As predicted (see third point here), Holyrood has a new grouping for business purposes: John Finnie and Jean Urquhart, plus Margo, plus the Green MSPs. Five is sufficient to win a place on the Parliament’s Business Bureau, which haggles over the business schedule. It also feels a touch more than purely technical (unlike, say, the Greens tie-up with EFA at the European Parliament), given the five share support for independence and opposition to NATO.
It’s also the same size as the Lib Dem contingent at Holyrood, who currently get a slot at FMQs two weeks out of three: the Presiding Officer has been oddly reluctant to take questions from the Greens this session, but this group should remedy that. Looking at it over fifteen weeks, on five of those weeks the new group would not expect to get a question, on four of those weeks the Greens should have a slot, plus two weeks each for Jean, John and Margo.
FMQs has become increasingly dull and frustrating, and that’s from a low starting point. Two or three typically predictable and unconstructive questions from opposition party leaders are answered with chuckling, bombast and a failure to provide an actual answer. Sometimes there’s room for a backbench SNP MSP to ask a “would the First Minister agree with me” type question, and every once in a while a genuine constituency issue is asked responsibly and answered consensually. Maybe, just maybe, this change will help raise the tone and increase the extent to which the Scottish Government is genuinely held to account.
Joint release issued just now:
NEW WORKING GROUP ESTABLISHED IN PARLIAMENT
5 MSPs have decided to form a technical working group to assist them in their Parliamentary duties.
Patrick Harvie and Alison Johnstone of the Scottish Green Party have reached an agreement with Independent MSPs Margo MacDonald, Jean Urquhart and John Finnie to establish a working group under the Parliament’s Standing Orders.
This grouping will give the MSPs representation on the Parliamentary Bureau which decides Parliamentary business, in turn providing the MSPs with further opportunities to contribute to debates in the Chamber.
The Independent/Green Group agreed this statement:
“The five of us have discussed ways in which we can work together, and after taking advice from colleagues on our options, have decided to form a grouping to enhance our ability to represent our constituents.
“Although every member of our grouping is pro-independence and believes strongly in a more equal, sustainable Scotland, it is by no means a formal, party-based arrangement; no MSP has changed, or plans on changing, their party affiliation or on taking positions different to those they have taken in the past.
“We all look forward to pushing for an independent, fair and peaceful Scotland both inside and outside of Parliament, and to working with MSPs across the Chamber to achieve these goals.”
#1 by Patrick on November 22, 2012 - 10:31 am
Yes, we’re hopeful of more in the way of speaking time, debate slots, and questions. But if there’s a rebalancing of FMQs it won’t mean simply giving us what the LibDems get now – there isn’t room for both to get the third question two weeks out of three. If we manage parity, it will need to be on some other formula.
#2 by James on November 22, 2012 - 10:51 am
You’re right – there’s no way the Lib Dems could have the third question two weeks out of three and the new group also have the third question two weeks out of three. Simple maths 😉
#3 by Jeff on November 22, 2012 - 11:21 am
This is an excellent development and a real test of whether Holyrood (and the PO specifically) intends to do things differently in this supposedly brave new devolutionary world.
More smaller parties/independents having more of a say on matters would pleasingly give the Scottish Parliament more of a continental Europe feel rather than the US approach of two sides verbally battering lumps out of each other.
As much as I believe that it was undemocratic of Jean/John to be voted in on the SNP bandwagon and then resign from the party on an issue that they weren’t voted into Parliament to decide over, I wish this group the best of success going forward and hope that they can mix things up a little bit (or a big bit!) at FMQ and beyond.
#4 by James on November 22, 2012 - 2:37 pm
Oh, I think the other 67 should resign. They were elected as anti-NATO MSPs, and have no mandate for their new position.
#5 by Jeff on November 22, 2012 - 2:56 pm
“they were elected as anti-NATO MSPs”.
Somehow I don’t think that part of their (reserved to Westminster) party’s policy was uppermost in voters’ minds, hence my focussing my gentle dismay on Jean and John.
#6 by EyeEdinburgh on November 22, 2012 - 9:57 pm
Even if you assume that only 3% of the people who voted SNP were doing so in support the SNP’s anti-nuclear weapons stance, that 3% lost their representation when the SNP voted to keep Faslane (for that’s what the vote for NATO was about).
It’s hardly undemocratic for two MSPs to be left to stand up for what *was* the party’s policy when they were voted into government.
#7 by Gavin Hamilton on November 22, 2012 - 11:39 am
I think, on the whole, this is a good development and promises to get a plurality of voices and input into debate.
It is, as they say, a business grouping because it is 3 independent Nats and two Greens. While they will have a lot in common they will not be the same but if the group feel they have a lot i common to work as a unit they havea lot in common.
The key thing is to avoid it becoming a bit like The People’s Front of Judea v The Judean People’s Front v The Judean Popular People’s Front!
#8 by Doug Daniel on November 22, 2012 - 12:41 pm
“no MSP has changed, or plans on changing, their party affiliation”
Not strictly true… 😛
This is great news, although it throws up a question: are the current Johann, Ruth and Willie questions specifically questions for leaders, or are they merely guaranteed questions for those parties, and convention/common sense dictates that it’s always the leader that asks them? I mean, I’m guessing Patrick won’t always ask the new grouping’s question? (Although I certainly would have no problem if that was the case!)
As to how to fit this square shape into the triangular hole, the simplest solution would obviously be to make the Lib Dems and the Green-Indies just take turn about, although I would think the Lib Dems would be miffed at losing a sixth of their questions. So maybe this could be a way of changing the question allocation fundamentally – namely removing some of the follow-up questions from Ruth and Johann, and give them to the Green-Indies? That would certainly help speed things up and make things a little less tiresome…
#9 by Jeff on November 22, 2012 - 12:53 pm
I reckon that’s a good shout Doug, one less question for Labour and the Tories, and turnabout for the Lib Dems and IndiGreens (for want of a better name). After all, the third bout of q&a between Salmond and Lamont/Davidson (Lamont/Lamont if you’re Tricia Marwick) tends to descend to ‘you’re a total bawbag’ which the Parliament could really do without.
And I can’t imagine there’s a rule that the ‘leader’ of a group has to ask the question, otherwise the deputies wouldn’t get a look-in when the leaders are away. At the end of the day, if the Scottish Parliament can’t make up its own rules then what’s the point of this devolutionary adventure anyway!
#10 by Gavin Greig on November 22, 2012 - 7:49 pm
While I have sympathy with the thought, wouldn’t that mean that it was the second q&a that most lowers the tone instead of the third? I think both questioner and answerer regard the last question as being the bit where their punch-line goes.
#11 by Patrick on November 22, 2012 - 3:22 pm
Doug, the statement means that no MSP has changed their party affiliation as it stood before this announcement – I thought that was clear but perhaps we could have been more explicit.
As for the other points about FMQs, there is no rule that a party or group needs to put forward the same person each week. In fact the Greens in session 2 used to alternate between male and female MSPs, and the SSP used to rotate theirs between the MSPs for a while too. I’m sure that *if* we see a rebalancing of FMQ allocations, we’ll want to make sure that all five of us enjoy fair shares.
#12 by Doug Daniel on November 22, 2012 - 3:56 pm
Nah don’t worry, it was clear – just my little joke about how there came to be two extra independents in the first place!
I look forward to seeing how things pan out. Anything that can drag FMQs back into a semblance of respectability is very much welcomed, especially after today. The other parties could probably do worse than rotate their speakers every now and again as well…