And another thing…

ALEX SALMOND shouts a lot, doesn’t he?

One of the reasons I don’t enjoy watching First Minister’s Questions is that every answer he gives – or at least those in response to Labour’s Iain Gray – are delivered in some kind of factory gate demagoguery which is obviously modelled on Mel Gibson’s famous speech in Braveheart: “They may take our fundraising lunches, but they will never take our FREEEEEE-DUMB!”

Anyhoo, today, in the face of some pretty effective interrogation from Gray, Salmond selectively quoted Holyrood’s Code of Conduct in defence of his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon. He claimed that she had been obliged to write a letter to the court which was due to sentence her (and my) constituent, Abdul Rauf, making the case for a non-custodial sentence for stealing £80,000 from the tax-payer.

Salmond quoted the bit of the code which said that an MSP should take on a constituent’s case unless-

that case seeks action which would represent a conflict of interest with existing casework…

The First Minister repeated that line for emphasis, just to show how silly Iain Gray was for ever criticising a friend of Alex’s.

The answer to why Salmond didn’t quote the whole of the relevavnt package is clear when you read what it actually says:

8.1.1 Every constituent is represented by one constituency MSP and seven regional MSPs. It is expected that each member will take on a case when approached although it is recognised that there may be legitimate reasons for a member to decline a constituent’s case in certain circumstances, for example, where a constituent requests an MSP to take inappropriate action, or if that case seeks action which would represent a conflict of interest with existing casework or is contrary to the member’s political beliefs. If so, the member would ordinarily be expected to inform the constituent that the member is not taking up the case.

(My emphasis; I’m grateful to Malc in the Burgh for publishing this section of the code.)

A happy-go-lucky Sturgeon pictured in happier times

In other words, according to the very Code of Conduct which Salmond selectively quoted in the chamber of the Scottish Parliament this afternoon, there was no obligation and no duty on Nicola Sturgeon to act as she did. The reason he did not read out the whole of that section – particularly the words “where a constituent requests an MSP to take inappropriate action” – is because had he done so, he would have exposed her claim to have acted as she did out of “duty” to be entirely without foundation. He chose, instead, therefore, to mislead the parliament by omission, in the hope that doing so would make him look slightly more credible in front of the TV cameras.

Makes you proud to be Scottish, eh?

THERE’S a line of questioning that needs to be pursued in the unfolding controversy over Nicola Sturgeon’s strangely enthusiastic championing of her (and my) constituent:

• How well did she know Mr Rauf? If not at all, then why did she write a character reference for him in the first place?

• And if she did indeed know him – and know him well enough to be able to tell a court that his crimes were in fact simply “mistakes” – what was the nature of their relationship? How long has she known him and in what capacity?

JUST a few days after I was elected in 2001, a neighbour of mine said in a not-particularly-friendly way to me: “You have to do what we tell you now!”

Strangely, I did not interpret my new job and the relationship that now existed between me and my constituents in quite that way. Yes, MPs are representatives of the people. But there have been occasions in the last nine years where I’ve had to say “no” to a request for representation from a constituent. Good MPs know how to say “no”, because occasionally – rarely, thankfully – that’s the most appropriate response to a request for help.

We do, of course, have a duty to consider representing any constituent who comes to us for help. But one of the qualities MPs should be expected to have is judgment. And that judgment should be used to discern whether a constituent is deserving of representation. For instance, a few years ago I was asked to represent a gentleman who claimed to be suffering undue harrassment from his neighbours and the police. it turned out he was the perpetrator, not the victim. I informed him to get a lawyer and that I would not help him.

There have been others. As I say, thankfully few.

So when Nicola Sturgeon claims she had “a duty” to interfere in a court case of one of her (and my) constituents, she was clealry wrong. Was she dissembling or is she such a naive newcomer to politics that she doesn’t understand the work and duties of an elected representative?

Her boss, the First Minister, tried to use this “duty” excuse when he wrote to the Home Office asking that a failed asylum seeker and convicted drug dealer be allowed to work in the UK.

My guess is they are both intelligent and experienced enough to know that in neither case did they have any obligation whatever to represent these constituents, and certainly not in the way they chose to represent them. They know that no such “duty” exists, and yet they claim it does.

Maybe power has gone to their heads. Maybe after less than three years in office, they already believe not that they should do right, but that whatever they do is therefore, by definition, right.

I WAS phoned early this morning with some very excellent news: Colin Deans, who was elected as an SNP councillor for a ward in my constiuency last year, has defected to Labour.

I can’t remember this happening before, though I’m sure it has at some point. I knew Colin before he was elected and even though he was in the SNP, I always had a high regard for him, as did many people in Pollokshaws, where he was a local community activist.

Interestingly, and perhaps significantly, Colin represents a part of Glasgow South that is also part of the Govan constituency of the natioanlists’ deputy leader, Nicola Sturgeon MSP.

Don’t worry – I’m not going to start predicting the demise of the SNP and the resurgence of Labour. This is, after all, one defection, with no votes having changed hands (except one at the City Chambers, obviously). Still, it’s welcome news. Colin complained of being bullied by members of the nationalist group in Glasgow and now they’ve started throwing insults his way, as you would expect.

Divorce is never easy.

VENUES in Glasgow’s East End are battling it out for the privilege of being next in line to chuck Nicola Sturgeon off their premises.

Following her eviction by a security guard from a shopping centre two days ago, Nicola – known as “Ray of Sunshine” to her friend – has been in demand from shopkeepers, landlords and homeless persons, all vying to beat the record for how long it takes between Nicola dismissing her host with a haughty wave of her hand to landing on her backside on the pavement outside.

BBC Scotland are expected to film the next eviction. But not broadcast it.

SMILIN’ Nicola Sturgeon is getting all precious over recent coverage in the blogosphere of her inelegant exit from a shopping centre in Glasgow East. She was in the middle of an interview with the BBC when she was reminded by a member of staff at the centre that she didn’t have permission to film there. She immediately waved away the member of staff with a high-handed (literally) “I’m speaking!”

Security guards in Glasgow East know how to handle this sort of arrogance, and Ms Sturgeon was marched forthwith from the centre.

After the heroic blogger Kezia Dugdale broke the news this morning, Sturgeon emailed her personally demanding that she withdraw the post. She didn’t deny the truth of the story (well, she couldn’t – it was true), just demanded it be removed. Strange.

What’s even stranger is that the BBC, who were conducting the interview and who had the whole thing recorded, have refused to use it. Presumably it will be a centrepiece of BBC Scotland’s Christmas party, but isn’t there a public interest in seeing how an SNP “cabinet” minister behaves towards working class people trying to do their jobs?

Why on earth are the BBC keeping this under wraps? Something smells.

Just been watching Question Time on the BBC’s website, and I expect I’ll watch again and again in the weeks to come, but only that bit where Nicola Sturgeon, albeit through gritted teeth, admits that when Tim Henman was playing at Wimbledon, “the whole nation” were behind him. But what nation, Nicola?

I think we all know what you meant. Just don’t let Alex know.

Nicola Sturgeon MSP has welcomed the “eventual” signing by the Ministry of Defence of a contract with BAE Systems for two aircraft carriers. Fans of irony may enjoy this comment from her:

“It is unfortunate that the shipyards and the workforce have faced significant delay from the Ministry of Defence in signing the contract leading to some uncertainty at the yards but this is a good day for shipbuilding on the Clyde and in Rosyth.”

“Significant delay”? Seriously? How much of a “delay” would there be, Nicola, if you and your pals had succeeded in your wee plans for Scotland to secede from the rest of the country? How confident are you that an English government would spend billions of pounds securing Scottish shipyard jobs?

Nationalist dishonesty has always been entertaining to behold, but this level of cynicism is breathtaking.

It’s always sensible to be gracious in victory. Which perhaps explains why Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP’s deputy leader, said this in reaction to Wendy Alexander’s resignation:

“While Wendy Alexander has been the author of own misfortune, there can be no doubt that the information on her illegal campaign donation could only have come from within the inner circles of the Labour Party.

“Decay from within is characteristic of the decline of the New Labour project, and Wendy Alexander’s resignation is a symptom of this wider malaise.”

Would it have been expecting too much for her to have expressed some human feeling for her parliamentary colleague, some basic respect, even?

Reminds me of Alex Salmond’s well-judged announcement to SNP conference in 2005 that Mike Watson had been sentenced to 16 months in prison. Oh, how the delegates clapped and cheered!

What a lovely bunch of human beings.