Money, money, money
It wasn't, in truth, the most elevating or entertaining debate I have witnessed in the Scottish Parliament. However, it wasn't as hideous as some had feared.
MSPs were discussing their own money: not their salaries but the allowances which assist them to carry out their job by, for example, employing support staff.
It was, mercifully, brief: just a little more than half an hour. But it still scarcely adds to the dignity of Parliament to have MSPs bickering in public about their own funding.
The debate followed an investigation by Sir Alan Langlands, the Principal of Dundee University.
He called for an end to the system of helping with mortgage payments for those MSPs from far-flung constituences who buy a property in Edinburgh. In future, if they want help, they'll have to rent or stay in an hotel.
That's supported on all sides. But there is division over staff allowances.
Basically, Labour favours paying constituency MSPs more in allowances than regional list members. The SNP, the Tories and the Greens want parity between constituency and list.
Two classes
These positions, of course, are entirely based upon logic, evidence and principle. They are not remotely connected with the fact that Labour members mostly occupy constituency seats while the others rely heavily on the list.
The LibDems are allowing their members a free vote. This is, of course, because of their commitment to open parliamentary democracy and not at all because they couldn't agree a common position.
Seems to me there is merit on both sides of this dispute. Citing equity, one might argue that there should not be two classes of MSP: they should receive the same support.
However, citing fairness, one might argue that constituency MSPs are likely to have a greater caseload - and, hence, require more staff. On balance, Langlands advanced that case.
The debate itself was relatively constrained: perhaps there was a folk memory of Parliament's earliest days in 1999 when a rammy over allowances soured the start of devolution.
Michael McMahon quoted LBJ as he accused Labour's rivals of orchestrating a fix. Some nodded in agreement.
Others smiled gently at this onslaught on political machination from a scion of Lanarkshire Labour.
'Offensive' move
Cathie Craigie, Labour MSP for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, voiced disquiet with elements of the list system. She appeared to be accusing Nationalist list members of cherry-picking issues in her constituency - while her own work-load was immense.
Shortage of time prevented Ms Craigie from reminding the chamber which party was responsible for introducing the top-up list system.
That would be Labour. The best contribution came from Ross Finnie of the Liberal Democrats.
After summarising the competing cases, he closed by arguing passionately that members should be treated equally. Anything else was "offensive" and contrary to Holyrood's founding principles.
They vote tonight at five. Catch the outcome here.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Update: equity rules. MSPs have voted to give the same allowances to constituency and list members..
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~33~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
The Political Parties will each vote in which favours them.
Of course, Holyrood was built on principles that each MSP was equal which should continue.
Labour should of looked into the future abit more and thought that one day the List MSP's may become a problem politically since they have the same amount of money available but less work to do.
Complain about this comment
Policing the present arrangements properly might be a start. Do we know, for example, if MSPs claiming hotel rooms actually stay there? Expense claims should be just that - capable of withstanding third-party scrutiny. Allowances for staff and travel should be verifiable. Everything else comes out of the MSPs'own pockets. That's how it is in the real world. What's their problem?
Complain about this comment
MSP's have in the past been able to purchase Edinburgh housing during their stay in office. This with the public purse open to abuse. After they vacate office they can then sell the acquired property on for a huge profit. Surely this money should have been returned to the public purse.
Complain about this comment
"LIKELY to have a greater caseload" - That doesn't sound too scientific.
I suspect that there are lazy constituency MSPs, and list MSPs who work very hard. The truth is that MSPs can choose to work as hard as they want - but this reflects on them at the end of the day.
Complain about this comment
Regional List Members existance needs to be substantiated - the original intention was these should be a transitional presence and I have never understood why their existence has continued. There would not be a debate on different allowances if this 2-tier anachronism ceased.
Complain about this comment
I agree MSPs should not be claiming such expenses as property allowances from the tax payer.
Indeed, their entire expense account should be entirely transparent and open to scrutiny - and things do appear to be moving in the right direction in that regard.
What, then, about our MPs and MEPs? Their system of allowances and expences appears a good deal more opaque, and radical steps are required to remedy that situation, and to trim back their expenses, sooner rather than later.
With regard to having 'two tiers' of MSP, I agree with Ross Finnie that that is not a desirable 'solution' and believe all members should be regarded as equal on principal.
Finally, we often hear examples of how Holyrood's structure or systems of operation were set up by the Labour party.
I fully realise they were the dominant party at the time - but given their obvious vested interests, and the fact that the democracy of the nation was at issue - should Labour have been authorised to 'rig' the system as they saw fit, or shouldn't that process have been handled by a neutrally-appointed or cross-party body???
Complain about this comment
Brian,
A fair piece. One quibble though. MSPs were not debating what to do with 'their' money. They were debating what to do with 'our' money.
Just a thought.
Best Wishes,
William.
Complain about this comment
On an other thread listened to First Minister questions today what a pity Brian you or Hamish did not congratulate Alex Salmond and Goverment for the medal to the memory of the Lancastria all this time and nothing from our Union Parties when in power.
Complain about this comment
Regarding Lancastria medal, I was very surprised not to see this issue being given airtime on main BBC news this evening at 10pm. Not worthy surely?
Complain about this comment
I think parity on the basis of all MSPs being equal is the only sensible solution.
On workloads, surely that will be based on who constituents choose to approach to deal with their grievances? If a list MSP has a high profile and has a reputation for being helpful in comparison with the local constituency MSP - then their workload would grow and the constituency MSPs reduce.
I can't see too much wrong with having a couple of people competing to attract the attention of the voters.
Complain about this comment
Glad the principle of equality of members has been upheld by the parliament. I hate to find myself agreeing with a Lib Dem, but Finnie made a valuable contribution today.
Complain about this comment
"Offensive"; Doesn't come `close to it`.
They employ a "friendly" academic/businessman to go away and review the issue. He comes back a year later with his report that says; they should get even more expense allowances, just be more careful how you account for it.
"Dignity"; When did that ever concern them?.
Complain about this comment
It's a disgrace that Ross Finnie is denying Parliament staff recommended payscales in order that he doesn't feel like a "second class citizen".
The issue of parity of esteem is completely seperate from the fact that the staffing requirements for regional MSPs are different to those for a constiutency Member as the independent review found. In Parliament constutency and regional MSPs are equal but there is no doubt that the non-parliamentary role of constituency and regional MSPs in different and that is reflected in the MSPs' code of conduct.
Complain about this comment
Salaries: There should be a single tier for all MSPs salaries and it should be about half what they are getting at the moment - if that.
Expenses: They should have to make their own arrangements for living in Edinburgh just like everybody else - out of their own (smaller) salary.
Targets: A system of targets should be introduced that ties their salary level to quantifiable results. If they can prove they have actually done something practical to help someone in the real world they can keep the same salary level they are on. If not they should take a salary cut.
These measures bring MSPs into line with the vast majority of working people in this country who are responsible for paying their wages.
Complain about this comment
Their is no point in splitting MSPs expenses. Constituency and list MSPs have different challenges. I have a Labour constituency MSP. There are many fundamental political issues I disagree with her on. So I would prefer to go to one of my list MSPs, who I voted for, if I have a problem. A list MSP has to cover a much larger area than a constituency MSP, which means, by its nature, more work.
Labour should get over getting beat last year and stop picking pointless, petty fights. However, they are so pathetic, I doubt if they ever will.
Roll on 2010....
Complain about this comment
bighullabaloo:
Salaries: It's hard enough to get good people to stand for parliament. Cutting salaries is hardly going to help. An average MSPs workload is very heavy. Many work 80plus hours per week.
Expenses: These are broadly in line with what happens for "working people". If it is practical to travel daily to parliament, they get travel expenses, if not, they get accommodation expenses. Remember, they have houses and offices in their constituencies/areas which are their primary residences anmd workplaces.
Targets: Impossible to implement. And unnecessary. Remember they have to be re-elected every 4 years. So it is up to the electorate to hold their performance to account and get rid of them if they are lacking. It's called democracy
Complain about this comment
The current mind-set is to attack MSPs and MPs for their excessive salaries and expenditure and to obsessively scrutinise every penny they spend. There have been notable and well publicised examples of the misuse of public funds in this respect. It has become received wisdom that this is good and in the service of democracy.
Whilst transparancy is important and profligacy unacceptable here are two notes of caution to the over-zelous :
1. It does the cause of democracy no good to label all politicians as self-serving money-grabbers. This leads to cynical disengagement from the political process at a time when we need to encourage broader involvement in the great issues of the day.
2. Historically the fight to gain a living wage for our elected representatives was a crucial element of the struggle for democracy. Before MPs were paid only the very wealthy, or those sponsored by the very wealthy, could afford to stand for office.
Complain about this comment
The results of the Langlands investigation should have been made binding. What we are now seeing is the MSPs voting down parts of his report they don't like, purely out of self interest (44 of the 56 list MSPs are SNP, LibDem or Tory).
Where else in the world do people get to vote themselves more money?
Complain about this comment
Regarding comments at #7, he is absolutely correct. It is OUR money!
These issues, whether in Edinburgh, London or Brussels admirably demonstrate that the political elite view the taxpayers as nothing more than a source of cash to fill the trough in which they have their snouts.
As a slight aside there should be no such thing as "list" MSP's. These are essentially unelected individuals on the gravy train too.
Complain about this comment
#18
Westminster, for a start.
I believe the 'constituency and top-up list' MSP arrangement was set up to favour the party most likely to win constituency seats.
That would be Labour.
And, there being only 56 list members out of 129, they are hardly in a position to win a vote on anything for 'themselves', are they?
Complain about this comment
Broadband vailability CAN be universally available (satellite, etc.), so give the MSPs a PC, a webcam and a broadband allowance.
Then the MSPs can all stay at home - no travel costs to, or accommodation costs in, Edinburgh.
The parliament chamber would simply be a sea of PC monitors showing webcam views of our elected representatives.
Complain about this comment
It seemed disappointing enough for me that there ever was this perception that there were two-tiers of MSP. I remember during the first sitting of parliament, when everyone was still finding their feet, not too long ago, some regional MSPs' opinions were dismissed by constituency MSPs because of this perceived hierarchy. I felt that to be wrong then and I was quite glad when there was a sort of gentleman's agreement that such behaviour was not really appropriate. Yet, I do recall some murmurings since then and certainly I recall some Labour MSPs pointing out that Labour won more constituency MSPs in May, as if this had some value over their opponents.
Equality for MSPs is of the utmost importance and that is why I was somewhat surprised by Langlands' conclusions and so just assumed there would be all-party unity on the matter of equality for people in Scotland's representatives. It was bad enough, as I say, that there ever was a perception of a two-tier parliament and I think it would be bad for Scottish democracy should Holyrood have instituted a two-tier system as suggested by Langlands. That is why I assumed a sudden outbreak of consensus over this matter because should a two-tier be institutionalised then it would only increase the volume of those voices trying to dismiss the opinions of another MSP because he/she just happened to be a regional MSP. Holyrood, rightly as I see it, chose a form of PR in order to distinguish itself from a winner takes all Westminster way of doing things. If Langlands' conclusions were accepted in whole then it would only have led to a small creep back to Westminster's outdated practices. Perhaps, just perhaps, that small creep back to Westminster was what Labour had in mind all along ... pehaps.
Complain about this comment
scot2010:
Salaries: plenty of good people work in other industries for a lot less money. Why does this "you have to pay big money for top talent" not apply in these industries as well and why, if we are paying good money, are there so many mediocre MSPs?
Expenses: Your point only applies if you are lucky enought to work for some large corporation that pays relocation expenses. A lot of people who work for small companies (actually the majority of our workforce) have to make their own living arrangements.
Targets: It's possible to implement targets for every other occupation, but according to you, not for MSPs?!! How convenient. And what nonsense! Why should their day-to-day performance not be closely monitered like everyone else's?
Complain about this comment
You cannot support support staff without the support of a well filled purse. Inequality of resources for the representatives of the people would mean that some representatives were more equal than others and hence some of those represented better represented than others irrespective of the quality of the representative, which would be contrary to the spirit of the age and untenable in a democracy.
As for any suggestion that the salaries of members of the legislature should not be maintained at their current level, the wisdom of the ages, which we are all free to consult, would appear to teach us that the most effective way to prevent corruption in public representatives and other officials of the state entrusted with the treasury and the judicious disbursement of its contents for the welfare of the people is to pay them an appropriately respectable salary in recognition of the onerous and honourable functions which they are called upon to perform on our behalf.
"A light purse is a heavy Curse." (Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1745)
Complain about this comment
Quite an example from a body expecting their civil service to live on crumbs, while they award themselves a whole loaf!
Complain about this comment
Comment No 5 said: "Regional List Members existance needs to be substantiated - the original intention was these should be a transitional presence and I have never understood why their existence has continued. There would not be a debate on different allowances if this 2-tier anachronism ceased."
They were meant to be temporary BUT the minute Donald Dewar decided there would be a new Parliament building he effectively took the decision to keep the list MSPs. The new building was designed for 120 plus MSPs so once built to hold that number it would have looked stupid to people it with 50 odd MSPs. When it came to vote on retaining the list MSPs on a permanent basis, which they did shortly after moving into the new building, the decision had effectively been made for them.
So because of Donald Dewar's decision taken before the Parliament came into existence we, the taxpayer, are lumbered with paying the expenses and salaries of the list MSPs. To say nothing of the cost of the building!!
Complain about this comment
Forget MSPs' allowances - the government needs proper scrutiny and how are MSPs to do that without decently paid staff?
Can I add to comments from June 11 about the report on the BBC's coverage of Scotland in the news? I've just found the BBC Scottish History page - cheap, populist and poor - no attempt to provide anything like the comprehensive coverage of history that the "British" (i.e. English) history page has - headed-up by a competition - Scottish history top ten - truly pathetic.
And then the Gaelic site - with a learners' section that barely rates the name of tokenism.
Get those all those new MSPs' staff paid with the new allowances examining how Scottish public broadcasting can be improved.
Complain about this comment
I agree with the theory that in order to attract the very best of the the free thinking intellect and academia we should indeed make MSP's salaries highly attractive.
Those same intellectuals will of course be aware of the dangers of expense claims and nepotism when dealing with public funds, or so I believed, look no further than Westminster for systemic corruption within goverment.
Holyrood must be able to justify that every penny spent was absolutely neccessary, currently this is not the case.
Politicians using taxpayers funds to purchase Edinburgh property for the duration of their stay and pocketing the profit is a typical example.
MSP's have a wonderful opportunity to make the right choice here, let us hope they can grasp it.
Wansanshoo.
Complain about this comment
To those who want to see the end of the list system: always remember Joke McConnell would still be "in charge" of this country (having come second in the popular vote) - the man was nothing but a glorified bus boy.
Complain about this comment
brian
why is the bbc politics part of the site never updated. Today we have articles in the newspapers about the first ministers opinion on the stone of destiny, annabel goldie being asked to resign and wendy alexander being in trouble again for donations.
What do we get on the politics page.
nimrods and booze!!!!!
the report on the bbc failing was 100 percent correct.
They do not serve scotland and discuss things from and england centric point of view.
Complain about this comment
bighullabaloo:
Salaries: Yes plenty of good people work in other industries for less than an MSP. And many good people work for more. Just look at what many MSPs, as lawyers and other professions, could earn in private industry. Most are losing on the deal.
Expenses: The accomodation expenses are not "relocation expenses". The MSPs that get them still have their own homes in their constituencies where they families live. The expenses that they get are for what they spend when they are away from home. This is standard in all industries. Get real eh?
Targets: Try and read about what I said about democracy in my original post. If they don't do what they should, you can get rid of them.
Parliament has control of a large budget. The people who manage it must be up to the job. Their pay and conditions are reasonable for their job. In case you were wondering, I have no personal or family connections with any MSP. But I believe we need to provide a reasonable, industry standard, package for them
Complain about this comment
Brian:
they should be given an allowance on the inflation and other related grounds...
not pay raises every 3 months....
Complain about this comment
No.29 Pat Mirkwood
It is not the end of the list system we need - it is for all MSPs to be on the list system thus eliminating those surplus to requirements and considerably reducing the numbers we have to pay for!
It matters little which individual represents us - one is as good or as bad as another - in any case, the vast majority of us rarely hear from our elected representatives from one election till the next.
As for their expenses - we should have purchased suitable houses for them to live in and reaped the benefits from the profits as opposed to paying for them to do so.
Complain about this comment
Money, money, money.
Wendy Alexander amongst many other Labour memebers are testimony to that not only do we require complete transparency on spending, fundraising has been just as corrupt.
It is safe to say the public find Wendy Alexander and her party incredulous at best.
This latest Labour scandal involving Wendy Alexander will of course further damage her already tainted party,however, systemic failure within Labour to stop the sleaze has damage both Westminster and Holyrood.
Damage done to the Labour party is a Labour matter, damaging our democracy is a public matter.
I like many others simply cannot trust someone who is incapable of raising money legally having their hands on public funds.
Jackie Baillie should be warming her vocal chords now.
Wansanshoo.
Complain about this comment
I have always wondered why if MSPs need accommodation in Edinburgh and MPs need accommodation in London, no one has thought just to build a Halls of residence for them.
It would certainly be cheaper, they wouldn't need a second house allowance nor expense account to kit it out.
Politicians could stay in the various capitals for a lot less.
I also believe they should only be given tavelling expenses for travelling between their constituency and parliament.
A basic fuel allowance to be claimed back with reciepts for those who drive there, or refund the cost of a train or plane ticket. Everything else comes out of their pocket.
And as for staff costs, I can't see there being a big need for a tier system - from what I've seen both List and Constituent MSPs are busy - both again reciepts for everything and the taxpayer should only fund the basics - if you want fancy new office equipment you pay for it yourself.
Complain about this comment
scot2010:
I wasn?t wondering if you had ?personal or family connections? with an MSP, but it says everythign about the credibility of your arguments that you believe people might think you do. But it's not difficult to show that your arguments don?t hold water:
Salaries: Has it ever occurred to you that good people in other occupations might actually be achieving TANGIBLE, MEASURABLE RESULTS that fully justify their salaries? Can we say the same for MSPs? I don?t think so. And just because you do doesn?t make it true. Do any of our MSPs have the chance of better financial offers in industry? How would you know that? In the meantime let's consider one example: would you hire Wendy Alexander to do your sweetie shop books? I rest my case!
Expenses: If you want ?real? read a few of the better comments on this board (try #35 just above this one). No need for accommodation allowances. No need for travel expenses. Wherever MSPs or their families live what is wrong with a government-owned halls of residence near the parliament? Why was this not even considered as part of the new parliament building? But personally I don?t? see why we should pay to build and maintain one unless MSPs pay a reasonable rent for using it.
Targets: I don?t need you insulting me with ?try to read what I wrote? etc. I am perfectly capable of reading and seeing that what you write is not based on logical argument. You ask us to put our blind faith in ?democratic elections every four years? as a mechanism for dealing with corrupt, incompetent or just plain stupid MSPs. The vast majority of people would laugh in your face that elections are an effective safeguard. If this is so great why not have the same "safeguard" everybody else has?
If you don?t achieve the targets you are out on the street before you can say ?Bob?s your uncle?. How many useless people in industry get a four-year ?stay of execution? from being sacked that may or may not happen depending on a vote?
Time for YOU to get real!
Complain about this comment
well well brian more wendy story's. every one seems to be missing the point here. the electoral commision have admitted to not enforcing the rules / law for 5 years because the rules were to dificult for our politicians to comprehend,although the party's took a very large amount of cash to teach them all. then at the end of the 5 years we find that 1. the politicians just ignore the rules anyway and 2. when someone is found out and admits to breaking the rules /law they get off . blackivor- your post is spot on obviously you are to clever to be a politician, i wasn't as hard as you when i suggested a few months ago they should build a hotel at the bottom of the royal mile .
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS