Away with the Honourable Member
Do you remember Kenny Everett? The wireless DJ who generated a distinct brand of humour when he was translated to telly?
Remember one character in particular? The bearded bawd who was wont to declare that it was "all in the best possible taste"? Won't use the name for fear of transposing letters.
Well, I think s/he may have a modern rival. The plaintive MP who declares that their allowance claims were "all within the rules as laid down by the House".
Delivered with an ironic sneer, that's well on the way to becoming a contemporary catch-phrase.
Over the past few weeks, as this story has grown, I've been regularly asked to offer punditry on network programmes as to how Holyrood deals with this issue so much better than Westminster.
On each occasion, I have prefaced my comments by stressing that Holyrood only attained its present state of relative grace via a protracted period of atonement.
No intrinsic virtue
In the Scottish Parliament, all claims are receipt-based.
There are strict rules governing what can be claimed.
Every detail of every claim - however minute - is published, quarterly.
The second home support system is also being scrapped.
But twas not ever thus. It was George Reid, as presiding officer, who concluded - after endless adverse publicity - that maximum disclosure was the best policy.
So there is no intrinsic virtue at Holyrood. The reforms had to be argued, imposed - and implemented.
Basically rogues
I believe, however, that there is one fundamental difference between the two Parliaments which is highly relevant to this deeply damaging affair.
The concept of the "Honourable Member" is absent from the Scottish Parliament.
That is not to say that they are essentially dishonourable, that they are basically rogues.
Rather, it is to say that the core element of collective self-regard which is an inbuilt feature at Westminster is diminished at Holyrood.
MPs are all honourable. If members of the Privy Council, they are Right Honourable.
If QCs, they are Learned. If officers in the armed forces, they are Gallant. If members of the clergy, they are Reverend.
Even for free thinkers, even for iconoclasts, even for radicals, there can be an insidious, subtle appeal at Westminster.
It goes with the territory, with the essential feudalism of the place.
Atmospheric change
You're an Honourable Member. You're better than the rest. You're special. What right have people to question your domestic affairs? What's it to do with them?
There has been much talk that politics has to change fundamentally as a consequence of this affair.
I suspect that, in the long term, the change will be atmospheric rather than structural.
We will, I guess, still elect MPs. They will still sit in party ranks. The biggest party will still form the government.
They will be entitled to claim out-of-pocket expenses.
But, although the nomenclature may persist, it will be away with the Honourable Member.
It will be away with the sense that they are an elite, remote from any regulation other than the self-imposed variety.
Never glad over-confident morning again.
I'm 
Comments
or to comment.