Holyrood at its most breathtaking
If I was being sceptical, I would comment on the timing of the release of the Register of Interests for MSPs. Every year, it is published on 9 July 2011 and this year, it wasn’t even press-released. But I am not, so I won’t. After all, some things speak for themselves.
The Register is a fascinating document for many reasons. Because memberships are listed, you can glean a better understanding of what floats some MSPs’ boats. There are few eyebrow-raising entries – they are a dull lot really, just like the rest of us, which is reassuring in lots of respects.
What is of interest is the number of dual mandate MSPs we now have – 25 I reckon are also elected members of councils until 2012 at least. This means not only do they receive their MSP salary of £56k but also councillor’s salary/remuneration of between £15 and £20k.
Nice work if you can get it? Well, no actually. There are many things I might wish to be when I grow up, but an MSP AND a councillor at the same time ain’t it. Apparently the full time position is that of MSP, while being a councillor is supposed to be a part time role. Register entries declare earnestly that time spent on being an elected member is approximately 20 hours a week. I suspect they know that is an optimistic estimate – councillors especially in small towns and rural areas are literally on call all the time and some will end up spending more time than that on council business. In a like for like of value for money in terms of time spent versus salary, councillors would beat MSPs hands down every time.
What is interesting is how many dual mandate MSPs are at pains to reassure us that they will not be taking this additional salary.
Six are waiving it altogether – Colin Beattie, Neil Findlay, John Finnie, Mark Griffin, Alison Johnstone and John Pentland. Two are honest enough to state that while foregoing the salary, they will still claim expenses for costs incurred – Clare Adamson and Richard Lyle.
Nine though are keeping their councillors’ salary on top of their MSPs, meaning they will be earning an eye-popping £70k plus. Or at least they are silent on what they will do with their councillor salary. I suspect this might change shortly…. but step forward Willie Coffey, Jim Hume (both of whom are in their second Holyrood term of carrying a dual mandate and presumably, dual salaries), Mary Fee, Hanzala Malik, Margaret McCulloch, Anne McTaggart, David Torrance, Jean Urquhart and Bill Walker.
Eight remaining dual mandate MSPs intend to donate their councillor salary to good causes and charity in their constituencies and/or wards. George Adam, Neil Bibby, James Dornan, Colin Keir, Angus Macdonald, Derek MacKay, Mark McDonald and Kevin Stewart all intend to do this and at first sight, it seems a very good move indeed. What small community group or charity could not do with some extra funding right now?
But given that all but one of the generous MSPs are SNP ones I wonder if they have totally thought this through? Given that this will be their second salary, it will be subject to the highest tax rate and most of it will end up back in HM Treasury’s coffers. That’s right, SNP MSPs voluntarily giving money back to Westminster. Who’d a thunk it? The dreaded London masters will benefit from their largesse just as much as good causes.
It’s an understandable gesture that on one level makes perfect sense. But any dual mandate MSP wishing to benefit local activity would be better served foregoing the salary entirely and haggling with their local council to ensure their salary does not disappear into central expenditure but is divvied up in grants to local good causes. Another potential solution for councils with a number of dual mandate MSPs might be to establish a trust or make a grant to existing Common Good funds – not the greatest guarantee of community focused expenditure but better than nothing. This would mean that the taxable benefit could be maximised rather than minimised.
I’m sure SNP MSPs might feel more comfortable with a solution that keeps as much of their councillor salary in Scotland than sending it back to Westminster.
#1 by Steve on July 16, 2011 - 10:37 am
Gift aid?
#2 by NoOffenceAlan on July 16, 2011 - 3:28 pm
I suppose those giving their second salary to good causes within their wards and constituencies are theoretically “treating” their voters ?
#3 by Stuart Winton on July 16, 2011 - 11:26 pm
NOA
When Joe Fitzpatrick first stood for Holyrood he pledged his £10,000 councillor severance payment to good causes, but only on the condition that he was elected an MSP.
His Labour opponent complained to the Electoral Commission, but they dismissed the complaint on the basis that the payments would fall outwith the relevant period as regards electoral expenses.
As regards treating, they said that question was outwith their remit and any complaint should thus be made to the police or PF.
I don’t think it was taken any further, but it would have been interesting to know the outcome of any complaint.
http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/output/2006/10/04/story8827625t0.shtm
#4 by Tom Cresswell on July 17, 2011 - 9:28 pm
I know this isn’t the right place to comment about this, but comments are closed on the Central Scotland results page (and Mid Scotland and fife since its also said there):
“Siobhan McMahon is the daughter of Michael McMahon MSP, forming Holyrood’s first parent/child combo.”
Its actually the second parent/child combo, as in 1999 both Winnie and Fergus Ewing were elected to the Scottish Parliament, although you could argue the McMahon’s are the first father/daughter combo.
I’m sorry for writing it here when its not relevent, but it was really irritating me when I read it a couple of days ago and is ruining what is otherwise a wonderful, intelligent and genuinely interesting site. I only wish that I had discovered it before the election.
#5 by Malc on July 19, 2011 - 11:43 am
Should be fixed now – sorry if its spoiled your experience of Better Nation!
Also – thanks for pointing it out. Strange mistake to make – poor effort team(!).
#6 by Tom Cresswell on July 20, 2011 - 5:18 pm
Now my mind is at rest. As I say, the blog was otherwise wonderful and I have enjoyed reading it, especially a lot of the posts in the immediate aftermath of the election.
Great work from all contributors.
#7 by The Burd on July 21, 2011 - 9:16 am
Sorry the mistake was mine – thanks for pointing it to us.
#8 by The Burd on July 21, 2011 - 9:17 am
Aye okay fellow team member, mea culpa!
#9 by Malc on July 21, 2011 - 10:42 am
I wasn’t pointing fingers. I was probably the one who proofed it!
#10 by Indy on July 19, 2011 - 11:01 am
Speaking personally I am rather glad that the councillors who were elected MSPs decided to stay on. It’s only a year and frankly many activists needed a bit of a break after the Scottish elections. The idea of saying to people OK take a short break and then we are going to have to get out campaigning again for local government by-elections would not have appealed to me. At the end of the day if people are against dual mandates then they ought to be arguing for the selection rules to be changed so that councillors are not allowed to stand as parliamentary candidates.
#11 by Angus McLellan on July 19, 2011 - 1:53 pm
It may be heartless and cruel, but I don’t think the convenience of political parties and their activists should be considered when making rules. So for me this has to be wrong on both counts.
Firstly, there should be a rule prohibiting dual mandates. Just because it was “only” a year this time, and I don’t really think “only” is justified here, it could be just as easily be most of a term (by-elections, replacements off the lists).
Secondly, there seems no good reason to make resignation of other mandates a precondition of candidacy. Wasn’t there some rather partisan drama over this in Wales last month? [And it isn’t just Wales. Disputes over seating newly elected senators or representatives used to be, and perhaps still is, an ugly feature of US politics.] Setting a limit during which the newly elected MSP must resign other mandates seems the safer route.
#12 by Indy on July 21, 2011 - 9:40 am
Lol it would be interesting to see how elections went if political parties and their activists decided to sit them out.
#13 by The Burd on July 22, 2011 - 10:56 am
Wouldn’t it. There is a school of thought that the election campaign just fought made very little difference to the result. People had already made their minds up what they were doing.
Discuss!
#14 by Indy on July 22, 2011 - 12:51 pm
Actually I think an unusually large number of voters did make up their minds during the short campaign this year but generally speaking yes, elections are won in peace-time more than during the short campaign. And they are won – and lost – by a combination of how voters assess the performance of parties at a national level and by their performance locally on the ground. The exact balance of that assessment is something that will always be subject to heated debate I suspect.
But I have become slightly fascinated by the possibility of political parties sitting out an election. If they agreed not to put up candidates or campaign in a particular ward or constituency what would happen?
Would candidates just emerge from the local community and, if so, what would the fault lines be between the different candidates? Would they be along the same lines as the accepted political faultlines or would they perhaps be completely different? And how would the candidates communicate their message – would it be through leaflets, door-kncking, social media – or would they perhaps find some new ways tp connect with people? Or, without the involvement of political parties, would the electiion fall completely flat?
The more I think about it the more I think it would be quite a fascinating experiment if it could be properly organised.
#15 by Steve on July 20, 2011 - 8:59 pm
I know this is an old post now, but a couple of points. One – MSPs are well paid, they earn twice the average (mean) salary and probably more than twice the median.
Two – being an MSP should be a full time job, if you find yourself as an MSP and a councillor then you should quit one of those jobs immediately, simply because you cannot do both roles justice. To serve the people as an elected representative is an enormous privilege and holding two positions in this way is an abuse of that privilege – you’re either putting yourself, your own political interests, or your party (including your poor tired activists) first, but your certainly not doing this for the benefit of your constituents.
#16 by Stuart Winton on July 21, 2011 - 9:32 am
Well said Steve (and Angus) – Indy clearly thinks the system is there to serve the politicians rather than the people, so nothing new there then.
Indeed, an article in the Sunday Post said Labour were considering dual mandate backbench MPs/list MSPs because neither have much to do, the former because of devolution and the latter because they don’t have a consituency.
Mind you, Alex Salmond managed two consituency roles plus first minister!!
#17 by Indy on July 21, 2011 - 9:41 am
Says you, who has never chapped a door or delivered a leaflet in your life probably.
#18 by The Burd on July 22, 2011 - 10:55 am
Why does it matter so much to some people about who has done what and who hasn’t. There ain’t no hierarchy of entitlement to have an opinion or post a comment you know. Everyone’s view is valid and Indy, if you can’t play nicely, you’ll be sitting the next few posts out on the naughty step.
#19 by Indy on July 22, 2011 - 1:00 pm
Hallo? Stuart accused me of thinking that the system is there to serve “the politicians” rather than the people.
As you are surely aware the vast majority of political activists are not politicians. They are just regular people who believe in a cause and are prepared to volunteer their own time, money and in many cases give up their annual leave in order to campaign in elections. It would in reality be pretty difficult to run elections as well as they are run without this entirely voluntary contribution from activuists of all parties and if I feel a tad aggrieved at people like Stuart sneering about that then I think I am quite entitled to say so.
#20 by Stuart Winton on July 23, 2011 - 8:42 am
Indy, my point in essence was that if it’s in the *public* interest not to have dual-mandates then the inconvenience of a by-election for the *parties* shouldn’t be the deciding factor, don’t you think?
All the parties would be in the same boat, thus they might all suffer in terms of campaigning, but would that really be to anyone’s detriment?
Indeed, that points to a fundamental shortcoming in the whole process, which is the time and rescources devoted by the parties to door knocking and leafletting, neither of which add much to the sum of human knowledge beyond a few soundbites, as the Burd perhaps alludes above.
But unfortunately that’s the party political mindset you’re stuck in, which is why the thought a different style of politics self-evidently fills you with such horror.
As for my own activities, before I’d become sufficiently galvanised to do anything concrete I’d become disillusioned with party politics, but since then I’ve submitted several hundred pages to government consultations, set up several websites, written hundreds of letters to the press and now I’ve got my little blog.
Of course, I’d rather have an army of helpers, my own newspaper column and a rich sugar daddy to help propel me to elected office, but that ain’t gonna happen, so I’ll just have to carry on doing my best in my own little way.
#21 by Indy on July 23, 2011 - 11:39 am
See you are again making statements there – such as that the time and resources devoted to door knocking and leafleting – are essentially a waste of time based on what? What research have you read which suggests that – because there is a great deal of research out there which suggests that personal contact between the voters and candidates and their teams is absolutely vital to the functioning of democracy.
In my own constituency during the recent campaign we spoke to just short of 9000 voters, that was on top of the voters we have already canvassed in previous elections. We attempted to speak to every voter and did in fact chap every door – where people were not in we left a leaflet with a questiinnaire that they could return to us. The idea that this is pointless is as baseless as the idea that politicians or political activists are out of touch with public opinion. We are not out of touch with public opinion because we knock on the doors of the public every Saturday and Sunday afternoon to speak to people, ask them their opinions and seek their views.
You on the other hand simply express your own views. Nothing wrong with that – but they are just your views. Which begs the question if you had an army of helpers or a newspaper column or indeed a rich sugar daddy to help propel you to elected office what would you do with that power? Who would you be seeking to represent other than yourself?
#22 by Stuart Winton on July 24, 2011 - 8:46 am
Err, presumably those who sufficiently concurred with my views to elect me?
Who do the numerous independent councillors and Margo McDonald “represent other than themselves”?
And you paint a very positive view of how politicians – or at least your own party – interact with the public, but in the round it just doesn’t ring true somehow, although no doubt the perspective is very different from where you’re standing.
I think the problem is that you view political campaigning as akin to some sort of commercial marketing exercise, whereas the public takes this sort of thing with a very large pinch of salt, although there’s no doubt it does impress some.
#23 by Stuart Winton on July 23, 2011 - 8:43 am
In fact it’s a pity all the elections couldn’t be held at the same time – and dual mandates proscribed – which would obviate the whole problem.
But that ain’t gonna happen either.
#24 by Indy on July 24, 2011 - 10:36 am
You are not really getting my point. In order to get people to vote for you, you have to a) have a good understanding of what matters to people in the area you are standing in (which can best be gained by speaking to them) and b) put forward policies and ideas that people agree with and want to see implemented. The two are of course connected and it is the interaction between the candidates (and their teams) and the voters that underpins the whole democratic process. Of course independents can get elected but they generally have to do the same things that party candidates do – like canvassing and delivering leaflets – which you suggested didn’t make any difference.
There are of course people who stand in elections who don’t do any of that – but they generally only get a handful of votes from their friends and family because nobody else knows who they are or what they stand for.
Stuart Winton:
Err, presumably those who sufficiently concurred with my views to elect me?
Who do the numerous independent councillors and Margo McDonald “represent other than themselves�
And you paint a very positive view of how politicians – or at least your own party – interact with the public, but in the round it just doesn’t ring true somehow, although no doubt the perspective is very different from where you’re standing.
I think the problem is that you view political campaigning as akin to some sort of commercial marketing exercise, whereas the public takes this sort of thing with a very large pinch of salt, although there’s no doubt it does impress some.
#25 by Stuart Winton on July 24, 2011 - 11:31 pm
Well I certainly agree that independents have to do leafletting etc, because in the main they’ll be shunned by the media and unless they’re well know in another capacity then engaging directly with the voters is their only option.
But my point about the main parties was that leaflets and the like really don’t add much to what people know already, or at least that would be the case if they paid even the slightest bit of attention to the political process.
But instead you make it sound a bit like a cornerstone of democracy.
I mean, in the context of a council by-election campaign that started this thread and that you claim the parties shouldn’t be expected to undertake at this stage, would this really have happened in the slightly grandiose fashion you outline it:
“a) have a good understanding of what matters to people in the area you are standing in (which can best be gained by speaking to them) and b) put forward policies and ideas that people agree with and want to see implemented. The two are of course connected and it is the interaction between the candidates (and their teams) and the voters that underpins the whole democratic process.”
Or would a few leaflets just be rattled up promising to bring more jobs to the area and clamp down on anti-social behaviour, stick them through the letter boxes and a few weeks later it could all just be forgotten about?
#26 by Indy on July 25, 2011 - 9:59 am
I did not say that parties should not be expected to undertake campaigning at this stage. I said that personally I am glad that our activists are getting a bit of a break. If the councillors who had got elected as MSPs had decided to resign their positions then of course I would have gone out campaigning in the local government by-elections which ensued, as would other people. But since they made a different decision I am enjoying the break before we start campaigning for the council elections at the end of August, start of September.
I was simply expressing my personal opinion – and on the basis of that you accused me of believing that the “system is there to serve the politicians rather than the peopleâ€. If you re-read what I said you will perhaps realise that I was not talking about politicians, I was talking about the grass roots activists, the people who give up their time, money and energy for no personal gain.
Regarding your other points – you do not appreciate how important doorstep contacts are in campaigns. There is no reason why you should of course but it leaves a pretty big gap in your understanding of how elections are fought.
#27 by Stuart Winton on July 26, 2011 - 7:54 am
Problem is that the more I find out about “how elections are fought” the less I want to know about it, so perhaps that “pretty big gap in my understanding” isn’t such a bad thing after all.
As for the activists, no one’s forcing them to do it, so they could easily sit out any by-election, and as I said the public should come first, not the convenience of politicians or activists, or whoever.
#28 by Indy on July 26, 2011 - 11:08 am
“The public should come first”.
What do you care about the public?
Seriously. You regard speaking to members of the public as a waste of time or, at best, no more than a marketing exercise.
You have no time for the volunteers from every party who ensure that elections are run freely and fairly by acting as polling agents and counting agents, or who ensure that elderly or disabled people can cast their vote by taking them to the polling station or making sure that they have a postal vote.
I get the impression that in your ideal world everyone would sit in a pod with a minimum of human contact andvote online before writing an essay on how the whole thing is a complete waste of time anyway.
You can be too cynical you know.
#29 by Stuart Winton on July 26, 2011 - 8:05 pm
“I get the impression that in your ideal world everyone would sit in a pod with a minimum of human contact andvote online before writing an essay on how the whole thing is a complete waste of time anyway.”
A bit rich from someone who seems to spend more time online than I do writing mini essays in the privacy of their anonymity.
The fact is that I’m not interested in party politics, and that’s an oligarchy that people like myself can’t even hope to make an impact on. Even people throwing millions at breaking into the system can’t do it, and all I’ve got is a laptop and no spare cash.
But I take more of an interest in politics than 99% plus of the population, and try to have an input in my own little way, but clearly you don’t like that.
On the other hand, if I was doing precisely the same but preaching a pro-independence message your attitude woud be entirely different, wouldn’t it?
As for volunteers, the conduct of free and fair elections should be up to the state, if it relies on volunteers then that’s wrong.
As for caring about members of the public, you care about those who vote for you or are potential voters, end of.
“Seriously. You regard speaking to members of the public as a waste of time or, at best, no more than a marketing exercise.”
For a party which tried to mislead the public into thinking the list vote was a vote for Alex Salmond then that’s a bit rich, not to mention things like using the Murdoch papers to disseminate a fawning interview from Sean Connery which was financed by the SNP.
And even with all this concern for the public you still got barely got more than 1 in 5 of the electorate to vote for you, and a significant proportion of those no doubt did so for negative rather than positive reasons.
More generally, I rarely meet anyone who has anything good to say about mainstream politics, so I hardly think my cyncicism is misplaced.
You can be too wrapped up in your partisan political bubble you know.
#30 by Malc on July 26, 2011 - 8:48 pm
Right guys – any chance we can cut the attacks on personality? You don’t really know what motivates each other, we all make assumptions about each other, so lets just call it quits, agree to disagree, and move on. K?
#31 by Indy on July 27, 2011 - 9:20 am
No my attitude would not be different if you were pro independence. I consider some bloggers who are pro independence to be utterly contemptible and have told them so. Equally there are some Labour bloggers who I agree with on almost everything except independence.
On your point about free and fair elections – the only way to guarantee that is to have the conduct of elections and the counting of votes monitored by independent witnesses. That is the function of polling agents and counting agents. To suggest that people should be paid by the state to monitor whether the state is conducting elections properly is missing the point entirely.