Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 6th July 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Big Brother winner joins the Constitutional Commission team



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 28 April 2008
By GERRI PEEV
THE winner of Big Brother Celebrity Hijack, John Loughton, will be one of the new members of the Constitutional Commission, which holds its first official meeting in Holyrood today.
The 20-year-old political activist chairs the Scottish Youth Parliament and became a household name in Scotland after scooping the reality show crown.

He will sit with 14 other politicians from unionist parties, academics and community workers on the commission, which will meet today at 3pm.

Although the full list of members was expected to be made public last night, last minute negotiations were ongoing with at least one prospective member, The Scotsman understands.

Others expected to be on the panel include Glasgow University Professor Mona Siddiqui, former Tory minister Jamie Lindsay, Lord Elder and Baron Selkirk of Douglas, also known as James Douglas-Hamilton, a former Tory MSP.

It was claimed yesterday that George Reid, the former Presiding Officer and SNP MSP, had been blocked by the UK Labour party from sitting on the Commission as he was "too nationalist".

The commission will publish an interim report by the end of this year with a final report to go to Holyrood and Westminster by next spring.





The full article contains 205 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 27 April 2008 9:06 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

,

28/04/2008 00:12:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

FrancesP,

28/04/2008 00:30:28
"Loughton...became a household name in Scotland after scooping the reality show crown."

No he didn't. About three people were watching. At least you didn't describe James Douglas-Hamilton as "the much-loved former Tory minister". That wouldn't have been accurate, but rest assured he's still more famous in Scotland than John Loughton.

Actually, that's another point. The two basic assumptions of this commission are meant to be - a) that independence is a bad thing but that b) devolution is a good thing. So how come George Reid is vetoed for being too nationalist, but long-standing Tory anti-devolutionists like Douglas-Hamilton and Lord Lindsay are perfectly acceptable?
3

Lulach mac Gille Coemgáin,

28/04/2008 00:43:50
Nae Independence representatives ? It’s aboot as balanced as a Third Reich judgement of the Bar Mitzvah.

C’mon . . . get real ! Constitutional Commission team ?
4

Alfred E. Neuman,

28/04/2008 00:44:39
Another fat idiot whose never had a proper job being offered the chance to run the lives of people who work and have life experience.

What the f*** are we doing as a civilisation?
5

Darien,

Panama 28/04/2008 00:46:27
These 15 people should be ashamed to be a part of such an undemocratic and ridiculous charade. Independence is around the corner and all the British Nationalists have to offer is a lightweight Commission with a self-constrained remit and pre-arranged outcomes whose outputs will be consigned to the dustbin as soon as they are delivered. Irrespective, surely even these 15 fools can see the writing is on the wall: Brown and NL are finished; the Tories will rule the UK rump (but are unelectable in Scotland); the only option for Scots is independence.
6

Senga Jean,

28/04/2008 00:54:00
Ah weel. We will just have to thole it because our elders and betters say so. .AYE RIGHT.
7

Alfred E. Neuman,

28/04/2008 00:54:20
5 Darien

It's a shame we can't devise a way where a minority of people, such as the SNP collective, can't just ignore the wants of the majority.

Just take control of Scotland Mugabe style, I hear him and Alex Salmond are almost pen-pals.
8

Vivas,

Edinburgh 28/04/2008 00:58:11
Stellar line up so far.

...nice but very very dim Douglas-Hamilton
...huntin'shootin'fishin'farmin Jamie Lindsay
...Murray Elder, Broons mate, an Alexander donor and advisor to the electoral commission (typically cosy)
...some feckwit Z-list BigBrother winner

Can't wait to see the remaining heavyweights that will be unveiled later today...

9

Darien,

Panama 28/04/2008 01:05:19
Herr Neuman - all the parties at Holyrood are minorities at the present time. It just so happens the SNP is the biggest minority. But that is no reason to ignore a significant part of the population. That's the type of thing Mugabe does, and North Britisher Broon is doing exactly that. Face it, we're on the road to independence, and the faster the better. Smell the coffee dude.
10

Lulach mac Gille Coemgáin,

28/04/2008 01:26:13
At last! a personality with more votes than the labour party enters the farsicle wurld of politics !

Next we’ll be gettin’ History Channel personalities telling us how Scotland should be governed - Herman Hess - Goebals - Goering - Hitler anyone ?
11

Senga Jean,

28/04/2008 01:39:26
Big Brother star! Says it all. Independence NOW.
12

Edward,

28/04/2008 01:45:28
Labour must be really desperate if they bring on a nobody who had his 15 minutes of fame on a reality tv show.
Deperate measures by a deperate party
Why cant they just talk to the SNP Government and include Independence in their 'commission'
Im surprised they havent asked John Smeaton to join the Commission, after all the man of the people, was paraded at the Labour Party conference with Gordon Brown, prooving that Gordon is really in touch with the people, really!
13

a proud doonhamer,

Dumfries 28/04/2008 01:53:59
Alfred E. Neuman, would it not easier for you to simply sign in by your original name. It is far easier to type in an A and an M than the new monicker. Perhaps in the keeping with our cyber world, you could go my AM2.0
14

a proud doonhamer,

Dumfries 28/04/2008 01:54:16
Alfred E. Neuman, would it not easier for you to simply sign in by your original name. It is far easier to type in an A and an M than the new monicker. Perhaps in the keeping with our cyber world, you could go by AM2.0
15

Alfred E. Neuman,

28/04/2008 02:02:16
13 Proud

AM2? Am not!

I'm guessing the SNP are too thick to get the point of him calling himself that given this forum is like a panto argument with no factual substance.

I used the f*** word at 4, openly call SNP voters thick and have no time for entering into conversations with SNP nat-wits.

AM2 is polite and enters head first into extracted debates with idiots that run like this AM2, AMnot, AM2, AMnot, AM2.
16

An Beal Bacht,

28/04/2008 02:10:19
Can they no get Lulu - Lulu would be good. Billy Connolly? He'd be good for a laugh at least.
17

Samoyed,

Costa del Menie 28/04/2008 05:03:04
Mental Onanism.

That's all. As relevant as A.E.N. commentaries.

Next new, please?
18

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 28/04/2008 07:18:50
I cannot say that I have ever heard of this “Big Brother” person before, and to that extent, I suspect that I am not alone.

However, what about asking George Foulkes to join?

After all, everyone has heard of him, he is widely respected within his many homes, and he would be available merely for the repayment of his expenses.

19

Bob Christie,

28/04/2008 08:08:02
This is bottom of the barrel scraping at its best! Somebody who is (allegedly) famous for being on a TV programme, TWO conservative hereditary peers (Lindsay and Hamilton), One Liebour life peer and some wifie from Glasgow uni.

And of course, although it is looking into Scottish internal affairs, the composition of the Constipatory Commission is DECIDED by Liebour in London.

Fortunately neither the Commission nor its members have ANY relevance to Scotland.
20

Linda,

Edinburgh 28/04/2008 08:21:36
Where is Scotsman coverage of George Foulkes expenses scandal highlighted in yesterday's Sunday Herald (under news)?

They are quick to quote him on every anti SNP story so how about some balance.
21

,

28/04/2008 09:42:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
22

,

28/04/2008 09:43:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
23

Vivas,

Edinburgh 28/04/2008 10:05:48
Loving some of the above names suggested for the (ahem) convention :-)) But it's Wendy's gig, so I expect in addition

- a vulnerable toddler
- a "Socialist"
- the Andrex puppy
- her brother
- her nanny/homehelp
- a Jersey businessman
- god (dammit)
- that coo from Gorgie Farm
- and Jackie Baillie as the political heavyweight
24

McX,

28/04/2008 10:07:52
I hear Jordan and Peter Andre have interesting views on devolution, couldn't they be drafted in to this glee club?


I could see the point if this kid had been invited , based solely on his experience as head of the yoot parly, however, if he hadn't participated in this televised mentalism I suspect he wouldn't have been invited at all.
25

brownlie,

28/04/2008 10:08:44
16 Am beal bacht

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton is always good for a laugh. While out canvassing years ago he asked a snot-nosed kid from Wester Hailes where he lived and when the kid replied "On our estate" the good Lord replied "And what's the shooting like on your estate this year".

We unionists also note, with pride, the two that are representing us on behalf of the 5.5 million voters in London. We could not do better than two self-confessed adulterers who are continually lampooned for the buffoons they have shown themselves to be. Who says that us unionists do not have a sense of humour when those two are picked as the cream of unionist representatives and every utterance from either is immediately ridiculed.
26

Caratacus,

West Britain 28/04/2008 10:11:05
John Loughton? Wasn't he the one who called Chantelle a poppadom?
27

Alan B,

28/04/2008 10:13:34
If labour do not get their finger out, and take this commission seriously they will end up with a damp squib and walk scotland into independence.

Only by really devolving power to the sp and creating some dev max option will it have any chance to stop the march to independence. They really must start with fiscal autonomy.



28

Alan B,

28/04/2008 10:14:18
going by the level of intelligence in the current labour party would they not be better with jade goody.
29

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 28/04/2008 10:35:09
Aye whatever ye dae dinnae get anybody who might have any idea as to what its all aboot.
Somebody might click what a farce it is and ask aboot the Independence option.
30

Auckland Arab2,

28/04/2008 10:39:10
Ant and Dec are next to be revealed! They are planning an "I'm a celebrity, get me out of here special" on the commission
31

Queen D,

Glasgow 28/04/2008 10:57:19
Thank you Auckland Arab !
There goes the coffee!
32

Calum10,

28/04/2008 10:59:29
Whit nae room for Jade Goody? She'll be gutted.

Farcical and laughable situation. This is a Mickey Mouse Commission with Mickey Mouse members.
33

MoClana,

Stirling 28/04/2008 11:01:01
Alfred Nueman - you are the biggest clown ever to post on this site - you truly live in blissful Unionist Ignorance, comparing Mugabe and Salmond, apart from the fact it is a completely stupid comment, but its not even funny either !

People like you scare me, i bet you dont have any friends with a character like that do you? your opinions are so extreme and vile that you would have to be brain damaged or deaf to enjoy your company.

But thank god you and your like are disapearing from our country day by day. Your nothing more than an irritating fool whilst reading the comments. Is there not some chat room for weirdos you can post on instead? Seriously theres something very creepy about your postings? did you ever harm pets as a child?

Actually dont answer that!
34

,

28/04/2008 11:04:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
35

Jwil,

28/04/2008 11:35:44
Why do we have to have a member of the landed gentry telling Scots what's good for them?
36

Talorthane,

28/04/2008 12:09:52
'It was claimed yesterday that George Reid, the former Presiding Officer and SNP MSP, had been blocked by the UK Labour party from sitting on the Commission as he was "too nationalist".'


Why is this not the main story?

If someone was blocked because of his skin colour, his religion or his involvement with trade unions, this would be universally condemned as an outrageous and unjust.

Here we have a review on the constitutional future of Scotland.

Kenneth Calman declared that this review would be independent of any political interference from Westminster.

Now, we find that the former Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament is overlooked because of his political views.

This may well be a consequence of a review that has decided beforehand that one of the main options will not be discussed. If they are not to ignore nationalist views expressed within the process, then they must block those with nationalist veiws taking part in the first place.

But this is an excercise in marginalising a significant proportion of the electorate from being heard in a process that is intended to determine what shape the country's future should be.

When are the media going to put their own political interests to one side and deal with the this abuse of democracy?
37

Chum of Boris,

Henley on Thames 28/04/2008 12:49:10
#25 Brownlie

We unionists also note, with pride, the two that are representing us on behalf of the 5.5 million voters in London. We could not do better than two self-confessed adulterers.

You Jocks really are repressed Presbyterians. No adultery in Scotland. What a sad, sad place. All rain and no sex and crummy politicians like Brown and Darling. It's no wonder all the best Scots leave and come to England.

I'm chuffed that my dear chum Boris will soon be mayor of over 7 million Londoners. Mayor of London is a far more important job than first minister of 5 million miserable gits like you.
38

ochone,

Sauchie, Clack's 28/04/2008 14:03:42
Linda20, Worse than that, where was the Scotsmans and other Scottish newspapers coverage of the London Olympic scandal?

A house of commons committee has now said as much as that they are of the opinion that those who sold the idea were either idiots, who were no good at maths or a bunch of self serving crooks,

Scotland still does not know what it will get as it's part, yet all our good causes Lotto money has been swept into the pot.

If we are very lucky we might get it back.

All this and yet we are not invited to comment!!!
39

ochone,

Sauchie, Clack's 28/04/2008 14:05:54
Linda* And yes that is the same London that some folk bang on about subsidising Scotland.
40

brownlie,

28/04/2008 14:12:31
37 Chumn of Boris

Miserable, me? I am more than happy not to be ruled by your chum. If you had any sense you would count that as a curse rather than something to boast about. Actually if he does get voted in there soon will be, among the population of 7 million at least 5 million miserable gits.

All rain and no sex - at least when we have sex there is always more than one person in the room.
41

Miss H,

28/04/2008 14:45:04
In fairness the boy is not on it because he was on BB but because he was involved with the youth parliament.

However the omens are not good for the constitutional commission. Looks like a typical Labour talking shop.
42

ochone,

Sauchie, Clack's 28/04/2008 14:47:09
Commission cock-ups,

1 The very idea

2 Wendy not getting Gordons permission.

3 Gordon taking over control of commission.

3 Gordon downgrading commission.

4 Gordon then saying, it could be called a commission, but only with his say so and if it does what he says.

5 Lib-Dems and Torys keep mouths shut although they are on it.

6 Commission to have no truck with independance view point therby demonstraiting how fair and unbiased it is not.

7 First meeting held in London.

8 Suggestion that George Reid be asked on to commission vetoed by London.

9 Lib-Dems and Torys still remain silent.

10 Commissions chair-person states that in his view there is no need for Holyrood to return any powers to Westminster, therby shooting down the very reason that Gordon Brown gave it his go ahead!

11 Names announced of at least some commission members, SNP government still laughingat list.

And the commission hasn't even met yet.

PS If I have missed any please feel free to add them on.
43

Talorthane,

28/04/2008 14:50:02
#42 Ochone

How about, Kenneth Calman declaring that the commission would be completely independent of any influence from Westminster (apart from the remit excluding independence).

Then George Reid's involvement being vetoed by London Labour.
44

brownlie,

28/04/2008 15:00:40
We unionists are pleased to note that there is at least one member of the review with an independent mind in Lord Elder who, ahem, gave a "small" donation to the Wendy campaign. You nats do not appreciate the benefits accrued from a charitable donation.
45

brownlie,

28/04/2008 15:14:08
44 Am2

Quite right - us unionists prefer our democracy where there are no minority rights. We will ignore the fact that the current Scottish government have been given a mandate by the electorate and all polls indicate that they are more popular with voters as a result. We will treat with total disdain and ignore the views of the 49 elected MSPs who did not vote for the review.
46

John PM,

Edinburgh 28/04/2008 15:18:57
I cannot believe that George Reid would want anything to do with it (unless he has fallen very far indeed) and I suggest the Scotsman has made that story up.

Anyone who gives credibility to this undemocratic farce by serving on it when it has ruled out the most logical option for Scotland deserves nothing but contempt.

It's an exercise in denying the people their destiny and it's a pity anyone from the youth parliament has got involved.
47

brownlie,

28/04/2008 15:20:30
46 Am2

Well, if it is in the paper it must be true. I was convinced of that when I read in the paper about a comedian eating a hamster and it turned out to be absolutely true and ever since then I have believed every word in the papers especially those ones, like the Scotsman, who present a balanced view of the political situation in Scotland and do not have a unionist slant. There is a difference, probably too subtle for you, between innuendo and proven facts.
48

Talorthane,

28/04/2008 15:23:37
AM2

"The Commission represents an attempt to forge consensus to enable the unionist parties to set policy on the best devolution model to take us forward.

Why do you feel that the SNP should influence other parties' policies?"


Are you suggesting that the Commission is party political?
49

brownlie,

28/04/2008 15:32:26
50 Am2

Does the fact that I do not slavishly agree with every one of your postings invalidate my unionist credentials?

By the same token why should the tax-payers who voted for the SNP fund a review from which the Scottish Government is excluded. Why, in the name of democracy, is the view of over a million Scots disregarded.
50

brownlie,

28/04/2008 15:34:17
51 AM2

I disregard co-incidences in the same way as I disregard Berni Ecclestone's donation to the labour party having any influence on tobacco advertising.
51

Talorthane,

28/04/2008 15:41:46
#53 AM2

"It's independently chaired. Three parties have thrown their weight behind it. But no, I wouldn't describe it as party political.

But it has a clear remit, as set out in the parliamentary motion which established it, and as that remit includes securing Scotland's place in the UK, I fail to see how anyone who wants to break up Britain can be charged with furthering that agenda."


The Commission may well have been established with a remit that exludes the option of independence.

It has also been passed by a majority of the Holyrood Parliament.

However, it is also publicly funded (from Holyrood and Westminster), and as such it cannot operate on party political grounds, for such activities would be illegal.

Surely this means that it cannot exclude anyone, on political grounds, from being involved.

And if it does involve everyone, who can it legitimately disregard the views of those who express independence as their preferred option.
52

Talorthane,

28/04/2008 15:44:21
#55 Brownie

"By the same token why should the tax-payers who voted for the SNP fund a review from which the Scottish Government is excluded. Why, in the name of democracy, is the view of over a million Scots disregarded."

I completely agree with you here.

Why are public funds being used in an obviously party political basis?

The Wendygate issue brought to light the fact that it is illegal to do so.

So why is it acceptable in this case?
53

Publius,

London 28/04/2008 16:45:16
#58 Talorthane

By the same token why should supporters of the union have their taxes used to fund a so-called national conversation? This was not even voted in the Scottish Parliament.

Also for nationalists to object that the Commission is rigged in favour of the union is absurd. The so-called conversation was set up by nationalists to produce the answer wanted by them. The conversation doesn't even have a commission, only the Scottish government made up of the SNP's leadership.
54

brownlie,

28/04/2008 17:04:31
59 Publius

Whether we like it or not the SNP are the democratically elected government of Scotland and their National Conversation is a forum where every voter in Scotland has the opportunity to exercise their democratic right to have a say in the future direction of Scotland. The Review is a forum where un-elected individuals with no mandate from the electorate have the opportunity to change the way Scotland will be governed in the future.
55

Talorthane,

28/04/2008 17:38:42
#59 Pubilus

The Scottish Government informed everyone that there would be a referendum on independence within their manifesto.

The National Conversation is inclusive of options other than independence and allows anyone, nomatter their view, to take part.


"Also for nationalists to object that the Commission is rigged in favour of the union is absurd."

The commission has a remit that explicity will not consider independence, and is described in terms of finding the best solution for Scotland place within the union. We now have George Reid removed from being considered on the basis of his nationalist views. So this is one area that is beyond dispute.


"The so-called conversation was set up by nationalists to produce the answer wanted by them."

The National Conversation involves engaging with the public.

The commission has still not yet defined how they will engage with the public, if it ever will. The fact that any engagement with the public must involve the removal of any views based on independence suggests that they will never consult with the public openly.


"The conversation doesn't even have a commission, only the Scottish government made up of the SNP's leadership."

It doesn't need a commission in order to grant authority as the Scottish Government already has the authority to carry out this process. If the Scottish Government did not have the authority to carry out this excercise then Westminster would have ended the process by now.
56

Publius,

London 28/04/2008 18:01:24
#60 Brownlie

Misleading on two counts. (1) It was Parliament that was elected, not the government. In a multi-party parliament the government cannot expect to get its way all the time. The Commission was set up by the votes of a majority in Parliament. Parliament did not vote to establish the conversation: the Conversation was got going because the government knew that it could not get is proposed referendum passed in Parliament. The Conversation has no more legal status than any other letters, emails, phone calls etc that individuals or groups may send to the government. Like it or not, the Commission has a formal status but the conversation doesn't.
(2) The Commission may influence the way that Scotland is governed in future. Why not? The Conversation may influence the way we are governed. So may or you or me. But only legislation at Westminster can make an actual change.

#61 Talorthane
You are being disingenuous. What irks you and other nationalists is that other political parties are trying to qu..r the SNP's pitch. The SNP has constructed a narrative of a smooth path to independence via a conversation, an outcome that will specify the 'need' for independence, a referendum and a negotiated settlement on independence with Westminster. The Commission has disrputed this narrative, because it will come up with a different outcome from the Conversation.

P.S. I tried to write qu..r the pitch in full, but the politically correct censor at the Scotsman said it was 'potentially unsuitable' and would not accept it.

57

Miss H,

28/04/2008 18:38:44
59 It's not that simple.

The outcome of the national conversation is going to be a referendum.

The SNP is happy for a 'third way' to be put on the ballot paper - devolution max as it is summarised. Defining devolution max is for the unionist parties to do.

However at this point in time the unionist parties say that they do not want to be part of a referendum that asks a question on independence. In fact they are saying that they don't want a referendum at all - even one that puts their preferred option on the ballot paper.

That is not a tenable position and the more intelligent Labourites like Henry McLeish and Stephen Purcell are saying that. It remains to be seen whether they win the argument.

The fact that the Commission is being stuffed with placemen and women is not hopeful however.
58

,

28/04/2008 22:01:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Inappropriate name
59

Darien,

Panama 28/04/2008 22:50:54
For the Commission to intentionally ignore the very valid option of independence, which is an option normally open to any and every democratic nation, at all times, borders on racism. This Westminster-led Commission is therefore simply another brutal example of unionist discrimination against the Scottish people. But that is essentially what Britishness and unionist ideals are all about - the subjugation of the Scots.
60

democracy,

Scottish Borders 28/04/2008 23:11:19
The so called constitutional commission would be extremely hard pushed to justify its existence as a democratic body when it denies any Scottish independence discussions to be part of the mix, as many people of this country would support.
It destroys its own credence with this stance and only succeeds in proving itself to be a singularly Unionist talking shop and nothing else!!
61

john z,

edinburgh 28/04/2008 23:36:24
This all is a joke, right?

Honestly, its like student pretendy politics time. Not to be taken seriously.
62

,

29/04/2008 15:09:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.