Stewart Stevenson writes to Jack Straw and Sir Malcolm Rifkind

Dear Jack and Malcolm,

As a fellow 68 year old politician I am shaking my head in wonder. The people who voted for me, and even more those who are my constituents but did not, expect my priorities to be their priorities.

But they also ask, “Where do you find the time for a personal life?” Because while they expect me to be available whenever they need me, they recognise that I will be more effective if I have some “me time” too.

What I do with my “me time” matters to them too. If I were a dullard with no outside interests, and with no interest in the outside world, with no interest in those outside my world, it would be difficult for me to listen to their interests and respond with any semblance of interest.

Because there is a fundamental difference between interest and interests.

Choose the right interests – in my case genealogy, social history, photography, news – and you then are able to take an interest – in others interests.

But if your interests are self-interest, then politics is something where you should be in the audience not on the stage.

If you choose self-interests that are self-serving, you are no longer serving those whom we are elected to serve.

In our Scottish Parliament our Code of Conduct talks of our need to be “selfless”. That's not a rule; it's an overriding principle which trumps merely reading the rules and ticking the boxes. Its language is clear:

“Members should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not act in order to gain financial or other material benefit for themselves, their family or friends.”

and the code also says:

“These principles set the tone for the relationship between members and those they represent and between the Parliament and the people of Scotland.”

We've given up the right to compartmentalise our life, the right to override our role as a Parliamentarian in favour of our private interest.

So why have you as long-serving politicians fallen into the trap of putting yourself before others, or at the very least – appearing to do so?

It can't be because you are hewn from different stone than the rest of us.

I see no argument to suggest that those who stand for election to Westminster are less driven by a desire to work for a better world than those who stand for other offices.

But we are all changed by our experience. Any job we take on gives us new skills, new friends, new interests. Being elected to public office is no different.

The minority who show that they are tempted by self-interest is too large to ignore.

There is talk of the “Westminster culture”. It's certainly very different from any other legislature in the world. Only China has a larger one. The United States gets by with 450 Congressmen and women and 100 Senators. Westminster has grown by salami slices to approaching 1,500.

They are many arguments for abolishing a chamber of any legislature which lacks the citizens' mandate.

And oppositions frequently suggest they will.

But perhaps your present difficulties are formed in part by adjacency to that chamber of entitlement - The Lords - who represent no one and are accountable to none. And which provides a well equipped club in a very expensive city from which too many of its members can pursue their private interests at public expense.

Perhaps you can now show again that you are still capable of the leadership which you have both demonstrated in senior office in the past, by foreswearing any offer to join Westminster's second chamber, a chamber with very, very different priorities from those that we serve as elected politicians.

Take the opportunity to return to “selflessness” as a guiding principle by telling us you will not go to an unelected Lords.

By example, lift up humility and lend your substitutional weight for moves to achieve its abolition – my preference – or replacement by a small democratic revising chamber.

Kind regards,

Stewart Stevenson,
Member of the Scottish Parliament

---

Published in Holyrood Magazine, 4th March 2015

Trusting our Youngsters

The referendum taught the Scottish electorate a lot of things, but significantly it demonstrated that the inclusion of 16 and 17 year olds in the political process enriched it greatly.

It is with this knowledge that the recent move by the House of Lords to make it more difficult for young people to vote at 16 and above is so misguided.

A new report by the House of Lords Constitution Committee has argued that they should have a role in scrutinising the decision to devolve powers over the franchise to Scotland – and expressed concern that lowering the voting age in Scotland will “lead to pressure to allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote in other elections across the UK.”

I fail to see why this would be a problem. The Scottish Government decision to extend the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds during the referendum was very successful with around 90 per cent of the age group registering to put their X in the box.

There is something rather hypocritical about a group of unelected peers deciding that young adults in Scotland cannot take part in the democratic process, and if the trend was spread across the UK, then surely we would all be the better for it.

I would like Westminster to transfer the powers needed for younger people to vote in next year’s Scottish Parliament election, regardless of the report from the House of Lords. I would like to see 16 and 17 year olds in Scotland voting in Holyrood in 2016, and indeed the 2017 local authority elections, and I believe that the test case of the referendum has proved that not only can it be done, but it can be done well.

In a recent speech that I made on Young Voters and School Debates, I welcomed the upward trend in youngsters becoming engaged in politics. This continues to rise and challenges all notions that young people are not interested in the issues that define their lives.

Getting youngsters engaged is certainly not a new phenomenon, but the trend is on the up at the moment and we want to make the most of this. The young people that engaged on either side of the debate in the referendum should not be allowed to disappear. They should continue to be part of the process and the long term vision for change, with the initial enthusiasm spurring on a long term relationship with politics.

In an online survey launched by the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution committee in which 1,252 took part, young people voted overwhelmingly in favour of votes for 16 and 17 year olds. School debates engaged pupils across the country, and locally in Banffshire and the Buchan Coast. It was in schools that around 50 per cent of young voters were informed about the debate.

Around 80 per cent of these young people watched at least one of the major TV debates, 63 per cent discussed the referendum online, and 61 per cent wore campaign merchandise. Following the referendum, 63 per cent of those polled found out more about politics, 26 per cent joined a political party and 26 per cent took part in campaigning or in political activities.

Throughout the campaign, neither side of the debate fully realised the extent to which people were being empowered from the grass roots, and I believe we would be doing our young people a disservice by failing to pursue the younger voting age as a new part of our democratic process.