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 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~03~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Is anybody watching the Army?
Complain about this comment
sorry Brian , they will pussyfoot about and look for a way to do as little as they can get away with to make some ,if not no, changes.
as Henry Kissinger once said 90% of politicians give the other 10% a bad reputation.
and at the other end of the spectrum :
"I've decided to take up a life of crime, but I can't decide which political party to join. - Roy Chubby Brown.
Sid
Complain about this comment
Brian
remote from any regulation other than the self-imposed variety.
Oh dear, what happens to the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty? They have to feel above the Law, they make it (,abysmally, but that's another kettle of fish).
As I said on the previous blog, the party system immediately makes 400 of then redundant as soon as they are elected, so why not put them out to grass?
Complain about this comment
I wholeheartedly agree with this assessment of the two parliaments.
Complain about this comment
Brian
I was away to my normal resting place having left my deposit on the blog, above #3, when I noticed on your BBC front page that it is 450 years to the day the start of the Reformation. As that was a reaction to the malpractice of the authority of the day and was, to say the least, pretty calamitous for that authority, do you have any fears that your chosen subject might be a similar precursor to similar "earth shattering" events in Scotland?
Memo to self: check "On This Day" on 11 May 2459.
Complain about this comment
Good commentary Brian, I agree with your synopsis
There may still be one or two that could call themselves 'honourable' but there are far more who cannot
I think that no amount of apologising and hand wringing will restore the title back, the public are angry (and justifiably so)
Time for a change.......
Complain about this comment
"They will be entitled to claim out-of-pocket expenses."
Yes, but it would be nice if the "out-of-pocket expenses" came out of their own pocket for a change rather than ours!
Complain about this comment
The truth of the matter is the whole lot of them are so greedy, lazy, and corrupt that they've actually managed to kill the "golden goose"!!
If it wasn't happening in front of your own eyes you wouldn't be able to believe their breathtaking stupidity.
Complain about this comment
There has to be a roots-up reappraisal of the entire Westminster 'Old Boys Club'.
A simple change of governing party, or any rescheduling of the existing gravy train, will not begin to address the issue of expenses abuse.
Complain about this comment
Ronnie Biggs wants to apologise for all the robbers and asks that they all be released back into the community were they promise to be extra careful in future jobs.
Complain about this comment
Brian
Are you actually reading the above comments?
It's cyrstal clear the public are not going to be satisfied with a half-hearted "apology" from Gordon Brown.
Enough is enough.
This rotten shower have abused their power and the trust of the electorate beyond breaking point.
If we can't just get rid of the whole lot (my preferred option) then nothing less than full-scale, genuine transparency and the same rules applied equally to all is acceptable.
You move in their circles. You let them know the people have had it.
If they don't give it a rest they're going to find they don't have a parliament never mind a job.
Complain about this comment
# 10 derekbarker
First bit of sense you have made in a long while.
Complain about this comment
I can't make my mind up here:
Could it be the expenses revelations that have engulfed Labour or is it due to the forthcoming Euro elections?
The Scotsman are in hot pursuit of the worst offender in the Westminster 'casual corruption' stakes. For two days running they have headlined the greed and avarice of this individual.
Is it Darling with his neverending change of main addresses? Is it Blears who has cleverly outfoxed the taxman and managed to evade capital gains tax? Can it be Michael Martin, the speaker who himself isn't shy when it comes to filling out the forms? What about (whisper it) David Marshall, the name Scottish journalists dare not speak?
No, the claimant that The Scotsman has deciced the nation ought to be aware of is the First Minister Alex Salmond who had the temerity to actually EAT and claim back the money. A whopping 800 pounds was trousered by Salmond who managed to cream off fully 35% of what he could claim.
Yes, that's right, the First Minister claimed a THIRD of his full entitlement. Why go after those who are exploiting the system to the tune of tens (sometimes hundreds) of thousands when you can highlight someone claiming a third of their food allowance?
Anyway, the BBC (in Scotland of course) have found a rich vein of health related stories.
Patient welfare fears 'ignored'
Based on a survey.
'Major failings' at abuse school
Problems under previous administration and blame laid at feet of Glasgow Council.
Ageing 'crisis' for foster carers
A claim from a charity
Baby records theft sparks inquiry
A favourite of mine, health records again !!
Actually the last one is more prevalent than swine flu. There must be a gang of thieves roaming Scottish health centres looking to purloin useless disks or reams of health details.
If someone points to you as you walk past and calls out 'He's got a sore leg !!' - then call the police immediately.
Complain about this comment
According to the Telegraph Salmond "claimed more than 1,700 pounds in expenses for food in 2007/08."
The same article states: "MPs can claim a maximum of 400 pounds per month for food without having to produce receipts".
Even with my rusty arithmetic, which is nonetheless probably still a bit better than Brian Taylor's, I calculate Salmond claimed 1751.50/4800 = 36.5% of the maximum allowance for year 2007/08.
And yet the article says: "questions will be asked why the First Minister spent so much (on food)."
So, what do you think the "question" to Salmond will be? "Why have you only claimed a third of what you could have?"
Complain about this comment
Simply, Wesminster based politicians do not care what the public think.
Labour have precided over this debcale, having watched Tory snouts in the trough for 18 years, as soon as Labour got into power they made up for lost time, big time.
As a nationalist, I had time for John Smith and Donald Dewar, they came across as honest men and would respect the will of the Scottish people. Same could not be said about Gray or Brown.
What would John Smith think of Gordon Brown today, I wonder?
Ms Blears, now there is an interesting lady. You would think that with the knowledge she had much loose by her dealings being made public, she would not be rubbishing her leader and colleagues 7 or 8 days ago. Keeping a low profile would have been a good idea. Back to my orignal point, they do not care what people think.
TDBs
Complain about this comment
The expenses claims fall into one of three categories:
1. Legally and morally legitimate
2. Legally legitimate but morally questionable
3. Illegal
Categories 2 and 3 need to be weighted according to amounts invloved and the cartwheels gone through in order to legitimise the claim. The larger the amount or the more complex the cartwheels then the greater the 'offence'.
Category 3 would require the involvement of the police.
Here's one that no-one has thought of:
What's the possibility of a journalist having been entertained by one of these MP's - or even accepting, shall we say', a 'gratuity' for journalistic services rendered?
Complain about this comment
Sadly, the current Speaker in the Commons is incapable of taking such a stand as he is wholly partisan, and reputedly one of the worst offenders in terms of claiming expenses and allowances (esp. taxis).
Complain about this comment
greenockboy @13:
Salmond may not be the worst offender, so many to choose from, but I cannot for the life of me see how he (or any of the others)can rightfully expect to be reimbursed at public expense for eating. Everybody else in the land has to buy their own food, and some struggle to do so. What is about politicians that makes them different? Would Alex Salmond not eat if he were not one? Party loyalties aside, Salmond is as guilty as the rest of them, of whatever party, in exploiting a system that is a clear disgrace.
Complain about this comment
I am sorry to have to say that I am sorry to be having to say that I am saying sorry for having to say sorry again about being sorry about chaps being caught with their fingers in the till again here in the Palace of Allowances.
You know, I'm often asked how we honourable chaps can justify having two parliaments for Scotland. The one in London seems superfluous, ordinary people say to me. But ordinary people don't qualify for extraordinary second-homes allowances with all the trimmings, do you?
Sorry, I can't sit here apologising all day to you dishonourables. I've got an expensive claim to submit. Sorry, I mean an expenses claim. Sorry about that little mistake, and all the other little mistakes. Oh, all right. I'm sorry about the big ones too, on behalf of ALL parties, not least those that haven't been making these mistakes and haven't asked me to apologise for them, for which I'm definitely not apologising . . . until I start blushing. Drat it. There I go again. Where's my make-up?
Complain about this comment
I don't know, Brian, I think the second sentence disproves the first. George Reid was a part of the parliament and took the bull by the horns. The rules didn't have to be handed down from anywhere (e.g. Westminster).
Contrast to the Speaker of the Commons, Michael Martin, who from what I've read had his snout as deep in the trough as anybody else.
Complain about this comment
#18 MalcolmW2
Expenses for food are a legitimate expense when employees stay away from home, if I am away for a week I can claim up to £105 per week for food based on receipts plus Bed and Breakfast. There are far more ludicrous expenses been paid for, many of which as #16 greenockboy wrote are likely to be legally legitimate and morally questionable,I dont beleive eating is morally questionable in anybodys book although both AS and BT could do with losing a few pounds!
Complain about this comment
never mind swine flu, there is another virus that is sweeping the palace of Westminster. AIG flu. Arrogance, Ignorance & Greed. only those with these 3 symptoms are actually allowed within the palace.
and I would remind you all that the word politics is derived from 2 words
POLY meaning many & TICS meaning small blood sucking insects.
says it all really!
Sid
Complain about this comment
#21
The issue over Mr Salmond expenses claim for food, is not just about the amount, apparently Mr Salmond made those claims when westminster was in recess, what we dont know is where Mr Salmond was when he made those claims. Scotland? Spain? London? or else where?.
"The second home support system is also being scrapped" there could be hidden costs within the second home support system?.
I think we should all be aware as BT pointed out that the Scottish parliament because of the initial costs came under tremendous pressure to curb it's expenses claims early. It was a public mandate that the parliament toed the line fast.(toe the peachy)
Complain about this comment
Is it not curious that many of the expense claims are from individuals who are exceedingly wealthy. About 20 of the Conservative front bench are millionaires and they also have lucrative other jobs.
I naively assumed that if one had millions, then many of the tiresome little tasks in life, such as collecting receipts, filling in claim forms for petty sums etc, could be dispensed with.
But what do I know, I am not one, and that is may be why.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#18, MalcolmW2, When you are working away from home as I have done in the past, you do not have cooking facilities and therefore are required to eat out. This is an expense that most companies accept and will pay up to a maximum figure. As you know eating out always costs more than going to the supermarket and is a genuine working expense. As long as you are not going to the best restaurants and drinking Champagne then I fail to see what your problem is? It appears to me that Alex Salmond used the expenses wisely and the way they were intended.
What shocks me is the unionist media trying to spin this anti-SNP style and Bighullaballoos excellent arithmetic and even better observation has yet again highlighted the motives of our media (which I am absolutely sick of btw)... ps Kirsty Wark should never be allowed to work for the BBC. I thought the BBC were supposed to be impartial? They have broken their own rules again and again and again and again and again and ag.......
I can't wait for freedom.
Complain about this comment
*21 I would agree that by far the First Minister is not the worst offender when it comes to the wealth of examples that have come to the fore over the last week but even at 33% of the total for 07/08 that is far too much. Yes if he was away from home at the parliament in Westminster then he is rightly due to claim for an allowance for food (I personally would say only if he was in a hotel and not in a second home, but that is another general issue) but I see from the press (whom one can never trust at the best of times) that he only took part in 6 divisions in the 07/08 session. 33% of an allowance for the year and only six votes, lets give him his dues and say those votes were all over two days each, meaning 12 days in parliament. Thats almost £150 a day. I'd like to have that kind of allowance for food.
He, as were many other MPs, claiming the maximum that they were allowed to claim. Irrespective of whether this was reasonable or not, should he not have known better being part of the tight ship of expenses that is the Scottish Parliament.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
27. "Yes if he was away from home at the parliament in Westminster then he is rightly due to claim for an allowance for food"
Westminster was in recess on the dates he claimed unreceipted expenses for, otherwise this wouldn't be an issue.
Complain about this comment
WHAT a load of drivel - Dishonourable More Please`s r ripping us off by 2nd home cons, evading Capital Gains, claiming bath plugs and porn films, and some of these r in the CABINET for G - - s sake, yet here we r concetrating on a piffling amount by Mr Salmond!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I DESPAIR of so called reporting.
Complain about this comment
The Members of Parliament are not the ones to blame, at the end of the day, did anyone do anything wrong?
The answer is despite the small amount of dodgey claims the majority of MP's acted within the rules. They can not be blamed, no matter how much we want to punish the individuals for the ridiculous things they were allowed to claim food, repairs, 2nd homes and all that nonesense.
If we start changing the rules and then use that to punish the individuals then we would be going the wrong way.
The best we can do is bring forward new rules that make Holyrood appear to be alax place in terms of expences!
Complain about this comment
It says in the Telegraph: "MPs can claim a maximum of 400 pounds per month for food without having to produce receipts."
Even if it's escaped the notice of some of the mathematical geniuses that post on this board, I can asssure you it will not have escaped the notice of our sharp-eyed political elite that this clearly suggests MPs can claim MORE than £400 per month for food IF THEY PRODUCE RECEIPTS!
The Telegraph had nothing whatsoever to say on what the monthly maximum spending limit for food is if receipts are produced.
Frightening, isn't it?
Complain about this comment
Maybe one of the Unionist bright sparks on here can explain how they know Salmond's claims made during the Commons recess didn't relate to expenses he incurred during a period prior to the recess?
I'm not holding my breath.
Complain about this comment
Michael Martin's previously exposed expenses were and are shocking beyond belief. Remember he flew first class between Glasgow and London so he could get triple air miles for his family to use....then there were the taxis for his wife's shopping trips, the exotic wallpaper, etcetera. Even worse, he spent a fortune of our money on expensive lawyers to fight the FOI request to publish MP's expenses - that's spending our money to try to stop us finding out where our money was going. He would only have done that if he knew there was plenty to hide, don't you think?
And I note that we have only had newspaper revelations so far on Labour front benchers. Michael Martin's closest colleagues would surely be Scottish Labour back benchers.......
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat:
#29.
"Westminster was in recess on the dates he claimed unreceipted expenses for, otherwise this wouldn't be an issue."
Is this also in the rules, MP's shall not claim expences while Parliament's in recess? Perhaps Salmond was there on business. Have we asked Salmond yet?
It's not actually an issue anyway, the entire system is open to abuse and must be corrected. We can not start punishing those who are within the rules.
Complain about this comment
#29 Reluctant-Expat
"Westminster was in recess on the dates he claimed unreceipted expenses for, otherwise this wouldn't be an issue."
Except for the fact Salmond has said: "In terms of 2005-06 and the summer recess, MPs still go to London during the recess, and in any case bills incurred during the parliamentary session often fall during that period, for example for Commons dining facilities."
In other words (exactly as I said in #33): Salmond's claims made during the Commons recess related to expenses incurred during a period prior to the recess.
Salmond makes it crystal clear: the claims related to "bills incurred during the parliamentary session."
Thus another malicious Unionist lie fabricated solely to blacken Salmond's reputation is shot down in flames. Next!!
Complain about this comment
This discussion is once again amusingly pathetic.
The discussion over Alex Salmond here really sums it all up.
The fact that there are people on here criticising every other MP, but defending Alex Salmond who has been down to parliament at most half a dozen times in the last year (yet claims his MPs salary rather than his MSP salary owing to the fact that the former is larger), is the best example of hypocrisy amongst some.
Could all of the nationalist ranters on here please read the next sentence before replying. I don't honestly care what Salmond did or did not eat. Clearly he's been at it just as badly as everyone else, some of the examples of claims are ludicrous, but this is not a problem with individuals. It's a problem with the system, thats what we need to talk about and thats what we need to change.
MPs do have significant costs associated with their job, for those who come from very rural constituencies they do require to have a secondary accomodation in London and it is not fair to expect them to pay for this, you wouldn't have to in the private sector. What seems ludicrous to me is that the MP, having not payed for this second home, can then sell it on at personal profit afterwards. They should have one of two things, either the government retains ownership of the houses, and then passes them on to whomever succeeds an MP at each election, or there should be a single/small number of official parliamentary residences where all MPs can stay during the week.
All of the expenses that are causing problems are, or revolve around, purchase and maintenance of a secondary home. These should simply be bought and owned by the state, rather than processed as expenses, and then there would be no problem. Pathetic little things, like the Telegraphs rant over the Prime Ministers Cleaner, or this discussion over Alex Salmonds eating habits are frankly not that important in my mind. Frankly I would want to think that our PMs house was kept tidy in case he had visitors, I'm pretty sure that the US President, and the French President both have people cleaning their official residences and think this is one, of many, examples where the existence of some bad expense claims suddenly allows for the out of proportion spin that all expense claims are ludicrous and unacceptable.
It's far more important that government ministers have their expenses properly covered by the state, than that they have them covered by private interests, which is what happens when you don't cover costs and is where real corruption starts. We want to minimise the need for MPs to take on second jobs, we want to make sure that people living in London aren't better represented than those living in Orkney, that people with a rich MP aren't better represented than people with a poor one.
Clearly the gravy train, which exists in most European Parliaments, in the EU, in Westminster, in the Scottish Parliament up until very recently, needs to be fixed. Whats important though is that we don't forget that expenses are there for a very sensible and important reason.
Complain about this comment
Looks like Alex Salmond is an amateur at the claims game if this from the Daily Mail 10th May is correct.
"Mr Martin claimed for the near-full food allowance on his second home during the parliamentary summer holidays"
I wonder when we will see that reported in the Scottish media.
Complain about this comment
Brian's lead to this thread is disingenuous.
Of course, the Scottish Parliament had the same faults as Westminster when it was set up. It was established (by Labour) with the same system of allowances and expenses as Westminster.
The difference lies in the way that the two Parliaments responded to the emerging scandals of these expenses/allowances being used in ways that the people found unacceptable.
The rules that apply in the Scottish Parliament are here
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/MSPAllowances/index.htm
When more modest proposals were put to Westminster in 2008, MPs rejected them.
I have never claimed that MSPs are somehow "more honest" than those in Westminster. They all need to be kept on a tight leash!
However, Brian's suggestion that it's terms like "Honourable" in Westminster is, I think, fundamentally wrong. Such terminology is simply part of the trappings. The corrosive and corrupting aspect is the English doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty. They, not the people, are "the nation". It's from that source that the arrogance and contempt for the electorate stems.
Complain about this comment
Sorry missed out part of the article.
Mr Martin claimed for the near-full food allowance on his second home during the parliamentary summer holidays.
In 2007-08 he charged £2,200 for his food, including £1,050 in July, August and September 2007 when, for the most part, MPs are not meant to be claiming on their second home.
Complain about this comment
The dates for which Salmond claimed for food might be when Westminster was in recess, however the dates when Salmond PURCHASED the said items might not.
Remember that Salmond has claimed only a third of the amount he could have. In other words he has declined the rest of the money - he only had to ask for it.
It is reasonable to assume that the food expense covers Salmond for all of his visits and parliamentary business involving Westminster, it is therefore both legitimate both legally and morally.
However, is Salmond's claim an issue?
Yes, but not for the reasons claimed by Unionists. Salmond's expenses should be highlighted and then contrasted with those of Brown, Darling, Martin, Joyce, Marshall, Murphy (who takes his additional Secretary of State salary) et al.
I for one would be very, very happy to see expense claims become a very real issue at the next general election.
I also note that the Scottish press are presenting Gordon Brown's apology as being "On behalf of all MPs".
How dare this individual presume to sully the names of political parties who's MP's have behaved with honour and integrity - and how dare our press and media in Scotland indirectly suggest that the SNP MP's are just as bad as the likes of Marshall and the rest.
I also note that Michael Martin had some less than civil exchanges in the Commons today - headlines tomorrow perhaps?
Complain about this comment
What's at issue is nothing less than a long-standing culture of systemmatic self-gain based on an antiquated and profligate system of uncontrolled privilege, routinely and brazenly abused by 'Honourable' members at taxpayers expense.
It was surely inevitable that the Scottish Parliament's equivalent system be thoroughly reformed - albeit as a reaction to some of its own members' questionable expenses - to resemble an accountable, transparent process befitting of a 21st Century people's parliament.
Quite frankly, Holyrood should have been set up that way from the very outset, and the consequences of it having had its expenses culture originally modelled along Westminster lines speak for themselves.
Only a crusty, anachronistic Old Boys Club like the Palace of Westminster could or would even attempt to sustain such wasteful, obscene and self-indulgent extravagance in this day and age.
The sooner they put paid to these final, shameful excesses of Empire, the more public money can be bled off into modern, financially restrained projects designed to generate optimum value for the public purse.
... London Olympics, anyone? :/
Complain about this comment
Question ... what happens to the second homes of MPs/MSPs who get kicked out of office at the election. Do they then sell them for profit and if they had claimed expenses to tart them up, do they then give back the extra money they made off the sale? It seems there is a lot of this nonsense going on and i agree that Michael Martin must be the worst offender because of his trying to deny the FOI requests through the courts.
Did anyone hear on Radio Scotland the other morning about a newspaper having a story about the eight paedophiles caught and how one of them worked for the SNP. I couldnt believe that they could try to tarnish our government with such c**p. I didnt catch which newspaper it was, even though i did check out the usual suspects.
Complain about this comment
According to the "scotsman" Alex Salmond claimed the expenses when westminster was in recess, the "telegraph" also carries the same lines.
Now you can keep this going if you want? but the facts remain about the expenses and the amount of times A, Salmond went to london on offical MP duty.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Salmond-Replicate-Holyrood39s-expenses.5252549.jp
Complain about this comment
#37 NCA999
"The fact that there are people on here criticising every other MP, but defending Alex Salmond"
Yes, let's totally fail to notice the Unionist hypocrites on here failing to criticise every other MP but still FALSELY accusing Salmond of claiming for expenses when parliament was in recess!!
Now that is truly pathetic, and lacks even the virtue of being even remotely amusing.
Complain about this comment
#37 NCA999
Another excellent piece, well done! Hear, Hear.
Complain about this comment
NCA999:
#37.
Could you do me a favour, and remove your sweeping statement, calling on the nationalist ranters...?
I, for one, have taken a different step by acknowledging that MP's can not be punished for their claims, despite how ridiculous some may be (there are some that are punishable of course).
The best course of action is to reverse the damage by ensuring MP's pay out of their own pocket some expences and replace the current system with a more extreme version.
Complain about this comment
If the powers that be are still intent to shred "Sir" Fred's Knighthood can they also see to it that the terms Honourable and Right honourable are forthwith removed from the vocab of MP's... enough said!
Complain about this comment
#44 derekbarker
"According to the "scotsman" Alex Salmond claimed the expenses when westminster was in recess, the "telegraph" also carries the same lines."
Given the facts about Salmond's "recess" expenses claim as set out in my #36 above, what you are alleging above is libellous and actionable in a court of law.
You better hope the SNP's legal team don't read your false claims but I think the chances of that are pretty low since I just emailed them a link to your comment.
Complain about this comment
ubinworryinmasheep re your 43
It was the Friday edition of the Scottish Daily Mail.
It was the front page headline and said,
SNP adviser in pedophile gang.
Reading through the article the organization that he worked for had advised the Scottish government.
Complain about this comment
Not since Cromwell and the army kicked the porkers out of Westminster have so few people cost the taxpayer so much. The time is now long past for a complete overhaul of parliament. (with the help of the army again if required )It is an absolute disgrace that people in office by the trust of the people could abuse the system to such a degree,and contrary to some of the expressed views, it is not just a few of them, it is the majority of them. Let's have a general election as soon as all the expence accounts have been published and let the people decide whether it was all within the rules or not. A fifty percent reduction in their numbers would not go amiss either.
Complain about this comment
Priceless isn't it? All these puffed up worthies who rave on about all the 'scroungers' who rip off the 'Social' for a few quid. Hang 'em high they shout, send them to jail. And then, we see the reality of it all as day by day we find out just what a bunch of feather-bedding wastrels they all are in Westminster. Second homes? Sure, I'd give them a second home. Why not take over an empty office block (lots to find these days thanks to Father Brown) or hotel in central London, fit it out with apartments and have them all stay there but only if you stay beyond forty miles from Parliament coz within the London area, you get zilch? Sure, the Cabinet members can have slightly plusher rooms and sure they can have their BBC News on the telly courtesy of tellies with Freeview tuners..NO Sky!
What, you don't want to stay there? Can you have dosh in lieu of staying there for a fancy pad? ER, NO! It's take it or leave it. The Special Branch would find such a setup easy to protect and it would be handy to have them all together in the one gaff in case a wee search was needed.
And how about a nice little SPAR shop in the basement where you can buy whatever a hungry or thirsty MP desires all at High Street prices. Sure it would take a few bob to set this up but hey, it HAS to be cheaper than letting them set their own hurdles and wouldn't it be nice to know that they are all tucked up together and not out wandering the streets or parks looking for whatever MPs look for of an evening?
And as to other expenses, lets have a wee, 'means test'. If you earn more than £100,000.00 per year in addition to your MP's salary or have assets of over half a million you get washers and NO free laptop.
No one expects our representatives to be beggared for representing us but when they leave the House, they shouldn't leave with accumulated riches running into six figures.
Complain about this comment
The strange thing is that the foundation stone of the 'Mother of all Parliaments' established in perpetuity that no one, not even the King of England, was above the law and that all freemen had the right to trial by a jury of their peers.
Move forward the best part of 800 years and we find the self same 'Mother of all Parliaments' acting above the law and trying to tale away the right of trial by jury!
Equally the Magna Carter in 1215 was set up, in part, to limit King John's excessive and corrupt taxation (which he used for debauched living and paying off the Barons whose wives he had impregnated) regime by giving Parliament control of taxation. Yet here we are now with a latter day 'King John' in King Gordonovitchski running equally rough shod over the UK, taxing everything and anything he and his Darling can think of while the modern day ' political court of Westminster' is as debauched as that of King John.
The parallels with 800 years ago run even deeper. With out doubt King John has gone down in history , with good justification, as the most hated of kings of England and King Gordonovitchski is already there as the most despised Prime Minister of the last 100 years, with equally good justification with many, it is reported, similar short comings: bullying, intolerant, diffident, considers his leadership anointed by God (OK, in Gordie's case it was St Tone of Blair)and therefore infallible.
King John was like Brown in his dealings with underlings doing his bidding and getting caught - John executed, Brown drops them with out a backward glance.
There is a rather crude ditty of King John which sums both up pretty well:
"Oh, the minstrels sing of an English King of many long years ago
Who ruled his land with an iron hand though his mind was weak and low.
His only outer garment was a dirty undershirt
That managed to hide the royal pride but couldn't hide the dirt.
Complain about this comment
Thomas
The term "nationalist ranters" was meant to be a derogatory comment and so I reccomend that if you don't feel the associated criticism is descriptive of you, that you don't assign yourself the title. You are however more than welcome to continue doing so if you wish.
As for bighulabaloos most recent installment of "anyone who works for the SNP is perfect and any mistake they ever make ever is really just a Unionist Media Conspiracy", I thank him once again for so un-elequently making my point for me.
I have two points to make to you.
1. Why exactly is it ok to criticise Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Gerry Adams and everyone else in the parliament but not your beloved idol Alex Salmond? It's one of the great hilarious hypocrisys in your standard rants (one that you probably can't even understand yourself) that on the one hand you claim to stand for greater independence for Scotland, and therefore Scottish institutions, but then criticise the Scottish National Media for focusing on the most prominent Scottish MP. I did a quick google check just there, in N.Ireland their frontpage is talking about Sinn Feinns expenses, and in Wales it's talking about Welsh MPs expenses, I'm glad that in Scotland we have the national news providing us with national information and other media like the Scotsman and BBC Scotland providing us with more localised information. Why aren't you?
2. On the specifics of who is on the gravy train more. You criticise the Speaker Mr Martin in comparison to Salmond. I again make the point here that I don't care what Salmond has done, I don't think he's individually any more or less guilty than anyone but am making this point to correct the blatant idiocy in your posts. The Speaker works at Parliament, is there 5 days a week, 40-50 weeks a year. Mr Salmond has apparently been down to London for Westminster (rather than holyrood business where he could use his holyrood expense account) business on, I think it was referenced earlier, 12 occassions. The fact therefore that Mr Martin has ONLY had three times as much costs as Salmond is quite commendable, and probably a poor reflection on Salmonds eating habits, as a pose to his.
Nobody is trying to deflect attention onto your beloved leader. Please stop dragging this debate into the pointless midths of your SNP fixations by thinking that every subject of national discussion focuses on the SNP and Alex Salmond.
I'm glad that Gordon Brown apologised on behalf of all politicians, it is politicians in general and the system they have created who have caused this problem, not parties. The Labour party are not inherently corrupt or evil. The Tories, or the SNP are not whiter than white. It's likely, given that their MPs come from poorer, and often more rural areas, that Labour MPs might well have higher expense claims than Tory MPs (which I'll happily say as a Tory supporter), I don't know, nor do I really care. What I care about is that the system is fixed, in a sensible rather than reactionary way.
Complain about this comment
#49
Look I dont take idle threats lightly! stop the punch and judy show!
Take a 360% turn! this debacle about expenses and claims implicates the majority of MP's just by it's nature.
Agian I repeat! do you want to continue with this argument? or do you want to be part of the public voice thats demands a change.
Complain about this comment
Your description of the Westminster self-adulatory atmosphere is very well put, Brian.
Away with "the Honourable".
They're just rogues (like so many others) and not even likable rogues at that.
Complain about this comment
NCA999:
#54.
"The term "nationalist ranters" was meant to be a derogatory comment and so I reccomend that if you don't feel the associated criticism is descriptive of you, that you don't assign yourself the title."
It's an issue because I am a nationalist, I have not assigned you for example under a Unionist ranter title, can I not be shown the same respect as I have shown you? I speak for myself, I don;t care what the other SNP supporters have to say because they do not represent the SNP.
"I have two points to make to you.
"1. Why exactly is it ok to criticise Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Gerry Adams and everyone else in the parliament but not your beloved idol Alex Salmond?"
Exscuse me, my beloved Alex Salmond? Have I personally not make a remark of Alex Salmond? If you read my earlier comment I actually made the effort to mention food as a ridiculous allowance that MP's can claim.
I have defended most MP's personally, so long as the system remains corrupt and open to abuse MP's can not be punished, they folowed the rules, right?
"It's one of the great hilarious hypocrisys in your standard rants (one that you probably can't even understand yourself) that on the one hand you claim to stand for greater independence for Scotland, and therefore Scottish institutions, but then criticise the Scottish National Media for focusing on the most prominent Scottish MP. I did a quick google check just there, in N.Ireland their frontpage is talking about Sinn Feinns expenses, and in Wales it's talking about Welsh MPs expenses, I'm glad that in Scotland we have the national news providing us with national information and other media like the Scotsman and BBC Scotland providing us with more localised information. Why aren't you?"
This discussion has nothing to do with independence, powers or anything of the sort. There are people who do not wish to see the parties that they support come under fire, especially so close to the Euro Elections. But I would also add that there has to be a real balance, Alex Salmond was wrong, but what about the other MP's who have made far worse claims? Actually, what am I saying? Salmond was not wrong because apprently it was all in the rules, but the culture has to change and I am disappointed that the public have voted for individuals who are easily tempted.
"2. On the specifics of who is on the gravy train more. You criticise the Speaker Mr Martin in comparison to Salmond."
I have not done that, what are you on about?
"I again make the point here that I don't care what Salmond has done, I don't think he's individually any more or less guilty than anyone but am making this point to correct the blatant idiocy in your posts."
How dare you, how can we claim to have guilty MP's when they operated within the rules? The rules were not broken (in most cases) the MP's are free to go, they can not be punished (the electorate may decude otherwise). It would appear the only idiot here is well... yourself, how can people be guilty when there is nothing 'wrong' with their actions?
"The Speaker works at Parliament, is there 5 days a week, 40-50 weeks a year. Mr Salmond has apparently been down to London for Westminster (rather than holyrood business where he could use his holyrood expense account) business on, I think it was referenced earlier, 12 occassions."
I don't care about the Speaker, or the amount of times Salmond went to Westminister.
"Nobody is trying to deflect attention onto your beloved leader. Please stop dragging this debate into the pointless midths of your SNP fixations by thinking that every subject of national discussion focuses on the SNP and Alex Salmond."
Have you actually been reading my comments? I have not made comments to anyone else, other then supporting that MP's have done nothing technically wrong.
"I'm glad that Gordon Brown apologised on behalf of all politicians, it is politicians in general and the system they have created who have caused this problem, not parties."
It's what I have been saying all day, every day. The MP's can't be held responsible.
"The Labour party are not inherently corrupt or evil. The Tories, or the SNP are not whiter than white."
I've not suggested or written otherwise!
"It's likely, given that their MPs come from poorer, and often more rural areas, that Labour MPs might well have higher expense claims than Tory MPs (which I'll happily say as a Tory supporter), I don't know, nor do I really care. What I care about is that the system is fixed, in a sensible rather than reactionary way."
You've really not bothered to read what I had to say... have you?
Just don't bother replying if you are not going to read the comment the other person wrote please, thank you.
Complain about this comment
Just read coment number 50 and have to say that it is a new low in journalism.
It is oh so easy to destroy the headline but it really isn't worth it.
I also note that the Unionists who comment here are making defamatory and actionable comments about Alex Salmond.
One of them has had a comment removed and I have complained about another.
Comment number 37 contains the following statement:
Could all of the nationalist ranters on here please read the next sentence before replying. I don't honestly care what Salmond did or did not eat. Clearly he's been at it just as badly as everyone else ..
An insult ("nationalist ranters") followed by a defamatory statement that is certainly actionable ("Clearly he's been at it") and a demonstrably false accusation that Salmond is as bad as others.
I repeat, moderators are reading these comments and then allowing them to be published. Is it lazyness, is it mischief or is it ignorance?
Comment 37 is about to be referred.
Complain about this comment
#55 derekbarker
The SNP's legal team in Edinburgh have replied to my email.
Apparently they intend to contact the BBC with a view to taking the matter further.
Complain about this comment
I might add that I don't think the Expense system has anything to do with the use of the words "Honourable" or "Rt Hon". They have the same expense problems in Ireland, France, Italy, the EU Parliament without such titles.
Fix the expense system, not the historical nuances of the traditions.
Complain about this comment
It must be over for Michael Martin. This man has consistently had his considerable snout in the trough over the last few years and now he has the temerity to shout down two honest MPs. He is a total disgrace.
Complain about this comment
54 - just how many blatant and criminal act by MP's are you willing to gloss over?
Do you really think that Unionist voters are that pleased with the cover up and failure to apply PPER 2000 on so many occasions that now one must wonder why taxpayers money was ever wasted enacting this bill? Since Westminster has set the precedent that simply apologising to the 'house' for trousering £100,000 (now know as a 'Hain') of political donations to avoid a criminal prosecution, tax free with no accounting of how it was spent will the 'house' be extending the same freedom to all of the UK population who have their collar felt by Mr Plod or MacPlod of fiduciary matters?
Apologists for Westminster can try their best but the reality is the institution has clearly out lived its usefulness and is in need of thorough reform of the likes not proposed since the 1820's.
It is time to take power away from the Government and return it to being wielded by proper scrutiny in the house. FTP must be abandoned as time and time again it skews the representation of the people to put power in the hands of the minority of voters and a small cabal of party hacks.
What Wee Eck's sandwich bill has to do with the root and branch exposure of lackeyism and corruption at Westminster I am sure you could enlighten us? Maybe you could also inform us how the 50 odd MP's Scotland sends to Westminster will be able to force through reform of the trough on their own?
No! You are just a muck spreader who tries to ensure everyone gets covered in an attempt to deflect from the real issues. Westminster is corrupt and is corrupting.
Complain about this comment
The blog is in danger of being dragged into the sewer by a handfull if posters. As one defamatory comment is moderated then another takes it's place further down.
That these posters tend to be of the Unionist persuasion is not the point. The point is that democracy itself is weakened through the exploitation and greed of these Unionist politicians.
Expenses for food is one thing, but when the political party of Government is so infested with what Cameron calls 'Casual Corruption' then we are in a sorry state. Remember, this is institutionalised greed and avarice we are witnessing, running into hundreds of thousands of pounds for some individuals.
Comment 53 is very well made and a welcome contrast to the hollow words from those who continue to embrace this Union - even in it's rotten state.
What's happened in the UK is that the money has been squandered by those in power. The world has caught up with the UK and it's anachronistic ways. No longer can we afford to let unpricipled and talentless individuals take the reigns of power.
It's over for the likes of Brown and Darling, they had their chance and blew it. Westminster corrupted them and power seduced them - with others they helped kill the Labour party.
Scotland, even without North Sea oil, needs to take stock and steel herself. There is no doubt that change is on it's way, the Westminster machine will fight change tooth and nail, the mechanisms for change are simply not there.
If we do not embrace independence then we are virtually consigning future generations to a life of penury. If we remain in this Union then look forward to the Scots becoming the target of vitriol and bitterness as the 'poor subsidy junky' label (introduced by Scottish Labour) is eagerly embraced by an increasing number of impoverished English.
Complain about this comment
Expenses and broken democracy
"The Prime Minister should announce a short review of the past work and then a referendum proposing 3-member STV for elections to the House of Commons. This would ensure everyone still has an MP (three in fact) but also enable the public to eject MPs more easily."
Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 600 employees and has the following employee statistics .
29 have been accused of spouse abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
9 have been accused of writing bad cheque's
17 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
84 have been arrested for drink driving in the last year
Which organisation is this ?
It's the 635 members of the House of Commons, the same group that cranks out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us inline.
Complain about this comment
The truly shocking and revealing thing regarding this story is not the expense claims, ridiculous as some might be. No, it is the reaction from most at Westminster, the sheer indignation that they are being questioned on their claims. I have worked for Government bodies such as the NHS and a quango. Both had very strict rules on claims when working from home, and rightly so. That the same does not apply to MPs is frankly astounding.
The idea that lax rules on expenses somehow compensates for a lack of proper pay increase wouldn't stand up in an allotment commitee never mind a parliament.
The idea that strict rules shouldn't apply to "honourable" members beggars belief. Instead of moaning that they are being hard done by the press, they should look up honourable in the dictionary and try to act that way.
Rules, like laws, do not excuse one from behaving morally. All they do is give a baseline which you should not go near, never mind below
Complain about this comment
MPs' expenses: Telegraph to reveal Tory extravagance
I suppose is there any difference between honourable member and horse dung as that is how they treat the voter!
"The claims of eight senior Conservatives will be disclosed and the identity of one MP, who claimed more than £380 for horse manure, will also be published."
Complain about this comment
#59
OK Baloo! I sure the SNP legal department is delighted and will be anxious to
further a common/civil lawsuit against the BBC and the public.It's just what every political party wants in terms of P.R.
In the mean time, lets just stick to the subject.
Complain about this comment
Pistols at dawn!
Complain about this comment
Thomas Porter
The first part was a joke, it really wasn't meant to cause offence and I don't see why you're so upset by it. The way that you guys polarise everything into "your either a nationalist or a unionist" is completely unfitting with how I, and most others, see things. Most people in the country don't consider themselves nationalist, and form the majority of their political opinions on the issues that actually matter to them, I am one of these people. You really need to stop seeing everything that anyone says to disagree with you as being a "Unionist conspiracy". I'm sure even in your fictitious utopia of an independent Scotland you would have a parliament, and in that parliament there would be people who disagree with policies of King Salmond without being evil traitors. I, like most, might not support the breakup of the country, but that doesn't mean that every time I disagree with an SNP policy that this is why. Nor does it mean that everyone who disagrees with any given SNP policy is a Unionist. If we're debating Scottish independence then fine, in all other debates then please stop making everything so partisan.
The second part, the two points which I made, were quite clearly not directed at you but at bihulabaloo. You criticise me for not reading peoples posts, but quite clearly didn't read mine properly otherwise you would have realised this.
That said if there was any lack of clarity in my comments then I apologise, as I say that section of my post was not aimed at you.
Am I the only person on this discussion that thinks that the "SNP legal team" are probably sat laughing at bighulabaloo like the rest of us are?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#62 slaintemha
"Westminster is corrupt and is corrupting"
You have put your finger on the core issue. The allowance system at Westminster was devised in the 60s and 70s, so that despite wage restraint being applied to MPs as the rest of the population, a neat little backdoor system was created so that they could actually increase their renumeration while the rest of us couldn't.
The food allowances etc were always intended to be a system that entitled MPs to more money. It was a dishonest system, set up by a dishonest British establishment, but not actually corrupt.
Even MPs/MSPs using their London/Edinburgh Allowances to buy property in the appropriate capital wasn't corrupt in itself.
The corruption lies in the "flipping" of second homes between different addresses to have major repairs/upgrades done to enhance the property portfolio of the MP (I don't think that happened with an MSP, but if it did, someone can enlighten me).
I look forward to the publication of the full dataset - currently we only see what the Telegraph decides to publish - of all Scottish MPs expenses/allowances. The critical issue will be whether any of them have used public monies to enhance their wealth through "inappropriate" labelling of second homes. If this has happened, then any honest political party will ensure that such an MP is deselected, and thrown out of the party.
Complain about this comment
#64 cynicalHighlander
And don't forget the "Lords". They're setting fire to the curtains!!
Complain about this comment
#64 cynicalHighlander
What an incendiary little post! These are the Honourables?
Where's that Guy Fawkes when you need him?
Complain about this comment
54. At 7:28pm on 11 May 2009, NCA999:
I think what is annoying for some is that some of the stories about Salmond are both out of context and the particular issue has been inflated out of all proportion.
While the media is right to criticise his "Arc of Prosperity" after the issues with Iceland, they are wrong to dive into the expenses issue and make out that he is in knee deep.
The same media fail to highlight a certain Labour MP who even allegedly claimed for 5 pence plastic bags! I don't see Salmond claiming for nappies, mock Tudor beams, toilet seats, house repairs and who knows what else. If he has done wrong with his food bills then they are miniscule compared to the blatant moral abuse that is rife.
When Labour came to power in 1997 they vowed to kick out sleaze. What we now have is nothing more than a shocking abuse of power. The excuses of "it was within the rules" is hollow. Labour are supposed to be a socialist party. The Tories might not come out smelling of roses either, and that leaves even more people fed up with politics.
I'm no great lover of Alex Salmond, nor am I an ardent nationalist (as a few on here will testify). But the claims about Salmond are a blatant attempt to distract the public from the real big spenders in Westminster. Food you could argue is essential for an MP to do his job. But mock Tudor beams?
The only good thing - we hope - is that there really will be an independent committee checking expenses. But unless the law is changed to return MPs to the same tax laws as ourselves, then the gravy train will continue.
Complain about this comment
#69 NCA999
I've also sent your defamatory #37 to them.
Let's see if you're still "laughing" when the court summons drops through your letterbox.
Complain about this comment
#69 NAC999
It does make a difference to see! such a balanced and well reflective
debate being put forward.When all the major media channels are advocating
that this issue(expenses) is not a partizan one but indeed! a collective issue concerning all parties.
Complain about this comment
Alex Salmond's first act on gaining power at Holyrood was to reduce the size of the Scottish cabinet by one third - an efficiency saving probably unparalleled elsewhere in government, and one which could easily cover any additional expenses of the entire SNP group at Westminster.
Which other party or Honourable Member can claim that?? And how many Honourable Members are queuing up to accept the challenge that Westminster's expenses regime should be brought into parity with that of Holyrood???
Don't hold your breath!
Despite this - despite the tradition of expenses abuse being a Very British Malaise - and despite the SNP's participation at Westminster being primarily in order to settle Scotland's account - the twisted unionist smear campaign to single out and misrepresent Alex Salmond's individual expenses, continues to fester and rot.
In a similar vein to the example of gutter journalism mentioned in #50, above - a headline which also disgusted me when I saw it on the newspaper stands - how many times have desperate unionists posted the same link to the same 'Hootsmon' story perversely attacking Salmond, when he is leading calls for the Westminster gravy train to be permanently derailed and scrapped?
Given the countless numbers and generations of Westminster unionist MPs who have had their snouts in the trough for their entire careers, the breathtaking attempts by their rump of misguided followers to use expenses as an explicit weapon against the SNP beggars belief.
And one more for the records:
Did anyone else witness this morning's story on UK-wide GMTV, which featured the bold words EXPENSES SCANDAL alongside a prominent SNP logo above an image of the Houses of Parliament???
Can anyone explain the use of the SNP logo in this context?
Moreover, can any ombudsman or judiciary be called upon to take tough action against such flagrantly manipulative and insidious journalism?
Complain about this comment
If Westminster MP's expense claims hadn't been made public......would the system be changed? If this particular trough hadn't seen the light of day......would the MP's still have their snouts in it? Who can defend the indefensible......only the stupid or the corrupt. I'm tired of hearing the pathetic excuse from those exposed that the problem is the system is wrong.....those who exploited it are what is wrong. I won't vote in the Westminster elections again, I no longer recognise Westminster has the moral authority to govern Scotland.
Complain about this comment
#71 oldnat wrote on the 11th may 2009 at 9:14pm
"corruption lies in the "flipping" of second homes between different addresses to have major repairs/upgrades done to enhance the property portfolio of the MP (I don't think that happened with an MSP, but if it did, someone can enlighten me)."
Now! that is a leading legal pose' why dont you google the question you pose?.
Complain about this comment
#63 greenockboy
I agree the blog has degenerated so that some of it's one clearly biased argument targetted by another and so on - not the best.
Isn't interesting how we would slate an African government, say, for creaming off as much money as they could for themselves at the expense of their country - we'd be so scornful of such a corrupt inferior system. Yet that is Westminster!
Complain about this comment
NCA999:
#69.
"The first part was a joke, it really wasn't meant to cause offence and I don't see why you're so upset by it. The way that you guys polarise everything into "your either a nationalist or a unionist" is completely unfitting with how I, and most others, see things."
There are some opinions spoken by supporters of independence, usually described as nationalists, in which I do not seek to be associated with. When you say, "You nastionalists..." you have placed us all together, when well... we have little in common.
"You really need to stop seeing everything that anyone says to disagree with you as being a "Unionist conspiracy"."
How rude. In my first comment in reply to you comment, I actually pointed out that I have NEVER labelled you to be some type of "Unionist ranter" and that I would like to see the same respect shown to me.
I have never wrote Unionist or conspiracy in the same sentence before too. I have never even claimed some wild conspriacy is occuring either while talking about anything on these Blogs.
I am not one of those bloggers which you were quick to associate me with!
"I'm sure even in your fictitious utopia of an independent Scotland you would have a parliament, and in that parliament there would be people who disagree with policies of King Salmond without being evil traitors."
I have never labelled individuals as traitors. Are you saying this to stir up trouble? Pathetic, utterly pathetic and highly embarressing because you are trying to associate me with the wrong people.
As I said earlier I am nothing like them, and do not want to see remarks that link me with the individuals that you describe above, thanks.
"I, like most, might not support the breakup of the country, but that doesn't mean that every time I disagree with an SNP policy that this is why."
I, like most, where are you coming from? The majority of Polls do not show a clear majority in favour of the Union, or Independence, of course depending on the question asked.
"Nor does it mean that everyone who disagrees with any given SNP policy is a Unionist."
I don't accuse anyone to be Unionist because of disagreeing with SNP policy. i do not agree with all their policies either!
"If we're debating Scottish independence then fine, in all other debates then please stop making everything so partisan."
Like I said earlier. This is NOT about independence, powers or aanything of the sort. Do you actually read my comments?
"The second part, the two points which I made, were quite clearly not directed at you but at bihulabaloo. You criticise me for not reading peoples posts, but quite clearly didn't read mine properly otherwise you would have realised this."
I did realise it. However you made no indication that your comment was targeted at someone else because you clearly had my name at the top to show that you were replying to what I wrote, which it turns out you never actually commented on what I had to say at all.
"Am I the only person on this discussion that thinks that the "SNP legal team" are probably sat laughing at bighulabaloo like the rest of us are?"
It's difficult to say, lies, especailly towards individuals and parties should not be talerated and the BBC, as the publics entity then they should ensure that what goes on here is accurate, or accurate enough in temrs of what is considered debating, dicussions and delete comments that are totally baseless.
The smears from Labour wer enot accepted, why should it be allowed here?
Complain about this comment
Hmmmm, looks like we may finally know who the real Derek Barker is. Remember Derek, there is no anonymity on the net......thanks to New Labour and GCHQ.
Complain about this comment
MPs' expenses: Paying bills for Tory grandees
"Last night, the Metropolitan Police announced that it was considering complaints it had received about the expenses of six MPs, including Geoff Hoon, the Transport Secretary, and Alistair Darling, the Chancellor."
The've brought it on themselves "jolly dee".
Don't forget we owe a lot to Heather Brooke
Complain about this comment
Some of the greatest 'outrage' on this topic has been generated by the smallest amounts - 80p odd for a bathplug - £5 for the hire of an 'adult' film etc. It's odd that far greater amounts of actual and potential exploitation of the expenses system - I'm thinking of the flipping of main residence to avoid stamp duty - are thus put on a par with aforesaid bath plug.
Are we being fed this information to feed our taste for titillating and prurient detail to distract us from something worse?
Complain about this comment
#74 Neil_Small147
"the stories about Salmond are both out of context and the particular issue has been inflated out of all proportion."
"Out of context" is one thing but this baseless smear that Salmond claimed expenses when parliament was in recess is factually inaccurate (as my #36 proves).
When such "news" stories are exposed for the vindictive lies they really are they are dismissed as "innocent gaffes".
Since this has happened about 20 times (so far!) during the SNP's time in office we are getting rightly sick to our stomachs with the continual defamatory lies and smears.
NCA999 thinks it can go on unchallenged because no one's been sued for it...YET.
Like so many of our MPs he thinks he's "untouchable". That could turn out to be a very costly mistake.
Complain about this comment
brian i would suggest that all the members collective honour would be too small for the carrier bag purchased by one MP for 5p. I would also suggest that there are far better uses for a carrier bag than holding something so dirty and distasteful.
Complain about this comment
Apparently there is some form on the web!
http://warofthewords.co.uk/Joomla/content/view/110/27/
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1443948.0.question_how_does_a_government_minister_claim_a_mortgage_allowance_when_his_home_doesnt_qualifybranswer_simple_he_sells_it_for_a_267_000_profit_and_takes_out_a_mortgage_on_one_down_the_road.php
Complain about this comment
All I can say is that these MP.s are scum sir, and truly elected scum at that. They are spending money like water off the backs of many who cannot afford one home, yet some of these swine have three!! It is of little wonder that we have a swine flu epidemic (so we are told) we are being infected by these greedy PEOPLE.
The sooner we have a vaccine against these LEECHES the better we shall all feel.
Complain about this comment
85. At 10:11pm on 11 May 2009, bighullabaloo:
I agree that it is a blatant attempt at smearing Alex. I'm all for having a ding-dong argument about policies, but I cannot stand dishonesty.
With the Euro elections coming up, the media should be targetting the Euro gravy train. But we all know what the next distraction from Labour will be - a certain political party with similar initials to the SNP.
Perhaps there will be an attempt to link the two over some baseless accusation.
I'll leave greenockboy to predict the headlines, he's spookily accurate!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#87
Weren't we supposed to pick up on the 2 year lapse between the seperate publications of this regurgitated story.
Thanks, Derek, for highlighting how quick the unionist media were to pounce on a new minister's expenses (in 2007), the desperate depths they are now prepared to plumb to divert negative attention away from the Westminster parties, and the sheer dearth of new ammunition available to further their blatant anti-SNP agenda.
I used to keenly support the Sunday Herald as representing the nearest thing we had in Scotland to an open, intelligent and unbiased newspaper.
Such recent evidence wholly confirms that no such publication now exists.
Little wonder newspaper sales are plummeting, when their journalistic standards are also in freefall, and they no longer merit our custom.
Complain about this comment
#89
Neil Small,where are you getting all this dishonesty nonsense from.
Look, the "telegraph" ran the story, along with aload of other MP's (and their expenses)
apparently the "telegraph" got hold of a disc from a mole containing all the information now being leaked.
No-one is trying to "TAR" the FM.People just want a fair reflection on all those mentioned, no matter what their party maybe.
It would seem that the Scottish parliament got a grip on the expenses issue earlier than westminster and dont forget the public demanded that!
however if a sitting MSP also holds an MP post, then is that an excuse to escape the flak, if their name props up in the media?.
Neil stop being "BIASED"
Complain about this comment
#91 Dougie
Someone posed the question, apparently there does seem to be some form.
Some MP's expenses and claims are going as far back as four years ago?
Do you agree with the new term flipping?.
Complain about this comment
92. At 11:31pm on 11 May 2009, derekbarker:
I'm not being biased. I've openly criticised the FM for holding two seats in separate parliaments, as I cannot see him possibly fairly representing his constituents at Westminster.
However, even if his expenses are correct, they pale into insignificance with what some MPs are claiming.
But you want fairness? OK, there are also Labour MPs who are NOT feathering their nests, and making very modest claims indeed. Hilary Benn is a good example, hardly claiming anything at all.
Oh, and please don't shout on the blog. Poor manners.
Complain about this comment
#94
Neil Small
#94 Neil Small
It's just not about the amount Neil?.
Apparently a tory MP claimed for 25 light bulbs to be changed, at a cost of over 100 pounds, Yet! many think that an excessive act.
So do you scorn that? and ignore another so-called act?.
Complain about this comment
i suggest that the person who has claimed the little or no expenses is the person who should be put in charge of reforming them.
Complain about this comment
89 - Labour are already 'biggin up' the BNP down saff and the threat they pose to 'Westminster Democracy' using a strategy scarily like the one that has been peddled up here about independence and the threat of the SNP for the last three years.
The problem for Labour is that their vote is swinging to the BNP in their traditional home counties strongholds (see Times and other papers commenting about the recent Populus poll) rather than the Tories or Liberals. Interestingly the Times mentions the worrying swing to the nationalist parties this latest poll is indicating as being the bulk of the swing to others (now 13% +4%). By inference the Times is putting the SNP and Plaid Cymru on the same footing as the BNP.
The question arises just how worried is Murdoch and thus his editors about the loss of influence, of his media outlets, independence will bring. We must assume News International is worried as a quick skim of the Scottish Sun's headlines shows.
I believe we are now at the beginning of the end game and the Westminster establishment and it's media outlets' last futile attacks in the style of the Light Brigade. Neither those in Wales or Scotland seeking independence have had to fire a shot, so far; in the case of the expenses scandal, the Westminster Light Brigade charged their own guns with a similarly suicidal outcome.
Labour and the Tories are leaking support over their failure to address what those outside of Westminster see as blatant corruption. Currently the main winners are the Liberals and the nationalist parties in Wales and Scotland. With out an election it is hard to see how Labour and the Tories are going to win back this vote share as the Populus Poll indicates the public see them as jointly and equally liable for the mess they are in.
The usual suspects will populate this thread with their attempts at muck spreading by misinformation not able to admit that in Wee Eck they are attacking a politician who is seen by the majority of Scots, to be doing what it says on the tin for the benefit of Scotland as a whole and not just the West End of Glasgow.
Complain about this comment
Come on Neil discuss,debate, your always talking about the lack of interaction and grown up response?.
Complain about this comment
I agree with a lot of your comments regarding the Scottish Parliament and the insidious use of titles at Westminster. I would suggest, though, that something else has changed with which we have to deal as a nation. There is a sense in which we have started to regard MPs as simply public employees, responsible to their employees - the taxpayers.
And that's OK - if we are ready to shoulder the responsibilities of employers and make sure that we pay our employees a proper wage for the job; and if we are willing to to give of our time to involve ourselves in the business of employing our public servants.
Truth is, though, too many of us have been all too ready to be absentee landlords - ready to draw on the profits, but not to involve ourselves or our time.
Complain about this comment
The 'flipping' practice of manipulating second home designations and allowances for optimum personal gain, is a thoroughly disreputable practice that went on ("within the rules!") at Holyrood under Labour-led administrations for 10 years - a consequence, as I pointed out earlier, of its expenses structure having been created in Westminster's corrupt image.
Evidently, it took the advent of SNP government to bring that to an end.
Meanwhile, a certain Alistair Darling (our 'esteemed' Chancellor) has been reported as having 'flipped' ... his second home designation four (4) times!!
A serial flipper if ever there was one - and the practice is still rampant at Westminster.
Despite the fact that Westminster MPs will require to be dragged kicking and screaming from the trough of their lavish and ill-gotten gains to even begin to restore the public trust, the unionist media on both sides of the Border will never pass over an opportunity to participate in the dirty tricks of the London Establishment.
Complain about this comment
#100 Dougie
Yes! it's one hell of a mess. Dougie, the reforms you mention in terms of expenses and so on within the Scottish parliament began when David Steel was presiding-officer, as BT pointed out, MSP's had to be brought into line and Dougie thats inclusive of all parties.
Complain about this comment
Its obvious that the government have been in cahoots with the disgraced bankers . They also learned how to fleece the system but have now been found out as well. They should hang their heads in shame.
We are descending into anarchy as no one in their right mind will trust parliament again for quite some time. Military government or dictatorship coming soon, what a delightful thought
Complain about this comment
#102 Jake-the-saltire!
Jake, from Thatcher to Major then Blair and Brown the political movement has had it's life sucked out of it.Trust and confidence is at an all time low and the greed monster reigns supreme amongst the general society.
Politicians have created a vacuum of despair and the soul has been removed from political intent.
In a few months time westminster will try to push through a bill to part-privatise the Royale Mail, there is no offers to buy, considering the world wide recession however parliament will still force it's hand and try to legislate away part of a public service. A service which has a debt crisis of 9Bn within it's pension scheme and a working process which was failed to be modernised in terms of E- Mail and new technology, now! giving it's a public service, all those failings are the responsibility of the government and how do they try to fix it, YES! by trying to sell it on to some poor unassuming company. I ask! where is the soul in the labour party? where is that determination not to privatise and how many votes would such an act cost to the labour voting community?. Jake I await that out-come, with hope.
Complain about this comment
#103 Derekbarker
Never thought I'd find myself in agreement with you, but you hit the nail on the head when you ask "where is the soul in the labour party?". Labour has lost its raison d'etre ever since the advent of New Labour. To gain, and retain, power in the UK it had to re-invent itself, but lost its way in the process.
It could've spiked the Tory guns by introducing PR for Westminster. The resulting parliament would likely been dominated by a Labour/Libdem majority. It would certainly have prevented another Thatcher. But no, they much prefer risk a Tory Govt than share power. This addiction to power is at the root of Brown's problem. He is so scared of losing it he will do anything to retain it. Iain McWhirter's pain
(http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/features/display.var.2507264.0.Prime_Minister_should_do_the_decent_thing_and_resign_now.php)
is palpable and typical of many Labour supporters.
The current expenses debacle is just the pathetic twitching of a dying government.
The desire to live in a socially responsible, morally defensive and prosperous country is as much at the heart of why I want independence as any romantic/emotional attachment I have to Scotland. I think we can achieve such a society here. But not within the UK I fear.
Complain about this comment
#50 #58 Thanks for that.I only heard Radio Scotland going through the headlines and didnt catch the newpaper it was it. I thought it might have been the Scotsman as its definatly a rubbish anti SNP headline, i dont know how they get away with it.
Complain about this comment
Just read this little snippet from the BBC News website. David Cameron saying the the Scottish Government must respect UK made decisions. This last bit got me though ... "If you replace the Barnett formula, you'd replace it with a needs-based formula - and Scotland has a lot of needs and has some very deep pockets of poverty" Oh so we're all poor up here are we. I would imagine vast areas of London,Manchester.Birmingham etc have huge sink estates full of dole scroungers ... i dont suppose anyone has figures for population / unemployed for both Scotland and England ?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
There are a few posters on here who believe that AS was wrong in claiming money for eating out. You are assuming that AS was alone when claiming those food expenses. He is our FM and I am confident that he may have been entertaining people in relation to parliamentary duties.
I am not defending AS because he is of the SNP, I am defending him in the same manner as I defended Gordon Brown for his expenses in the last blog. Gordon Brown may be many things (and I have attacked him in the past for such, but an abuser of the expenses system? I don't think so.
There has to be a modicum of reality in all of this. If an MP/MSP is entitled to claim for expenses that may put him out of pocket, in the furtherance of their parliamentary duties, then those expenses are justified. It is the others who are to blame, who deliberately misuse the system for their own personal gain, as Brian was alluding to in this blog.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
They only apologise when they get caught, as with Sleazegate.
On the subject of elitism, Ms Blears said that they need to get some "ordinary" people to help come up with a new set of rules.
The MPs are the "ordinary" people here, as they are supposed to work for us "ordinary" people, rather than lining their pockets at our expense.
Everybody knows this has been going on for a long, long time. It's only when the setup is fully exposed with facts that they can no longer wriggle out of it.
Complain about this comment
Derek, were you feeling alrgiht when you wrote this?
"o' YES! and bring David Cameron into a war like government until this mess is cleared up and the GE is held and let no MP escape, no matter how senior they are, if they have abused the scheme excessively then they must also forfiet the right to be an MP."
Complain about this comment
108 - The whole point is this:
If I tale a client out for a meal, as part of a business meeting, to discuss a potential or current contract, the IRS will only allow any claim against tax if I can prove the meal was essential to my business and was not simply 'social'. If I have abused this definition to take family out and am found out I will have a full IRS investigation of my accounts going back five years at a cost of around £10,000 for a self employed businessman, not including having your bank accounts frozen to prevent any shifting of funds.
If I am found to be a serial abuser the IRS will total all the miss-claims up and I will be expected to pay back all this sum plus all interest calculated and may well find myself before the courts with the likely penalty of a further fine and / or prison.
Now we return to the parliamentary expenses scam can you tell me the difference between how the government treats those who they claim are abusing the IRS system and parliamentarians who are abusing the parliamentary claims system?
As I said in a previous post it appears you can pocket £100,000 (a Hain if you please)if you are an MP with out any declaration, even though under PPER 2000 to do so is deemed a criminal act, and instead of your behaviour costing you £10,000 simply for the investigation, plus a criminal court case you get off if you apologise to the 'house'.
That is where my annoyance and anger lies, the politicians in Westminster are now putting themselves above the law and the fundamental right that Westminster enshrines - that all are the same under the law.
PS: I have never had an IRS investigation into my business but I have seen friends driven to the verge of bankruptcy and insanity by an IRS investigation into their tax affairs - on one occasion the chastened tax man left finding the business had been under claiming, no apology, of course, for the cost to the business, or any recompense.
Complain about this comment
Lord Foulks needs to get a grip going through "wee Ecks" expenses witha nit comb for the "Scottish Sun" doesn't paint him in a good light. Be off with him and a good malt. LOL
Complain about this comment
I think that the bigger picture is being hidden behind cans of dog food,ordure and the odd sandwich.
Yes there has been real exploitation of the public monies , houses being the one that seems to be keeking out behind the dog food.
The speaker has shown himself most anxious to stop publication of expenses,indeed last night one might almost say hysterical , one wonders why.
Meanwhile Iraq and Afghanistan trundle on, killing civilian and soldier alike.
Meanwhile the pound continues to slip against Euro and Dollar.
Meanwhile more people are losing their jobs and houses.
And meanwhile we have the self congratulatory media playing the superior card.
Where were they when all this was going on ? Supping with the Westminster MPs and regurgitating the Labour party line?
I watched Paxman , he of the inflated ego,interrupt the Conservative MP 6 or 7 times last night, like a dog with a soft toy , because the poor man was the ONLY one willing to be present.Considering that Paxman is reputed to earn one million quid of our money perhaps he should be a little more careful !
A much better interview of the brave chaps from Cons ,Labs and Libs,was broadcast by Channel 4 news.
The sycophantic media has done this country a GREAT disservice.
And I am tired of seeing favoured journalists with the " correct " agenda interviewed on TV. Are there no revolutionary journalists around?
By God we need you!
Otherwise the pitchforks and piano wire might NOT remain a joke!
Complain about this comment
# 111 slaintemha
Being self employed myself I fully concur with what you are saying. On several occasions I have taken out clients, and my bank manager, to discuss business in more convivial surroundings. This I claimed back from my tax. Having never seen a Tax investigation I cannot comment, but I have heard stories and none of them have been heartening.
It is a pity that, whatever parliamentary watchdog supervises the expenses of MPs, they cannot have the same sweeping powers as the taxman has now. Since the taxman was amalgamated with the Customs & Excise the taxman now has frightening powers. It wasn't like years ago where one could always 'do a deal' with the taxman, so I've been told.
Complain about this comment
Where has the " Questions for Annabel Goldie" section gone?
I'd like to ask her in the light of revelations this week , where does she stand on MPs expenses?
Last week I asked her about leaky subs but got no reply.
I asked the liberals too , no reply!
No point in asking the BBC where they stand on Faslane revelations , they appear to think its so trivial they can dismiss it.
Complain about this comment
I saw Michael Martin on the TV last night and he certainly wasn't following Brian Taylor's recommendation to ditch the parliamentary superiority complex. In fact he was visibly angry at MPs who had the temerity to side with the public on the expenses scandal. How dare they! What a disgrace to Glasgow, to Scotland and to democracy he is.
Those uninspiring, long-serving and underemployed Scottish Labour back benchers are probably Michael Martin's closest friends, and we haven't heard anything of their expenses yet. I did read that John Reid (that self-styled non-medical 'doctor') claimed £29.99 in expenses for a glittery black toilet seat from B&Q. I bet you some of those Labour back benchers have done a lot better than that....
Complain about this comment
106. You've missed the point. He was talking about Scotland, not England's regions.
108. If Salmond wants to claim for meals taken within the context of being FM, then he should claim from Holyrood not Westminster. Westminster does not exist to finance his FM duties.
111. I assume slaintemha is another ex-pat....
Complain about this comment
116. Isn't there going to be a full disclosure in July? Isn't this just the media cherry-picking the best/worst?
(I had a post removed yesterday for suggesting that a certain Asian Labour Baroness be 'defrocked' if found guilty of fraudulent claims. Apparently, I was being 'sexually explicit'!)
Complain about this comment
# 117 RE
'108. If Salmond wants to claim for meals taken within the context of being FM, then he should claim from Holyrood not Westminster. Westminster does not exist to finance his FM duties.'
Point taken, but the principle remains the same.
Complain about this comment
The system is shocking and has been put in place, and maintained in place, by Westminster parliamentary MPs. They must take responsibility for this. It was voted on as recently as 2008.
That successive Westminster parliaments have been dominated cyclically by Labour and Conservative MPs beyond living memory is obvious.
It seems therefore appropriate that these parties appear to be suffering the brunt of the public wrath, if the Times poll is accurate.
It is not just the fault of the system though - despite the repeated protestations of those in the spotlight. Not all MPs have felt the need to exploit that system to its very limit. That is to the credit of some and the shame of others
Details of all expenses should, and will, be published in full as soon as possible. The public should then be asked to pass judgement on individuals and parties alike in a General Election at the earliest opportunity.
The new parliament should then create a new system with complete transparency, in the fashion of those in place for expenses and allowances throughout private industry and the public sector. MPs should not be seen as anything other than "ordinary people" as that is who they are elected to represent.
Complain about this comment
I've added a new poll over at Brigadoon with the question: Who do you blame for the expenses scandal? All votes welcome, would be interesting to see what the balance of opinion is from all the comments above.
Complain about this comment
#113 undoubtedly some of the media are part of the problem, let's face it when politicians meet journalists for lunch who puts what on who's expenses?
Complain about this comment
#112rickyross3359
Evidence would indicate that such activity has been Lord Foulkes's political raison d'etre over the past 2 years - London Labour's planted snitch at Holyrood, and a sycophantic apologist for the worst excesses of his own party's behaviour.
It is exactly Foulkes's brand of two-faced ultra-loyal apparatchik mentality that personifies the stench of the unreformed Old Boys Network, undermines the public's faith in the integrity or accountability of their nominal representatives, and generally sickens the public from the machinations of such third-rate hangers-on.
Complain about this comment
Reluctant_expat ad nauseam
Still trying to excuse the inexcusable I see. Why is there full disclosure at all? Not because the Govt, MPs, Civil Servants and the rest of that self serving crew wanted it. Without the fourth estate, none of this would have come to the public's attention. So they have the right to "cherry pick" before July. Maybe you were hoping that this mess would not come out before the June elections? Or before Westminster broke up for the summer?
ps Will Michael Martin be defrocked? That is one ridiculous outfit he has to wear
Complain about this comment
Lord Foulkes was rather "courageous" in his defence of expenses claimed by MPs.
Asking the BBC interviewer how much she was paid was a nice touch! (Deflector shields at full captain!)
See the BBC Scotland Politics page for the footage.
(Can somebody teach me how to post links please?)
I guess he thinks he can afford to be "courageous" now that he is an unelected member of the House of Lords rather than an MP who will face the public in an election.
Is he retiring as an MSP next time round, or did he just forget that he remains accountable to the Scottish electorate perhaps?
Courageous indeed!
Complain about this comment
George Foulkes is a man I find very hard to listen to until today.Sent to Scottish Parliament to try to make life hard for any person advocating separatism.
Although nothing he says explains or excuses the MPs who have used this system to their own advantage he has a point. The woman who sat accusing him is paid £92,000 PA. £252 per day. More than a pensioner gets in a week. Why do the media not start to bring this to the attention of the public. It seems she is probably one of the lower paid presenters. Why do we need to pay so much for a person who simply asks questions.
I could do that, I do it very well and in an unbiased way, I would ask these questions for no pay but only if I get free make-up.
BBC presenters are also paid from the public purse and no amount of claiming they do not even make a phone call from the BBC will stop the public starting on them next. Maybe that is the Idea, maybe the full disclosure later in the year will be buried under claims that BBC presenters are paid too much.
Complain about this comment
#118
I think the Telegraph has plenty ammunition still unfired. They started with the cabinet and government ministers, then the shadow cabinet and ministers, then Northern Ireland, then some Tory backbenchers today. Still a few targets left... They also have teasers on their website hinting of plenty more revelations to come.
I could be wrong, and it may be that those long-serving, uninspiring and underemployed Scottish Labour MPs will turn out to be paragons of decency and propriety. But somehow I doubt it.
Remember David Marshall (of Glasgow East notoriety) resigned suddenly amid stories about his expenses. He claimed his home was his constituency office and claimed £91,000 in costs for it, although Margaret Curran, local MSP and Labour party stalwart, said she had never been to it once; he employed his wife and/or daughter and claimed £400,000 for employing them; he finally claimed he was 'suffering from depression', and no more questions were asked.
I have mentioned Michael "Air Miles" Martin already. I think further revelations regarding others of their ilk are so likely that I don't think the bookies would accept bets.
Complain about this comment
126 Lydia-REID
Lydia, the BBC does have a problem with excessive salaries (Jonathan Ross)
However lord Foulkes is a bigger problem, remember Foulkes supported the Iraq war with every inch of his body.
They should empty his bank acoount and share it amongst those who lost love one's in the Iraq war.
Complain about this comment
#125 For Foulkes sake! does anyone take him serious, I don't, another case of a Labour 'pseudo' peer getting well paid for speaking nonsense.
Complain about this comment
#126
Don't fall for it, Lydia!!!
Complain about this comment
This will be the same Lard Foulkesakes that has run up a £500,000 bill at Holyrood since May 2007 asking asinine questions of the SNP Government, the answers to most of which show that the SNP have been doing their job!
The same Lard Foulkesakes that said Vlad the Impaler was good for Hearts until his backside was pushed out the window, then he squealed like a spoilt brat.
This will be in the same Scottish Sun that Murdoch uses to peddle what ever political fancy he thinks is best for New International's profits in the UK. The same media organ that routinely conflates the SNP with the BNP.
BBC Scotland is simply getting what Labour feels it deserves for its slight deviance from the Labour; four legs, good: SNP; two legs, bad approach last night and sent its top, thug pig to do the business. There should be no or little surprise at Foulkesake's behaviour given the Prime Minister's averred leadership style of bullying, threatening and shows of violent temper.
The Labour Party in Brown, Martin and now Foulkesakes is throwing its toys out of the pram as 'it wisnae me' is no longer cutting it with the politicians employers.
PS: no I am not an ex-pat, ex-pat, I actually returned to Scotland after 20 years of living as an ex-pat and now the only ex-pat I want to become is an EX-UKpat and live in an independent Scotland. The business case for downsizing the UK would have greater benefits for the public in the separate nation states but the politicians at Westminster would loose out, big time, on the current 'international status' gravy train as a second tier nation pretending it is a first tier nation when the economic status of the UK is a second tier nation and has been since the end of the Second World War when the USA's policy of bankrupting the UK and the British Empire bore fruit. Germany got the Marshall Plan, the US's ally (UK) got a bill that was only finally paid off in the late 1990's. So much for the 'special relationship - eh?
Complain about this comment
Even though I mirror all the comments made about Foulkes, he did put over one good point. The MPs should be getting more. If a BBC reporter is getting GBP 92,000 per year then MPs should be on, at least, the same. I think that reporter is going to be sorry that she mentioned her salary. Another bag of worms will open soon. I'll bet the BBC won't be the first to talk about that.
I wonder how much pension she will be on as well?
Complain about this comment
the mistake the reporter made was actually answering his question when everyone else could see why he asked it . he didn't like what she was saying and would have refused to answer if the shoe was on the other foot.
if she had asked what his earnings outwith politics were per year he would have ran the proverbial mile.
at this moment in time what she earns is irrelevant and all foulkes is trying to do is deflect even more criticism from a discredited government working in a discredited institution.
the mother of all RIP OFF's - alive and well at the "mother of all Parliament's"
PS if they are not getting paid enough then they can all sod off and get another job in the real world.
Complain about this comment
The Loonies have launched
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8044854.stm
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8045092.stm
Foulkes and Broon, say all is well ... so it must be, right?!
Complain about this comment
134 patty
Although I'm no lib/dem I fail to see your point? Longannet and carbon capature makes good security sense.
Loonies/ have those at the cutting end of capitalism like Sir Fred delivered a better productive society?.
Complain about this comment
Cameron - to my mind at least - seems to be playing this well now.
Compare and contrast his lead, to get Tory MPs to repay excessive claims, or lose the party whip, with that of Labour's Foulkes & Martin - who are still fighting the public over their right to the trough!
Cameron then tops this off with a Tory review panel to scrutinise all new Tory claims against new party standards (e.g. no furniture claims).
I'm no Tory, but I think he's just put another 5 points on their UK lead over Labour!
Meanwhile Gordon apologises for everyone and does nothing.
Even if he now follows suit (which he will attempt), he'll be shown as a follower, not a leader.
Complain about this comment
#136 derekbarker
have those at the cutting end of capitalism like Sir Fred delivered a better productive society?
Really good question, derek. I don't know if the 645 at the cutting end of capitalism who have bankrupted a country will be seen to have produced a better productive society at the end of the day rather than the one who only bankrupted a company. Maybe the court of public opinion ought to ask for their pensions back, we are so busy going on about their manure that we have forgotten the obscene pensions they voted themselves as well as all the bunce in expenses and allowances.
I don't know the answer but if there were fewer of them, and I'd hope for 60-70% rather than CMD's 10%, it would be cheaper.
Complain about this comment
#136 derek, it is completely inconsistent with their past actions. If carbon capture makes sense (I agree with you on that); then why did they placidly roll over and accept when the pioneering Peterhead project was deliberately "taken out" by the Westminster Govt. in the aftermath of the 2007 election?
At the height of Broon's "I'm not working with that man" strop.
Why did they not stand up in either Parliament that could have made a difference, Holyrood or Westminster, and condemn it in the strongest terms? Why (when running for the European Parliament - which can only really set regulatory guidelines), make carbon capture an issue now?
This is nothing but window-dressing, as they desperately search for an issue to run-on and a reason to exist.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7148/full/4471044a.html
Complain about this comment
131. Don't be ridiculous, slaintemha.
Again I suggest you read up on subjects before you have your bizarre rants.
Complain about this comment
Old Holburn has the lord bang to rights!
Complain about this comment
OO-ER!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/8035905.stm
Complain about this comment
It's not just the media that have a Unionist/Labourite bias... this from George Black of Glasgow City Council went out to all employees...
"Our Financial Status
It has been a few months since I updated you on the financial situation facing the council.
You may recall that we have been planning to save £25 million in 2009 to 2010 and a further
£28 million in 2010 to 2011.
Since the start of the year it has become clear to me that the scale of the challenge is even greater than that.
In the last month the media has reported that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, has plans to freeze public sector budgets in cash terms from 2010 to 2013. It is not yet clear exactly what that would mean for our budget but I estimate that at a minimum we would require to make savings of £65 million in 2010 to 2011. At worst we would see our budget cut by some £99 million per year. As an illustration of the impact that could have, £99 million is the cost of employing roughly 4000 people in the council.
I will keep you updated as the position becomes clearer."
This should be illegal to use a workplace to push a political viewpoint... it is certainly not moral in the slightest. Mr Black fails to note that the Scottish budget has been screved down by 486 Million by Alistair Darling 'of Labour'... and tries to pin the blame on the SNP. Maybe an SNP administration might just clear out the dead wood in Glasgow City Council.
Totally shameful!
Complain about this comment
131: Funny - Expat I wonder why my post has now been removed for pointing out the waste of space, known as Foulkes, was deemed offensive? I suppose it may have something to do with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Any way how can you rant about some one as mendacious as Lord Foulkes,(Lord's expenses anyone) there are not enough adjectives to do that with any real effect.
Maybe it was the comment about BBC Scotland's well known Union bias?
It couldn't have been for pointing out that I think the Union is bad for the UK could it? (PS: Expat - UK was openly defined a second tier nation in the Wall Street Journal in October 2008 and that is the standard view of the UK economy as viewed from the USA, Matthew Parris writing in The Times also stated it was time for the UK to stop pretending it was in the first tier of World States and cut its cloth accordingly). That's why Gordon invented the G20 as we just scrape in :-)
Complain about this comment
Telegraph discloses Liberal Democrat MPs' expenses
"In one case, a front bencher spent thousands of pounds on furniture, including a rocking chair and sofa-bed, over the course of a few days in the run up to the deadline for submitting her expenses."
Hard work listening to the general guff spoken everyday I suppose.
Complain about this comment
What we really need to know about Brian is whether he earns more or less than Carrie Gracie's 92,000GBP per year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Gracie
Complain about this comment
Flipping eck! has oldnat turned his attention onto the BBC now!
I guess life is like a box of chocolates, you never know which one your going to pick?.
Apparently the "torygraph" will run a piece on another nationalist tomorrow?. Guess who?.
Complain about this comment
Oldnat,forfar-loon, aye-write and nicola, chat over dinner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpabJNLXX3E
Complain about this comment
I see there has been a lot added to Carrie's wiki. She'll be sorry.
Brian's wiki is more careful. No sign of his salary. Maybe he's doing it for nothing.
Complain about this comment
"When Gracie stated her salary is £92,000, Foulkes accused her of being paid nearly twice as much as Members of Parliament (£64,000)"
I see Foulkes' arithmetical skill is right up there with Brian Taylor's.
Either that or it's another example of a politican making statements with no discernible connection to reality.
Gracie's salary clearly is not "nearly twice as much as Members of Parliament".
By any reasonable estimate it's less than 1.5 times as much.
To be paid "nearly twice as much" she'd have to be earning almost £128,000.
Foulkes also seems incapable of appreciating that Gracie isn't having every personal and household whim met by expenses - like Members of Parliament are.
So, his angrily blurted out "comparison" can hardly be regarded as fair or accurate.
Complain about this comment
#150 bighullabaloo
Guido has Foulksakes "earnings" at £150,000. Even just as a politician it's over £100,000. The web of truth spun so fine as to be invisible from the man who's cost us £500,000 in questions in the Parliament to no purpose.
And we can't ,not re-elect, or deselect him. Aren't we lucky.
Complain about this comment
No one seems to be asking the M.P's why
> are their own rules better than Royal Bank Of Scotland's rules?. They all
> now involve tax payers money. Because the M.P's are all repeating the same
> annoying phrase. "It was within the rules".
> Yes it may have been, but do they not remember that Fred Goodwin's pension
> was within the rules of R.B.S.?.
> So how can they say their rules ok?, which they devised, but also say
> R.B.S's rules where wrong?. It's a bit of Pot and Kettle.
> They are as bad, if not worse than Fred Goodwin.
> Yours sincerely
Complain about this comment
It's also interesting to see MPs now blaming their ridiculous expenses claims on the now ubiquitous "errors of judgement".
Just so that we're all clear: that's the same sort of "error of judgement" that if you or I committed it, we'd find ourselves gutted by a friendly local tax inspector before our carcasses were passed on to the local CID officers, where shortly after you'd find yourself cooling your heels in a very small room with barred windows.
One law for them and one law for the rest of us.
A total disgrace.
Complain about this comment
Guido taking Lord Foulkes All to task,
http://www.order-order.com/2009/05/foulkes-doesnt-like-it-up-him/
Complain about this comment
So far as these "errors of judgement" are concerned, its worth pointing out that all of those involved will be using accountants to sort out their tax liabilities and allowances. It is these accountants who will advise them on what can be claimed and is allowable under the rules. Realistically this means maximising what can be claimed or offset, that is their job.
Now this is not to deflect blame on to the accountants, because all they can do is advise; the point is that the dishonourable members are not making their dodgy claims though inadvertence or in a fit of inattention but knowingly after having been advised by their accountants that they can maximise income/offset liability that way
Complain about this comment
Anyone throw any light on the fact that SoS ran the "Salmond steals a sandwich story" but the usual follow up on Monday in the "Scotsman" is NOT present?
How very strange. Not even when one hunts more politics can one find the article!
Is there a follow up on the BBC by any chance ?
Something I've missed?
Complain about this comment
it is now becoming blatantly obvious why our country is in such a state and our morals are at such a low ebb. our so called political class are now admitting that they make so many mistakes with their expenses and are so obsessed with ensuring no one finds out about their expenses there is no time left to actually run the country, in fact running the country is secondary to lining their pockets.
fully agree with #153 & #155
sid
Complain about this comment
It really is toe curlingly cringeworthy to see the ilk of Hazel Blears justify tax avoidance and manipulation of the system. For Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg AND David Camermon to BOTH try and put spin on this with some Fire, Brimstone and indignant tones.
"Car Crash" Television indeed.
Stephen Fry is of course right in his averment that things like MP's expenses are never going to hold water against ensuring a government is held to account for failures that lead to wars... And I respect and admire the man's opinion immensely.
So It was hard for me to disagree and assert for myself that for someone to take office & become a representative of the people - honourable behaviour is demanded for such a position. All MP's who voted against or were absent during the vote to publish thier expenses should be removed from office immedieately.
This entire saga would be over in a matter of months if Broon had the guts to bite yet another face saving bullet and call a General Election NOW. All 3 parties have been heavily damaged by the expenses farce and I'm in no doubt that thousands of indignant and angry voters have been filling MP's surgeries up and down the country with scathing 5 page essays on how enraged this debacle has made them.
It's safe to surmise that Holyrood's political parties will invariably catch some fallout of this, at least, the parties recieving the lion's share of the rancor would.
In that respect, the prospect for the SNP to win some more seats in Scotland is looking more and more likely by the day, wether they call an election now or not.
Complain about this comment
#150 Hullabaloo
I dislike that cretin Foulkes to such a degree of intensity that I can't possibly put it into words for fear it might cast a shadow on the overiding topic.
But it's safe to say - If I were to rewrite Dante's seminal Divine Comedy - Bernard Ingham, George Foulkes and Kelvin McKenzie would all have a place in Satans jaws in lieu of Brutus, Cassius & Iscariot.
Complain about this comment
#152
MILES worse than Fred Goodwin
That old fool Myners signed off on Goodwin and co's pensions. It's Goodwins luck that Labour employed an incompetent asshat to deal with the RBS fallout
MP's have known about this abusive system for years and did nothing about it when it neither threatened them or was available to the public.
Not one single MP has the moral kernel to pass judgement on the rest of us now. Thier tenure of authority is gone and with it the respect of the people who put them where they are.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Appreciate your take on things, it's true that MSP's and expenses are clearer and can be seen as open, not sure if any politican can be seen as honourable any more save perhaps Nelson Mandela, the concept of public service died out long ago. The club in Westminster will take years to reform, I think going back 10 years would do no harm and help restore public confidence. Granted the circa £400m overspend on the parliament building needs to be clawed back too so all is not rosy in the scottish garden either!
Complain about this comment
Having systematically hounded Sandi Thom from her performances in the economically vital Homecoming Scotland celebrations, even before the start of the summer's specially programmed events, and in light of his hate campaign against all things connected to the SNP, George Foulkes must now be pretty pleased with his performance as lead Westminster worm at Holyrood.
Given his pathological determination to poison and undermine Scottish initiatives from their initial inception, whilst leaping blindly to the defence of Westminster hierarchy, hegemony and hubris, including Mr Speaker and the hordes of self-serving Labour MPs who just happen to be his old pals, the term 'maggot' would hardly be strong enough.
Complain about this comment
Brian
What a time for the SNP to be launching their new logo "We've got what it takes". It'll be twisted to "We'll take what you've got" in no time. I just hope their MPs are whiter than white or everybody will be saying "'Putting Scotland first', aye, right."
Complain about this comment
How many times are we going to hear from one MP or another the immortal words,
" Of course I've been saying for some time that the system is in need of an overhall"
I'm very sure thats why Muggins went on Youtube and did it really badly, so that we'd all notice and in time to come he could use it as a ,
" I've been saying for some ....." Evidence planted!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
In respect to the furore over Westminster MPs 'second homes', does anyone else see a potential use for the Olympic Village once the 2012 games are out of the way?
We already paying for it to be built so surely we should have some say in what it's used for after its initial purpose is completed and, personally, I think it would make a rather nice internment camp for MPs to use on those occasions when they actually have to be in London.
Any takers?
Complain about this comment
Seems to me that comment on this topic's been a little slower than usual. Is this because, once one has taken one's opportunity to tip yet more buckets of opprobrium over(Very) deserving, besmirched heads, there's really very little more to say.
Even the usual suspects have gone quiet - could it be that even their deep-running wells of obfustication and spin have run dry under the arid sun of universal and justified public condemnation.
Complain about this comment
Just watched "PMQs" including a stuttering penguin continually going "Aw, aw, aw, aw, aw, awr-der!" Ridiculous.
As usual the whole greedy shower continue on in their velvet-lined wee world of unlimited taxpayer cash, spouting endlessly about what they're "doing" and what they're "going to do" whilst actually taking no action whatsoever to halt the obscene gravy train.
It beggars belief.
Complain about this comment
162. Mmm, a pot-kettle-black moment there, dougie-dubh.
If I amended your post thusly:
"Given his pathological determination to poison and undermine any non-SNP initiatives from their initial inception, whilst leaping blindly to the defence of SNP hierarchy, hegemony and hubris...the term 'maggot' would hardly be strong enough."
Does that feel familiar?
Be as partisan as you like, but try to avoid such blatant hypocrisy.
Complain about this comment
#161
Just one point.
I'm no expert, but I'd venture to suggest the £40 million estimate originally plucked out of thin air for the projected cost of a parliament building, and still inadvisedly bandied about, was a wee bit unrealistic, even at the time.
We may never know for sure where a lot of the excess money went on the actual total cost - what we do know is that the entire project was allowed to spiral out of control and appears to have been 'plundered' by certain parties, that a lot money ended up in the wrong pockets, or drained away through unseen outlets, and also that the costs in terms of individual and collective grief and reputation were not confined to the financial.
However, what would have been a fair price to pay?
I would suggest that any Parliament Building worth having would likely have cost at least in the order of £250 million - unless we'd been happy to use the original hut occupied during the 5-year democracy vigil on Calton Hill!
For the £480 million actually spent, expenditure should have been targeted and controlled a great deal more wisely, which might have meant greatly enhanced public value for what was spent.
However, the final price is not so ultimately unreflective of the order of spending required to provide an iconic national building designed to house the cornerstone of public democracy through the 21st Century and beyond.
By comparative example, I believe the London Olympics are running at around £10 BILLION - for a 2-week event in 2012.
When - and how on earth - will the costs of that financial debacle ever be clawed back???
Complain about this comment
166. You can't see me but I'm doffing my hat to you. There are 2,800 apartments going into the village and it's already majority owned by the UK Government (ie. all of us). It even comes with a tube line linking directly to Westminster.
Superb idea.
I'm now off to plug it to the Greater Web and take all the credit.
Complain about this comment
I don't usually have a lot of time for celebrity uberchef Antony Worrall-Thompson, but he did voice my own feelings on The Daily Politics today:
Give the MPs a salary which more readily compares with the status they hold (for good or ill) - on a par with top lawyers, etc. - and that's the wage for the job. Free train fares to their constituencies (IF they go, as evidenced by local surgeries, etc.), and stamps and telephones (again for constituency business only) but all living expenses to be met out of their wage.
Around GBP 150,000 to 200,000 ought to do the trick.
This amount might seem a lot, but as we get ever more details of all the ridiculous expenses for which they have been reimbursed, such an amount might do little more than maintain the status quo.
And, in a House of Equals, EVERYONE gets the same - from the lowliest backbencher (who probably attends more House sittings than most) to the First Among Equals (The Great Leader himself)!
Being an MP is supposed to be - or should be - about public service (hence, the House used to be a place to find burned-out highfliers), not to be a Gravy Train. Instead, it is dominated by individuals too young to have had 'a life,' purely on the basis that they look good on camera.
If we truly get the politicians we deserve, then derekbarker and some others must have behaved badly indeed, because I for one deserve better!!!
Complain about this comment
#169 Reluctant-Expat
What's this, a self-proclaimed Tory boy batting for Foulkesakes?
If you'll believe that, you'd have no trouble with snowballs in the Sahara.
I think, Reluctant, you've just outed yourself as a Labour spinbot.
Complain about this comment
#169 Predictable Expat
How clever of you to interchange words in that manner to reverse the original meaning and convince yourself of your self-spun hypocrisy.
However, I think you'll find that the SNP are not operating a self-serving UK heirarchy, are not operating at sewer level of Lord Foulkes, and are not given to deploying a decicated spoiler and manipulative snitch in either Parliament at the people's expense.
However, if perhaps you recognise your kindred spirit in Lord Foulkes ...??
Complain about this comment
Does anyone remember how the expenses row started at Westminster, and how the MP's were fighting to prevent disclosure? How much money was spent to FORCE them into the position they now find themselves? Surely someone there must have known the reaction of the public. Makes one wonder at the ability to be self deluded that goes with being an MP. These previous reactions seem to make the mealy mouth apologies and the efforts to repay seem a bit of an act for those they believe to be gullible (us the voters??)
Complain about this comment
170. Dougie-dubh: "When - and how on earth - will the costs of that financial debacle ever be clawed back???"
Most Olympics are close to break-even from ticket sales, tv rights, marketing and once excess property and land has been sold off post-Games.
The Olympic site is just a tiny area within a major redevelopment effort throughout that part of London. House prices are already high (and have shown little sign of dropping in recent months) and with Eurostar and the City airport on the doorstep, plus direct links into the city centre, there is expected to be a hefty premium to property here post-Games.
And, again, I remind you that while you nationalists wail about the nasty "UK is stealing Scotland's money" (no complaints about the 600bn being spent bailing out RBS and HBOS - sixty times the cost of the Olympics - just denials RBS and HBOS were ever 'Scottish'!), London's tax surplus could pay for the entire Games in one year. However, under the unitary tax system in the UK, any and every regional tax surplus instead goes into the national pot which is then shared around the entire country (it's that 'union dividend' thingymajig), including us.
Complain about this comment
173. Handclapping is wrong again.
Shocker.
Complain about this comment
And the 'debate' once again makes its inevitable descent to 'childish bickering' along the same old tired lines.....
Still no sign of a pro-independence/pro-nationalist forum to cater for the "vast number" of cybernats?
Come on, surely one of you dozen-ish nats can set one up.
No?
Complain about this comment
#171 Expat
So glad you approve. :-)
Complain about this comment
#176 Reluctant-Expat
London's tax surplus could pay for the entire Games in one year.
So what's the National Lottery doing with putting our money in?
Complain about this comment
#172 older then the pyrimads
Why do you think you deserve better than me?
On expenses! GB said to just put the 24,000 per ann on to the basic pay
along with travel costs, bringing MP's wages to around or just over the 100,000 GBP ( there or there abouts depending on travel allowance)
You poured scorn on an idea you now! support. Flip/Flop. ???????
Complain about this comment
O' Alex Salmond supports GB's proposal on an Independent audit of the expenses row. If you listen to what is being proposed! you will hear that any such audit will question whether any MP has broken the rules in terms of ann allowance and ignore what they did or didn't pay for.
It's a non starter, a waste of time! of course there will be a couple that have over spent but thats about as good as you will get under that proposed scheme.
Complain about this comment
Expat
Please enlighten us all as to how the bail-out of the banks directly equates to the Scottish budget, with particular attention to how the Scottish people will benefit from the full cost of these bail-outs.
Oh - and if these London Olympics ever make a net financial gain, you can have my personal backing to be the next Chancer of the Exchequer!!
Complain about this comment
#177 Reluctant-Expat
Given your endless tellings of how you only post when you are bored at work, to selectively misquote your pin-up boy, "How much are you being paid ... to come on and talk nonsense on this blog"?
PS and what about the expenses and allowances and the chances of a second job as well?
Complain about this comment
180. Does this really need explaining again?
As I said, "London's tax surplus could pay for the entire Games in one year. However, under the unitary tax system in the UK, any and every regional tax surplus instead goes into the national pot which is then shared around the entire country (it's that 'union dividend' thingymajig), including us."
No part of the UK is allowed to keep its surplus. All taxation is put in, and then taken out of, the national pot.
Complain about this comment
#185 Reluctant-Expat
So then, what has the bail-out of the banks got to do with Scotland?
Complain about this comment
183. dougie-dubh: "Please enlighten us all as to how the bail-out of the banks directly equates to the Scottish budget, with particular attention to how the Scottish people will benefit from the full cost of these bail-outs."
1. No-one's talking about the Scottish budget.
2. This needs explaining again? The benefit of the bail-out to the Scottish people was that we didn't need to find the #600bn to bail out two of our largest corporations and the keystone to our entire financial industry. As that would have clearly been impossible, the benefit to the Scottish people was also that our economy didn't follow Iceland's and Ireland's example (two 'model economies' according to Salmond) and implode when those two leviathons collapsed under their hundreds of billions in toxic debt. Iceland's bail-out meant it subsequently had to borrow the equivalent of its entire govt budget from the IMF, has interest rates at ~18% and unemployment at 9% (expected to peak at 14%). Ireland has had to cut all public salaries by 8%, has unemployment at 12% (expected to peak at 18%) and an economy expected to contract by nearly 10% this year alone.
Scotland, trapped in this horrific union, has unemployment of 5.9%, no IMF loans, no salary cuts, interest rates of 0.5% and a GDP only expected to contract by 3-4%.
And as well as wanting to follow Iceland's and Ireland's economic strategies, Salmond was also campaigning for less banking regulation just 2 years ago. So the Scottish people also benefited by not having him in charge of our economy.
Complain about this comment
#166 Fit Like?
As others have pointed out, part of the reason for hosting the Olympics was to regenerate East London. With regard to your plan, I'm not sure if you can regenerate something by filling it with degenerates.
Expat: I note that Henry McLeish has found inspiration in...wait for it...the National Conversation!! (Scots fans asked to assist review ) Presumably you will say he was having one of his muddled moments...?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#187 Reluctant-Expat
So, you are complaining that we were not independent in time for all these dire consequences that you, and only you, imply must have happened if the failure of the banks had happened exactly as it did when we weren't independent?
Time for you to take a reality check here. As you said, " under the unitary tax system in the UK, any and every regional tax surplus instead goes into the national pot which is then shared around the entire country (it's that 'union dividend' thingymajig), including us." Hold to that and for the rest, see if there is a blog for aspiring fiction writers and go and annoy them! 8-)
Complain about this comment
#188 forfar-loon
My other suggestion was going to be turning Battersea Power Station into an MPs hostel...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
http://www.alba.org.uk/images/Foulkes.jpg
Complain about this comment
Or as George Galloway put it (in Relation to Edinburgh Uni Rectors contest),
My opponents are the likeable Ian McWhirter and the, well, less likeable Lord George Foulkes, who regularly features in these pages.
Foulkes was confused once for me by the Daily Telegraph in a court report.
He had staggered out drunk from a Scotch Whisky Association soiree, knocked over two old ladies, assaulted a policeman - he made a grab for the bobby's helmet - and resisted arrest.
He slept it all off in a cell, and was driven, with admirable loyalty, by former MP and MSP John Home Robertson, back into Parliament under a blanket in the back seat, to be sacked from the Labour front bench by the late John Smith.
Unaccountably - I am a well known teetotaller - the Torygraph tried to pin that whole rap on me, though I have never a) tasted whisky, b)been on the front bench, c)handled a bobby's helmet, d) slept a single night in a police cell. But I did pick up a right few quid in the subsequent libel settlement.
Foulkes has a long record of crimes against the people.
He brought the Romanovs into Scottish football and became chairman of Hearts. He ate every pie in the vicinity of Tynecastle for a couple of seasons and left twice the man he'd been before.
He refused to condemn the actions of his son, when the latter was fined for what police described as the longest and most vile sectarian tirade they had ever heard at a Scottish football match.
He was one of the loudest foghorns blaring out support for the George Bush-Tony Blair invasion of Iraq, indeed virtually everything that axis of evil did in the world.
http://blogs.dailyrecord.co.uk/georgegalloway/2009/01/im-going-into-battle-against-t.html
Complain about this comment
Scotlands least favourite piggie in the trough is already known to be trousering well in excess of 100,000 thanks to the two jobs from which the public are wholly incapable of removing him: list MSP for the Lothians and Noble Lord.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
#187 Expat
What I'm asking from you is an explanatory account - in line with your persistent assertions that the Scottish taxpayer has been relieved of the burden of bailing out "our own" banks - of how this represents such a supposed "gift" to the Scottish people when the vast majority of their workforce and business are based outwith Scotland?
Also, if London can so easily afford to bail out its own White Elephant Oplympics, can we therefore look forward to them clearing up the inevitable astronomical debt without recourse to the rest of us UK taxpayers??
Complain about this comment
198. Who else would have bailed out RBS and HBOS if Scotland had been independent?
Who bailed out the Irish multinational, AIB? Ireland.
Who bailed out the US multinational, Citigroup? USA.
Who bailed out the French multinational, BNP Paribas? France.
Who bailed out the German multinational, Commerzbank? Germany.
Who bailed out the Dutch multinational, ING? Netherlands.
Do you actually expect a foreign government to bail out our failed banks? Why should they? Has this happened anywhere else? No.
So when we inevitably couldn't raise the #600bn to bail out RBS and HBOS, what would have happened? Bearing in mind that Iceland's and Ireland's banking failures are smaller than ours.
"Also, if London can so easily afford to bail out its own White Elephant Oplympics, can we therefore look forward to them clearing up the inevitable astronomical debt without recourse to the rest of us UK taxpayers??"
How many times does it have to be said for people to grasp that London cannot pay for the Olympics on its own as it does not get to keep and spend its own tax surplus? All its tax revenue goes into the one national pot, along with everyone else's, to be then shared (more or less equally) around the UK. This way, whatever happens to a regional/national economy, public services are secure. How many times does the very simple unitary/commonwealth tax structure of the UK need to be explained?
Complain about this comment
I doubt London has a surplus at this moement of time. The financial services, which London has a quite clear position here, has taken such a a battering in the recent years that I would suspect a large drop in revenue and even losses which would help us come to the conclusion that London is like the rest of the United Kingdom - open to gains and drops financnailly, much like Scotland and her oil!
Of course, let's not fool ourselves by not taking into account all that spending in London that is for some reason classed as UK spending and not regional spending...
I'd also point out the ridiculous claim that Scotland would have turned out like another Iceland because of HBOS and RBS, it would be reasonable to assume that perhaps an independent Scotland would have different policies then the current British Government?
Complain about this comment
MPs' expenses: a judge's view
Publish MP expenses in full
ps I always glance at RE's post and take his last point as being the most relevant one. (its below the L key)
Complain about this comment
#199 RE
Where did the UK get the £600bn from to bail out RBS and HBOS?
Complain about this comment
#199 RE
Were RBS and HBOS solely Scottish mutlinationals?
Complain about this comment
#199 RE
What does any of this have to do with MP's expenses?
Exactly
Complain about this comment
#199 Reluctant-Expat
Forgive me if I've got it wrong but you want to add to your list
Who bailed out the Scottish multinational, RBoS? Britain.
Surely some mistake.
Of course, if you are putting this forward as Standard Grade Economic's answer to Terry Pratchet, my own view would be that it's not a plot, it's gibberish, even for Science Fiction.
Complain about this comment
200. Master Porter:"I'd also point out the ridiculous claim that Scotland would have turned out like another Iceland because of HBOS and RBS, it would be reasonable to assume that perhaps an independent Scotland would have different policies then the current British Government?"
You're right. An independent Scotland would have adopted a different set of policies to the rest of the world, would certainly not have resorted to "light-touch regulation suitable to a Scottish financial sector with its outstanding reputation for probity, as opposed to one like that in the UK, which absorbs huge amounts of management time in 'gold-plated' regulation" and would have come out of this financial crisis wholly unscathed - or at least would have spent less than the #50bn pro rata share of the RBS/HBOS bail-out.
"Of course, let's not fool ourselves by not taking into account all that spending in London that is for some reason classed as UK spending and not regional spending..."
Oh, give it up. This has never been true and you have no proof to show otherwise. Just as you have no proof that Scotland has not received and spent all its oil tax revenues.
Now you're just falling back on the tired, old and discredited nationalist myths.
Complain about this comment
#206 RE
"Oh, give it up. This has never been true and you have no proof to show otherwise. Just as you have no proof that Scotland has not received and spent all its oil tax revenues."
But you of course have the proof to back up your statement?
Complain about this comment
Right to reply: John Mann, MP for Bassetlaw
Complain about this comment
202. ScotInNotts, The UK's obviously borrowing it but can only do that as our #1.3Tn economy is large enough to service the debt.
Could Scotland's #120bn economy service a #600bn debt? Of course not! What point were you trying to make?
Again I ask, what would have happened when those two banks couldn't be rescued?
Complain about this comment
#199 Expat
So - the people of Scotland should be grateful to the eternal charity of the Treasury for so gallantly 'stepping in' to rescue 'our' banks from impending oblivion, right??
Balderdash!
Has it ever occured to the likes of you who persist with your line of 'Basket Case Scotland', that the cause and responsibility for the banks' near-collapse and financial insolvency was with the Stock Exchange, and reserves upon which they traded??
That would be the London Stock Exchange, and the Bank of England.
Not their faithful customers, or their employees, nor even their high-level investors - and certainly not the Scottish taxpayer!!
In effect, the level of 'benefit' to the Scottish people of the bail-out of all banks - not just the Scottish ones - would generally equate to the contribution of the Scottish taxpayer in the first place.
So, kindly take your oft-repeated fairytales of how England rode to the rescue of feeble old Scotland's banks, and deposit them somewhere out of sight!
PS - Thanks for confirming that the UK will indeed also be liable for the financial black hole dug for London's Olympics.
Comforting to know!
Complain about this comment
210. Dougie-dubh, you are either very slow on the uptake or are deliberately trying to muddy the argument (as if that counts as 'winning').
Complain about this comment
A little pointer for the nats on here:
If even the SNP aren't making [insert anti-UK complaint here] an issue, there is no issue.
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat:
#209.
There are country's out there who have escaped much of the financial aspect which has engulfed much of the Western World. However they have been damaged by the actions and policies by country's which they depend upon.
Expat, why do you believe that Scotland is set to be doomed as an independent nation?
At least my opinion appears to be balanced, we can't tell what would be happening for Scotland if we were independent, good or bad, we can't tell.
"Oh, give it up. This has never been true and you have no proof to show otherwise. Just as you have no proof that Scotland has not received and spent all its oil tax revenues.
Now you're just falling back on the tired, old and discredited nationalist myths."
Of course Expat, I am falling back on the tired, old and discredited nationalist myths apparently.
but as a part of the community who can not legally vote, your views have been around for decades and are quite frankly tired, old and very much discredited.
It's a delight knowing I am younger, because I will still be here to support the independence campaign when you are long gone.
I am the person who you have to convince that the Union is worth it, but hell, you can chase me away because the Union is not even worth the space that it took me to write this comment.
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat:
#209.
"The UK's obviously borrowing it but can only do that as our #1.3Tn economy is large enough to service the debt.
Could Scotland's #120bn economy service a #600bn debt? Of course not! What point were you trying to make?
Again I ask, what would have happened when those two banks couldn't be rescued?"
Ah, here it is again. It's always going to be a doom and gloom story from the Unionists. It's never going to be acceptable that Scotland may have had different policies altogether.
Complain about this comment
Seems like my #167 was a little premature - the usual suspect's back and doing his (Mediocre) best to distract attention from the issue of the day - the despicable failing of Westmidden MPs to uphold the moral standards expected of them.
#169 [And other #s too numerous and tedious to list] - Reluctant-Expat, let's get back on topic shall we?
Do you agree that any MP found to have 'flipped' the designation of their first/second home for financial gain - wittingly or otherwise - should immediately be required to either repay all monies gained or have their party whip withdrawn?
If so, how many Labour MPs do you think that would leave?
Complain about this comment
I think things are going to get even more pointless on here now so I'm off to do something interesting.
Complain about this comment
The system isnt working (meaning, weve been found out screwing the taxpayer). The system will have to change (meaning, we will devise a system that allows us to screw the taxpayer without being found out).
The dishonourable members are now performing backward somersaults attempting to extricate themselves from the hole they are in, and are now trying to outdo each other in their largesse in returning some of their ill-gotten gains. If they think that one day they can brazenly claim, I acted within the rules, quickly followed by repaying some of this money wipes their slate clean they are wrong.
If Michael Martin had been successful in preventing the publication of Members expenses, Hazel Blears and her cohorts would still be riding the gravy train.
Complain about this comment
RE
Can I borrow your altered reality/time machine where if Scotland were independent everything that is, was and will be would've been, for a fact.
That being the case I'd like to place a large bet on Mon Momme at 100/1 for the Grand National.
Complain about this comment
Government Excludes SNP From Expenses Reform Committee
Complain about this comment
#176 Reluctant-Expat -
(no complaints about the 600bn being spent bailing out RBS and HBOS - sixty times the cost of the Olympics - just denials RBS and HBOS were ever 'Scottish'!)
I know you don't mind lecturing us so I'm sure you'll be happy to break that GBP600bn figure down for me - how much of it is actual debt incurred and how much is provision against future debt?
Of the latter; can you just remind us who's produced this forecast of debt incurred and what period their forecast covers - i.e. is this GBP600bn to be spent over the next 5, 10 or 500 years?
Obviously, as it's a provision against loss, some of it might never be spent at all. But you'll be able to tell us about that, no doubt, what with your laser-eyed ability to see the future?
Finally; could you clarify what actual returns are currently being made on the loans covered by this provision?
The Dunfermline Building Society's so-called toxic Lehman Brothers loans, just as an example, were (According to the KPMG report produced in October 2007) returning 99% of their value. Would you agree that this makes HMT/Jim Murphy/Alastair Darling's guesstimates that the DBS was about to incur GBP 60-100 million of losses any second now! look, I don't know, just a little bit made up?
And none of your redoubtable GBP600billion figure could possibly be made up of the same, 'finger in the wind'y, political expediency could it? I'm sure it's not but . . .
Complain about this comment
Also further to #176 Reluctant-Expat (Emphases, my own) -
(no complaints about the 600bn being spent bailing out RBS and HBOS - sixty times the cost of the Olympics . . .)
And there's absolutely no chance that the cost of the Olympics could, y'know, go up (Again) is there? Oh, Good Lord no, that could never happen (Again)!
As I touched on in my #220 - A proportion (How large a proportion, you're about to explain to all us ignorami) of that GBP600 billion is, provision against costs - i.e. money (In theory) put aside.
It's money that might or might not need to be spent at some unspecified time in a future that you, being prescient, can see but the rest of us mere mortals (Lead by Messr's Darling, Brown & Co.) can only stumble blindly towards.
The Olympics Bill, especially once they get through their GBP 2billion "Just in case we make a bit of a mess of things" Contingency Fund is spent money - Gone! Pouf! Vanished, never to return!
I know distinctions like these are only too apparent to your unfailing, eagle-eyed gaze but I thought I'd just highlight them for the rest of us.
'Cos I know you wouldn't want
anyone to think that you were trying to hide anything? Would you?
Complain about this comment
(pick a number) Reluctant-Expat
What, exactly, is your purpose here?
You have no voice, no stake and no effective interest in our political or economic affairs. You abdicated those when you left. Only evictees, asylum-seekers, refugees and the kidnapped leave their homelands reluctantly. I'd guess that you're none of those. So, you're a voluntary exile and, unless you're being held captive somewhere, your continued absence is the result of free choice and personal preference. I don't know if you take an active part in your new society but your decision to remove yourself from ours imposes some restrictions on your participation and your freedom to do so is entirely dependent upon our continued goodwill.
You can pay your way and have your say or jump ship and bite your lip but you can't have it both ways!
I say little, here, because I'm loath to come into contact with the poisonous parasites who infest these blogs. That, I suppose, could be counted as a small victory for you and your kind.
My fervent wish is that many more will follow your lead by seeking safe haven from the rigours of responsible citizenship in some distant hecklers hideaway, where they can divorce themselves from all moral, social and spiritual association with those who, out of necessity or conviction, must stay at home to face the music. You chose to follow a different drummer but you still demand the right to march in here and dictate to those you left behind when the going got tough. That attitude is typical of those who have neither the wit nor wisdom to intitiate any thought that contradicts the Unionist conditioning which instils a persistent, distorted vision of Scotland as a vassal state.
It is that arrogance that will bring about their downfall. It's already begun now that Westminster and most of those who sit there are exposed for the frauds that they are. There is no distinction, for me, between those who claimed little and those who indulged in Labour's legalised looting. All helped to create the system and were happy to support it, if only by their silence.
They were elected to represent us but chose, instead, to represent the party and themselves before all else. They are members of a fraternity that demands blind obedience to the Westminster protection racket that enables them to rob us with impunity.
Now, we have to endure the vile spectacle of politicians, sycophants and sympathisers writhing and scurrying, like sewer-rats hit by a searchlight.
Meanwhile, in Blogsville, BBC, we're subjected to the usual diversion, submersion and subversion. The one reaction that New Labour disciples seem incapable of is the revulsion that's swept the nation. Depending on the party line anything and everything is "within the rules" for these disgusting denizens of the nether-regions. We've been witnessing this, in Scotland, for years. Now that the sh!t has hit the big fan the stench has finally offended the nostrils of our English neighbours. The real majority wakes from its slumber!
British democracy torn to shreds by British Unionists! Who saw that headline coming?
Complain about this comment
#178 Reluctant-Expat -
Still no sign of a pro-independence/pro-nationalist forum to cater for the "vast number" of cybernats?
Just out of curiosity - what does
This look like to you?
Complain about this comment
Further to my #215 and Reluctant-Expat's #216 -
That's pretty much the standard of answer I expected from you. But then, I know how you hate to disappoint . . .
Complain about this comment
#162 - "Be as partisan as you like, but try to avoid such blatant hypocrisy"
Of course, ex-pat, you can tell us exactly who has a "pathological determination to poison and undermine any non-SNP initiatives from their initial inception, whilst leaping blindly to the defence of SNP hierarchy, hegemony and hubris"?
No? Thought not.
Be as partisan as you like, expat, but try to avoid such blatant twisting of the truth.
Complain about this comment
#178 - expat, there's still no sign of a pro-unionist/pro-NuLab forum to cater for the "vast number" of unionist supports?
Come on, surely with the growing support for the union (at according to you, expat), one of you half-dozen-ish Unionists can set one up.
No?
Complain about this comment
MPs' expenses: Maundy, Mandy, Christine . . . and Hazel Blears
Its been going on for decades at Westminster and it will never change without radical reform and that is only liable to happen when independence is achieved.
Complain about this comment
#212 - A little pointer for the Unionists like expat on here:
People who support Scottish independence actually have minds of their own and brains with which they can form their own thoughts and opinions. They don't slavenly follow every dictat from SNP HQ.
Nu-Lab supporters (and Unionists in general) on the other hand...
Complain about this comment
Sorry seems to be the hardest word.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5320566/Alex-Salmond-claims-he-was-victim-of-MPs-expenses-system.html
Complain about this comment
Reluctant_expat ad nauseous
Notice no response to my #104. Hitting a bit close to home was I?
The difference between us Nats and you lot is we have ambition and vision for Scotland. Don't expect you to understand, there isn't a paycheck in it for you.
Complain about this comment
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Interesting!
Complain about this comment
Radio Scotland even by it's own biased standards excelled itself this morning, while interviewing Nicola Sturgeon about swine flu turned it around to interrogating her about Alex Salmond and his expenses. Shameful political bias once more from a supposedly impartial broadcaster.
Complain about this comment
Fabian Hamilton over claimed for mortgage while living with mother: MPs' expenses
Does intent to defraud constitute a crime? Of course it does in civvy street anyway, silly me now were is that 0800 No. under "B" for Benefit Fraud!
Complain about this comment
#231 try googling Craig Murray as my link must of offended Jim Murphy (missing in inaction) and his Nulab lot.
Complain about this comment
RE
This whole debate is old hat.
Actually I'd have let the banks go bust and used the astronomical sums that were flung into the black holes they represented to assist those who were damaged by failed banks.
And of course RBS and HBOs were actually British Banks with over 90% of their business, their possessions and their debt outside Scotland, mostly in the rest of UK -which is why they were indulged as they were.
RBS alone put over £40billion into Gordon Brown's bucket in taxes
From the Scotsman newspaper
Would an independent Scotland have been able to bail out RBS and HBOS?
Unionist politicians have claimed an independent Scotland could not have afforded the £37 billion the UK Treasury has found for the banks.
That is more than the annual Scottish block grant and would have left Scotland with a huge debt far greater in percentage terms than the debt the deal will be worth in UK terms.
But the UK government does not have the money either and will borrow it from the world money markets in the form of a gilt auction
An independent Scotland could, arguably, have done the same.
Indeed.
With the oil as a collateral an independent Scotland would have no difficulty raising finance on the world markets. Norway, with its vast oil fund, sorted out its banks in double quick time.
Complain about this comment
#233 cynicalHighlander
Shocking, not good enough to be an MP, sack him!
Complain about this comment
#232. peteraberdeenshire
I heard that from the totally unbiased "Glen Campbell" and it just shows how low Nulab are sinking in their own excrement dragging the BBC with them. The man is pathetic and has zilch communication skills, if the Beeb don't ditch him soon they will lose an awful lot of listeners in the morning and I will be one of them.
Complain about this comment
Had a good look at the expenses. Top marks to the very few who claimed zip, and also very good marks to those who claimed very little, Alex Salmond included. (Maybe it was the 9 pound mini bar bill that upset people!)
Anne Widdecombe has summed it up perfectly - any MP who has basically overdid it on expenses should stand down as an MP. In my opinion, immediately.
The only little concern I have with an SNP MP is Angus Robertson claiming for a tv costing 1,175. What's wrong with one at 300 quid? Other than that no quibbles.
But I wish the media would leave Alex Salmond's food expenses. It is nothing compared to the claims for cleaning out moats and getting good old Mock Tudor Beams.
Wonder if B&Q does them.......
Complain about this comment
#236. derekbarker
I think your missing the point someone who defrauds the public benefit system is charged taken through the public court and sentenced by a fine or imprisonment. These people are not "Gods" they are criminals and should treated in the same way that us mere mortals are and not be treated with kid gloves by punishing them with a sacking. Why not send them on rendition flights so that they can be waterboarded and treat them as if they are no better than terrorists which is how Westminster treats others who disagree with their Globalisation goals.
Complain about this comment
Elliot Morley claimed £16,000 for mortgage that did not exist: MPs' expenses
"Lawyers last night said that the claims could constitute a criminal offence under the 2006 Fraud Act and the 1968 Theft Act."
Is it not time that the UN were called to take control of the UK to return some sense of decency and reinstate democracy in these Isles.
Complain about this comment
Comment number 232:
Yes, it took the BBC a while to bring up Salmond's claim for food, however such is the damage being done to Labour here in Scotland they simply have to try whatever they can in an attempt at chucking some muck at the SNP.
Fortunately, the shear scale of the scandal is such that the English press and BBC UK are ensuring that the focus remains, quite rightly, on the main Unionist parties.
I well remember the Galsgow East by-election when the Scottish media and BBC up here refused to mention David Marshall and the circumstances of his resignation. It took Michael Crick from BBC Newsnight in London to actually come up to Scotland and pay lip service to it.
I heard earlier that there was a death involving C-Diff somewhere (cannot recall where). This might provide the media in Scotland a reason to splash on a few anti SNP headlines, there's been nothing for them of late and Nicola Sturgeon's impressive handling of the Swine Flu mini drama has merely served to compound Labour's dreadfull last few weeks.
Usually we would start to see polls as the Euro election campaigns start. I will be very surprised if there are any such polls published in Scotland.
One thing that has resulted from the 'trough snuffling' revelations is that a clear distinction has opened up between Holyrood and Westminster. This is something that the SNP should use to their advantage and I expect them to.
Finally, remember that although the Scottish press won't highlight them and may not even publish them, it remains that every Scottish MP's expenses will shortly be available. They will make it into the public domain one way or another, the Scottish version of 'Troughgate' hasn't yet begun.
Complain about this comment
Just reading through the earlier posts, may I make a small suggestion.
To stop RE ranting on, change the argument (from some people, not all) to "When Scotland is independent, this will happen". Using the "if" argument doesn't really achieve anything.
What's happened can't be changed. It can be undone, but look to the future and see what can be achieved, and more importantly, state how.
Complain about this comment
Just on the BBC and the laughable attempt at conflating Salmond's moderate claim for food with 'troughgate'.
There have been two subtle mentions on Scottish Newsnight, one from Alan Cochrane (He is suddenly in big demand up here) and one from Prof John Curtis. The presenter of the programme on both occasions was you know who.
I often wonder if there is anyone at the BBC a little uncomfortable with this man's, shall we say, 'lack of professionalism'?
Complain about this comment
Do Lothian MPs have nothing to fear in expenses row?
"Attention will now focus on three MPs East Lothian's Anne Moffat, Gavin Strang, of Edinburgh East, and David Hamilton, who represents Midlothian who were unavailable to discuss their claims despite repeated calls from the Evening News yesterday.
Questions also remain about the claims made by the Chancellor Alistair Darling, who declined to discuss his expenses, beyond issuing a short statement saying they were within the rules. He has reportedly changed the property he declares as his main home four times in four years, allowing him to claim second home expenses in Edinburgh and London."
Complain about this comment
Well there you go!
Apparently Alex Salmond has made a public apology for his and his teams
expenses claims at westminster.
Over to you Neil! got any sorry tales?.
Complain about this comment
Just in case anyone has failed to get their daily dose of ignorant metropolitan condescension this is the opening paragraph of today's Guardian editorial on devolution
"Free personal care, free university and free prescriptions on the way. Ten years ago yesterday the first MSPs were sworn in, and a decade on the most obvious effect on the welfare state is a festival of freebies. If it were one of the stale old jokes, the Englishman would be left scratching his head, trying to figure out how exactly his canny neighbour had managed to arrange affairs so he never had to open his wallet."
Seems that for some the only "expenses" they have to worry about are coming from that draining Northern Province.
Complain about this comment
Greenockboy
I posted this on Monday about the speakers expenses.
Mr Martin claimed for the near-full food allowance on his second home during the parliamentary summer holidays.
In 2007-08 he charged 2,200 for his food, including 1,050 in July, August and September 2007 when, for the most part, MPs are not meant to be claiming on their second home.
This was from The Daily Mail 9th May. Funny that the rest of the article about trips to Celtic Park and carpets are still there but the part about his food claims have gone. I wonder why.
Complain about this comment
#247. dubbieside
"This was from The Daily Mail 9th May. Funny that the rest of the article about trips to Celtic Park and carpets are still there but the part about his food claims have gone. I wonder why."
Indigestion! or is that being flippant? LOL
Complain about this comment
Actually sick to my stomach listening to MP after MP describing as "innocent mistakes", "errors of judgement" and "unintentional gaffes" expenses claims that couldn't possibly in their wildest dreams be justified as necessary for doing their job.
Amazingly, these obvious lies are apparently to be accepted at face value!
They did wrong, they knew they were wrong when they did it, yet STILL they are trying to brass it out with these lame excuses.
Just the sheer number of "mistakes" should be enough for the police to be launching a massive investigation into the whole disgusting scam, with a view to criminal prosecutions.
Complain about this comment
For all the Unionist sheep on here still desperately defending their shower of "politicians" take a look at the Telegraph's current story about Elliot Morley then come back here and explain how anyone in their right mind could support these people by voting for them.
Complain about this comment
I notice the BBC's spin story about Morley omits one rather important little detail from the Telegraph's version of the story:
"Lawyers last night said that the claims could constitute a criminal offence under the 2006 Fraud Act and the 1968 Theft Act.
Steven Barker, a lawyer who specialises in fraud cases, said: "The Fraud Act was designed to deal with these types of offences. There is also a possibility of an offence of false accounting under the Theft Act."
Complain about this comment
I also notice the Telegraph is still repeating their claim that "Alex Salmond claimed £400 per month for food when the Commons was not even sitting". The use of the word "even" gives the impression Salmond did something wrong.
In fact Salmond has made it crystal clear that bills submitted during the recess were for expenses incurred during the parliamentary session: "In terms of 2005-06 and the summer recess, MPs still go to London during the recess, and in any case bills incurred during the parliamentary session often fall during that period, for example for Commons dining facilities."
Complain about this comment
Brian
As the revelations keep on coming it does indeed seem as though very few of our Honourable Members are honourable. Are we now in a Sodom and Gommorrah situation where there are too few good men to be able to save that fine pimply building overlooking the Thames? Think of the loss of history, such as the repression of Catholics, the opposition to the abolition of slavery, the whitewash of Peterloo; all too be swept away for the self-serving veniality of a few hundred Honourable Members and a measly few millions. How the English must be ruing the day that they let their Parliament open to such baleful influences as Scotch and Irish Members, look at to what it is now reduced.
And the Scots must be wondering what all the fuss is about, surely the English must have known what one bad apple can do in a barrel and they still incorporated those the had just bribed into their English continuation Union Parliament.
Aren't we so lucky that we have these Honourable Members looking after our Reserved Matters for us. These fine upstanding, honourable people will be looking after our affairs as carefully as they do their own and we must be eternally grateful to them for this their public service at such cost to their personal interests.
Hurrah for our Honourable Members, I say, and God bless 'em all.
Complain about this comment
Just watching the Newsnight Scotland article on the European elections.
Gavin Walker says
"Currently 7 MEP's represent our interests in Europe 3 labour 2 SNP 2 Conservative & 1 Lib Dem.
How much do Scots know about their own MEPS well we have some hard European currency and were offering members of the public 10 Euros each for every serving Scottish MEP they can name"
Brilliant maths skills Gavin can you tell me who the 8 of those 7 MEP's are?
Complain about this comment
245. At 10:35pm on 13 May 2009, derekbarker wrote:
Well there you go!
Apparently Alex Salmond has made a public apology for his and his teams
expenses claims at westminster.
Over to you Neil! got any sorry tales?.
-------------
It's called politics derek.
As to individual claims, the Alex Salmond stuff is petty to be honest.
However, Angus Robertson I'm not happy with. I can accept his requirement for a tv/dvd recorder. But not at the level he paid. A grand for a tv? What's wrong with a modest 300-400 pound set?
But there are a few honourable MPs from all sides who have not claimed or made minor claims.
But Labour and the Tories - and a certain ex-Lib Dem Leader - are the worst examples and in my opinion should resign as MPs immediately. If this causes a constitutional crisis so be it.
Parliament should hang its head in shame. MPs are elected to serve their constituents. They are not there for themselves.
But out of all those who have made claims where they are obiously excessive, has a single one ever stood up and apologised BEFORE this scandal came to light?
Some MPs raised concerns about the expenses - most stayed silent.
Complain about this comment
Has anyone else seen the recent times poll on the EU election voting intentions?
Interesting if not unsurprising in light of recent scandals.
Complain about this comment
Prof Curtis: Lib Dem Euro seat at risk.
http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Lib-Dem-Euro-seat-39at.5259763.jp
Complain about this comment
Scottish sample from the last Populus poll for the Times.
SNP 37 Lab 25 Con 23 Lib 8 SSP 2 Oth 2 UKIP 1 Green 1 BNP 1
Under dHondt system used, were the above poll correct the result would be,
MEP #1: SNP
MEP #2: Lab
MEP #3: Con
MEP #4: SNP
MEP #5: Lab
MEP #6: SNP
(MEP #6 under above numbers would be allocated SNP as they are projected to finish first under this poll, and 37% is more than 3 times Lib Dem 8% projection).
In reality, I suspect Curtis is correct and 2 SNP, 2 Lab are guaranteed and it is a matter as to whether Tory vote will be more than double Liberal poll as to allocation of 5th and 6th seats.
Either that or something really strange, like Tommy goes to Brussels!
We shall see soon enough; who knows how ongoing scandal will affect these numbers?!
Complain about this comment
Ultimately, although the desperate mantra that everything was "within the rules" (except of course when it wasn't) is the only possible defence open to this sorry gang; what all of this boils down to is the fundamental difference between following the rules as we who provide the money expect, and exploiting the rules which is what has been happening
Complain about this comment
is it any wonder the UK is in such a state economically and morally when this shower of crooks are allegedly "Running"our country.
I think running our country into the ground is much more accurate.
they cannot complete their expenses without making a wee mistake here or there! so we have no chance of them completing the real work without doing the same.
Olympics, trident,ppp ,pfi, computer systems,the list is endless.
they are supposed to be there to represent their constituents not themselves or big business.
Sid
Complain about this comment
I'm seriously thinking of starting a petition on the Number 10 website for the "House of Commons" to be renamed the "Den of Thieves"
Complain about this comment
Brian
This is all a storm in a teacup. Why, because the cartoons are not angry enough. Where are the cartoons expressing the total loathing of what our Honorable Members have done? What we have had so far are cute and whimsical, you can imagine some MP collecting them for their scrapbook, probably charged to office stationery, to amuse themselves in their dotage with their fond do you remembers. Where are the Cruickshanks, the Rowlandsons and the David Lows? We don't want cute, we need someone to go beyond the bounds of decency to show this rabble of dishonesty the contempt in which they are held.
Complain about this comment
#261
LOL. Now you've pointed it out, it is a pretty obvious alias! 8-)
Complain about this comment
I notice some of these crooks are now resigning their party "jobs". Naturally they are not resigning as MPs because that would mean taking their grubby mits off the pots of free cash.
Complain about this comment
I am having a problem with Argyll and Bute's LibDem MP who is charging the taxpayer for a first and second home - both in Argyll and Bute!
I though second home allowance was to allow MPs whose constituency was far from London to have a place to stay near Parliament.
I don't think Cardross qualifies on those grounds.
Complain about this comment
Nice wee letter in the Herald from a W R King today with an interesting suggestion about belt tightening.
Complain about this comment
I expect a by-election or two as a result of some of the 'troughgate' revelations, will we see charges brought against anyone?
The way the wind is blowing can usually be guaged by looking at articles in The Scotsman, they're seriously rattled - so much so that they've actually printed an article attacking the viability of independence.
Some interesting comments around today, especially the one regarding Inverclyde council and the suspension of the head of education. Inverclyde is probably one of the few councils that could match Westminster for corruption.
One little story that has emerged today is the collapse of a London Olympic PFI deal that the Treasury has again stepped in to save, that's now over 2 billion from the contingency fund for this white elephant.
Click Here
I mention this only because we all know how forgetfull our Scottish media can be at times.
Complain about this comment
#267
greenockboy you are at it, and you no you are, with your totally unfounded allegation regarding Inverclyde Council. If you put your correct name against this you know you would have legal action taken against you. This is cowardly.
Name one fact to support your allegation.
Complain about this comment
A council branded one of the worst in Scotland has been ordered to seek outside help to solve its problems.
The Accounts Commission said Inverclyde Council requires "urgent remedial action" to address weaknesses in its leadership and direction.
Detailing some of the council's financial problems, the report noted "significant" under-spends in education and social work - resulting not from cost savings but from deficiencies in budgeting.
It also pointed out that 157 officials were receiving allowances for carrying out extra responsibilities on a temporary basis, suggesting the structure of the council might need changing.
Complain about this comment
The House of Commons should get a FIXED budget - set at this year's level, and once set not a penny more will be available - and then we can watch the rats scrabbling around trying to get the best deal for themselves.
Government wants year-on-year cuts from all Departments; well, let's have the House of Commons budget with year-on-year cuts.
Let's see how many 'efficiency savings' can be made at Number Ten, etc.
--
In the aftermath of Annabel Goldie's speech to the Scottish Conservaties, I was disappointed to see the spectre of Margaret Thatcher brought up again, trying to drag Toryism back to the so-called 'bad old days.'
There are young people eligible to vote in next month's European elections who weren't even born when the Iron Lady LEFT Downing Street.
It makes as much sense as telling people not to vote Liberal (Democrat) because Lloyd George sold peerages...
Complain about this comment
Is anyone else beginning to wonder what else is going on in the world besides MPs expenses allowed and criminal alike?
See , when the media start diverting our attention on a grand scale I get a tad suspicious.
The unemployment figures added a quarter of a million to the total just last week.No sound not a squeak from the media.Ok maybe a wee one.
Leaky subs coming to Faslane, no sound not a squeak from the" Scottish " media.
Tories telling Scotland we will have to have these WMDs when they are in power.I want a very loud squeak over that.
Scottish press interested in the trams debacle at all? Novovirus in the hospital in Edinburgh? No ??
Complain about this comment
#269
bighullaballoo you have forgot to mention that this was the Audit/Account commission report in April 2005. Again you forgot to mention that this was under a discredited Lib Dem administration. The new Council under a Labour coalition has recently been commented on as one of the most improved Councils in Scotland by the Audit/Accounts Commission, this was in 2009.
Hopefully the good people of Aberdeen will take note.
If you are going to post it least make sure of your facts.
Complain about this comment
cloch1 at comment #268 suggests I am "at it" when I state that Inverclyde council could match the Commons for corruption.
"Name one fact to support your allegation." asks cloch1.
Well, here's one right off of the top of my head:
The private house in Grosvenor Street where council workmen carried out extensive work using council materials. The house was occupied by the mother of a Pottery street based council manager.
Here's another:
The ward around Cumberland road that was served by the recently deceased SNP councillor Kenny Ferguson (by election 18 June) where residents have been desperately trying to get some sort of recreation area for local children after the parks were destroyed to make way for the new school. Speak to these residents who have attended meetings and you will be told openly that they have been left in no doubt that voting in an SNP councillor hasn't helped their cause. In fact the language used by locals is far more direct. The only place for kids to play is the nearby Gourock cemetery.
Then we have the new houses that are being built to replace old stock in Octavia court, Farie Street, Gilmour Street etc where first refusal is being given to people who have been council tenants for less than three years. Many locals who are up to date with council tax etc and have over 20 years residency are being refused consideration for these houses.
Then we come to the Greenock Cinema building, a building so badly put together that one can only marvel at the reasoning and logic behind the council's decision to allow it to be built. This building contains three boilers when one is sufficient, the boilers cannot be controlled and have to be manually turned on and off - the building is a mess.
A botched job if ever there was one, and a tendering process that cries out to be investigated.
Corruption mixed with ineptitude, Inverclyde council is awash with both.
There is a virtual epic that can be written about this council.
Watch out David Cairns and Duncan McNeil, the people are catching on !!
Complain about this comment
MPs' expenses: Claims would shame dictator, police tell Jacqui Smith
"Steve Morley, of the Metropolitan Police, questioned why police allowances, from dry cleaning to extra cash for working on rest days, had been dropped."
"He said: Can you explain for the benefit of my members, your electorate, why all our expenses and allowances have been taken away? Mr Morley added that some claims by MPs would be jaw-dropping in a Third-World dictatorship let alone in the country of hope and glory"
Its like we've had the starters and now digging into the main meal before we get the just desert with a cherry on top.
Complain about this comment
Yesterday the BBC told us: "Tory MP Douglas Hogg said it was wrong to say he had claimed for the moat. In a statement, he said the costs were included on paperwork submitted to the fees office but were not claimed."
Today the BBC is telling us: "Tory MP Douglas Hogg to repay £2,200 in expenses for clearing of his moat."
Okay, I give up. Can someone please explain to me why Douglas Hogg is "repaying £2,200 in expenses for clearing his moat" when he didn't claim the costs of clearing his moat in the first place?
I'm lost!
Complain about this comment
#272 cloch1
"The new Council under a Labour coalition has recently been commented on as one of the most improved Councils in Scotland by the Audit/Accounts Commission, this was in 2009."
Here is a wee TWO-DAY OLD fact for you that I am every bit of sure of as I was of the facts in my #269.
BBC website, 12 May 2009:
"Inverclyde Council has suspended its corporate director of education and social care as part of an investigation into 'management and operational matters'."
And here we have you trying to tell us everything in the garden is rosy when clearly it isn't.
If you are going to post please make sure your spin is at least remotely believable.
Complain about this comment
#272
What the good people of Aberdeen undoubtedly note is that the shambles in the council's finances was achieved under Labour and Labour/LibDem councils.
Complain about this comment
# 273 greenockboy let me try and see what you are getting at here. A private house renovated using taxpayers money,can I ask when did this happened?. As I stated at #272 the new Council took over in 2007 with more than half the Council new members. Also the Chief Executive and the Senior Council officers are also new.
I also find it surprising that you are critising a Council for building new schools, one of the only Councils in Scotland doing so. I suppose you can't please some people.
I'm trying to remember when the Cinema was built; think it was the mid nineties certainly before local Gov't reorganisation. So what's your point?
Come up with something to substantiate your comments or have the decency to withdraw them.
greenockboy seems to be stuck in the past.
Complain about this comment
#278 cloch2
"the Chief Executive and the Senior Council officers are also new."
BBC website, 12 May 2009:
"Inverclyde Council has suspended its corporate director of education and social care as part of an investigation into 'management and operational matters'."
Speaks for itself really.
Complain about this comment
The paradox highlighted in my #275 is explained by the BBC in this neat little one-liner: "Conservative MP Douglas Hogg is to repay £2,200 in expenses after admitting the clearing of his moat was "not positively excluded" from a claim as he had said."
In other words: even after being caught red-handed they are so cocksure they won't be held accountable for anything they don't even bother to make sure if their denials are correct.
The words "breathtaking arrogance" are insufficient to describe the farce this has now become.
Complain about this comment
I see the BBC has now put a "countdown timer" on the blog to try and limit how often people can post.
They'll try anything to try to shut up the people who come on here every day and highlight the truths they are trying to bury.
Complain about this comment
going by the amount of freeloaders coming out of the woodwork, it will be interesting come the election time. I dont think a lot of people will stomach the fact that whilst they have been struggling to make ends meet our representatives have been abusing the system slightly. Maybe a few bi elections will loosen up Gordons grasp even more, mind you some of the torys are just as bad.. Hell i wish i had a moat or a swimming pool..or both !!!
Complain about this comment
#281 where did you see this countdown timer and is carol vordemonn wearing something nice ..... i know shes not in it now but i dont know the name of the bit of stuff that wears racey high heels on it now. ;O)}
Complain about this comment
cloch1, a bit of advice:
Try to stear clear of insults, "stuck in the past" is a cliche that contributes nothing to a debate.
Also, when supposedly answering points made it is best not to misrepresent the point, otherwise your 'counter' is worthless.
For example your statement:
I also find it surprising that you are critising a Council for building new schools, one of the only Councils in Scotland doing so. I suppose you can't please some people.
answers a point that I didn't make.
You also ask:
A private house renovated using taxpayers money,can I ask when did this happened?
It happened recently, I'm sure you could find out if you contact the residents of Grosvenor Road who witnessed it.
You add:
I'm trying to remember when the Cinema was built; think it was the mid nineties certainly before local Gov't reorganisation. So what's your point?
The point is that ineptitude and corruption are endemic in Inverclyde.
Come up with something to substantiate your comments or have the decency to withdraw them.
Which particular point are you challenging?
You ask about the date of one, you point out that another happened in the nineties, you misrepresent a third and completely ignore the fourth.
Complain about this comment
#280 - Watching Question Time, bighulla, I don't think it's arrogance. I honestly think these MPs just don't get why people are so up in arms about this. We've got Margaret Beckett, claiming thousands for her gardening, states she just threw in the receipts she had lying coz "was too busy to double check them" (after all, it's only tax payers money)! We've got the Speaker of the House more concerned about catching the mole than dealing with the actual matter to hand.
Complain about this comment
#285 ForteanJo
"I honestly think these MPs just don't get why people are so up in arms about this."
I don't agree. I credit MPs with the intelligence to know when they are fiddling the system.
It would be nice if they'd credit US with the intelligence of being able to see them doing it!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS