from the Scottish Government. If they did, they’d have re-elected Labour.

  • #24 by Indy on June 6, 2011 - 9:56 am

    

    But Catherine I think you ought in fairness to acknowledge that the SNP did not set up the Parliament, or decide its procedures, or decide on the electoral system etc.

    If people want to look at things again why not suggest that – instead of descending into hyperbole about elected dictatorships.

    Labour and the Lib Dems formed a majority government during the first eight years of the Scottish Parliament and effectively squeezed the SNP out at every turn but you did not see the SNP rushing about saying it was an elected dictatorship did you?

    If people consider that there is a need now to ensure that the electoral system delivers greater proportionality then let’s debate that – and make sure that the Scottish Parliament has the powers to change it if there is a consensus to do that.

    The SNP supports STV for all elections, so do the Greens I think and I can’t see the Lib Dems objecting. Maybe we should start there?

    • #25 by Aidan Skinner on June 6, 2011 - 12:31 pm

      

      Arbuthnott commission looked into this, it’s a good starting place.

• #26 by Brian Nicholson on June 6, 2011 - 2:30 am

  

  Catherine, as soon as you mention cybernats, you have lost all credibility on further comments regarding the SNP. Your failure to comprehend that you own pejorative comment is insulting is not surprising. Partisanship takes many forms and is often blind to one’s own actions.

• #27 by Alwyn ap Huw on June 6, 2011 - 4:25 am

  

  Having read the online newspapers, the blogs and the comments about Mr Salmond’s abuse of question time and Ms Marwick’s failure to reign him in since Thursday, I was quite disappointed when I actually got around to listening to the session a couple of hours ago, because I couldn’t see any basis for either criticism being made.

  My only criticism is that Iain Grey either forgot (or chose not to) ask the pointless first question; but Mr Salmond decided to answer it anyway; that is when the PO should have put her foot down!

  And isn’t the fact that the FM is asked three pointless questions every week one of the main reasons that three back benchers can’t ask substantive questions? Who cares what the answer to “when does the FM next intend to meet the PM” is?

  Drop that stupidity and give a backbencher the chance to ask about a school / hospital / factory in his /her constituency instead!

• #28 by Dr Bill Reynolds on June 6, 2011 - 7:23 am

  

  My impression was that Alec Salmond did provide answers to question.Yes his responses were too long and probably not answers that the opposition wanted,but he did give a lot of detail.

  Having watched FMQ for a long time,I believe that opposition leaders contribute to an unsatisfactory debate on topics.Often their questions are an attempt to trip up the First Minister,rather than seek answers to questions.I often get the impression that they have decided what the answer is before they ask the question.The new liberal leader (Willie Rennie) has fallen into this mould rather quickly.His use of personal abuse and unexamined rhetoric is not designed to facilite brief responses to his so called questions.His style invites more of the same from the First Minister.As Alec Ferguson discovered,it is difficult to deal with politicians under those circumstances.Tricia Marwick will have the same experience.

• #29 by Indy on June 6, 2011 - 9:49 am

  

  In oint of fact I think last week’s FMQs compared favourably with FMQs before the election.. That doesn’t mean it was great but I thought Iain Gray raised some important issues and I don’t think Alex Salmond tried to evade them.

  Indeed it occurred to me that if Iain Gray had shown the side of his character he now seems to be showing perhaps Labour would have done a bit better. It just shows the kind of pressure he was under that now he is able to relax a bit more he seems, to me at least, to be performing much better.

  Maybe that is also an underlying issue. Perhaps we need to cut all of our politicians a bit more slack instead of constantly hounding them.

• #30 by Dr Bill Reynolds on June 6, 2011 - 10:20 am

  

  For those of you who may be critical of Tricia Marwick,I recommend that you read the excellent analysis made by Moridura.He provides (today) a detailed breakdown of the exchange between Alec Salmond and Ian Gray during last weeks FMQ.He ends by asking:”Where could Tricia Marwick have reasonably intervened in that exchange? Prior to that he provides a detailed accolunt of the types of questions asked during his analysis of numerous recordings of First Ministers Questions.He identifies many types of questions ( Rhetorical,Closed etc) designed for political advantage,not to obtain answers.His work reinforces my earlier point,that opposition leaders contribute to a situation that prevents active listening,and an open exchange of ideas.All presiding officers have problems with that type of behavior.I think that Tricia will be fair and balanced but no PO will ever be able to control the style of opposition questions.

• #31 by Erchie on June 6, 2011 - 12:16 pm

  

  “Burd”

  I was with you up to Wendy Alexander. In her case her personality was so much part of how she conducted herself that overshadowed whatever abilities she may or may not have.

• #32 by Christian Schmidt on June 6, 2011 - 3:15 pm

  

  You have to understand that most of these male journalists have been mouthing off about evil nationalism for years (because that what you had to do if you wanted to be a big boy), they then hyped Salmond because they recognised him as the alpha-male of Scotland, and they are now confused that he’s a nationalised. This could not be thought through without some beers, and after a couple of pints of heavy the reason indeed became clear: It’s the lassie’s fault!

  Just read the records of the first session of the previous presiding officers, they weren’t brilliant either. Only currently a victim was wanted, a woman wasn’t very good at something, the rest was instinctive (as in no further involvement of the brain necessary).

  • #33 by James on June 6, 2011 - 3:31 pm

    

    (disclosure: I worked for both Steel and Reid)

    Both the first two Presiding Officers were great chairs of Holyrood. Folk criticised them for all sorts, but not that that I remember.

Comments are closed.