This week’s Worst Motion of the Week was such a close call that I decided to lump two close contenders in together. Like a couple of naughty school children sitting down doing lines outside the Head’s office, they’ll never learn otherwise…

First up, is the inimitable Kenneth Gibson, a repeat offender sadly.

Motion S4M-02041: Kenneth Gibson, Cunninghame North, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 16/02/2012
Scots of the Antarctic
That the Parliament recognises what it considers the remarkable incompetence of Labour ministers in the previous UK administration who, it has emerged, accidentally devolved some responsibility, including the ability to launch scientific research expeditions, over Britain’s 660,000 square mile Antarctic territory to the Scottish Parliament; believes that, in pursuit of a respect agenda, it would be wrong as a point of principle for the UK Government to seek to reserve these powers once more; understands that more research is conducted in Scotland than any other country relative to wealth per head of population, that Scotland has the highest concentration of universities in Europe, with Scottish institutions undertaking world-leading research, over half of which is rated as internationally excellent, that Scotland is also home to five of the world’s top 200 universities, while it ranks third in the world for the number of research publications published per head of population; considers, therefore, that the UK Government should not only cease in its attempts to have this responsibility reserved, but actively encourage Scottish involvement in planning and conducting scientific research and expeditions in the region; further considers that, due to Scottish scientific and educational excellence, the UK Government would also be wise to devolve some control over space exploration to the Scottish Parliament, and believes that, if the UK Government seriously wants to have full control over the Antarctic territory, it may wish to consider the issue as part of an agreement to return 15,000 square kilometres of Scottish waters, as agreed in the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968, which it considers were transferred unilaterally from Scottish to UK jurisdiction under the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 just weeks before the Scottish Parliament came into being and which was subsequently endorsed by unionist MSPs acting, it considers, as always, in London’s interest.
Supported by: Adam Ingram, Gordon MacDonald, Bill Kidd, Mike MacKenzie, David Torrance, George Adam, Kevin Stewart, Dennis Robertson

I don’t fully follow how, in the one motion, Kenny can slag off Labour for “remarkable incompetence” in accidentally devolving the launching of scientific research expeditions to Holyrood while also claiming, “as a point of principle”, that those powers should remain with the Scottish Parliament. I can’t imagine that there are any Scottish-based expeditions out to Antarctica that are raring to go, irrespective of the long list of irrelevant accolades that Kenny has manage to shoehorn into this motion. Even if an expedition is due to get going, I can’t imagine that it’ll make a blind bit of difference as to whether the powers are held at Holyrood or Westminster.

Mentioning good things about Scottish universities does not a good motion make, and indeed is a clue as to what cracks are trying to be papered over.

Next on the list, and jockeying for WMOTW top spot this week, is Hugh Henry, a recent Scottish Politician of the Year so someone who should really know better.

Motion S4M-02004: Hugh Henry, Renfrewshire South, Scottish Labour,
Date Lodged: 10/02/2012
Linwood
That the Parliament regrets the comments reportedly made by SNP councillor David Berry describing Linwood as a “dead end”; considers that Linwood is a proud community, which has suffered from the effects of industrial decline; recognises and pays tribute to the many community organisations in the area, including the churches, community council, the Community Development Trust and the Elderly Forum, that are working hard to make Linwood a better place, and believes that an apology is due as a result of what it sees as this unwelcome slur.
Supported by: Neil Bibby, Neil Findlay

Any motion with the phrase “unwelcome slur” in it is bound to be a bit of no-good Punch and Judy that may be worthy of page 17 in a tabloid, but isn’t really welcome in the Scottish Pariament. I don’t know if Presiding Officer Tricia Marwick has an official equivalent of ‘take it outside lads’ but, if so, I hope that it is utilised.

Both motions are really aimed at journalists and rival councillors respectively, rather than the Scottish public, so here’s hoping that their next attempts are a better effort and don’t drive us up the Pole.

Indeed, you could say that, much like the Antarctic and Linwood itself, the only way is up.