I'm afraid my favourite Malc in the Burgh has been temporarily replaced this evening.
Malcolm Chisholm, the MSP for Edinburgh North & Leith (my constituency incidentally), shone today in the Scottish Parliament with his contribution to the morning debate:
“I’m certainly not ashamed of holding the same views as Nelson Mandela on this or any other matter,” he said.
“What has taken me aback, and in fact has surprised many others, is the strength of support for the decision that I myself have seen,” he went on.
“Opinion is far more evenly divided on this issue than some people think.
“Equally, it is more divided internationally and even more divided among the victims’ families.”
Put another way, it's ok to disagree.
To be fair, I thought all of the contributions were a significant improvement on last week and Iain Gray's speech (which I've only skimmed through) seemed well thought out and cleverly crafted. Labour are the largest Opposition group, they can't very well nod through a Government decision of this magnitude and there was little in the speech that I've read that was petty or nit-picking. Definitely some fair objections were raised.
Mercifully, Iain has dropped the "If I was First Minister" chat. Maybe he realised that as First Minister there would still be nothing he could do given such decisions are for the Justice Secretary of the day alone...
In the end, the voting went 73 to 50 to pass the motion with 1 abstention (Margo MacDonald). The Greens and my current favourite Malc voted with the SNP. 5 MSPs were absent from the vote.
So good on Malcolm Chisholm I say. It would have been nice if a few more Opposition MSPs had joined him in rebelling against the party line but that same charge can be levelled against the SNP. Is it likely that all 47 of the Nationalist MSPs thought Megrahi should have been granted compassionate release? I doubt it. Some quarters of the governing party aren't labelled the Tartan Tories for nothing after all.
But Malcolm Chisholm is standing tall, even if he is sitting alone in the Parliament canteen.
And this is where I finally get to my salient point.
I had heard a very strong rumour, oooooh, about a year ago that Malcolm Chisholm is going to retire before the next election. This rumour came from two sources, one inside the Labour party and one outside. It still might be nonsense of course.
But how many times can a Labour politician rebel against the party line and still have the hunger to stay representing that same party? Particularly when your constituency was won by the SNP at a recent European election with the Lib Dems, Tories and even the Greens breathing down Labour's vulnerable neck.
The votes against his party on nuclear weapons, benefits, Iraq (nearly) and now on Al-Megrahi's compassionate release will probably have a drip-drip effect on his loyalty to his chosen party and surely it's only a matter of time before these resignations and rebellions spill over into decisive action with early retirement?
Better yet, maybe Malcolm's about to defect to the Nationalists. Independence aside, it's increasingly clear that it is not the Labour party that best reflects the man's views...
PS I have to say it again, Jeremy Purvis was on BBC News tonight and he said that Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories standing up against the SNP was "unprecendented". I'm still a little bit in shock at the sheer brazenness of the claim.
Malcolm Chisholm, the MSP for Edinburgh North & Leith (my constituency incidentally), shone today in the Scottish Parliament with his contribution to the morning debate:
“I’m certainly not ashamed of holding the same views as Nelson Mandela on this or any other matter,” he said.
“What has taken me aback, and in fact has surprised many others, is the strength of support for the decision that I myself have seen,” he went on.
“Opinion is far more evenly divided on this issue than some people think.
“Equally, it is more divided internationally and even more divided among the victims’ families.”
Put another way, it's ok to disagree.
To be fair, I thought all of the contributions were a significant improvement on last week and Iain Gray's speech (which I've only skimmed through) seemed well thought out and cleverly crafted. Labour are the largest Opposition group, they can't very well nod through a Government decision of this magnitude and there was little in the speech that I've read that was petty or nit-picking. Definitely some fair objections were raised.
Mercifully, Iain has dropped the "If I was First Minister" chat. Maybe he realised that as First Minister there would still be nothing he could do given such decisions are for the Justice Secretary of the day alone...
In the end, the voting went 73 to 50 to pass the motion with 1 abstention (Margo MacDonald). The Greens and my current favourite Malc voted with the SNP. 5 MSPs were absent from the vote.
So good on Malcolm Chisholm I say. It would have been nice if a few more Opposition MSPs had joined him in rebelling against the party line but that same charge can be levelled against the SNP. Is it likely that all 47 of the Nationalist MSPs thought Megrahi should have been granted compassionate release? I doubt it. Some quarters of the governing party aren't labelled the Tartan Tories for nothing after all.
But Malcolm Chisholm is standing tall, even if he is sitting alone in the Parliament canteen.
And this is where I finally get to my salient point.
I had heard a very strong rumour, oooooh, about a year ago that Malcolm Chisholm is going to retire before the next election. This rumour came from two sources, one inside the Labour party and one outside. It still might be nonsense of course.
But how many times can a Labour politician rebel against the party line and still have the hunger to stay representing that same party? Particularly when your constituency was won by the SNP at a recent European election with the Lib Dems, Tories and even the Greens breathing down Labour's vulnerable neck.
The votes against his party on nuclear weapons, benefits, Iraq (nearly) and now on Al-Megrahi's compassionate release will probably have a drip-drip effect on his loyalty to his chosen party and surely it's only a matter of time before these resignations and rebellions spill over into decisive action with early retirement?
Better yet, maybe Malcolm's about to defect to the Nationalists. Independence aside, it's increasingly clear that it is not the Labour party that best reflects the man's views...
PS I have to say it again, Jeremy Purvis was on BBC News tonight and he said that Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories standing up against the SNP was "unprecendented". I'm still a little bit in shock at the sheer brazenness of the claim.
12 comments:
Jeff
The fact that almost all MSPs voted along party lines is truly sad. For every party. I mean, who represented my view? I would vote SNP but disagree with MacAskill.
The fact that Purvis was proud of the fact that the 'Calman three' voted as one against the SNP suggests a lack of understanding about what it means to serve the public, given that a majority of UK Lib Dem voters agree with MacAskill's decision.
Hi Andrew,
I agree. A bit of rebellioin here and there would go a long way with a lot of voters I reckon. There's a lot of Labour MPs/MSPs I couldn't vote for under any circumstances but my local two (Mark Lazarowicz and Malc Chisholm) are not in that category as they have their own minds.
I reckon the Greens may do well out of this. A lot of people out there will agree with MacAskill but not take to the SNP. If they feel so strongly about it, they may be seeing Patrick Harvie in a whole new light during this past week...
And I agree again about how oddly the Lib Dems are approaching this one, north and south of the border. The polling evidence is very clear that most Lib Dems agree with MacAskill.
It must be difficult for a man of integrity to watch the ‘Janus head’ labour party to condemn the Scottish Government for releasing a dying monkey while their English and American masters 'do lunch' with the organ grinder.
Andrew, the SNP MSP's were free to vote with their conscience. They were unwhipped, and in fact Bruce Crawford proposed the whole parliament be unwhipped, which was rejected by the Unionist parties.
Patrick Harvie did come out very well. As an SNP tactical voter who secretly fancies the Greens, if not Patrick, I was quite relieved about that after some previous blunders. The boy did good.
On the other hand the Parliament didn't. There is actually very little to criticise MacAskill for: the penal estate release dying prisoners all the time, this has been a load of hysterical and ill informed nonsense.
Monty, being unwhipped is not the same thing as voting blindly along party lines. I suspect Patrick Harvie was correct when he suggested that there are MSPs who do not agree with the decision but will still vote for it.
All SNP MSPs voting one way and all Lib Dem MSPs voting another alone suggests there wasn't truly a free vote.
It's not the whips fault, we just need a higher calibre of MSP.
if megrahi dies quickly this will i think somehow vindicate the macaskill decision.
there is this sneaking suspicion that perhaps he is not as ill as he claimed to be, after all he walked off the plane in tripoli, and if he is alive in a year that would surely hurt the snp.
gray would be chirping, i told you so, not enough medical advice taken, rushed through to keep libya (and cyclops his boss) happy and so on.
conversely if he is dead and had died within a few months then then the compassionate line has more resonance.
if he dies this year i would expect the bluster to drop from all opposition parties. as it should.
so without i hope being overly morbid i sincerely hope megrahi is cared for well and that the timelines are reasonably accurate on when he dies.
Fair comment redcliffe, somewhat gruesome as you point out yourself but it's just not possible to shake off the reality of the situation as it stands.
Integrity and courage in Holyrood!
It's quite inspiring to see an individual like Malcolm Chisolm thrust his head above the political parapet and speak from his conscsience regardless of his party's stance. MPs and MSPs are too often seen as party puppets either too afraid or too insecure in their own beliefs to stand alone. I hope he made those who were less courageous squirm in their seats!
There is one particular point from yesterdays vote that confuses me though, and I'm sure you'll let me know if I'm missing something obvious. Why did Margo MacDonald abstain? How could she possibly NOT have an opinion on this vote when as an independent she would not have the party pressures that some other MSPs may have succumbed to. As a woman of tremendous ethical and compassionate motivations I can't fathom why she wouldn't vote.
Unfortunately this has left Scotland looking like a divided nation which in my opinion has a worse impact than the original decision itself. I cannot believe that a free vote would have divided along party lines - well done to Malcolm Chisolm for his courage. And can I say that my (SLD) MSP certainly did not vote for me in this affair.
Chisholm was also the first minister to resign from the Labour government in '97, I believe, over Harman's cuts to lone parent benefit.
I agree to an extent PJ, we don't pay politicians to not have an opinion after all. But, even though I haven't seen the wording of the motion, I believe it was a far cry from a straight yes or no on agreeing with Kenny's decision. I believe the wording was wide enough to allow most msps to vote along party lines and deliver a censure, albeit a meaningless one given the light wording. So in a way, I can see why Margo didn't fancy playing along.
Post a Comment