2011 Scottish elections candidate selection: Argyll and Bute Conservatives choose McGrigor

Argyll and Bute Conservatives met in Inveraray at the weekend to select their Candidate in the Scottish Election 2011.

At a packed meeting, Jamie McGrigor MSP emerged as the victorious Candidate following what is described as ‘a closely argued run- off’ against former list MSP, Dave Petrie.

All those present unanimously endorsed Jamie McGrigor’s selection.

Afterwards, McGrigor said: ”I am honoured to have been selected as candidate for the next Scottish Election.

‘As an experienced and long standing MSP for Highlands and Islands, I have a very good knowledge of Argyll and Bute and I fully understand the problems and opportunities facing the people living and working here.

‘I am encouraged by the recent upswing in Conservative support but my wish is to represent all of the people of Argyll & Bute as their elected MSP. It has always been my wish to win my home seat as First Past the Post.

‘I look forward to meeting as many Argyll & Bute people as possible during what promises to be a vigorous and exciting campaign in these challenging times’.

With the Scottish Conservatives recently in a period of dedicated self-harming, threatening a cull of candidates and officials on age grounds alone, – and in which McGrigor’s name was mentioned – reason would seem to have reasserted itself.

With no negative evaluation here of Mr Petrie, Jamie McGrigor has a strong support base in Argyll that his party would have been ill-advised to abandon on the basis of a panic-stricken whim.

He has been actively supportive of the  new Board of the Mid Argyll Swimming Pool Board, working to connect them with potential sources of private sector funding. His interest has been welcomed by communities, among others, from Islay – with the Bank of Scotland’s withdrawal of its business banking manager; to Campbeltown, whose Machrihanish Airbase Community Company is working to acquire the former RAF base for the community; to Bute where, as a fellow farmer, he was involved in efforts to persuade First Milk not to close the Roethesay Creamery with loss of local jobs; and to Loch Striven where he researched useful recipients for his letters in the continuing dispute with the unaccountable private enterprise that is Clydeport.

As a politician Jamie McGrigor has a sharp nose for the issues that matter to constituents. This has seen him:

  • campaign successfully to restore the bull-hire scheme to support the genetic health of livestock in crofting communities
  • succeed in getting a Tartan Register established
  • get a commitment from Dr Liam Fox, before the May 2010 general election – since honoured – to set up an independent inquiry into the disastrous fatal crash of an RAF Chinook Mk 2 helicopter in 1994 on the Mull of Kintyre. All 29 on bard died in an aircraft fitted with the unreliable computer control system, FADEC, over which the pilots had no power of manual intervention.

McGrigor is a member of the landed gentry who makes no pretence of being anything else but who cannot be dismissed as an anachronism, as others of his kind might be.

We have seen him meet with people who were anti-Tory and anti what they imagine he stands for – only to discover on meeting that he is a straightforward listener, easy to talk to and prompt to do what he can.

He will be a formidable opponent and from what we see, will either be the winner or a close contender, depending on selection choices made by other parties.

Other party selection choices

The Liberal Democrats

As we understand it, the Liberal Democrats will choose between two candidates, with the favourite being Councillor Alison Hay.

Candidates coming from a local authority background have the advantages of knowing something of how the levers of power work and being locally known in varying degree – and the disadvantage of facing any negative judgments already made in the face of local experience.

The Lib Dems, more than the Conservatives – who are being offered the door by their London counterparts, have inherited the stardust of the UK coalition government, with two members now in key senior posts that impact directly on Scotland – Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Michael Moore, Scottish Secretary.

Both men look assured and comfortable in their roles and both have recently come to Holyrood for discussions with the Scottish Government and with parliamentarians.

Party Leader, Tavish Scott, has noticeably raised his game – which means he has the capacity to raise it.

The Labour Party

We understand that the Labour Party in Argyll may have two principal candidates to choose between, both of whom previously having said they would not stand again.

One is David Graham, the party’s candidate in the May 2010 general election and who, against all the odds, brought in a vote of over 10,000 and came a close third.

The other is Hugh Raven, the candidate who, in 2001, gave Alan Reid a major fright in his own first outing after taking over the seat from Ray Michie, cutting his majority to just over 1,600.

If these two candidates do contest the seat, we are picking up a lot of pro-Raven support based on the assumption that apparently (our word, our italics) superior communication skills are needed.

In our view such a selection would be misguided. As we have said and will say again in the case of the SNP, candidate selection should be a case of horses for courses.

Hugh Raven is a talented individual and was a formidable candidate in 2001.

But that was in the heyday of New Labour, to which he unequivocally subscribed, with which he is associated and which, with applications of stake and garlic, is now gone for good.

The new vote that Raven attracted in 2001 was from the middle class intelligentsia who bought in to New Labour in those still heady days – but will not do so now.

The new vote that David Graham put on in this year’s general election was a regeneration of the party’s core vote by a candidate who knows that constituency.who can talk to it with unpretentious lucidity and listen to it.

Labour will not be in the position of building a new vote for sometime. It is in retention mode.

In our view, Hugh Raven will not secure the core vote that David Graham recently did and can do again; nor will he attract those he drew in during the very different days of 2001. His time, like the golden days Labour threw away and turned to something dark and unpleasant, is gone.

The SNP

We’ve been here before – quite recently. We do not see any evidence that the SNP realises just what a tough gig it is going to be to retain the Argyll and Bute seat at Holyrood which it has only held since the ast election in 2007.

The party is tired, has become unable to respond to events as effectively as it once did and has been suffering a range of entirely avoidable and self-inflicted wounds – with the Dunoon-Gourock ferry tender specification still to be unveiled.

The majority is small. The sitting MSP, Jim Mather, now Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism, could retain the seat he took from the Lib Dems in 2007 but has decided not to stand again. The party will choose from four worthwhile candidates and, in our view, this will come down  to two principal contestants.

Mike Mackenzie was the party’s candidate for Argyll and Bute in the 2010  general election, one of its major successes, putting 27% on its vote but still coming fourth.

It was Mr Mackenzie’s misfortune that the financial crisis of Autumn 2008 and the very different political climate it bred, had leached a lot of propellant from his party’s fortunes. The still sitting Lib Dem MP, Alan Reid, told us frankly that, before this, he would not have been able to hold the seat against the SNP.

Michael Russell MSP, is currently Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and with previous Ministerial posts for Environment and for Culture in his portfolio.

Mr Mackenzie is a good and honourable candidate but cannot speak with the authority of experience of government where Mr Russell certainly can.

In an election campaign Mr Russell could expect to face synthetic but awkward heat over a couple of hostages to fortune he offered, were taken and would be paraded again.

As Environment Minister, he brought forward a proposal to generate income by leasing 25% of Scotland’s forest estate to private forestry interests for 75 years

This was a typically innovative proposition but failed to consider how deeply visceral is the attachment to land. The Lib Dems in particular capitalised on that unconscionably, conducting an alarmist and dishonest campaign, consciously misleading constituents but nevertheless succeeding in inflaming public opinion to the point that the proposal was dropped

Then, recently, Mr Russell had the embarrassment of announcing a spectrum of exciting eminences in various fields, who had agreed to work with teams of specialist teachers to develop aspects of the Curriculum for Excellence. This was followed within 24 hours by the public dissociation with the initiative of actress Tilda Swinton and film maker Mark Cousins.

Tilda Swinton is a wonderfully talented actress but tricky – a wild card always likely to prioritise her own sense of independence above all else – and a natural outsider. Her inclusion was another hostage to fortune and, as with the forest leasing scheme, a hostage taken.

We have previously described Michael Russell as a warrior, and that combative and confident nature will be needed by his party if it is to have a chance of retaining this seat. It is also a characteristic suited to seeing off reheats of issues like those described above.

The party has a clear choice to make. Does it want most to settle old internal scores; or does it want to win?

This is going to be interesting.

So…

We suggest that you have fun doing what we do – put different permutations of candidates from each of the parties together and see who, in each situation, has the best chance.

· · ·


Related Articles & Comments

  • How I laughed when I read above that at the recent general election Argyll & Bute was “one of its (snp) major successes”
    Repeatedly we were told by snp spokespeople that the snp would win Argyll & Bute and Mr McKenzie would be our MP.
    Prepare for another humiliation nats .

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    kintyre1 July 12, 2010 7:32 pm Reply
  • It might have been useful had For Argyll indicated the “alarmist and dishonest” behaviour of the LibDems and Alan Reid during his campaign of continuous mendacity. Not a lot of point in pointing it out now after giving him several pages of completely uncontested nonsense previous to the election.
    You are right also to point out that the Forestry consultation contained a very sensible proposal to lease a proportion of mature forest to provide funding for expansion and this did not in anyway resemble “selling Scotland’s forests” as suggested by Alan Reid, George Lyon and the Labour party.

    On an unrelated point is it only the SNP candidate selection process that For Argyll seeks to influence?
    We have a healthy membership in Argyll and Bute the majority of whom know the candidates and their strengths and abilities rather better than For Argyll does and many of whom are annoyed by the unbalanced nature of your coverage of what is an internal SNP election. I suspect this is counterproductive to your very evident intention.
    I see you have no intention to give equal opportunity to each candidate and this undermines the credibility of For Argyll rather more than it does anything else.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Dave McEwan Hill July 14, 2010 12:40 am Reply
    • For Dave McEwan Hill: If what we doing, in offering the independent analysis that is one of the functions of journalism, is ‘interfering’, this particular article makes it clear that we ‘interfere’ without discrimination.

      In terms of the Liberal Democrats’ deliberately distorting campaign on the 25% forest leasing proposal, we unmasked that and attacked it as unequivocally as it deserved – to the point where what we had written was read into the record during a Holyrood debate.

      In the General Election campaign this matter was irrelevant as it did not concern matters reserved to Westminster.

      Throughout that campaign, we maintained a clear focus on the matters of national interest and on reserved matters on which votes should be based. We were consistently critical of the parties guilty of deliberately confusing the electorate for political advantage in raising issues devolved to Holyrood – as in different ways all the parties did.

      In our own profiling of candidates in the campaign, we offered the same stance to all the candidates concerned and remain content that we achieved consistency in this.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      newsroom July 14, 2010 11:01 am Reply
  • As a far from impartial observer I would say that For Argyll has nailed its colours very firmly to the mast on the SNP candidate selection in favour of one candidate and the exclusion of any other. I don’t understand what, if any, special realtionship For Argyll has with the SNP to explain this.
    If the Forestry proposal was so sensible why was it not properly explained instead of being abandoned. Surely a failure of politics here.
    This and the Dunoon ferry will dog the SNP in the next election.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    kilmory125 July 14, 2010 11:37 am Reply
    • For Kilmory 123: In this article we have ‘nailed our colours to the mast’ – or given the unequivocal results of our situation analysis – in respect also of the Labour and Conservative parties. If we knew more about the alternative candidates for the Liberal Democrat party we would evaluate and publish our conclusions on that too.

      Every conclusion we have come to arises from a situation analysis from the standpoint of each party as objectively viewed – and which we have described as best we can. So the basis for our analysis is given.

      We have no ‘relationship’ with the SNP nor with any other party.

      Everything we do arises from and is intended to foster an independent and objective standpoint, moving away from tribal politics towards considering the nature and consequences of a situation at any given time.

      In our view it is always dangerous to give any political party carte blanche or the unearned comfort of assured support regardless of circumstances or performance.

      It was the UK’s feeble decision to ignore the evidence and stick with Labour in 2005 for reasons of tribe – and, by then, sheer familiarity – that led to the disastrous crises of government and finance we have since experienced.

      In our analysis, we are assuming that all political parties exist to win and have said that, in the way we see (and have described) the current situation, Jamie McGrigor, Michael Russell and David Graham are likely to perform best for their respective parties – on this specific occasion.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      newsroom July 15, 2010 12:03 pm Reply
  • “Irrelevant?” Didn’t stop Alan Reid using it and other devolved issues continuously during his General Election campaign to the serious detriment of the SNP.
    If I remember Alan Reid refused to contribute to For Argyll’s excellent candidates profiles so I have no idea why he was entertained with a huge blurb in the run up to the election.

    Can I say that we all have legitimate personal opinions on a whole range of political issues. These are not always the same as balanced political comment and it is very important to us all that For Argyll prospers which it surely will if it resists the temptation to mix these up.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Dave McEwan Hill July 14, 2010 11:58 am Reply
  • Coincidental to this discussion this news reached me today. Over the few months prior to the Westminster election Labour asked civil servants to look into Forest leasing in England and they came back with a favourable report which the then Government had under active consideration. I am now told that the new Coalition Government are now also actively considering the proposal. My understanding is that it is identical to the scheme floated in the Scottish Consultation but the price is much higher. The objectives to meet carbon targets, raise income for more planting and meet the future demand for woodfuel (When RHI comes in next year it is predicted that we will not have enough harvestable forest to meet demand within a few years.) whilst maintaining the same access for the public as present. The scheme would increase jobs in the industry. The Key question for me will be how the Lib Dems will sell the proposal after their opportunistic and mendacious behaviour over the Scottish Proposal which I will not be surprised if revisited.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Ron Simon July 14, 2010 11:53 pm Reply
    • For Ron Simon: Very interesting development – and very interesting to see how this one plays out with the Lib Dems here in Argyll. The heat of the misled protest was generated here by the Lib Dems and was very powerful in its impact because Argyll has something like 40% of Scotland’s forest estate.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      newsroom July 15, 2010 9:10 am Reply
  • I find the discussion on the Forestry proposals intriguing.

    While it is true that Argyll has a relatively large proportion of the Forest estate it has also that much more to gain from the rejuvenation of Forestry activity that could be stimulated with increased investment- a power presently denied to the Scottish Parliament. There can be little dispute that Forestry is moribund at a time when carbon targets are a priority. Rural job protection -and the safeguards were incorporated in the proposals – will be at a premium as we face the consequences of the downturn in the coming years.

    The realpolitik of minority government was the simple reason for the decision to drop the proposal when it was clear it would not gain approval in the chamber. If Kilmory125 will examine dispassionately the record of the Government he/she will see that legislation is frequently opposed at Holyrood for the sake of opposition rather than on its merits.

    The LibDem take on forestry leasing was simply dishonest and that is the essential point that should be recognised wherever the issue of delegated powers lie. Alan Reid continued with these distorted claims in his Westminster election material. Ironically, powers to “sell off ” the Scottish Forest estate are already on the Statutes of the Scottish Parliament but these were not taken up by the present Scottish Government when they made their leasing proposals. They were put there by the previous LibDem/Labour administration of which the unlamented George Lyon was an ever compliant minister.Alan Reid was predictably silent when this took place.

    How this “principled oppostion to selling off public assets” sits with present LibDem proposals to privatise the Royal Mail -gratefully accepted by their new allies at Westminster – and the effect that this will have on the frequency and costs of rural mail services is yet to be explained.

    The LibDems could surely organise a petition?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Colin MacKenzie July 15, 2010 11:13 am Reply
  • The SNP could improve its message if its aim is Scottish independence.

    An independent Scotland would not have to be governed by the SNP.

    Any referendum will look for the volume of support for independence, not for SNP government of an independent state.

    The SNP have been a fairly capable outfit in government but if Scotland was independent, they’d be fighting for support at election time like the other parties.

    The note in the article above that the Conservative party is trying to shuffle off the Scottish Conservatives would leave that party free to support an independent or federal Scotland.

    And, as the heartland of Labour in the UK, the Labour Party in Scotland could regenerate and do the same.

    Ditto the Lib Dems.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Cavan Macdonald July 15, 2010 11:49 am Reply
  • Disagree firmly with you on two of the above

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Dave McEwan Hill July 15, 2010 5:35 pm Reply
  • ‘It was the UK’s feeble decision to ignore the evidence and stick with Labour in 2005 for reasons of tribe – and, by then, sheer familiarity – that led to the disastrous crises of government and finance we have since experienced.’
    On what evidence do you base that statement?
    After all, it’s hardly an ‘objective standpoint’.
    Are you suggesting that a Tory Government would have reined in the bankers before the effluent hit the air conditioning?
    If you are you are really very naive….
    It was, after all, the Tories who presided over the wholesale destruction of the UK’s manufacturing sector and left the country’s economy dangerously dependent on false gods in the financial sector.
    If you’ll pardon the excruciating metaphor, they were highly unlikely to set fire to the cardboard Mount Olympus which they had worshipped for years, were they?
    I’m no fan of New Labour, but I think that a few more David Grahams in the party might work wonders to improve it from a standpoint of principle and integrity.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    bill jardine July 16, 2010 4:38 pm Reply
    • For Bill Jardine: What we’re saying is that there is a point where the electorate must act – where that is indeed its responsibility.

      In our response above to Dave McEwan Hill, we highlight just how laggardly the British electorate has been in taking this necessary action – in two politically distinct situations linked nevertheless by a similar authoritarianism that damaged the political spirit of the UK.

      Thatcher and Blair schooled the UK to accept that protest and opposition were pointless and could not succeed.

      Thatcher smashed the Unions – whose own irresponsibility contributed to the lack of widespread public support that might have saved them. Blair simply sidelined a pliant parliament as the decision taking body, ignored public opinion, kicked truth into touch and carried on regardless. One was a bully, the other what would popularly be regarded as a crook. Together they have left the political fabric of the UK in poor order.

      Of course you are right that in 2005 the Tories would not have reined in the banks had they won that election. But by helplessly voting Labour in for a third term, against the evidence of profound disease, we contributed to our own sense of impotence in the face of force majeure.

      There are times when regimes must be voted out regardless of what replaces them.

      By voting out regimes that have betrayed us we teach them and their successors that this will be their fate sooner rather than later.

      Where we do not do this, we teach them to abuse us further.

      And we’re glad that you and we have the same view of the substantial value of David Graham.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      newsroom July 17, 2010 2:36 am Reply
  • Which is exactly why the Tories are stone dead in the water in Scotland. I worked and campaigned in Lanarkshire as the Tories quite deliberately stripped Scotland of the whole central pinnion of its economy and transferred what was good of it to Teeside and South Wales. The Scottish Steel Iindustry stood head and shoulders above the rest of British Steel at that point breaking European production records and with an order book in some divisions of it full for over two years in advance.
    But Mrs Thatcher had this vision of a British industrial triangle stretching from Teesside across to South Wales and down to the Channel tunnel. We were to serve teas to visitors and get seasonal work beating on the grouse slopes.
    At a stroke dozens of towns across Central Scotland lost all reason for their existence.
    Of course Scottish Oil revenues paid for the resultant mass unemployment.
    Two things struck me a the time.
    The sycophantic Scottish Tories, who enthusiastically went along with the milk snatcher, were signing their death warrant.
    The other thing was even more distressing. The Scottish Labour party abandoned their own at the height of this. Remember the “Feeble Fifty”. We couldn’t even get most of them out on the marches and demonstrations. They just wanted to see the matter dealt with as quickly as possible so they could inherit the anti Tory sentiment that would guarantee Labour victories at the next set of elections.
    I addressed a gathering of these creeps in the Great Hall at Westminster. My message. “Walk out of Westiminster and tell Thatcher you are going up the road to set up a independent Scottish Parliament and the destruction of Scottish industry will stop tomorrow morning”
    Only the late Allan Adams, Labour MP for Paisley supported that call.
    The rest slunk away.
    My problem is not just Scots who vote Tory. It’s Scots who vote Labour that puzzle me just as much. And in some areas lots of them even vote LibDem. There is no accounting for taste!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Dave McEwan Hill July 16, 2010 8:26 pm Reply
    • For Dave McEwan Hill: There’s nothing as powerful as the authentic voice of real political anger – and this is it.

      At the time, the demolition of Scotland’s and, later, the UK’s manufacturing capacity and culture was so obviously destructive, terminally destructive, it was hard to believe it was actually happening. This was paralleled by the recent Labour administrations’ sharp departure from a care for civil liberties and social justice.

      It is still fully surreal to see the stereotypes upended, with a Conservative-led administration committing itself to repealing a spectrum of legislation enacted by a Labour government which severely diminished the civil liberties of British people.

      And there was Iraq.

      With Thatcher and Blair, there was a point where the country knew that dangerous directions were being taken and that honesty had been discounted to an even greater degree than is to be expected in politics – and chose to do nothing.

      It was not the country that eventually dispensed with either Thatcher or Blair. In each case it was internal party upheavals. We – the electorate – need to do much better.

      John Major and Gordon Brown each contributed significantly to their own political demise but were centrally required to pay a debt incurred by their immediate predecessors – a debt, eventually and too late, called in by the electorate.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      newsroom July 17, 2010 2:12 am Reply
  • ‘There are times when regimes must be voted out regardless of what replaces them.’
    Aye, right.
    In 2005 voting out Tony Blair would have put Michael Howard into number 10…..
    …Hobson’s choice, or what?
    Of course, you could have put in the LibDems, in which case you’d be living in an altogether different sort of cloud cuckoo land.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    bill jardine July 17, 2010 1:09 pm Reply
  • Bill Jardine puts forward a powerful argument for a Westminster ByPass.

    When we see the array of talent offered to replace Brown, with one exception, and only because she was on the Andrew Neil Show, in denial of their roles in his support we see that the Labour Party is wholly bereft of principle. Milliband Major’s recent volte face on the Al Megrahi case indicates a man with vaulting ambition but similar levels of opportunism and mendacity

    I do not place any faith in the suggestion that the LibDem rump will modify or temper the modus operandi of the Tories.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Colin MacKenzie July 20, 2010 12:23 pm Reply
  • I return to the point. The Forestry proposals, if they were sensible – and they sound sensible- should have been explained and defended, not abandoned at the first attack by the LibDems. It was a political failure by the SNP who did not even turn up a the protest meeting.
    Quite frankly an attack by Alan Reid is about as scary as an angry rabbit.
    Which doesn’t say a lot for the SNP Ministers involved.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    kilmory125 July 20, 2010 6:26 pm Reply
    • For Kilmory 123: Point of fact – which searching this site will uphold in our reporting at the time.

      Communications with Michael Russell, the Environment Minister bringing forward the forest leasing proposals, were deliberately misdirected so that he had no knowledge of the protest meeting until it was impossible to get there.

      The only possible interpretation of the routines employed was that the Lib Dem team of George Lyon and Alan Reid who were playing dishonest politics with this issue, were running scared of engaging battle with a notably able and feisty Minister.

      That apart, reading our reports at the time will reveal that our view then is yours now – that the proposal should have been carried to the barricades and defended with the valid case it had, rather than abandoned.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      newsroom July 20, 2010 10:15 pm Reply
  • As I understand it the SNP Ministers involved were not told about the protest meeting until it was too late for them to make arrangements to attend. This I imagine was completely deliberate. If you intend to tell lies make sure nobody is on hand to challenge them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Dave McEwan Hill July 20, 2010 6:45 pm Reply
  • Agreed on all points

    Isn’t there a case for re-arranging your template so that issues which are attracting interest and response remain prominent?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Dave McEwan Hill July 21, 2010 10:41 am Reply
    • For Dave McEwan Hill: Good idea – thank you.

      We do have a way of doing this – as with the topics in the RH margin. Supposing we create a ‘Scottish Elections 2011’ zone – to which we assign all relevant stories? This would then serve right through to the post-election period.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      newsroom July 21, 2010 7:19 pm Reply
  • Dave has a point – this particular thread is providing an excellent debating platform and if it was more prominent might attract postings from other interested parties.
    Re the forestry issue and the alleged ‘dishonesty’ of the Libdems; this will come as no surprise to anyone who has followed the activities of Mr Reid and his erstwhile partner at Holyrood.
    There is a popular misconception that Mr Reid is an effective MP – this arises from his penchant for popping up like the star of some infantile Punch and Judy show every time he sees a camera.
    This is primarily the reason that he’s perceived as a hard-working MP – but that, unfortunately, has been wrongly confused with effective by the electorate.
    He also has a habit of twisting the facts to suit his own agenda, and gets away with it far too often, as I am sure Dave Hill will testify.
    Although I live abroad, I do try to keep in touch with events in Argyll and in Scotland generally, and I continue to be amazed when I see my fellow Scots continue to deny their own nationhoood by voting for a bunch of numpties who support the notion that Scotland is much better off if it’s run from another country.
    Why?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    bill jardine July 21, 2010 5:12 pm Reply
  • That would be good idea but I still thank that some other topics may from time to time attract a liverly debate and could be held in a position near the top till the subject was exhausted.

    Well said, Bill
    A membership form shall be emailed forthwith.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    Dave McEwan Hill July 21, 2010 9:27 pm Reply
    • For Dave McEwan Hill: The trouble with leaving stories at the top is that people who visit the site make a quic assumption that nothing new has been added. But if we do as we suggest, any particular story that fell into this category would also have its time in full view at the top of the column, dropping down the rankings as new material is added.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      newsroom July 21, 2010 10:13 pm Reply
  • Pingback: Argyll News: Part 1: Argyll, party selections, candidates and the 2011 Scottish elections Argyll,Scottish elections,issues,candidates, | For Argyll

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *