I have a constructive suggestion to make before we delve into the murky world of Holyrood motions this week and it is a suggestion regarding the winner of our Worst Motion of the Week prize.
How about, instead of whatever interjection SNP MSP Kenneth Gibson deigns to make at the Scottish Parliament each week, be it spoken, a Parliamentary Question or a motion, we replace it instead with a (short) burst of bagpipe strains. On recent evidence, it would be of similar value.
Take this week’s winning WMOTW:
Short Title: Forward to Independence
S4M-02210 Kenneth Gibson () (Scottish National Party): That the Parliament notes the increasing collaboration between the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in Scotland; regrets that their only shared vision appears to be in uniting to stifle and hold back any ambition for Scotland to take what is considered its rightful place among the independent nations of the world, and believes that this “can’t do” attitude will be resoundingly defeated when Scotland votes Yes in the independence referendum.
Or, put another way, harummmmmm, (*hang on, I’ll just get this shanter up and running*), harrummmm, rummm, dee dum, dum dee dum….
Dare I suggest that he is simply peddling the line that those other parties are being anti-Scottish? The motion is not seeking to make Scotland a better place and has a hollowness and emptiness to it that I wager even the author would not deny. It’s a lazy kick at rival parties draped in a Scottish flag and it should have no place at the Parliament. It is worth noting that “motions are used by MSPs as a device to initiate debate or propose a course of action”, of which this seeks to achieve neither.
Now, I don’t often get to watch First Minister Questions so I’ll confess to being a little bit disappointed that upon hearing this question put forward by Kenny G, a question that resulted in embarrassed guffaws from the First Minister, the MSP for Cunninghame was not dressed in a kilt with a face painted purple when he delivered his pro-independence diatribe in the question after Willie Rennie’s (transcript not yet available).
Indeed, Kenny’s been on something of a roll recently, following on from early promise in his halcyon Crap Holyrood Chat days, and this week is no different. Here are a couple more still waters that he has clubbed a clumsy oar into:
S4M-02266 Kenneth Gibson () (Scottish National Party): That the Parliament notes the twelfth anniversary of the presentation of a declaration with 50,000 signatories in favour of the establishment of a Cornish assembly, equating to more than 10% of the adult population of Cornwall, launched by Mebyon Kernow on St Piran’s Day, 5 March 2000; understands that this declaration received support from Cornish people of various political backgrounds and persuasions, and calls on the UK Government to establish a Cornish assembly to allow for direct democratic control of Cornish affairs.
which attracted this amendment:
S4M-02266.1 Liam McArthur () (Scottish Liberal Democrats): As an amendment to motion S4W-02266 in the name of Kenneth Gibson (50,000 Call for a Cornish Assembly), leave out from “launched†to end and insert “and believes that, in the spirit of respect, decisions about the future of Cornwall should be left to the government and to the people of Cornwall rather than the Scottish Parliament, and considers that motion S4M-01381 in the name of Kenneth Gibson also seeks to interfere in the governance arrangements of Italy and Greece.â€
And another….:
Motion S4M-02203: Kenneth Gibson, Cunninghame North, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 02/03/2012
Labour’s Free University Education Confusion
That the Parliament notes with concern the comments made by the former MSP, Des McNulty, in his online Scotsman article on 29 February 2012 regarding the Scottish Government’s commitment to providing free university education; understands that, as Labour’s education spokesperson, Mr McNulty campaigned on the promise “with Scottish Labour, there will be no up-front or back-end tuition fees for Scottish university students†but now pursues the reintroduction of fees; finds it deeply troubling that, less than 10 months after campaigning to uphold the proud Scottish tradition of free higher education, Mr McNulty appears to have so reversed his position; believes that, had Labour won the 2011 Scottish Parliament election, fee paying policies would now be being pursued, and therefore considers that the Scottish Labour Party is not trustworthy on the issue of university fees and that, following what is considered its inability to form a coherent policy on the matter, only the Scottish National Party can be trusted by students, parents and the university sector to deliver world-class higher education based not on the ability to pay, but the ability to learn.
And indeed another….:
Motion S4M-02263: Kenneth Gibson, Cunninghame North, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 08/03/2012
No Spanish Veto
That the Parliament recognises the statement made by the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, José GarcÃa-Margallo, regarding how Spain would vote on an independent Scotland’s membership of the EU; acknowledges Mr GarcÃa-Margallo’s denial of any suggestion of a Spanish veto of an independent Scotland’s EU membership, with the newspaper Diario Vasco reporting on 24 February 2012 his comment that “if in the UK both parties agree that this is consistent with their constitutional order, written or unwritten, Spain would have nothing to say, just that this does not affect us. No one would object to a consented independence of Scotland”; welcomes the Spanish foreign minister’s statement on this point, especially after rumours suggesting that Spain would veto Scottish EU membership in order to discourage Catalan and Basque independence; appreciates the clarification from Mr GarcÃa-Margallo that Spain would not veto an independent Scotland’s membership of the EU, but would instead support the sovereign decision of Scottish voters to remain members.
Supported by: Humza Yousaf, David Torrance, Dennis Robertson, Willie Coffey, Margaret Burgess, Rob Gibson, Richard Lyle, Adam Ingram, Roderick Campbell, Bill Walker, Mike MacKenzie, Sandra White, Bob Doris, Kevin Stewart, Bill Kidd, Colin Beattie
Kenny Gibson is close to achieving a lifetime achievement award for poor Holyrood motions at the tender age of 50 and with four long years of this Holyrood term to go.
I maintain therefore that we’d save ourselves a lot of money and a good bit of hot air by having 128 MSPs and simply a set of bagpipes as the representative for Cunninghame North.
Not to be too negative this week, there were two Best Motions of the Week that bubbled to the surface and are well worth sharing:
Motion S4M-02225: John Finnie, Highlands and Islands, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 06/03/2012
Blacklist of Construction Workers
That the Parliament notes with concern reports suggesting the existence of a so-called blacklist of construction workers who have, as a consequence of participating in trade union activities, been identified as troublesome; understands that an investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office has concluded that the list contains information that could only have been provided by the police or security services; believes that, should it have taken place, such collusion is completely unacceptable, and condemns any companies or organisations that participate in the creation or use of such blacklists.
Supported by: David Torrance, Mike MacKenzie, Stuart McMillan, Rob Gibson, Christina McKelvie, Kevin Stewart, Dave Thompson, Bill Kidd, Bill Walker, Richard Lyle, John Wilson, Hugh Henry, Gordon MacDonald, Dennis Robertson, Chic Brodie, Patrick Harvie, John Park, Colin Beattie, Joan McAlpine, Humza Yousaf, Jean Urquhart, Adam Ingram, Jamie Hepburn, Fiona McLeod, Annabelle Ewing, Sandra White, Margaret Burgess, Linda Fabiani, Maureen Watt
Motion S4M-02225.1: Drew Smith, Glasgow, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 08/03/2012
Blacklist of Construction Workers
As an amendment to motion S4M-02225 in the name of John Finnie (Blacklist of Construction Workers), insert at end “, and calls on the Scottish Government to report to the Parliament on the question of whether territorial police forces or other agencies in Scotland have been involved in collating or passing on information that has been used to inform blacklists.”
Supported by: Helen Eadie, Iain Gray, Patrick Harvie, Anne McTaggart, Neil Bibby, David Stewart, Neil Findlay, Hanzala Malik, Patricia Ferguson, John Park, Hugh Henry
#1 by R Pollock on March 9, 2012 - 1:48 pm
What is wrong with the Spanish Veto amendment?
Having lived and worked in Madrid, and read the Spanish papers on this issue, (even those vehemently anti-Basque, anti-Catalan separation like ABC and El Mundo consider Scotland is a different case). As commentators here seem to suggest something totally to the contrary of what is actually the feeling in Spain – certainly amongst the press and populace – I don’t see any problem with trying to address that balance. They were pretty clear comments after all.
#2 by Jeff on March 9, 2012 - 1:59 pm
Yep, fair enough, that one was borderline.
The idea that Spain would veto Scotland’s inclusion in the EU was always fanciful but even if a supposed volte face was to be welcomed, then a parliamentary motion is not the place to do it. As I said in the post, motions exist to begin a debate and/or urge a course of action. Kenny’s motion regarding Spain seeks to do neither as far as I can see.
#3 by douglas clark on March 9, 2012 - 2:22 pm
Jeff,
I find it difficult to keep up with your position, whatever that may be. It is about time that you said what you think, rather than sitting on a fence.
Are you for Scottish indepenence or not?
Well?
#4 by Jeff on March 9, 2012 - 2:26 pm
A person can be for independence while being against inappropriate motions being brought forward at Parliament. My posts on Better Nation tend to be objective so don’t always betray ‘my’ position on anything.
And, while I don’t subscribe to the notion that the world is full of black and white decisions, if the (one question) referendum was held today, I’d vote Yes. If Devo Plus was included, I’d be less sure.
#5 by James on March 9, 2012 - 2:45 pm
Don’t be silly Jeff. Being in favour of independence necessarily entails an uncritical attitude to the SNP. There’s no way associating the two risks people thinking they’re directly and inextricably linked, concluding they don’t much like the SNP’s small-c conservative politics, and then voting No.
#6 by Craig Gallagher on March 9, 2012 - 3:11 pm
I think there is a “don’t rock the boat” feeling to SNP supporters these days, especially because the party is coming under sustained attack from so many angles. We know we’re in the ascendency, and that a lot of the forthcoming debate is ours to lose. I think that makes people hesitant to be overly critical of the party leadership, at least.
But at the same time, there is a place for criticism of particular policies and members, something that is especially important with the unicameral majority currently in place. I do think your criticism of the Spanish veto motion was a bit harsh, Jeff, but other wise I’m in agreement.
#7 by Topher Dawson on March 11, 2012 - 8:21 pm
This is an important misconception. Independent Scotland is going to have several political parties and they sure as hell are not going to agree on everything, just as they disagree now.
Apart from independence supporters in the Conservative, Labour and LibDem parties, the Greens and the SDA are in favour of independence but have important policy and ideological differences with the SNP. These differences are the embryo of the debate which will take place in the first General Election which takes place after independence.
When Labour finally gets its act together it too will be an important player. I have no idea what the remains of the Lib Dems and the Tories wil say, but I am sure they too will think of something. Currently they are shackled by the need to oppose independence.
So to answer your assertion James, independence is not a one-horse show and a good thing too. The SNP needs criticism to stay honest, and I say that as a member. When we get independence I will join the Greens. I think the SDA is trying to position itself to collect the right wing of the SNP, although how successful it will be is not clear. Whatever emerges of Labour may attract former Labour voters.
I see the struggle between Labour and the SNP for left of centre voters as the main axis post independence.
#8 by Barbarian on March 9, 2012 - 4:34 pm
Jeff, I get hammered with the same sort of questions from the same people. Some of our MSPs – from all parties – come out with complete and utter bollocks from time to time.
I like the weekly Motions (ooer) update. And perhaps the critics here should note that you also highlight the good ones as well.
#9 by Jeff on March 9, 2012 - 5:02 pm
Thanks Barbarian. I do enjoy pulling out the bad ones rather than showcasing the good ones to be fair, human nature I suppose. With so little scrutiny of Holyrood though, either way this little contribution can only be a good thing I reckon so glad you agree.
#10 by random lurking scotsman on March 10, 2012 - 3:38 pm
As much as you can agree with the aims of Scottish independence, you can also find yourself disagreeing with some of the views of its proponents.
Indeed, if after independence is attained I would hope that the “anti-Scottish” claim disappears from the Scottish political lexicon, because to claim that one party represents a whole nation and is the only choice for independent Scotland would be somewhat unhealthy.
#11 by Chris on March 11, 2012 - 11:52 am
Really? Wouldn’t it be more likely that the opposite would happen and anyone not having supported independence would be pilloried as a traitor, quisling, etc?
#12 by Daniel J on March 9, 2012 - 3:31 pm
What a load of mince.
#13 by Alex Gallagher on March 9, 2012 - 4:27 pm
Gibson really does seem to believe his opponents are anti-Scottish. Indeed he wrote in the local newspaper that one (to wit me) “loathe the very concept of Scotland”.
When I complained he repeated it.
And there was his recent radio rant against economists from the CPPR who came up with a report that didn’t endorse “independence”. He accused them of fiddling the figures and misleading the public and generally questioned their integrity and professionalism.
He has been before the beaks more than once on his expenses (emphasise, never found guilty).
He had to pulp his election leaflets last year because, of all the groups who appeared on it, (breastfeeding groups, football teams, disability groups…) none seems to have actually endorsed his candidacy.
Nice fellow…..
Still, he’s a senior Nat MSP and chair of the Finance Committee at Holyrood…. honest. Not kidding. He is….
#14 by Jeff on March 9, 2012 - 5:00 pm
Had to verify the quote before authorising but, fair enough, here’s the quote.
#15 by Richard on March 10, 2012 - 7:26 am
…or misquote – the words “appears to” being conveniently left out above.
I admit, KG does come out with some guff from time to time, but people taking words out of context and spinning them really gets my goat.
#16 by Jeff on March 10, 2012 - 9:00 am
No need to over analyse a 3 year old quote I suppose but I don’t agree that the inclusion of ‘appears to’ changes very much.
#17 by Richard on March 10, 2012 - 3:13 pm
It changes the sentence from a description of the impression that the person’s actions give (“appears to loathe the concept….”) into an arrogant assumption that one can see inside their head and divine their motives (“loathe the concept….”).
It’s exactly the same technique used more recently when Joan McAlpine said that the actions of other parties appeared anti-Scottish; only to be accused of accusing them of actually being anti-Scottish.
To be followed, of course, by the obligatory demands for resignation. It’s just a weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. It’s an infantile twisting of words which doesn’t contribute anything meaningful to the debate. Mock outrage in an attempt to score cheap political points.
#18 by Alex Gallagher on March 10, 2012 - 10:25 pm
He repeated it last month. He meant it.
The value of Gibson and McAlpine is their willingness to speak what lots of Nats really think.
#19 by CW on March 10, 2012 - 11:24 pm
Kenny Gibson is a master of invective. That’s not always a good thing. He is also very popular in Cunninghame North, where his majority grew by over 6000 votes at the last election, despite his downfall being loudly predicted by the Labour Party, and in particular his opponent and former Cunninghame North MSP Allan Wilson, right up to the week of the election. That very fact sort of debunks the idea that he is only capable of loudly and obnoxiously preaching to the converted.
Incidentally, Alex Gallagher might not “loathe” the concept of Scotland, but he does frequently question its existence on message boards such as these, while taking the existence of the UK as a natural, unquestioned entity for granted.
And everyone knows the Centre for Public Policy for Regions is not ideologically neutral. The hint lies in the name.
#20 by Alex Gallagher on March 11, 2012 - 4:24 pm
As I said, the value of Gibson is his willingness to speak what lots of Nats really think.
As, I believe, this response shows….
#21 by Alex Gallagher on March 11, 2012 - 9:31 pm
and the one by Richard, above
#22 by Don McC on March 11, 2012 - 10:25 am
This is a (out of context) quote from Ian Smart over on LabourHame:
“accuse him [Salmond] and his closest associates of being similar to a predatory paedophile ring offering sweets to a simple minded child in the hope of later taking sexual advantage of them.”
Like “appears to”, do you agree that the inclusion of “being similar to” doesn’t change very much?
#23 by Jeff on March 11, 2012 - 9:59 pm
I do still believe that the inclusion of ‘being similar to’ doesn’t change very much as I think that is an abysmal quote from Ian there.
#24 by Alex Gallagher on March 12, 2012 - 7:35 am
It’s in a piece entitled “There’s no room in Scottish politics for inappropriate and offensive metaphors, ”
yo can read it here;
http://www.labourhame.com/archives/3043#more-3043
here’s the actual quote…
“Now, I don’t like Alex Salmond. He is a charlatan; an opportunist; a right-wing wolf in centre left clothing.
But, in the midst of his seductive appeal to the less informed among our citizenry I would never, ever, accuse him and his closest associates of being similar to a predatory paedophile ring offering sweets to a simple minded child in the hope of later taking sexual advantage of them. Why not? Because it would be a wholly inappropriate metaphor. Like comparing the Highland Clearances to the Holocaust or, dare I say it, Alex Salmond himself to Robert Mugabe.”
#25 by Alex Gallagher on March 12, 2012 - 7:37 am
not just out of context, don, you misssed out the words “never, ever…” at the start……
so it means the exact opposite of what you imply…
#26 by Don McC on March 12, 2012 - 5:45 pm
Come Alex, you’re much more intelligent than that.
#27 by Observer on March 9, 2012 - 8:17 pm
Kenny Gibson is another one like Joan McAlpine who is never going to persuade anyone who is not a nationalist of the benefits of independence. He doesn’t phrase what he says to persuade. I too hear the bagpipes playing as I read his words. Good perhaps for the completely decided nationalist but he sure as hell won’t convince the undecided – & he doesn’t even attempt to.
#28 by Dr William Reynolds on March 11, 2012 - 11:13 am
I agree that we should be willing to criticise motions that seem pointless,irrespective of political party.However,in this instance (the first motion) I would argue that Ken Gibson was quite correct to point out that Labour has a track record of siding with the Tories to frustrate the SNP.That it seems petty is evidenced by the fact that they have often voted against theie own motions. Ken Gibson is also correct to point out that many unionist politicians appear to have limited ambition for Scotland. In other words lack confidence in Scotlands ability to determine its own future. I do not consider them to be anti-scottish,just lacking in ambition.There is a difference in arguing that a politician lacks ambition and puts party politics above anything else ,and calling them anti Scottish.There is no need to do that since the electorate these days seems capable of telling them what they think about them.For those reasons,I believe that Ken Gibsons points merited more respectful and thoughtful critique than Jeff offered.
Of course,there is a need to phrase your points in a context of logical analysis and evidence.I suppose that is where Jeff is coming from.Ken Gibson and Joan McAlpine are very capable of doing that.I have observed them providing cogent arguments that were very persuasive,thus I disagree with Observer about that one.
I would agree that motions are ineffectual contexts for raising important issues,since they tend to be viewed as innuendo and being negative.
#29 by CW on March 11, 2012 - 11:42 pm
Braveheart, again -“As I said, the value of Gibson is his willingness to speak what lots of Nats really think.”
Me, again – “his majority grew by over 6000 votes…sort of debunks the idea that he is only capable of loudly and obnoxiously preaching to the converted.”
As I observed, he seems to be preaching to a growing choir. Incidentally I think Jeff is absolutely right here, Gibson’s interjections in Parliament are frequently little more than partisan chest beating. Nevertheless, Gibson is a hugely effective local politician who also had the largest majority of any councillor in Scotland during his time as leader of the opposition on Glasgow City Council. But no doubt any such nuances in my posts will fall on deaf ears, as they did previously.
#30 by Indy on March 12, 2012 - 7:49 am
The main point about parliamentary resolutions is that practically nobody outside the parliament bubble ever reads them. The vast, overwhelming majority of them are a complete waste of time.
So yes some people might abuse them to score partisan points but they are abusing something that is almost completely irrelevant in the first place. So what does it really matter?
#31 by Iain Menzies on March 12, 2012 - 10:09 am
That MSP’s seem to spend alot of time doing something that a) does nothing and b) no one knows about (that doesnt read better nation).
Tho considering what they could be doing perhaps its better that they are spending time on the pointless…..
#32 by Indy on March 12, 2012 - 10:28 am
I suspect they spend very little time on writing motions which possibly explains the quality. I am no expert in how it works but have been advised by MSPs that the only motions that really matter are the ones that become the topic of a private members debate. To me it would be sensible just to say well those are the only motions or resolutions or whatever they are called that the parliament will take.