Angst in an empty house

On the 6th day of December 2007, Parliament resolved the following :

That the Parliament, recognising mainstream public opinion in Scotland, supports the establishment of an independently chaired commission to review devolution in Scotland; encourages UK Parliamentarians and parties to support this commission also and proposes that the remit of this commission should be:
"To review the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 in the light of experience and to recommend any changes to the present constitutional arrangements that would enable the Scottish Parliament to better serve the people of Scotland, that would improve the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament and that would continue to secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom",
and further instructs the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to allocate appropriate resources and funding for this review.

It hasn't half caused a lot of sleepless nights and stampie feet in London (a house on the Thames, for example). Why? Why are they so daft? Let's look at the motion -

Firstly, it hands the Commission thing over to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB). The SPCB runs Parliament here in Edinburgh - it's members are nominated from each party which has a seat on the Business Bureau (one each) and the Presiding Officer. Gordon Brown can huff as much as he likes, it's got nothing to do with him - thanks to this motion which was in the name of - Wendy Alexander.

Secondly, it has to be independently chaired - sorry Ming... No apparatchiks of any party.

Thirdly, this resolution is more than two months old - where's the action?

Fourthly, the SNP has a seat on the bureau, that means the SNP has a say in how this Commission will function.

Fifthly (I'm hoping to get to eleventhly), the SPCB member with responsibility for things like Commissioners is the Lib Dem Mike Pringle MSP

Sixthly, the Chief Executive of Parliament agreed to report back to the SPCB in January

Seventhly (getting there), there're no minutes of SPCB meetings in January

Eighthly, I've run out of things to say and won't reach eleventhly godammit!

Come back Jack McConnell - they need to up their game!

Mr Martin - what are you up to?

I thought that the current hunting season on Labour MSPs would have them all cleaning up their acts and tightening up their declarations.



Nope.



Sunday's newspapers carried the first rumblings, but me old mucker Grant Thoms the Tartan Hero has pointed out that the Speaker of the House of Commons, one Michael Martin esquire has been reported to the Standards Commissioner type down in old London Town for his *ahem* imaginative use of Air Miles obtained on official business. He diverted those freebies (that we all paid for) away from official business and into the sweaty palms of his nearest and dearest - including, of course, his son Paul.

Why's that important? Well, Paul is an MSP and as Louise pointed out in a comment left on Grant's blog, Paul Martin MSP should have declared the gift on his Register of Member's Interests.



Eh what says you, surely this is a gift from his father? Couple of things on that - no it wasn't, it was a gift from his father's office which is, of course, a public office, so it was our money - and even if it had been a gift from his father, he would have had to declare it.

Let me take you to a piece of legislation you may have heard the odd thing about recently - the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006. A fine - and very short - piece of legislation which governs what MSPs have to declare.

'Ere you go, squire - section 2:

2 Registrable interests
(1) In this Act, a “registrable interest” means a registrable financial interest.
(2) The schedule sets out the circumstances in which a member has, or had, a registrable financial interest.
(3) A financial interest is defined for the purposes of paragraph (a) of section 39(2) of the 1998 Act as a registrable financial interest.

Paragraph 6 of the schedule is the bit that says that gifts have to be registered if they exceed 1% of an MSP's salary rounded down to the nearest £10 (£520) - and it meets the prejudice test. The prejudice test? Allow me:

An interest meets the prejudice test if, after taking into account all the circumstances, that interest is reasonably considered to prejudice, or to give the appearance of prejudicing, the ability of the member to participate in a disinterested manner in any proceedings of the Parliament.

Even if it looks like you might not be disinterested (as distinct from uninterested) in the proceedings of Parliament you should declare it.

Important question - did the gift taken from the pockets of the taxpayer exceed the £520 threshold? Paul Martin, his wife and two children @ £360 each - £1,440 (gross times ten don't you know and nearly three times the limit - and note the proper use of the @ symbol, that's my smugness quotient increased).

Hang on, says a Labour voice - the schedule specifically excludes flights paid for by the MSP's father (or mother or child or spouse, civil partner or cohabitant and so on). Fair enough - but that's only for travel outside the UK.

Guilty on all counts, m'lud - I think that's a £5,000 fine and exclusion from Parliament.

You know what strikes me - Labour members truly don't intentionally break the law, they just don't bother finding out what the law is in the first place. I'm sure that saves their consciences.

All together now -

Those magnificent men in their flying machines
They go up tiddly up-up, they come down diddly oun-down
They entrance all the ladies and steal all the scenes with their up tiddly up-up and their down diddly oun-down.

What a tangled web we weave...

Matthew Marr, one-time Labour spinner extraordinaire, went down in a tired and emotional state, flinging a very bad epithet at the First Minister of Scotland (His Eckness).

Since then, Wendy Alexander (leader of the opposition in Parliament - in terms of number of MSPs in her party, anyway) has been searching for a replacement. Two of the requirements in the person specification for the job have made it a struggle finding someone - "must be quotable without asterisks" and "must be capable of acting with decency towards politicians in other parties".

How has Wendy made sure that her new spinner will not be nasty to politicians in other parties? Simple - she's appointed someone who doesn't think much of her - Simon Pia.

From his Scotsman diary:

September 1, 2004, - Wendy Alexander's entry on the Parliament's website but found there was not a mention of her ministerial career. Stalinism is alive and well

April 3, 2001, - ONE of the great political issues of our age, ie the last 15 minutes, is this: has Wendy Alexander spun out of control and can she be reined in again?

May 18, 2000, - Gruppenfuhrer Wendy Alexander wants to know every last detail of the make-up of management committees like the local mother and toddler groups

May 16, 2000, - SPOTTED in the executive lounge at Heathrow waiting for the shuttle were a senior Labour MP and his researcher. Huddled over their papers they were attracting attention with the odd guffaw. Could it have been another one of Wendy Alexander's policy papers they were reading?

November 15, 2001, - Far be it for us to suggest anyone is two sandwiches
short of a picnic, but Wendy Alexander has a thing about biscuits.

November 15, 2001, - We could have had a "fruitcake" running a nanny
state.

January 25, 2001, - One reveller recalls: "I'll never forget looking out the window and the sight of Wendy trying to climb over the back wall with a carry-out so that she could sneak in."

May 26, 2000, - THE prying eyes of Wendy Alexander have been shut by the Diary, which last week exposed Big Sister's nebbing into the sexuality of the guid folk of Craigmillar.

January 23, 2002, - it was our man on the spot at Radio Clyde who caught Wendy sighing into the microphone that she was the minister for so much that "I cannot remember my own title".

Hungry Caterpillar anyone? Mind you, given that Wendy employed Gavin Yates after he said things like this:

Wendy Alexander, a former Minister who fell from favour with the so-called Labour ‘West-Coast Mafia’ is in pole position but her abrasive style might not prove popular with everyone. Also, she is seen very much as a Brown acolyte and that won’t go down well with MSPs that want a separate Scottish Labour identity from Westminster.

Meanwhile, Labour find themselves still stuck in a post -electoral malaise with a lame-duck leader.

The former Labour MSP and Health Minister, Susan Deacon, told the Herald that Labour had failed to develop any platform and said: “Labour has to develop a more positive narrative that defines it as a party and Scotland in a UK context. I fail to understand why it was thought an effective strategy during the election to take such a negative stance and scaremonger about what would happen if the SNP were
elected.”
There is no chance of Labour carrying out her advice soon.

It might just be that Wendy is a masochist when it comes to employing staff. Or perhaps Simon Pia was recommended to her for his musings on her colleagues - George Foulkes as a has-been perhaps:

August 15, 2005, - Indeed, it seems the Scottish Premier League, as much as the Lords, is the elephants' graveyard for once promising politicos of Cook's generation, with sinecures in the boardroom for George Foulkes ...

Or perhaps his own sycophancy towards her and her younger sibling:

August 15, 2005, - Where, then, are the young Turks to take up the mantle of Cook's generation: step forward the Alexander brother and sister, Douglas and Wendy. However, there are few others of note and, believe it or not, we have heard murmurings of a Tory revival in the Scottish universities.

Maybe it's his excellent judgement of political ability:

April 18, 2005, - we reckon voters are fed up with cheesy charisma and we prefer the soubriquet "sober" for the likes of Brown and Darling. While the term "Edinburgh lawyer" does not necessarily conjure up a pretty picture, Darling possesses the best of the beast's traits: very able and a safe a pair hands

Or his candour:

September 16, 2004, - A Scotch whisky official confided: "We had Alistair Darling at a reception and he couldn't understand why whisky costs twice as much in Scotland as it does in Spain. We tactfully suggested he ask the Chancellor."

It must be his unerring support for her policies:

October 22, 2003, - A POSSE of Edinburgh councillors - Trevor Davies, Lawrence Marshall, Tom Ponton, David Guest and city development head honcho Andrew Holmes - put on their anoraks yesterday morning for a bit of "tram-spotting" in Strasbourg, Lyon and Montpellier as part of their "looney tunes" plan to bring back the trams.

Another stunning appointment by Wendy Alexander - perfect judgement.

I've lost the email that this cartoon was sent in - can I just say thanks again.

No wonder Gordon supports Wendy

News reaches my lugs that Gordon Brown has been reported to the Westminster standards chap for breaking the rules about his constituency office.

Aye, aye, no wonder he supports Wendy Alexander's flagrant disregard for the law - he's at it as well.

Jings!

Oh no, another breach - she canna take it cap'n!

On the 20th of December 2007, Leader of the Opposition, Ms Wendy Alexander, for it is she (currently), asked of the First Minister of Scotland:

Ms Alexander: I return to the question whether it is routine for a constituency MSP to bypass the planning directorate, go to the chief planner, and secure a meeting for developers in 12 hours and a call-in within 24 hours. I ask that because I want also to know why Mr Salmond's Government has been refusing since August—a period of more than three months—to meet the developers that are proposing a £1.2 billion development to regenerate the Rosyth naval dockyard.

Verily she did ask thus, and most readily did he answer:

The First Minister: I am just being told that the chief planner is meeting those developers, as he meets other developers in Scotland, which is also part—
Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab): Six months later.
The Presiding Officer: Order.
The First Minister: Wendy Alexander should, just occasionally, check her facts before she asks a question.
I am looking at the ministerial code. Not only in the MSP code of conduct are MSPs encouraged to represent their constituents, but the ministerial code says that, on planning decisions, ministers may write to ministers, may advocate a point of view and may lead deputations—I am sure that Duncan McNeil has led a few deputations in his time. All those things are what effective MSPs do. Wendy Alexander should accept that, as detailed in the letter from the permanent secretary, no official in the Government has acted with anything other than total propriety and that no official has been asked to do anything improper. Will she now accept the words of the permanent secretary?

A right to-do and a barney to boot! As I pointed out recently, Helen Eadie has gone and went and done what Wendy Alexander said couldn't be done and got a meeting with the Chief Planner for a developer with a major development proposal in her area, proving that any MSP can do it and that Helen Eadie is better than Wendy Alexander. Of course, His First Ministership was saying that in chamber in answer to Wee Wendibles (the bit about the meeting, the rest is mine, mine I tell you), but she wasn't listening - as is her wont.

As I pointed out, though, the developer in question here is Scarborough Muir - fine folks I'm told - who have, quite openly and above board, contributed to the Labour party, £1,350 to Gordon Brown's constituency and £2,500 to Scottish Labour.

So what says you, aha says I, thereby hangs a tale -

Section 3 of the Code of Conduct requires that you make an oral declaration of an interest before taking part in any proceedings which affect that interest. Wendy's defence to this is a good one - that the money was given to the Labour party rather than to her so she didn't have to declare it - and I agree with it in spite of the prejudice test coming in strongly on the side of declaring, I think she squeaks this one.

Section 4 of the Code of Conduct, however, precludes paid advocacy, which is defined thusly:

4.1.3 Unlike the provisions of the Act relating to the registration and declaration of interests (which are designed to ensure transparency and do not inhibit Members’ participation in the proceedings of the Parliament), the provisions of the Act relating to paid advocacy provide that a Member may not, in consideration of any payment or benefit in kind, advocate or initiate any cause, or matter, on behalf of any person or urge any other Member to advocate or initiate any cause, or matter, on behalf of any person.

4.1.4 “Any payment or benefit in kind” means any payment or benefit in kind which the Member receives and which may reasonably be considered to result in some benefit for that Member (except a vote for that Member in an election to the Parliament). This also includes any payments or benefit in kind which the Member’s spouse, civil partner or cohabitant receives and which may reasonably be considered to be provided in connection with the Parliamentary duties of that Member and to benefit that Member in some way.

4.1.5 Section 14(3) of the Act describes the kinds of assistance which Members may receive without being in breach of the paid advocacy provisions. Those provisions do not apply to assistance provided to a Member in the preparation of a Member’s Bill, or assistance with amendments to any Bill, or a debate on subordinate legislation or a legislative consent motion (formerly known as a Sewel motion).

Now one may say that it would be a harsh judgement upon Ms Alexander to have to take such consideration before attacking the First Minister. I would simply remind them that Labour party Members were not slow in calling for David McLetchie's head when he signed a motion about Edinburgh Airport when the legal firm for which he still did some part-time work was representing one of the parties in a dispute.

Calling Victor Meldrew

I don't believe it! Remember a wee while back Wendy Alexander found herself reported to the procurator fiscal for committing the offence of not registering her dodgy donations in her register of interests? It was the end of January, February 1st at the latest.

Remember how the offence is taking part in proceedings of the Parliament while having an unregistered interest?

You would have thought, considering all the trouble she's been in, that she would have registered those interests quick-smart in order to avoid being in continued breach, wouldn't you? I mean, this time the defence of "I never knew" is definitely bogus, and section 6(2) of the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006 only allows 7 days to register a late interest from the day the MSP becomes aware of it.

Wendy Alexander's entry in the Register of Interests still reads:

Remuneration:
Until 31 December 2006 I was a Visiting Professor at the Business School, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow. I was paid an honorarium of between £10,001 and £15,000 per annum.
Between January 2006 and 10 January 2007 I wrote a weekly column in the Daily Record newspaper which is based at 1 Central Quay, Glasgow. I received remuneration of between £5,001 and £10,000 per annum.

Related Undertaking:
NONE

Election Expenses:
NONE

Sponsorship:
NONE

Gifts:
I received a donation of between £501 and £1000 on 28 December 2006 from the Transport and General Workers Union towards local campaign work.
I received a donation of between £501 and £1000 on 13 March 2007 from the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians towards local campaign work.

Overseas Visits:
NONE

Heritable Property:
NONE

Interest In Shares:
NONE

Miscellaneous:

Voluntary:
I am a Visiting Professor at the Business School, University of Strathclyde (unremunerated).
I received donations in November/December 2006 towards to production and posting of a 2007 calendar from the following: Reid Kerr College (£500), Chivas (£500), Braehead CSC Retail (£200), Capital Shopping Centres UK Property Group (£300), Abbotsinch Properties (£300), Phoenix Car Company (£300), CK Heating (£200) and WK Malcolm (£200).
I received, in February 2007, a benefit in kind for postage of a shared letter to Linwood constituents about Linwood Regeneration. The value of the benefit is estimated to be up to £500. Postage was jointly shared by Wendy Alexander and Denvir Marketing.
I received donations in November/December 2007, all banked in December 2007, towards production and posting of a 2008 constituency calendar from the following: Chivas Brothers Limited (£500), Abbotsinch Properties (£200), Phoenix Car Company (£300), WH Malcolm Ltd (£200), George Wimpey West Scotland Limited (£300), First Scotrail Limited (£200), Lomond Motors Limited (£200), Porcelanosa (Scotland) Limited (£300), Park Lane Developments (£300) and Tesco Stores Limited (£500). [Registered 21 December 2007]

Nothing there about her leadership donations, nothing. That's a continuation of the first offence if she speaks in chamber or committee, lodges question or motions, or takes part in any other Parliamentary activities before registering. Unless we're about to be told that the clerks have failed to update the register (because it's always someone else's fault these days), there's also a second offence being committed - the failure to register within seven days of becoming aware of the need to register a late registration.

Sometimes I just wonder.

This Sunday I shall mainly be reading the Sunday Times and the Sunday Post - fine journals.

Changing the map

SNP will win extra seats at the next Holyrood election - thanks to the Boundaries Commission's proposed new constituencies. Let's look at Edinburgh, for example.

Edinburgh East would lose Musselburgh and Leith Links, both strong areas of SNP support, but would pick up relatively strong areas in the south of the city. With the work going on there under Kenny MacAskill, Edinburgh East should stay in the comfortable embrace of Scotland's Party.

North and Leith would swap the New Town, Stockbridge and Inverleith for Leith Links and Easter Road, which would have been enough for us to win the seat even without the enormous amount of work we're putting in now.

Edinburgh Central would lose ground around Stenhouse and gain the New Town and Stockbridge. That should leave Central as a marginal. Again, with the work going on there and the positive effects of the spectacular SNP Government, the SNP should come in ahead.

There you have it - two extra seats for the SNP and that's just in Edinburgh. I'm sure that other people will be examining the rest of the country and coming up with a whole lot more seats that the SNP will win.

Westminster first though - that should be fun.