So it seems the £30,000 of Iberdrola shares have finally had to be sold by Stewart Stevenson. The disclosure of this shareholding has been sitting on his Member's Interest page like a ticking timebomb ever since he was installed as the Climate Change Minister
Full credit has to go to Ridiculous Politics for lifting the lid on this one weeks ago. And I also get some personal satisfaction since I backed RP in the comments field only to get some heated retorts from someone saying it was a non-story. Ah, if only Anonymous comments were banned....
Anyway, even though most people, (Labour MSPs and Scotsman journalists included I am sure) believe nothing untoward has actually happened, the SNP have been surprisingly sluggish and naive in letting this one blow up not onlyin their faces but also in Scotsman readers faces up and down the country.
Much like how Henry McLeish's problems were a "muddle and not a fiddle" and David Blunkett and Peter Mandelson didn't do much wrong in their own personal yet public debacles, Stewart Stevenson should have known all along that this was going to cause problems somewhere down the line and acted early, selling the shares so as to be and to be seen to be independent of all companies he would have an impact on during his work relating to renewable energy and climate change.
This of course is the second time in four and a half short months that Stewart Stevenson has come under scrutiny for his personal dealings. On each occasion there has been little in the way of skullduggery and more to do with messy PR. But Politics is all about PR in this modern world and you have to think that it will be a case of "3 strikes and you're out" for the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change. Personally I think the shiny PR side of politics shouldn't be considered by those in power, which is why I delighted in Donald Dewar's crushed suits as much as I rued Peter Mandelson's needless resignations.
It's just regrettable for the SNP that this second strike for Stewart Stevenson could so easily have been batted out of the stadium months ago.
Full credit has to go to Ridiculous Politics for lifting the lid on this one weeks ago. And I also get some personal satisfaction since I backed RP in the comments field only to get some heated retorts from someone saying it was a non-story. Ah, if only Anonymous comments were banned....
Anyway, even though most people, (Labour MSPs and Scotsman journalists included I am sure) believe nothing untoward has actually happened, the SNP have been surprisingly sluggish and naive in letting this one blow up not onlyin their faces but also in Scotsman readers faces up and down the country.
Much like how Henry McLeish's problems were a "muddle and not a fiddle" and David Blunkett and Peter Mandelson didn't do much wrong in their own personal yet public debacles, Stewart Stevenson should have known all along that this was going to cause problems somewhere down the line and acted early, selling the shares so as to be and to be seen to be independent of all companies he would have an impact on during his work relating to renewable energy and climate change.
This of course is the second time in four and a half short months that Stewart Stevenson has come under scrutiny for his personal dealings. On each occasion there has been little in the way of skullduggery and more to do with messy PR. But Politics is all about PR in this modern world and you have to think that it will be a case of "3 strikes and you're out" for the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change. Personally I think the shiny PR side of politics shouldn't be considered by those in power, which is why I delighted in Donald Dewar's crushed suits as much as I rued Peter Mandelson's needless resignations.
It's just regrettable for the SNP that this second strike for Stewart Stevenson could so easily have been batted out of the stadium months ago.
6 comments:
"Ticking time bomb"? Get over yourself. Take another look at the comments on the aptly named "Ridiculous" Politics site. This is now an entirely different "story". RP initially pretended to be seething with righteous indignation because there was supposedly a conflict inherent in the owning of shares in a power company because it might benefit from a focus on renewables. I pointed out to you that, equally it might not. It was a non-story.
Now, the Tories are on about something totally different. They say, in short, that any SNP MSP who owns shares will not, under the local income tax plans, have to pay income on the dividends. At least this makes explicit the logic of the original RP argument but in so doing just highlights how facile it is - in effect, no SNP MSP should own any shares in any company anywhere at all. Ever.
It's. Not. A. Story. And you've fallen for it twice now.
Well, glossing over your mildly inflammatory language let me ask you to take a breath and a few seconds while I try again to make my point.
From your rather scattered message, I make it you have 3 stories that you touch upon. Possibly 2 as there's a chance you haven't fully understood my post.
I'll leave the reinforcing of my own point to the end and charitably pick up your two points which I had little intention of discussing in the first place.
(1) Individuals who receive income via dividends.
Of course, Goldie is right to raise this issue as wealthy individuals will be effectively tax exempt under SNP plans as they stand.
I don't think any sane person is arguing that no MSP should hold shares ever. But surely you can see there's an anomaly that needs fixed if LIT is to go ahead?
(2) Your reason for suggesting this Stuart Stevenson Scottish Power story is a "non-story" seems to be due to the fact that nothing untoward has happened.
I agree that nothing untoward has happened and of course the government's actions may lead to such shares going down aswell as up.
But there's a very subtle difference between simply concluding the Minister has not made dodgy decisions in office and the other angle which my entire posting was about.
This leads me to.....
(3) Being, and being seen to be, independent.
Irrespective of whether anything untoward has happened. A Government Minister should not place himself in a position where he can gain financially from the decisions he takes in office.
Ask around, 99% of people will agree with that statement. Even the code for MSPs agrees with that statement. A code that 2 Ministers have effectively broken. Through sloppiness rather than design I hasten to add.
And regardless of whether you want to class this as a story or not, the fact that the issue was showcased on the front page of the Scotsman is evidence enough that the SNP have dropped the ball on this one.
The shares have sat on the register of interests (yes, like a ticking timebomb) waiting for this debate to arise and the primary consequence has been bad PR for the Nationalists.
You may call it a non-story while I think it's a bigger deal than that. But the fact remains, whatever you want to call it, it's not been good news for the Nationalists.
And if RP could see it coming, then surely someone at SNP HQ should have thought about it.
So I can assure you that I haven't "fallen" for anything, once or twice, and hopefully some non-anonymous comments will back me up on that.
snptacticalvoter <--- having gmail issues
I am an SNP member and I have got to agree with Jeff here. Whilst the Scotsman seem to have an ultra-Unionist anti-snp agenda at the moment, but why give the Scotsman the opportunity?!!
I agree with Jeff that Stewart Stevenson has been very naieve. At all times ministers must be "seen" and appear to have no conflicts. The key word is seen or appear. Appearance means alot and even if there is no conflict, in this case there is a potential for conflict and that is enough to tell me that Stevenson should have got rid of these.
I remember reading the members interests' in May and thought at the time that there could be an issue with this. I am now feel annoyed with myslef that I didnt email Stevenson to point this out...
The attack on Jim Mather on saturday however in relation to him owning shares (and putting them into a blind trust) was pathetic...the Scotsman wasnt even able to list where he owned the shares. If you actually read the article it was a non-story, and went on to praise Jim for his hard work, business acumem and knowledge of the Scottish economy.
The Stevenson one however, there was just too much potential conflict for it to be ignored, especially by enemies of the SNP.
LIT - This is a totally seperate issues, and I agree again with Jeff that it is not a perfect solution. As I understand it though LIT would tax income from dividends in the same way income tax does (i could be wrong though?). I think the issue with LIT is rich people sitting with large property with little income not being caught by the tax. However LIT is more equitable and fair than the council tax.
Regards
Calum MacLeod
Jeff:
The idea that a minister who owns shares has a conflict of interest because his party advocates a tax policy that means he won't have to pay tax on some of his income is just laughable.
What about a minister who is sick (or has a sick family member - or relative - or friend - or acquaintance) who supports better funding for the NHS? Or what about a minister with children who supports more funding for education?
And if anonymous postings are to be the subject of subtle criticism, don't allow them.
I don't have too much of a problem with anonymous postings; I just think it carries more weight when someone sticks their name against their comments. You are perfectly free to respond to my posts, positively or negatively. I won't be screening comments any time soon.
As for the substance of your post:
You have completely twisted my point.
"The idea that a minister who owns shares has a conflict of interest because his party advocates a tax policy that means he won't have to pay tax on some of his income is just laughable."
I haven't stated that as my view at any point in this post whatsoever. You have clearly resorted to altering my meaning so as to 'win' the argument.
I don't know how quickly you have been reading my posts but I suggest you take your time if you choose to do so again.
I won't spell out my position for you a 3rd time.
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
酒店,
Post a Comment