The risk with starting a regular Worst Motion of the Week series is that the howlers may soon start to dry up and you end up shining a light on parliamentary business that really isn’t so bad.
Well, that moment may come in the future but it won’t be today, as we have two beauties (and by beauties I do mean uglies) to regretfully parade:
The first is from the Conservatives’ John Lamont, a seasoned MSP who really should know better by now:
Motion S4M-00670 – John Lamont ( Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire ) ( Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party ) : Sprouston Sweet Pea Centenary
That the Parliament joins local residents in celebrating the Sprouston Sweet Pea Centenary, which celebrates the success of local Minister, the Rev Denholm Fraser who, along with his wife, won first and third prizes in the Daily Mail Sweet Pea competition at Crystal Palace in London in 1911; notes that the Rev Fraser won the considerable prize of £1,000, beating off competition from 38,000 entries; recognises the work of the local community to organise a series of events in the village to mark the occasion, and congratulates the winners of this year’s competition.
Supported by: Jamie Hepburn, David Torrance, Margaret Mitchell, Richard Lyle, Claudia Beamish, Jamie McGrigor, Liz Smith, Nanette Milne
Don’t be fooled by the cross party support for the above. Commemorating a century-old gardening competition focussing on an obscure plant is highly dubious behaviour. I’m sure Rev Fraser’s sweet peas were beautiful and I hope that the local community has an absolute barnstormer of a celebration but, to use accountancy-speak, this issue is, or at least should be, immaterial for the Scottish Parliament. Trifling in fact.
Our second shameful motion from the past week comes from the SNP’s James Dornan:
Motion S4M-00749 – James Dornan ( Glasgow Cathcart ) ( Scottish National Party ) : Labour Hypocrisy over Lightburn Hospital
That the Parliament regrets the apparent hypocrisy of Labour politicians in calling for the proposed closure of Lightburn Hospital to be halted; notes that, on 25 November 2010, Labour members of Glasgow City Council voted to support the closure of hospital, and considers that calls to save it have nothing to do with the welfare of patients but instead concern the career prospects of Glasgow Labour councillors who, it considers, face defeat at the 2012 elections.
Supported by: Christina McKelvie, Rob Gibson, Bill Walker, David Torrance, Roderick Campbell, Adam Ingram, Gil Paterson, Kenneth Gibson, Mike MacKenzie, Stuart McMillan, Bob Doris, Humza Yousaf
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blaaah.
Witness the backbench partisan support. Witness the typos no doubt due to the faux finger fury when this was typed up. Witness the empty point scoring and unconstructive nature of the post. Witness the sole objective of lobbing one over to the other side. Witness the slow strangulation of a flailing democracy that is deadening behind once sparkling eyes and which could have been so, so beautiful.
Ok, that last one was a bit much, but these motions are stinkers. Let’s just hope that the standard is improved when Parliament is back in business next week.
#1 by Allan Rennie on September 2, 2011 - 4:31 pm
Hmmm agreed, I mean is Lamont’s motion worth even the paper it’s written on. The SNP one is just pure and dirty mud slinging.
#2 by Indy on September 2, 2011 - 4:59 pm
I am not really sure what your point is regarding motions. On the one hand you don’t like motions congratulating people on their sweet peas – but on the other you don’y like overtly politoal motions either.
The Lightburn scenario is a cracker. The motion is perhaps not clear enough in that Cllr Matheson – the leader of the Council – personally moved a motion at Full Council calling for the closure of the hospital which the smaller SNP group argued against.
Yet now that the Health Board has decided to close it, Labour is campaigning against the SNP closing local hospitals.
I would really struggle to see how anybody could engage with that position constructively but maybe you can give us some hints?
#3 by I agree with Indy on September 2, 2011 - 10:45 pm
It’s a bit rich to criticise a motion for negativity as part of a running series entitled ‘Worst Motion of the…’. Since you have this soapbox here – and most of these blog posts will be read by more people than the average Scottish Parliamentary motion – why not single out a ‘Best Motion of the Week’? And if there isn’t a good one, why not say what it should have been?
Perhaps that way we might all stumble towards an answer to the question of what the heck this bloody motion system is for in the first place, because I’m damned if I know.
#4 by Jeff on September 3, 2011 - 12:33 pm
These things happen all the time though, SNP councillor’s closing schools in Edinburgh and protesting against closures in Glasgow a couple of years back. I find it pretty depressing whichever party does it but I understand why it comes about.
I have no problem with parties pointing out inconsistencies in a party position but motions are not the avenue for such objections. Does James really expect this to be debated and voted on in the chamber?
#5 by Richard Thomson on September 3, 2011 - 5:21 pm
“motions are not the avenue for such objections.”
Cobblers, Jeff – that’s exactly what they’re for, and they always have been.
Motions like these provide an outlet for self-congratualtion, the slating of opponents, the recognition of the achievements of others and the raising of awareness of issues, with the added benefit that they don’t waste any debating time in the Chamber.
As the equivalent of an EDM, it’s one of the better things Holyrood has imported from Westminster in my view.
#6 by Indy on September 3, 2011 - 5:24 pm
No they don’t. It’s a false analogy to compare SNP councillors opposing school closures in Glasgow with SNP councillors in Edinburgh supporting school closures. Different cities, different schools, different pupils.
This Lightburn scenario is actually quite special. If you go onto the Glasgow SNP website they have a press release on the Lightburn situation which links directly to the Executive meeting papers in which the Council supports the closure of the hospital. Now the very same people are campaigning to keep it open.
That takes a special kind of hypocrisy and I think it should be acknowledged in some way. I agree the motion may not be the best way of doing it. If it was up to me I think I would bake a big cake with a picture of a brass neck on it and have it delivered to Cllr Matheson’s office.
#7 by CassiusClaymore on September 2, 2011 - 5:21 pm
Both utterly pathetic. I’m really down on politicians at the moment, what with the idiocy regarding trams, the latest pitiful LibDem scaremongering regarding Scotland’s finances and the highhanded arrogance of the Euro types (as so perfectly epitomised by Catherine Stihler’s post).
Off topic, but I also really think that politicians are getting worse – the new generation are mainly career politicians (and Ms Stihler is a perfect example) who’ve never had a proper job. They have zero real world experience, and politics is all they know.
It might not be a bad idea to have some sort of minimum level of qualification for eligibility to be a public representative – 10 years of real-world work experience, say. Just so they might be some use when it comes to representing us, making decisions etc.
CC
#8 by Colin on September 3, 2011 - 7:08 pm
A common sentiment. But how would you define “real-world work experience”? Anything not directly connected to party politics? Would lobbying count? Or being a PR gladhander at Carlton?
#9 by Barbarian on September 2, 2011 - 11:04 pm
Keep this sort of article going -I’m being deadly serious here.
It might just attract some attention from Holyrood and get them thinking a bit better.
#10 by douglas clark on September 3, 2011 - 8:31 am
There is something almost English Parish Council about the first motion is there not? Would that not be the approproate level for recognising a local hero such as the Rev Fraser who is presumeably now in no position to preen over his undoubted success. Does it make the community of Sprouston feel more comfortable about itself, or what?
Perhaps I can get my MSP to put forward a motion congratulating me on coming in third in the under fives egg and spoon race.? It at least has the advantage of being more current. 1953, I think….
Sadly the professionalisation of the egg and spoon race came much later. Had we only known my ambitious parents would, instead, have had me producing sweet peas at a grand a pop.
I agree completely with Barbarian. Keep going with this sort of article, the politicians are embarrassing me!
#11 by Dr William Reynolds on September 3, 2011 - 10:35 am
I dont see the point of many motions,but I do think that Dorman raises a valid point.It is about whether you can believe (trust) in politicians to do what the community wants.Of course there is political point scoring but that that is the nature of the beast called politics.His motion might serve little purpose but Dorman is correct when he point out an inconsistent approach towards closure or retention of a local hospital.
I am getting quite bored by these aticles and wonder if they have any point.Barbarian thnks that the politicians might notice and think more about their motions.Maybe,but do we (the readers of Better Nation) have to read them every week.If a critique of parliamentary motions is to be continued.i would prefer reading about best motion of the week.
#12 by douglas clark on September 3, 2011 - 11:15 am
Reynolds @ 7,
Not everything is a sweet pea. Sometimes it is good to stand up against idiocy. Lest we are overwhelmed by stupid people.
Have you thought about that?
Private Eye is around 50% about idiotic people in positions of power and influence. They seem to do OK.
#13 by Dr William Reynolds on September 3, 2011 - 11:32 am
Yes Douglas,I have thought about that.I have also tried to understand the antecedents of some motions presented on this site.In todays offerings I can see the logic in one of those motions.Whether a parliamentary motion is the correct place to raise concerns about the legitimate issues,is another matter.As someone pointed out,it might just be politicians talking to each other,and few members of the public listening.That was my point really.
Perhaps it might be more effective to critique the best motion s of the week.Perhap that might encourage MSP’s to draft motions on topics that are important,and more likely to gain cross party support.
#14 by Colin on September 3, 2011 - 6:59 pm
The sweet peas one doesn’t seem a particularly egregious example of the yay-for-the-local-under-13s-shinty-team sort of motion. Did something in particular make it stand out? Was it the bit about the reverend “beating off competition”?
#15 by douglas clark on September 3, 2011 - 7:17 pm
Reynolds,
You clearly haven’t thought about it.
At all.
You say:
Eh!
The legitimate issues – your phrase – are, what?
Flowers in 1911.
Really?
#16 by Rev Denholm Fraser on September 3, 2011 - 7:18 pm
Parliament thinking local and remembering its roots can be no bad thing on occasion!