TODAY was quite an extraordinary day in Westminster, and believe me, I have seen a number of extraordinary days in my 21 years in the place.
My colleague John Nicolson was subject to a parliamentary vote as to whether or not the Privileges Committee of the House of Commons should investigate a breach of the House rules and determine a sanction. John’s “alleged crime” was to post a short video on Twitter expressing his disappointment that the Speaker didn’t support a referral to the Privileges Committee of the former secretary of state for culture. The House passed John’s referral by an overwhelming majority.
Now let’s get to the Privileges Committee. The committee is responsible for adjudicating the conduct of Members of the House and can impose sanctions up to and including suspension. It usually deals with the most egregious behaviour – think Owen Paterson’s outside earnings or Boris Johnson’s partying to get a sense of its usual day-to-day business. I have never known it to consider “something on Twitter” or “correspondence with the Speaker” but John will now face its full force and could ultimately face suspension from the House.
READ MORE: Nothing to say UK will survive in current form, historian predicts
What I think angered the House is that John is adjudged to have upset the Speaker by “betraying” the contents of a letter sent to him and disclosing its details. The thing is, John did not disclose any letter but merely summed up its contents. I’m in my seventh term in parliament and have even served on the House of Commons Commission and I had no idea that stating or summarising a response from the Speaker was an offence that could result in a suspension. I think most MPs would be totally unaware of such a “rule”.
John, of course, apologised for not knowing the rules and for any perceived offence that was felt by the Speaker. But that was not enough. The proverbial pound of flesh was to be secured, hence the motion. I have to say I have never seen the House so intent on “getting its man” and what ensued was the worst type of institutional bullying from the highest institution in the land.
Today was a black day for Parliament. I don’t know why John was picked on in this way but it was unedifyingly ugly.
People ask us why we want away from Westminster. Yesterday gave another example as to why we must get out of its clutches as soon as possible.
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