Alex Salmond has given his valedictory address to Westminster as he prepares to end his 23 years as the MP for Banff & Buchan. I've not read or heard it but apparently the address was a criticism of Labour's stewardship of the economy and a request for a more significant fiscal stimulus to ensure a double-dip recession is avoided.
However, what appears to be making the headlines is Salmond's decision to accept the £65,000 resettlement package that retiring MPs are permitted to claim. I can't help but think it is a remarkable misjudgement from the First Minister. It doesn't look great that he's receiving his own personal fiscal stimulus while so many suffer, while bankers have bonuses frozen and senior civil servants' remuneration curtailed.
Much like the expenses scandal when Salmond claimed £400/month for food, one has to keep in mind that MPs of other parties will be claiming this same amount of money and are avoiding the glare of the media spotlight, but those same MPs are not the First Minister of Scotland and consequently do not all have the good fortune of guaranteed earnings for as long as they wish to receive them. (I daresay John Reid will do alright for himself at Celtic though)
A retiring MP may quite understandably not have the stomach to milk thousands out of lobbying firms in dubious circumstances and they may not have the experience to walk into a few directorships but what 'resettlement' does Alex Salmond require exactly? As First Minister and MSP for Gordon, he is hardly going to be filling out a job-seeker allowance form any time soon.
A spokesperson has quite reasonably pointed to the charitable trust that one-third of the Scottish Parliament MSP salary is donated to but at some point acting as a middle-man between public sector profligacy and local charities even has to be questioned. If charities need more money lets increase the official budgets and fund them through appropriate channels rather than lavish wealth on our representatives in order for them to pass it on to local community groups as they see fit.
Furthermore, this paying out of significant resettlement packages is a rule that is due to change in the near future, presumably because it is deemed inappropriate. For any MP to grab the cash just as the window closes looks a bit grubby, it is particularly galling for Salmond to do so with his three salaries while attacking Labour's sense of judgement.
'More Nats, less cuts' was the claim? It seems in this particular instance, 'Less Nats, more troughs' is more fitting.
34 comments:
Jeff
To be honest, I think the Alex Salmond 'resettlement payment' story is a bit of a storm in a tea cup. No doubt he is taking a payment that many MPs from all parties will be taking.
However, I think that his attempts to play politics with negotiations over the Scottish Block Grant are far more damaging. If he feels that bringing forward £350 million of spending is vital to the Scottish economy (which is at least a reasonable argument) should he really be prefixing his meeting today with the Chancellor, with a host of press briefings condemning the Govt? http://davidfagan.co.uk/?p=364
There is an election on David or haven't you noticed?
If Darling is going to rebuff Salmond's "reasonable argument" then shouldn't the people know about it and decide who is right through the ballot box?
I know Labour like deals to be done backroom away from the public's gaze but I'm personally not a fan.
Sorry if that's all a bit snide, but it looks like a stone wall news story to me.
Come on Alex, do the right thing and split your £65k pay-off between Scottish charities and the SNP's election fighting fund. You know it makes sense!
Here's a thought - Is this an admission from Salmond that retirement is imminent and/or that he doesn't expect to beat Labour in 2011?
Can't help but think Salmond would have been better from a public relations point of view, to join Labour, get p*ssed as a rat, snort some cocaine, get involved with some seriously heavy Glaswegians and dodgy business deals, have a nervous breakdown then disappear to Australia/Ireland/Cayman Islands.
He'd have been guaranteed the kid gloves treatment from the Scottish press then.
For the sake of comparison, is there a list of MP's who have chosen not to take this money in the past? And more pertinently is there a list of MP's who have been pressured not to take it in the way that Salmond is currently being pressured?
It would be a pity if he was being singled out for any reason.
Salmond get less than a 3k per year "holiday pay" bonus for leaving parliament.
If they all just got a 3k a year bonus then the payout figures would be a lot less on scum who have been suspended yet still walk away with 60 oddk after just a few years in the trough.
We should concentrate on how much suspended mp's get rather than questioning someone with a record like Salmond over 23 years.
Anyone suspended loses their bonus and cannot be made a lord. Sounds good to me.
Its here Jeff via Brownedov
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100330/debindx/100330-x.htm
Jeff
Maybe it would be better to list the MPs who are not taking the resettlement payment.
Are the members from Livingston or East Lothian taking theirs I wonder or the other Labour members who are retiring?
Why do you think the MSM are only talking about one MPs resettlement allowance.
The bias in the MSM is relentless.
As for you comment at 10.06 that beggars belief.
Dubbieside, the fact is that if Salmond refused to take the money and also opted to donate 3 times the amount to a rest home for confused and bewildered Scottish journalists, they'd still say " the evil scheming SNP dastard, he can't buy us off".
Of course there is a distinction to be made between knee jerk loathing of Alex Salmond and the SNP as demonstrated by the likes of Lorraine Davidson, Jenny Hjul etc. and informed political commentary. Sadly there's a surfeit of the former and a dearth of the latter in Scotland.
Jeff
There's an election on?
Seems like a strange argument to me. Are you really saying that the best way to negotiate Scottish grant (whether onpenly or behind closed doors) is to insult the person you are just about to negotiate with. Or are you saying his meeting with Darling is a sham? If that is the case, then is that something that the FM of Scotland should be engaging in?
Also, you don't really believe that the Labour Party are the only party to 'do deals' away from the public glare do? Next you'll be telling me that the fact that not one single SNP MSP signed Charlie Gordon's bus regulation bill was nothing to do with a certain major donor to the SNP!
I'm critical of Salmond at times e.g. "More Nats, less cuts", "Hung from a Scottish rope" etc and in this case I wish he had made a point of NOT taking the cash (even tho' giving it away again to a charity).
But some others posting are right--why is it only Salmond who is being demonised?
Did Donald Dewar ("father of the nation"--boak) take the money? Jim Wallace? Henry McLeish? Others?
I'm more of a tram man myself David ;)
I've not read the articles but I can't imagine Salmond "insulted" Darling and I don't think citing an election is a bad argument.
All parties trail speeches, discussions, debates and, yes, arguments. I'd charitably suggest you're taking a rather myopic view of this one.
Again, what's wrong with Salmond, or any politician, using headlines to highlight precious dividing lines between parties and leveraging potential public support to strengthen his argument?
As it happens I reckon Darling has the balance just right and we shouldn't spend every single penny of this budget (and next) but the conduct seems perfectly fair to me.
Feel free to point out how Darling was insulted and I'll happily eat my hat.
Jeff,
More honourable than the FM of NI who buys land at £5 and then sells it on with his piece fir £400k. I think while you're trying to invoke discussion, I feel you are focusing on the wrong guy and subject, there are far more worthy moral arguements to be had!
Looks like London's got to you already! The Metro this morning was filled with Labour press releases!
D
David the fact that no single SNP MSP signed Charlie Gordon's bill is a reflection of the fact that the Scottish Budget is facing cuts of around 3 billion in the coming years. A budget cut of almost 10 per cent. The SNP is simply not in a position to take on new and unfunded commitments.
I don't think all that many people have got their heads around it yet.
We are moving from the position Labour and the Lib Dems were in of having ever increasing budgets - a doubling of the resources available to them - to the position the SNP is facing of having to deal with cuts which will be deeper and more savage than in Thatcher's day.
You may call it "playing politics" for Alex Salmond to attempt to mitigate this to the best of his ability but I suggest that Jeff is right, he is leveraging potential public support against such savage cuts.
Be in no doubt - if Scotland votes Labour again it will signal acceptance of an agenda which would preserve spending on things like Trident and ID cards and the price will be paid by things like free personal care and concessionary travel. That#s not "playing politics" - it's the way it is.
This defence that Labour MPs and NI FMs are doing it is a bit weak is it not? Certainly helps underline my point.
A man sets his own principles and shouldn't aspire to be merely no worse than the next guy. Alex Salmond is leading the charge to make Scotland independent, one would have thought he'd be more careful therefore with his integrity, particularly with the 'settling down in London but I'm settling up for Scotland' rhetoric.
Noone has defended the specific principle of a man with two jobs accepting a £65k resettlement package when he has no need to resettle anywhere so I'm going to chalk this one up as a win if that's ok...
PS That Salmond has been singled out it is a valid, but separate, concern.
Jeff,
I'm not saying it's right what I pointed out was that the NI FM is mired in yet more sleaze! Haven't time to confirm what the grant is for, staff redundancy I read on another blog.....however looks like his constituents are benefitting which is a good thing, unlike friends and chums of the rotten GCC!
No win for you yet, it may be your trainset but you don't entirely own the tracks!
Jeff
What you say about about Salmond having two jobs after he leaves Westminster is totally irrelevant.
Very few people leave Westminster for a simple retirement. Most have some, often very lucrative, areas of employment open to them. Some have so many that that unkind people have been known to describe them as "taxis for hire"
Maybe you can explain the difference between Alex Salmond and Donald Dewar? Did Saint Donald not have two jobs in Scotland when he left the commons? Where was the big fuss over his resettlement allowance, or all the praise over the fact that he had refused it. I must have missed that.
It's posts like this one that are why I read this blog. Maybe you should re-title it SNP Reality Check.
Thank you, Jeff
Dubbieside, again, you're trying to muddy the waters by comparing Salmond to Dewar, as if that matters. Why can't you debate the issue on its own merits? Why should any MP take a resettlement package when they clearly have no need to resettle?
Yes, all should be held to same account but if the SNP wants to hold the moral high ground and hold its principles in check, Salmond shouldn't have touched the cash.
It's no big deal. I'm only not backing down because the comments are still coming in but surely we've all learned 'it's in the rules' is no longer good enough.
Jeff
I am not trying to muddy any waters here.
What I am trying to do is highlight the total hypocrisy over this issue.
As far as I know no MP has ever refused this allowance. This has never been an issue until now. Why is that I wonder? Could it be that there is one set of rules for Alex Salmond and one for all other MPs.
How is comparing Dewar and Salmond "muddying the waters" were they not both MPs who gave up Westminster to become or remain both an MSP and the First Minister?
Did that not mean they both had two jobs>
Why has one receiving the resettlement allowance caused controversy and the other raises nary a ripple.
As I said Dub, that's a valid point to make, but still a separate one to the key question in my post.
Is it right, everything else to one side, for Salmond to claim this money?
Clearly it's not and he should have realised, particularly as FM, that he'd get clobbered by the red tops for it.
That, for me, is a remarkable misjudgement to make.
Jeff
From the Herald:
Alex Salmond used his farewell appearance at Westminster last night to argue for Scotland’s fiscal independence and denounced the UK Government’s refusal to bring forward £350 million of spending for the coming financial year as “niggardly and foolish”.
For once I am with Jeff on this one.
Just as the SNP dont vote on English only Bills, Salmond shouldn't take a resettlement Bonus, when he has not incurred the costs and in a time of a very weak economy with thousands suffering.
Salmond is the First Minister and leader of the main political party in Scotland. He should lead by example. He should be setting the standard for public life not following the level set by a parliament he considers archaic.
David, I'm genuinely struggling to see what point you're trying to make with that.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that Salmond's labelling of Darling's decisions as "niggardly and foolish" are, as you put it, "insulting"?
They have a difference of opinion on policy and Salmond, who is not getting his way so has more to fight for, is airing his argument publicly.
What exactly is the problem?
Jeff
Looks like we will have to agree to disagree on this.
You still have not addressed the point however on why it is right that every other MP leaving parliament is entitled to claim this allowance, and have claimed it, with no controversy and it is a mistake for Alex Salmond to do the same.
One rule for all the rest and one for Alex Salmond.
Anon - Henry McLeish declined the handshake, apparently. Don't know about the others.
Er, oops, my mistake. I saw an article which said McLeish had promised to decline to take the package. I should have realised that didn't necessarily mean he actually did it, of course. And sure enough...
I agree with Jeff on this. As much as it can be argued that by virtue of 23 yrs service in the House of Commons Mr Salmond is entitled to this money, it will be a giant stick to beat him with.
We have to look at the realities here.
Already, even on an SNP blog the resettlement package has attracted more attention that the contents of Salmond's speech - which is of crucial importance to Scotland's future.
I really don't think some people have an accurate perception of what is about to hit us, I really don't.
Jeff, I agree with you that Dubbieside is missing the point but they are adopting the standard cybernat position of attack MSM first for hypocrisy and never even look at the SNP without the yellow-tinted-can-do-no-wrong glasses.
Your main point is correct and ALex Salmond should be clear about why he is taking it. And laundering money through to charities is not a good one.
Is there a difference source of cash for office workers/researchers who will become unemployed as well as things like rent and other bills which will need to be paid upto the election day? If that all comes out of the grant then thats fine but if the full amount is personal to each MP (like a severence package) then he should look to standard practice which is to only pay the package if there is no other employment on offer.
I agree Observer, a bit of objective assessment wouldn't go amiss. I'm not trying to be ornery with these posts that don't bang the drum, just letting my unbridled thoughts roam free. But I don't think this'll be a big deal by any stretch of the imagination for the election itself.
I think it'll get nasty though, the kitchen sink is coming, a febrile atmosphere and all that. You just wonder if something is being sat on for late April, hey?
Douglas,
really don't know how the payment breaks down. Fair point that it could cover some incidentals that need to be paid and shouldn't come out of personal pocket. Doubt it though, to be honest.
Salmond should take the money from London and donate it to sporting charities for kids in each of the Westminster constituencies.
Hold a press conference and start writing out the cheques.
It will make headlines up and down Scotland with each area benefiting equally rather than just the North East.
He could make jokes about it being the equivelent of how much certain Labour MP's over claimed in expenses.
It would be a positive thing for Scotland, of benefit to kids, fitting in with the healthier Scotland policies and MOST importantly it would show a politician not just talking a good game but delivering.
If you want to lead. Then take the first step and lead by example.
More money for Scotland. Don't just say you care. SHOW and PROVE how much you care.
Douglas
Maybe you can explain to me why every MP who has left Westminster and has taken this allowance has never had a word of criticism, but as soon as Alex Salmond does it is everything that is bad.
No one has explained the double standards or the two faced hypocrisy. Care to try?
Dubbieside
Because the media and even the SNP in the past didnt care about it.
It is only since the expenses scandal that the money MPs (including Alex Salmond) award themselves has come under scrutiny.
Had Alex done the correct thing and stood down in 2007 then this would not be an issue. But he didnt. He kept two jobs (and found it very difficult to justify two salaries) when he should have had the courage of his convictions and represent his constituents in one parliament.
I remember the MSM, and the SNP, being very critical of many MSPs in 1999 who did not stand down as MPs. Yet 8 years later Salmond, hypocritically did not even stand down and allow a by-election on the same day as the Scottish election. He stood with the objective of having two jobs.
Yet you complain about decade old hypocrisy rather than real and calculated hypocrisy of the First Minister.
Post a Comment