Part-time MPs should replace MSPs - Forsyth

Key points

• Embarrassment for Tories as former secretary of state proposes scheme to save 129 salaries

• Speech undermines party's efforts to rebuild credibility

Key quote

"As the Scottish Parliament sits only one and a half days a week on average, why cannot we get rid of all 129 [MSPs] altogether?" - Lord Forsyth

Story in full THE Scottish Tories suffered an embarrassing setback yesterday in their efforts to portray themselves as supporters of devolution when it emerged that one of the party’s most senior figures, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, had publicly called for the abolition of all MSPs.

Lord Forsyth, a former Scottish secretary and still one of the most influential figures in the Scottish Conservative Party, said he believed there should not be any MSPs at all, and that Westminster MPs could cover their workload without much trouble.

He said the money saved could be spent on employing "more useful" people such as medical staff and teachers.

Speaking last month in the House of Lords, Lord Forsyth stated: "As the Scottish Parliament sits only one and a half days a week on average, why cannot we get rid of all 129 [MSPs] altogether?

"Why cannot we have Scottish MPs sitting in the Scottish Parliament on Mondays and Tuesdays? They could discuss English business at Westminster. On Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, they could come down and we could discuss UK business."

And he added: "That would solve the West Lothian question and save the salaries of 129 MSPs who are all paid full salaries and allowances, and we could spend the money on doctors, nurses and teachers, who might be more useful."

Lord Forsyth’s comments delighted the Tories’ political opponents who claimed the former Scottish Secretary had exposed the real nature of the Tory Party.

Margaret Curran, Minister for Parliament in the Labour-led Executive, said: "This exposes the Thatcherite agenda at the heart of Michael Howard’s Conservative Party.

"We know the Tories are committed to savage cuts in Scotland but axing the Scottish Parliament is a cut too far."

And she added: "Forsyth is well known as the man who worked with Michael Howard to introduce the poll tax in Scotland. The people of Scotland have comprehensively rejected him in the past. He has clearly learned nothing from that."

And Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP deputy leader, said: "It is barmy comments like these which remind us why Michael Forsyth was drummed out of politics and why the Tories remain totally irrelevant."

A spokesman for the Scottish Conservative Party played down the impact of Lord Forsyth’s remarks.

He said: "These are Michael Forsyth’s views. The party here is committed to devolution and committed to making it work."

Lord Forsyth was fiercely opposed to devolution and campaigned hard against the creation of the parliament in the years before the 1997 referendum.

But his comments still represent a major headache for the Scottish Tories who have tried hard to portray themselves as a pro-devolution party since 1997.

Until now, Lord Forsyth has largely kept his views to himself, allowing the Scottish Tories to insist they support the Scottish Parliament.

But, by speaking up in the Lords, he has undermined much of the work that has been done to help the Tories regain credibility on this issue by David McLetchie, the Scottish party leader.

Lord Forsyth was not the only member of the House of Lords to divert from the party line.

The Liberal Democrat Earl of Marr and Kellie used the same debate to call for Scotland to become independent and to become a "dominion" of the Queen, having the autonomy of former colonies like Canada.

Official Liberal Democrat policy is for the UK to become a federation, with Scotland a part of that structure within the UK.

But the Earl said he believed the SNP’s approach was better. He said: "At present, we are in an uncomfortable half-way house.

"One option is to revert to direct rule, putting the half-awake/half-asleep state back to bed, and another is to learn to live with devolution and the subsidy which goes with it. Ultimately, that subsidy is patronising to a national community.

"The ultimate solutions are for Scotland to take back its sovereignty, repealing all the Scotland Act schedules which reserve legislation to Westminster. The choice would then have to be made over whether to seek dominion status, to preserve the British social union, or whether to go for a republic. I favour a dominion, because I do not want bitterness to determine the outcome."

No spokesman for the Scottish Liberal Democrats was available to comment on the Earl’s remarks.