Different people have a different appreciation of what the motion process at the Scottish Parliament is for. I can grudgingly accept that there is a tenuous benefit in hoping (fruitlessly) that Scotland will win the Rugby World Cup (Graeme Dey MSP) or wishing an Estate a Happy Birthday (Jackie Baillie MSP) but using the process to aim an easy smack at a rival politician for silly comments when the comments weren’t even made in (and that politician doesn’t even sit in) the Parliament is definitely pushing things.
So step forward Sandra White, SNP MSP for Glasgow Kelvin, for the below, Better Nation’s Worst Motion of the Week (though James “can quite imagine putting it downâ€)
Motion S4M-00703 – Sandra White ( Glasgow Kelvin ) ( Scottish National Party ) : Struan Stevenson MEP, Unacceptable Use of Language
That the Parliament expresses deep concern at what it considers to be Struan Stevenson’s MEP’s outrageously insensitive comments in Ballantrae on 9 August 2011 at a meeting in support of Communities Against Turbines (Scotland) which he titled as “the Renewable Rape of Scotlandâ€; considers this use of language to be unacceptable and deeply insulting to all who have been sexually assaulted, and calls on all decent minded people to disassociate themselves from what it views as his disgraceful remarks.
Supported by: Linda Fabiani, Christina McKelvie, Bill Kidd, Rob Gibson, Marco Biagi, Graeme Dey, Adam Ingram, Gil Paterson, George Adam, Chic Brodie, John Finnie, Stuart McMillan, Patrick Harvie, Humza Yousaf
Struan Stevenson sits in the European Parliament and Ballantrae is a long way from the debating chamber at Holyrood so what precisely Sandra is hoping to achieve from this motion, other than crassly publicising what itself is a very crass comment, is unclear.
Going down the road of parties using the Parliament’s procedures to lob ‘he said this, she said that’ barbs at each other would be a regrettable scenario, particularly when we already have a procedure in place for that – press releases.
Sandra does not need to hang her head lower than Struan does due to his ill-conceived remarks being considerably worse than a dodgy motion but this, nonetheless, was a poor example of a parliamentary motion and that’s why it deserves this week’s accolade.
#1 by Iain on August 26, 2011 - 8:48 pm
Has someone being messing around with the theme? All the previous blog posts below this one on the front page have the text strike-throughed. Also present on the “This entry was posted…” box at the bottom of this post.
#2 by The Burd on August 27, 2011 - 2:36 pm
We are aware that Houston appears to have a problem and the very untechie members of the team are hoping some of the techie ones can fix it. James????
#3 by Barbarian on August 26, 2011 - 8:55 pm
Is this the new MSP? I hope to hell that the SNP is not going to go down the road of verbal political correctness.
What Stevenson said is correct in context. It does not insult people who have been sexually assaulted.
(I should point out that I have extremely strong views on rape, but I do not see what she is trying to do. In fact, I’d suggest she is being rather patronising here).
#4 by Aidan on August 27, 2011 - 11:31 am
She’s the new MSP for the constituency, but has been a list MSP for the Glasgow region since 1999 (fighting Kelvin every time), so she’s hardly new.
#5 by Zoe Smith on August 26, 2011 - 9:33 pm
Another great example of a sloppy use of a sloppy system- this is just lazy politics. The whole “he said, she said” side of politics is dull anyway but I’m sure that Sandra White or one of her staff could’ve come up with a semi decent press release on this that might have been interesting and useful, sparked conversation, debate and awareness. I’m sure there are plenty of organisations that would have been only too happy to work with Sandra White on this issue.
Where does this kind of use end? Thomas Docherty MP recently referred to Alex Salmond’s reaction to questions (over Bill Walkers remarks on equal marriage) as “mental” and I’m sure there are numerous similar examples.
Does nobody want to campaign any more?
#6 by Doug Daniel on August 26, 2011 - 10:45 pm
Do motions actually serve a useful purpose, or are they basically just a glorified version of “I think this, hands up if you agree with me”?
I can’t be bothered with this sort of rubbish. The majority the SNP won should be the impetus for them to drag Scottish politics into the grown up world. Let’s dispense with this tit-for-tat nonsense. The best way to show up Labour is to leave them to self-destruct into obscurity, not to go “ooh, look what HE said!”
Nobody likes a tell-tale.
#7 by Random Lurking Scotsman on August 27, 2011 - 4:54 pm
Sadly, even though certain aspects of Scottish politics may be preferable to Westminster, some things sadly remain unchanged: an MSP may not sit in Westminster, but they’re still a politician.
Wasteful motions along the lines of “that the House condemns X person for saying a nasty thing about Y” will always be tabled, sadly.
#8 by Dr William Reynolds on August 27, 2011 - 7:04 am
i dont really see the point of this motion.However many others might.
Why are the comments being scored out?
#9 by An Duine Gruamach on August 27, 2011 - 11:18 am
Off topic – is it just my computer, or has just about everthing on this site got a strikethrough on the writing. You can’t be wanting to retract that much!
#10 by Jeff on August 27, 2011 - 11:27 am
Comments seem fine to me on this old beat up Dell but I’ll have a look when there’s time to see what is causing problems.
#11 by Doug Daniel on August 27, 2011 - 12:06 pm
Chances are WordPress changed something about the stylesheet and Internet Explorer is somehow rendering the styles wrongly – I’m having to look at this through Internet Explorer at the moment, and I don’t think I was getting this when i used good old Firefox yesterday.
#12 by Observer on August 27, 2011 - 12:43 pm
I actually agree with verbal political correctness in the case of rape.
He could & should have used another word. Her motion is about the unacceptable use of language & I agree.
Rape is a crime & a very bad one, the word should not be used by lazy politicians where he actually means intrusion or abuse. Intrusion & abuse always features in rape, but rape does not always feature in intrusion or abuse.
I imagine this comment,if published, will have wee lines through it, as everything else does.
#13 by Tom Cresswell on August 27, 2011 - 2:06 pm
Yeah, I’ve had this since yesterday as well and I’ve been waiting to see if anyone else picked up on it… For me its that way on every article and comments apart from this article… I’m on Opera so it could be that.
#14 by Doug Daniel on August 27, 2011 - 3:13 pm
It’s fine on Firefox; there are strikethroughs on comments on Opera; and there are strikethroughs on just about everything in Internet Explorer. So presumably the developer of the Arclite theme has changed something while using Firefox to test it, and forgotten to check other browsers… Bit of a rookie error.
#15 by CassiusClaymore on August 27, 2011 - 3:30 pm
This motion is absurd, not only because of its utter pointlessness but also because of the inherent stupidity of complaining about an entirely inoffensive, if rather hyperbolic, comment.
From dictionary.com’s several definitions of “rape”:-
“an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.”
I mean, has anyone told Sandra White that words can have more than one meaning? Does she boycott rape seed oil?
I move that whoever wrote it (let’s be charitable and assume it wasn’t the MSP herself, because that would make her a moron) be sent back to school, to complete their study of English.
Maybe the SNP need to tighten up selection procedures for elected members, advisers etc?
CC
#16 by Indy on August 28, 2011 - 9:55 am
Erm, I think we all understand that rape can be used in a number of contexts. It could be appropriate to use that term in the context of war for example, where wide swathes of countryside might be violently destroyed, homes burned, cattle slaughtered etc.
But in what universe is that comparable to putting up some wind turbines?
That is so over the top it is ludicrous. Perhaps a parliamentary motion may not be the most appropriate means to say please stop being such an arse but it’s a valid point to make.
#17 by Barbarian on August 27, 2011 - 3:47 pm
The strikethroughs do make you read the comments and articles more carefully though!!
#18 by Indy on August 28, 2011 - 9:41 am
There is another aspect to the process of putting down a motion which is the relationship between MSPs and particular organisations or causes that they champion. I should make it clear that I don’t know anything about the background to Sandra putting down this motion but I could take a guess that, as an MSP who has done a lot of work in the area of sexual violence and exploitation, she probably has an ongoing relationship with Rape Crisis and other groups working in that field and feels it is part of her role to be their voice in parliament.
As far as the motion itself goes, if I was an MSP I would have signed it because I do think it’s an inappropriate use of language. My personal opinion is that many anti-windfarm groups have no sense of proportion or perspective and their campaigning tactics rest mainly on stoking up baseless fears through passing off misinformation as fact. They tend to be rather hysterical and unreasonable. I think that politicians should avoid jumping on that particular bandwagon. I’m not saying that politicians should not represent constituents who are opposed to windfarms of course, far from it – they have a duty to represent the views of their constituents. But they should avoid ridiculous and hysterical comments such as the one highlighted in this motion.
#19 by Jeff on August 28, 2011 - 11:42 am
Finally fixed the strikethrough thing, there was a dodgy bit of ‘del date and time’ code that sneaked into this WMotW post. Mightily annoying, will know for next time what is causing it if it happens again. Thanks for pointing out all!
#20 by Top Tory Aide on August 29, 2011 - 10:01 am
Nobody does faux rage like Ms. White. You could argue that’s all she can do…
#21 by An Duine Gruamach on August 30, 2011 - 4:36 pm
I wonder if more people challanged the trivialising use of the word “rape” in such contexts – would the disgracful comments that we’ve seen recently from Bill Aitkin and that Glasgow (?) councillor become less frequent?