Labour blocked Reid’s role on body reviewing Holyrood Former presiding officer too ‘nationalist’ for
position on commission looking into devolution
By Paul HutcheonScottish Political Editor THE UK Labour party vetoed the appointment of former presiding officer George Reid to the new body reviewing devolution.
Reid, who used to be an SNP MSP, was thought to be too "nationalist" for a position on the Constitutional
Commission.
This was despite him having the support of Labour's Holyrood leader Wendy Alexander as well as the Liberal Democrats.
The Commission has been set up to review the powers of the Scottish parliament.
Backed by Labour, the LibDems and the Tories, it is chaired by Glasgow University chancellor Sir Kenneth Calman and is viewed as a counterpoint to the SNP government's "national conversation" on independence.
Calman will tomorrow unveil the members of the commission who will produce a final report next year.
Discussions over the make-up of the commission have taken place over the past few months and have not always led to consensus.
The Sunday Herald understands the Liberal Democrats, in a meeting earlier this year, suggested Reid would be an asset to the body.
Reid, a former SNP MP and MSP, was the Parliament's presiding officer between 2003 and 2007, before standing down from Holyrood last year.
He is respected across all sides of the political spectrum and is currently the Queen's Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
However, representatives from the UK Labour party are said to have blocked Reid's appointment on the grounds that he was thought to be too "nationalist".
Alexander, who has staked a large part of her political future on making the commission a success,
is known to have approved of Reid being on the
commission.
One insider said: "George Reid was mentioned as a potential commission member, but Labour said no'."
The commission will instead be comprised of party appointments and representatives from civic Scotland.
Former Tory minister Jamie Lindsay is expected to be one of the appointments, as is Labour peer Lord Elder, who gave a donation to Alexander's leadership campaign.
Others invited onto the commission include CBI Scotland director Iain McMillan, Unison's Scottish secretary Matt Smith and lawyer Shonaig Macpherson.
It is also understood the preparatory work undertaken to establish the commission has included disagreements on where the body should meet.
The UK Government wanted the commission to hold its meetings at the Scotland Office, while the political parties in Holyrood argued for the Scottish Parliament to be the venue.
This mirrored an earlier row about the name of the body. Prime Minister Gordon Brown had made it clear that the word "commission" gave an "incorrect impression" about the group's status.
He wanted it to be called a "working party" or "review", ideas that were eventually knocked back.
A spokesman for Alexander said: "Wendy was not at all opposed to George Reid being part of the commission."
An SNP spokesman said: "George Reid's expertise on the powers and operation of the Scottish Parliament and his neutrality as presiding officer are widely respected around the world.
"Vetoing his appointment because he was elected for the SNP exposes the petty nature of Labour in Scotland."
A spokesman for Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Nicol Stephen said: "Nicol is still enthusiastic about George Reid playing a role on the commission."
|
|
Posted by: Im no really here on 11:50pm Sat 26 Apr 08
And I suppose that none of the people on the Commission would be considered too "Unionist"?
And I suppose that none of the people on the Commission would be considered too "Unionist"?
Posted by: Jwil, Lanarkshire on 11:58pm Sat 26 Apr 08
If Reid is still a commited nationalist it's better that he has nothing to do with this commission.
If Reid is still a commited nationalist it's better that he has nothing to do with this commission.
Posted by: Im no really here on 12:14am Sun 27 Apr 08
The SNP should come out clearly and say that although the Commission is interesting, it will not dictate a content or a timetable to the Scottish Government or People. This Commission was started by the opposition parties in a fit of pique after they lost the May election.
Brown wants everybody to "buy in" to a Commission which is clearly controlled by the PM's Office.
Nicol Stephen is again showing himself the willing pawn of Labour. I bet Bendy Wendy nearly wet herself (yet again) when she heard that HP Sauce had disagreed with her (yet again). Some representatives they make for Scotland.
The SNP should come out clearly and say that although the Commission is interesting, it will not dictate a content or a timetable to the Scottish Government or People. This Commission was started by the opposition parties in a fit of pique after they lost the May election.
Brown wants everybody to "buy in" to a Commission which is clearly controlled by the PM's Office.
Nicol Stephen is again showing himself the willing pawn of Labour. I bet Bendy Wendy nearly wet herself (yet again) when she heard that HP Sauce had disagreed with her (yet again). Some representatives they make for Scotland.
Posted by: jim mitchell, sauchie, clack's on 12:43am Sun 27 Apr 08
They wanted him so they could say, look this one time prominant member of the SNP even agrees with us, and he would only have been an asset in their view if he had agreed with them, the fact that he was not asked shows how much it was thought that he wasn't likely to agree.
Having said that, how does it look that it was at the UK end that the veto came from, so much for it being Wendy's idea!
They wanted him so they could say, look this one time prominant member of the SNP even agrees with us, and he would only have been an asset in their view if he had agreed with them, the fact that he was not asked shows how much it was thought that he wasn't likely to agree.
Having said that, how does it look that it was at the UK end that the veto came from, so much for it being Wendy's idea!
Posted by: Edward, Edinburgh on 12:45am Sun 27 Apr 08
'Labour peer Lord Elder, who gave a donation to Alexander's leadership campaign'
Isnt he also the chair of the Electoral commission in Scotland?
'Labour peer Lord Elder, who gave a donation to Alexander's leadership campaign'
Isnt he also the chair of the Electoral commission in Scotland?
Posted by: Jwil, Lanarkshire on 12:48am Sun 27 Apr 08
The Sunday Times is reporting that the police have found no evidence against Wendy Alexander with regard to her fundraising dinner.
The Sunday Times is reporting that the police have found no evidence against Wendy Alexander with regard to her fundraising dinner.
Posted by: megz, glasgow on 2:04am Sun 27 Apr 08
hardly a shocker jwil, think she has her armani suits specially made from teflon!
hardly a shocker jwil, think she has her armani suits specially made from teflon!
Posted by: Donald Anderson, glasgow on 5:48am Sun 27 Apr 08
We have all seen Labour's commissions in action. Roll on next election.
On first reading I thought the Herald was 'arving a larf and meant John Reid the Celtic Unionist and Loyalist.
We have all seen Labour's commissions in action. Roll on next election.
On first reading I thought the Herald was 'arving a larf and meant John Reid the Celtic Unionist and Loyalist.
Posted by: Matt, Southerly on 4:31pm Sun 27 Apr 08
Poor Wendy! Every time the poor wee bairn says: "Can I got out to play, Mam?"
Old Mother Brown says: "No! You just stay in here, where I can keep an eye on you! There are too many rough children out there! And I don't want you learning to think for yourself. Err... I mean get yourself into any bother!"
Poor Wendy! Every time the poor wee bairn says: "Can I got out to play, Mam?"
Old Mother Brown says: "No! You just stay in here, where I can keep an eye on you! There are too many rough children out there! And I don't want you learning to think for yourself. Err... I mean get yourself into any bother!"
Posted by: Professor Hertz Van Rental on 5:57pm Sun 27 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Jwil[/bold] wrote:
The Sunday Times is reporting that the police have found no evidence against Wendy Alexander with regard to her fundraising dinner.[/quote] Jackie ate the evidence
Jwil wrote:
The Sunday Times is reporting that the police have found no evidence against Wendy Alexander with regard to her fundraising dinner.
Jackie ate the evidence
Posted by: CyberNat on 7:59pm Sun 27 Apr 08
No worries. Sir Kenneth Calman is on the case. He'll be part of the National Conversation.
http:// tinyurl.com/3p9gqy
No worries. Sir Kenneth Calman is on the case. He'll be part of the National Conversation.
http:// tinyurl.com/3p9gqy
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 8:17pm Sun 27 Apr 08
Good links cybernat -keep up the good work!
Good links cybernat -keep up the good work!
Posted by: talorthane on 1:00pm Mon 28 Apr 08
Paul
Is it not worth exploring who, exactly, blocked George Reid appointment?
Kenneth Calman declared, after the option of independence was ruled out, that the commission would be independent of any political interference from Gordon Brown or Westminster.
Already this appears to not be the case.
Additionally, I posted this elsewhere and wondered what you thought:
Is this devolution review not in breach of both human rights legislation and Parliamentary standards on the use of public funds for party political purposes?
Firstly, this review, as it is funded from the budgets from both the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament, must surely be classed as a public service or public body.
As it is funded by general taxation then it is paid for by your tax, my tax and everyone else's, regardless of their political persuasion.
The purpose of the review is to determine the future constitutional arrangements of Scotland. However, they have made it clear that they exclude the views of anyone who holds a particular view on that very issue; i.e. independence. I would certainly like to participate in this review, in order to advocate my own preference, but because my view is that Scotland should be independent then I am automatically prevented from doing so, or will have my views ignored.
In pursuing it's main aim the review will discriminate against those with a particular belief or political view; that Scotland's best constitutional future is independence. This seems to be contrary to human rights legislation.
Secondly, the funds are being drawn from both Holyrood and Westminster. As I understand it, these funds are prohibited from party political use. While the review is clearly not set up to serve the interests of any single party, everyone acknowledges that it has been set up to undermine a particular political party; i.e. the SNP. Surely, the use of funds to mobilise other parties against another, individual party is just as party political as a single party using it for their own ends.
If either of these arguments are valid, then surely the parties involved should have to pay for this review from their own budgets, instead of at the public's expense.
And if this is the case, surely any expenditure to date (if claimed) would be illegal.
Paul
Is it not worth exploring who, exactly, blocked George Reid appointment?
Kenneth Calman declared, after the option of independence was ruled out, that the commission would be independent of any political interference from Gordon Brown or Westminster.
Already this appears to not be the case.
Additionally, I posted this elsewhere and wondered what you thought:
Is this devolution review not in breach of both human rights legislation and Parliamentary standards on the use of public funds for party political purposes?
Firstly, this review, as it is funded from the budgets from both the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament, must surely be classed as a public service or public body.
As it is funded by general taxation then it is paid for by your tax, my tax and everyone else's, regardless of their political persuasion.
The purpose of the review is to determine the future constitutional arrangements of Scotland. However, they have made it clear that they exclude the views of anyone who holds a particular view on that very issue; i.e. independence. I would certainly like to participate in this review, in order to advocate my own preference, but because my view is that Scotland should be independent then I am automatically prevented from doing so, or will have my views ignored.
In pursuing it's main aim the review will discriminate against those with a particular belief or political view; that Scotland's best constitutional future is independence. This seems to be contrary to human rights legislation.
Secondly, the funds are being drawn from both Holyrood and Westminster. As I understand it, these funds are prohibited from party political use. While the review is clearly not set up to serve the interests of any single party, everyone acknowledges that it has been set up to undermine a particular political party; i.e. the SNP. Surely, the use of funds to mobilise other parties against another, individual party is just as party political as a single party using it for their own ends.
If either of these arguments are valid, then surely the parties involved should have to pay for this review from their own budgets, instead of at the public's expense.
And if this is the case, surely any expenditure to date (if claimed) would be illegal.
Comment | Read Comments (13)
Print this story
Email to a friend
