Catherine MacLeod
EXCLUSIVE
THREE Scottish MPs and a special adviser in the Scottish Office have failed to meet the Labour Party's strict standards for membership of the Scottish Parliament.
It is believed that MPs Dennis Canavan, Michael Connarty, and Ian Davidson as well as Murray Elder, Scottish Secretary Donald Dewar's special adviser, were well short of the pass mark and will be rejected as possible candidates.
Labour Party spokesmen would not comment but cautioned that the decisions may not yet be final. The party intended to publish the list of successful candidates early in June after the final interviews had taken place, but it is understood they are eliminating candidates as they go along.
The selection procedures include intense scrutiny of their previous track record, their loyalty to the party, their knowledge of Government policy, and their ability to handle the media.
The Whips' Office has been asked to forward the candidates' voting records. Generally, the selection process has been thought to be ''hard but fair'' and even the candidates who are likely to be successful admitted it was a very difficult interview.
While the rigour of the process is welcomed by many in Scottish
Continued on Page 6
Continued from Page 1
Labour circles, the rejection of the MPs will cause outrage in their supporters' camps.
The candidates have had 40-minute interviews. One aspiring MSP said it was like ''being interviewed by Stalin and Stalin's granny and was more like an interrogation with the thought police''.
It is understood to have been a matter of some concern that Glasgow Pollok MP Mr Davidson did not wear a suit to his interview, opting instead for a smart sports shirt, and light brown slacks.
Obviously irritated that his dress had been criticised, he said he was ''not aware sartorial elegance was part of the criteria''.
The day Mr Davidson was interviewed by the four-strong panel he was taking part in a football match between a team of Glasgow MPs and staff of a city weekly newspaper.
Although friends of Mr Elder have hinted he had lost his enthusiasm for standing, his failure to make it past the panel will surprise those who thought his closeness to Mr Dewar would ease his passage through the scrutiny procedure.
Mr Elder has a long track record in Scottish Labour circles, having stood as a candidate in Ross and Cromarty in 1983 before working for former Labour leader John Smith and latterly Mr Dewar.
The rejection of Mr Canavan, MP for Falkirk West, is not surprising since he has been a constant critic of the Government, but the rejection of Mr Connarty (Falkirk East) and Mr Davidson will cause outrage among their supporters.
The only chance they will have now of getting through the system is if they have to make up the numbers, but since there are so many applications from ''outstanding candidates'' it is unlikely there will be a shortage.
It will be a mystery to some that men deemed suitable to be elected members in a Westminster Parliament are considered not fit to be candidates in a Scottish Parliament.
The removal of Mr Connarty, Mr Canavan, and Mr Elder from the list of successful applicants at least removes the likelihood of intensive infighting as they competed with each other for the male nomination in neighbouring seats, with the party in Scotland trying to achieve gender balance.
The other Labour MPs involved - Scottish Office Ministers Donald Dewar, Sam Galbraith, Henry McLeish - and back benchers Norman Godman, Malcolm Chisholm, John Home Robertson, and John McAllion have yet to have their positions confirmed, but it is inconceivable that the Ministers would not get through the selection process.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article