Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

macnumpty · Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:12 pm Post subject: Devine Intervention

The BBC report that Jim Devine, MP for Livingston, is resigning as PPS to Health Minister Rosie Winterton, with a view to voting against the Government when the House of Commons debates the replacement of the Trident system.

This of course will bring up memories of the resignation of Devine's predecessor, the late Robin Cook, who resigned his post as Leader of the House of Commons days before the invasion of Iraq. It will also have echoes of Malcolm Chisholm's resignation from the Communities Minister post in the Scottish Parliament, after he voted with the SNP on Trident. The job of PPS may be one of the lower rungs on the Parliamentary ladder, so this resignation might not have the same impact as Cook's or even Chisholm's, but that he's willing to climb down from it shows some presence of backbone and principle that does restore a little faith in politicians.

But should it? Consider Devine's constituency: in the By-Election to replace Cook, Devine saw a 10% swing against his party to the SNP. A majority of 13,097 turned into a lead of just 2,680. There's now an argument for calling Livingston a Labour-SNP marginal seat, with a swing of less than 4.6% on the By-Election result being required for the SNP to take it at the next Westminster Election, the sort of swing which, especially if people vote to give Labour a kicking then, will be possible.

And there are more immediate concerns: Devine's Westminster Constituency contains almost all of the Holyrood Constituency of the same name and Angela Constance (Devine's challenger 18 months ago) needs a swing of just over 6% to unseat Bristow Muldoon in May, and the opinion polls show that such a result is possible. Devine also represents about one fifth of the Holyrood's Linlithgow Constituency, where Fiona Hyslop needs a swing of less than 4% to defeat Mary Mulligan.

Perhaps I'm being unfair; perhaps this is just a co-incidence. But doesn't it seem odd that Devine acting on principle could also be seen as depriving the SNP of a stick to beat Labour with in a few weeks?

On second thoughts, if it is a political decision, it's a stupid one: this only really works if the House votes against the government and opposes the upgrade of UK nuclear capabilities. This is unlikely as the Tories are likely to vote with the government. Also, Devine can say that he voted against Trident, but he's not on the ballot paper: that falls to Muldoon and Mulligan, so Devine's own opinion is largely irrelevant, especially as both of those voted against both the SNP motion in the Scottish Parliament and the Liberal Democrat amendment to that motion, both of which opposed any government decision to renew Trident right now. "Vote Muldoon, because Jim Devine opposes Trident"? "Vote Mulligan, because Jim Devine will vote against upgrading the UK's nuclear weapons now"?

No, that's just too crazy. It must be principle. Fair play, Jim!

_________________
(\_/)
(О.о)
(> < )
^ ^ This is Bunny. Bunny wishes that he was on the electoral roll in Glasgow East, so he could vote for John Mason. He also reminds you to read the Our Scotland Blog.

Reluctant Hero · Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 8:38 pm Post subject:

macnumpty · Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:53 pm Post subject:

Well, resigning from a Blair government means that he's out for maybe a couple of months, and it would be taking party-political opportunism too far. Very Happy

_________________
(\_/)
(О.о)
(> < )
^ ^ This is Bunny. Bunny wishes that he was on the electoral roll in Glasgow East, so he could vote for John Mason. He also reminds you to read the Our Scotland Blog.