WHEN they first arrived at Westminster, many of the new SNP MPs described their awe at their new surroundings. And no wonder, given they had gone from doorsteps and constituency bases to the opulent surrounding of a historic building most of us have only ever seen on TV.
Writing in the Sunday Herald, Mhairi Black acknowledged “it is fairly difficult not to at least momentarily get sucked into the grandeur of the building itself.”
But the new arrivals have not been getting too comfortable on those green leather benches – and not just because they’ve been reprimanded a few times for failing to abide by the crusty old rules governing those who sit on them.
The Palace of Westminster is crumbling, so one way or another all MPs are likely to have to vacate it for at least a few years.
The question is, should they return to it? The decision was made in 2012 that they should, when the option of creating a new parliament was ruled out. The SNP want to revisit that decision in light of what Tommy Sheppard calls the “eye-watering” bills for repairs.
In Scotland we know all about expensive new parliaments: over a 10-year period the cost of our own rose by a factor of 10. £414 million was certainly a steep bill, but for the money we got a purpose-built building that is environmentally friendly by design, has won numerous architecture awards and attracts many thousands of visitors every year.
By contrast, the estimated costs of repairing the creaking old UK parliament run into the billions, and at the end of such works we’ll still be left with an impractical building that would make a great museum but is a sub-standard workplace for our MPs.
It surely is not too late to revisit proposals for a new building.
If it is possible for sittings to be held elsewhere in or around the Palace of Westminster when repairs are carried out, then perhaps there is scope to relocate some of the political action permanently.
At a time when local authorities are having to count their pennies and strictly police the switching off of lights, it’s absurd to press on with a billion-pound patch-up job without full, fresh consideration of all the options.
SNP condemn 'eye-watering' £6bn repair bill for Palace of Westminster
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 here