Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Holyrood

Worst Motion of the Week – Sandra White MSP

Aug 26

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood | 21 Comments

Different people have a different appreciation of what the motion process at the Scottish Parliament is for. I can grudgingly accept that there is a tenuous benefit in hoping (fruitlessly) that Scotland will win the Rugby World Cup (Graeme Dey MSP) or wishing an Estate a Happy Birthday (Jackie Baillie MSP) but using the process to aim an easy smack at a rival politician for silly comments when the comments weren’t even made in (and that politician doesn’t even sit in) the Parliament is definitely pushing things.
So step forward Sandra White, SNP MSP for Glasgow Kelvin, for the below, Better Nation’s Worst Motion of the Week (though James “can quite imagine putting it down”)

Motion S4M-00703 – Sandra White ( Glasgow Kelvin ) ( Scottish National Party ) : Struan Stevenson MEP, Unacceptable Use of Language
That the Parliament expresses deep concern at what it considers to be Struan Stevenson’s MEP’s outrageously insensitive comments in Ballantrae on 9 August 2011 at a meeting in support of Communities Against Turbines (Scotland) which he titled as “the Renewable Rape of Scotland”; considers this use of language to be unacceptable and deeply insulting to all who have been sexually assaulted, and calls on all decent minded people to disassociate themselves from what it views as his disgraceful remarks.

Supported by: Linda Fabiani, Christina McKelvie, Bill Kidd, Rob Gibson, Marco Biagi, Graeme Dey, Adam Ingram, Gil Paterson, George Adam, Chic Brodie, John Finnie, Stuart McMillan, Patrick Harvie, Humza Yousaf

Struan Stevenson sits in the European Parliament and Ballantrae is a long way from the debating chamber at Holyrood so what precisely Sandra is hoping to achieve from this motion, other than crassly publicising what itself is a very crass comment, is unclear.

Going down the road of parties using the Parliament’s procedures to lob ‘he said this, she said that’ barbs at each other would be a regrettable scenario, particularly when we already have a procedure in place for that – press releases.

Sandra does not need to hang her head lower than Struan does due to his ill-conceived remarks being considerably worse than a dodgy motion but this, nonetheless, was a poor example of a parliamentary motion and that’s why it deserves this week’s accolade.

100 Days have come and gone

Aug 26

Posted by The Burd in Governance, Holyrood | 30 Comments

Belated congratulations are in order as the SNP marked another significant milestone in reaching 100 days, not of its first term in office, but its second running the government of Scotland.  Self-congratulation appears to be off the agenda though – nothing on the SNP website, nowt from the Scottish Government either.

Right on cue, though, a trio of disparaging and dispiriting articles in the Scotsman – a political one, an almost identical analysis, and in case we hadn’t got the message, a down in the mouth leader that ponders these last 100 days and concludes, clunkily, that the SNP Government hadn’t hit the ground running but jogging.

No we haven’t witnessed 100 days of dynamic action, as we did in 2007.  But then there are fewer quick fixes to be found.  And this time, where’s the hurry?  The SNP has a whole extra year to work with – pace is going to be everything this time round.

Moreover, with three opposition parties in disarray, floundering and leaderless, there has been no one snapping at their heels;  indeed, some of the Scottish Government’s poor headlines have been of their own making (or rather the media’s, seeing it as their collective national and noble duty to offer some kind of scrutiny).  This administration will last the course – the previous minority one did not know when its number might be called – and indeed, unless Labour gets its act together might even enjoy a third term.  Who needs a hundred days when there are thousands in which to make your mark?

In any event, many of the SNP’s manifesto commitments either involve no change at all – continued council tax freeze, free personal care, free tuition fees etc – or ambitious, sweeping change – new capital investment programmes, innovative legislation, a living wage, a real shift to localism.  Such measures are hard to fashion into immediate actions and ready soundbites.

These kind of reforms take time.  As the First Minister found out, in a rare lesson in humility, with the harried anti-sectarianism bill, sometimes the old proverbs really are the best:  less haste, more speed.  Our patience is likely to be rewarded with a number of “big bills” to be announced when the Scottish Parliament returns the week after next.

The only show in town, as far as the SNP is concerned, has been the opportunity presented by the Scotland bill to maximise devolution.  Its parliamentary timetable at Westminster demanded that the Scottish Government focused its attention on securing as many additional powers as possible;  indeed, one of the most vibrant and busy committees of the next 100 days is likely to be that set up to explore, scrutinise and make the case for all the powers the First Minister has put on his shopping list.  The prospect of items being crossed off that list is highly unlikely given the dominance of the SNP on the committee and in the chamber.

But it was not just the Government which eased itself gently into this session;  the Parliament too did not exactly spring into action.  Weeks went by with minimal parliamentary activity;  committees took an age to appoint convenors;  in the seven weeks before shutting up shop for the summer, the Parliament did not even open officially.  But with a very different shape and size to parliamentary groups, as well as a whole host of new parliamentarians, the logistics of getting the show on the road this time round were harder to achieve.  And crucially, everyone seemed exhausted from the efforts expended in the election – no one had much appetite for bounding Tigger-like into this session.

Now they’ve all had the summer to recover and recuperate, to rejoin and renew, there can be no excuses.  Yet, while the press appears to have rolled its eyes and declared the summer to have been “boring”, it has largely ignored the fact that the Scottish Government has been very busy indeed.  In fact, most of the Cabinet Secretaries and Ministers have had little more than a week off.  Not only has the Scottish Cabinet been on tour around Scotland, visiting far flung places like Stranraer, Fort William and even Kirkcaldy,  its members have been on other tours and trips, immersing themselves in their portfolios in different parts of the country.  Inbetween times, some of them have even managed to find time for some constituency work and pop home for tea with the family.  There are no five holiday Cameronians in this bunch.

And yes, it might make for few headlines.  It might seem – to some – to amount to aimless wandering, but it actually purports to serve a much needed purpose.  To make clear that Holyrood is not Edinburgh’s Parliament but Scotland’s, that this SNP Government belongs to and governs for all of the country, reminding everyone that it takes its new-found responsibility as the National Party of Scotland seriously.

Taken together, it might not amount to an action-packed, thrill a minute hundred days of glory.  But if it ensures thousands more days in government, and thousands more yes votes in the independence referendum, the SNP will consider it time well spent indeed.

Tags: , , , ,

Will the National Transitional Council hand Megrahi over to the USA?

Aug 24

Posted by Guest Blog in Crime, Holyrood, International, Westminster | 18 Comments

A guest post from Stuart MacLennan. Stu is a PhD Candidate in the Faculty of Law at Trinity College, University of Dublin. He is a former adviser to the Scottish Parliament Labour Group on External Affairs, which is why he wrote us a piece about Megrahi. He was also a Parliamentary Candidate – but the less said about that, the better.

Scotland may well find itself facing another diplomatic row with the United States of America. New Jersey Senators Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg have called on the Libyan National Transitional Council to hand Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi over to the United States. Until yesterday it was easy to dismiss this call as just another stunt by vote-hungry US Senators, but with the National Transitional Council (NTC) on the cusp of full control of Tripoli it has become a question that warrants some consideration.

Of course, legally and politically the situation is far more complex than Lautenberg and Menendez would have us believe. Leaving aside the dubiousness of the original conviction there are questions as to jurisdiction, international law, United States law, as well as the diplomatic, political and practical considerations.

At first glance jurisdiction seems simple. The flight blew up shortly after crossing the corner of the Solway Firth into Scotland and fell out of the sky towards Lockerbie and Langholm. Ergo, the bombing of flight Pan Am 103 is subject to the criminal law of Scotland, right? Well, things are slightly different where aircraft are concerned. The United States has never been shy about extending its jurisdiction extra-territorially, and the Tokyo Convention on Offences and Certain other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft 1963 creates the so-called “Aircraft Jurisdiction”. The Convention provides that the Country in which an aircraft is registered has jurisdiction over criminal acts while the aircraft is in flight or on the surface of the high seas. The United States has therefore always claimed jurisdiction over the bombing of flight Pan Am 103.

However public international law also comes into play where the Lockerbie trial is concerned. The United States along with the United Kingdom jointly sponsored Security Council Resolution 1192, binding members to accept the jurisdiction of a Scottish Court constituted in Camp Zeist in the Netherlands as the trial venue for Megrahi and his co-accused Lamin Khalifah Fhimah. The United States cannot unilaterally ignore this resolution, though as a permanent member of the Security Council it could propose a resolution overturning it. Without a further resolution, as Professor Robert Black points out, the Federal Government would not only be in breach of International Law but also of Art. VI, Clause II of their own Constitution.

But wait! “What about double jeopardy?” I hear you ask…

The famous double jeopardy rule contained within the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is not as airtight as it first appears. The dual sovereignty exception, which was developed by the Supreme Court in order to protect the rights of the federal government and the states to prosecute crimes independently of each other, appears to have been extended to foreign prosecutions [U.S. v. Richardson 580 F.2d 946 (9th Circuit 1978)]. Therefore provided the United States remains in compliance with its international obligations there is no bar on Megrahi standing trial again in the U.S.

So handing Megrahi over to the U.S. to stand trial is, theoretically speaking, possible in law however the politics make things even more difficult. The Obama administration is understandably keen to avoid being seen to be flouting Security Council Resolutions, so if they wanted Megrahi back they would have to have the acquiescence of fellow permanent member, the United Kingdom – but would they receive it?

In both Government and Opposition David Cameron has been clear about his objections to the release of the Lockerbie bomber. He has continued to maintain that he felt it was wrong that Megrahi was released though has never stated that he believes he should be returned to prison (despite what his spokesperson seemed to think today). The political row that returning Megrahi to the United States would create would be one that I believe David Cameron would wish to avoid.

Alex Salmond appears to relish in the controversy his Government has created. He has succeeded in putting successive UK Governments in a tricky spot over Megrahi, and in attracting the ire of Hillary Clinton has been elevated to the status of a world statesman. I do not believe David Cameron would put Whitehall on yet another collision course with Holyrood, particularly given the concessions the UK Government has already made to the Nationalists. Nor would Cameron wish to further enhance Alex Salmond’s quasi-Presidential status in the run-up to a referendum on Scottish Independence.

From a practical perspective – at present we do not know where Megrahi is. Megrahi was released on license and returned to a Government which for the most part doesn’t exist any more. East Renfrewshire Council, the local authority responsible for monitoring Megrahi’s release on license, admits it is in “uncharted territory” in monitoring his license and is urgently trying to make contact with him. Furthermore Tripoli could remain in turmoil for some time to come and Megrahi may well slip through the net.

Finally, given the uncertainty as to what kind of state may emerge in Libya, there’s no guarantee that the new regime will be any more acquiescent with the United States than its predecessor. Even if they manage to find Megrahi they may not hand him over. And given that it took the joint efforts of the United Kingdom, the United States, the United Nations Security Council and the passage of more that ten years to extradite him the first time around – Senators Lautenberg and Menendez may have to accept that Megrahi will never see the inside of a prison cell again. To paraphrase Kenny McAskill: the next judgment Megrahi faces will almost certainly be that of a higher power.

Ruth Davidson will be the next Scottish Tory leader

Aug 20

Posted by The Burd in Holyrood, Parties | 16 Comments

At the risk of giving the Scottish Conservatives far more ether-coverage than they are used to, or they deserve, another blogpost from me on their leadership contest.

So far there isn’t actually a contest, what with Jackson Carlaw MSP, the only one to show his hand. But you read it here first. Ruth Davidson will win.

Reliable sources, as they say, advise that she will stand and that she is garnering support from some of the party’s big guns. Apparently, the constituency party with the most members, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire (John Lamont MSP’s seat), will vote for her. So too will David Mundell MP’s seat, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale. Ditto John Scott MSP’s Ayr.

And these three constituencies count for big swathes of the party’s membership. It also indicates that not only does Ms Davidson carry the outgoing leader, Annabel Goldie’s, patronage but support from some of the party’s biggest hitters. In a party of 15 MSPs and 1 MP, she has effectively sewn up a quarter of that high level support. No doubt there are others in the wings too. Struan Stevenson MEP touted her leadership qualities when Malc and I caught up with him in Strasbourg in June (as you do) so there’s another of the party’s elected representatives in her court. And Struan’s a popular figure whose opinion will also count.

Anyone with a geography O/standard grade will have worked out that so far Ms Davidson’s support is from the South of Scotland. Murdo Fraser MSP is also likely to stand and no doubt he will pick up most of his support from his North East – ahem – heartlands. Like Jackson Carlaw, though, he’s tainted. While he has bestrode (bestridden?) this part of Scotland like a colossus, traditionally Tory territory has fallen to the Nats. Like snaw off a dyke, as the FM might, and probably did, say.

During his tenure as Depute Tory leader, his patch has been put through the wringer and turned totally yellow. They don’t count SNP votes anymore in these constituencies, they weigh them. Moreover, there appears to be a bit of a move on in the party to keep Murdo out. And anyone who has ever stood for political election, either internally or externally, knows you care little about why people vote for you, you just want them to vote for you. Ms Davidson therefore will accept such anti-Murdo votes with a gracious smile.

Moreover, Ruth Davidson represents the future face of Scottish Conservatism. Too young to be tainted by Thatcher, she might finally make the break with the past and allow the Tories to turn their fortunes around. Or at least that’s the thinking. Whether or not she will manage it remains to be seen – bigger political Tory beasts than her have tried and failed.

If she becomes leader – and she will, or I’ll eat someone’s hat – the Scottish Conservatives will have the youngest party leader, be the only party in Scotland not only to have a woman at the helm but to do it twice and moreover, elect a lesbian to the position. There are so many ironies in this I don’t know where to start. Progressive Torydom. Even in the Shires. Who knew?

For these and many more reasons, hers will be a remarkable election. She’s only been an MSP for a few months. Her rise may have been stratospheric, but she has undoubted qualities. Articulate and media savvy, she will inject something different into our political discourse. Cybernats will no doubt scoff at her prospects against the First Minister every week but I wouldn’t write her off. Going toe to toe with him is bound to end in disaster, but as Annabel has shown many times in recent years, there are other ways to get attention, get your point across and importantly, get under Alex Salmond’s skin.

Ruth Davidson is probably more centred politically than many on the right would like. That will make for an interesting conversation. While the rest of Europe lurches rightwards, including our ain dear UK Parliament, Scotland will have proven definitively that it is on a quite different political course. Her election will undoubtedly make it easier for the Scottish Tories to establish clear blue water from their UK counterparts – and hopefully detoxify their brand from the government’s activities that are not finding favour with Scots voters – but we await clues to see how this might pan out in policy terms.

But the most urgent task at hand is the implementation of the Sanderson review. The party needs overhaul at every level and in every sphere, to bring it out of the 1970s and into the 21st Century. Only when it has achieved this, can it seriously begin to think about political renewal. No doubt Ruth Davidson supports the review’s recommendations but does she have the mettle to push them through?

Such activity requires an attention to detail and a knowledge of what to do and when – qualities that John Swinney demonstrated in abundance during his ill-fated SNP leadership, during which he managed to push through a centralised membership scheme and also one member, one vote in all internal elections. This was no accident: his longterm membership and service in key party roles, particularly as National Secretary, served as a useful apprenticeship to achieving such fundamental structural changes. Does Ruth Davidson have the same organisational skills to bring to the fore?

The Scottish Conservatives have no doubt spent their summer chattering amongst themselves and one hopes garnering an inkling on what the three likely candidates think about stuff. And while these are the only votes that count for now, Ruth Davidson might like to share some of her thoughts on stuff with the rest of us. It would be bizarre indeed to greet a new Tory leader without knowing her views on well, anything.

And while the prospect of such a vibrant, youthful unknown leading one of Scotland’s main parties provides a frisson of excitement, I wonder if Ruth Davidson might just be peaking too soon? The Tories are in transition and such leadership stipends rarely last long enough to reap gains from any reforms enacted or attempted. Ask the afore-mentioned John Swinney. And Wendy Alexander.

Which makes John Lamont’s decision to sit out this round of musical chairs, and instead, throw his hat (and constituency votes) behind the most likely contender to defeat his shot at the next leadership election seem very shrewd indeed.

Tags: , , , ,

Best motion of the week – James Kelly

Aug 19

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood | 5 Comments

After being respectfully taken to task by Mark McDonald MSP after last week’s Worst Motion of the week post, I decided we’d have a Lib Dem FMQ style approach to these posts – two weeks on and 1 week off of worst/best motions. You know, in order to inject a bit of positivity into affairs given that’s what supposedly what this blog says on its tin. Not that I’m suggesting that FMQs are ‘worst’ when Lib Dems are involved and ‘best’ when they aren’t, of course.

And anyway, I looked for poor motions this week and there were none so that worked out rather well too. Maybe it’ll be more of an ad-hoc approach going forward, evolving as our MSPs’ motions improve or detiorate. We shall see.

Anyway, picking a winner was pretty straightforward this week. Step forward James Kelly, Labour MSP for Rutherglen, for this little beauty:

Motion S4M-00695 – James Kelly ( Rutherglen ) ( Scottish Labour ) : Nail the Rogues Campaign
That the Parliament believes that rogue traders have a significant impact on consumer rights and the informal economy in Rutherglen, Cambuslang and Blantyre and the rest of Scotland; notes, with concern, the recent figures released by the Office of Fair Trading showing that issues regarding home improvement work continue to be at the top of the list of complaints about rogue traders; further notes that, last year, Consumer Direct received more than 13,000 complaints concerning uninvited traders, almost half of which related to home maintenance work; is concerned that rogue traders have frequently been reported to offer services at what appear to be attractive rates and use persuasive sales techniques to pressure people into making hasty decisions; believes that older people and vulnerable groups are particularly exposed to the dangers of rogue traders, and commends the Federation of Master Builders Scotland, in conjunction with Trading Standards, for running the campaign, Nail the Rogues, in order to raise awareness of the dangers of rogue and dishonest traders, to offer advice for avoiding them and to provide information on how to find reputable traders.

Supported by: John Pentland, James Kelly, Kenneth Gibson, Jackie Baillie, Richard Lyle, Margaret McCulloch, Neil Findlay, Hanzala Malik, Bob Doris, Anne McTaggart, Drew Smith, Richard Simpson

Well said that man.

The problems with rogue traders is in danger of becoming the kind of inconvenience that nations put up with and don’t think they can really do all that much about. And yet, the financial and emotional impact on individuals and families must be horrendous and, furthermore, there is presumably no tax going into the state coffers with maintenance and joinery work when it is cowboys that are conducting it. I daresay the problem will increase as the economic woes continue too; I have noted companies are more anxious at getting cash in the door legitmately so why should it be different for those that raise revenue through illegitimate means?

I even (sort of) have recent experience of this as I was quoted a great price to fit my bathroom by ‘a friend of a friend of a friend’, it was almost unbelievably cheap, and, lo and behold, I’ve had problems with it ever since, the latest being the shower packing in once and for all this very week.

That experience is slightly different and not as bad as the horror of uninvited traders doing work and then basically bullying people into paying for it but it’s part of a wider issue that the Scottish Parliament is very well placed to address, and is the kind of issue that can attract cross-party support to combat, as the list of signees in the above testifies.

I would like to see fighting ‘rogue trading’ to be pushed out even wider – scrapping 0870 phone numbers north of the border for example as you shouldn’t pay a premium to contact your phone or utility company. That is exactly the type of policy area where I believe Scotland can lead and the rest of the UK may well follow, like smoking bans and minimum pricing.

A twin-win where people have more money in their pockets and there are more tax receipts going into the nation’s coffers (the UK’s and Scotland’s) is something well worth aiming for so, James Kelly, I salute you and I hope your motion goes all the way Sir.