Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Tuesday, 2nd December 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

No clarity over donations



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: 08 September 2008
The obvious question arising from the Wendy Alexander case must surely be why the Scottish Parliament allowed a system as bereft of clarity as that covering donations (your report, 5 September). The solution is glaringly obvious: all donations should be declared.
However, it would be more pertinent to question the point of establishing a Parliamentary Standards Committee to investigate and rule on complaints if MSPs can simply reject its findings.

The comments of Labour's Jackie Baillie are particularly foolish. She carelessly claims that the facts as outlined by the committee proved Ms Alexander innocent. This is nonsense; the situation was declared "unclear". She proceeded to brand the decision to punish Ms Alexander for failure to seek advice within the statutory time limit as "irrelevant". What, then, is the point of the rule?

Politicians should have no say in whether their actions are legal or otherwise, and the best solution would be to refer all procedural disputes to an independent outside body such as the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.

ROBERT DOW

Ormiston Road

Tranent, East Lothian





The full article contains 179 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 07 September 2008 8:26 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

StuartAD,

West Lothian 08/09/2008 07:50:23
When Wendy Alexander asked if she need declare & was told NO. Why then the witch hunt? That is why the findings of a loaded committee was rejected by the Parliament, because it was not black & white, you would not hang a murderer on such flimsy evidence. So why then try to hang Wendy Alexander?
2

Mikey,

08/09/2008 08:23:17
It certainly would have helped her cause if she had asked BEFORE the time period was up!

Check the facts, Stuart....
3

Alberto.,

08/09/2008 19:01:44
"However, it would be more pertinent to question the point of establishing a Parliamentary Standards Committee to investigate and rule on complaints if MSPs can simply reject its findings."

*******************

I suppose that is the beauty of being a Politician (albeit seemingly not so truthful and / or honest ones!) whereby with the 'friends they have in the system, apparently at all levels, and also have the unique facility of imposing rules and Laws on 'others' but can, and quite confidently do, choose to ignore them personally - as it suits the occasion, and quite brazenly to boot, especially when for Personal or Party benefit!!

All this Alexander palaver, (apart from the obvious admitted crime / rule breaking) seems to be about someone’s word against another’s!

Surely, and especially at the level of 'First Minister' and having doubt on a very obvious important and official financial point - as it has turned out to be, written evidence is a must (particularly for something you may wish to rely on and use as evidence in the future - as they say!) and is the obvious procedure when seeking ‘official’ advice, obviously in this case for protective purposes - what else, and which must have been the sole intention on her mind!

Word of mouth is, in many cases, always doubtful and unreliable - from ‘all parties’ and does display utter incompetence in such matters!

The written word (untampered with, of course!) will also save time in having to seek out some poor ‘minion’ from the ‘Lower Ranks’ to act as ‘Can-Carrier’, as seems to be the usual case for the Political parade of a winning celebration!

I would have thought that was the 'Golden Rule' in a Political system - any political system, and especially in the one we have to tolerate, where much incompetence seems to be the 'Order of the day' in many situations, as is clearly displayed in this Alexander 'Rag Bag' election arrangement!!

As far as a 'Political Standards Committees' being worthwhi
4

Alberto.,

08/09/2008 19:07:07
#3 Cont'd............

As far as a 'Political Standards Committees' being worthwhile - or not, would seem a very debatable and extremely important point!

Their ’ Standards Committee Masters’ down in the 'Happy Valley' of Westminster leave a lot to be desired in their Modus Operandi, as their main purpose of operation appears to be mostly stating / confirming that Politicians can 'do no wrong' - almost regardless of any doubt there is raised - even when it’s great doubt (must be infectious in the trade - may be compulsory, who knows?) and as we see, in many cases there is very great doubt most of which seemingly gets washed over, presumably because of their unique and very guarded position, combined with the ‘friends’ they have in all the very necessary places!!

What a wonderful game our Political system has developed into, where members, seemingly by arrangement can 'Do No Wrong!'


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

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

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

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

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