A classic Labour/Tory spat.

People, people, this isn't what motions to Parliament should be for.

*S3M-2456.1 Jackson Carlaw: Condemnation of the Comments of Andrew Lansley and Defence of the NHS in Scotland—As an amendment to motion (S3M-2456) in the name of Margaret Curran, leave out from first "calls on" to end and insert "is wearying of the parade of invitations to pay tribute to the former Lib/Lab administration, rejected by the electorate in May 2007; invites the Scottish Government to press on with evidence-based action to assist the people of Scotland to tackle health inequalities and to do so without fear or favour to the record of the Labour party, which having governed the people of Glasgow for decades has singularly failed to improve health inequalities within the city, and calls on members of all parties to measure success less by reference to health spending and more by reference to health outcomes while ensuring that all people in Scotland, of whatever financial means, can access the healthcare they deserve."

Text of original motion:
S3M-02456 Margaret Curran (Glasgow Baillieston) (Scottish Labour): Condemnation of the Comments of Andrew Lansley and Defence of the NHS in Scotland— That the Parliament calls on Conservative UK Shadow Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley MP, to withdraw his comments suggesting that health spending should be reduced in Glasgow and spent elsewhere in the United Kingdom; believes that Mr Lansley’s apparent conclusion that health spending is inverse to health outcomes and should therefore be reduced in areas of poor health is a perverse logic that risks denying people in most need the healthcare that they require and deserve and that this is an alarming indication of the Conservatives’ intention to cut NHS funding; notes with equal concern that Mr Lansley’s wish may already be being granted by the SNP government in light of the recently announced £42 million of cuts to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and the fact that health spending in the Scottish Government’s budget fails to match the year-on-year increases of both the UK Government for England and those of the previous Scottish administration; further notes that, if this trend continues, Scotland’s historically higher health spending per head of population is at risk of being reversed within the next five years, and calls on members of all parties to defend the NHS in Scotland from further cuts and ensure that all people in Scotland of whatever financial means can access the healthcare that they deserve.

Seriously, no-one listens to this kind of Punch and Judy stuff, no matter how important the actual issues may be. Just leave it out. Actually, I fear we'll get an SNP amendment too, given that Mags named them in her original motion.

Murdo Fraser - Too Much Wind

A somewhat bizarre motion from Murdo, tabled in 2005:

S2M-2365 Murdo Fraser: Wind Farm on Salisbury Crags —That the Parliament welcomes the proposal by Calton Hill Energy to construct a wind farm on Salisbury Crags in Edinburgh and the contribution that this proposal will make to public attitudes in the city towards onshore wind turbine developments; agrees that it makes sense to construct wind turbines close to areas of population density where most power is consumed rather than in remote and rural areas; looks forward to seeing proposals for the construction of wind turbines on the roofs of prominent Edinburgh buildings such as Edinburgh Castle, St Giles, the Balmoral Hotel and the Palace of Holyroodhouse, and believes that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body should investigate the possibility of erecting 125-metre-high turbines on the roof of the Holyrood building.

Supported by: Alex Johnstone, Mr David Davidson, David Mundell, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, Mr Brian Monteith*

Back on track - John Lamont

As anyone who has read Lord of the Flies or Animal Farm (or been a member of a Scottish Socialist party) will know, to be part of a collective is no easy task. Eventually, the subtle differences in the aims of those who are involved diverge, some feel they are more equal than others and the project inevitably becomes pulled apart at the seams.

Well, thanks to the many authors of this blog and the recent posts that have strayed dramatically from the original mission statement, the mighty Crap Holyrood Chat blog has seen its numbers plummet and has skated narrowly close to the plight of ruin and ridicule.

So, I have metaphorically grabbed the conch and am getting things back on track, 'pruning' posts that I feel were not part of the CHC remit and reinforcing the raison d'etre of what this blog is about:

Per CHC Mission Statement: The time is therefore right to publicly humiliate any MSP who brings "crap chat" to the chamber. We need these people to feel the fire of the electorate beneath their feet and if they can't bring the quality and the professionalism to the job, then they shall be turfed out at the next election in favour of an eloquent, capable woman or man who can do the job instead.

No more the tawdry suggestions of sex stories, no more the partisan cat-calling of who was campaigning where in Glasgow East and, dear God, no more the inane tale of the Holyrood Mars Bar cake.

Instead, dear reader(s), I give you Voytek the Bear.

S3M-1262 John Lamont: Voytek the Bear—That the Parliament endorses the campaign to give proper recognition to Voytek the "Soldier Bear", who served in the Polish army during the Second World War and was billeted near Hutton in Berwickshire before retiring to Edinburgh Zoo; recognises the affection with which he was held by his comrades, and urges MSPs to support efforts to secure a permanent memorial to an unlikely war hero.

Let there be no mistake, I don't care how cute or brave this bear might have been, this is solid gold Crap Holyrood Chat.

Alex Johnstone

Right, let's get back to business. Crap Holyrood Chat is the name of the blog and crap Holyrood chat is what you're going to get.

Next in the limelight is a Tory, a first for the blog (I think, the multititude of authors makes it difficult to keep track.)

Alex Johnstone came out with this whopper a while back in the parliament and it definitely merits inclusion in the CHC vaults:

Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) (Con): Aye, right. Robert Brown opened his speech by questioning the order in which the final speeches are being made. I will not do that, because I know the procedures in this Parliament and how the order is decided. Sadly, I cannot say that the Liberal party's lack of understanding of the procedures is the reason why it has behaved in the way that it has today, but I will say more about that.
First, I want to talk about the Labour Party and what it proposes in its motion. It is a disappointment that, once again, the rump of the Scottish Labour Party has come to the Parliament and demonstrated that it neither understands nor can cope with the notion of opposition.

Jackie Baillie: Will the member give way?

Alex Johnstone: The tradition in this Parliament is that if a member mentions someone in their speech, they give them a chance to reply—so I give way to the rump of the Scottish Labour Party.

Jackie Baillie: I advise the member that the Presiding Officers care about the language that is employed in the chamber.

I ask the member, who is evidently confused—along with his colleague Mr Brownlee—if he is not aware that David McLetchie contributed to the Labour motion that is before us? Could he perhaps tell me what rule or standing order has been changed? Does he agree that no motion that is contrary to the standing orders would be accepted by the Presiding Officer? Why are the Tories rejecting the opportunity for debate on the budget priorities? Perhaps the answer lies in the price that the Tories extracted from the SNP for denying the Parliament the right to debate.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: I remind Mr Johnstone to be very careful with his language—I was not happy about your last comment.

Oh dear, oh dear Alex. Where are your manners old boy!?