Some remarkable mental gymnastics from the Lib Dems today as they somehow contrive to square Alex Salmond being an MP and MSP Glasgow North East not being represented by an MP for over five months (a Westminster record, apparently).
It's really quite clear, the people of Banff & Buchan have double representation from Salmond while the people of Springburn have zero representation at Westminster. Who are Springburn residents supposed to turn to from May to November if they have a Westminster-related concern? There is no such confusion in the North East constituency, you write to Salmond whether the concern is devolved or not. Easy.
The Lib Dems may have a logical concern with Alex Salmond's situation but to call it a "double standard" is patently false.
Personally, and to be totally fair to the Libs, I don't think we should have MPs and MSPs combining jobs. If one job alone is worth £50k+ a year then it is worth giving your full concentration.
One thing's for sure though, it's up to the constituents to decide if they are happy with their MP also being an MSP. It's certainly not up to Mike Rumbles.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
As a point of pure pedantry, people in Banff & Buchan would write to Alex Salmond on reserved matters and Stewart Stevenson on devolved ones.
Does having The Speaker as your local member count as being 'represented' at Westminster? Not that Michael Martin was at all slow to deal with correspondence but he wasn't really on the Whip's speed dial, was he?
I can't believe you're trying to defend the MP who is only beaten in poor attendance and voting records at Westminster by Sinn Fein.
I hardly call that double representation.
I'm sure Stephen Glenn lost lots of sleep over representation for the poor folk of Orkney & Shetland when Jim Wallace was an MP, MSP and Deputy First Minister.
The Lib Dems might profess not to care for double representation, but they have a fondness for double standards.
Not sure how I forgot to include this in the post, and Stephen take note, the situation with Salmond and his 2 jobs was clear when he stood for election. The constituency had its chance to object at two jobs Salmond and it decided it didn't care all that much. They wanted an SNP candidate so they voted one in. There's v little up front and honest about the timing of the Glasgow NE by-election.
Thanks Neil, there's always space for pedantry. Not sure why I always forget Alex represents Gordon. Banff and buchan just sounds better I guess. And also, why are MPs judged on something as arbitrary as Westminster attendance? Being in the constituency and understanding concerns is every bit, if not more, important.
Can't they both lose? Salmond's three jobs clearly can't all get his best attention, while Mike Rumbles is wrong right down to his core.
Also, Jeff, Fiat will be pleased to know their irritating flash ads on your site required an upgrade to my arsenal of adblockers.
You may think that Alex can't focus on all those jobs at once (as I would) but it's for the people of Gordon to decide and they seemed happy with it.
Mind you, the people of Banff and Buchan might have something to say.
Here's a question though, if they ban second jobs at Westminster, will that include being an MSP?
Jeff,
When eck stood for Banff & Buchan last time, he hadn't yet announced (or maybe even decided?) he was going to stand for the scottish parliament. When the scottish parliament was set up, those MP's who 'transferred in 1999) all stood down from westminster in 2001. To me its simple. Eck should be obliged to give up his westminster seat at the next election. The by-election in glasgow is a different issue, but for the record, Labour should have moved the writ earlier. They are wrong, but eck is wrong on his belief that he should be able to do both jobs. But this is the an who was going to put hsi westminster salary to charity until it proved too difficult, then claimed £450 a month for food.
Can't really argue with any of that Mav, sounds like some fair criticism.
I'm just glad we agree that the situation doesn't amount to 'double standards' as they are two separate circumstances.
In response to mav, I think I'm right in saying that the First Minister IS standing down as an MP for B&B at the next Westminster election.
An election, btw, that would have been mere months after he was elected as an MSP and FM, if Gordon Brown hadn't bottled it so humiliatingly in October 2007.
Max -
Eck is going to give up the Westminster seat at the next election.
He has been saying that since he decided to go for Gordon.
Eck does give salary to charity.
There was a legal difficulty which is written into the Scotland Act (section 81) - in that a dual mandate MSP + MP gets the MSP salary reduced because they are in receipt of an MP salary; not the other way around; so he has to take the MP salary and give up the extra part he gets as a MSP rather than the other way around.
He never claimed £450 a month for food.
I think Eck should stand in Glasgow NE as well. He'd definitely win. We can then move to have large posters of him on every street corner looking over us. Soon we could dispense with the pointless other MSPs and MPs and have a one person state which would be cheaper and more effective. As he speaks for the whole of Scotland with every word he says there would be no need for dissent.
Post a Comment