With most New Labour MPs, it’s easy to argue the case for someone who will represent their constituents better. It’s no problem to point to the many things SNP MPs have voted for which New Labour did not, and argue that the heroic 6 set a precedent which won’t be neglected. Rattling off the great things the SNP is something I’ll be doing in the coming weeks. The Devo Files, though, are naturally focusing on any given MP’s record on devolution and other Scottish matters – and with too many, they’re just not cutting it.
Things are very, very different with Ian Davidson – for out of all the candidates, he is the one who I feel is a disgrace not only to Scottish politicians or people, but to the New Labour party itself. Think about what that means. This politician has done and said things that should have had him kicked out of the party years ago. This politician has acted like a thug, a bully, and an all-round reprobate. Most unforgivable of all, politician has taken deliberate and concerted actions which jeopardised the livelihoods of his own constituents. This is more than arguing the people of Glasgow South West deserve better – this is arguing that their current MP is a clear and present danger to their interests. In short…
Ian Davidson has to be stopped.
MP since: 1st May 1997 (Glasgow Pollok) 5th May 2005 (Glasgow South West)
Attendance record as of 25th March 2014: 71.7% (3,614 votes out of 5,039)
Rebellions against party policy as of 25th March 2014: 3.38% (122 votes out of 3,614)
Mr Davidson is probably among the most rebellious of not just Scottish New Labour MPs, but New Labour MPs throughout the party, with 122 votes against the rest of his party. Yet as with Katy Clark, that streak has cooled: in his first term he rebelled 28 times; his second, 38; his third, 48; then his most recent term, only 10. And, in case it needs reminding, even if he rebelled against the party on 122 votes, he still voted with the party on 3,492 votes – out of every 100 votes, he will vote with the party 97 times.
We’ll look at the 10 most recent rebellions:
Voted against increasing the Bachbench Business Committee from 7 members plus chair to 15 plus chair
voted against reducing the maximum period of detention without charge for terrorist suspects to 14 days
Voted for exempting the UK from financially assisting other EU Member States
Voted against bringing a debate on scrutiny of European foreign, defence and security policy to a close
Voted against the view proposals for European Union regulation of short selling and equivalent financial practices should not impact market efficiency and liquidity, in particular in relation to sovereign debt
Voted against allowing MPs to tweet from the commons chamber
Voted for a referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union
Voted for stopping debate and moving to a vote on proposals for a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU
Voted against a €185 million EU “Europe for Citizens” programme of activities and not to require EU institutions to deposit their archives at the European University Institute
Voted against the view that promoting jobs and growth in the EU, including by completing the EU Single Market, is the top priority
Voted against UK air strikes in Iraq intended to support Iraqi forces’ efforts against ISIL
Voted against renewing the UK’s Trident nuclear weapons system
Generally speaking, most of Mr Davidson’s rebellions have revolved around the EU – namely, that he seems to vote more often in the Eurosceptic side of the chamber (i.e. with the Tories). On the other hand, he also voted against UK air strikes, and voted against Trident renewal in the debate this year. Kind of all over the place, isn’t he?
It’s not working: I’ll have to switch to TV shows of my youth!
Public Whip record: 33.9%
Did not vote on a second reading of the Scotland Bill 2012
Voted for requiring Scottish ministers to order officers to start counting within four hours of polls closing
Voted against devolving regulation of air weapons
Voted against keeping insolvency powers with the Scottish parliament
Voted against keeping responsibility for regulating health officials with the Scottish Parliament
Did not vote on devolving tax quarrying and mining
Voted against code of conduct for Scottish ministers in relation to the treasury
Voted against devolving the Scottish elements of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency
Voted for devolving responsibility for railways that start and finish in Scotland
Voted against devolving elements of the Crown Estate and accountability of the Crown Estate
Voted against devolving timescales, time zones, and British Summer Time
Voted for devolving food content and labeling
Voted against allowing the Scottish government to tax companies’ profits
Voted for devolving the regulation of shale gas to Scotland
Mr Davidson voted in favour of devolution 4 times, against 8 times, and didn’t vote 2 times. It absolutely blows me away how few MPs in the supposed “Party of Devolution” vote in favour of devolving powers to the Scottish Parliament.
You also have to consider that Mr Davidson came into power in 1997. New Labour were in parliament from 1997 to 2010. The above votes (the first 13 as part of the Scotland Bill) were only debated in 2010. An entire decade went by between the Scotland Act 1998 and the Scotland Bill 2010 – which, coincidentally, took place three years after the SNP minority government shocker. Why is the Party of Devolution so reluctant to actually devolve powers?
Other Votes of Interest
Mr Davidson should be commended for his votes against UK air strikes in Iraq, and also for voting with the “separatists” against Trident renewal. It would be a lot more meaningful if he voted this way more often.
520 for, 23 against
He was one of 202 New Labour MPs (30 of which were Scottish) who voted for a cap on welfare spending, along with 271 Conservative, 41 Liberal Democrats, 6 DUP, 1 Alliance, and 1 Independent
According to Save the Children, the Welfare Cap voted for by the majority of MPs risks pushing hundreds of thousands of children in the UK into poverty. According to End Child Poverty, 32.9% of children in Glasgow South West are living in poverty. In 2012, Govan High School bottomed out the league tables with just 18% of students leaving with more than 1 Higher, and 39% using free school meal tickets (which New Labour in Scotland oppose, believing it to be a “middle-class freebie“)
Charter for Budget Responsibility
515 for, 18 against
He was one of 198 New Labour MPs (28 of which were Scottish) who voted for the Autumn Statement to be approved, along with 263 Conservatives, 49 Liberal Democrats, 5 DUP, and 2 UKIP.
In June 2010 – just a month after the end of New Labour’s 13 years in parliament – there were 3,687 claimants to 260 vacancies: for every vacancy, there were 14 people looking for a job. Ian Davidson has been MP for Glasgow North East for 18 years.
In addition, Mr Davidson tends to follow some voting patterns:
Voted moderately for allowing ministers to intervene in coroner’s inquests
Voted strongly for Control Orders
Voted strongly for Identity Cards
Voted strongly for the mass retention of communications data
Voted strongly for nuclear power
Voted strongly for reducing Parliamentary scrutiny of new legislation
Voted strongly for New Labour’s terror laws
Voted moderately against registration of lobbyists
Voted strongly against making abusive tax avoidance illegal
Voted strongly against limiting civil aviation pollution
Voted strongly against strengthening the Freedom of Information Bill
Voted strongly against an investigation into the Iraq War
Voted strongly against abolishing detention without charge or trial
Voted strongly against preventing Post Office closures
Voted strongly against allowing protest in Parliament Square
Voted strongly against a referendum on alternative vote for MP elections
Has never voted on deployment of UK armed forces in Afghanistan
Has never voted on the right to strike
Office Costs: £22,185.44
Additional Salary: £14,727.96 (Scottish Affairs Select Committee Chair)
Connected party: Morag McKinnon (wife) Office Manager £30,000.00 – £34,999.99
Grand Total: £219,094.93 – £224,094.92
Of course, as an MP who’s been in Parliament a while, Mr Davidson got into a bit of a bother in May 2009 with his parliamentary expenses:
A SCOTTISH MP who claimed almost £90,000 in second homes allowances over the past four years – only £30 below the maximum permitted – yesterday complained that the emergency rules being brought in to clean up parliament would leave him out of pocket.
Ian Davidson, the Labour MP for Glasgow South West, who is famed for his “class war” attacks on the rich, said he wished he had a larger mortgage on his London flat so he could claim more in allowances.
He claimed £87,699 in the four years to 2007-8 – only £30 below the £87,729 maximum permitted. His claims included £5,500 to have his London flat renovated by a handyman friend – whom he later took shooting at an annual Commons v Lords competition – and almost £1,500 on reclining furniture.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Scottish Labour.
Shutting Down Debate, Part 963127
Mr Davidson: We must also be clear about what the verdict of the Scottish people was. Some 50% of the people in Scotland did not vote in the election. [Interruption.] Of those who did vote, fewer than half voted for separation. [Interruption.] We must remember that more people voted for my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) to be Prime Minister than voted for Alex Salmond to be First Minister.
Not everything the Scottish National party proposes is accepted, therefore. We must remember that Alex Salmond called clearly for a yes vote in the alternative vote referendum and was roundly defeated. [Interruption.] I notice that efforts are being made to shout me down. That is what has traditionally happened in Scotland when people have challenged the nationalists, and those of us who want to challenge the narrow neo-fascism of the nationalists have got to be prepared to have discussions—
Stewart Hosie: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: I hope it is a point of order.
Stewart Hosie: The use of this neo-fascist description is absurd, offensive and wrong in every single regard. What powers, Sir, do you have to ensure that this nonsense is not said or repeated?
Mr Speaker: My powers do not extend to the refutation of nonsense.
Mr Davidson: Is it not neo-fascist to attempt to shout down speakers with whom one disagrees? We have had robust debate in the House on several occasions, but it has frequently been the case in my constituency, after I won it from the nationalists, that they have attempted to shout me down.
So, to recap what happened in June 2011, shortly following the Scottish Parliament elections:
- Mr Davidson seems to believe that everyone who voted for the SNP in 2011 voted “for separation.” I can only assume that he thinks the significantly greater support for the SNP since the referendum means a significantly greater support “for separation” too.
- Scotland’s turnout for the General Election was 2,465,722, or 63.8%. The turnout for the Scottish Election was 1,989,222, or 50%. A 13 point difference isn’t small by any means, but it’s closer to 50% than 100% or even 80%. It’s a bit rich to snipe given that Mr Davidson’s own constituency had a 54% turnout in 2010.
- In dismissing the SNP’s 45.4% vote share on the constituency vote alone, Mr Davidson must take an even dimmer view of New Labour’s mere 42% vote share in the 2010 General Election
- Mr Davidson seems to think that 1,035,528 (the Scottish votes for New Labour in 2010) is a larger number than 1,779,336 (the combined constituency & regional votes for SNP in 2011)
- There are 6 SNP MPs in the House of Commons. There are more New Labour MPs from Glasgow alone in the Commons (7), let alone Scotland (41), let alone the UK (256). To suggest that the SNP are capable of shouting down anyone in Westminster is either a damning indictment of New Labour’s abilities, or a glowing appraisal of the SNP’s.
If Mr Davidson is so terrified of himself and the 256 other New Labour members being “shouted down” by a mere 6 SNP MPs, I can only imagine what he must think about the prospect of even more to come.
A Fair And Balanced Look at NEO-FASCIST SEPARATIST NATS
Mr Davidson was one of several members of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, who were meant to be a neutral all-party group looking into the legality of the referendum:
Ian Davidson (LAB, Glasgow South West) (chair)
Fiona Bruce (CON, Congleton)
Mike Freer (CON, Finchley and Golders Green)
Jim McGovern (LAB, Dundee West)
Iain McKenzie (LAB, Inverclyde) (Oh, Hi Iain!)
David Mowat (CON, Warrington South)
Pamela Nash (LAB, Airdrie and Shotts)
Simon Reevell (CON, Dewsbury)
Mr Alan Reid (LIB DEM, Argyll and Bute)
Lindsay Roy (LAB, Glenrothes)
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (SNP, Banff and Buchan)
So that’s 1 representative of a pro-independence party to 11 representatives of parties that not only rejected “separation,” but actively fought to prevent a referendum in the first place (all 4 Conservatives MPs representing constituencies in England). Their second publication was titled “The Referendum on Separation for Scotland: Making the Process Legal.” Not leading or biased at all, then.
However, we have to cross out Dr Whiteford, as she boycotted the process for as long as Mr Davidson was the chair. Why? Threat of physical assault.
I’m told the Labour Chief Whip, Rosie Winterton, will make a statement today on the ugly row currently engulfing the Scottish Affairs Select Committee – where SNP member Dr Eilidh Whiteford is accusing the chair, Labour’s Ian Davidson, of “inappropriate and unacceptable conduct”.
Mr Davidson is accused of threatening to give Dr Whitehead “a doing” if discussions in a private session of the committee were leaked to the media. And although, she says, he approached her afterwards to make clear he was not making a sexual threat, she’s boycotting the committee while he remains in the chair. Mr Davidson is not commenting, but other Labour sources dismiss the claim as a smear.
Mr Davidson has since non-apologised “for any offence that may have been caused,” which just shows the complete lack of contrition or, indeed, regret for threatening a female MP with physical violence.
The overwhelming balance of legal opinion that we received, and I must admit I’m not a lawyer, was that it’s absolutely clear that the responsibility for the constitution, the relationship between Scotland and England, lies with Westminster, and that was quite specifically in the Scotland Act that was agreed by the Scottish people in the referendum in 1997.
– The Scotland Act was drafted in 1998.
Because the point is we want to have a speedy referendum. My side want to get this resolved, we want to have a referendum, because we think we’re going to win, quite frankly.
– Is that why New Labour (along with the Tories and Neoliberal Democrats) did everything in their power to prevent a referendum from taking place in the first place?
No, I understand that, I mean, I understand that Newsnat Scotland’s position is that the powers should be given to the Scottish Parliament and the SNP should do as they wish, we understand that… Well of course! I mean, that’s a general political view, that Newsnat Scotland is biased in favour of the Scottish Parliament handling all these powers themselves.
– Ian Davidson MP, member of New Labour, the “Party of Devolution” actively deriding the notion that powers should be given to the Scottish Parliament just because the SNP happen to be the government
Now, our position is not that, you see, our position is that we believe that Westminster have been given powers to deal with this matter by the Scottish people in the referendum. That’s where our legitimacy comes from. Our legitimacy comes from the Scottish people in the referendum. We have therefore got a responsibility to decide how these matters could be, should be dealt with.
– Mr Davidson believes that the 1997 referendum was about giving powers to Westminster, rather than reconvening the Scottish Parliament…
We have the opportunity if we wish simply to hand over our powers to the Scottish Parliament, but we choose not to do so, and what we are saying in the committee is that the Scottish MPs, and the Scottish Affairs Committee, should have the responsibility for reviewing and supervising and assessing any Section 30 notice that is proposed.
– “The Party of Devolution.” Right there.
Comyn to Westminster
“The referendum will be timed to take place after the anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn, which is celebrated mainly because Scots slew large numbers of English people. We thought that Scotland in the 21st and 22nd century would be looking forward, and would be progressive and positive. Celebrating the murder of hundreds or thousands of English people does not necessarily provide the best base on which to move forward.”
– Ian Davidson, January 2013
That Mr Davidson equates a battle in which the Scottish people successfully repelled an invading army with “murder” is bad enough for its warping of historical context – but it’s the hypocrisy which gets me.
See, in October 2003, the Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell tabled a motion to celebrate the Battle of Trafalgar:
That this House celebrates the Battle of Trafalgar of the 21st October 1805 as a high point of an intense 29 month campaign waged by the Royal Navy to thwart the French and Spanish invasion of Great Britain; pays tribute to the dedication of the brave people of Gibraltar and commends the Government of Gibraltar for commemorating the historic event by hosting Gibraltar Day in the city of London; further notes the continuing success of the territory’s thriving economy and culture; and urges Her Majesty’s Government to maintain and strengthen the steadfast links between the peoples of Gibraltar and the United Kingdom.
Both battles involved a defending people successfully repelling an invading force intent on their domination, and determining that people’s independence. Yet Mr Davidson seemed perfectly fine with what should be, by his own logic, “celebrating the murder of hundreds of thousands of French and Spanish people,” given that he was one of the 34 signatories of the motion. Evidently it’s alright to celebrate historical bloodshed over our friends in one Union (EU) but not our friends in another (UK).
But the most striking example of Mr Davidson’s hypocrisy took place this year, during George Osborne’s budget speech:
“And, Mr Deputy Speaker, we could not let the 600th anniversary of Agincourt pass without commemoration. The battle of Agincourt is, of course, celebrated by Shakespeare as a victory secured by a “band of brothers” It is also when a strong leader defeated an ill-judged alliance between the champion of a united Europe and a renegade force of Scottish nationalists. So it is well worth the £1 million we will provide to celebrate it.”
As of the 25th of March 2015, Mr Davidson has neither corrected Mr Osborne’s misapprehension about the Scottish presence at Agincourt, “renegade,” “nationalist” or otherwise (presumably he’s mixing it up with Vernuil), nor did he point out the technicality that the English lost the Hundred Years War, nor has he condemned Mr Osborne’s commitment to spend £1 million “celebrating the murder of hundreds of thousands of French and Scottish people.” Not a peep.
It’s almost as if commemorating Scottish history is parochial and backwards, while commemorating English history is not. It would be nice to at least have some sort of consistency.
Let Govan Die
THE Ministry Of Defence could award a defence contract worth billions of pounds to the Clyde shipyards – and then take it back if Scotland becomes independent, a Glasgow MP has suggested.
Labour MP Ian Davidson, whose Glasgow South West constituency includes BAE’s Govan yard, suggested a “break clause” in the event of a Yes vote in next year’s referendum, meaning the contract for Type 26 frigates would revert back to the UK Government to be reconsidered.
An announcement is expected soon on the contract for 13 frigates, with each vessel estimated to cost £250m-£350million.
Mr Davidson says the UK Government does not build warships in other countries and he believes the decision cannot wait until after next September’s vote.
However, the “break clause” suggestion was described by Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon as “outrageous”.
The future of Govan and Scotstoun is dependent on the awarding of the Type 26 frigates, which will be built between 2015 and 2021 and provide work for 1500 people.
The ships will replace the Royal Navy’s existing Type 23 frigates.
Mr Davidson said the referendum was a factor in the decision on where to place the contract and pointed out the UK Government had stated it does not build warships in other territories.
Thus far, Ian Davidson has shown himself to be a liar, a hypocrite, and a bully. But it was only with the coming of the referendum that it was clear just how far he was willing to sell his constituents down the river to please his masters in Westminster.
“There should be no unnecessary delays in awarding the contract. The MoD does not need to wait for the referendum to issue contract. It could place the order with the provision that if Scotland separates it would revert back to the MoD where to place it. There would be a break clause in it. Then the SNP needs to be clear about what it would do if the order is taken back.”
It truly and utterly beggars belief. Mr Davidson, along with his fellow New Labour colleagues in Glasgow, embarked upon a relentless carpet-fear-bombing of the Glasgow Area by targeting the fear of unemployment:
The New Labour in Scotland message was that “separation” (they couldn’t even bring themselves to use the word independence) would result in disaster and uncertainty. Yet even that didn’t seem to be enough, so Mr Davidson went further still: not only did he conjure these phantom threats about the Royal Navy abandoning its plans to build the Type-26 frigates, he actually went so far as to personally make sure that this could happen. Uncertainty wasn’t enough: Ian Davidson was saying that if Scots voted for independence, then he would personally make sure thousands of jobs in his own constituency would be jeopardised.
This alone should show that Ian Davidson is resolutely, unambiguously unfit to represent the people of Govan. If he was willing to blackmail his constituents upon threat of mass unemployment for the sake of his own job, then how can you defend electing him again? You have to wonder where it would end. At what point would he put the interests of his constituents before those of Westminster?
Here’s how Mr Davidson reacted to the loss of 800 jobs, many in his own constituency:
RONA DOUGALL: Ian Davidson, 800 jobs have been lost here, but Govan and Scotstoun stay open.
IAN DAVIDSON: On balance, this is an excellent day for Scottish shipbuilding.
If that was an “excellent day,” I’d hate to see a dour one.
“We have been told Faslane’s facilities could be replicated at an existing English naval base but the Royal Naval Armaments Depot at Coulport is unique in the UK. It could mean that effectively the UK’s nuclear weapons will be based in a foreign country for many years. There are also of course huge cost implications of making such a transition. Unilateral nuclear disarmament could be imposed upon the rest of the UK by a separate Scotland.”
– Why was Mr Davidson so distraught about unilateral nuclear disarmament being “imposed” on the UK in August 2012, given that he voted against maintaining Trident in March 2007 and against renewing the UK’s nuclear weapons in January 2015? As with Katy Clark, Mr Davidson puts New Labour and the United Kingdom before his principles
QUESTIONER: “Mr Davidson! You abstained from the [bedroom tax] vote?”
DAVIDSON: “No I didn’t.”
Q: “You didn’t abstain from the vote?”
Q: “How did you vote?”
D: “I voted No.”
Q: “You voted No?”
D: “Yes, I voted against the government.”
Q: “Did you?”
D: “Yes. So you’ve got that wrong. Thank you.”
– Ian Davidson is either extremely absent-minded, or a lying scumbag
“There is a major question of principle here to be addressed as to whether or not the referendum can be bought and sold with foreign gold. Even at this late day, I would hope that the Scottish Parliament and the SNP would show confidence in their own ability to raise money from Scots in Scotland and desist from taking foreign money.”
– Mr Davidson in January 2013 seems perfectly fine with the “foreign gold” from Ian Taylor, Alex Ferguson, C.J.Samson. And speaking of “raising money from Scots in Scotland…”
“The debate will go on in the sense there is a large number of wounded still to be bayoneted … the BBC will continue its campaign. But effectively I get the impression that throughout the country, people have already decided.”
– Mr Davidson, October 2013. The SNP now have 100,000 members. 1.6 million people voted Yes. Hope you have a lot of bayonets.
“In principle, I would be in favour of shifting tax powers to Scotland unless there is an argument against them. It is clear that any transfer of income tax powers would result in a re-examination of the Barnett formula which is enormously advantageous to Scotland. The loss of the Barnett formula would be quite considerable and reopening of Barnett would undoubtedly be to Scotland’s detriment.”
– Mr Davidson argues against New Labour in Scotland’s tax-raising proposals, February 2014. A year later, New Labour in Scotland would dare to say it’s the SNP who want to “abolish” the Barnett Formula
“People in Scotland will be anxious about whether or not their pensions are secure in the event of separation. I think that you are saying to us that their pensions WILL be secure because, if they have paid in then they will get out… the individual can be secure in the knowledge that they will get their money… The state pension of any individual in Scotland, in the event of separation, would not be adversely affected, that they would continue to get the level of state pension, the same as everyone else in the UK… People themselves can be assured that their pensions are secure.”
– Mr Davidson at the Scottish Affairs Select Committee in May 2014. Yet he did nothing to stop his own party from distributing thousands of leaflets warning of pension insecurity:
Can It Be Done?
God almighty, I hope so.
Chris Stephens is the SNP hopeful for Glasgow South West, and this isn’t his first dance with Mr Davidson: he contested the constituency in 2010.
|General Election 2005: Glasgow South West|
|Labour Co-op||Ian Davidson||18,653||60.2||-1.7|
|Liberal Democrat||Katy Gordon||3,593||11.6||+6.1|
|Scottish Socialist||Keith Baldassara||1,666||5.4||-4.1|
|Independent Green Voice||Alistair McConnachie||379||1.2||+1.2|
|Socialist Labour||Violet Shaw||143||0.5||+0.5|
|Labour Co-op hold||Swing||+0.2|
|General Election 2010: Glasgow South West|
|Labour Co-op||Ian Davidson||19,863||62.5||+2.3|
|Liberal Democrat||Isabel Nelson||2,870||9.0||-2.6|
|Solidarity (TUSC)||Tommy Sheridan||931||2.9||N/A|
|Labour Co-op hold||Swing||+0.7|
So following from his Pollok elections in 1997 (19,653, 59.9 %, 42% majority) and 2001 (15,497, 61.3%, 44.6% majority), Mr Davidson managed to recoup enough of the retiring Mohammed Sarwar’s Govan votes to expand his vote in the new Glasgow South West constituency:
2005: 18,653 (60.2%, -1.7, 44.9% majority)
2010: 19,863 (62.5%, +2.3, 46.2% majority)
Meanwhile, the SNP have lurked around the 4,000-5,000 mark, no doubt due to the strong Labour residue of Glasgow combined with the “only voting Labour can stop the Tories” lie:
2005: 4,757 (15.4%, -2.1)
2010: 5,192 (16.3%, +1)
Yet amazingly, Lord Ashcroft’s polling indicates a 45% SNP vote to New Labour’s 42%, a 25% swing. Much like Inverclyde, Glasgow South West looks like it’ll be a knife edge.
The working class voters of Govan and Pollok are understandably fed up with Mr Davidson’s betrayal of their interests – so much so that the SNP are not alone. David Johnson of the Patriotic Socialist Party, Bill Bonnar of the Scottish Socialists, and Sean Templeton of the Scottish Greens are also contesting the seat. I cannot help but note my frustration that four left-wing, anti-austerity, anti-Trident parties are threatening to split the vote against one of the few New Labour stalwarts who has fooled people into thinking he’s still a socialist. Nonetheless, the right-wing, pro-austerity, pro-Trident parties are in the same boat: Gordon McCaskill of the Conservatives, Isabel Nelson of the Neoliberal Democrats, and Sarah Hemy of UKIP are also contesting. Four against four. Will the SNP harness enough disillusioned Labour and Liberal voters?
Ian Davidson does not deserve to represent Glasgow South West in the UK Parliament. He has proven that he is more interested in vilifying the SNP than representing his constituents, and would put the United Kingdom before the job security of his own voters. He does not deserve a single one of the 19,863 votes he received in 2010. People of Glasgow South West, I implore you: use your vote elsewhere. I can’t tell you to vote SNP – but I can tell you that the SNP have been the strongest competition for the past 18 years.