Skip to main content

Parliament's back in business

Yesterday was the search for perfect answers in an imperfect world.

And real heavyweight stuff. I logged in to the COVID-19 Ctte, of which I am a member, at 0830 and logged off from Parliament broadcasting at 1730. We had two five minute tea breaks and twenty-five minutes for lunch. So about eight and a half hours in front of the cameras.

It's much worse broadcasting from your own home studio than being in Parliament. Why? In Committee rooms, you can see where the cameras are pointing and you can see which is "active" by looking at the monitors. So if the irresistible need to scratch your nose arrises there, you can pick your moment, confident that it ain't going to be broadcast.

At Westminster, it's been some time since they started televising proceedings. One of those who vociferously resisted the move was Tam Dalyell. His reservations were wholly justified when he was seen picking his nose. Or so I have been told. Never saw it myself.

Now given that the Westminster authorities have strict rules about the shots that may be used. It must have been a "wide shot" of the whole chamber. A close up of a non-participant ain't allowed there.

In the Scottish Parliament, there will be "cut-aways" to show members' reactions to whoever may be speaking. So that risk is there. Only one rule - "in the Chamber" equals "in a TV studio". All the time.

But it's not just visual risks. Although it won't be broadcast, it's as well to remember that the Presiding Officer, who sits down at the front can hear a conversation that is taking place on the back row, even at a normal conversational volume. The acoustics of the Chamber throw voices very effectively from the back to the front. Paradoxically that doesn't happen in the centre. But then the PO can see you are gossiping. In either event, he or she may choose to comment on the activity; to issue a "cease and desist" order from the chair.

In one's home studio there is only one camera, so anything out of shot is just that, "out of shot". The broadcasters in Parliament will switch one's camera and microphone off and on, and one can see they have done so. But one has no idea what shots are actually being transmitted. The camera is on most of the time—so very limited opportunity to relax.

There is a little "chat" box. We now use that for voting in Committee. But we can also, hidden from the public but visible to all who are "signed in", exchange messages.

In my previous "computing" career, we had loads of TLAs. That means "Three Letter Acronyms". And "TLA" is a TLA.

The new courtesies of online Parliament have introduced a couple of new ones. The first is "AFD" which is preferably followed by something like "abt 3 mins". It means "Away from Desk" and suggests that nothing be broadcast showing an empty chair. Hint: don't fall out with the TV folk.

Upon return type "BCK", not strictly a TLA but an abbreviation. It means I am back.

Being in front of a camera for more than eight hours is surprisingly exhausting. Even though my on-the-record words during the day were no more than about 1,300, I had to vote about three dozen times and to have listened carefully to the preceding debate before doing so.

Constant engagement in a complex and novel process. Novel? It was the first time a Committee has sat in session by dial-in and debated and concluded the amendment of a Bill. Even when we are all in the same room, it is an activity which requires constant attention and engagement.

The connection for one member switched off for a couple of minutes. A Minister's microphone refused to cooperate briefly. And there was a fire alarm in Parliament which stopped us for a short while. A pretty standard day at the office.

Our Convenor knew he was breaking new ground. And had clearly prepared himself for the occasion extremely well. It went as he would have wished. Indeed better than some "in-person" meetings to discuss amendments. So, and this is something I expect to say but rarely, "Well done Murdo Fraser".

In terms of the subject matter of the debates, there were 56 proposed amendments to the Coronavirus (Scotland) (No.2) Bill. There were 28 votes with the Government prevailing on 22 occasions, the opposition on six. That's minority Government for you.

As is often the case, the preparation that had gone into a few of the amendments was risibly poor. And, more critically, while long-serving members like Jackie Baillie had taken their proposed amendments to Ministers for discussion, and gained something for her point of view in return, others failed to seek that opportunity and lost out.

It is almost as if some MSPs want to lose the vote so that they can girn on Twitter afterwards.

Yes, you've spotted it. My supply of patience runs out before the time does.

Others spoke on relatively straightforward issues where there was every prospect of consensus, at such length as to almost encourage a vote against them as an act of revenge. Almost but not quite.

But if I have a mild grump, that's nothing.

Amendments for today's debate had to be in by 0930 this morning. And yesterday in Committee I heard the minister make several commitments to work with members to refine their proposals into a more implementable form.

I translate that into meaning that quite a few several civil servants and Ministers may have to be up all night doing precisely that.

I had been scheduled to speak this afternoon, but the number of amendments is such as to cut our backbench speakers from five to two.

I am away to embrace the sofa. If only. Rural Committee starts shortly.

Parliament's back in business.


Popular posts from this blog

Advice to the new MSPs

A contribution made to Portland PR 's weekly briefing on Holyrood A new job is a time to look in the mirror and undertake a self-assessment about what one can contribute in a new role. And what weaknesses one may have that could inhibit success. Being elected an MSP is no different in that respect. But very different in many others. One has become public property and every action, or action thought to be by you, will be open to public comment, often unfairly. Silence is often your best response. When one comments on criticism one lengthens the “war” and widens the knowledge of it. Set your own agenda rather than respond to that of others. Who can you trust among your fellow Parliamentarians? Make contact with as many as you can as quickly as you can. And make it a priority to interact with political opponents. The first substantive decision in the new Parliament is the election of a new Presiding Officer and it will be a secret ballot. Understanding the dynamic of other partie

End of an Era 2016-2021

Written for  Holyrood magazine's "The End of an era 2016-2021"  published 07 April 2021.    Neil Findlay is the man who loves you to hate him. As he rises from his habitual place in a distant corner of the Parliamentary Chamber, a snarl as firmly attached to his face as he is disconnected to any symbol of middle-class values such as a tie, tension flows as he selects his target for the day. Is it dapper John Scott? The record-holder for the shortest time between his being sworn in and making his first speech in Parliament; a mere twenty hours. Does Willie Rennie attract his ire? Confession; we went to the same school. Almost anything liberal is bound to attract this Labour very-back-bencher’s contumely. Greens rarely attract his attention but he should remember that John Finnie, another member of this year’s escape committee, can efficiently direct a canine arrest. Now of course, I have sought to avoid any engagement with the fellow. I never, just never, even acknow


When big things go wrong, and one feels powerless to do much about them, small things in one's life can become surrogates for one's anger. And there are quite a few big things around at the moment; COVID-19, No-Deal Brexit; A US Presidential Election where the incumbent leads with racist statements. As the end of the current session rushes towards us, many of my colleagues are concluding that they will not be putting themselves forward at the forthcoming election. A couple of our younger colleagues are placing their families first. But most are looking at being in their eighth decade, as I already am, at the end of the next session. When the two leading candidates for the US President are both older than I am - seventy-four in five week's time - it may seem surprising that retirement may be beckoning for me and others a lustrum younger than I am. But it illustrates the profound differences between being a back-bencher in our Parliament and the political life of a US Senator