A Constitutional Pork Barrel

I've been following the Comments thread in my last post very carefully, and I've been mulling over my response. I've opted to start a new thread for it, and compare it with an additional development.

So firstly, I'm afraid I must disappoint Julie: there is little in the way of 'totty' in Holyrood. John Lamont (Con, Roxburgh & Berwickshire) is quite striking but tottydom requires the presence of one clear, visible chin - no more (unfortunately for your blogger) and, unfortunately for Mr. Lamont, no less.

Anyway. One of the key points of the discussion is whether or not Labour feeling free to introduce legislation in committee would lead to a rise in 'pork barrel' politics, where MSPs take locally-popular decisions in a bid to get re-elected over and over again, and whether that would lead to a decline in principle and ideology.

To be honest, I see anything that reduces the apparent strength of party whips - as any such development would - as a good thing. And I would also suggest that Holyrood's electoral system mitigates against the fear raised that such a move would make give certain MSPs a job for life. Take Glasgow Anniesland: yes, Bill Butler could stand for re-election to the seat claiming that he'd voted in his constituents' interests. But Bill Kidd was the SNP Candidate here, and he's now a Regional MSP for the city. He could claim the same thing as Butler. So could Bill Aitken, the Tory Candidate for the seat, and the Conservatives' Regional MSP for Glasgow. Constituency MSPs, therefore, could still be unseated, albeit by Regional MSPs. And woe betide any MSP who did listen to the Whips more than any of his or her neighbours: he or she would be at great risk at a subsequent election.

However, there are some occasions where principle has to win out: the debate over Scotland's constitutional position has to be one of them. Which is why I am unimpressed by Nick Clegg's support for further powers for Holyrood. Clegg argued that: "by just blocking further progress to devolution you strengthen the hand of the Nationalists."

Well, firstly, that may or may not be true, but the reverse certainly is not: by advancing such progress, you do not weaken the SNP's hand. Remember that George Robertson predicted that devolution would kill the SNP stone dead - some death!

And secondly, the small matter of how a country is governed ought to be beyond party political considerations. To gerrymander Council, Holyrood or Westminster electoral boundaries is bad enough, and to gerrymander an entire electoral system is worse still. But an entire constitutional system?

How can a party seriously advocate any changes to how Scotland is governed based on wishing to shaft the SNP?

And on that basis, his willingness to attack "the often highly opportunistic siren call for full independence" has no credibility at all. It's also rich for him to say that politicians should "show devolution is a process which is ongoing and not shut the door and in effect say we have gone as far as we want.", when his party opposes independence - and eventually will have to say that they have indeed gone as far as they want.

He says he wants to leave the debate to Nicol Stephen and Scottish politicans. That may well be the smartest thing he's said on the matter.

Though his viewpoint on British constitutional change ought to be left to someone else as well, given that his own - and his party's - approach to the Scottish constitution, makes this line look a little bit hollow:

"If Brown and Cameron are interested in holding cross-party talks... which would really lead to root-and-branch reform of the political system, no one would be more delighted than me. "But if they're not interested in that and only interested in playing games or picking off one or two issues that would be convenient to them and would ruin the rest, I'm simply not interested in that whatsoever."

So party political self-interest is good enough for the future of Scotland, but not the future of Britain as a whole?

Not a good start to Scottish affairs.

And so begins the Clegg era

Nick Clegg is the new LibDem Leader at Westminster, by virtue of just 511 votes more than his rival, Chris Huhne. The main division of the campaign was on personality rather than policy, so we can see this result as a grudging support for Clegg rather than a ringing endorsement.

If I recall, however, most of the MSPs came out for Huhne, though most of the Scottish LibDem MPs preferred Clegg. It will be interesting to see how the MSPs' relationship with the MPs develops, particularly at a time when the MSPs are seen as far, far too close to Labour.

So is Clegg the right choice? No. A quick synopsis of his acceptance speech shows that it could have been uttered by either Gordon Brown and David Cameron. That is the problem: this means he is fighting on their ground. Brown is the PM; Cameron is the Leader of the Opposition and a PM-in-waiting, perhaps. Clegg is neither of those things. Brown and Cameron will get the attention for being who they are. Clegg can only stand out in two ways: by offering something different - which he isn't - or by saying things in a way that makes people listen. Vince Cable had a way of doing that, and it remains to be seen if Clegg can do the same. One problem is that those who seek to run him down already have their nickname, coined by a Huhne supporter: "Calamity Clegg".

One of the things Clegg had going for him was youth and vibrance. Nicol Stephen was supposed to have the same things, but he lacks charisma and at his first major electoral test in May, saw his party slip back. He simply failed to make an impact. And his judgment since then has been questionable: he had policy dictated to him by Tavish Scott and Mike Rumbles; his Parliamentary performances have been relatively weak; his line of attack on Trumpgate appears to be backfiring as the local press fear that his approach could jeopardise the golf course ever coming to Aberdeenshire and cause the local economy to lose out; even his attempt to get an independent inquiry about the Trump Affair has failed and he will have to content himself with the Local Government & Communities Committee looking at the issue. One of the members of that Committee, David McLetchie, did more than anyone to secure Henry McLeish's resignation. Nicol Stephen will not be anywhere near as successful.

Now, Clegg has more personality than Stephen ever will, or that he will perform as badly as the Scottish LibDem Leader, but the former Deputy First Minister's experience shows that youth and vibrance isn't always enough: you have to make people notice you, and give them a reason to support you. Clegg has opted to run with the Labour/Tory herd, which means his personality has to shine out more than ever.

Unlike his predecessor, Clegg will see out an election. But his target of 150 seats after two elections looks quite ridiculous at the present time, much as Nicol Stephen's ambitions to be First Minister caused people to snigger. It could happen, but people have to have a reason for voting Liberal Democrat and not anyone else.

And I am not convinced that Clegg will supply those reasons.