I've not had a chance to read the Kelly proposals in full but thanks to Gerri Peev over at The Steamie I have just learned that the proposals include an end to dual mandate MPs from 2011.In a Scottish context, this means that we cannot have a politician working as both an MP and an MSP at the same time. The decision may be a slight rebuke to Alex Salmond who has held both roles since 2007 but as Alex is not standing in the 2010 election he will not be directly affected.
Currently, as far as I am aware, there are no politicians who are both MPs and MSPs but John Lamont is standing for the Tories in the Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk Westminster constituency and is already an MSP for the Roxburgh & Berwickshire Holyrood constituency. John has a very good chance of being an MP and an MSP come May 2011.
It is surely inconceivable, if the Kelly proposals are accepted in full (as they surely will be), that John Lamont could stay on as an MSP if he is elected next year as an MP. A Scottish Parliament by-election would have to be called immediately if Westminster has already rubberstamped the new rules.
So, looking ahead, the result in the 2007 election was as follows:
John Lamont (Tory) - 10,556
Euan Robson (Lib Dem) - 8,571
Aileen Orr (SNP) - 4,127
Mary Lockhart (Labour) - 2,108
Of course, the Tory candidate, whoever he or she may be, could take the seat and the make up of the Scottish Parliament would remain unchanged but given Lamont was only selected as a Westminster candidate once Chris Walker stepped down unexpectedly, one has to think the Tories are running out of volunteers in the area. And of course being from the area is the be all and end all for by-elections these days, apparently.
If the Lib Dems or the SNP won the seat, then their combined number of MSPs would boost to 64 and, along with Margo, they would total the magic of number of 65 that is needed to form a majority.
In other words, the Kelly proposals today could spell very bad news for the currently influential Green party in the dog days of the Scottish Parliament as they would lose their opportunity to win concessions from the ruling SNP, in the above scenario.
UPDATE: From today's Scotsman:
The SNP pointed out that John Lamont, the Tory MSP for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, and Alex Johnstone, a Tory MSP for North East Scotland were standing for Westminster seats.
The Tories said both would quit Holyrood at "the first electoral opportunity if … elected to the British Parliament".
I'm not sure what "the first electoral opportunity" really means but it suggests there'd be by-elections.
16 comments:
I suspect Alex will be standing in the 2011 election...just not the 2010 one.
Why would there be a by-election? Should he win the Westminster seat he could just stand down ahead of the 2011 Holyrood election?
Jeff - Why would there be a by-election?
By the way, there is almost certainly going to be another dual mandate over in Glasgow East.
If the rules banning double jobbing are from Jan 2011 then surely he couldn't cling on till May.
Even if is technically allowed up to May 2011, Lamont would come under a lot of pressure to resign as an MSP immediately anyway. If the Kelly proposals end up saying that this shouldn't happen then I don't think the 'I'm not breaking any rules' defence will wash. Isn't that how we got into this mess?
(I will admit I got my 2010s and 2011s a wee bit mixed up)
Yeah, I reckon you're jumping the gun a little on this one. I'd suspect STB's prediction of him standing down at the 2011 election i the most likely outcome. That is, of course, if he wins the Westminster seat - which, in itself, is not a foregone conclusion...
The chances of Lamont defeating the excellent Michael Moore are very slim, that's why he hasn't had the guts to give up Holyrood.
Incidentally,the Tories are running out of volunteers and also voters after todays performance by Snake Oil Cameron.
SNP GAIN!!!
Interestingly he's got the quite sensible Paul Whitehouse as the SNP candidate. I don't see Paul defeating either Lamont or Moore, but can see the SNP support increasing.
Labour dropped from 3rd at the 2005 Westminster campaign to 4th at Holyrood, with some 5000 voters disappearing. That's 5000 soft votes up for grabs.
Lamont has the Fluffy Mundell factor, popular locally but not really known for doing anything other than getting his mug in the paper.
A by-election not in Glasgow? That will be different and maybe as Labour are not the defenders the campaign be far above the sewer level of Glasgow NE. We can only hope. Negative campaigning can be rather depressing for the electorate.
i just knew the romanians were going to equalise...............
I really can't see Michael Moore being beaten here. He's a from a long line of decent Lib Dem MPs in the area- Lord Steel and Archie Kirkwood? So while he beat Euan Robson, I think that was more down to Robson being a poor MSP than anything else.
They talk of the Highlands being secure Lib Dem country, but the Borders are much the same too. The SNP would be foolish to think they'll make a gain here- especially whenever I'm back down there most being go on about how irritating Christine Grahame.
No, I don't truly fancy the SNP's chances either to be honest. I reckon Lamont has a very good chance though, dare I suggest that tactical voting from the die-hard SNP ranks could make a difference?
Also, to answer STB, Thomas and Malc. This is from today's Scotsman:
The Tories said both (Lamont and Alex Johnstone) would quit Holyrood at "the first electoral opportunity if … elected to the British Parliament".
Ok, I'm not sure what "the first electoral opportunity" means but does that not sound like there would be by-elections?
No, I think the first "electoral opportunity" is the next election to that particular institution. Just like Salmond...
I have to agree with Malc on this - it sounds like May 2011.
Jeff - I'm not sure where you get January 2011 as the introductory date for the new rules as I thought that Kelly meant from after the Scottish & Welsh elections. However I could be wrong.
Thomas,
I've had a chance to read the full proposals now, it looks like it is indeed elections 2011.
I read the "first electoral opportunity" as the first chance to hold a by-election after the general election is done and dusted but I guess you see what you want to see ;)
The consensus seems to be that there would be no need for a by-election, Jeff.
I do think this is a gap in the rules they need to look at, though. It stands to reason that if you have more than one electoral body, people will move from one to another from time to time, in both directions, and this isn't something to discourage. We need a protocol somewhere on how long it is acceptable to do both jobs. My suggestion would be <1 year to a national election = by-election. This would of course hve meant a by-eletion in Banff and Buchan some time ago.
I can foresee a time when the House of Lords is replaced by an elected 2nd chamber, and it becoming the norm that you do not start your career by being elected to the House of Commons, but instead cut your teeth at Holyrood, Cardiff, the london Assembly or the HoL replacement first. This is how it works in the US, where most Senators start out as Congressmen or State Governors.
Post a Comment