BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Stan_Dards

Listed below are comments made by Stan_Dards between Wednesday, 1st July 2009 and Friday, 7th August 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Keeping time 10:35am on 07 Aug 2009 Bandages or was it Old Nat

Did you get a response from the parliament's info re your enquiry about the code of conduct for MSPs?
Keeping time 10:33am on 07 Aug 2009 #1500 greenockboy wrote -

It reminds me of my first few weeks in London when I almost caused a row in a shop when I asked the shopgirl for a 'poke'.

And, did she give you one?
The Queen 4:46pm on 03 Jul 2009 Bandages

What bedevilled me, in my 153 above, was your reference to S3M - 3757. I still don't think that motion has a great deal to do with the underlying point of your posts. As I correctly pointed out - S3M-3757 makes no effective change from principles being mandatory to rules being aspirational or anything of the sort. That happened earlier.

Yes it does, and youll see this if you compare current version of code with version prior to passing of S3M-3757. No mention now of duties to be accessible, conscientiously represent, or treating communities interests and wishes as being paramount. I also wrote that S3M-3757 was only part responsible.

Are there MSPs who do nothing or very little? I can I suggest Lord George Foulkes and Margo MacDonald. When did these 2 last hold surgeries? Margo MacDonald may have actually never held a surgery. Have seen Foulkes expenses for attending the Lords, if being an MSP is a full time job just where does he get the time. Theres others.

MSPs unlike other public employees are not accountable to their employer ie the Scottish public. You cant meaningfully question your employee ie MSP to find out what theyve been doing or not doing, nor do you have access to their records of work. No rational employer would tolerate an arrangement where the employees didnt have to account for their time, yet thats precisely the arrangement MSPs have bound the public to. One set of rules for MSPs another for the rest of us. Margo MacDonald was not in the chamber to vote on motion S3M-3757, Id ask her why not, but from experience shell ignore the question. Would she if she was bound to answer and sanctions could be applied if she didnt?

Can you not use your time more effectively and apply your interest in debating to bring about some more useful end than the intrinsic enjoyment you get from debate? There must be hundreds of issues than you could take on rather than just bloggin.

I think its extremely important that we get the highest standards from our representatives. A major reason we have for the deteriorating numbers turning out to vote is because of the low regard that we have for our politicians.

Re grammar and long sentences. I thought I made fairly judicious use of the semi-colon (comma with moon above) which allows one to link sentences, with common themes and even give a sentence-like structure.

Paranoid most certainly, when it comes to MSPs. I wont detail my experiences of them.

At the moment I do have a bit of time on my hands, but pursuing the standards thing (but I wont let it go), or blogging, are things I dont particularly enjoy. If it wasnt p down with rain at the moment Id be on my bike cycling down for a few beers in Stockbridge.
The Queen 2:23pm on 03 Jul 2009 BANDAGES

Try st cmmtee website, or information office. I suggest you also look at submissions for the reviews of the code. Won't find mine there, mine were surpressed! MSP allowed to make a late submission, but I wasn't. Submission covered the same ground as that covered by the standards comissioner, but mine according to the convenour did not relate to the call for evidence! Other submission was not taken because my request for privacy, like the committee members give themselves when making their contribution to the review was not to be agreed to. One submission was made on my behalf - very poorly presented, MSP couldn't even spell principle properly she spelt it principal. The tenor of your responses indicate very strongly that your an MSP. I'm trying, and it's very difficult, to move my country forward on the matter of standards of representation, and I get abused by you, so typical of the quality of people we're daft enough to elect.
The Queen 1:25pm on 03 Jul 2009 #148 oldnat and bandages

Thanks old nat

You wouldnt get a full understanding of the changes to the code by solely reading that report. I got drawn into the world of standards sometime ago, and Im appalled at what Ive come across. I was naïve enough to believe that MSPs existed to serve Scotlands interests, not their own.

The code allows MSPs to nothing, and even worse, MSPs dont have to explain why they may be doing nothing. A specific example constituent asks MSP to take on a case for them; MSP need not take on case, and worse, does not have to explain why they didnt take on the case (but of course will still receive full salary). and it gets worse, they dont even have to acknowledge the request from the constituent! The Presiding Officer informed me that MSPs will have met their obligation, ooops there I go again, MSPs are not obligated to do anything, will have abided by the principle of accessibility by the provision of an email address. They dont have to answer correspondence received! When I queried this and said failure to respond would go against our entitlement to the highest standards of representation, he said in effect that ignoring correspondence would have not breached that entitlement because MSPs can choose how to respond and no response according to him is a response and beacause beacause of this will have provided the highest standards of representation. If you don't believe me I'll provide the evidence. ooooooooops Ive done it again, the Scottish public are not entitled to anything from their MSPs.
The Queen 12:44pm on 03 Jul 2009
Thank you for your contribution. Are you perhaps a MSP? Want to abide the principle of our parliament of openness and give me your name? At the outset of the parliament openness was mandatory; MSPs dont like being bound to do anything, so along with all the other principles they changed its status to being aspirational ie it will be at MSPs discretion as to whether or not they will be open.

Ten years ago, at the inception of our parliament, the founding principles were NOT aspirational. These principles were rules which formed part of the code and could result in sanctions being applied against those who breached them. At the review of the code, prior to the most recent, these rules had their status changed from being mandatory to aspirational, however, annexe 5 of the code was subsumed into the revised version of code, which meant that conscientious representation from an MSP and access to an MSP would still mandatory and in addition MSPs would still be mandated to treat the interests of their constituents and communities as being paramount. This slip-up, was I believe the catalyst for the most recent review of the code which resulted in to change the status of the 3 aforementioned obligations to being aspirational.

I suggest that you read the original version of the code, the version that existed 10 years ago, and youll see that the principles formed part of the code and were mandatory. I also suggest you read the reports of the standards committee relating to its reviews of the relevant sections of the code, and youll find contrary to your assertion, that what I wrote in my initial contribution to this blog is in fact true.

The following is a letter that I wrote recently, and will perhaps help your comprehension. Hope that sentences arent too long for you

Most people will be unaware that they dont have a right to representation from their MSPs.

At the inception of the parliament, and for 10 years, MSPs were mandated to represent their constituents conscientiously; however the previous Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, Dr Jim Dyer, found it problematic to judge on complaints relating to this obligation because of its subjectivity. His proposed solution, rather than suggesting that time and effort be taken to define conscientious representation, was to remove the obligation to represent conscientiously, in effect to remove the peoples right to representation. When he and the standards committee were asked why his proposal would be in the public interest they failed to answer.

On the 25 March 2009, with the passing of motion S3M-375, Dr Dyers suggestion, along with his suggestion to remove the right to complain about an MPS service, were put into practice, so MSPs now have the right to do no work at all, yet retain the right to £1/4 million, from their employer, the Scottish public; and if any MSP chose to do nothing, or very little (some may already do), no sanction could be applied and they could also justifiably claim that they had done nothing wrong when have we heard that before? Perhaps our MSPs would like to explain why this unique, and absurd, employee/employer relationship will improve standards of representation, ensure value for money, and be the interest of the Scottish people.

Hope Ive not caused any embarrassment to you by pointing out that you really dont know what youre on about.
The Queen 08:51am on 03 Jul 2009 Oldnat #13

Sorry for error, wasn't a typo on my part, had copied it from a MSP's email, the only one who'd responded to my ask - why the passing of the this motion was in the public interest - and she didn't answer the question.

S3M-03757 Gil Paterson (West of Scotland) (Scottish National Party): Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament: Review of Section 8 of the Code of Conduct.

Perhaps you might find it interesting if you were to ask your MSPs why they felt removing all regulations in respect of MSPs' liaisons with their constituents will ensure the highest standards of representation? Specifically, MSPs no longer having to treat their constituents wishes and that of their communities as being paramount; no longer having to be accessible to their constituents eg hold surgeries, answer correspondence; no longer having to give their constituents and employers explanations for what they did or didn't do; no longer having to turn up to work! It's possible for a MSP to do absolutely nothing for 4 years, and absolutely nothing could be done about that as no sanctions can now be applied for failing to represent conscientiously. The principles of the parliament should now be re-written to read

MSPs do not have to be accessible to their constituents
MSPs do not have to represent their constituents conscientiously
MSPS do not have to act with integrity or show leadership
MSPs do not have to be open as possible about their decisions
MSPs do not have to give account for their actions to the Scottish people

What happened on the 25 March is similar to the actions of the Pigs in the novel Animal Farm. When I used this analogy a few weeks before the presentation of the motion the then convenor of the standards committee tried to ban correspondence with me because he found the comparison offensive! He thought I'd likened him and his fellow members to the animal, pigs, not the characters. He hadn't read the book, I doubt if he'd even heard of it - he's now the Schools' Minister!
The Queen 08:15am on 03 Jul 2009 #13 Brownedove

How would the 5% needed be informed of the failings of a MSP?

How would your suggestion deal with miscreant MSPs who arent going to seek re-election or are not particularly fussed about being re-elected?

There would still be the conflict of quality of representation with party manifesto

How would your suggestion ensure redress for an individual whod been failed by a MSP?
The Queen 8:30pm on 01 Jul 2009 At the inception of the Scottish Parliament MSPs were mandated to abide by its founding principles eg they were bound to represent their constituents conscientiously; be open and give account for their decisions; be accessible to their constituents. Ten years on these obligations have changed status, in part through the passing of motion S3M-375 on 25 March 2009, from being that of rules to being merely aspirational, ie MSPs are no longer bound to carry out any functions associated with their work as an MSP, performing these duties will be completely discretionary they neednt represent their constituents conscientiously, in effect neednt represent them at all eg by doing casework; through attending committee meetings and meetings of the parliament; answering correspondence; by being accessible; explaining themselves or being open about their decisions; treating their communities and constituents interests as being paramount.In addition constituents have lost their right to complain about the quality of service they receive from their MSPs. Its now possible for an MSP to do absolutely no work at all, during a session of Parliament, receive almost ¼ million pounds, and nothing could be done about that between elections, and the MSP could justifiably say, in his or her defence, that they had done nothing wrong (Where have we heard that before?). Although that is an extreme and unlikely scenario the quality of representation will certainly gravitate to that extreme rather than towards excellence. The ballot box, as MSPs know, does not provide protection for individual constituents from being failed by their MSPs nor does it provide a means ofredress for individual constituents, for in the main the electorate vote for the contents of manifestos, and will typically be ignorant of an MPS dealings with individual constituents and specifics of what the MSP has been doing or not doing. The ballot box as the only course of redress for an aggrieved constituent better protects the interests of MSPs who cant or wont perform conscientiously and or competently.

Ive asked numerous MSPs, the previous standards commissioner and members of the standards committee, why the change in the status of the principles of the parliament was in the public interest and would improve the quality of representation, none have been able to answer those questions. The only group which benefits is that which comprises 129 MSPs. MSPs have brought about a unique employee employer agreement. The employees, MSPs, acting on behalf of their employer, the Scottish public, have given themselves the right to do nothing, but have given themselves the right to receive £1/4 for a session of parliament! No rational employer would agree to this arrangement! So perhaps our MSPs would like to explain why they entered the Scottish people into such an arrangement. And by removing the complaints procedure have lessend the chance of any of misdemeanours being made public and for their constituents to call them to account.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

Stan_Dards