01/03/2012 Newsnight Scotland

Tonight on Newsnight Scotland: The Scottish Labour leader says she

ants Eric Joyce to resign if there's any truth in allegations

about his private life, allegations he denies. But does Johan Lamont

have any power to get her way? Also, 33 years to the day after the

first devolution referendum, the great and the good hold yet another

meeting about more devolution. But is there any point in all this?

Good evening. The Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont has called for

the Falkirk MP Eric Joyce to step down after newspaper reports that

he'd had a relationship with a 17- year-old party worker. Mr Joyce has

denied the allegations and said he will be taking legal advice. The MP

has already been suspended from Labour as he's facing assault

charges following an incident in a House of Commons bar last week.

This morning the Daily Redcoat, traditionally pro-Labour, claims

every Joyce had an affair with a schoolgirl who was then 17. The

Labour leader is reported to have been incandescent when she read

this. She said if this is true, he is unfit to be an MP. Johann Lamont

has no powers to force him to step down as an MP. This afternoon, the

Evening Standard in London said Eric Joyce had called them to say

the story was not true and that he would be taking legal advice. The

MP has already been suspended from the Labour Party. He has been

charged with three counts of common assault following an incident at a

House of Commons bar last week. A Eric Joyce won Falkirk for Labour

in a by-election 12 years ago. His majority in 2010 was nearly 8,000.

I'm joined now by Ian Macwhirter in Edinburgh, and Professor John

Curtice. John, Johann Lamont says if there is any truth in this, she

wants Eric Joyce to go. Does she have any power to enforce that?

A political party can withdraw the whip from an MP, it can say it is

not willing to allow that MP to be nominated for the next general

election, which is not until 2015 from Eric Joyce, but it cannot

force an MP to resign. An MP is effectively safe inside the House

of Commons unless they are convicted of a criminal offence and

receive a prison sentence of more than 12 months. And in that case,

it is in effect parliament that is forcing the resignation was mag yes,

and Parliament itself can take individual sanctions against an MP.

A number of MPs have been temporarily suspended because they

have broken the law, so David Laws for example, when allegations about

his expenses were revealed and he was suspended from membership of

the House of Commons. But a political party cannot force an MP

to resign from Parliament as long as that Parliament remains in

existence. One of the things that is interesting about this is the

strength of the statement from Johann Lamont. It has been echoed

by a statement from Ed Miliband tonight. Johann Lamont is the first

leader of the Scottish Labour Party who is responsible for MPs as well

as MSPs. Yes. This is her first test if you like as leader, and

first test of Labour's first rule Scottish leader, so she has to take

a very firm line. He has to be forced out one way or the other.

Constitutionally, he is there by virtue of the fact he was elected

by his constituents, not because he is a member of a political party,

but party leaders can exert considerable pressure on errant MPs.

This is part of a long and ignoble tradition of parliamentary

misbehaviour by Labour MPs, going back through Mike fire, Watson,

actor Ron Brown in 1992. He went through a catalogue of

parliamentary misdemeanours and was eventually non-selected and he was

defeated at the subsequent election. They are frozen out. Tonight, a

spokesman for Ed Miliband said that if true, their allegations were

shocking and disgraceful and fell short of the conduct expected of an

MP. I suppose in a way, Johann Lamont would have rather liked him

to say, I defer to Johann Lamont's judgment on this. Yes, this is the

first test of whether a Labour Scottish leader is the genuine

leader of the Labour Party in Scotland and there would always be

that confusion. As the leader of the Labour group in Westminster,

obviously Ed Miliband has every right to comment on the suitability

of one of his MPs to sit there. We have been here a number of times

before. This is a test of leadership. She has to make

absolutely clear there is no future for Eric Joyce in the Scottish

Labour Party and that he has really got to go. I wonder if the moral

climate is changing. Perhaps in the aftermath of the MPs' expenses

question. One of the things that Johann Lamont made clear was that

she thought quite irrespective of what happened to the charges that

Eric Joyce is facing as a result of the incident last week, on this new

issue, the alleged affair alone, if it is true, he should no longer be

an MP. That is not illegal. remember the back-to-basics, a

weekly series of scandals in John Major's government, because in that

government, John Major spoke about family values and that set up all

of these MPs who were found to be engaged in various alleged sexual

misdemeanours. To that extent we have been here before. However, I

think it is probably true that for many women, the issue of an older

man allegedly engaging in sexual relations with a relatively young

girl is something they feel more sensitive about their many men and

that is perhaps in part what Johann Lamont reflected. One might want to

argue that while the Labour Party may well want to distance itself

from a rich choice given his personal difficulties, given that

it is impossible for them to force him out of the parliament before

2015, maybe Johann Lamont was not necessarily wise in giving the

story quite so much airtime by insisting he must resign. We will

be back with you in a moment. If civic Scotland sounds like a

polite social gathering, our own version of the Tea Party, perhaps,

it's worth remembering that it was social groups, unions and churches

who gave lift-off to the Constitutional Convention which led

to the Scottish parliament. Political parties ignore them at

their peril. What starts as an insistent tapping on the door can

grow into a ground-shaking thunder. They call it the Future of Scotland.

It met for the first time in Glasgow. And Derek Bateman was

Oh you have to go back to 1980s for a political gathering of such bread.

Some may be uneasy at the comparison. -- breadth. But the

group meeting by the River Clyde today had echoes of the

constitutional convention. This is by far the biggest of the at hoc

groups to occupy the centre ground between independence and status quo

but it is also at the earliest stage between formulating policy,

on like the launch of Devo Plus 11 a week. It is clear that the real

debate is happening in the middle - - in the middle. They called it the

Future of Scotland. They began by voicing opinions on what kind of

country they want to live and. We have got a spirit that makes us

keep going, keep striving. With independence we will have a

fantastic future. They are along way from agreeing a

position on the constitution. Or anything, apart from the fact that

they want to be heard. And they do not want the political parties to

control the debate. It includes churches, young people, community

groups, all meaning that if they do throw their weight behind a

position they will be difficult to ignore.

There are echoes and I welcome this voice being held again. -- here.

But it is a reminder that having been here there were

disappointments associated with the new Scottish Parliament. It is not

just about the constitutional process. It needs a tremendous

engagement with the political parties. The parties are the way we

run our democracy. Unless you change them you do not ultimately

change the policies. So be on the aspiration that there

will be a need for a mechanism to deliver change. -- beyond.

Looking at the Scottish attitudes Survey you can see people

clustering around three options. Independence, more power, the

status quo. If Scotland wants to find out which of the options is

the most popular it is entirely possible to do it. You should have

a great way question about change/not wanting change. Then a

second question about devolution maximum/full independence. On

balance we would come down in favour of people asking those

questions at the same time. Even the man behind devolution plus

was there. We have seen that people are

searching for solutions and want to have at debate, to be engaged. What

we have set out is an option that people can decide is for them, or

not. And if you believe in something she

did not be put in the referendum? There are lots of ways to get what

you want. The SNP and the other parties are moving towards the

centre. What might be the end game?

They grouping that we have is non- partisan nor can it be. We have

organisations that may in the next few months arrive at positions of

their own. Others will not. But it does not stop has been a loose

coalition who can open up debate would people's opinions will be

respected. We talk about civil society and I hope it will be civil

debate. They have the capacity to take the

lead in the centre ground debate with some partners like the unions

already inching towards devolution Max. It is early days and it seems

Is this a great national debate or will people does be confused by the

plethora of different organisations?

There is the potential for confusion because although Lapper

attitude and also of this suggests there is an appetite out there for

the Scottish Parliament to be more powerful than it currently is -

attitudinal surveys, what is lacking right now is clearly

worked-out proposal. The devolution plus group began to sketch out an

outline of what they believe in the when they launched they did not

come up of any detailed proposals. The group that met today is coming

together and having debate but again it is not clear that they are

going to come up with a detailed agreed proposal. We must remember

what happened in the constitutional convention. It provided a forum in

which Labour and Liberal Democrats came to a negotiated agreement

about a relatively detailed scheme which but relatively little change

was then implemented in the devolution settlement. At the

moment at least we do not see a mechanism for the Unionist parties

to come together for any agreed alternative or enhancement of

devolution. You rather like this, Ian, don't

you? How do you mean?

You seem to be suggesting that what we have seen emerge this week is an

utter elation of what the majority want and therefore might be a step

in the right direction. -- indication. If I am not miss for

raising what you wrote. It is an example the Unionist

parties getting their act together behind the scenes and not leaving

it to the SNP to continue having the initiative. Act One was a

fortnight ago when David Cameron came out quite remarkably and

announced that there was an option for more powers for the Scottish

Parliament, despite what he and his Scottish leaders had been saying.

Alastair Darling then said something similar for Labour. Then

we had big evolution plus lunch this week in. Led by senior figures

from three Unionist parties. The Liberal Democrats, Labour, but

toadies. Now will come Act 3, moored expedition -- explicit

collusion. And the chance for Labour to seize the moment in

Scotland, being at orchestrated by Douglas Alexander who will call on

Labour in its dying hour to realise that it has to change and adopt

another form of devolution. Evolution plus is now the Unionist

match are no line. Beyond which the SNP shall not go. It is their final

or for. It will be interesting to see if that is taken up.

We could avoid it two to years of debate, Alex Salmond wants a second

question in the referendum, the second question he would presumably

be happy with as a second-best, no matter what the other parties might

think they would presumably be fairly happy with that, why not

shocked so it all this and just have a deal? -- short circuit.

In various ways the English parties are moving towards a position

whereby at the time of the referendum even if it is not on the

ballot paper they will be saying that, yes, they're in favour of a

more advanced form of devolution, something much more advanced than

originally envisaged in the 1990s. He certainly yes, eventually, we

may end up with the situation which whilst Alex Salmond did not

champion at, may be close to what many in the SNP are happy with.

They could call it social union and everybody would be happy.

But we have to realise that the reason the Unionist parties are

moving is because of the SNP's continued electoral success and

because there is the threat hanging over them that indeed the SNP might

just manage to win an independence referendum and that is the last

thing they want. So long as the SNP are successful and there is the

possibility of an independent Scotland the Unionist parties are

constantly under pressure to work out what their position actually is.

We should not underestimate the significance of this. Evolution

plus is not quite the same as their volition Max. It doesn't give

income-tax corporation tax on oil revenues to the Scottish Parliament.

If this becomes the new Unionist default position, and it is clearly

moving in that direction, then Scotland will already have changed

its constitutional status with the United Kingdom and United Kingdom

will indeed be fundamentally different.

Yes or no, are there are mutterings that Labour might sign up for that?

I they are certainly not signing in the dotted line but they are moving

in that direction. Douglas Alexander will be saying that very

clearly tomorrow. A quick look at the front pages.