Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


MSPs facing family staff ban

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 01 November 2009
By Tom Peterkin
THE Scottish Parliament is set to follow Westminster by banning politicians from employing any more close family members, Scotland on Sunday has learned.
In the wake of the Westminster expenses scandal, the Scottish parliamentary authorities are looking at tightening up allowances.

Existing working relationships between MSPs and their relatives will not be affected by the move, meaning that the enterprise minister Jim Mather and the housing minister Alex Neil will be able to continue employing their wives. But new MSPs will be forbidden from employing any more close relatives in the future following concerns about politicians mis-using taxpayers' money.

Employment of relatives is one of the issues being reviewed by Sir Neil McIntosh, who was brought in to examine Holyrood's expenses system after Sir Christopher Kelly was appointed to reform the Westminster allowances.

Scotland on Sunday understands the crackdown on the employment of family members has been discussed by MSPs on the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, the group responsible for staff and services at Holyrood.

"We are aware of individual family members who are still employed but it's been made clear that it is being phased out. That is the direction of travel," said one MSP. "It (employing close relatives] will be a practice that can no longer be initiated and no-one will be able to take on a family member. But we cannot dismiss people for being related to their employer."

Yesterday, McIntosh, former chief executive of Strathclyde Regional council and Civil Service commissioner, said: "My work is still on-going and it will take account of the Kelly considerations."

Kelly will this week recommend a ban on the employment of relatives at Westminster – a move that has led to some MPs' wives threatening to take legal action if they are forced to quit their posts.

Nearly 200 MPs employ spouses and other family members, with many insisting they represent better value for money for the taxpayer.

In the Scottish Parliament, 28 MSPs use the services of relatives – half are members of the SNP.

In addition to Mather and Neil, the Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon put her mother Joan on the pay roll. Schools minister Keith Brown is registered as employing his daughter, while SNP chief whip Brian Adam employs his son.

Of the 11 Labour members to hire relatives, Dunfermline East MSP Helen Eadie has relied on her husband Robert since 1999.

Veteran Liberal Democrat MSP John Farquhar Munro is registered as hiring his wife and grand-daughter, while Conservative Ted Brocklebank uses public cash to pay his sister.

A Scottish Parliament spokesman said: "Following a full-scale independent review of allowances in 2008, MSPs have been required to publicly register details of the employment of family members."


Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 31 October 2009 10:44 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Politicians' expenses
 
1

Justin Timbercake,

31/10/2009 22:37:12
Just goes to show, it's not what you know it's who you know.

Employing family members should never have been allowed in the first place and all the ones currently employed should be immediately replaced.
2

Fifi la Bonbon,

01/11/2009 00:11:05
More pandering to the media. It is perfectly reasonable for elected MPs and MSPs to employ family members in support positions so long as their remuneration is at a standard rate and so long as they're qualified to do the job. They're politicians, for goodness sake. Being a politician is very competitive and you need to know you can trust absolutely the people who work for you and that they'll go above and beyond where necessary, and keep things quiet when needed. Who better than a family member?
3

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 01/11/2009 00:20:25

Oh the privilege, if only we were all blessed the same, happy families indeed!


4

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 01/11/2009 00:20:51
#2 Fifi,

I disagree completely, most large companies will not allow managers to hire relatives and the civil service has for a long time banned relatives from being employed in the same office, so I don't see why politicians should be treated differently.
5

Fifi la Bonbon,

01/11/2009 00:26:34
Elected members aren't corporate employees or civil servants. They're autonomous office holders elected by voters and accountable only to the electorate.

Take Nicola Sturgeon, for example, reported as employing her mum. I can't imagine this is a scoosh for either of them but it seems to work. So long as it's done openly and above board I think it's fine and should always be an option.

And we wouldn't even be discussing this if it wasn't a reaction to expenses scandals over property, a completely different issue, and a culture of craven surrender on the part of politicians to a media frenzy of abuse and persecution.
6

druidh,

edinburgh 01/11/2009 00:27:22
What happens if, say, an MP decides to marry one of his employees? Or is it OK if they don't marry but just co-habit? Sounds like a whole can or worms.
7

Justin Timbercake,

01/11/2009 00:29:20
#2 Fifi la Bonbon,

I disagree with you on that one Fifi.

Do you think that someone's mother (employed at taxpayers expense) is employed because they are the best candidate for the job, or do you think they were employed because they are the mother?
8

Aberdeenshire Creepy Scot,

01/11/2009 00:29:24
Kampunghighlander is bang on the money.
9

Justin Timbercake,

01/11/2009 00:31:26
#8 Aberdeenshire Creepy Scot,01/11/2009 00:29:24
Kampunghighlander is bang on the money
------------------------------------------------

For once I agree with you.
10

JimC,

Kilmarnock 01/11/2009 00:37:59
The easy way to resolve this is to take the appointment of a staff member out of the hands of MSP's, joe public can then apply, go for interview, and the best person gets the job. I also wonder if there is an offence taking place under the equal opportunity legislation??
11

Cynicus Unbound,

01/11/2009 00:53:41
"#8 Aberdeenshire Creepy Scot....I agree with you."-#9 Justin Timbercake

Smack my gob! Now THERE's a big surprise!

What next? Will you applaud a post by the Creature from the Black Lagoon?
12

Fifi la Bonbon,

01/11/2009 00:55:26
Right, welcome to the interview for the position of my constituency assistant. Now the hours are 35 per week but sometimes if there's a lot on or a big constituency issue, then it's be 24/7. You'll be handling casework, and links with other elected members and the local and national party, and the media. And you'll need to be able to keep me up to date with everything that's going on, that is everything I need to know about here, and often you'll need to keep things quiet. I need to be able to depend on your loyalty and rely on your absolute discretion, especially when things are looking difficult for me.

So have you brought your SVQ certificates?
13

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/11/2009 01:02:05
I see where Fifi is coming from here, and to an extent she's right. In actual fact the tax payer will probably get a great deal more value from a family member working for an MP than anyone else, because these people tend to live and breathe politics 24/7 (Hi Creepy)and won't ever switch off like a normal worker. And political loyalty is part of the job description and who is more loyal than your family?

But at the same time I also think that the public won't see this, they will just think it's politicians at it again, on the gravy train. So for that reason I suppose the politicians are just going to have to go along with it. What will probably happen is that they will employ each other's families, as it's a close knit circle, and family members know the rules, in the way that an outsider simply does not.
14

JGA,

Perth 01/11/2009 01:17:02
#2 Fifi,

I would suggest the motives of having so some many family members as personal staff should be treated with suspicion. Or does Scotland have such a small talented gene pool that less staff members are picked on merit, but more for other reasons? Remember political elites will do anything to keep the reins of power under as much control as they are able within and sometimes without the laws of parliament. And will having family members as staff members be enough to blow the whistle on those that are not abiding strictly to the business rules of government office?
15

Vista,

01/11/2009 02:10:33
History has shown that politicians use their image, followed by a couple of specific body parts, more frequently than they use their brains.

That said, it only requires a very basic level of intelligence to recognise that "if it looks wrong and sounds wrong then it probably is wrong." No need to hire a relative as a Public Relations consultant to figure that out!
16

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 01/11/2009 04:55:02
#13 Observer

I take your point on loyalty but you forget that other people also have to work with them.

The worst run department I have ever worked in was run by a husband and wife team that thought it was ok to bring their personal squabbles into the office.

If you are running a family enterprise then fine, feel free to employ family members. But if you are asking for this to be funded from taxpayers money then the public has a right to demand professionalism.
17

Letters From Muscat,

edinburgh 01/11/2009 05:21:26
It's all coming out in the wash. Who would have thocht it? Family members eh? Let's keep the moollah running smoothly into the joint bank account. Well, there'll be not a few letters to the Hootsmon this week with this story. Political elite sometimes seems to me to be a bit of an misnomer, when I cast my eye over the crew at Holyrood sometimes. Elite? Shurely shome mishtake. COME ON msp'S get hor house in order. And what is the hourly rate for a 'political secretary' ? Now if they were to halve the numbers of MP's in Westminster, I might listen to what that 'elite' are saying, but surely for an island the size of UK LIMITED we are over- governed no? And what about that motley crew down south? if the EU has it's way all laws are going to be emanating from Brussels. OOoops, now there's another juicy gravy train running down the tracks. Elite? you have to be joking. Crooks more likely.
18

Andrew D,

Brisbane 01/11/2009 05:24:39
I think it makes sense to phase it out just because there is the possibility of it being terribly abused.

On the face of it I have no problem with a family member being applied at market rate or lower IF they are qualified but I bet there have been more than a few cases where it's a tax dodge.

Better to accept human nature and work around it than ignore it and face potential problems.

That said, the article is pretty funny with it's unsubtle language. The SNP people "employ", "employ", "put on payroll".

The one Labour person mentioned "relied on".

Uh hu.
19

Andrew D,

Brisbane 01/11/2009 05:36:44
Ahh and the Tory "uses public cash".

Wow. I bet he wishes he could be warm and fuzzy too like Labour.
20

LEAL,

01/11/2009 06:20:53
I assume the Scottish Parliament has looked closely at this issue,and has looked at the situation in other countries.We need the best parliamentary system possible,and we can get this by looking at lots of different countries.Not just at Westminster,which is not a template for good governance.I can understand why some MSPs want to employ relatives and suspect it has more to do with trust and working relationship rather than cash.However,in the interests of being seen to be fair I think future MSPs should not be allowed to employ relatives.Most MSPs manage to find suitable staff who arent related to them so its perfectly feasible for all to do likewise.
21

langtonian,

uphall 01/11/2009 06:53:43
#2Fifi la Bonbon;
Ah So! the question?-Who indeed would be "on side" given any situation where a "cover up" was the order of the day.

Bird's of a similar family feather will stick together.
22

Dùn Èideann Bully Wee,

01/11/2009 06:59:03
I have worked in private-sector situations where a similar rule has been in force and can see both sides of the argument.

On balance however in this particular public-sector environment I tend to think that in order to avoid any question of nepotism or mis-use of public funds, the proposal has some merit.
23

Soosider,

Glasgow 01/11/2009 07:41:51
The issue surely is not employing family members but if they earn the money they are paid. There are many legitimate reasons why an MSP/MP might employ a family member, not the least of which is working hours and loyalty. Is this once again the few chancers messing it up for the majority?
I also suspect we are opening a can of worms, when we say cannot employ a family member, what do we mean? do we mean as a personal assistant, as a researcher, as admin support, do we also mean we cannot employ the services of a family member say as a web designer, removal services, printer etc etc?
I suspect that this committee is looking at these matters as much for political reasons as any other, even if they are not this is a can of worms and will lead to hugely complex and expensive changes.
24

W U Merchant,

Aberdeen 01/11/2009 08:06:36
There will be no such restrictions in the Scottish socialist republic. Vote SNP.
25

mr broon,

Edinburgh 01/11/2009 08:17:12
It has been proved beyond doubt that cosy, self-regulation does not work.

IF, The Daily Telegraph had not gone public with the Westminster parliamentary expenses scandal these hypocritical politicians would still be misappropriating vast sums of taxpayers cash.

26

morris,

edinburgh 01/11/2009 08:27:12
The problem with banning this is YOU CANT!

There is nothing to stop member A employing relations of member B and B employs the relatives of A etc. Same people are employed, but nobody employs relatives, and to my certain knowledge this already has happened on occasion within Labours ranks, many times.
Provided the person employed is of a capable standard(which presumably will always be the case) then this is arguably discrimination against people, when we remove them, as much as it was ever nepotism. Friends are arguably in the same boat, but a good working relationship is required if they are to give their best service.
I think whilst well intentioned this has so many "ifs" and it is better just left alone. Provided the person employed can do the job, being related in any way at all to another member of the same party would be viewed as a plus rather than a blatant nepotism.
Some employers run on nepotism and see it as a way of ensuring a performing staff, because they know they let the whole family down otherwise!
I would favour leaving this as it is, provided the person employed does actually exist and do a good job, who they are related to makes no difference.How often do we see a deceased MP or councillor replaced by his/her spouse as candidate? The point is they were elected so have every right to be there.The same must apply to the other people who must perform well or the MPs neck is on the line,and he/she should be free to employ who he/she thinks will do the best job,and if its his niece then she SHOULD GET THE JOB!
I often joked about an equal opportunites employer being one who would treat the application of the bosses niece equally with that of the bosses nephew.
What matters is are they any good?If yes I can see no problem.
27

morris,

edinburgh 01/11/2009 08:55:50
2 For once I find myself in agreement with you,which just goes to show that all things are possible.I should acknowledge that I follow your thinking process here with ease, and it is only right that I say so.
You are correct dear lady,and I do not doubt this even slightly.

The important criteria is surely:
Are they any good?
If they are ,end of debate.
28

Mèths,

01/11/2009 09:18:11
Justin & Creepy

I agree. Best I go back to bed now.
29

Labour No More,

01/11/2009 09:23:10
SO what, that's what everybody does, now fiddling expenses that's illegal and yet we don't even hear about some of them in this paper.
30

morris,

edinburgh 01/11/2009 09:39:07
31 Precisely !

We should be pursuing those who misappropriated public funds and did so knowingly, and this nonsense about "Okay we robbed the till but we have put a fiver back" means we are innocent is NOT ACCEPTABLE.
We did not break the rules does not wash.

There were no rules to break and because the shop left its door open ITS NOT OKAY TO TAKE THE STOCK !The same applies here. Some MPs are saying because we are MPs we can get away with being crooks.

NO YOU CANT WE WILL REMOVE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU but we should not need to do this. You should not only return those sums to which you have no entitlement ,it should backdate to when Thatcher introduced this free for all chaps system,where the expenses exceed the salary earned,and how one manages to spend money one did not earn in the first place is a neat trick!
They system is rotten,the electoral accountability is rotten,the whole system is steeped in tradition and abuse.
DEMOCRACY? MOTHER OF PARLIAMENTS ? DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH.
31

mr angry,

ayrshire 01/11/2009 09:43:41
Key point here is the fact that some idiots still believe politicians work 24/7. Not only do they have over 20 weeks holidays a year , they mostly have large parts of Mondays and Fridays off , then the time spent in the bar and consuming taxpayers subsidised food. They have a great life, and mostly their families just get paid to lick a few envelopes.
32

long live the supermarkets,

every little hurts 01/11/2009 10:05:58
I have run a retail business for about thirty years and in the early years we had members of families working for us the problem was when one was doing something dishonest i.e. stealing the other member would say nothing because there family and families stick together though thick and thin, so i had to end up sacking both of them.
33

The Tin Man,

01/11/2009 10:14:15
We vote-in people who we expect to run a country, and we don't trust them to run an office...
34

morris,

edinburgh 01/11/2009 10:18:50
34 It can as you rightly point out work both for and against which merely reinforces the idea that whether we should employ someone or not should depend upon performance and nothing else.

It would be correct to sack someone who had been involved with a fictitious Ronald Biggs in the Great Train Robbery (*for example), but wholly inappropriate to sack them because they were related to him.
Clearly wrong doing is the criteria here and right doing must clearly be justification for their continued employment, irrespective of who and what relationship is involved.
35

GMCD,

01/11/2009 10:26:00
How does this fit with the employment laws?
36

Rif,

Wales 01/11/2009 10:51:40
It's clear that most people posting here have never been elected representatives. It's not a question of employing people to sit in an office, it's a question of who answers the phone (and deals with constituents' issues) at home in the constituency when the elected representative is working in Westminster or in Edinburgh. People expect their representative to be working for them; but they also expect to get help on issues by phoning them at home - which might be a constituency office during daylight hours but could equally be the representative's home at 10pm in the evening. That's why most spouses are going to be involved in those activities - whether they're paid or not.
37

Honest Opinion 2,

Froggyland 01/11/2009 11:00:08
Quite right No 19. The Scotsman makes a habit of subtly and unsubtly niggling at the SNP on vertually every topic. To state that Nicola Sturgeon " put her mother on the payroll" is about as useless information as your going to get. The question is - in what capacity - I'm sure she's not paidd to make sandwiches!!!
38

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 01/11/2009 11:16:48
Nepotism has always been regarded askance by reputable employers for straightforward simple reasons.
1) Where there is any dispute about the amount of work done or its quality there is a tendency to forgive andf forget to keep the peace.
2) Since the income will directly benefit the employer's or manager's family there will be a tendency to overpay. In this case from the taxpayer.
3) It ignores a raft of legislation which others must observe such as equal opportunities for disabled and people of both genders. Not to mention people who are better-qualified to do the job.

This is not to say that family members will do a bad job but the whole point is to keep the arrangement above board and visible to the rest of us who need our poltical representatives to demonstrate that they are above reproach in all matters including who they employ. Why should they be any different to any other business?
39

Ggordon,

01/11/2009 11:29:30

In Public and Private job vacancies, applicants are not even allowed to give family members name as a referee.

The family member could work as an unselfish, volunteer
40

Ggordon,

01/11/2009 11:31:47
35 TM

We don't trust them to run the country either

P ss up at the brewery?
41

CRAGman,

01/11/2009 11:49:00
Fifi la Bonbon's got it dead right on this one - let's by all means clean up expenses abuses but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I sometimes wonder what well-cosseted planet knight os the realm like Sir Neil and Sir Christopher come from. They certainly seem to move in the exalted dinner-attending circuit.
42

Jings MacCrivvens,

01/11/2009 12:00:01
I agree. Every possible means of MSPs, MPs, Lords etc to make personal or family financial gain should be blocked.
43

daveserviceman,

edinburgh 01/11/2009 12:01:53
All this will change next year when the lisbon treaty is in force we will all be ruled by the european parliament so there wont be any need for any parliaments in the whole of the United Kingdom as they will be superceded we will only have committee's to represent us locally, Even the armed forces and the police will come under the duristiction of Brussels. we will no longer have any say just a few MP's to be in brussels. Welocome to being just a county in Europe
44

UK cant pay its way ,

01/11/2009 12:09:04
brilliant can't wait for next step after the family ban
-- not allowed to hire party supporters-- think of the wonderful chaos when tory supporters work for labour parliamentarians and vice versa

UK over sooner than we think :-)
45

UK cant pay its way ,

01/11/2009 12:15:31
SHOCK NEWS

NEPOTISM IN USA

Obama's wife is FIRST LADY!!!!

and gets benefits paid by taxpayer
46

Lys Alf,

Scotland 01/11/2009 12:54:22
Even if nepotism is proscribed the politicians will find a loophole!
47

Fifi la Bonbon,

01/11/2009 13:16:32
#45 - did you type that all by yourself or did then nice man from UKIP do it for you?
48

morris,

edinburgh 01/11/2009 13:23:32
48 The loophole already exists ,so you are correct without doubt.

You cannot employ relatives of your own,but you can still employ relatives of each other ,which means any change achieves absolutely sod all,and becomes almost impossible to check (not to mention costly).
How far do we go with this?
Im sorry Miss Wilson but our records show that you are the great great great grandaughter of the great great great grandfather of the Member concerned,which roughly means that they are as related as I am to Oliver Cromwell !Total WINDOW DRESSING and distraction from the real problem which is sticky fingered Trough Dwelling Right honourable Chancers, and the Chancer of the Exchequer is a classic example!
49

morris,

edinburgh 01/11/2009 13:25:01
45 You mean like Scotland and Wales are as far as the UK is concerned?
50

Walter Ego,

Durness 01/11/2009 13:29:14
Another offside goal for the Old Firm. Disgraceful.
51

Delboy,

Edinburgh 01/11/2009 13:32:37
I don't think that we, the people, would have a problem with politicians employing family members if said politicians were trustworthy. Alas...
52

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/11/2009 13:43:02
We are talking about MSP's here. Not Westminster MP's although in point of fact there are plenty of them who did not abuse the expenses system, although of course you don't read about that in the papers.

People have asked about employment rights. Well, most people employed by politicians don't have them because they don't want them. They are on duty whenever they are needed. Holidays, family occasions, time spent at home is all subject to ''events, dear boy''. The average political researcher or assistnat doesn't do a job like most of the rest of us do, with defined hours and defined job descriptions. They do what needs to be done when it needs to be done, regardless of other factors. Like their personal lives.

It's no wonder so many politicians employ family members, because no one else would take the gig.
53

Walter Ego,

Durness 01/11/2009 14:21:41
The game is up for Sturgeon and her like. MSPs are every bit as dodgy as MPs.
54

Fitba Krazy,

01/11/2009 14:40:06
All they do to avoid this being noticed so obviously is employ their work colleague's relatives in a way that has been going on for ages between the anti-Scottish Labour party and the anti-Scottish media, for example.

They can carve up and cover up everything amongst themselves to the exclusion of the general public they are supposed to represent and report the actual news to.

It is blatantly obvious that a 'who you know' culture has operated for generations in both the media and in politics.

You only have to look at the idiotic reporting in the media defending a corrupt political party to see that and also the poor quality, not to mention the lies, of journalists, particularly in the tabloids, who support the corrupt political party who has presided over the deprivation that has been inflicted on many of the general public but not themselves as they collect vast amounts of cash amongst themselves.

Therefore until the public awaken completely to what has been going on for a very long time there will be no improvement.

It may be the case that sometimes it may be their relative or friend's relative who is the best qualified but the statistical chances of that being the case does not support the number who are employed in this manner.

It wouldn't matter so much if it was about sticking labels on bottles or sticking stamps on envelopes or some other simple task however when it comes to running the country in a fair and equitable manner I would say the whole thing stinks and you only have to look at the current state of affairs to see that.
55

Robert Mason,

Larkhall 01/11/2009 15:31:09
A wise move. Any measure which reduces the opportunity for politicians to commit fraud is to be welcomed.
56

JC1,

Glasgow 01/11/2009 16:26:15
Given the choice, I'd rather be paying sturgeon's ma's salary rather than sturgeon's herself, but MSPs should not have relatives on their (ie our) payroll. It's too easy to abuse and allows for a lot of income going to a household or family for vague 'admin' duties.
57

'smise,

Edinburgh 01/11/2009 16:41:45
Is it not a little bit strange that every time an MSP is identified as having to alter their behaviour, an SNP example is quoted in this newspaper.
58

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 01/11/2009 17:18:19

JC1,Glasgow 01/11/2009 16:26:15

I see that you have stopped with your personnal abuse of the First Minister and have engaged in decent debate.
______________________________________________________

If it means anything - I agree wholeheartedly with your contribution at #58.

"MSPs should not have relatives on their (ie our) payroll"

No Matter what party they represent.

Very well said!


59

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 01/11/2009 17:24:56

JC1,Glasgow 01/11/2009 16:26:15

Says:-
"It's too easy to abuse and allows for a lot of income going to a household or family for vague 'admin' duties."
______________________________________________________

It is indeed "too easy"

And Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon should heed valuable advice when it is given!



60

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 01/11/2009 17:52:23
Can't see anything wrong in employing family members.

Most construction engineers who have to operate as limited companies employ their wives. The wife is the obligatory second directory and normally does the paperwork. You could extend that to any "one man" limited business. Normal practice.

This is a bit like shaking the tree after the fallen apples have been collected - they just want more than they can eat. Piggery personified. Wheb the trough gets lean they eat themselves as rationality flies out the back window.

61

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 01/11/2009 18:07:53
Jock Tamson,Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 01/11/2009 17:52:23

Says:-
"Can't see anything wrong in employing family members."
_______________________________________________________

It is the prerogative of private business to set their own rules regarding this subject.

When it comes to government (in whatever form) It is in the interests of the electorate and the politicians that NO charge of nepotism is raised against anyone.

Therefore let's go with the rule that Politicians should not be allowed to employ relatives.

You Know it makes sense.

62

JC1,

Glasgow 01/11/2009 18:11:29
"I see that you have stopped with your personnal abuse of the First Minister and have engaged in decent debate"

No, I'm just telling it like it is - you're lucky not living in Scotland at the moment !
63

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 01/11/2009 18:19:41
JC1,Glasgow 01/11/2009 18:11:29

"No, I'm just telling it like it is - you're lucky not living in Scotland at the moment !"
_____________________________________________________

You must continue to tell it like it is.

I mean it!

But I want to live in an Independent Scotland.

64

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/11/2009 18:23:45
58 do you have any idea the caseload your average MSP carries? I don't think you do. ''Admin'' doesn't even begin to cover it.

If family members are banned then the tax payer is going to have to stump up more money because no 9 to 5 Office worker is going to get through the workload in the time alloted.

They will need more staff.
65

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 01/11/2009 18:40:09
JC1,Glasgow 01/11/2009 18:11:29

"you're lucky not living in Scotland at the moment !"
_______________________________________________________

I left Scotland because of the lack of opportunity, like so many expats, that I have met over the years.

The only way, I can imagine that my country can reverse this, is through Independence.

The viability of an Independent Scotland is absolutely solid.

The numbers are there (if anyone analyses the statistics properly).

All you have to do is visit any of the Independent, Oil Producing Countries, anywhere in the world to realise how wealthy our country might be.

66

Hickory,

US 01/11/2009 18:42:32
Aye, me mom is no longer me body guard. And.... me dog is no longer me financial assistant. Ey? Do I have ta give back me dog's laptop?
67

Bikefast,

01/11/2009 18:48:17
I cannot honestly see why families should not be allowed to work for an MP or MSP as long as the employee is capable, paid the proper going rate and proper records are kept. Normally a wife working for her husband and the advantage is that when the MP/MSP is at "The House" then the employee is at home and as contact would normally be regular anyway then correspondence and admin can readily be dealt with and no doubt discussions can take place at times outwith the 'working hours'. It seems to me to be a very good solution as long as it is being properly policed as some MP's in the past have not been totally 'up front' in their dealings.
68

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 01/11/2009 18:54:58
Bikefast,01/11/2009 18:48:17

"some MP's in the past have not been totally 'up front' in their dealings."
______________________________________________________

It is for this reason, and this reason alone, that no M.P. should be allowed any "Lee way" in this matter.

69

WL,

Livingston 01/11/2009 18:58:08
Any jobs paid for by the taxpayers - not just for MSP's - should be properly advertised, not only to family members sothat anyone can apply for them.
But why do MSP's need to employ staff in the first place; would it not be the task of their political party to assist them, if they need it?
70

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 01/11/2009 19:09:04
Jo'Burg Jock.

You realise, of course, that MPs and MSPs will simply put all family members into a party political pool and carry on as usual?

The costs of remuneration will probably increase because of paranoia such as you are displaying.
71

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 01/11/2009 19:14:37
We shall now play temp-in bowling.

Cherie, can you type up the illegal invasion of Iraq letter? I need to fax it in one hour - just before midnight.

Hello, Ms X, It's Tony. Can you come round and type up the illegal invasion of Iraq letter, like right away? Your discretion is of vital importance to ME.

Hmmmm?
72

Fitba Krazy,

01/11/2009 19:18:18
66, Observer,

Stump up more money?

What? For more argumentative self-servers who ignore the democratic rights of the populace?

If you got rid of most of them you would hardly notice any difference. In fact if the negative anti-democratic anti-Scots among them were given the heave ho we would see a vast improvement.

In many cases their case load is about working out how much more they can screw out of us and the quality of many is highly questionable, imo.

If family members being employed in the cushy numbers that they most surely are was encouraged I would say that you would find very few vacancies available to anyone apart from the bits that are not so simple, that is if they at all exist.

You don't see many packing it in, do you?

In fact they are so worried about losing their cushy numbers that many are prepared to lie and deny democracy to hang onto their easy money incomes and some also even rig votes to get in in the first place.

Aye, it's a hard joab right enough. NOT.

73

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 01/11/2009 19:22:56
Jock Tamson,Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 01/11/2009 19:09:04

Says:-
"The costs of remuneration will probably increase because of paranoia such as you are displaying."
__________________________________________________

Paranoia:- an abnormal tendency to suspect and mistrust others.

I think it would be "normal" to suspect and mistrust politicians regarding expenses. That puts you in the opposite camp!

Therefore, abnormal!

74

Mc Max ,

01/11/2009 19:25:31
I see Harman is going mental at the thought of depriving her hubby of £40.000 a year of tax payers money.
75

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/11/2009 19:49:03
74 We are talking about MSP's not MP's. And actually a lot of them do a lot of work (and not just the SNP ones) on behalf of their constituents. When you are fed up banging your head up against a brick wall in dealing with bureaucracy who do you go to? In many many cases it is the MSP. They all carry very heavy caseloads trying to sort out their constituents problems. That is a useful function.

This idea that MSP's do nothing is a load of nonsense.
76

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/11/2009 19:51:34
75 I don't think that there is any evidence to suggest that Holyrood MSP's are institutionally corrupt. Quite the contrary; they have one of the most transparent and accountable renumeration and expenses systems in the world.
77

Jock Tamson,

S 01/11/2009 19:57:33
Well I suppose ther is a good side to everything regards politicians.

Under this ruling more flirtations can be typed up and sent using public money.
78

Fitba Krazy,

01/11/2009 20:01:54
71, WL,

"But why do MSP's need to employ staff in the first place; would it not be the task of their political party to assist them, if they need it?"

Exactly. There could be a budget set to accommodate any realistic assistance required and the assistant paid the proper wage for doing so out of a sensible and realistic budget.

There are obvious problems, given the level of fragmentation and dishonesty that exists in society as it is, in employing those outside the political party they are working for and your suggestion is the most appropriate, imo.

It is up to the parties to regulate themselves within an agreed framework and if anyone is incompetent it is surely in the party's own interests to sort out any inefficiencies and/or discrepancies for their own good.

Otherwise it might get in the papers and lead to public resentment. Well, maybe jist. LoL.
79

Fitba Krazy,

01/11/2009 20:07:46
77 Observer,

Aye, very good.

I was denied the garden of my flat when I bought it and told a load of rubbish by the housing assc. who took over from Argyll & Bute Council that the garden didn't come with the type of flat I had when in fact someone who had already bought the exact same type of flat from Argyll & Bute had got the garden with theirs.

I got in touch with the SNP who were very good about it however I had to get in touch with my own MSP for the area, namely Jacky Baillie, who never answered my emails and completely ignored me.

So, so much for that eh?

Labour, a complete waste of space.
80

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 01/11/2009 20:16:22
#78 Observer,,Glasgow 01/11/2009 19:51:34

I was not suggesting anything of the sort. I was (in fact) replying to "Jock Tamson".

Since you want to say something on this issue I suggest that you consider the thoughts of the Electorate/Taxpayer on the matter.

Generally, everyone is fed up with U.K. politicians claiming expenses on a yearly basis - that which most folk would retire on (for a lifetime).

While we would like to believe that "our politicians" are different, that is not so.

Remember Wendy Alexander and her dishonesty?

No Matter how you try to explain the differences between Parties, Parliaments or Paisley folk, The general population will suspect the worst.

All suspicion must be removed.

81

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/11/2009 20:27:40
82 I'm not arguing against this policy. I just think it's a pity that the mob and their pitchforks are not a bit more discerning as to who they want to spear. Admittedly the only people I know in this position are in the SNP, but the idea that they are troughers is laughable. These are people who never switch off. They are at work all the time.
82

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/11/2009 20:32:22
81 I am talking in general. I don't really know that much about gardens except that the land usually goes to the lower flat in the title deeds. No doubt you are in a lower flat. You just seem to have nae luck.
83

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/11/2009 20:36:41
That's weird they have deleted the entire thread on the Lib Dem article.

84

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 01/11/2009 20:37:43
This will be a MAJOR BLOW FOR THE LIEBOR PARTY.............
85

Fitba Krazy,

01/11/2009 20:45:31
83, Observer,

I don't get what you mean when you say you are not arguing against this policy.

The policy for everyone buying their flat was that they got the garden with it until I applied, to Argyll & Bute Council incidentally back in 2006, and the Council dragged their heels for so long that the houses run by Argyll & Bute were transferred to ACHA in the long interim who changed the policy to deny me the garden which I would have got, I presume, had Argyll & Bute not dragged their heels.

I agree the SNP work for their money against a large backdrop of hostility from many quarters who are not interested in the public's democratic decision to elect the SNP, however, Labour have done nothing for me all my life except destroy my business and latterly deny me the right to buy the garden along with the flat that I should really have got, just like everyone else.

So as I said. Labour are a bunch of persecuting anti-Scottish, useless, self serving ignoramuses who I am prepared to bet don't live in wee flats that you could hardly swing a cat in, as they say.

Most of them, if not all, have big fancy hooses wi big big gardens, in fact some have several which are paid, not by themselves but, by us.

What a bunch of useless hypocrites they most surely are.
86

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 01/11/2009 20:51:08
Observer,,Glasgow 01/11/2009 20:27:40

The attitude of "the Mob" with the torches and pitchforks will always be the same.

Westminster has proven that their politicians will (morally) embrace the deepest abyss.

That (unfortunately) will be the measure of every political party forced to deal within this corrupt regime.

We must break away from this mire and establish a government of which we will become proud.

87

Fitba Krazy,

01/11/2009 20:53:53
84. Observer,

Sorry, I mixed up your statement regarding policy with your answer to Jo burg Jock,

Actually the gardens are split between all the flats in the block so much so that existing tenants have been allowed to divide them up themselves with no objection from ACHA which is totally contrary to what they told me.
88

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/11/2009 21:00:36
87 Rufus was getting his posts deleted one by one when I last saw it. I don't think that's a good idea. If there are too many complaints they just wipe the thread. And in any case Rufus has as much right to post (rubbish) as anyone, and he's good at the jokes.
89

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/11/2009 21:01:55
89 Well yes I agree!
90

Observer,,

Glasgow 01/11/2009 21:06:15
90 Dunno that sounds weird Fitba. I know when the houses were transferred to GHA in Glasgow it was *only* the houses - the Council kept all the land, and it reverts to them when the houses on it are demolished. Maybe something of the same sort happened up in your bit as well, which would explain the garden thingy. Is it still Alistair McGregor who is the boss up there? I need to go now - but we could swap notes another time.

Nite.
91

Jimmy Fae the West,

In The Land of Green Ginger. 01/11/2009 21:06:32
At present, the politicians could shoot one of their own every and each hour and I would still not be satisfied. They cheat, lie and steal from the country with complete immunity from prosecution and we are supposed to have sympathy for them?

As they watch the professionals in the Royal family getting fat and rich whilst escaping from the clutches of democracy, they too learn that it's a Banker's life for them.
92

Fitba Krazy,

01/11/2009 21:13:06
93, Observer,

Well, that may have happened in Glasgow but here ACHA said the land was transferred to them too, so unless they are telling porkies I assume that is the case.

It doesn't alter the fact that everyone else who bought their house or flat got the garden with it or were offered it, except me. What does that tell you about their idea of impartiality?

Anyway, g'night yersel.
93

Fitba Krazy,

01/11/2009 21:19:28
93, Observer,

Well, it was Alistair McGregor a couple of years ago, but I fell oot wi him because of the carry on over the garden.

Whether it's still him or not I huvnae a scoob.

They do want to roughcast the walls and do a new roof however they huvnae gied me a price yet which is weird considering they've finished most of the others.

They gave me a form for to claim a grant but I want the price first, for obvious reasons.
94

Jimmy Two Blotters,

01/11/2009 21:23:05
Who fukt-up the other thread?
95

Jimmy Two Blotters,

01/11/2009 21:25:12
I mean what's the point? Some good posts were there and the Hootsmans obliterate the full monty. Why can't they just delete the offending post and ban the idiot?
96

Jimmy Two Blotters,

01/11/2009 21:25:33
100 posts to be deleted?
97

Jimmy Two Blotters,

01/11/2009 21:26:11
I blame Thatcher for this.
98

Fitba Krazy,

01/11/2009 21:32:49
98, Jimmy Two Blotters,

It was more spam than anything, no doubt deliberately posted to obscure the good posts of which there were a good few.

Since the Lib Dems took a pasting for being anti-democratic and undermining the wishes of their own support to have a referendum I presume it was convenient to wipe the thread as a consequence rather than erase the spam itself of which their was rather a lot, I have to say.
99

Mc Max ,

01/11/2009 22:16:03
Looks like Tavish has a wee bit of influence within the hootsmon.
Very weird.
100

Fitba Krazy,

01/11/2009 22:25:00
103. Mr Max,

Aye, It also looks like Tavish is a bit of an eejit.
101

Justin Timbercake,

01/11/2009 22:33:04
Observer,,Glasgow 01/11/2009 21:00:36
87 Rufus was getting his posts deleted one by one when I last saw it.
-------------------------------------------------

Not true. I have been out all day.

I never made any posts.

I take it I was being faked again.
102

,

02/11/2009 00:04:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.