Better Nation

32 Comments

• #1 by Indy on August 13, 2011 - 10:04 am

  

  In fairness it was pretty unprofessional to copy the email to every single researcher in the parlament. He could have just emailed the indivdual MSP/researcher. (I say “he” because there is just something about the tone and language that tells me it is a he).

  Many of us get pissed off with being cc’d into tons of emails that are nothing to do with us. One of my friends who works for an MSP tells me he has to wade through hundreds of emails which are basically crap in order to get to the important stuff. So I can sympathise with the MSP’s irritation.

• #2 by Catherine on August 13, 2011 - 10:25 am

  

  Well done in flagging this. It shows the level of pettiness that the Scottish Patliament operates at.

  I am almost certain I know the people involved and I wouldn’t hold my breadth for an apology. It’s become the culture in Holyrood that you have to lodge motions to stay ahead of your list/ constituency rivals locally. It’s a tool in which you can dominate local media. It does add it the banality of the Scottish Parliament.

• #3 by Steven on August 13, 2011 - 12:58 pm

  

  I know I wasn’t the only one in the parliament yesterday who was cheered by the email from the tory assistant

  • #4 by Indy on August 13, 2011 - 6:56 pm

    

    That’s a shame. If you need cheering up could I recommend the Daily Mash? Brightens my day.

    • #5 by Steven on August 14, 2011 - 9:17 pm

      

      The Daily Mash is for the train ride in

• #6 by Barbarian on August 13, 2011 - 3:21 pm

  

  A large majority of MSPs in the Scottish Parliament do not have the ability to be a Westminster MP, and the email from the SNP MSP proves it.

  That email from the Tory livened things up! Get that man (or woman) a job as a minister!

  (Oh, and don’t let Cybernat Central know about this. They will be demanding UN intervention!)

  • #7 by Indy on August 13, 2011 - 6:53 pm

    

    You mean they don’t have the ability to sit about on their backsides sending out stupid emails?

    Or did you mean something else?

• #8 by Don McC on August 13, 2011 - 7:05 pm

  

  Sorry, Jeff. Are you stating that normal day to day business in Holyrood should be suspended, that it’s insular and parochial, petty even, to carry on while these troubles were going on in England?

  BRB, just checking the URL…..oh, thought I was on Labour’shame for a moment.

  So a new start gets a rude “f*** off” from a low level tory and how do we react? Yeah, give the tory a promotion. Gie’s a shout next time your boss gives you a thankless job to do. I’ll hurl abuse at you for doing it. See if you still think that kind of action deserves a promotion.

  • #9 by Jeff on August 14, 2011 - 9:53 am

    

    None of that, and I mean none of it, makes any sense. So I’m not going to bother putting it straight.

    • #10 by Don McC on August 14, 2011 - 10:57 am

      

      What, you need it broken down bit, by bit? Words of less than 1 syllable? Come on, Jeff, you’re normally quite sharp. But here we go:

      1 – “Nice to see that the Parliament is bickering while England burns.”

      Are you claiming that normal day-to-day business in Holyrood should be suspended, that it’s insular and parochial, petty even, to carry on as normal while these troubles were going on in England?

      This is the kind of nonsense that serves as debate on the Labour’shame website. I expect better here.

      2 – “An official complaint? Yes, that’ll get taken seriously I’m sure”

      We have a new start assistant being told to do a thankless task. A low level tory basically responds with a “F**k you” and your reaction (and many of the posters here) is to fall on the floor laughing, some even looking for this responder to be promoted to a ministerial post.

      I’d like to know if, the next time you’re given a thankless task to do, how much you’d appreciate me coming over and giving you abuse while you carry it out. Would you call for me to be promoted? Or would you think that’s just not right?

      • #11 by Jeff on August 14, 2011 - 11:31 am

        

        1 – Well, I’m patently not claiming that Holyrood should shut down due to England’s problems, wilfully or otherwise you are misreading the comments. There is a busy-ness and workmanlike feel to Westminster right now in light of recent problems and that stands in stark contrast to Holyrood if this email chain is anything to go by. It was a throwaway comment but, even then, your interpretation of it just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. I can’t speak for Labour Hame as I’ve not had a chance to read it much of late but I would agree with you, anyone saying that the Scottish Parliament should suspend business because of English riots would be being nonsensical. Furthermore, anyone saying I’d suggested such a thing would be similarly daft.

        2 – It was not a ‘f** you’ (charmingly put); it was a bit of Parli banter that, admittedly, should probably not have been sent ‘reply to all’ but, given that it did, a curt, cutting response would have been enough to put the Tory in his/her place but, for some bizarre reason, the MSP opted to go overboard and far too straitlaced which, yes, I personally found amusing and enlightening. And I don’t know what you’re banging on about a promotion for (who suggested that?) or how that links in to the (many) thankless tasks that I do in my own job. I wasn’t giving anyone abuse but I always welcome scrutiny and feedback where I work.

        I have no quarrel with an assistant sending out an email at the request of his/her superior; my problem is the idea to send out such a thing in the first place (i.e. the MSP’s) when it serves so little, if any, purpose. So, again, I don’t know how you’ve come to the conclusion that I’m having a go at the assistant. It’s the MSP who gets the opprobrium.

        I don’t know if you’re being deliberately obtuse but you’ve made your points, I’ve refuted them, and we’ll be leaving it there.

        • #12 by Indy on August 14, 2011 - 8:06 pm

          

          Erm the Scottish |Parliament is in recess,no?

    • #13 by Indy on August 14, 2011 - 11:16 am

      

      Some of it makes sense surely? The new start stuff anyway? If the person who sent the email – who started on 1 August – got the idea it was normal to fire back an email to everybody when they read a motion that annoyed them they might start doing it to. So might all the other new starts. Then others would join in. And what would happen then? Apart from thousands of useless emails joining the already existing piles of useless emails, you would find MSPs increasingly submitting motions for the sole purpose of winding up their political opponents. (Some of them do that already I suspect – step forward Kenny Gibson). And if everbody felt free to “reply all” where would it all end up?

      A complete breakdown in email law and order. Anarchy I tell you. The parliamentary authorities would have to impose a new tough line including anti-social email orders. The press would start asking questions such as how many researchers come from single parent families and do they listen to rap music. The whole system would break down from within.

      Indeed, I am surprised at a Tory taking such an anarchistic stance. Maybe he’s a plant.

• #14 by Rev. S. Campbell on August 13, 2011 - 8:02 pm

  

  “Sense of humour bypass”?

  Sorry, which bit of “While I am delighted that you appreciate the Big Lottery Fund, set-up by a UK Government under Sir John Major, who created the National Lottery, your motions are becoming somewhat repetitive and frankly tedious” is the punchline?

  • #15 by Jeff on August 14, 2011 - 9:50 am

    

    All of it. I’m still chortling away here…

• #16 by Dr William Reynolds on August 14, 2011 - 8:27 am

  

  Firstly email is notorious for causing “flaming”.This phenomena can be observed in Universities,in the business,everywhere that email is used extensively for communication.Someone sends a message that irritates and the reciever sends back a message that irritates and so it goes on.Both parties experience unpleasant raw emotions and snatch at replies that selectively focus one part of the message.Confusion and misunderstanding results.certainly there is no empathy.This situation is not exclusive to the Scottish parliament,and the low level of pettines can be found in all institutions.Often I have advised people not to reply immediately to an email that irritates then,but to reflect on the message for a while.the best response(f it is possible) is to invite the sender to meet face-to-face to discuss issues and misunderstanding.

  Regarding MSP’s if some of them are not competent to be Westminster MP’s,they shouldn’t be in the Scottish parliament.There some very excellent MSP’s but I agree that some of them should not be there.I also think that some MP’s are not competent either.It would appear that some enjoy a lifestyle that is not merited by their limited ability.

  • #17 by Daniel J on August 14, 2011 - 10:24 am

    

    Let’s not hold up MPs as a shining beacon of competence. There are plenty of very poor MPs out there!

• #18 by Douglas McLellan on August 14, 2011 - 5:26 pm

  

  I agree that the use of the motions thing to promote local projects, ideas and issues that allow the MSP concerned to issue a press release basically saying “look what I am doing to for the local area” are a waste of parliamentary time and were not, I suspect, the key feature that the architects of devolution had in mind.

  That said, the response by the Tory assistant was bang out of order. I assume that every assistant is aware that it is the MSPs that are asking for these to be put forward so why be so arrogant and dismissive of the SNP researcher? Why dismiss someone in such a way for doing what they have been asked to do?

  I have also given some thought about the MSPs response. Had the MSP been the one to send the email then perhaps their response is a bit over the top. But as an employer of the person being harangued I think that it did require a more stern response. After all, employers have a duty to protect their staff and I think that seeking an apology or complaining about inappropriate behaviour is the correct course of action.

  I know that you are a robust person Jeff so may not see it this way but that response from the Tory assistant could easily be seen as workplace bullying. A simple examination of the various anti-bullying/anti-workplace bullying websites would show that. It that context, the response from the SNP MSP is both required and proportionate.

• #19 by Mark McDonald on August 14, 2011 - 7:20 pm

  

  Jeff

  When I was invited to do a guest post on here I was pleased as I saw this site as a way to promote discussion around serious issues.

  The last two posts have made me wonder if it’s actually just another place for smug and snide gossip-postings, of which there are frankly plenty and merely apes the diary columns and some of the more tiresome columnists. Example being that you decide to post up a list of ‘worst’ motions, but don’t attempt to point out anything ‘good’…

  Grateful if you could clarify the ‘mission’ of the site.

  And I’m not just saying this because you deemed my motion to be cack…

  • #20 by Jeff on August 14, 2011 - 7:41 pm

    

    Mark,

    First up, it’d be a very dull place, here or anywhere, if we were serious all of the time. Note that the two posts were Friday posts which, on here at least, you can expect to be typically less serious than other days. The aim of both posts was to entertain more than stimulate more than most other posts that we’ve put up on this blog.

    We are planning to merge in something of the ilk of ‘best PQ/MSP of the week’ in due course as, as you’re right, that chimes better with ‘Better Nation’ but surely even you admit that Parliament doesn’t exist to pat itself on the back every other week and there is more to be gained from careful scrutiny and shining a spotlight on, what we perceive at least to be, wastage and inefficiency? The good things that Parliament do do not get reported on enough, you’re right there, and, as was pretty clear from the post, this email exchange posting is very much a one-off. I still think it’s an illuiminating insight into what happens in that lovely big building more than it is gossip.

    I’m confident that we promote more good than bad on here and I think our ‘mission’ of a positive debate with a view to a better Scotland remains very much intact, but thanks for your concern.

    PS Your motion was, and remains, cack. “further notes that past and present players attended a celebration ceilidh” <– this is not worthy of a motion in a national Parliament, imho.

    PPS You’re always welcome for another Guest Post, any time.

    • #21 by Mark McDonald on August 14, 2011 - 7:51 pm

      

      Jeff, the Camanchd Association like my motion.

      Does that make it Camanachd backed cack?

      Just to show I’m not always dull and serious.

      Mark

      • #22 by Jeff on August 14, 2011 - 8:11 pm

        

        Mark, if you wrote a motion about me, I’m sure I’d like it too. It wouldn’t necessarily make it any good though.

        And I know you’re not always dull and serious. You support Aberdeen right? Only someone with a good sense of humour good do that!

        • #23 by Mark McDonald on August 14, 2011 - 8:32 pm

          

          I think you’re being unnecessarily pedantic about the line in question, but we will just have to agree to differ on that point.

          I think you’re mistaking ‘good sense of humour’ for ‘masochism” in that there second paragraph.

          Anyway, regards your guest post invite a few lines back, I will await future invites. I don’t want to turn into one of those ‘letters page’ regulars who induce rolling of eyes across the readership…

          • #24 by Jeff on August 14, 2011 - 8:50 pm

            

            Haha, quite, not sure what a respectable time period is mind. I suppose we have a good 100 odd other MSPs to get through anyway if we’re going to get the whole set. Can’t be seen to have favourites after all…

  • #25 by Douglas McLellan on August 14, 2011 - 8:22 pm

    

    Mark

    I am genuinely interested to know why you dont think that motion was cack and what you feel is achieved by putting it forward. I dont see these motions as a triumph of devolution and feel add nothing to the work of the parliament. But I am open to persuasion.

    Thanks.

    • #26 by Mark McDonald on August 14, 2011 - 10:17 pm

      

      The motion achieved three things in my view.

      Firstly it acknowledged a significant milestone for a local sporting club in the North East.

      Secondly it welcomed the hosting of a significant sporting occasion in the North East.

      Thirdly it welcomed and acknowledged the work the Camanachd is doing to try and encourage participation in shinty across a wider area.

      These are, in my view, perfectly reasonable things for a motion to do.

      When all is said and done, these motions are often a boost to the club, group or organisation, can often encourage meetings or visits which then lead to the MSP in question taking up a case or lobbying on an issue, and generally lead to people being happy. Except Jeff and a Tory researcher.

      I agree that these can be ‘overdone’ but I think viewing motions and PQs as simply being vehicles to stir things up is a tad blinkered and there’s as much benefit can be derived from welcoming a local event or achievement as from calling for government investment in an area or encouraging a change of policy.

      • #27 by Douglas McLellan on August 14, 2011 - 11:05 pm

        

        Thanks for the feedback.

        Whilst I can see how it creates better links between the MSP and local organisations none of the three reasons are examples of what was missing from Scottish society prior to 1999.

        Unfortunately the cat is now out of the bag so we cant stop these motions. Perhaps there needs to be a list of “motions” that are the local congratulatory type motions and a separate list of “motions” that are about national politics and national issues.

        For example, the recent John Mason motion was important and caused national debate and cross party responses. The motion immediately following that motion was yet another a “congrats for filling out a funding application form” motion from, this time, a Labour MSP. I suspect the architects of devolution were far more concerned about the parliament being involved in equality & social change as opposed to be congratulating the hundreds of successful BLF applications in Scotland.

        The problem is that it can be hard for visitors to the Scottish Parliament to find the “nationally important” motions that impact on political debate amongst the many many local well wishing motions. If a visitor to the website was not familiar how the parliament works do you think that they would be able to sort the wheat from the chaff?

        • #28 by Indy on August 15, 2011 - 10:04 am

          

          This is not something which is unique to Holyrood. In fact it is a straight lift from Westminster. Example:

          “That this House sends its best wishes to West Bromwich marathon runner Blind Dave Heeley as he starts out on his latest endurance challenge to raise money for Macmillan Cancer Support on its centenary anniversary; notes that Dave Heeley will cover 1,000 miles, including 10 marathons and 750 miles of tandem cycling, in just 10 days from John O’Groats to Land’s End; recognises that Dave Heeley was the first blind person in the world to complete seven marathons in seven days on seven continents raising 375,000 for Guide Dogs for the Blind in 2008; and congratulates Dave Heeley on acting as a truly inspirational role model for so many people in Sandwell and the wider community.”

          Now, there is an argument that such motions are a waste of time – that the member could simply send the individual/organisation a nice letter congratulating them on their efforts and then issue a press release to that effect. I would see that as being a more sensible approach myself. We could then focus parliamentary motions on matters which MSPs genuinely wished to see discussed and debated.

          However I also detect a bit of a sniffy tone from some commentators here, as though MSPs ought to have better things to do with their time than congratulate local organistions on their achievements but that is pretty misguided in my view. If MSPs aren’t fully a part of their communities they aren’y doing their job properly. And there is, of course, a reason why MSPs work hard to get into their local papers – local papers get read from cover to cover which is more than anyone can say about national papers.

• #29 by Colin on August 15, 2011 - 11:17 am

  

  I think you should name the SNP MSP, at least, so that they’re not all under suspicion of being so pompous.

  • #30 by Indy on August 15, 2011 - 4:28 pm

    

    If you can’t work out who the MSP for Bellshill is you would never make a parliamentary researcher.

    • #31 by Colin on August 15, 2011 - 6:19 pm

      

      The constituency member for Bellshill is Labour, and the SNP have three list MSPs in that region…

      • #32 by Indy on August 16, 2011 - 8:54 am

        

        Ah well that just shows I would not make a parliamentary researcher lol. Just as well as I couldn’t put up with all those crap emails.

Comments are closed.