Parliamentary Parades

The parliamentary term is a long and winding road, an epic adventure that leaves our steely MSP warriors bruised and broken when recess finally comes around. They look out on that new daunting journey this week as the legislative programme is unfolded, as the first joust of FMQs gets going and as Crap Holyrood Chat enjoys its latest relaunch (it's like Kylie Minogue's career here, mercifully without the gold hotpants).

Anyway, with this odyssey in mind, what better motion to kick off some Holyrood Chat with than this one on marches and parades....

S3W-26912 - Bill Butler (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab) (Date Lodged Thursday, September 03, 2009): To ask the Scottish Executive how many marches and parades were held in 2008, broken down by local authority area.


I am sure Bill has his reasons but really, why would anyone need this information?


Anyway, hopefully CHC will enjoy this parliamentary parade with Mr Butler and his 128 colleagues right up to recess 2010.

If anyone wishes to join the site as an Editor, feel free to leave a message in the comments or get in touch with myself.

Finally, some crap chat to report

I honestly had no plans to make this an anti-Foulkes website but if he keeps lobbing up daft Motions and PQs then we at Crap Holyrood Chat will keep batting them back into the public eye.

George's latest is yet another example of a motion that I wager not one single person in the country would deem to be a worthwhile use of Parliament's resources:

S3M-03860 George Foulkes (Lothians) (Scottish Labour): Culture of SNP Cronyism— That the Parliament notes the reimbursement paid to Brighton-based singer Sandi Thom for services to the Scottish Government; recalls the “dosh for dinners” incident where, in the early days of the SNP government, donors were wined and dined at the First Minister’s official residence; notes the appointment of an SNP councillor as head of the Scottish Qualifications Authority, an SNP supporter as head of the Scottish Futures Trust and an SNP donor as head of the Scottish Council of Economic Advisers; remembers the SNP policy to deregulate bus services and considers that the SNP abandoned that policy after the owner of a major bus operator gave substantial funds to the SNP’s 2007 election campaign, and finally recognises the First Minister’s admiration for Scots-born, Barbados-based, SNP donor Sean Connery whose return to Scotland would be the ultimate homecoming.


Fair play to our MSPs though, the quality of the motions and PQs has been fairly high recently.

George Foulkes does it again

Hot off the press this one:

S3M-03621 George Foulkes (Lothians) (Lab):
That the Parliament calls on the Minister for Culture, External Affairs and the Constitution to retract his derogatory remarks about parts of Glasgow, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Stirling and Lanarkshire, made in his book, In Waiting: Travels in the Shadow of Edwin Muir, in October 1998; in particular calls on the minister to retract the comments that imply that Glasgow is too dangerous to get out of a car and that tenement closes are covered with the bodies of unconscious drug addicts, that describe the flag on Edinburgh Castle as “an awful mutant tablecloth”, that suggest that Dumfries is full of “skinny, ill-dressed women”, that Aberdeen is inhospitable and that Stirling is undesirable, and believes that it is against the interests of Scotland to have a minister who is responsible for promoting Scotland and its culture to be seen to continue to hold these views.

Heaven forbid that a politician would go out and, you know, actually meet people, talk to them and then tell it like it is.

For a better context on George Foulkes' rather carefully shown phrases, go to this blog and then decide if the eminently capable Mike Russell is a force for good or not.

Long time, no crap chat

Crap Holyrood Chat seems to have been impressed by the standard of motions and PQs of late. I have to admit my infrequent amble into what is being said at the Parliament has not turned up anything worthy of inclusion here.

That is until today. I fear Jackie Baillie is on thin ice with this rather poor motion and, so, she is entered into the vaults.

S3M-03567 Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Scottish Labour): SNP Fails Dumbarton Academy— That the Parliament welcomes the decision by the Labour group of West Dunbartonshire Council to set a budget that included funding to enable a much-needed rebuilding of Dumbarton Academy; considers that the rebuilding of this 500-year-old school should be a priority; expresses considerable disappointment and anger that the SNP-led council failed even to consider the Labour group's proposals and voted against the rebuilding of the school; further expresses concern that, if the school is not rebuilt quickly, it will disadvantage thousands of young children in Dumbarton who are currently being denied access to the best educational environment possible, and therefore calls on the SNP to build a new Dumbarton Academy without any further delay.


A valid grudge perhaps, but a parliamentary motion? Save it for your campaign leaflets I think...

George Foulkes - As unionist as they come

I understand that George Foulkes is mad keen on keeping Scotland inside the UK but not only do I find it strange that this zeal is taken to such lengths that he is troubled by the Tories choice of name, but I am annoyed that he uses our money to register his disapproval via a crap motion.

S3M-3195George Foulkes:Scottish Conservative and Unionist—That the Parliament notes with incredulity that the Scottish Conservatives have dropped the term unionist from their title just as the UK party has resumed its use following its electoral agreement with the Ulster Unionists and urges Annabel Goldie to end the confusion by reaffirming that the unionist credentials of the Scottish Tories remain intact.

Thanks George, the good people of the Lothians will be delighted with a hard days work there. 

Then again, given how often you put questions and motions up, I guess the above amounts to about 20minutes work on any given day!

Worst press release ever?

LABOUR in the Scottish Parliament
News Release
Immediate Release
Friday December 5, 2008
LABOUR TELL SNP 'SCOTLAND IS A NATION'
Scottish Labour is calling on the SNP to accept that Scotland is a nation. Alex Neil said in a press release that he will be presenting his case against the HBOS merger to a 'national audience' on Channel 4. Does he think that when he appears on Scottish programmes he is only addressing a region?

Scottish Labour Finance Spokesman David Whitton said:

"Alex Neil seems to think that Scotland is only a region.

"He says his appearance on Channel 4 is before a 'national audience'. Well, I believe I am speaking to a 'national audience' when I appear on programmes in Scotland.

"Alex Neil should accept that Scotland is a nation and apologise for his patronising slur."

ENDS

George Foulkes - Credit Crunch Crap Chat

There isn't much about the HBOS takeover from Lloyds that isn't crap but it seems George Foulkes felt necessary to add some crap chat into the mix, presumably to try cheering us all up:


Short Title: HBOS and Lloyds S3M-02559

George Foulkes (Lothians) (Lab): That the Parliament recognises the personal intervention of the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown MP, in negotiations between HBOS and Lloyds to save Halifax Bank of Scotland; believes that the Prime Minister’s strength of leadership and decisive action will preserve the jobs of thousands of people not only in Scotland but across the United Kingdom and overseas while also securing the finances of tens of thousands more, and further believes that there is no one better equipped to steer the United Kingdom through these difficult economic times than Gordon Brown.


(NB: Thanks to ScottishToryBoy)

Helen Eadie - Traffic Lights

Was this a serious question?

S3W-15532 Helen Eadie: To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to change traffic lights from the current system of red, amber and green lights to red and green only, with a countdown in seconds for each colour.


I suspect the answer will be quite interesting but remember kids, always look left and right before you cross the road, whether the man is green, red or, ahem, amber...

Do your research Mrs Baker...

I guess there's nothing wrong with the subject of this motion - other than the blatant politicisation of sporting success which has received a bit of a kicking on here before. But there's more to this than meets the eye.

Short Title: Good Luck to Andy Murray

S3M-02509 Claire Baker (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab): That the Parliament congratulates Andy Murray on his victory in the US Open semi-final, over Rafael Nadal, to reach his first grand slam final; notes that he is the first Scottish, and only the second British, tennis player to reach a grand slam final in modern day tennis; wishes him all the best in the final against Roger Federer, and hopes that he becomes the first British tennis player to win a grand slam for 72 years, since Fred Perry won the 1936 US Open.

Erm... almost. Except

1) He's not the second British player to reach a Grand Slam final in modern tennis - he's the second male. Virginia Wade won one in 1977, as well as in 1968 and 1972. Kinda difficult to win a Grand Slam without making it to a final - how did she do that?

2) He wouldn't be the first British player to win a grand slam for 72 years: Virginia Wade, Sue Barker both won singles titles, while his brother Jamie won a Grand Slam (doubles title) last year.

Plus, your grasp of punctuation is pretty appalling. Other than that though, great stuff...

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.

George Foulkes - Wasteful PQs

To be fair, I've already posted this on my own blog but I thought this particular Holyrood Chat was so crap that it just had to be included in here aswell.

(I also fear this blog is wasting away slightly over recess but make no mistake, with the help of a multitude of authors I still hope to have it in full swing from next week....)

S3W-15851 - George Foulkes (Lothians) (Lab) (Date Lodged Thursday, August 28, 2008): To ask the Scottish Executive which race courses the First Minister has visited since May 2007 and on how many occasions.

Irrelevant to the Scottish people, now please just stop it George. Enough is enough!

LabThatcherism

It's upsetting to have to put John Park in here. His chat has been above average for the new intake, though it's not the toughest of fields to compete in. But "We hate Thatcherism" still reads poorly coming from Labour. I mean, come on guys, where was the nationalisation of anything other than Northern Rock? Has a Labour government revived the pits and the docks? Or has it, instead, sucked up to the City just like its predecessors? And, indeed, sucked up to Maggie herself?

Impact of Thatcher government's economic policies on Scotland
That the Parliament notes the comments by the First Minister suggesting that Scotland 'didn't mind' the Thatcher Conservative's government's economic policies; remembers with concern the misery experienced by the three million unemployed in the 1980s when the economic consequences of Thatcherism reached their nadir; understands the devastating impact that the Thatcher government's policies had on mining, the steel industry, dockyards and upon communities across Scotland; further notes that the First Minister has also expressed support for Reaganomics; worries that supply side economics, a largely discredited economic theory, could become a model for the Scottish economy; hopes that the Scottish Government's right-wing economic agenda will not be pursued at the expense of Scotland's working people and their families.

George Foulkes - Serial offender

Let's be honest, an entry from George Foulkes was always on the cards....




Scottish Parliament written answers — First Minister: First Minister (18 Jun 2008)
George Foulkes: To ask the Scottish Executive when it expects the First Minister to take his first journey by train since his appointment.

This is perhaps the most pointless and (clearly) partisan question that I saw George Foulkes had asked of the 30 questions that I looked through from the good Lord.





And over what timescale have these 30 entries amassed? An elected MSP would have that many questions for the Government over what, a year? 6 months? Maybe even 3 months?





No, 11 days.





George Foulkes asked 30 questions of the Scottish Government between 16th June 2008 and 27th June 2008. And that was just the random part of the year that I landed on so is probably not even a special case.





I'm surprised the Scottish Government manages to get anything else done!


Crap chat m'Lord, get your manor in order...

Had enough crap?

One of the Labour researchers has. And who can blame him, given the scale of said crap? Having said that, I'm not sure why it's the government's fault when their backbenchers submit crap.

In any case, he emailed everyone (and I do mean everyone) as follows:

Dear reader

These motions are part of public record. The frequency which these types of motions appear are an abuse of parliamentary privilege. It reduces the business bulletin to the "letters page" as submitted by Belligerent (of Beith).

Perhaps there should be a motion put forward on bringing the parliament into disrepute. Perhaps the guidance on how to prepare motions should be updated.

It is disappointing that an administration of any political colour should allow this to continue. The people of Scotland expect better!

Disappointed (of Dundee)

Kenneth Gibson: S3M-02310 Irrelevance of the Liberal Democrats
That the Parliament recognises the utter irrelevance of the Liberal Democrats; believes that they are the architects of their own increasing marginalisation by their refusal to recognise the changing landscape of Scottish politics, which has shown that minority government can work and that their status as kingmakers to the largest party is now redundant; notes the unexpected vacancy for position of Scottish Liberal Democrat leader; considers that there has been a continued decline in Liberal Democrat fortunes in opinion polls, council and by-elections across the United Kingdom, and is saddened that they are still misguided enough in considering that their party is a credible force in Scottish politics.

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!?