Plain speaking
Hugh Henry MSP has a well-merited reputation for plain speaking.
As convener of Holyrood's Audit Committee, he was unhappy with the circumlocutions on offer from Scotland's most senior civil servant.
To be frank, Mr Henry thought that Sir John Elvidge was talking "b******t". So he said so. He and his committee were commended as a result in The Herald's Politician of the Year Awards.
On other issues - such as pleural plaques - Mr Henry has displayed a tendency towards dogged determination and a disinclination to accept platitudinous assurances.
So, when he criticises his own party, he merits attention. And, as billed, he does so in notably blunt fashion.
The Paisley South MSP is unhappy with the arrangements for electing a new Labour leader.
He notes that the electoral college to choose the new boss comprises one third Parliamentarians; one third party members; and one third affiliated organisations (primarily trades unions.)
'Unfair and undemocratic'
Snag for Mr Henry is that the chosen Parliamentarians are MPs and MEPs. There is no distinctive role for MSPs.
By contrast, Mr Henry notes that MPs and MEPs have a privileged place in the election for Labour's leader in the Scottish Parliament. Alongside MSPs, of course.
According to Mr Henry, this is "grossly unfair". He goes further. It is "unacceptable, unfair and undemocratic". I think we may conclude that he is unhappy.
Mr Henry argues that this can be remedied in one of two ways: either MSPs join the electoral college in the contest for the overall party leader; or MPs and MEPs lose their privileged status in the Scottish ballot. (Mr Henry favours the latter.)
His complaint reflects a wider issue within Labour. After more than ten years of the Scottish Parliament, it remains arguably the least devolved of all the major parties.
The SNP, of course, are an entirely Scottish party.
The Liberal Democrats have a federal set-up: Tavish Scott is leader of the Scottish party, including MPs.
The Scottish Tories are grappling with the issue of extending their existing autonomy as part of their current review. But Annabel Goldie is Scottish Conservative leader - not "leader of the Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament."
When Iain Gray was elected Labour's Holyrood leader, the various contenders suggested a range of ways in which Labour's Scottish autonomy might develop.
As I recall, Mr Gray indicated that the position would develop organically: that his election by the wider party would steadily entrench the status of his role and thus of the
Scottish party within the wider Labour movement.
It would appear that Hugh Henry wants to give that development a bit of a shove.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~56~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
afternoon,Hugh Hendry is not usually slow of the mark but my goodness it's taken him a good wee while to work out what his party think of his place of work!
remember Mr Blair called it nothing more than a jumped up parish council . was that not a wee clue Brian ?
Mr Brown just plain refused to even talk to the first minister when Labour lost the last Scottish election.
that wasn't in the script was it!
interestingly Brian ,you are happy to talk all about the labour leadership race but chose to IGNORE the bit about Scotland being the political laboratory or the test beds of the labour party over the next few years mmm wonder why?
what happened the last time we were used as Guinea pigs ? I know most of us cannot see the difference between the blue tory's and the red tory's these days but this is just ridiculous
Sid
Complain about this comment
Brian:
you suggest labour are undemocratic, next you'll be suggesting the sky is blue, or water is wet.
John
Complain about this comment
As plain speaking as '...hopefuls make pitch to Scottish party' on this BBC website?
Brian as Scottish Political Editor you need to take responsibility for the disingenuous half truths this website political articles spout. So what 'Scottish' Party is being headlined?
Answer: There is none. Therefore the title is completely misleading. Given the nature of this very blog item you are well aware of this. So why do you let such articles appear? Note: Even if Gray was elected and officially made Scottish Leader, there is still only 1 UK Labour Party and one governing body. The one registered in London.
As for democratic and Labour? Rarely do both words appear in the same sentence, suffice to say that I did not hear Hugh Henry speak of undemocratic and unfair Labour actions during the televised debates prior to the UK general election.
Complain about this comment
Had me reaching for the dictionary with the use of some words here, but I'm not refering to the b******t one used! As for organic devlopment in the use politics there's no such thing! All are artificial or at least genetically modified!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
So, when he criticises his own party, he merits attention.
Who, Malcolm Chisholm? Of course not, Mr Taylor's ears are closed when Mr Chisholm speaks. I wonder what comment #1 said that resulted in his post being sent to room 101? Could he have mentioned the site that dare not be mentioned?
************************
On Labour's leadership contest, why did not one Scottish reporter ask David Miliband if he still supported a referendum on Scottish independence as he claimed to in 2008? What a great opportunity for a budding reporter eh?
Complain about this comment
Just had a thought.
This blog has delved more into the constitution of the Labour party than than that of the country, horse before cart. The Politics show yesterday was much the same with Labour leadership contenders and activists given air time in order to attack their political opponents under the guise of debating the Labour leadership contest.
Complain about this comment
It really is difficult to see how on earth New Labour could improve democracy within or outwith its Party.
It is a shining beacon for all of us.
Every political party should examine what it is that New Labour does so well and strive to emulate it.
They are simply wonderful at everything they do.
Iain Gray and Jimmy Murphy - they are both pure dead brilliant so they are.
What do you think Brian? Maybe I could get a wee shot at reporting for the BBC?
Slainte Mhor
Complain about this comment
This is ridiculous. If Labour MSPs believe their allegiance should be to London Labour then that must mean that they see their role at Holyrood as being to represent and push forward London Labour policies.
Ergo - they can't possibly represent Scotland's interests.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.
Why not just rename BWB as Blether With Labour - that is what this blog really is.
Complain about this comment
8. Mycroft Holmes, absolutely nailed it with that comment. I had the same thought yesterday when the politics show went live to a mind numbing and fairly rambling introduction to the Labour leadership hopefuls.
I was struck by the reverence of the reporter, lowering her voice as if it was a state funeral or wedding instead of a routine introduction to the hopefuls in an internal Labour party power struggle.
As for Elmer Fudd hoping his position would develop organically, he'd be better off stripping to his bathing trunks and lying in a dish of agar agar.
Complain about this comment
@10, Wee-Scamp wrote:
"If Labour MSPs believe their allegiance should be to London Labour..."
Well, they are - like all Labour - members of THE Labour Party.
Perhaps Holyrood should refuse to recognise parties which do not have their 'registered ofiices' in Scotland, or at least the Electoral Commission should deny candidates the right to use the label Scottish where the party in question is anything but!
P.S. Any truth that Labour tried to register the name "Alex Salmond for Opposition in 2011"
Complain about this comment
Brian,
At first glance it would seem reasonable that the Labour MSPs should have a say in the election of the next labour leader but as the labour MPs who represent Scottish constituencies already have a vote it is somewhat difficult to see how the MSPs can be fitted in without upsetting the current arrangements.
The obvious solution is the one favoured by Mr Henry as the MPs and MEPs who are elected in Scotland quite rightly want an input into the Scottish leadership election as it quite clearly affects their future chances of getting elected.
It will be interesting to see how they work this one out and whether they can do it without any rancour between the three sets of elected representatives.
Complain about this comment
I just tested the ridiculousness of this site with reference to a Scottish on line, accurate Scottish information site .
How profane of me!
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian,
Now, about this SDS document you saw?
Complain about this comment
so b******t does'nt trigger the profanity button but a completely innocent website does?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Labour have shown since 1997 just how anti-democratic they are so it's hardly surprising. I hardly think Labour MSP's should be crying into their pillows about being ruled from London while having no say in Scotland. They are are complicite in having this system pushed on us for all aspects of Scottish Governance. They are always submitting to London there isn't even a Scottish Labour Party.
Complain about this comment
Oldnat ...
Over at Mark Easton's Blog there's a good(ish), if light, piece on 'Nationalism versus Patriotism versus Racism' (something upon which in past threads we've, er, exchanged perspectives !!!); care for some post - digestion sparring ??? ...
(Hopefully this will make it past the Mods; recently, and for little reason I can fathom, nothing else has ...) ...
Complain about this comment
Since you raised the Westminster-centric Parties Brian -
Just got a Political Update newsletter thing from Danny Alexander through my letterbox today.
The main "News" item on it is the fact that Danny has been made Secretary of State for Scotland.
Has he given up the Treasury? Has he already sorted out the UK debt?
Perhaps he's usurped that Moore?
Or perhaps its another historic error and colossal waste of public money from the New Liberals?
Slainte Mhor
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#21 The_Concept_Of_Mind
What’s with the ‘Oldnat’?
As far as I know he has been locked out of this blog site.
Complain about this comment
#16
Yes, Professor Anity has taken a dislike to the Caledonian Mercury's more radical online cousin. I hear that the BBC press office have been contacted for an explanation of this 'China Syndrome' outbreak.
Perhaps we should all complain to Anity-Beeb, those of us left on here that is.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"The Paisley South MSP is unhappy with the arrangements for electing a new Labour leader."
No-one is forcing him to remain a member of the party.
Complain about this comment
In other countries of the world journalists take big risks exposing the lies of governments, parties and corporation. The try to uphold the democracy and adhere to principles of free speech even under threat of arrest. So why in Scotland do the majority of journalists work for the Labour Party/Unionist establishment at undermining democracy, effectively writing propaganda and sytematically lying to the public. They would have done the Soviet Union proud.
Complain about this comment
# 5 redrobb
lol
Complain about this comment
Brian: How can a party that would vote to deny the people a chance to vote on whether or not they want to be independent, (based on the philosophy that such a vote would "be a distraction") [for distraction substitute the real reason that it would be disastrous for the future of the Westminster Labour party and their chances of ever getting back in to power] be in any way democratic. They have over the last seventy years helped run Scotland in to the ground. Trade unionists and Labour politicians in the eighties for instance helped destroy manufacturing industry in Scotland by intransigence. Their refusal to accept that manufacturing had to be modernized ultimately caused the loss of more jobs than the updated processes would have. Take Timex in Dundee. Timex wanted to reduce numbers and update the the plant. The resultant strike supported by trade unionists from all over the uk closed the factory altogether! a great victory for the socialist cause, NOT.... Wait a minute i've sussed it out labours democracy is based on - "vote labour and,,,NO ONE WORKS" great philosophy but fair I suppose
Complain about this comment
Scottish Labour will continue to be controlled from London as David Miliband, if elected leader, intends trialling all new labour policies in Scotland. Ian Gray, therefore, will only ever be figure head, doing London's bidding. No changes there, however, I do feel we should be concerned about being the test ground for Labour's policies. Remember the poll tax and the smoking ban? Scotland first, the rest of the UK later.
Complain about this comment
Timex wanted to reduce numbers and update the the plant. The resultant strike supported by trade unionists from all over the uk closed the factory altogether! a great victory for the socialist cause, NOT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, drivel from somebody who is either 14 or has a 14 year olds mind, summed up by the 'NOT' joke.
"My suit is NOT black."
Complain about this comment
I very much like the idea of Master Fudd languishing in a dish of agar agar, however would it not be more appropriate for the man to be in a great big bowl of salad, gado gado for instance, with plenty of krupuk and lots of peanuts?
Complain about this comment
32. At 8:33pm on 14 Jun 2010, yesyesok wrote:
"My suit is NOT black."
WOW hey-man! typical! an attack from the left without any rationale. TIMEX was an unmitigated disaster for the left wing unions. They poured up from the midlands and London just looking for a fight with the police and achived nothing other than loosing several hundred jobs. That's real mature aint-it. It showed (and BA staff should take note) that crippling your company in order to try and get your own way is like a turkey voting for Christmas.
Complain about this comment
labour, a dead hand strangling Scotland's potential and keeping her down!
What ceases to amaze me is that labour supporters do not see the complete contempt David Milliband and his ilk hold them in. " I just love coming up to Scotland and meeting wonderful people with fresh and vibrant ideas, you have so, so much to contribute to the rest of our great country and with you, we hope to make it that way again by defeating the tory lib coalition".
Do you think David Millband is intersted in alleviating poverty, providing afforable low rent public housing or ridding Scotland of nuclear weapons?
C McK
Complain about this comment
Oh, 'democracy' is suddenly a matter of interest, is it? After all the slanted reporting, generous publicity, and multiple repetition of any ridiculous accusation against the SNP, in contrast to a lack of interest in pursuing Labour's well-verified corruption, vote-rigging, gangster and drug-dealer connections?
"It is entirely right, indeed essential, to ask awkward questions and expect answers." Yeah, right, Brian.
Complain about this comment
Snag for Mr Henry is that the chosen Parliamentarians are MPs and MEPs. There is no distinctive role for MSPs.
What qualifies MSP's to have a privileged position in the choice of the Labour Leader? It means that effectively the Scottish quotient of the Parliametarians is doubled with the MSP's added to the MP's. If the MSP's get into the contest then the Assembly Members (AM's) in Wales should also take part and what about the English? The Scots and Welsh will have twice their former influence within the parliamentary section of the election but the English without a parliament will still only have the MP's and MEP's to represent them in the leadership contest.
By contrast, Mr Henry notes that MPs and MEPs have a privileged place in the election for Labour's leader in the Scottish Parliament. Alongside MSPs, of course.
The reason that there is a tripartite electoral college of the Unions, Parliamentarians and Labour members to elect the Scottish MSP group leader is because Labour expected to rule in the Scottish Parliament forever. The obvious way to elect an MSP group leader would be a contest among the Labour MSP's themselves but as Labour expected to rule in in perpetuity then the election of the leader was treated as an election for the post of First Minister. The electoral college system was set up not to elect a group leader but as the real election to choose a First Minister.
Mr Henry argues that this can be remedied in one of two ways: either MSPs join the electoral college in the contest for the overall party leader; or MPs and MEPs lose their privileged status in the Scottish ballot. (Mr Henry favours the latter.)
What should be done is that the very complicated electoral tripartite college for the post of Labour MSP group leader should be got rid of and reduced to a vote among the MSP's.
His complaint reflects a wider issue within Labour. After more than ten years of the Scottish Parliament, it remains arguably the least devolved of all the major parties. The SNP, of course, are an entirely Scottish party.
Out of Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib-Dems the SNP are the only Scottish Party. The "Scottish" Labour Party, "Scottish" Conservative Party and the "Scottish" Liberal Democrats are all figments of the media imagination. Go to the Electoral Commission register of political parties and you won't find any of them.
The Liberal Democrats have a federal set-up: Tavish Scott is leader of the Scottish party, including MPs.
The Liberal Democrats actually have a devolved set where there is a combined British/English party with two subsidary celtic sub-regions. If you don't believe me then try and find out who the leader of the English Liberal Democrats is and try and find their website. Tavishes authority and influence can be judged by the stone cold hotline between Clegg and Scott during the coalition negotiations. As I pointed out already there is no "Scottish Lib-Dem Party".
The Scottish Tories are grappling with the issue of extending their existing autonomy as part of their current review. But Annabel Goldie is Scottish Conservative leader - not "leader of the Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament."
Careful words Brian, where you avoided calling her the leader of the "Scottish Conservative party" which of course does not exist. The Conservatives have exactly the same devolved setup as the Lib-Dems with a British/English party with two subsidary celtic sub-regions.
When Iain Gray was elected Labour's Holyrood leader, the various contenders suggested a range of ways in which Labour's Scottish autonomy might develop.
That implies that the Scottish part of the Labour party had some autonomy to develop.
As I recall, Mr Gray indicated that the position would develop organically: that his election by the wider party would steadily entrench the status of his role and thus of the Scottish party within the wider Labour movement.
There is no Scottish Labour Party and Iain Gray's call to be on the NEC just emphasises his minor role in the party hierarchy at the moment. After 11 years of the Scottish Parliament why are Labour only now thinking of giving the Labour MSP group leader a high status post within the Labour party? Maybe Iain is just going to be the placeholder for someone else who wants back into the party hierarchy.
Complain about this comment
#36 Freenonbrit
"Oh, 'democracy' is suddenly a matter of interest, is it?"
What Brian Taylor has written about on this occasion is, of course, not democracy per se but an aspect of the duality of democracy in Scotland today, specifically the response to this duality of the various political parties in terms of their internal structures and procedures. In doing so the most salient point that he makes, I venture to suggest, is that, as we know only too well, the Labour Party, after more than ten years of the Scottish Parliament, "remains arguably the least devolved of all the major parties."
One gathers that we are to conclude from Hugh Henry's "plain speaking" on the matter that elements of the Labour Party in Scotland are at last waking up to the importance of the said duality and appreciating that the further evolution of the devolution settlement which is currently being speculated about would be bound to make the Labour Party's constitution seem even more out of step and out of date than it already does.
Legislative devolution has made Scotland arguably a democracy in its own right, one which differs in a number of respects from England, which may to some little extent explain why the fact that the Labour Party in Scotland appears to be little more than a mere creature of the Labour Party in England gives rise to substantial recurring criticism.
Only on Sunday the leader of a party which is in alliance with the Scottish National Party in the European Parliament, under the banner of the Greens/European Free Alliance grouping, made the point that his party, the confederalist but ultimately independentist Neo-Flemish Alliance (N-VA), had just become the largest party (in terms of electoral support) in one of what he referred to as two democracies within the federal state whose constitution he wishes to reform with a view to breaking it up eventually. According to Bart De Wever, who is a sort of Flemish Alex Salmond and arguably even shrewder, Flanders and Wallonia constitute two democracies which are divergent and indeed incompatible, whereas the principal party of Wallonia - the socialist party, as it happens - considers that both "democracies" are merely regions of a single democracy.
The problem with the Labour Party constitution is not only that it is completely in harmony with the latter view as applied to England and Scotland but that it treats devolved Scotland as a minor and emphatically subordinate component of a single hopelessly lopsided and hugely defective democracy. Just conceivably, Mr Henry's outburst may indicate that that party is at last going to evolve a little further now. After all, as Mr De Wever was saying only the other day, "For those who wish it to be so, nothing is impossible."
Complain about this comment
*38 frankly francophone
Well, of course, this was about 'democracy' within the Labour party. But given the symbiotic relationship between that party and the Scottish media, and the effect of the consequent propaganda on the electorate and the present and future well-being of the country, for a member of either to raise the issue of 'democracy' is pretty rich.
I think your suggestion that 'Mr Henry's outburst may indicate that that party is at last going to evolve a little further now' is a bit naive. The driving force behind the Labour Party's existence is that it provides a career vehicle for people who couldn't achieve equal public prominence and wealth in any other field or in any other party. It will only evolve in a manner which suits that end - and the celebrity and money are in London.
Complain about this comment
Damned if they don't and damned if they do.
Labour are holding an election for the leader of their party but that doesn't please anyone either.
If it's an election how is it undemocratic when we allegedly live in a democracy?
Beats the hell out of me!
Complain about this comment
A theory for us all,watching FMQs last week I noticed Jim Murphy sitting beside Miliband,now as Miliband is favourite to win the leadership and there will be some Lab standing down at the next Scottish elections is Murphy going to stand in one of the seats and then undermine Gray so he will get his job and be Miliband's voice in Scotland,just a thought.I read a good article in [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] about the Lab.leader contest.
Complain about this comment
In answer to the question , Yes, everything about the party is undemocratic - has been for the last thirteen years.
Now lets talk about democracy and the BBBC.
By the people for the people?
Paid for by the people , but not for the people .
Impartiality?
The Labour leadership will be resolved in SEPTEMBER.It is June, why does the BBBC ignore the plight of the country and its finances in favour of thrusting the limited-in-interest contest on the people?
The shabby manner in which all the males involved are suddenly denying anything to do with the debacle of the last 13 years is amusing I grant you, but not sufficiently so to be given the vast publicity it is receiving.
Your standard apology /excuse is feeble ,unacceptable and downright insulting by the way.
As for a "profanity" claim on the mention of an online newspaper -utterly ridiculous!
I can mention the "quality" press, the Herald,the Scotsman and trigger no such thing - though speaking personally I find those publications far more worthy of your " profanity" claim.
Democracy involves what exactly as far as the BBBC is concerned?
Complain about this comment
#42 diabloandco , morning, with a long hot summer to come and not a lot happening out there in the big bad world the BBC have found something that really, really matters TO THEM!
hey what else would you expect the media arm of the party to do during the summer recess.
Sid
Complain about this comment
Brian,
When are you going to produce a link or the document that you said Labour had published, we are all still waiting????
Complain about this comment
42,
I was just reading about this profanity filter, is it really true?????
And here was me thinking that the BBC is funded by the public...............
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#39 Freenonbrit
Rest assured that I am under no illusions about the Labour Party, particularly the Labour Party in Scotland.
Nevertheless, even that organization cannot but be subject eventually to change resulting from developments which take place in the context within which it exists and has its being. Text and context.
As context changes, the discourse which can be held within it inevitably indergoes an evolution, which in some cases may be so painfully slow that it may hardly seem to be taking place at all. Eventually, however, one looks around and finds that the snail has covered a remarkable distance, considering that it is only a snail and one had little confidence in its powers of locomotion.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS