As first posted at BPPA’s SNP Conference blog.
While the coalition Government is losing Ministers at a rate of knots, the Scottish Government is a veritable oasis of calm by comparison.
Liam Fox lasted 18 months as Defence Secretary, Vince Cable’s responsibility for media affairs lasted 7 months and David Laws lasted only 17 days as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Chris Huhne is clinging onto his job by his fingernails after alleged speeding offences and it looks likely that there will be a controlled wind-down of Ken Clarke’s Cabinet position after numerous gaffes and controversies.
Meanwhile, up in Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon has been Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities since May 2007, Kenny MacAskill has been Cabinet Secretary for Justice since May 2007, John Swinney has been Cabinet Secretary for Finance since May 2007, Richard Lochhead has been Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment since May 2007, well, you get the point. In and around these high profile SNP high fliers, we have well established figures such as Mike Russell, Roseanna Cunningham, Shona Robison, Fiona Hyslop and Fergus Ewing who have held important posts, also since 2007.
Now, a cynic could say that the reason that the Scottish Cabinet is so consistent is because there are few individuals on the SNP benches who are ready to make the step up to replace them. When the rising stars of the governing party are Alex Neil (aged 60) and Mike Russell (aged 58), then one is inclined to agree.
So what?, one could reasonably ask. The SNP has a safe majority up to 2016 and the First Minister can put whichever bums on whatever Cabinet seats as he pleases. I would very much agree that devolved Scotland is safe in these eminently capable peoples’ hands for the foreseeable future but the problem for the SNP is that there is a referendum to be won around 2015.
An independent Scotland isn’t a novelty for a few years, it is a permanent change in how our nation is governed. The electorate will know that the current crop of Ministers will retire in the near future and will therefore consider who is in line to take over the reins of the Parliament of an Independent Scotland. We will still have the youthful Sturgeon, MacAskill and Robison for a good while yet of course, and there’s no reason why the SNP’s Aileen Campbell and Jamie Hepburn, to name but two of the Nat brat pack, shouldn’t fulfil their overflowing potential and shine as Ministers in due course.
That said, and this is where I stop naming names, the rest of the SNP crop can be far from impressive and are often derided as simply button-pushers in the Parliament, existing merely to serve Salmond’s every whim where stepping away from the party line is unacceptable. MSPs who are a bit too shouty on Newsnight, MSPs who get their billions mixed up with their millions, MSPs who harbour misplaced fears over gay marriage and MSPs who make jaw-droppingly erroneous allegations against the British Army and soldier deaths.
Is this Scotland’s fate for the decades to come? Where are the political leaders in their 20s, 30s and 40s that will save us from ourselves?
Not that the SNP has a lock on forming the first Government of an independent Scotland, but the talent on opposition benches, current and future, is similarly threadbare save for a few notable exceptions.
Alex Salmond’s ‘steady as she goes’ tactic has been necessary since 2007. The SNP were not going to be trusted by a sceptical public unless they could prove their competence in Government within a devolved Scotland before any referendum, and Salmond has probably known all along that he’d need two terms before a referendum could even be a realistic option.
To win a yes vote, the SNP has to defend many flanks from many opponents but will it be the soft underbelly of the next generation of SNP ‘talent’ that results in Scotland not having the confidence to go for it and ensures the Nationalist dream comes a cropper?
#1 by the Burd on October 26, 2011 - 8:42 am
*Where are the political leaders in their 20s, 30s, and 40s that will save us from ourselves?”
I started making a big list of names, in all parties, but decided it wasn’t worth the effort. I’ve spent ten years in and around Holyrood and I’d say this crop are the best of the lot, representing a wide range of opinion on the political spectrum, working hard and getting to grips remarkably quickly with some of the big issues facing Scotland today.
in particular, I don’t think the SNP has a soft underbelly at all. And if this lot don’t deliver, there are hundreds of others, particularly young people, who will.
#2 by Jeff on October 26, 2011 - 9:01 am
The qualifications cup hardly runneth over though, does it Kate?
I rather suspect that many Scots would prefer to be governed by doctors, lawyers and businessmen etc rather than former parliamentary researchers gnarled by the claustrophobic rigours of Holyrood.
#3 by Indy on October 26, 2011 - 9:10 am
Well you know people say this but what you are really saying there is that you don’t want to be governed by professinal politicians and I don’t really think that is the case any more.
It’s part of what I was saying about the era of personality politics. Rightly or wrongly politicians these days need to be professional in every single aspect of their lives. There’s very little room for gifted amaeturs these days.
I’m not saying that is the way I would like it to be but it’s the way it is.
#4 by Jeff on October 26, 2011 - 11:11 am
It’s a fair point Indy but in a contest between the way things should be and the way things are, I will always strive for the ‘should be’ option.
I don’t recognise the phrase ‘professional politician’, I just don’t know what it means other than perhaps being good at spinning and getting your name in the local press better than the opponents. I’d like to think we could do better than that.
#5 by Indy on October 26, 2011 - 11:28 am
Well you gave as an example of the soft underbelly of the SNP people mixing up their millions and billions, being shouty on Newsnight, saying daft things about gay marriage etc.
Those are the kinds if mistakes that are made by people who are not professional politicians. Who have maybe been successful in another sphere but don’t really understand the professional requirements of modern day politics which is to never ever say or do something that can be used against you or against your party.
Whereas the politicains who come up through the ranks as researchers or through local government etc don’t make that kind of mistake. And they are also much more likely to know that every single part of their lives is subject to scrutiny – what they say on their facebook page, what they say on twitter, how they conduct themselves in their personal lives, stuff like that.
So while there is this idea that we would benefit from having people from more diverse backgrounds coming into politics, the level of scrutiny that politicians are under and the requirement for them never to put their foot in it also makes it much more difficult for non-career politicians to succeed.
Not sure what can be done about that really.
#6 by Jeff on October 26, 2011 - 11:39 am
I disagree Indy. Take a top person from business and they’re not going to mix up millions and billions, take a lawyer and you’ll typically get cool headed rebuttals of arguments and as for gay marriage, well, I guess that’s a standalone issue that doesn’t really relate to background (and perhaps undermines my argument since John Mason is a qualified accountant!)
So I’m sorry, I don’t take your point.
I wasn’t really looking to aim a lazy kick at MSPs who have little experience ‘in the real world’. Fair play to them, they got off their butts, knocked on doors and got elected.
I just wonder, outside of the political bubble, how it all looks and what impact that may have on the referendum.
#7 by Indy on October 26, 2011 - 11:57 am
Yes Jeff but take a top person from business and they are quite likely to have rather odd ideas about gay marriage and there are plenty of lawyers who may get their millions and billions mixed up.
But take someone who has been trained in politics from a fairly early age and they are likely to do neither.
It’s slightly invidious to name names in this context but Humza Yousaf would be an example of that. He is a good politician already even though he has only just been elected because although he is young he has been involved in politics for a long time and knows the score. That’s why I think we see rather a lot of him – he doesn’t need to be rigorously briefed on what to say or what not to say because he used to be the guy doing the briefing, do you know what I mean? That’s what makes him a safe pair of hands and in a political arena which is merciless to anyone who blurts out the wrong thing under pressure that is what is needed. That’s just the culture we have now.
#8 by Jeff on October 26, 2011 - 12:08 pm
Funnily enough, I was going to include Humza in my comedy list of shame for his conduct during the leaders’ debate, one week before the election. I believe the exact Twitter message, upon watching a poor performance from Labour’s leader, was: ‘Let’s all laugh at Gray, let’s all laugh at Gray, na, na, na, na’.
I can’t say I know much about Humza so I’ll have to take your word for it on his plus points, but that public catcalling is not indicative of the calibre of MSP that Scotland is looking for and, for me, is typical of the petty student politics style squabbling that, I think, often holds Scotland back and that better qualified individuals are better placed to rise above.
As for lawyers getting their millions and billions mixed up; in my political party dream team it would be the business people and accountants that would get put out to bat to discuss something as important as the Scottish Futures Trust, so I don’t take your point. And even then, a lawyer is trained to have an attention to detail so it’d be a rare error even from that quarter.
#9 by Stuart Winton on October 26, 2011 - 1:16 pm
Problem is Indy you’re hardly making a good case for even having MSPs at all – you seem to think the essence of a good politician is toeing the party line in Holyrood, doing the same well on television and in the media, and generally just acting like automatons daeing what they’re telt by the party’s upper echelons.
Thus you’re essentially underlining the argument that politicians are merely lobby fodder rather than people capable of producing their own ideas and scrutinising the party line, which begs the question, why do we bother paying them all £60k per year?
#10 by Indy on October 26, 2011 - 9:03 am
There are loads of people in the SNP who have the talentnow to be Cabinet ministers right now some of whom are relatively unknown and not all of them young, just off the top of my head Humza Yousaf, Derek MacKay, Alasdair Allan, Fiona McLeod, Jean Urquhart. I could go on but it’s not really the point.
I think the basic advantage for the SNP in keeping the same core team in the Cabinet is that people know them. It takes a long time for the public to get to know politicians – it was commented on that very few people knew who Iain Gray was for example even though he was Labour leader. But the SNP’s front bench team have name recognition accross the country and that’s a huge asset because whether we like it or not we are in the era of personality politics.
And they are known for being good at their jobs. That’s such a big asset there would be no sense shuffling people about just for the sake of it.
So we can assume it will be pretty much the same team in place up till the referendum. After that of course all bets are off and it’s up to the current back benchers to prove their mettle in the meantime.
#11 by Doug Daniel on October 26, 2011 - 9:44 am
Remember that there are six MPs who will have to find their way into Holyrood after independence, and of those six, five are currently in their 40s. All very good politicians, particularly the two “Angii”, Angus MacNeil and Angus Robertson. There’s some of your immediate “next generation” there.
As for the younger crop, they’ve got at least ten years to “come of age”, and already there are several stand-outs (some of whom have made guest posts on this very blog!) There are also people like Osama Saeed, who aren’t parliamentarians at the moment, but could well become so in the future.
I would suggest the SNP are the one party that doesn’t have to worry about the future. No party is ever going to be free of less able politicians, and the SNP does seem to have more than its fair share of people who would be better off in one of the loony Christian parties, but there is a wealth of talent there that just doesn’t exist elsewhere in Holyrood (and, one might suggest, non-existent amongst the Westminster contingent for those other parties too).
#12 by Indy on October 26, 2011 - 9:58 am
There is also the fact that many younger members have consciously chosen local government rather than parliamentary politcs. Some of them have now crossed over – Derek MacKay, Kevin Stewart for example – but there are still a lot of our people who see the local government arena as being just as important as the parliamentary arena. And rightly so.
#13 by Aidan on October 26, 2011 - 11:07 am
and yet when Labour people do that they’re covered in opprobrium and scorn, accused of “not being good enough”, “B-team” and so on.
#14 by Indy on October 26, 2011 - 11:37 am
Not by me. It depends on the person of course. There is certainly a perception that Labour sends its A team to Westminster, sends its B team to Holyrood and its C team does local government but I don’t think it is the SNP that has created that perception and it’s one which seems to have been embraced by Labour rather than rejected.
And I would have to say just on this note that I think you guys have gone a little bit mad in Glasgow deselecting some councillors who are as safe as houses and are actually rather good councillors. But that’s another topic and I have no wish to intrude into private grief.
#15 by Doug Daniel on October 26, 2011 - 12:00 pm
The ‘B-team’ accusations come from the fact that Holyrood seems to be treated as a stepping stone to Westminster (Cathie Jamieson and Margaret Curran being the two most obvious recent examples), or as a retirement home (e.g. Mr Foulkes). Also from the fact that there just seems to be a general dearth of talent on the Labour side.
#16 by Indy on October 26, 2011 - 12:10 pm
But to get back to the idea of the SNP having a fairly static Cabinet part of the perception that there was no talent on the Labour benches I think came from the fact that the front bench was constantly swapping and changing. Didn’t really give people much time to establish themselves and build up the level of expertise in their particular portfolio which allowed them to appear both competent and confident.
#17 by Indy on October 26, 2011 - 12:16 pm
Well I never join in the catcalling about people who screw up their millions and billions because I regard myself as a fairly competent person but you know what, put me in a hot Newsnight studio broadcasting live with blooming Gordon Brewer barking questions at me n something that is not my area of expertise and there is every chance that I would not only mix up my millions and billions but quite possibly wet myself into the bargain! That’s why I have never tried to become an MSP of course. blockquote>
Jeff:
Funnily enough, I was going to include Humza in my comedy list of shame for his conduct during the leaders’ debate, one week before the election. I believe the exact Twitter message, upon watching a poor performance from Labour’s leader, was: ‘Let’s all laugh at Gray, let’s all laugh at Gray, na, na, na, na’.
I can’t say I know much about Humza so I’ll have to take your word for it on his plus points, but that public catcalling is not indicative of the calibre of MSP that Scotland is looking for and, for me, is typical of the petty student politics style squabbling that, I think, often holds Scotland back and that better qualified individuals are better placed to rise above.
As for lawyers getting their millions and billions mixed up; in my political party dream team it would be the business people and accountants that would get put out to bat to discuss something as important as the Scottish Futures Trust, so I don’t take your point. And even then, a lawyer is trained to have an attention to detail so it’d be a rare error even from that quarter.
#18 by Jeff on October 26, 2011 - 12:19 pm
Turning a blind eye to my point about Humza? Fair enough, don’t blame you.
And I don’t know Indy. Take even a lower level Finance person who is used to presenting in boardrooms and to partners/CEOs while making sure their figures stack up and they’d think a 5 minute segment with Gordon Brewer was child’s play. But we can agree to disagree.
#19 by Indy on October 26, 2011 - 12:33 pm
Well I have never heard about that tweet. I am not questoning you but I have never read or heard about it.
And I would disagree with you about it being the same thing making presentations in a business setting or indeed any other professional setting and appearing on Newsnight.
If you mess up in that context then it’s bad. But it’s still a private embarrassment. But if you mess up on Newsnight then the next day literally hundreds of thousands of people are reading about it, you are being ripped to shreds all over the internet and youtube and so on- and you then have to try and carry on regardless.
That’s a tough gig in my book. I wouldn’t do it and frankly I don’t think many “normal” people would.
#20 by douglas clark on October 26, 2011 - 12:20 pm
Seems to me that Steven Noon might be our next but one leader.
#21 by Doug Daniel on October 26, 2011 - 12:37 pm
Seems a bit harsh to mark someone down as a bad MSP on the sole basis of a tweet (sent before he became an MSP), particularly as the performance he was criticising was extremely poor. He’s one of the SNP’s top bright young things (he will likely be the first Holyrood minister to be from an Asian background, and some even have him down as a future leader of the party), and it’s easy to see why when you witness him in full flow. The lad’s got a good intellect, which is something every party needs.
Of course, perhaps the fact I think Iain Gray is an awful, awful politician deserving of ridicule blinkers my view somewhat…
#22 by Michael on October 26, 2011 - 10:42 pm
Humza Yousaf gave a tutorial at the University of Glasgow a few weeks ago. He had the impressive ability to appear ‘un-political’. In being personable and relaxed he is either a gifted politician or he happens to be a decent guy! I’ve not met many politicians, but I had the same experience with Alex Salmond and Charles Kennedy.
#23 by GMcM on October 27, 2011 - 9:36 am
OK so if it’s unfair to bring up what he did before entering Parliament is it ok to mention his comments regarding the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill?
If this man is one of the “top bright young things” in the SNP then the SNP are in trouble.
#24 by Doug Daniel on October 27, 2011 - 12:46 pm
I would say so. What were the comments, like?
#25 by GMcM on October 27, 2011 - 2:11 pm
“This bill will not criminalise anyone who does not attempt to incite public disorder, football fans can be as unsavoury and offensive as they like to each other – as unpleasant as that may be – without fear of arrest.”
Also: “I do not have a problem with offensive songs being sung at football matches”
Does he know what the Bill means? I would hope so considering he is on the committee! From these comments it appears he doesn’t.
The man who posted unsavoury comments about Neil Lennon, Irish and Catholics and was sentenced to 8 months last week (forget his name) did not incite public disorder. What would happen to him under this new law if Mr Yousaf is correct about what the Bill means in practice? Or will the Bill do the opposite and no-one has told Mr Yousaf?
#26 by Jeff on October 27, 2011 - 2:15 pm
I wanted to substantiate the quotes if we’re going to post them on here and found this link which seems to back it up so fair enough. Looks like a clanger from Humza.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1000l3953l0l4187l9l9l0l7l0l0l187l312l0.2l2l0&q=cache:OEY7kBUAZ_YJ:http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?34657-Humza-Yousaf-MSP&p=278865&viewfull=1+%22do+not+have+a+problem+with+offensive+songs%22+humza&ct=clnk
#27 by Indy on October 27, 2011 - 2:51 pm
No it is not Jeff.
What he says is true.
Perhaps you have also misunderstood the Bill.
I know there has been a lot of talk about specific songs or chants or whatever being banned the Government has been crystal clear that this is not going to happen. I quote:
“The Bill will only criminalise behaviour likely to lead to public disorder which expresses or incites hatred, is threatening or is otherwise offensive to a reasonable person.”
OK? Exactly what Humza said.
#28 by Jeff on October 27, 2011 - 3:02 pm
I was only saying it had been a clanger as it appeared that HY was saying songs had been sung at a particular game but when pressed on details he didn’t seem to have any.
I don’t know much about the detail of the sectarian bill. I recognise that it’s a big problem and good on the SNP for having a go at it but the issue bores me to tears quite frankly.
#29 by Indy on October 27, 2011 - 3:13 pm
I don’t think so – my reading is that Humza thought they were talking about the Celtic-Hearts game, Stuart Waiton thought they were talking about the Rangers game. Kind of misunderstanding that happens.
I kind of agree on the sectarianism bill that it is boring but maybe because of the wilful misinterpretation of what constitutes the kind of offensive behaviour it is aimed at that is highlighted.
You know it’s just common sense. Sing the Famine Song at an Old Firm derby you will risk getting your collar felt, sing all 93 choruses of Eskimo Nell at East Stirlingshire v Annan Athletic you’re probably all right.
#30 by GMcM on October 27, 2011 - 4:23 pm
Nope sorry Indy.
You stated above: “is otherwise offensive to a reasonable person”.
Humza Yousaf said: “football fans can be as unsavoury and offensive as they like to each other… without fear of arrest.”
How do you equate those two statements?
I think this clearly shows the confusion this Bill will have; Humza Yousaf is on the committee and doesn’t know what it will do. Either that or he just voted it through without looking at the details.
I can’t understand the malaise on here surrounding this – this could be the most authoritarian piece of legislation to go through parliament. (excuse my hyperbole)
I want to see sectarianism wiped off the face of the earth however I’m not going to support just any old legislation because of the intentions behind it. Bad laws made with the best of intentions are still bad laws.
#31 by Jeff on October 27, 2011 - 4:29 pm
You’re probably right about the malaise when you put it like that Gerard.
Indeed, it sounds like there’s a Better Nation guest post in this if someone were to right it…. *hint, hint, nudge, nudge*
#32 by Indy on October 27, 2011 - 4:39 pm
Because he started off saying “This bill will not criminalise anyone who does not attempt to incite public disorder.”
It’s not that different to the way breach of the peace operates now.
If you listen to some of the songs and banter at a Scotland game for example it can be pretty unsavoury and offensive. It’s whether that is likely to lead to trouble isn’t it?
Individuals have to use their own judgement about that, as do the police, As happens at present.
#33 by GMcM on October 27, 2011 - 5:13 pm
Indy that is precisely my point. He says it won’t but the Bill says it will.
#34 by Indy on October 27, 2011 - 2:44 pm
Read the first sentence again:
“This bill will not criminalise anyone who does not attempt to incite public disorder”.
I think it is you that doesn’t understand the bill.
#35 by Doug Daniel on October 27, 2011 - 4:46 pm
He’s being realistic. Football fans sing horrible songs at each other, it’s part and parcel of the game and you’re not going to stop it happening without turning into a police state. Should a Dons fan expect to be thrown into the slammer for singing the following at a Rangers game?
Ye rake in a bucket for something tae eat
Ye find a deid rat and ye think it’s a treat
In yer Glasgow slums
In yer Gla-as-gow slums!
Yer ma’s on the game and yer da’s in the nick
Ye can’t get a job cos yer so f****** thick
In yer Glasgow slums
Now, there’s no question that it’s an unsavoury and offensive song. But is it going to lead to public disorder? No.
I think what you’ve done is akin to a scene in the Simpsons:
(Marge speaking to Homer in bed): “Kids can be so cruel…”
(Bart, overhearing as he walks past the door): “Thanks mom!”
(Lisa, being hit by Bart): “Owww!!!!”
#36 by Jeff on October 27, 2011 - 2:07 pm
I agree that it’s far too early to judge the new broom that are coming in and I’m not doing that here. I’m just noting a few individual concerns that I’ve personally noted and just wonder, if the electorate has similarly noticed and what part that may play on the referendum. I reckon that’s fair.
I never said Humza was “a bad MSP” and it’s a bit unfair of you to suggest so. But I’ll get over it 😉
#37 by Doug Daniel on October 27, 2011 - 4:34 pm
Fair point, you didn’t call him a “bad” MSP (and I did actually wonder if I was perhaps putting words in your mouth there!), but you were hardly calling him MSP Of The Year either!
I reckon your concerns will prove unfounded – the ones like Humza are not just new MSPs, but they’re young too. They perhaps need a bit more experience in both Holyrood and in life. They’ll blossom quite well though, I think.
#38 by Craig Kelly on October 26, 2011 - 12:44 pm
It seems to me that part of the problem is that Labour have been in power in Scotland for so long. Thus, the ‘career politicians’ – those interested in a job but little else – have flooded into Labour and diluted any real talent coming through. Added to that, Labour are suffering from a crisis of identity which is hardly conducive to bringing through the next political ‘A team’. For example, what does it mean to be a Labour member in the post-New Labour world?
Labour’s predicament, however, should serve as a warning to the SNP. There is the real threat that since the SNP are the party that can now offer a fairly safe route into parliament, then the ‘career politicans’ will be drawn their way.
I agree with Indy that modern politicians have to be so careful within all aspects of their lives because of the level of scrutiny they face, but surely that is the biggest road block to bringing through the kind of people you are calling for Jeff? So many talented people are turned away from politics because they don’t want their dirty laundry presented to all and sundry. We need to find a way to move away from this. But as long as we have a mud slinging culture within politics, and particularly the media, then Scotland will continue to miss out on people who could have made exceptional contributions to our society. People who instead remain in business, in commercial law, or in the GP surgery.
#39 by Iain Menzies on October 26, 2011 - 1:20 pm
post new labour world…oh thats a laugh…..scottish labour is, and was, may things, new labour wasnt ever one of them….
#40 by DougtheDug on October 26, 2011 - 8:24 pm
Well it supplied one of new Labour’s top architects, Gordon Brown, several Cabinet Ministers during new Labour’s time in office, Darling, Reid, Alexander and Murphy to name a few and the Scottish MP’s never rebelled as a group against any new Labour policy.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
#41 by Gaz on October 26, 2011 - 1:49 pm
Spot on Craig and the SNP are now at the point at which it must put mechanisms in place to ensure the same thing doesn’t happen to them.
Nothing attracts career politicians like a successful party that looks like it will be in the ascendency for some time.
Already the SNP MSP ranks are being populated with people who have not had any job outside of politics but at least we know they all joined the party for the right reasons.
Now people who fancy a career in politics but who might not necessarily have the right principles at heart may be attracted to the SNP for the wrong reasons.
There is no doubt that that is what has happened to Scottish Labour. It is one of the reasons why they are having such a hard time defining themselves and one of the reasons why their demise could be dramatically fast.
#42 by Allan on October 26, 2011 - 7:39 pm
“It seems to me that part of the problem is that Labour have been in power in Scotland for so long. Thus, the ‘career politicians’ – those interested in a job but little else – have flooded into Labour and diluted any real talent coming through”
Agree. I would also add the thought that if you were an aspiring politician with slightly right of centre views. Who would you join?
Would you join the Tories – they would be your natural home but you would have very little chance of being elected? Or would you join Labour (or the SNP) – slightly more uncomfortable ground but you would have a better chance of being elected, you would just have to pick and choose when to voice your true opinion. Labour might be a slightly more realistic home as you would be seen as a Blairite.
Just a thought!
#43 by Iain Menzies on October 26, 2011 - 1:26 pm
I dont think you can treat Tory and Lib Dem Cab ministers on the same level.
Also i think you are well off the mark about Ken Clarke. Ive always been under the impression that he would go come the first reshuffle. I have a (fair) bit of time for the man, but I think that a large part of why he is in the Cabinet is that he is one of only TWO ministers with previous cabinet experience.
#44 by Indy on October 26, 2011 - 3:11 pm
That is the political culture that exists Stuart. Were I to point the finger of blame for who created that culture it would not be at political parties themselves but at the press and media. Who presumably give the public what they want. I think WInston Churchill is the oft-quoted example of a politician who wouldn’t survive for a week under the level of scrutiny that modern day politicians have – a manic depressive who sometimes went to bed for weeks, drank a bottle of whisky a day and was frequently intoxicated in the House of Commons. Someone who today is regarded as a hero but if he were actually around today would be hounded out of office in double quick time. Who’s to blame for that? To a certain extent everyone but to be honest mainly the public. There is too much of an appetite to condemn and not enough of an appetite to forgive. To some extent that may be created by the media but everyone goes along with it don’t they.
#45 by Jeff on October 26, 2011 - 4:45 pm
You see, I don’t think the public get enough credit. An MP makes the headlines, the press relentlessly go after him/her and therefore he resigns or is sacked. Where does the public fit into this? Just because they buy newspapers it doesn’t mean that they agree with them.
I think a large slice of the public are starving for some cantankerous, idiosyncratic so and sos filling the green benches. Indeed, we saw many Labour personalities win through somewhat unexpectedly against the Tory A-list identikit brands. I wouldn’t be taken in by this ‘only the bland will do’ suggestion so easily. Remember Denis Canavan, Jean Turner? (not that they are modern day drunken Churchills of course!)
#46 by Indy on October 26, 2011 - 7:24 pm
You would need to ask the media where the public fit into it because presumably the media focus on things that they think the public want to read/hear.
And certainly there is a defiite public appetite for the build them up/knock them down approach whether it is in politics or any other area of public life – witness the insane celebrity trivia and garbage that so many people seem to be obsessed with.
Maybe there is a large slice of the public who want something else but who really knows?
Of course another issue is whether the media have too much influence on politics and if they see themselves as players rather than participants as well, but that’s maybe a separate issue. Certainly the whole Paxman style does my head in and they are all like that now. It’s fair enough if someone is being evasive but they act like attack dogs even when a politician is being perfectly open and reasonable. So it’s no wonder that politicians grow increasingly defensive and unwilling to deviate off script.
#47 by Stuart Winton on October 27, 2011 - 12:46 am
I agree with you to the extent that politicians have to be unnecessarily squeaky clean as regards their personal foibles, but disagree as regards differences in policy, although of course part of the problem is that the media overdo even the slightest differences in policy as well.
As Jeff says perhaps the public would respect the parties a bit more if they allowed a bit of leeway to their politicians rather than the automatons and programmed careerists that are par for the course these days.
Of course, as Allan alludes there are bigger and longstanding forces at work than can be overcome by any one party, and as with many of the shortcomings of current politics it’s difficult for individual parties or politicians to break the mould, so to that extent they have my sympathy. Just!
#48 by Allan on October 26, 2011 - 7:46 pm
I think both the politicians and the voters are at least complicit in that particular conspiricy Indy. I don’t know if you’ve seen the Andrew Marr documentary on Kennedy’s 1960 presidential election campaign.
Essentially Marr’s thesis is that Kennedy’s campaign – meet and greets with grass-roots supporters, spin & innuendo against opponents, selling yourself relentlessly and providing hope through mesianic speeches – set the template for future election campaign’s both in the US and here. Of course had Kennedy lost (which remarkiably he could have, 1960 is down as the closest US Presidential Election of all time), none of these “lessons” would have been learned.
#49 by Mark McDonald on October 26, 2011 - 4:33 pm
Dear Jeff
Thank you for your vote of confidence.
Kind regards
Mark
#50 by Jeff on October 26, 2011 - 4:39 pm
Thanks Mark. I’ll add that to the list of things that many current MSPs would do that professional, experienced individuals, confident and secure in their own abilities, would typically not.
You can disagree with my opinion but your crazy if you think that many Scots don’t share it.
#51 by Mark McDonald on October 26, 2011 - 4:42 pm
Dear Jeff
Next time I will include a winky smiley face and a lol if it will help convey the ‘not meant to be taken seriously’ nature of the posting.
Kind regards
Mark
#52 by Craig Gallagher on October 26, 2011 - 7:32 pm
Are you criticising an MSP for responding like a human being, Jeff? Ok, it’s a little snide, but the fact that he disagrees with you is made in a humorous and pithy statement. It seems to me that’s exactly the kind of personality transplant you’re advocating the new breed of MSP to have.
#53 by Jeff on October 27, 2011 - 1:58 pm
Fair enough if it was meant in jest, I didn’t catch that (and if you have to explain your jokes, they can’t be ‘that’ good!), but if I could have bet any money on an MSP being a huffy mcguffy with a trite comment it would have been the honourable member for North East so read into that what you will.
#54 by Mark McDonald on October 27, 2011 - 4:45 pm
Jeff
MSPs are never referred to as honourable members. Infer from that what you will.
Mark
#55 by Jeff on October 27, 2011 - 5:00 pm
On the contrary, you are an MSP and I just referred to you as an honourable member. Ergo, you’re hypothesis is disproved.
Infer from that wh… ucht, I’m not playing any more. It stopped being fun a long time ago.
#56 by douglas clark on October 26, 2011 - 5:48 pm
Ré Craig Kellys’ point at 22. Is there anyone that disagrees with that?
It seems to me that, if you wanted a political career, being Labour was the only way to be for, what, the last fifty years or so?
I think that taking away their entitlement, via Hollyrood, has been a shock for them. Frankly, taking away their Westminster entitlements through independence is going to be the mother of all fights. This is not going to be easy. The SNP are ripping up their idea of their entitlement. The likes of Ian Davidson is not just out of a post as an MP he has zero chance of being and MSP. Even Tom Harris is going to struggle to find a seat in an independent Scotland. I think we can assume that the war has only just begun….
#57 by Andrew Watson on October 26, 2011 - 6:41 pm
I’ve heard sentiments such as this before, and I just don’t get it Jeff. As you say, Independence would almost certainly be permanent so who is to say we’d be governed by the SNP for all of time? In fact, I’d wager that given that the Nationalist movement in Scotland is all about independence and barely touches cultural nationalism (much to my continuing upset), what is there to bind the SNP after independence? Especially given that they are a rather broad kirk, as the gay marriage stushie clearly shows
Add to this the fact that all of Scotland’s current MPs would be out of a job but certainly not out of politics altogether and I think the Scottish Parliament would absolutely have enough talent to run Scotland.
We all hate the trend for career politicians but hey, who knows? Maybe running our own country from Edinburgh might encourage some of the talent you crave to stay in Scotland and contribute.
#58 by Jeff on October 27, 2011 - 2:05 pm
Well, I said in the post that there is no guarantee that the SNP would be the Government of an independent Scotland but I did also say that the same problem can be applied to the Scottish wings of the other main parties (sorry James, I know you don’t like that phrase). Indeed, the reason I focus on the SNP is because they undoubtedly have the best talent of any of the Holyrood parties and not just by dint of having the largest numbers. I still wonder if the public will think it lacks the correct breadth and depth for an independent country when the current top tier retire.
That said, great point about an independent Scotland drawing talent in from new quarters. I reckon an independent Scotland would need much more than the 129 MSPs that we currently have (I think Sweden has 343 MPs, pop 9m) so that allows more people to throw their various hats in the ring.
#59 by Doug Daniel on October 27, 2011 - 4:27 pm
Agreed, a more powerful Holyrood would need 150 – 170 MSPs minimum.
#60 by Craig Gallagher on October 26, 2011 - 7:28 pm
Jeff, quite honestly, I think you are right in essence but have exaggerated the extent to which this will be a problem for the electorate. I say that because I too share a genuine despair about the mechanics of party politics, the promotion of career politicians and the utter dilution of political ideology at the top level. It’s the exact reason I was so disgusted with Labour’s campaign in May, given that every policy position they advocated smacked of the desperation to be elected that is essentially the core value of the New Labour project.
Where I think you are exaggerating is when you say that people will be afraid Scotland would have too many of these career politicians to make its own way. To make this argument completely misses the point that the current leaders of the three Westminster parties are in this exact same mould. Ok, you can argue that some of them have had jobs outside the political sphere (the “respectable” Tories who didn’t make their millions through Daddy’s Trust Fund) but the basic argument stands: these men were bred to be politicians. David Cameron is the archetype, in that he has been “destined” for high office from his opulent childhood; Ed Miliband has clawed his way tooth and nail through a labyrinthine party election system designed to encourage sooks and teacher’s pets who toe the line; and as for Nick Clegg, he was specifically chosen by the Lib Dems because he believes nothing and was therefore most malleable to getting them into government.
Contrasted to the SNP team, who by definition have at least one core ideological tenet they will not surrender on, I feel the discrepancy is enormous. And if Nicola Sturgeon, Richard Lochead, Eileigh Whiteford and Angus Robertson are the future of the party, at least we know the SNP won’t be burdened by these PR primadonnas at the top level. Can Labour or the Coalition partners say the same?
#61 by Jeff on October 27, 2011 - 2:02 pm
Fair points Craig. I’d say there is a difference between the three Westminster leaders as they, privleged background or not, have come through a classical training at top schools and universities and can apply an intellectual and studied approach to their leadership that may well be lacking from Scotland-only parties in years to come. So yes, all three men were always going to be politicians and there is still a fault at play in that there has been no outside experience beyond a token amount but I think we’re comparing chalk with cheese (and that’s not a Scottish cringe, it’s aiming high).
You may be right that I may be exaggerating the issue though and I do agree that it’s an issue irrespective of whether we’re independent or not so, yes, it might not play a part in the electorate’s thinking, directly or indirectly.
PS I like your rationale for why Nick Clegg was picked as leader.
#62 by Craig Gallagher on October 27, 2011 - 6:10 pm
To be honest, I thought that about Nick Clegg when the party elected him. If they really wanted to be principled they would have plumped for Chris Huhne (principle except on traffic violations…), or convinced Vince Cable to run.
The one thing I will say is that it is a longstanding issue with Holyrood that there is a dearth of talent in general. The fact that the SNP frontbench is so stellar reflects the fact that these politicians cut their teeth in the political wilderness, never expecting to get elected and so were forced to do battle with the cream of the 1980s Labour crop, namely their Scottish MPs.
This time around, the SNP have only Iain Gray and co to compete with, and as a result, the standards of the underclass may have slipped in a manner similar to that of Liam Miller or Jean-Alain Boumsong, who both looked excellent in the SPL, but useless elsewhere.
So it’s a reasonable point. My only objection is how much it will be a factor come Referendum Day. One of my great hopes is that in the newly independent Scotland, a nation so famous for churning out fierce and ideological politicians and sending them south will suddenly find themselves competing for less slots at Holyrood and crowding out the career politicians. Wouldn’t it be marvelous to imagine the likes of George Galloway, Jim Murphy, Douglas Alexander, even Gordon Brown in a chamber against Salmond, Sturgeon, Angus Robertson and Mike Russell?
#63 by Barbarian on October 26, 2011 - 7:52 pm
I think this is a fair article.
I’ve worked in a number of industry sectors, most of it in operational environments and with a fair few years in process audit. Believe me, there are professional business people who are as likely to make mistake as politicians.
What the SNP must do is educate the new crop of MSPs properly, before one of them makes a critical mistake. They can easily learn from the mistakes of so-called experienced MSPs. And that includes responding to criticism.
For example, Nicola Sturgeon had the issue where she wrote a letter of support for a constituent. It was an error of judgement but she stood up, admitted it and apologised. Honest response that earned respect. It also deflated her opponents attacks.
Then there was the little issue of Alex Neil’s profit from his house selling. His response was arrogant and typical of a politician. Supporters said it was no different than what other parties had been up to, but then we thought the SNP was going to be different.
Mistakes will be made – it’s how they are dealt with that is important.
#64 by DougtheDug on October 26, 2011 - 8:32 pm
Now, a cynic could say that the reason that the Scottish Cabinet is so consistent is because there are few individuals on the SNP benches who are ready to make the step up to replace them. When the rising stars of the governing party are Alex Neil (aged 60) and Mike Russell (aged 58), then one is inclined to agree.
So the only reason that the current Cabinet members have held their jobs is because they can’t find anyone else in the party to replace them with?
…the rest of the SNP crop can be far from impressive and are often derided as simply button-pushers in the Parliament…Not that the SNP has a lock on forming the first Government of an independent Scotland, but the talent on opposition benches, current and future, is similarly threadbare save for a few notable exceptions.
Is this article just an updated variant on the old Scotland isn’t smart enough to govern itself theme?
#65 by GMcM on October 27, 2011 - 9:29 am
Oh c’mon DtD. I think Jeff has a pretty valid argument, although seeing as there are lots of new MSPs (mailny SNP and Labour) I would wait a little while longer before talking down the talent of some of those members.
Also would some people on this site please stop this ‘too small, too stupid, too poor’ nonsense. The more you trot the line out the more small-minded, stupid and intellectually poor you appear.
To just poo-poo someones point with the same old tired comeback, just because they don’t agree with you, is childish and really just downright boring! If you don’t have anything constructive to say – don’t say anything at all.
#66 by DougtheDug on October 27, 2011 - 3:37 pm
Thanks Captain Mainwaring. I’ll keep it in mind as always.
#67 by Gaz on October 26, 2011 - 8:54 pm
Just another thought on all this stuff.
I remember paging through the Scottish Parliamentary handbook for the last term and, of the 46 Labour MSPs, only 5 (I think) claimed to have any employment experience in the private sector prior to their political careers.
While I don’t believe there is a problem with an MSP coming from the public sector or having a background as a local government representative such a lack of balance across the whole group is surely not healthy.
Given their respective political outlooks, you would expect Labour to be as divergent in background as the SNP but it doesn’t even come close.
I am sure this is a fundamental result of Labour being in power for so long and therefore attracting those who were happy to be career politicians rather than principle politicians. It also explains why Scottish Labour adapted so readily to the New Labour project.
I remember George Galloway’s jibe at Andy Kerr – ‘the triumph of ambition over ability’ or something similar. A bit harsh I would say but Scottish Labour undoubtedly provided the environment that could foster such career progression.
#68 by Indy on October 27, 2011 - 8:42 am
I agree that we ought to have people from diverse backgrunds in the parliament but, to allow that, we need to be a bit more relaxed about people going “off-message” and being less than slick because it can take quite a while for people to acquire those political skills.
#69 by GMcM on October 27, 2011 - 9:19 am
The adoption of the New Labour project came before we were in power for 13 years.
#70 by Craig Gallagher on October 27, 2011 - 6:13 pm
Not in Scotland. Labour ruled the roost in Scotland prior to Tony Blair’s election in 1994.
#71 by Gaz on October 27, 2011 - 7:07 pm
And after 40 years of unfettered control of almost every institution in Scotland!!!
#72 by Indy on October 27, 2011 - 6:19 pm
No it doesn’t! The Policy memorandum quite clearly states that “We intend that these measures will cover all offensive or threatening behaviour at football matches, regardless of whether it is “sectarianâ€. This means offensive or threatening behaviour LIKELY TO INCITE PUBLIC DISORDER whether that is through songs and chants, displaying banners or otherwise” (My capitals).
I don’t know how it could be made any clearer.
It is aimed at strengthening the powers of the police and prosecutors to clamp down on behaviour which is likely to incite public disorder.
That does not mean a blanket ban on songs, chants, banners etc. It means that where singing particular songs or chanting a particular thing or waving a particular banner is likely to incite public disorder it will be an offence.
So, for example, if Rangers or indeed Celtic were playing a testimonial game or something like that fans could sing what they liked, chant what they liked and wave what they liked because it’s not going to lead to a rammy. But if they were playing each other it would be a different story because those are the circumstances in which trouble can kick off.
This is not difficult – read the bill and accompanying documents. It is not much different to how breach of the peace works now, just gives police and prosecutors more powers. But not to the extent of criminalising all football fans! That is a wilful misinterpretation.
.
#73 by Indy on October 27, 2011 - 7:13 pm
I may have to recant everything I have said about professional politicians right enough after Alex ballsed it up by reading off the wrong bit of paper at FMQs.
Lol. Just shows it can happen to the best of them.