Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Tories claim SNP class size target policy is illegal and unworkable

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: 10 September 2008
REDUCING class sizes across Scotland is an unworkable, undesirable and illegal policy, claim Conservative MSPs.
The attack comes on the heels of a report that says small infant classes are essential for later educational achievement.

The Tories say recent legal action by parents proved the only class size maximum enshrined in law was the 30-pupil limit
set in 1999, when parents in two council areas took action after being refused a school place because the class was full at 25.

David McLetchie, Conservative MSP and local government committee member, said few councils had any written agreement on class sizes with the Scottish Government.

He said 21 out of 32 single outcome agreements – financial deals between each council and the Scottish Government – made no mention of class sizes.

Nine councils say more money is needed to implement the class size policy, according the Conservatives.

And Mr McLetchie added: "This all serves to underline just how cynical the SNP have been in promising something that is practically impossible to deliver."

Fiona Hyslop, the education secretary, has said legislation is unnecessary as the target would be met by councils.

Mr McLetchie accused the SNP of "unceremoniously ditching" the policy, which had no prospect of being met by 2011. He added: "It is not workable, it is certainly undesirable and it's not legal."

Elizabeth Smith, Conservative schools spokeswoman, said: "We are not saying it is a bad thing to have smaller class sizes, but that it is a decision for individual schools."

The Scottish Government vowed to reduce maximum class size in P1-3 to 18 but has come under fire for placing no timescale on delivery.

The previous Labour-Liberal Democrat administration set a maximum of 25 for P1. However, the Conservatives say as both targets were guidelines they are meaningless in law and, with no planned legislation, the SNP has effectively ditched the policy.

Social policy think-tank Civitas will publish a report today saying current class sizes are too big and must be cut to "maximise learning opportunities among infants".

Reducing class sizes has become a controversial policy area for the Scottish Government.

To fulfil the promise, they pledged more new teachers to allow councils to split classes over 25 in two.

However, with the removal of ring-fenced funding, the government cannot force councils to employ the teachers.

Latest statistics show only one in four new teachers this year has so far found a job.

Glasgow, Renfrewshire and Edinburgh councils have already said they cannot afford the policy.

And many are using composite classes, which can be larger, to meet the target.

The Association of Directors of Education has estimated putting the policy into effect would cost £422 million.

However, teachers want all class sizes reduced to 20 and have indicated they may strike in areas where numbers rise.

A spokesman for the EIS teaching union said: "Teachers and parents are well aware of the educational benefits of smaller class sizes and will have little regard for any parties that attempt to walk away from their commitments to reduce class sizes."

A Scottish Government spokesman claimed progress was being made on the policy, saying: "Twelve per cent of primaries one to three are currently at 18 or under, which shows the magnitude of the task."

He said councils aimed to meet the target as quickly as possible but the pace of implementation would vary. He added: "It is also expected that local government will make year on year progress."

TIMELINE

JANUARY 2007 – Teaching union, the EIS lodges a petition with the Scottish Parliament demanding smaller class sizes.

MAY 2007 – SNP win the election on a manifesto which pledged to cut class sizes.

JUNE 2007 – Fiona Hyslop, the education secretary, refuses to set a time limit, but insists it will be a staged process.

NOVEMBER 2007 – SNP government announces concordat deal with councils as part of a freeze on council tax. Part of deal is that council will deliver on government targets.

NOVEMBER 2007 – Ms Hyslop is criticised for saying the target would be "flexible"

She said: " I don't want to see a P1 class of 25 disrupted just so it can be reduced to 18." However, she insisted all 32 councils were expected to show "significant progress".

MAY 2008 – The Association of Directors of Education say it will cost an additional £422 million.







Page 1 of 1

 
1

Coileach an taobh Tuath,

10/09/2008 00:21:06


....claim Conservative MSPs

What kind of Journalism is this.....
2

walter,

10/09/2008 01:04:49
Fiona Hyslop, the education secretary, refuses to set a time limit, but insists it will be a staged process.

I do not know what part of this statement Mr McLetchie does not understand, there is no time limit it could be 2011, 2020, 2050 or even 2099 maybe later.
Mr McLetchie should know that tomorrow never comes.
3

,

10/09/2008 01:26:01
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
4

LEAL,

10/09/2008 06:48:26
The Scottish Government is trying to do its best for the people of Scotland despite not getting enough money from London,England.When Scotland gets full control over her resources we will be able to do so much more.We are a resource rich country with a sensibly sized population and after independence we will be able to afford all the things which similair countries benefit from.
5

radge dug,

Dùn Eideann 10/09/2008 07:56:18
This article is appalling.

Only 4 teachers found a job? Only in one area.

Further, composite classes have a maximum of 25.

Smaller class sizes are needed and should be delivered with the help of all parties.

The Tories and Scotsman deserve each other.
6

Royster,

10/09/2008 07:57:12
#8 Are these are the precious resources that have just gone down in value by 30% in a couple of months?
7

,

10/09/2008 08:09:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

,

10/09/2008 08:10:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

,

10/09/2008 08:11:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
10

Duncan in Edinburgh,

10/09/2008 08:32:30
Nothing but the continuation of a pattern started in the first week of this disastrous government. -Sturgeon announced that she had "saved" Monklands A&E, but provided no resources for this radical redesign of the health board's strategic plan. They promised to match the existing schools buildings programmes "brick for brick" but then refused funding for existing plans. And the concordat, which COSLA greedily accepted on the basis that councils would have far more freedom, allows the SNP to announce policies like reduced class sizes or increased police numbers, provide no resources to enable them, and then blame councils when they are not delivered.

The removal of ring-fenced funds from councils was one of the most cynical moves of a most cynical government.
11

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/09/2008 08:56:47
14:

Absolute rubbish and lies. Check your facts before you .. but we know how good at lying Labour party member are:

The SNP are comitted to a building and re-furbishment programme for some 250 schools over the term of the parliament at a cost of £3 billion.

CLEAR?
12

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/09/2008 09:00:15
Here are some quotes from labour for you, according to jackie Baillie Labour were building a new school every 5 days...

200 since 2003? Rhona Brankin: "...further notes that the previous administration built 200 schools between 2003 and 2007..." (Debate's motion, Tuesday 29th January 2008)

300 since 1999? Ms Alexander: "Let me come armed with the facts and figures, which are that the previous Government built in excess of 300 new schools" (FMQ's - 4 October 2007)

8 X 52 = 416 since 1999? Andy Kerr "Under Labour, a school was built every week--a new school opened every week--" (SP Official report, 4 October 2007. Col 2454)

8 X 52 = 416 since 1999? Jackie Baillie: " ...Labour is building a new school every week, and soon a new school will be built every five days." (SP Official Report 29 March 2007)
13

,

10/09/2008 09:00:38
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
14

Duncan in Edinburgh,

10/09/2008 09:30:05
#15 Sigh. For the hundredth time I'm not a Labour Party member. Get over yourself.

Here in Edinburgh the effect of the SNP coming to power in both local and national government has been:

1. the cancellation of a £100 million schools building programme, leaving some schools in a dangerous state of disrepair with no resolution in sight;

2. the suspension of a multi-million pound schools renovation programme, leaving even more schools in a dilapidated state;

3. the renegotiation of existing schools building contracts to downgrade the quality of work, including the installation of old, second-hand furniture instead of new, in new schools that were built by the Labour administration.

And here's the rub. You say "The SNP are committed to a building and refurbishment programme for some 250 schools over the term of the parliament at a cost of £3 billion." But schools building comes under the control of local authorities, and the SNP have just removed the facility by which they were able to direct local authorities on how to spend their capital budgets. So how do you even dare make a statement like that when it is utterly meaningless? The SNP can commit to anything they like - such as matching schools building programmes "brick for brick" - but they have no capacity to deliver on these promises, and are providing no funding for them!

And you call me a liar! Extraordinary.
15

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 10/09/2008 09:30:32
The Scots Tories when last in power attempted to anglicise Scottish Education in an attempt to divide parents by making some "selective" minority schools grant-aided to the detriment of the majority run by education authorities!

St. Mary's (Episcopal) School at Dunblane was used as the guineau pig in this experiment as the Scots Tories
poured disproportionate amounts of public money into its upkeep! Fortunately, Scots parents/teacher power saw off the Scots Tories divisive tripe!

This from the party whose last Education Secretary
(who can even remember his name?) allowed Scottish State school estates to crumble over dogmatic funding issues!

This from a discredited Scots Tory politician who spent tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers money in
circumnavigating Scotland in a fleet of taxis!


16

Duncan in Edinburgh,

10/09/2008 09:42:38
#19 Do you really have nothing substantive to say on the issue, so you just resort to slagging off the people who raised it?

What about addressing the point? As far as I can see the Tories have raised a valid complaint with regards to the SNP policy.
17

Linda,

Edinburgh 10/09/2008 09:50:39
Duncan

As you well know Labour after 23 yeares in power in Edinburgh had left many schools crumbling just as they did to the sports facilities in the city.

Also Labour had never secured any funding from Scottish Executive towards the 5 3rd Wave £100m schools programme.

Therefore they were not cancelled and the current council is progressing with plans to build these schools.
18

Duncan in Edinburgh,

10/09/2008 09:58:02
#22 Excuse me? Labour in Edinburgh built more new schools in the last ten years than any previous administration in the history of the city! In contrast the current council says that because of the lack of funding from the government, the desperately needed 5 new schools which would have been funded by Labour may now not get built until 2022!

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/schoolsinedinburgh/14yearwait---to-build.4206555.jp

Is that what you call "progressing"? For shame. Stop regurgitating SNP canned rebuttals and start thinking for yourself.
19

shivago8,

livingston 10/09/2008 10:02:12
Who are the Tories,do we have any of them up in Scotland
20

Alan B,

10/09/2008 10:23:21
The running of education should be removed from councils and moved to the scottish parliament. Councils are just another layer of beaucracy. Let the sp fund schools directly and let the schools manage their own day to day running.
21

W U Merchant,

Aberdeen 10/09/2008 10:28:21
Of course it's illegal - that's why the SNP dropped the idea.
22

Alan B,

10/09/2008 10:29:04
The tories are normally quite sensible when it comes to their critisms unlike the moronic labour party. However the 2 quotes contradict each other.

- Mr McLetchie accused the SNP of "unceremoniously ditching" the policy, which had no prospect of being met by 2011. He added: "It is not workable, it is certainly undesirable and it's not legal."

- Elizabeth Smith, Conservative schools spokeswoman, said: "We are not saying it is a bad thing to have smaller class sizes, but that it is a decision for individual schools."

23

Highland Mighty©,

10/09/2008 10:33:44
So just what major legislation is the SNP likely to implement?

Slightly cheaper prescriptions, free hospital parking and free bridge travel across the Forth is not exactly rocking the nation, is it.

The "fully costed and top priority" 1000 new police by 2012 has only managed 74 new police after one year....Vital road construction has hit the skids....School class sizes now looks dead in the water.....
24

Alan B,

10/09/2008 10:34:39
#W U Merchant

What would be the legal basis for saying class sizes cannot be limited to a maximum number?

Is it european law?

Scottish law?

Is it uk wide law?

If it is domestic law then that is an argument for changing the law.

"The Tories say recent legal action by parents proved the only class size maximum enshrined in law was the 30-pupil limit set in 1999, when parents in two council areas took action after being refused a school place because the class was full at 25."

This quote suggest that a law change is necessary. As such that is no reason to drop the policy. Also was the above case scots law or was it in england under english law.
25

Highland Mighty©,

10/09/2008 10:34:40
....first-time buyers grants died almost immediately....student debt still exists.....
26

Cheradenine,

Edinburgh 10/09/2008 10:41:44
#23 Duncan we differ on other issues but you have the substance of the aptly named “Historic Concordat” down to a tee. It was probably the most skilfully executed real terms Local Government funding cut in Scottish history, Cosla actually thought they were getting a good deal...
27

MalcDow,

Berlin 10/09/2008 10:45:13
This article is a disgrace.
M.
28

Cheradenine,

Edinburgh 10/09/2008 10:49:54
#30 The fact that anyone believed them when they said they would cancel student debt would be comical if it didn't involve thousands of pounds of my own money.
29

brownlie,

10/09/2008 10:52:19
30 Highland Mighty

Good morning, HM, enough of this negativity regarding the government of Scotland.

Give us the benefit of your sage advice.

How do you see the future of Scotland developing?

What steps should be taken in pursuit of that objective?

Who should take these positive steps?
30

Duncan in Edinburgh,

10/09/2008 10:53:27
#34 Haha. In other words, look over there! Nothing to see here!
31

brownlie,

10/09/2008 10:57:12
35 Duncan

Please expand and explain?
32

Cheradenine,

Edinburgh 10/09/2008 10:58:49
#34 I'm no fan of Highland Mighty (I don't know anything about him so I'm not a detractor either)

But can I just point that out that none of what you have mentioned there is his responsibility (although he is of course entitled to an opinion). Instead it is the Government's responsibility to do what they said would do in their manifesto, which they aren't, so he has every right to criticise.

That is why we have Government's, to take those sort of decisions (As must as I dislike Alex I am eternally grateful that our nation is not run by these message boards).
33

Embra Don,

10/09/2008 11:00:29
A very positive contribution by the Tories. Have they been taking lessons from new Labour? Ye cannae dae that; it'll no work; we cannae afford it; the sky will fall....

I wonder what proportion of them sent their kids to state schools.
34

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 10/09/2008 11:02:41
21#

FACT: The former leader of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party had the brass neck to claim in excess of £30,000 in parliamentary expenses
to cover his fares in a fleet of taxis shuttling back and forth between Holyrood and his Edinburgh office, and all over Scotland! Read all about it online.
I found over 138 different entries on media websites about this scandal!

Your taxes, my taxes and that of millions of other Scots taxpayers paid for this Scots Tory politician's arrogance!

As a result, he had no other option but to resign as leader of the Scots Tory Group in the Scottish Parliament!

He is the last politician to criticise the Scottish
Government!
35

Embra Don,

10/09/2008 11:07:08
37 Cheradenine, Edinburgh
They didn't say they would do it immediately. This is the first new school session of their government and quite a few local authorities are working towards the target already. My local primary has dropped from 24 to 18 in P1 this year.
36

brownlie,

10/09/2008 11:09:34
37 Cheradene

I'm afraid that constant negativity, sniping and lack of any positivity is costing the unionist parties dear in Scotland.

I was merely asking the most erudite and expansive proponent of unionism on this thread to point out the future direction Scotland should be taking and what our priorities should be?

For instance, would we like to see an improvement in schools and hospitals in preference to weapons of mass destruction or invasion of countries which we, or the Scottish Government, have no responsibilites for?
37

Highland Mighty©,

10/09/2008 11:13:08
41. Your two answers speak volumes.
38

Cheradenine,

Edinburgh 10/09/2008 11:14:01
#38 #39 This is the problem with Scottish Politics at the moment and exactly what Duncan is alluding to. When someone makes a valid point people change the subject, no one wants to actually discuss anything they are only there to cheerlead.

Why pray tell are opposition parties not allowed to hold the government to account? Surely that is a cornerstone of the democratic system. We all get angry when the vast minority of politicians abuse their expense accounts, you might not trust a particular politician as a result, but he has been elected again so that means enough people trust him for his opinion to be heard at Holyrood. He has both mandate and moral imperative.
39

Embra Don,

10/09/2008 11:16:04
18 Duncan in Edinburgh
Rather than Labour building new schools - they were actually built by private finance and effectively rented on long leases. Labour didn't find the money to build, they simply committed future authorities to enormous annual expense. The tories habit was selling the silver to pay the butler - labour mortgaged the schools to loan sharks.
40

brownlie,

10/09/2008 11:19:03
42

Your negative response, also, typically, speaks volumes.
41

Highland Mighty©,

10/09/2008 11:19:32
44. This post is not a shrill and ill-informed exaggeration at all.

Absolutely not.
42

Embra Don,

10/09/2008 11:24:13
#43 Cheradenine
Trying to stay on subject - but... lol... when all the opposition parties currently characterise anything the government does as picking fights with Westminster - its difficult not to get dragged down a partisan route. I don't defend the government on a carte blanche basis - but don't agree with undeserved criticism for its own sake.
The Tories are more credible when they try to find what common cause they may have with others and try to be positive.
43

Ugly George,

10/09/2008 11:27:02
29 Alan B
I think that the legal basis for the maximum size of 30 is the teachers' contract of employment. Under the terms of the contract a teacher can refuse to teach a class of over 30.
44

Cheradenine,

Edinburgh 10/09/2008 11:27:02
#41 Better! Now we are talking about agendas and asking people to justify their opinions on issues having pointed out contentious issues. It's a discussion, a bit over simplsitic to equate unionism with invasions when one massive unionist party never supported them but it's a start. Another interesting point would be to ask what the SNP would do with military funding if they ever lead a seperate country, a lot of jobs rely on it.

We soon might be at the stage when both sides concede that they aren't perfect, progress on the EN boards!

#40 Good for them! There is nothing wrong with the target, the problem is though their is simply not enough money to achieve it and other policies on a national scale. Also because there has been a real terms funding cut I can almost guarantee that to implement that something else has gone, that's what happens naturally when you remove ring fencing. That something may be less important but that's for you to decide, if you are very involved in a local charity that has had it's funding cut you might see it differently (or you might not, people are allowed to think for themselves, and even more amazingly even if profess to support a particular political party you do not have to agree with all its policy!)
45

Alan B,

10/09/2008 11:27:49
#Cheradenine

I agree that opposition parties should hold the government to account. The problem with McLetchie is the fact he was caught out in a corruption scandal.

We should have zero tolerance to corrupt politicians. It does the tory party no favours to continue with him as their representative.
46

subrosa,

10/09/2008 11:29:49
I'm not in the least convinced that smaller class sizes will improve our educational standards. Back in the 50s the average class size was around 35 and standards in reading, writing and arithmetic were far higher than they are today. (Plenty evidence if you google it).

Seems to me it's the quality of the teaching that is fundamental and not the numbers taught.
47

Highland Mighty©,

10/09/2008 11:30:56
50. Indeed.

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland/Watchdog-questions-Government-grant-to.4421943.jp
48

Embra Don,

10/09/2008 11:32:01
# 46 Highland Mighty
Do you dispute, then, that PPP interest rates are substantially higher than public borrowing cost, that up front fees charges and legal costs can amount to up to 30% of the building costs, or that future local authorities are committed to these long term contracts? (unless of course they buy them off at an obscene cost like the Skye bridge)
49

Alan B,

10/09/2008 11:32:02
#Ugly George

But why would that stop schools limiting the number of pupils to less than 30. I can understand why that sets a max of 30 but not why a lower limit can be set.

Back in the 80s legislation was brought in that allowed people to choose their school, rather than just go to a school within their catchment.

No matter whether this is a good policy or not it does seem that the government/parliament should be able to decide on a max number of pupils (from a legal perspective). If a change in the law is required so be it.

50

Duncan in Edinburgh,

10/09/2008 11:39:00
#50 I hate to flatly disagree with you again, Alan, but I will.

The thing about "zero tolerance" policies of any sort is that they remove the process of thought from decision-making. Zero tolerance of weapons in schools means that a toddler with his mum's nail clippers is suspended, when his teachers, school and parents all agree that there was no ill-intent. Zero tolerance of petty crime means the incarceration and criminalisation of young people who the police and justice system agree could be saved from a life of crime by an effective community sentence, and who instead are immersed in hardened criminality and have far increased chances of reoffending.

Getting back to the case you mention, zero tolerance of politicians involved in "corruption" would mean the exclusion of a man like David McLetchie, with whom I share few agreements on policy but who personally I know to be a decent, rational, clear-thinking politician with far more to offer Scotland than many of the other inhabitants of Holyrood. He made a relatively small mistake, and he paid for it at the hands of his party, but he still has a great deal to offer in public life.
51

brownlie,

10/09/2008 11:40:48
49 Cheradenine

Which massive unionist party never supported the invasions?
52

Alan B,

10/09/2008 11:41:36
#Highland Mighty

I would more question the snp use of McLeish as he too was caught with improprieties. While it is politically beneficial to use him i think there are moral questions about involving someone who has to resign in disgrace.

There is also a difference between people that break the rules and those that use the rules to the fullest. I think there is always more scope to tighten rules and the make the rules clearer.

With regard to the link you have posted i think it is more about trying to stir up racial hatred for party advantage. Labour in scotland have always run a job for the boys policy and placed labour supporters in positions of power (nepotism). The snp must no fall into the same corruption. The whole parliament should adopt rules to make sure this does not happen. Unfortunately i think their is so much tribal hatred between the parties i do not think it will happen for a while. PR in local government may help.
53

Cheradenine,

Edinburgh 10/09/2008 11:43:00
#50 You make a very good point and I completely agree with your sentiments.

Unfortunately when voters make a choice in a democracy we are not afforded the luxury of telling them they are wrong!

#47 I don't agree with your discription of opposition parties but you're point still stands and I completely agree. It is hard not to get involved in party sniping, which is why when someone makes a valid point, as I think the Tories have done here (it's apoint the Lib Dems have made in the past too form my recolection), it deserves a proper airing.
54

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/09/2008 11:43:08
54 Alan B
There is nothing to stop a school setting its own priorities in terms of class sizes. The problem with setting a lower legal limit is that it restricts schools in terms of flexibility. Many secondary schools will have larger classes of more able pupils (28 or 29) thus enabling them to have smaller class sizesfor less able pupils (19 or 20) This is common practice. If a legal limit of 25 is set then the size of the class of less able pupils will have to rise to allow the class of more able to be reduced to 25.
55

Embra Don,

10/09/2008 11:43:46
#54 Alan B,
"Back in the 80s legislation was brought in that allowed people to choose their school, rather than just go to a school within their catchment."

Indeed! This policy was imposed on LAs without any increase in funding to cope. The result has been that schools have been forced to implement composite classes, even teaching in converted cupboards to accommodate parental choice. Now - if the tory goverment at the time had offered to pay the fees of any parent who wanted to send their kids to private schools - that would have been real choice.
56

Cheradenine,

Edinburgh 10/09/2008 11:50:13
#56 The Liberal Democrats, at the monet they command over 22% of the UK vote which governs foreign affairs. That's a lot, around twice Scotland's voting population (if you assume the different nations are just about comparable).
57

Embra Don,

10/09/2008 11:50:35
#57 Alan B,
Agreed PR should help. It was probably the best thing the Lib Dems managed to achieve. As well as improving accountability it also limits the power of Tories who stand as "independent" to get elected where they could not under their real colours.
58

Alan B,

10/09/2008 11:52:34
#Duncan in Edinburgh

I am not talking about nail clippers I am talking about a politician (knowingly) breaking rules for financial advantage.

Politics is a mess because no one trusts politicians. The fact that so many seem to get off with improprieties makes the situation worse. Yes the problem with zero tolerance is that someone can innocently be caught out. But the problem is politicians have let themselves down so badly that giving them the benefit of the doubt is not becoming an option anymore.

McLetchie the leader of the tories at the time, a person with a second job in law was didling his expenses. Morally that is unacceptable. This was not about 1 or 2 receipts.

While also maybe being within the rules using taxis to do political business in his place of work (and also his other work) is taking the p***.

So far we have 2 leaders political parties having to resign. Blair under police investigation for cash for honours. Labour bring in new openess to donations and then circumventing that openness with loans. When we hear of another scandal about a politician it barely registers now becuase we know it is so wide spead.

TV inteviews with mps rejecting openness about expenses rules in westminster does not bode well. MPs just think the they deserve it as a perk.

As such the whole credibility of the political system is now in question.
59

brownlie,

10/09/2008 11:56:52
61

Would that be the Liberal Democrats who, putting privileges before principles, backed and propped up the Labour Party in Scotland despite being, in public at least, critical of the invasion?
60

Embra Don,

10/09/2008 12:00:55
#58 Cheradenine
Of course the Tories are entitled to critise. My quibble is that they don't accept class size is an issue in public education. Their attempts to characterise education as a market driven commodity, with the parents as customers, has done untold damage to schools. This philosophy changed attitudes of both parents and pupils towards teachers and schools for the worse.
The social imperative to provide a good universal standard of public education for the good of all was lost.
61

Alan B,

10/09/2008 12:03:03
#Ugly George

I was not arguing the merits of the policy just questioning the what the legal basis for saying that government could not set a max class size target for councils to implement in their schools.

McLetchie seems to be saying that a school/council that limits a class size to a specfic number is illegal.

The policy as far as i know it is just to target a max limit of 18 for the first few yrs of primary (not all school classes).
62

Cheradenine,

Edinburgh 10/09/2008 12:08:22
#61 That is one way of choosing to look at it which you are entitled to, however that Executive could not in any way affect the decision to go to war so the fact that the Liberal Democrats supported it is pretty irrelevant in terms of the actual conflict.

The probably saw it as more of an opportunity to get things on their manifesto done without gathering too much moral baggage. In my opinion, if we are to rule things out that stringently on principle, Alex should not have courted the party that tacitly supported the war by going into coalition with the Labout Executive so publicly after the last election. It's a multi party system, you have to make allowances to get things done.
63

Embra Don,

10/09/2008 12:08:48
I assume no-one believes that labour or "independent" run LAs would be less than enthusiastic about reducing class sizes. I mean - they would not jeopardise education for party advantage would they?
64

Cheradenine,

Edinburgh 10/09/2008 12:10:13
#65 Say that then, don't just mouth off.
65

Embra Don,

10/09/2008 12:16:42
As we appear to have branched out into Westmister's war policy - my apologies for another diversion!!
I am disappointed that there is nothing in today's edition regarding tidal power. Its such a potentially huge resource, even dwarfing oil long term, with such profound potential economic and environmental benefits. I'm surprised that this mighty organ is not reporting current conferences and debate. Even newsnicht was on the ball last night - and almost all on a positive note.
66

Duncan in Edinburgh,

10/09/2008 12:17:53
#63 Alan, the opposite of zero tolerance is not giving someone the benefit of the doubt, it is rational assessment of the appropriate response.

I agree that public engagement with politics is in a perilous state, but I don't agree that that is down to that small number of politicians who knowingly engage in improprieties. Instead I think it is a result of the grossly overstated and partisan responses from other politicians to the slightest whiff of potential scandal.

Take, as I fear we must, the example of Wendy Alexander. If you listen to the SNP then she is the spawn of the devil, rotten to the core, guilty of conspiracy, corruption, lying, stealing and more, and is to be harangued, despised and character-assassinated at every turn - no matter what the occasion, no matter what subject she is addressing.

In reality she is a very bright, able and honest person, who allowed a relatively minor mistake to be made and then was unable to cleanly resolve the ensuing issues. Like McLetchie, she still has a great deal to offer Scotland and public life, and like McLetchie, she is not the villain she is painted to be.

There are plenty of other examples. Whenever Lord Foulkes is mentioned around here, political opponents bring up his drunken incident and use it to make out he is unfit to hold any opinions on any subject. Whenever Kenny MacAskill is mentioned, his political opponents bring up his drunken incident and use it to make out he is unfit to hold any opinions on any subject.

The idea that no-one is allowed to make a mistake - the very essence of zero tolerance - fuels this deeply unhelpful approach to politics and the media fans the flames into a massive conflagration.

How can we have rational discussions about how best to run the country in such an atmosphere?
67

Embra Don,

10/09/2008 12:21:53
# 69 Cheradenine,
Mouthing off? Moi? I didn't think I had been - but my apologies if it sounded that way.
Actually I think the standard has been quite good today. No abuse or trolling. Is AM2/sm7 unwell?
68

Cheradenine,

Edinburgh 10/09/2008 12:23:24
#71 Well said Duncan
69

Cheradenine,

Edinburgh 10/09/2008 12:27:03
#72 Sorry that was a bit impolite seeing as you explained yourself eventually, my point is though that your second post was a lot more valuable than a random line in Scots (not that you are not entitled to use any language/dialect depending on who you believe that you choose), followed by a hypothetical question, which have been destroying valuable debate since Aristotle (git).
70

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 10/09/2008 12:39:43
McLetchie, McLeish, Alexander, and all the other MSPs who guilded their parliamentary expenses or accepted illegal donations, all deserved their public humiliation!

The Scots word sleekit perfectly sums up these
political opportunists!

At least Henry McLeish has had the decency to decline a return Holyrood or Westminster politics, and moved on with his life!

How on earth can you ever trust a politician, of whatever party, who works for his own selfish ends?
71

brownlie,

10/09/2008 12:41:20
67 Cheradenine


The Executive could not have affected the decision to "go to war" but it would certainly have weakened Blair's position if Scottish Labour and their Lib/Dem allies had made clear to Blair their strong and outright opposition.

This would have reflected the mood in Scotland at the time, and since, and would have demonstrated to the Scottish electorate that they were not merely lap-dogs who did as they were told by the UK Government.

That position was an illustration of my point earlier about negativity costing votes in Scotland.
72

Duncan in Edinburgh,

10/09/2008 12:44:34
#75 I suspect this will fall on stony ground, but my point is that these transgressions are genuinely minor, and that these people have done and continue to do good work. My question would be, how can you deny all the hard, honest, effective work someone has done simply on the basis that they fell short of perfection at one point?

I would prefer an honest politics in which people are called to account for their mistakes but where mistakes are treated rationally, to one where the merest whiff of a scandal causes opponents and media to go in for the kill, and leaves us only with politicians unwilling to take any risks or step out of line from their party bosses.
73

Embra Don,

10/09/2008 12:45:35
# 74 Cheradenine

Point taken - in that previous post I was frustrated by the negativity rather than the criticisms. It was unworthy of the standard of todays debate.
Now - I must go and work for a living!
74

Alan B,

10/09/2008 12:48:38
#Duncan in Edinburgh

I have no problem with either Foulkes or MacAskill. Getting drunk and maybe not behaving is not what i am talking about.

I am talking about politicians who break the financial rules (and also to a degree the lax rules politicians set themselves).

It is not whether they are bright and could be offer something. To me it whether they are honest. Whether something was an innocent mistake or whether they deliberately broke rules for financial gain either personally or for the party.

I thought McLetchie was a good politician, came across well but that does not excuse a guy who is relatively well of deliberately over a period of time claiming taxi receipts wrongfully.

Politicians are now either breaking the rules or particularly in westminster using the rules in a way that most of the general public think is unacceptable. eg Micheal Martin. (was foulkes not claiming mortgages expenses on a house left to him by his late mother (apologies if i have that wrong, do not tend to follow each story like that too closely)). And the few recent tory mps or meps. eg employing family member for work not done etc.

With regard to Wendy it is not whether she was a good politician or not but her honesty. When the story first broke about the £950 i actually backed her as it was a one off expense. But the problem that condemn her to me was the stuff that came out subsequently. ie the cover up and all the leaks that came out apparently from her own office. She knew it was from Jersey the letter she signed proved that. The whole story about being from a company was just a lie. The donator even denied it. And the ex leader of glasgow labour council said that he was asked what company the guy worked for by wendies team without knowing it would be used to try to wriggle out accepting an illegal donation. Wendies whole attitude in trying to blame others and not accepting responsiblity did not help.

Wendy was abit unlucky that labour itself was so corrupt
75

Alan B,

10/09/2008 12:49:06
cont..

Wendy was abit unlucky that labour itself was so corrupt and labour had pushed so much about cleaning up scandals from the tory rule. It was not long before wendies scandal that labour had to admit they accepted hundreds of thousands of pounds by a donator through intermedetiary sources and knew about it. But it was some low level person that took the fall.

Then you have Hain and the other dodgy donations for other deputy leaders candidates eg Harman.

There was also the problems round is it the scottish industry forum. Labour previously on record as saying it was independent and then saying now that everybody knew it was for donations to labour. With some donators denying they were aware of it.

The donation Wendy accepted was also from a source already rejected by labour. As such we are back to the muddle not a fiddle defence.

Wendy handled the whole thing badly and should have just been open about. She visibly annoyed a lib dem spokesman on tv by trying to say all the other parties had been involved in some wrongdoing.

Looking the the last issue with Wendy she only tried to find out if donations had to be declared 2 months after the deadline. She still tries to make out that she has done nothing wrong. Personally that angers me. I am appalled the parliament has not upkept her slap on wrist one day ban(, hardly a big sentence).

While not breaking the rules trying to secure donations that keep u just under the declaration threashold of £1000 with donations of £950, adds to the view of a politician trying to break the spirit of the rules.


76

brownlie,

10/09/2008 12:51:06
71 Duncan

"If you listen to the SNP etc etc"

I listen very carefully to the SNP politicians and have never heard one of them refer to Wendy Alexander as "spawn of the devil, stealing" or any of your other descriptions.

She was, however, guilty of trying to conceal donations by restricting them to under £1000 and of not declaring an illegal donation.
77

Embra Don,

10/09/2008 12:54:35
#77 Duncan in Edinburgh
Good point Duncan. Witness the treatment of Bill Clinton. For succumbing to lust - (who will cast the first stone?) and lying in response to a question he should never have been asked - he is subjected to a witch hunt. For illegal arms sales to fund an illegal terrorist organisation Regan gets away with " I don't remember". For gerrymandering elections, lying about war aims, despoiling the environment - Bush is excused as an incompetent buffoon.
78

Alan B,

10/09/2008 13:01:19
#Duncan

Just to be clear i am not talking about the "whiff of scandal" but politicians who break the law/rules for financial gain personally or for the party.

" where mistakes are treated rationally"

I am not talking about an innocent mistake but knowingly breaking rules (I would agree rules should be clear and transparent).

If you were working in any other walk of life your employer could sack you for putting in false expenses claims. I think political representatives should be held to a high standard and any deliberate fraud should mean that it will bar you from being an mp or msp.
79

Alan B,

10/09/2008 13:04:51
#Embra Don

I disagree with your analyis of the Clinton situation. While i generally liked Clinton as leader of the US you simply cannot have a president lying under oath.

If you are going to play away, fair enough, but when you are exposed own up.
80

Alan B,

10/09/2008 13:14:27
Forgot to mention that other minor issue where a few labour mps and msp were both claiming expenses for shared constituency offices. If i remember correctly there were 7 instances of that. Too many to make it a credible innocent mistake.
81

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/09/2008 13:17:51
Politicians are fully aware of the rules. No-one can tell me that Wendy Alexander, an experienced politician, did not know the rules regarding donations.


If the leader of the opposition in Scotland (or any politician) is unable to grasp simple guidelines and procedures then they should not have been elected in the first place.
82

Duncan in Edinburgh,

10/09/2008 13:42:38
Alan, the challenge here is that you (like many others, I accept) called for "zero tolerance" for "corrupt politicians". Yet when we look at the issue more closely we see that many politicians are painted as "corrupt" without having done anything wrong, and others are tainted having simply made an honest mistake.

Zero tolerance would be a disaster here, because these are not black and white issues.

For me, the reasons for McLetchie's and Alexander's resignations were not major corruptions, just minor mistakes. McLetchie claimed for taxis to and from party events (not work events as you claim), and the line between party and parliamentary business has always been blurred. This is not an issue on which to write off a political career. Alexander presided over a series of incompetent actions, and dealt badly with them initially whilst being hounded mercilessly by the press and opposition. Again, this is not an issue on which to write off a political career. And surely most significantly for both people, the sums of money involved were not very large, and there was no significant personal gain involved (no personal gain at all for Alexander).

This was nothing like the sort of genuine corruption you see elsewhere in the world, but I think sometimes we forget how different our system is, and people equate "corruption" scandals despite them being different by orders of magnitude.

I've been fortunate enough to meet both David and Wendy. I know they are not corrupt people - indeed I know they both have a very idealistic approach to public office and personal sacrifice. I think it is dangerous to talk about zero tolerance of genuine mistakes made by honest people. We need more McLetchies and Alexanders, not fewer.
83

Embra Don,

10/09/2008 14:00:34
# 84 Alan B
When he famously lied - he was not under oath , he was responding to press questioning.

Compared to the Iran/Contra affair or Saddam's being in league with Bin Laden and buying yellow-cake, Clinton's misdemeanours were as significant as McLetchie's taxis. Did McLetchie, for whom I have some respect, not resign because he was being grassed up by someone within his own ranks?

84

Alan B,

10/09/2008 14:04:35
#Duncan

My understanding with McLetchie was that he did claim taxis between parliament and work but that was that was acceptable as he claimed he was doing parliamentary work. ie that was not what brought him down but to many it was a wrong thing to do. That is why i talked about making the rules clearer.

Part of the problem for McLetchie was the slow drip of details as per McLeish.
85

Duncan in Edinburgh,

10/09/2008 14:06:25
#89 Indeed. And he works for this very newspaper group. Stand up Brian Monteith. A shameless wonder who remained as an MSP despite having been elected on the list of a party from which he was expelled.
86

Duncan in Edinburgh,

10/09/2008 14:09:27
#90 So you have already condemned this man as worthy of "zero tolerance" but you think the rules under which he was under investigation need to be made clearer? No better argument can be made against zero tolerance approaches. Thank you.
87

Alan B,

10/09/2008 14:23:34
#Duncan

You have met them fine and you have made a judgement on that basis. But politics is in a mess because of the sleaze in politics. I have not problem with anything regarding private life but do have problems when it come to financial irreguarities.

We need to be able to trust politicians and the view is that so many of them are at it. MEPs the worst then MPs. Largely because of lax rules.

Labour when they came to power talked of cleaning up after the tories. But in truth the tories were individual issues while labour corruption seems more wide spread. That is maybe because of the rules and transparancy that labour brought in.

Polticians always seem to get away with it. They might resign but then will end up with a good pay off or be back quite soon. The Blair cabinet rehabitation of Mandelson etc examples. If they do something worthy of resignation they should not come back unless cleared.

I did not have a problem with mps etc employing family members but we know now that it has been abused. We know that parties allow dodgy activity if it is not outed by the media.

In westmisnter we have seen Blair under police investigation for cash for honours. Does anyone seriously think that it did not happen given the high ratio of honors to donors.

We had labour sayng declare donations and then taking in so much money in loans. Blair not informing labours own treasurer. We then had the £650,000 donation through intermediaries with labour knowing.

The problem is where is the criminal charges on any of this. The only mps who have been sent down did so for perjury (eg Aiken).

We really need to clean up politics.

The scottish parliament seems to have much more openness and better control of expenses. (probably cause it is a newer institution).

Although the rules do still seem unclear. Why did Wendy have any doubt over declarations? These things should be made clear.

Why is a one day ban for not declaring donations too much?

As i sa
88

Alan B,

10/09/2008 14:27:37
#92 Duncan

That is not what i said.

My point in #90 was related to the fact you had said that he did not claim taxis between parliament and work, which is what i have read on the matter.


I have talked about making rules clearer as there should be no doubt Wendy should know whether to declare a donation or not. There should be no ambiguity. In Mcletchies case it should be clear that it is unacceptable to claim taxi expenses to your outside place of work and then say you are doing parliamentary business there.
89

Alan B,

10/09/2008 14:28:40
#93 cont got cut off..

As i said i did not think 1 illegal donation was a big deal if in error. My problem with Wendy was the cover up. The refusal to take responsibility. The lies over the donation being from a company. The letter showing she knew that it was from an individual and he was not living in the country.

The problem for Wendy is the catalog of other dodgy labour activities. And it was not just the one illegal donation but the failure to declare the rest and seek to find out within the time period. The seeking of donations just under the limit to hide declarations does not make one give her the benefit of the doubt.

The only one think worse that a politician doing something dodgy is when they appear to the public to get away with it.


90

Alan B,

10/09/2008 14:30:48
#Duncan in Edinburgh

The underlying problem is far too many politicians have taken the p***. They have brought this on themselves. We are not talking about one or 2 incidents but a catalog of abuse (to some extent within the rules). Any new openness tends to create a public reaction as we find out what they have been up to.
91

Duncan in Edinburgh,

Edinburgh 10/09/2008 14:31:24
#94 Alan, your post at #50 was extremely direct and uncompromising. I am happy to have widened the discussion to allow for other views of what a "corrupt politician" might actually be. Perhaps we should leave it there and rejoice in us having had a conversation that didn't end in acrimony. :-)
92

Alan B,

10/09/2008 14:35:54
#Embra Don

Cannot really comment on Iran/Contra affair affairs as i was abit young and did not follow it too closely apart from knowing North was the fall guy if i remember.

From what i googled Clinton did lie under oath in court that was the supposed ground for impeachment.

93

Rabbies Wee Bruthir,

10/09/2008 14:43:19
49 Cheradenine,Edinburgh 10/09/2008 11:27:02

'Another interesting point would be to ask what the SNP would do with military funding if they ever lead a seperate country, a lot of jobs rely on it.'

For your benefit, 'the open secret' the SNP on Defence, quoted directly from their Westminster Manifesto

The SNP wants Scotland to be a normal country making its own decisions about defence and peacekeeping. Only when priorities are set in Scotland can we prevent our brave servicemen and women being ordered into illegal conflicts. The historic regiments of Scotland are being destroyed through amalgamation and downsizing; an independent Scotland will redress this.

The priority of the Scottish Defence Services(SDS), in partnership with Scotland's neighbours and allies, will be to safeguard our land, sea and airspace.

The SDS will initially be equipped with Scotland's negotiated share of UK defence resources. Service and pension conditions will be at least equal to those of the UK forces.

The SDS will be a professional force supported by reserve forces with employment opportunities open to everyone meeting the appropriate standard. MoD civilian support personnel employed in Scotland at Independence will have the opportunity to remain in the Scottish MoD or Scottish civil service.

Scotland will maintain active defence commitments with its friends and allies through the United Nations, European Union and Partnership for Peace.

The SNP reaffirms that no nuclear weapons will be based on independent Scottish soil. An SNP government will not be part of a nuclear-based commitment such as NATO.

SNP priorities in defence are that:

•Defence policy should be made in Scotland's national Parliament
•Scotland's armed services should be well-remunerated, equipped and trained
•Historic regiments will be protected and, if abolished, re-established as part of the SDS
•Military facilities, including strategic airforce stations, should not be downsized at t
94

Rabbies Wee Bruthir,

10/09/2008 14:44:06
Cont from #99

SNP priorities in defence are that:

•Defence policy should be made in Scotland's national Parliament
•Scotland's armed services should be well-remunerated, equipped and trained
•Historic regiments will be protected and, if abolished, re-established as part of the SDS
•Military facilities, including strategic airforce stations, should not be downsized at the present time
•Nuclear weapons will be banished from Scotland forever

Clear and Concise
95

morris,

edinburgh 10/09/2008 14:55:11
95

Exactly the point. If Wendy had contented herself with admitting there was a mistake, a genuine enough human error, and left it at that,she would at the maximum have been sentenced to a day off! Big deal!
What was unnaceptable was that they lie about something, try to fraudulently claim another source, and when caught they lie again ! The whole legal process was then devalued because the Procurator Fiscal is only allowed to do their job, if you are not a politician (or maybe its only Labour politicians of course)!
The electoral commission decide whether it should proceed to the PF.That is in effect a verdict without trial!

Presumed innocent, ( since you cannot be tried let alone found guilty) !

One law for us,one law for them.
Look at the price the cupid stunts have paid!
Labour have lost the confidence of a nation who once could not see anything else existed,and Puddles is a world record holder in self destruction against the clock!

How could anybody seriously want that shower in government?They are not even capable of opposition!

You only have to look at the "Three muppeteers" to see where this party is heading!
96

Duncan in Edinburgh,

10/09/2008 15:06:21
#101 Morris, I feel the need to repeat something I said earlier.

The idea that no-one is allowed to make a mistake - the very essence of zero tolerance - fuels this deeply unhelpful approach to politics and the media fans the flames into a massive conflagration.

How can we have rational discussions about how best to run the country in such an atmosphere?

You are one of many people who pour scorn on Wendy at every opportunity on these boards. The truth is she is a decent person who made a mistake and dealt with the aftermath of it badly. Most of the things you actually criticise her for were done by members of her staff, not her herself. And yet you personally condemn her.

It's a shame.
97

Alan B,

10/09/2008 16:09:00
#Duncan

Morris in post #101 has not comdemned her for one mistake. But for her actions after the mistake was made.

I think many people dislike the view you have taken that it is her staff and not her. It is about taking responsibility.

Many people also do not like the fact that politicians in general are being so tainted with financial sleaze without being punished and in some cases criminal charges being brought.

Do you honestly think Wendy should have not been punished at all. The biggest thing with Wendy was her initial illegal donation was really a very small issue. Why could she not be honest and accept responsibility? Why the lies about it being from a company? Why do we have to wait for a leaked letter from Wendy that she knew it was from an individual who did not live in the country. Why when you do not declare donations and do not seek clarification within the time period does she not accept the very trivial slap on the wrist? Why did labour and Wendy try to implicate all the other parties in wrong doing?

Remember labour went on and on about tory sleaze.

It would be a whole lot better if we could clean up politics and get back to political debate. But an underlying problem there is the political parties are so willing to slag off the opposition while in opposition and then implment much of what they argued against when they get elected.
98

Duncan in Edinburgh,

10/09/2008 16:23:13
#103 She was condemned as soon as the mistake was made, and her political opponents seized every possible opportunity afterwards to mire her in more condemnation. Even the fact that the Parliament considered the case and voted that she should not be punished because she had not deliberately misled anyone simply generated more condemnation from people like Morris. It is an utterly useless way of conducting political debate.

Getting back to the point, it was you who, on the basis of what was frankly a mistaken view of the reason for McLetchie's resignation, called for him to be ignored on all political issues - for there to be zero tolerance of him. It was a glib remark, but not uncommon. If we want to improve political discourse, we need to excise such glib and unhelpful remarks. So let's start with you.
99

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/09/2008 16:57:06
#104 Duncan:

Are you really so naive that you believe Wendy Alexander did not know the procedures and that she was breaking the rules?

Funny how she know to keep the donations under £1000 then isn't it, she seems to have understood those rules fairly well.

Labour MPs know the game inside out, David Marshall for instance was a specialist in the more technical aspects i believe.

They all know the rules and that is that. If not then they are too thick to be MSPs.
100

Alan B,

10/09/2008 16:57:09
#Duncan in Edinburgh

I did not call with McLetchie to be ignored per se. My view is that the tories should have dropped him as an msp. (see my post 50).

While i think it can be harsh on an individual the whole system of politics has become tarnished becuase of the action of certain politicians. We need to clean up politics.

I agree some on this forum took glee regarding Wendy. After i initially posted a defence of her on this forum when the story broke. Her subsequent actions condemned her in my eyes.

"the fact that the Parliament considered the case and voted that she should not be punished because she had not deliberately misled "

Remember that was not regarding the illegal donation but the fact she did not declare the legal ones.

The question is if a leader of a party or a leaderhip campaign does not declare donations and does not seek clarification of these donations (remember labour made the rules to a large extent for sp) what should be the punishment.

Trying to find out whether you should declare other donations 2months after the disclosure date when being investigated for an illegal one does not fly with me.

To me it is imporant that rules are obeyed. Wendies still denies any mistake in not seeking to find out if she should have declared donations. As the lib dems spokesman said at the time, the rules are if in doubt declare.

She made a mistake ok in not declaring. Not the end of the world but she should take a slap on the wrist punishment. That is why not having the 1 day ban upheld is wrong. It makes all politicians look dirty.



101

Alan B,

10/09/2008 17:01:43
#Duncan in Edinburgh

Remember also with Wendy it was actually the leaks from labour and within her own team that did for her. I think Wendy has rubbed people up the wrong way by her manner both inside labour and with other parties. That is why few will help her when she is struggling.

But i still contend her problem was the cover up and not accepting responsibility.

I do not know her or any politician from Adam. But do know that i would not trust her based on her actions.
102

Alan B,

10/09/2008 17:13:38
#Duncan in Edinburgh

Do you think labour were correct to go on and on about tory sleaze while in opposition?

At what point do you say enough is enough and hold politicians accountable for breaking financial rules?

Do you think it was right for labour to say you have to declare donations and then accept such large amounts as loans undeclared?

Do you honestly think Blair was right by passing labours own procedures and treasurer in accepting monies for the party?

Do you think Blair was innocent of cash for honours?

Do you not think it completely wrong that labour were aware of the 650,000 donation being passed through intermediaries to keep the donor annonomous? Should criminal prosecutions not have taken place. Was it not wrong that some underling accepted the blame and blair or brown were not held to account?

Do you think McLeish did wrong and should have resigned?

What punishment should happen to mps who fraudulently employ family memmbers? Do you agree they should be jailed?

What punishement should happen to mps/msp who break the rules for personal financial gain on a systematic basis (ie not a one off)?

Do you think Micheal Martins expenses were acceptable?

Do you not agree mps see the expense account as a way to top up their income and think they are worth it as they release higher headline salaries might not be publically acceptable?
103

Alan B,

10/09/2008 17:21:02
#Duncan in Edinburgh

I do not see how my view of McLetchies resignation is mistaken.

I also have not posted why he resigned anyway.

He resigned because of political pressure and media pressure due issue round expense claims with regard to taxi receipts. In many ways i think his resignation was like McLeishes becuase of a failure to get everything out in the public domain and that leads to a media frenzy as more and more details and rumours come.

Unfortunatley the reason for the resignations like Wendy are not the actual wrongdoing but the fuss that goes with it as the media build up the pressure. I would far rather they resigned if the issue merited it after the initial expose.

For Wendy there was no need to resign if she had simply been honest and open rather than covering up.
104

Cheradenine,

Edinburgh 10/09/2008 17:22:38
#100 Thanks Rabbie

That's fine, it's all very well and good to have ambitions.

It doesn't really say very much though because the vast majority of it is based on a contract that has not been negotiated yet and figures that have not been calculated yet. I'm not saying it is not possible just that at the moment it is all hypothetical. Britain currently has one of the biggest defense budgets per capita in the world (not something that I particularly like), and the vast majority of our tax is generated from the South East of England, the figures might all add up but there is no real way of knowing.
105

Miss H,

10/09/2008 18:05:26
Nothing to do with the story but on the issue of resignations of Mcletchie and Alexander.

The reason they both resigned was because they lost the support of their respective parties. And in both cases there was backstabbing from people in their own parties involved. That says something about their parties but it also says something about them, that they did not have the qualities required for leadership.
106

Duncan in Edinburgh,

10/09/2008 18:37:26
#111 No doubt. I'm sure you also accept that the venomous attacks by their political opposition didn't help them either, nor the approach of the media once they smelled blood. Do you think this is a healthy state of affairs?
107

Miss H,

10/09/2008 19:57:46
108 Duncan if you were like AM2 and kept everyone's comments you would have seen that I expressed sympathy for Wendy right from the start though I lost a lot at the end. You are dead right that once the media smell blood that is it but who shed her blood in the first place? Not the SNP, her own side.

The same thing happened to John Swinney when he was SNP leader. He was betrayed by people within the SNP and ended up in a position where he could no longer continue. But when he reached that position he acted and did not hang on blaming everyone but himself. And it didn't do him any harm in the long run. Being the leader is not everything and Wendy will be wise if she recognises that.
108

Eve,

Scotland 10/09/2008 20:50:53
dejavue, I belive!
109

The Tin Man,

11/09/2008 17:01:46
Are we trying to set a new Olympic record time for 'holding a grudge'?.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



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.