Patrick Harvie’s Motion

The following was published by our Twitter account @ForwomenScot on 22nd January.
https://twitter.com/ForwomenScot/status/1087834571780120578


It appears that Patrick Harvie MSP, in his enthusiasm to bring a Motion which, increasingly, appears to be motivated by personal animosity, may have overlooked the rules governing Member’s Business Motions.
http://www.parliament.scot/S5ChamberOffice/20180126_Guidance_on_Motions.pdf

Explicitly section 4.2:

Motions─
(a) must be explicitly of only local or regional relevance; or
(b) must raise issues of policy in a local or regional context and have cross-party
support*; or
(c) must raise issue-commemorating anniversaries or mark national “weeks” or
special events and have cross-party support; and
(d) must not “call on” anyone or any organisation to do anything, which includes
taking or reversing decisions. This means avoiding the use of calls on, urges,
encourages, asks etc and even should and hopes in cases in which it is clear
who or what organisation is expected to take action.
For (a) and (b) above, the motion must contain an explicit local or regional reference
in Scotland.

Where the explicit local or regional reference is, we are at a loss to discover. Neither the gamer in question nor Mermaids are Scottish. Nor does it mark a commemoration or national week. A special event is stretching things.

Moreover, as the gamer in question used abusive language in his youtube video and commented that he was doing it to “spite” Graham Linehan @Glinner, the Scottish Government @scotgov risks being dragged into disrepute as a party to a very personal vendetta.

In light of this, perhaps Patrick Harvie @patrickharvie should reflect that motions should NOT be: “inflammatory, sarcastic or provocative or to which people might reasonably take offence … The text of motions and amendments should not disclose any information … the publication of which may cause personal distress or loss. Particular care should be taken in relation to any motion that names individuals as their identities may need to be protected in their own interests.”

Although Patrick Harvie @patrickharvie did not mention Graham Linehan @Glinner by name, the individual whom he praised did so – and had Mr Harvie taken the time to watch the young man’s introductory film – he would have seen that he did so in a highly abusive fashion.

Mr Harvie did see fit to draw attention to a juvenile account run in the name of a cat. A cat is not a “trans campaigner”. One hopes that Mr Harvie realises this and that therefore he was being flippant. In which case, he trivialises and infantalizes the serious business of the Scottish Parliament @ScotParl