THERE’S been one big question on the lips of every dedicated observer of Scottish politics this week. One burning enquiry that’s kept Twitter abuzz and panel discussions lively. It is, of course, “What exactly do list MSPs do, anyway?”
To hear some spout forth on the subject, you’d imagine they didn’t do very much at all.
It’s been pointed out that voters in the region represented by Kezia Dugdale have six other list MSPs they can call on for assistance over the next few weeks, along with their constituency MSPs, MPs and local councillors. But to be clear, no-one who’s been criticising the former Labour leader is trying to suggest she’s Batman, and that Lothian is in danger of being seized by garish super-villains as a direct consequence of her absence. They’re surely just suggesting she might have, you know, a real job?
Yes, she has colleagues who can hold the fort, but there’s a big problem with the implication that her office wouldn’t be anyone’s first port of call anyway. It serves to perpetuate the notion that list MSPs, regardless of their personal profiles, play only supporting roles, acting as understudies to the leading ladies and gentlemen who won their constituencies fair and square rather than sneaking in through a side entrance. All of which represents a big backwards step in terms of how Scots view and understand our parliamentary system – which was, let’s not forget, specifically designed to be fairer and more proportional than that of rotten old Westminster.
The idea of list MSPs as “second-class” is certainly nothing new – what’s new is that suddenly the voices shouting most loudly about how indispensable this bunch are belong to members of the Labour Party. Writing about “a failure of the new politics” in 2012, Glasgow University politics lecturer Thomas Lundberg highlighted the negative and at times downright hostile attitudes of Labour constituency MSPs towards list-elected members. He quotes Cathie Craigie’s claim in 2008 that in her turf of Central Scotland, “the electorate rejected five SNP MSPs, yet they are here in the parliament”. Ouch. Craigie has long since been rejected herself and replaced by a member of the SNP (former list MSP Jamie Hepburn), and it’s worth noting that in 2016 Richard Leonard didn’t even stand in a Central Scotland constituency, yet here he is leading his party.
A dreadfully cynical soul might wonder whether the party’s change in attitude has something to do with its increasing reliance on the list to get bums on Holyrood chamber seats. Or, perish the thought, some kind of personal animosity towards one list MSP in particular. But the shift towards respecting election via the list should be welcomed regardless, as it’s been a long time coming.
While all MSPs are supposed to be created equal, in reality Labour and their LibDem colleagues set about putting the list ones in their place almost as soon as the parliament was up and running by introducing a system of office-cost allowances that discriminated against them. In 2008 a Labour MSP tried to widen the gulf even further by introducing blanket caps on spending, of £62,000 for constituency MSPs vs £45,000 for regional ones, based on decidedly flimsy evidence that the former had bigger caseloads than the latter and therefore required more staff. Fortunately, sense prevailed and the principle of equality was reinforced.
The size of constituency workloads is in any case a woefully inadequate measure of an MSP’s overall contribution to making the world a better place, and tedious boasts of “mine’s bigger than yours” should probably be considered a potential red flag for inadequacies in other areas. The vast majority of voters will never go to an MSP’s surgery or make any sort of personal contact with an MSP’s office, but that doesn’t mean they won’t be affected by votes cast, campaigns backed and private member’s bills introduced.
Take this week as an example. The diary of Labour’s Elaine Smith (Central Scotland) included researching and writing a speech to support her bill calling for improved care for thyroid patients, meeting campaign groups in parliament and attending a three-hour meeting of the Local Government and Communities Committee, of which she is deputy convenor. Emma Harper of the SNP (South Scotland) visited the SSPCA to talk about illegal puppy trafficking, made her debut at the Health and Sport Committee and attended the AGM of the Cross Party Group on Lung Health – all in the space of two days. This is not a part-time job.
Some MSPs might prioritise being visible in their constituencies and getting their pictures in the paper – especially if they’re eyeing constituency seats at future elections – but when it comes to actually making an impact the behind-the-scenes work may be more important, influential and far-reaching. No-one’s going to set the heather alight by tweeting “Busy afternoon reading written evidence on Civil Litigation (Expenses and Group Proceedings) (Scotland) Bill!”, but this kind of work matters. And in the long term it probably matters to a greater number of people than responding to the latest complaint from Mrs McNimby or deleting the latest deluge of spam emails.
Dugdale is neither a superhero nor a villain, but she does have responsibilities. If others start following her lead by swanning off to audition for more exciting roles, it might be time to start asking whether additional members are subtracting seriousness from Scottish politics.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel