Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
The hunt is On.
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Wednesday, 3rd 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

Rivals hit out over Salmond's expenses



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: 27 March 2008
By Gerri Peev
ALEX Salmond has been plunged into the centre of a row after critics claimed his expenses showed he had attended just six House of Commons debates since being elected First Minister.
His claims show he cost taxpayers more than £130,000 for his duties as an MP since last April. He has voted 18 times as the representative for Banff and Buchan.

He spent nearly £14,000 for a rented flat in the exclusive Dolphin Square, which
he has since relinquished. Labour said Mr Salmond's six trips to London since May 2007, when he was elected First Minister, break down to £2,333.

A spokesman for the First Minister insisted he was following convention by continuing with his dual mandate until the next election was called.

But his political rivals pounced on the figures, heaping pressure on Mr Salmond to stand down from his Westminster seat.

Nanette Milne, the Conservative MSP for North-East Scotland, said Mr Salmond was treating his constituents with contempt. "For a man so keen on referendums, he needs to give one to the people of Banff and Buchan, and stand down now."

The figures were obtained by George Foulkes, a Labour MSP and peer, under the Freedom of Information Act.

But a spokesman for Mr Salmond said the latest attack from Labour was "pitiful" and that the First Minister had released the details on his website two weeks ago.





The full article contains 240 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 26 March 2008 9:44 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Politicians' expenses
 
1

subrosa,

27/03/2008 00:44:07
Wonder what Donald Dewar's expenses were ( including relevant inflation)?
2

,

27/03/2008 01:07:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

Former Unionist,

27/03/2008 03:18:42
Gordon Brown claimed 55k in expenses for an abode he got for free over the last three years which Michael Martin is now trying to prevent being released to stop him looking like a crook.
4

Former Unionist,

27/03/2008 03:19:22
WHY WAS TONY BLAIR'S EXPENSES DOCUMENTS DESTROYED WHEN THEY WERE ASKED FOR AFTER A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST?

THE PEOPLE DEMAND AN ANSWER
5

Former Unionist,

27/03/2008 03:20:26
3 Forgot to add he is using 100'sk of taxpayers money to do this

Where is the article on this Scotsman. Surely a much bigger story
6

Former Unionist,

27/03/2008 03:21:02
The bigger story being Scotsman that the primeminister is on the take, claiming money for something the electorate give him for free
7

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 27/03/2008 06:08:52
Quite bizarre that Salmond can be first minister in Edinburgh and a member of the house of commons at the same time. That is not representation.

So, he is getting two salaries for doing about 1.1 jobs? Lucky him.
8

,

27/03/2008 06:57:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

Bridged and tunnelled,

27/03/2008 08:03:56
Dave - God save us from the ignorant. Jack McConnell didn't accidentally get himself elected to two legislatures at the same time.

Alex Salmond could easily have taken the Chiltern Hundreds, creating a precedent for all future MPs/MSPs who put themselves up for election twice (the 20 or so MPs who joined the parliament in 1999 had an excuse - there was no Scottish parliament for them to stand for in 1997 when they were elected to Westminster).
10

Ubi,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 08:05:17
We didn't elect these people to engage in petty party squabbles. We elected them because they said they could and would improve lives.

They should heed the warnings that we are sick of their actings and if they persist the system will change.
11

donald,

glasgow 27/03/2008 08:14:54
That also include his staff's payments, which is way down the league of Lib-Lab-Con claims.
12

drew 33,

27/03/2008 08:18:54
"The figures were obtained by George Foulkes"
We can be sure that a fine upstanding, when not crawling in the gutter, drunk like George is looking after our interests here!
13

11+failed,

the pans 27/03/2008 08:21:50
14
And usually at the taxpayers or someone else's expense
14

Alasdair,

27/03/2008 08:44:21
Isn't it interesting that, when reported elsewhere (even the trashy freebie Metro, which basically just uses AP content), the fact that Salmond voted in a higher percentage of votes than any other MP first minister was mentioned as balance in this story.

Funny how the Hootsmon leaves that fact out. What's the deal - does this paper have so low an opinion of its readers' intelligence that it has to spoon-feed them editorialised opinion that lacks the full facts?
Is the Hootsmon scared that without censoring the story, it runs the risk of not making its unionist stance clear in every paragraph of every article?
15

BIG EYE,

Paisley 27/03/2008 08:54:08
Alex Salmond on these expenses would be in around 500th place on the Westminster league table for expenses. Sounds like excellent value to me!

As for Jackie Baillie she knows a lot about expenses, look at how she was able to argue Wendy's case and recognise from the outset that any wrongdoing was unintentional.

I know who I would prefer representing me and that's why Jackie and her mob are doomed!

Doomed I say!
16

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 08:55:22
He who throws the first stone.........
17

Linda,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 09:23:25
Of course the figure includes wages for assistants and researchers (same as every other MP)

How much taxpayers money has been wasted by stupid point scoring questions by Lord Foulkes?

And how much does George Foulkes claim from House of Lords for his second job.
18

alanh,

ek 27/03/2008 09:36:03
Foulkes called for it under freedom of information but why stop their. Will we now get to see ALL the claims for all the MPs or is georgie boy just trying to spread a bit of muck?
19

Chris.J,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 09:50:47
George Foulkes is the real waste of money here. When will the Scotsman expose how much this joke costs us?

He has the nerve to fritter away taxpayers money on endless trawling FOI requests AND make sure he's in the House of Lords on a regular basis so that he can claim attendance allowance & expenses... What a big useless waste of space hypocrit.
20

Alberto.,

27/03/2008 10:06:02
From what we read regarding the dubious activities of the Political set - in the framework of their employment, it is not too difficult to come to the conclusion that - both North and South 'Houses of Representatives' are not only 'choc-a-bloc' with crooks robbing the taxpayer (even though some bright spark IQ (?), in the case of Martin the Speaker in the Commons, says 'Its within the rules!' - unbelievable, but there it is!

The whole expenses claims system, from what we read, seems to be geared up to the guaranteed operation of 'Get What You Can - while you can, you are well protected, and can't lose!!

If it's the only thing they do well, in this 'operation' - they are exceedingly good at it!

21

long live the supermarkets,

27/03/2008 10:11:31
I can sum expences claims in two words;
JOHN PRESCOTT.
22

Jeeemy,

St Andrews 27/03/2008 10:23:19
TommyTommy,#
Sorry but you are being just too simplistic about the article, it is not just about Alex Salmons MP’s expenses.
The information was acquired through the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, the very Act that the Speaker of the House has gone to Court pleading to have the Decision by the Commission that all expenses should be disclosed over turned.
Now look at who requested the information? What are that persons political allegiances? What is to be the “fallout” from the fact that (a) the request was made (b) and the fact that the request was published?
Now would that the outstanding journalist, Gerri Peev, ask these question and the editor ensure that the answers were published, oh! A flying Pig.

23

Paddi,

27/03/2008 10:31:26
They've all got their snouts in the trough
24

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 27/03/2008 11:25:03
Those who read the Scotsman will, I would guess, be largely from the middle classes, and therefore quite capable of seeing through the spin of this article.

Those who have their entrenched positions and their axes to grind will never be persuaded otherwise.

Those who are fair minded will wonder why it is always Salmond who is brought under the glare of scrutiny and no others, and why in particular the Speaker is prepared to go to the English High Court to prevent similar information about other prominent MPs and Government ministers from coming into the public domain.
25

Brian M,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 12:27:10
and the London-Scottish Labour Party politicians continue their long sulk into oblivion
26

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 27/03/2008 13:11:24
I am not so interested about expenses, but someone can't possibly represent a parliamentary constituency at Westminster, AND work as Scottish first minister. That shouldn't be allowed, and Salmond should stand-down as an MP.
27

Buckpool Loon,

Cheshire 27/03/2008 13:42:10
#27 Huntly Loon. Precisly.

Once again the irony of Foulkes using a procedure that the rest of his cronies want to deny!

What a way to run a country?
28

Jwil,

27/03/2008 14:39:20

#7
The Tin Man,Over the Rainbow 27/03/2008 06:08:52
Quite bizarre that Salmond can be first minister in Edinburgh and a member of the house of commons at the same time. That is not representation.

Foulkes (MSP and Member of the Lords) holds two positions! Now, that is definitely not representation.

There are important issues for Scotland discussed in the commons so it is essential to have Alex Salmond there.
29

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 27/03/2008 15:18:59
But Tin Man offers no comment as to how constituents at Kircaldy and in Edinburgh can be represented at Westminster by MPs most of whose time must be occupied by carrying out the duties of Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer not to even mention the Defence Secretary doubling up as Scottish Secretary and be a constituency MP. No one has ever suggested that the constituents of Brown, Darling & Browne are inadequately served. No, I haven't heard complaints from Banff & Buchan either.

The accusations that Mr Salmond might somehow be incapable of representing the interests of Banff & Buchan and the overlapping Gordon and be First Minister come only from certain unionists who would never criticise Labour MPs/ministers whose workloads must be equally extensive. It has nothing to do with multi-tasking politicians, nor even the expenses, but everything to do with Mr Salmond being the most popular politician in Scotland. The more popular he becomes, the more smears, innuendos and dirty tricks will be perpetrated. Unfortunately for the unionists, it is not making one whit of difference to Salmond's popularity.
30

Guga II,

Rockall 27/03/2008 15:26:56
Typical hypocrisy from the Unionist numpties.

Not only do they ensure that Bliar's expenses claims are destroyed, to prevent public scrutiny, but we even have Maggie Broon stealing £55,000 from the taxpayer when he gets his house in London free gratis.

That reminds me, is that clown Prescott still living in his free house in London? Does anyone know?
31

Tom R,

27/03/2008 16:53:46
I tend to think (though I feel sure that he will not do it) that Alex Salmond SHOULD after all stand at the next general election for Banff and Buchan.

I don't doubt he would be elected again, and it would be very useful for him to be there at critical moments to vote with the much increased band of Westminster SNP MPs after the next election, possibly in a hung parliament :-)
32

John Blackley,

Florida 27/03/2008 17:03:22
It matters little that Mr. Salmond put in more appearances at Westminster than some others. It really doesn't matter what his average expenses were for doing so - nor does it matter what other MP's expenses are (in this particular argument).

What matters are the questions this raises. Is the First Minister of Scotland a full-time job? Is being a representative at Westminster, for your constituents a full-time job?

No matter the answers, a change to the status quo is required.
33

Griffe,

27/03/2008 17:06:14
Perhaps he sees himself as the next Speaker of the House of Commons.
34

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 27/03/2008 17:06:36
#32 Huntly

It is hardly an issue of 'unionism' or 'nationalism', (which, unfortunately, seems to be the sole, unflinching, mindset of so many posters here). It is an issue of not being able to be in two places at the same time. You will find that the politicians you mentioned are based in London. There are many, many votes at Westminster that affect the people of Banff & Buchan. They voted Salmond in to vbote on them. He isn't voting on then. The politicians you mentioned are.
35

Griffe,

27/03/2008 17:08:02
Or he is practising before becoming Scottish President, when he could bankrupt the country.
36

Tom R,

27/03/2008 17:10:26
Think about it. Do the unionists really want the SNP to cause a by-election for a Westminster seat? Would the SNP not win handsomely giving them a further boost before the Westminster election?

A case of be careful what you wish for, I suggest.

37

Brian M,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 17:33:25
I know, why don't we get rid of the UK parliament. That way there will be no argument about MPs and MSPs and MLAs having two or more jobs.

For UK purposes there would be a committee/cabinet/call-it-what-you-like with equal representatives from each parliament
38

Brian M,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 17:40:25
I expect there would then be a continuing reduction of UK-wide responsibilties as each country gradually went its own way
39

Andrew Allan,

27/03/2008 17:47:37
It seems only the stupid haven't noticed that around £84,000 is actually staff costs, and are trying to tell there punionist brothers and sisters this sum wouldn't be paid for anyone else in the position Alex Salmond holds at westminster, then what do you expect from people who are breathing up the fumes while licking the bottoms of their english punionist masters?
40

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 27/03/2008 17:57:50
Tin Man - There was never criticism of Donald Dewar back in the early 1990s nor is there criticism now regarding Ian Paisley. It has everything to do with being Alex Salmond.

If Gordon Brown had not bottled calling an election back in November there would almost certainly have been another SNP MP representing Banff & Buchan. As the Prime Minister will cling on until he has to call an election, I guess Alex Salmond will remain as MP for some time longer.

The greater part of legislation and matters dealt with at Westminster affects only England, which hardly merits Salmond's attendance.

There is far more to being an MP than sitting on green leather benches and acting as lobby fodder for the Labour party. Come to think of it what do the great mass of west-central Scotland MPs find useful to occupy their time apart from voting through things for England, that Scots would not wish imposed here. What do they do for their(our) money.

Being regularly in the constituency, dealing with local and constituents' problems is a far more important task of the job.

The 19th century concept of parliament being the London club for the sons of the well-heeled classes is well gone.
41

GM,

27/03/2008 18:04:26
foulkes is an odious drunken turd...

Here was Wendy just the other day detailing how positive labour have to be to have any chance of being re-elected...

Foulkes response? do a bit of cheap mud-slinging at the FM.
42

Andrew Allan,

27/03/2008 18:20:18
I'm wondering if des browne has handed over being Scottish minister over to Loud foulkes, yes loud and not lord, but how would we know the difference, they are both gravy train riders.
43

yockel,

27/03/2008 19:00:12
#7 Tin Man, yer average civil servant or cooncil employee, one wage nae work, who's the bigger ripp off marchant?
44

Brian M,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 20:13:48
at least Salmond is there ready to fight for Scotland and not like the London-controlled Scottish labour MPs who are lapdogs to their greater English party
45

,

27/03/2008 21:00:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
46

Charley,

Dubai 27/03/2008 21:08:37
Joe #48 - Grow up and start a pledge to, say, help stop global warming?
47

Sally Kent,

12/04/2008 13:06:56
I read this weeks ago in another newspaper.
48

BrianHill,

Edinburgh 12/04/2008 19:08:14
More of the same, if only to take the heat off their own beleaguered politicians.

Salmond must feel like he's being battered by a large feather.

 

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.