26/10/2011 Newsnight Scotland

to its position as a pillar of Tonight on Newsnight Scotland we

hear from the MP at the heart of the allegations over bullying in a

Parliamentary committee. We discuss what they are supposed to be

achieving in that committee. Also tonight, new Scottish research says

we should spend more time taking the mickey out of our children.

Good evening. The Scottish Affairs Committee isn't usually the centre

of attention at Westminster but today meetsding at thracted a lot

of interest, but not because they were discussing health and safety.

Would the chairman Ian Davidson show up? Would he resign? Would he

apologise for allegedly threateneding remarks made to a

female committee member? This is particularly acute... Normal

business for the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster involves

questions to people like the Scottish Secretary Mikeing moor, to

keep them on their toes. But remarks allegedly made in committee

by chairman Labour's Ian Davidson to Dr Eilidh Whiteford are the

centre of attention. She adge alleges he said she would get a

doing if it was leaked to media. She says the experience was

intimidating. Labour denies the allegation, but insist it took them

seriously. So does the First Minister. I spent a lot of years in

the House of Commons in the days where everybody said it was a, you

know a gentleman's club, a public school, but I can't remember an

instant where a Select Committee chairman was had used threatening

language against a female member of committee. This was a very serious

matter, it is high time everyone took it with that level of

seriousness. I was there at committee and obviously the first

session was in private so I wouldn't divulge too much of what

was said, but nothing aggressive, nothing intimidate tri, nothing

hostile was said by any member to any other member. The SNP is

calling for chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee to

resign. Ian Davidson is no stranger to using colourful language.

notice the way in which efforts are being made to sho shout me down.

That is what happened traditionally in Scotland when people challenge

the nationalist. Those of us who want to challenge the narrow

neofascism have to be prepared, have to be prepared to have the

discussions. His supporters say the background is a decision to hold an

inquiry into independence or separation as the committee calls

it. This afternoon he made a statement ahead of the main

business of the committee. I did not threaten anyone and did not

intend to threaten anyone. I apologise if anyone took offence

but say no threat was made or intended. I think everybody here

understands that point. Whiteford say she is won't attend

the committee until he takes responsibility for his behaviour.

It wasn't an apology, it was a conditional justification of

unacceptable behaviour. I think he just had failed to understand that

there are no circumstances in which he can offer to give someone a

doing where that is not a threat. Maybe we could move on. With the

SNP and Labour standing their ground, moving on is going to be

rather difficult. Earlier this evening Dr Eilidh Whiteford came

into our Westminster studio and I asked her if she accepted the

apology? No, I don't. I think we are in the sorry situation tonight

that Ian Davidson has made a half hearted and conditional apology but

seems to be saying he doesn't have a lot to apologise for. My point is

that the larks he is apologising for, are completely unacceptable in

any circumstances. It is just not ever an acceptable thing to say.

Right. There is a slightly different can't emanating from Mr

Davidson and his colleague, they are saying what happened several

members of this committee criticised you apparentlyer for

what they allege was premature disclosure, whether it was or not,

let us leave to one side, and that what he said was he kind of summed

it up and said you had had a doing and it was time to move on. That is

not what has happened. I think that is about trying to make a

deflection away from the issue in hand, which is that he said these

thing, he is desperately trying to back away from them, and say they

weren't said, but, you know, we know some members of committee

didn't hear the remarks but other members of the committee explicitly

have confirmed those remarks were made. You know, the idea that I

prematurely leaked anything from that committee is falsehood. Right,

but what is then the context in which the remarks were made?

don't think it matters, I think the issue is it is never ever

acceptable to tell somebody they are getting a doing, under any

circumstances, and that you know, you can't justify this by context

at all, it is just, it is just not on. It is not on in any workplace,

I mean when did somebody in your workplace last offer to give ewe

doinging? Probably about five minutes ago! The point is, are you

saying that you felt scared, that you were going to be subjected to

physical violence? Is that what you were saying? I was threatened. I

can't imagine any circumstances in which I wouldn't have taken that as

an implicit or explicit threat. It is an inherently threatening thing

to say. The fact that you know after the meeting, it was clarified

to me that the threat was not meant in a sexual way only compounds what

was said, and it made me wonder what kind of doing I was supposed

to be expecting. You are adamant, when I say people say that to me it

is a joke, you are sure he wasn't meaning there... I think it is

important to say this, when people try and justify their aggression,

they fall back on the excuse that it was a misunderstanding, it was

just a joke, a I didn't really mean it or the person interpreted it the

wrong way. I am not going to take responsibility for things that Ian

Davidson has said, but I am going to say that yeah, of course it was

threatening and upsetting. It was inappropriate and I don't think

that makes his position tenable. Why, the other point Labour are

making is they are saying why did it take so long for this to come

out? If you were so upset why didn't you complain? I want to make

this clear, I went to the clerk of the committee first thing the next

morning, as soon as I possibly could. I didn't get hold of her

until later the morning, she wasn't in until later. You know, I went to

the clerk of the committee as soon as possible. To see if the

recording equipment had still be running and to check if she had

heard anything. But, you know, I was clear I wanted to raise this

and raise it in a formal way, as soon as possible. Now, you know I

was not able to meet with the speaker until yesterday afternoon,

but you know, that was, you know not a delay that I considered a

lengthy delay. People are trying to deflect this issue from the fact

these remarks were made and have not been denied. All right. Will

you rejoin the committee, or if you don't want to will someone else

from the SNP? I am happy to participate but not while Ian

Davidson is chair of it. trouble is the other members don't

appear to want him to resign. that is a matter for them. You need

to ask them about that. I can't comment on that. I mean, I, you

know I am of the view that this is, this is an issue about whether it

is ever acceptable to tell a woman that she is getting a doing, and Mr

Davidson is not denying the remarks were made. There is no context in

which that is OK to say. Right. But so what would your response be?

What your critics will say, whatever the rights and wrongs of

what was said, even if we accept that it was wrong to say that, to

you, that the fact that the SNP will not now have a member on this

committee which is having this inquiry into a referendum, smacks

of the SNP at the very least using this because they don't really want

to be involved with it. No, I think that is absolutely ludicrous. It

would be very easy for me to respond to that, but I think, you

know, one of the things that you know, I have to say is that the

bottom line is he said these thing, how can you expect me to sit across

the table from him? That is the fundamental point here. In any

other place of work. I am sorry to hear the BBC is a place where that

language can be bandyed about. I am not sure if that is in your equal

opportunities policy it wouldn't be acceptable in any workplace I have

worked in, and I don't think it should be acceptable in the House

of Commons. I have to say, I don't think it S I think most members of

the House of Commons treat each other with courtesy and respect,

regardless of however heated discussions get. Now Ian dirid son

wasn't are able to come on the programme tonight but I am joined

by the deputy leader of Scotland Labour MPs Willie Bain. What is

your account of what happened? evening. It has been difficult to

get a definitive account, because what has been interesting is the

opposition members of the committee, the Conservative and Liberal

Democrat members have said that they couldn't detect anything that

was intimidatery in what Ian Davidson said. He was right today,

to apologise to Dr Eilidh Whiteford for any offence he may have caused

or she may have taken from these remarks but the difficulty is, the

Labour Partys taken it seriously. An investigation has been done by

the whip's office T Chief Whip has been involved in terms of the

Government members on that Select Committee, and in working out what

was said, none of the other members were of the view that there was

anything which was intimidatery, or in a sense, went against the issues

of a woman, I want to say this, the Scottish Labour Party has a proud

record in terms of women's rights. We brought in all women short lives

to make sure that we had good levels of female reputation in

Parliament. We have done a lot in terms of female violence. A lot on

anti-discrimination laws. We have a proud record. It not the politic of

Margaret Curran or myself to condone any actions that would be

discriminatory to women. The point is he didn't really apologise to Dr

Eilidh Whiteford, did he. He came up with some rather mealy mouthed

formulation about apologising to anyone who had taken offence. That

is not the same as saying to someone "I'm sorry." I have seen

the words, they look like an apology to me. He doesn't mention

her. To most people outside it would like like an apology.

Perhapss he's can direct them directly to her. That would be a

helpful thing. We have to move beyond the politics of he said, she

said. Hang on f you are conceding that maybe he should apologise,

directly to, look, you saw the interview, or heard it with Dr

Eilidh Whiteford there, what ever you think about her idea there can

be no context whatsoever in which using these sort of phrases can ver

be justifiable, she was clearly upset by it. If anyone inside the

workplace or outside the workplace, you know, you say something to

someone and you mean it as a joke, perhaps, and you suddenly realise

they haven't taken it as a joke, you get embarrassed and you say,

look I am sorry, I really wasn't meaning to give any offence. Now,

was it so hard for Ian Davidson to do that? Well, of course, he may

wish to reflect about whether he wants to make a personal apology to

her in person. But I think we have to get back to the basic reality of

this story, which is with the SNP press office were putting out

stories that weren't related to a factual account of what occurred. I

think there is an issue, with the ethics of the press operation they

have conducted, when we have only found out today the reality of what

transpired at that committee meeting. I notice as Dr Eilidh

Whiteford said, you are not denying that Ian Davidson made these

You are not denying that Ian Davidson made these remarks.

appears to have used an expression which can be misconstrued and they

accept people could take offence, and for that he has apologised

today. What we have to get on to is the serious issues that this

committee is looking at in terms of what is happening with independence.

For the SNP not to take part in that would be a dreadful mistake on

their par. We also have an Pete Wishart joining us. The SNP's Pete

Wishart is a former member of the committee. Pete Wishart, at the

very minimum here, let's lead to one side who said what. If you do

not either convince Dr Eilidh Whiteford are one of your other MPs

to go back on to this committee, you will be accused by Labour and

indeed the Liberals and democrats and Conservatives that what is

going on here is that you do not want anything to do with this

committee because you want to betray it as the Unionist plot.

That is nonsense. Let's not give in to you said, who said argument.

What happened was an inappropriate phrase was used to a female member

of the committee. It is not acceptable in any context and if

that happened in any other workplace throughout Scotland

disciplinary action would be taken. Dr Eilidh Whiteford is right to

withdraw from that committee as long as the chairman who made those

remarks continues to sit in that place. We will not be prepared to

participate in that committee as long as somebody who makes

misogynist remarks such as those, remains in his chair. You have

heard Willie Bain suggesting that he has made an apology. There is

some level where this has to stop, every side has got a different

argument, except that. We are sorry, let's move on. When Ian Davidson

resigned from the chair we will take a bar plays. As long as he

remains in place we will not accept our place in that. There are bigger

issues being discussed by the Scottish Affairs Committee. But

this is important to us. This has to be dealt with proper relief.

think people outside will feel really confused as to what is going

on. They expect politicians to work together. The SNP you are proposing

that we separate off from the rest of the UK. People want to know what

currency we will use, who was set our interest rates, what will

happen to mortgage rates, savings, pensions. These are huge questions

which have to be addressed and Alex Salmond is refusing to answer them.

He is refusing to deal with these questions and have all parties

engaged in the answers. What about Pete Wishart's suggestion that Ian

Davidson should resign? That is a matter for the committee. The rules

are clear that if the committee does not have confidence in their

chair they can remove them. It is a matter for the committee itself.

But what is happening is that most members of the committee are

content with the apology Ian Davidson made today. I think we

should move on. The people of Scotland are watching us. They want

to know what are the answers. When we look at what is happening with

the Eurozone tonight and see the difficulty in separating the fiscal

and monetary policy, people want to know what independence would mean

to them. It is appropriate that all parties have their say and take

part in a discussion and dialogue with the Scottish people for all

stopped and you will not move on this, Pete Wishart? Dreadful

remarks were made, remarks that caused great offence to the

personally receive them. We have to get this resolved, the solution

that we are supposed to accept his this grudging, have parted,

conditional apologies. Willie Bain suggested that Ian Davidson might

make a personal apology. It has taken him 24 hours since it first

emerged to getting round to acknowledging there is a herd party

involved at this. This is not the first time this has happened. We

had the neo-fascist remark previous to this. This chairman has all

sorts of been appropriate language. What he did last week went way

beyond. Willie Bain, isn't there an underlying issue here, and

increasingly an issue in Scottish politics. You two parties are the

biggest political parties in Scotland. There is a serious

problem about the way you relate to each other. There are many people

in the Labour Party who do not accept that the SNP is a legitimate

party. They think they are a bunch of separatists who want to break up

Britain. On the other side, there are people on the nationalist side

who, for example, were saying that Dr Eilidh Whiteford was the only

person on the Scottish Select Committee who had any right to have

an opinion on whether we should have a referendum on independence.

There is a basic lack of respect between your two parties. I hope

that will improve. But the people of Scotland tonight are facing an

economy teetering on the brink of recession. One in four Scottish men

do not have a job. We owe it to those young people, to the people

of Scotland to work together. can hardly deny that these

attitudes are not prevalent on your own side. I think things are

getting a lot better. I think the SNP could take part in our five-

point plan on the economy to a B and people get back into work.

Bring forward some of those capital project. I am making a point about

basic attitudes that you politicians have to each other. And

you say the SNP should adopt Labour attitudes, that is laughable.

a dreadful relationship. Last night there was a debate about Scotland's

constitutional future. 30 Labour Members of Parliament came storming

in at 10:30pm and tried to hire me down the minute I tried to utter a

syllable. That is how bad it is down there. I think it is all to do

with what is happening with Scotland's constitutional issues.

There are people in Westminster who have not reconciled to what is

happening in the new Scotland. your people to suggest that somehow

our other that Ian Davidson and his colleagues on the select committee

do not have the right to have used on a referendum, that is ridiculous.

They are totally entitled to have used on the referendum. But it was

almost like independence was cordite and separation was put in

instead. That is the type of thing Labour are doing in Westminster.

will have to leave it there. Research at Stirling University has

found that parents who joke and have fun with their children is

giving them a head start in life. The work shows that pretending and

joking are two different things. Children as young as two can tell

This is how it minds are made. Pretending and choking are key

elements of building the school's children and adults. It is funny.

Sometimes if you do something different it makes it more fun for

the children. I guess pretending is good. Pretending to be something

else. No science is expanding, this playgroup is taking place in

Stirling University Baby and toddler room. Joking is important

for attracting a mate. It is important for making friends,

people who share the same sense of humour will have social bonds with

each other. It is important for coping with stress. Seeing the

funny things in life lead to people they can cope better. Pretending is

different. Early on it is suggested that young children learn how to

pretend to do things that they will do later on. The significance of

this research is an underlying concept that pretending and joking

Donna's four-year-old daughter is baking, or pretending to. It is a

serious business, but then along comes a tiger. If two-year-old Adam

took a Tiger attack as seriously, there would be tears. But he reacts

differently. This is not pretending, this is joking and even children

this young can tell the difference. I think he may know. The result is

fun. To pretend something else, it has to be serious so they can get

But how do they know the difference? Research suggests it's

all down to what is exchanged between parent and child. When

parents joke with their child, they give a lot of feedback they are

joking, they laugh and smile more. Their tone of voice is more excited.

Developmental psychologists here have been studying responses of

children between 14 months and two years. As they approach adulthood,

we put away childish things like pretending, don't we? We stop

pretending around the age of seven. But we do it a lot of ways in our

lives. People love to watch films and television. It is also

important for things like sports. If you are a diver, you might

imagine what do the motions before you actually dive. You can use it

to prepare for things in life. research is already moving on from

joking and pretending to the dark side, outright lies. It is very

similar to joking and pretending. If you deceive someone, maybe you

hide something from someone, you were doing something wrong. Just

like you would when you're pretending are joking, but the

difference is when you're pretending you want the other

person to know, you joke will not succeed if no-one knows you have

told a joke. When you were lying, you didn't want anyone to know

otherwise it will not were. work here has been supported by the

UK's economic and Social Research Council and will feature in an

event in Stirling University on Saturday. It is open to 80 parents