What planet has he been on? As Westminster experiences a virtual putsch with defenestration not unlikely, he thinks Brexit has split the Scottish parties in four-ways. He’s missed the obvious point that the SNP seems unaffected, that the Tories have all meekly joined Boris, that Labour have been whipped by their London bosses and that the Lib Dems are of no interest outside their northern shoogly-fastness.
Has Frain been to see action in Holyrood or even read much of it. See these accounts of why it is designed to be less fractious than Westminster. First from Green Ross Greer:
With the chamber at Holyrood designed to encourage less confrontational debate and greater compromise between different parties, Mr Greer agreed with the suggestion that the tone of debate in the Scotland is quite different to that at Westminster. “There’s definitely a difference across the board here,” he said. “The Scottish Parliament was set up deliberately to foster a culture that was about compromise and discussion and good-natured debate, rather than oppositional debate. “Most of what the Parliament does is actually done by consensus, but most folk wouldn’t know that, they wouldn’t expect that. “Most of our committee reports are done by consensus, most legislation that we pass everyone will vote for in the end.
And from the BBC:
Both chambers [in Westminster] are set out in an “adversarial rectangular pattern”, meaning that parties directly face their opposition. After the Commons Chamber was destroyed in 1943 during the Blitz, Prime Minister Winston Churchill insisted it was rebuilt in the same shape, claiming that “‘we shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us”. Holyrood’s single Chamber was constructed in the hemicycle (horseshoe) shape found throughout European legislatures. Advocates of this design claim it encourages consensus and compromise between parties.