Ad hoc = disrespect

I'm glad to hear that common sense has prevailed, and the SNP have been given the seat on the Scottish Affairs Committee that would have been denied them had the new rules been strictly adhered to. However, I'm not sure the coalition should be allowed to take much credit for pursuing a "respect agenda" on this occasion. True respect would have entailed formally altering the Wright blueprint, which - whatever its general merits - is clearly totally inadequate in its treatment of smaller parties. In particular, it ought to have been a no-brainer that the composition of Scotland-specific or Wales-specific committees cannot just be crudely based on the composition of the Commons as a whole. Tossing the SNP the odd bone on a purely ad hoc basis simply isn't good enough.

*

The Scotsman on Jack McConnell's 'elevation' to the House of Lords -

"Within a few hours of his investiture the SNP were asking how Mr McConnell could remain an MSP and serve in the House of Lords? Central Scotland MSP Christina McKelvie said it went against the spirit of the Kelly recommendations on Standards in Public Life which call for the phasing out of dual mandates by 2011.

"Jack McConnell's constituents in Motherwell and Wishaw don't know if their MSP is coming or going," she said. She seemed to have forgotten, a Labour source noted, that until a few short weeks ago her party leader, Alex Salmond somehow managed to be an MP for Banff and Buchan, MSP for Gordon and First Minister."

This Labour source appears to have forgotten just how critical his/her party was of Mr Salmond's decision to hold that dual mandate, and how they repeatedly demanded that he relinquish his seat at Westminster immediately. Cuts both ways, doesn't it?