Contributions to Parliamentary Debate
Scottish Parliament: Decision Time (26th May 2010)
It relates to the vote that we are about to take.
Scottish Parliament: Decision Time (26th May 2010)
I am grateful to you, Presiding Officer. I of course defer to your ruling with regard to the timing. Perhaps I should have raised the point of order right at the start of decision time; I will bear that in mind for the future.
The point of order relates to something that Margaret Smith raised in her speech during the debate on the Forth replacement crossing. I want you to confirm that, having voted for the bill at stage 1, we then have the opportunity for the various objections that were raised during the debate to be considered in detail at stage 2 and, if those objections are not properly considered and not accepted, it is then possible to vote against the bill at one of the later stages. [Laughter.]
Scottish Parliament: Decision Time (26th May 2010)
Further to that point of order, Presiding Officer—
Scottish Parliament: Decision Time (26th May 2010)
It is further to the point of order. The members who were jeering rather ignorantly were not in the chamber for the debate. If they had been here—[ Interruption .] Oh shut up!
Scottish Parliament: Decision Time (26th May 2010)
If they had been in the chamber for the debate, they would have understood the point that was made in relation to what Margaret Smith said during the debate.
Scottish Parliament: Forth Crossing Bill: Stage 1 (26th May 2010)
I hate, always, to disagree with Helen Eadie, who is by far my favourite MSP. Perhaps she can tell me—Tricia Marwick did not—where all the HGVs go once they have come over the new bridge. In my view, they go through Newton village and into an already overcrowded Edinburgh or on to the congested bypass.
Scottish Parliament: Forth Crossing Bill: Stage 1 (26th May 2010)
I am concerned. I have seen some very aggressive objectors in my time, but these objectors are well informed and powerful but polite. However, they still feel that their points have not properly been taken account of. Could my noble friend—[ Interruption .] I am thinking ahead. Could my honourable friend try at stage 2 to find a way of hearing from the objectors in more detail and perhaps more informally, so that the objections that they are still writing to me about can properly be considered?
Scottish Parliament: Forth Crossing Bill: Stage 1 (26th May 2010)
That would certainly be a retrograde step, considering all the Hearts supporters that there are in Fife and parts of the north-east of Scotland.
I am sure that Alex Johnstone will agree that many people who live in South Queensferry, Kirkliston and the nearby villages are genuinely concerned about a huge motorway being built within a few dozen yards of their back gardens, and about the effects of air pollution on their children. I am sure that he would not denigrate their objections in any way.
Scottish Parliament: Forth Crossing Bill: Stage 1 (26th May 2010)
Like others, I am clear that the Forth Crossing Bill Committee has been very diligent in its work, particularly on cost. However, on potential breaches of the human rights and Aarhus conventions, the committee took evidence from only one lawyer—Caroline Lyon—who, as Hugh O'Donnell pointed out at the committee, actually works for Transport Scotland. At stage 2, will the committee consider taking independent legal advice on the two conventions and possible breaches of them?
Scottish Parliament: Forth Crossing Bill: Stage 1 (26th May 2010)
Is the minister aware that even Transport Scotland accepts that, in percentage terms, the overall shift will be away from public transport and towards private transport? Does he accept that a large percentage of that increase will come into the city of Edinburgh, which is already overcrowded and greatly congested with private traffic? How does he propose that City of Edinburgh Council should deal with that extra traffic?
Scottish Parliament: Forth Crossing Bill: Stage 1 (26th May 2010)
If I may pursue that point, let me say, with respect, that the minister is inadvertently misleading the chamber. The new crossing will have no direct link with the M9, so traffic will not be able to go directly on to the M9 as he seemed to imply. An increasing amount of traffic will go into Edinburgh. When I had my one-to-one with the officials and asked them how those extra cars coming into Edinburgh would be dealt with, they told me that that was a matter for City of Edinburgh Council. However, with less and less funds to deal with such matters, the council will find that ever more difficult. The minister and his officials seem to be just shrugging their shoulders. The matter cannot just be left to City of Edinburgh Council.
Scottish Parliament: Business Motion (26th May 2010)
I do so for the same reason that I gave on the last occasion, which is that the Parliament deserves a full explanation of why business is changed at such short notice. I spoke to a number of members today who expected to come into the chamber at
2.35 pm for a debate on the Forth Crossing Bill. The additional debate has been introduced without prior notification. It would be helpful if the business manager would give a fuller explanation.
Scottish Parliament: Scottish Executive Question Time: United Kingdom Government (Taxation) (20th May 2010)
Does the cabinet secretary agree that the most likely tax change that the old Etonians who currently run the coalition Government will introduce is an increase in value added tax? Will he join me in campaigning
Scottish Parliament: Protection for Workers (20th May 2010)
It is James Kelly's area.
Scottish Parliament: First Minister's Question Time: Engagements (29th Apr 2010)
It was Rochdale, not Halifax.
Scottish Parliament: Scottish Executive Question Time — General Questions: Tax Havens (29th Apr 2010)
To ask the Scottish Executive what bodies for which the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth is responsible, apart from Caledonian MacBrayne, have subsidiaries based in tax havens. (S3O-10270)
Scottish Parliament: Scottish Executive Question Time — General Questions: Tax Havens (29th Apr 2010)
I assure the cabinet secretary that I thought carefully before lodging my question and I am not asking him to answer for previous Administrations. However, given what he and the Scottish National Party said in opposition, does he not think that it is quite wrong for a body for which he has responsibility to be tax dodging? Will he think again and get that changed?
Scottish Parliament: Democratic Reform (29th Apr 2010)
The title of today's debate is "Democratic Reform", and that does not just cover the system of election to the House of Commons. First, we must reform the unrepresentative and unelected second chamber at Westminster: the House of Lords. That could be done by abolishing it, and for a while I was in favour of that; I voted for abolition when I was a member of the House of Commons. However, after further discussion and consideration, I am now in favour of a 100 per cent elected second chamber at Westminster, on the clear understanding that the second chamber be kept as a revising legislature. On that basis, the second chamber could be elected under proportional representation. There could be a very good argument for that, and the single transferable vote could even be used with, ideally, a third of the membership changing at every election.
The Lords would be the revising legislature, but the House of Commons would provide the Government, which needs to be stable. As Murdo Fraser rightly said, during most normal elections, the first-past-the-post system provides that stability. The first chamber would provide the Government and the second chamber would be the legislative chamber.
To achieve that, and to get some stability, we would need a written constitution to define the way in which both chambers would be elected and the respective powers of each. We need a written constitution anyway, because we now have the Supreme Court and the separation of powers needs to be more clearly defined. We also need it because we have devolved institutions, such as the Scottish Parliament, which need to have a clear role and their responsibilities set out in a written constitution. I hope that England will move towards having an English parliament sooner rather than later.
The electoral systems that I have described for both Westminster chambers are only part of democratic reform. I am in favour of voting at the
I am also in favour of voting taking place over the weekend. Why do we vote on a Thursday? Except for historical precedent, there is no logical reason. It would be much better if people could vote over the weekend when they are not working. Elections could even be held over Saturday and Sunday to make it easier for people to vote. All that is part of democratic reform.
The Liberals say that our arguments in favour of the first-past-the-post system are naked political interest. What about their arguments in favour of STV?
Scottish Parliament: Democratic Reform (29th Apr 2010)
No, no, no. I am in my final minute.
Are their arguments in favour of STV just pure benevolence? Are they doing it out of the goodness of their hearts? Of course not. That is naked political interest.
As for my good friend Robin Harper, whom I have known for decades, it is manifest rubbish for him to say that the system of election to this Parliament is great. We had a situation in which some man called Tymkewycz—no one knew who he was—got elected as an MSP for the SNP but then gave it up for some reason; Shirley-Anne Somerville, who was fifth on the list and had been rejected by the people of central Edinburgh then suddenly arrived as an MSP without any election whatsoever. That is not democracy. We have the craziest system for election to the Scottish Parliament, and if anyone thinks of adopting it, they are completely insane.
Scottish Parliament: Democratic Reform (29th Apr 2010)
Rubbish!
« More recent
Older »
This data comes from TheyWorkForYou.
Accessibility | Privacy | Site map
The costs of this website have been met out of parliamentary resources
© George Foulkes MSP