« Scotland should be proud to stand alongside Ireland and Iceland
Give Scottish cyclists a break, place assumption of guilt on drivers »
SNP MSP Bill Walker suspended over domestic violence allegations
Posted by James in Holyrood | 24 Comments
An investigation by the Sunday Herald's unofficial Standards Commissioner, Paul Hutcheon, has led to the suspension of Bill Walker MSP from the SNP group. Not one, not two, but three of his ex-wives have reported domestic abuse, either while divorcing him or now, and he also admits hitting his stepdaughter with a saucepan. He's like Sean Connery without the glittering career, and the SNP have done the right thing by suspending him "pending a full investigation of the facts and circumstances". There can be no way back, even given just the bits of these depressing tales he doesn't contest.
When the paper's front page went round Twitter last night, without an indication of who'd been suspended, I can't have been the only person hoping it wouldn't be one of the Nats I liked. And Walker certainly isn't that. Quite the opposite.
Walker's part of the under-vetted 2011 intake, and is known in political circles for one thing only – being so homophobic that he made John Mason look almost reasonable. In August last year, when Mason was stirring the pot with his weasel-worded motion (brought to public attention by Jeff here), Bill Walker went a lot further: "There are things called civil partnerships, which I accept, but I'm really concerned about the use of the term 'gay marriage' because to me it's a contradiction in terms and anything that puts homosexual relationships as any way equal to male-female marriages is just not right." Although I can't find the link for it, he also used the classic "the dictionary defines marriage as a man and a woman" line of argument. First, it doesn't, and second, the dictionary defines "United Kingdom" in a way you're seeking to change.
And the politics? Landslides in a partly proportional system are relative, although 53% of seats on 44-45% of the vote was a pretty generous deal for the Nats. Using their numbers to put one of their more partisan members into the Presiding Officer's chair took them down to 68 MSPs, three more than a bare majority. Bruce Crawford must be having wee palpitations this weekend, although even falling below 65 would hardly be the end of the world. They got more done more competently last session with just 47 MSPs, after all, and there are still at least three more votes for independence beyond their ranks.
Also, crucially, Walker is the constituency member for Dunfermline. If he'd been a regional MSP, it would have been possible for the leadership to try to persuade him to stand down on behalf of whoever was next on the list, despite the evidence from 2003-2007 when the likes of Campbell Martin and Dorothy-Grace Elder stuck two fingers up at them and stayed on as independents. But no, and Walker's majority was just 590. A by-election in these circumstances in Labour's former heartlands is not on Alex Salmond's to-do list. An independent ex-SNP MSP without any credibility who keeps his trap shut and probably votes with them on everything is probably the least worst outcome for Ministers. But pressure will build to have him out, both from the opposition and from those who believe someone responsible for an apparent career domestic violence is unfit to serve at Holyrood.
The election of someone this unsuitable was part of the price of the SNP's success. They'd never have expected Dunfermline to fall into their hands: Dunfermline West, which preceded it until the last lot of boundary changes, had been narrowly won by the Lib Dems over Labour in 2007. And so the Nats selected someone with a personal history one assumes no-one in the local party knew about, which suggests no-one really knew him at all. The story about Salmond meeting a new MSP the day after the election and not knowing who he or she was must not seem so cute now at SNP head office.
This entry was posted on March 4, 2012, 8:58 am and is filed under Holyrood. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
21 Comments (and 3 trackbacks)
#1 by Indy on March 4, 2012 - 9:49 am
It does make you wonder how vetting can be improved for all parties, without going to the lengths of hiring a private detective. The story suggests it all happened years ago and not in Dunfermline so locals wouldn't have known about it. At vetting candidates are always asked to disclose anything in their personal lives on a confidential basis but if someone doesn't do that and there is no "gossip" about them how can the election committee know that there is anything there? They really can't hire private detectives. I dunno, it's very difficult.
Pingback: Wings over Scotland | Ugly witches are easy to hunt
#2 by Barbarian on March 4, 2012 - 1:37 pm
Political allegiance has nothing whatsover to do with such behaviour (bar the most extremist parties). At the risk of sounding ageist, why do we have a 71 year old in the seat? Is the SNP in Dunfermline so short of talent?
And as I have always said, any politician, regardless of position or party, has no place in politics and should be barred when they have behaved in such a manner. The SNP will have to ditch him, and soon. Better to deal with the short-term flak that will persist for a week or so, than having him hang around for months.
#3 by Danny on March 4, 2012 - 2:06 pm
Agree with Indy a lot here, between this and the apparent history of Mr Joyce.
As an enthusiast I'd love to see a by-election here to judge public opinion, although I believe there would be very little change. Maybe some anger at the SNP for blading Mr Walker, and with Salmond over the whole Rupert Murdoch thing, plus Lamont's popularity seems to be on the up. I'm guessing it would be very, very close.
I'd liek to see a quick bye-election, but to be honest whatever the result, we will either get "independence for certain!" or "Salmond's support declining".
I don't think the Murdoch-Salmond relationship has had time to bed in yet. I would think (hope!) most voters will be glad to see decisive action over Walker. Another candidate for anger management classes perhaps?
#5 by Don McC on March 4, 2012 - 3:46 pm
Salmond over the whole Rubert Murdoch thing? What, trying to bring jobs to Scotland is a bad thing? What about (no more) Red Ed's stuff in the Sun? He's just trying to promote himself, not Scotland, not Scotland's peoples. Do you think there will be any anger over that? Or is it, like Lamont believes, okay for Labour to do it, it's just wrong when it's Alex Salmond does it (that is, after all, what she said at FMQs).
#6 by Doug Daniel on March 4, 2012 - 8:26 pm
The man is an idiot, although we already knew that from his stupid contributions on equal marriage, which James has already highlighted. If it wasn't for that, I would have been tempted to suggest that benefit of the doubt be given until the investigation is carried out, since these are not current-day accusations, and perhaps his support for the Fife woman'said charity was a sign that he regrets his past and seeks redemption. But no, I think we can safely say he's just an old fashioned bigot.
I'm sure Mr Walker sees himself as a "good" churchgoing man, but I don't recall the bible saying "Jesus gave Mary Magdalene a slap to the face and told her to shut up, for this is the Lord's way of handling hysterical bitches."
It shouldn't have even come to this, though. He should have been punished for these acts when they happened. It disturbs me slightly that the violence was used in divorce and child access proceedings, yet seemingly went no further. I hope that sort of thing wouldn't happen today.
#7 by Diana Walker on March 4, 2012 - 11:01 pm
Definately candidates should be vetted more strenuously.As constituents really need to know a lot more about the people they are asked to vote for.And, yes it must be a very difficult process.Hopefully things will improve in that respect.No process can be perfect but at least parties will maybe have to become more vigillant with regards to their selection proceedures.
#8 by Craig Gallagher on March 4, 2012 - 11:17 pm
I echo the condemnations against what Bill Walker has been alleged to have done to his ex-wives. If they are true, there is absolutely no excuse for domestic abuse, it is one of the greatest blights on Scottish culture and society.
On the matter of a by-election, I have been incandescent to read that the Labour party are seriously considering avoiding one should Eric Joyce be convicted of assault. Although I recognise they have no power to de-select him, they seem to be more concerned with the possible threat the SNP will present to their retention of the seat than with the right or wrong of his actions. In that vein, if Bill Walker is found to have physically assaulted his ex-wives, the SNP should push for an immediate by-election, and to hell with the political arithmetic. Right is right.
And besides, as shoogly a seat as it might be, I've never known the SNP to defend a seat in a by-election in such a febrile political atmosphere. I think Eck will take that decision, rather than have Walker hang around as an independent, in order to test the waters. But I hope that's a secondary decision to the need to get rid of an MSP who believes in the sanctity of marriage, yet abuses the person he sanctifies it with (assuming he's guilty, of course)
#9 by R.G. Bargie on March 5, 2012 - 9:57 am
"if Bill Walker is found to have physically assaulted his ex-wives"
The problem with that is that he isn't going to be *found* to have done anything, because nobody's going to investigate it. There is no criminal case to answer – not least because of the statute of limitations – so no official decision on what happened will ever be arrived at. All we're ever going to have is one person's word against someone else's. The SNP can have an internal inquiry and ask him if it's true, but if he says no, what then?
#10 by Craig Gallagher on March 5, 2012 - 11:10 pm
Hmm. Good point. Mostly I was just trying to ensure I didn't come off as condemning a man for a crime we don't know he's committed.
I'm sure that there will be considerable pressure on the man to step down in the event the SNP's inquiry is convinced that it did happen. I would then hope it would go to a by-election, rather than have this man hang around for the purpose of shoring up votes.
#11 by Alec on March 6, 2012 - 1:32 pm
I'd agree with you if this were about calls for him to be punished with legal means. What's at question here, however, is his position as an MSP… concepts of innocent until proven guilty aint a guarantee of employment.
~alec
#12 by R.G. Bargie on March 6, 2012 - 5:03 pm
No but getting elected as an MSP kinda is. Even if Walker is thrown out of the SNP he's under no obligation to resign his post.
For reasons unrelated to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
That said, given that MSPs will be removed from their posts if gaoled for more than a year (or, I assume, as it is with MPs), we already do see some erosion of this 'guarantee of employment'.
#14 by Dr William Reynolds on March 5, 2012 - 9:29 am
My understanding is that Bill Walker has been suspended until the facts are established.This swift response is exactly what political parties should do in such cases.For that reason the SNP leadership and the SNP zero tolerance towards the domestic abuse of women is admirable.
#15 by Doug Daniel on March 5, 2012 - 9:31 am
Is there actually a mechanism in place for the SNP to eject him from parliament? I was under the impression that the most they could do is expel him from the party and plead with him to see sense.
I'm not sure if parliament as a whole can even throw him out. I read somewhere that they can remove his entitlements (including expenses and salary), but not actually remove him.
Anyone know for sure what the deal is?
#16 by Indy on March 5, 2012 - 9:53 am
No there isn't. It is the person who is elected in a constituency seat, not the party.
#17 by Doug Daniel on March 5, 2012 - 11:47 am
That's what I thought, but is there a way parliament as a whole can eject someone? Perhaps 66% of MSPs voting for someone to go or whatever. I'm guessing not, since it's the electorate that put the person there, and it could be construed as being undemocratic to allow parliament to undo the decision of the electorate.
As much as I think there are problems with the Lib Dems' attempts to introduce a recall feature in Westminster, I feel there does need to be some mechanism by which the electorate can have someone removed from parliament if they feel that person is not fit to represent them.
Yes – barring being gaoled for certain periods of time – and Joyce is intent on hanging around to 2015.
#19 by Malc on March 5, 2012 - 10:00 am
I think its only if an MP or MSP is jailed for a year they have to forfeit their seat. Outside of that, they have to resign – the SNP and Labour have no power to force resignation from parly on either Walker or Joyce. They can be expelled from the party (a la Livingston, Canavan, Grace Elder, Martin et al.) but could happily sit as independents in parly with no whip. Course the latter four never faced criminal proceedings, which may make this different, and they'd be pressured further.
#20 by douglas clark on March 5, 2012 - 3:17 pm
Doug Daniel,
On your latter para.
LPW had an interesting article about recall.
http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.com/2012/02/westminster-beyond-recall.html
It seems to me that this is the right, general, approach.
#21 by Observer on March 5, 2012 - 8:25 pm
The Sunday Herald article referred to court documents used to divorce Walker more than once which cited violence & which he did not oppose. If that is true then he is toast. I hope he is because he has not exactly been an ardornment to the cause of civic nationalism with his ridiculous comments over same sex marriage.
Labour seem to be going all out to force Joyce to go if you read the coverage in the Record & Sunday Mail their house paper.
Pingback: Senior Alex Salmond aide compares union to abusive marriage | Political Scrapbook
Pingback: Joan of Ack « Better Nation