Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 22nd November 2008

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.

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.







The full article contains 735 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
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

a proud doonhamer,

Dumfries 10/09/2008 01:26:01
McLetchie, again, spouts dogma and whines when the facts do not agree. Scotsman prints tripe and cannot understand why the numbers are dropping.

Another day closer to the end of the union fantasy.

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

Vincent-W,

10/09/2008 08:09:34
radge dug,

The article is poorly written. Th esame story is reported much better in the Courier:-

NONE OF the councils in Tayside and Fife have formally signed up to cutting class sizes in line with promises made by the Scottish Government.

In their manifesto for the last Holyrood elections the SNP pledged to “reduce class sizes in Primary 1, 2 and 3 to 18 pupils or less.”

Ministers claim that progress towards that target is being made through the “historic” concordat between the government and local authorities.

But an examination of the single outcome agreements of each of Scotland’s 32 councils published yesterday by the Scottish Tories shows that 21 make no mention of class sizes and nine say they need more money to implement it.

The single outcome agreements for Fife, Dundee, Perth and Kinross, Angus and Stirling do not mention cutting primary school class sizes.

Last night Scottish Tory MSP David McLetchie said parents, teachers and pupils should be in no doubt that the promised reduction in class sizes was not going to happen this side of the next Scottish Parliament elections.

“There is not a snowball’s chance of this policy being enacted by 2011,” he said. “It is unworkable, unaffordable and it simply won’t happen.”

The concordat between local and central government talks about reducing class sizes to 18 in P1-P3 “as quickly as possible.”

But directors of education have made it clear that hundreds of millions of pounds of new money is needed for more classrooms and teachers if the policy is to work.

“The Association of Directors of Education in Scotland (ADES) has claimed that the real cost of delivering the SNP’s class sizes policy would need a lot more money than the SNP has claimed,” said Scottish Tory schools spokesman Liz Smith.

“The SNP initially told us that an additional £40 million would be set aside for local authorities to pursue the policy of class sizes of 18 pupils in primaries one to three.

“The ADES sur
8

Vincent-W,

10/09/2008 08:10:05
“The ADES survey tells us it is more likely to be £422 million, given that £62 million will be needed for additional staff and £360 million for new classrooms.

“It proves (education secretary) Fiona Hyslop can’t count and it also proves that the class size policy in P1-3 is simply not sustainable with the limited resources available.

“The Scottish Government has made a huge miscalculation and should apologise unreservedly to all parents, pupils and teachers for raising expectations to a level which they will never be able to fulfil.”

The Mid Scotland and Fife MSP said that a “one-size fits-all” reduction in class sizes is “wholly inappropriate” when it comes to driving up educational standards within the first three years.

“Deciding on class sizes or what is best for individual pupils in individual schools should be a matter for the headteacher, not the Scottish Government or a local authority, and there are many teachers and parents who agree,” she said.

A spokesman for the Scottish Government said, “This government is committed to reducing class sizes and we are confident progress is being made.

“Twelve per cent of Primaries one to three are currently at 18 or under which shows the magnitude of the task ahead, but we are committed to reducing all P1–P3 classes to a maximum of 18.

“CoSLA has agreed that the commitment in the concordat relating to class sizes will be delivered and how that is done is a matter for local government.

“It was not necessary for local authorities to mention class sizes in their single outcome agreements, therefore this is not a clear reflection of councils.

“The concordat with local government commits local authorities to reduce class sizes in P1-P3 as quickly as possible.

“The pace of implementation will vary but it is also expected that local government will make year-on-year progress towards our goal.

“It is clear that even those councils which make no reference to class sizes, such as Fife and Mo
9

Vincent-W,

10/09/2008 08:11:36
“It is clear that even those councils which make no reference to class sizes, such as Fife and Moray, are committed to making progress.”



The quality of journalism is so much better, a much more even tone and less provocative!
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

Vincent-W,

10/09/2008 09:00:38
Also what is not widely recognized is that the smaller class sizes will 'go up' the school, so that in four years all classes from P1 to P7 will be smaller and the costs will be even greater than the initial prediction- posiibly more than double. And it's an ongoing cost - not a one off payment. The educational benefits are debatable and there are other ways of achieving the same goal. It does appear that it may be a populist policy.

Given a limited pot of public finance many teachers I know would rather see the money used elsewhere.

Sitting in opposition for years every political party comes up with simplistic vote grabbing solutions (albeit with genuine intentions)- they are only 'found out' after a period in government, just as the Labour pary and the Conservatives have been over the years. I am NOT against the SNP and I'm not being cynical but they do seem to be promising the earth, which is inevitable and many of their policies are bold, imaginative and well intended. I just think we should be cautious.

At the moment it seems that if one questions the SNP then one is branded a Unionist or unpatriotic or (worse) English!
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

MacGillicuddy,

10/09/2008 09:32:38
So Mcletchie is back then? And we all thought he had disappeared into the sunset in an Edinburgh taxi!
17

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.
18

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.
19

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.
20

shivago8,

livingston 10/09/2008 10:02:12
Who are the Tories,do we have any of them up in Scotland
21

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.
22

W U Merchant,

Aberdeen 10/09/2008 10:28:21
Of course it's illegal - that's why the SNP dropped the idea.
23

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."

24

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.....
25

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.
26

Highland Mighty©,

10/09/2008 10:34:40
....first-time buyers grants died almost immediately....student debt still exists.....
27

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...
28

MalcDow,

Berlin 10/09/2008 10:45:13
This article is a disgrace.
M.
29

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.
30

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?
31

Duncan in Edinburgh,

10/09/2008 10:53:27
#34 Haha. In other words, look over there! Nothing to see here!
32

brownlie,

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

Please expand and explain?
33

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).
34

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.
35

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!
36

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.
37

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?
38

Highland Mighty©,

10/09/2008 11:13:08
41. Your two answers speak volumes.
39

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.
40

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.
41

brownlie,

10/09/2008 11:19:03
42

Your negative response, also, typically, speaks volumes.
42

Highland Mighty©,

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

Absolutely not.
43

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.
44

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.
45

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!)
46

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.
47

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.
48

Highland Mighty©,

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

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland/Watchdog-questions-Government-grant-to.4421943.jp
49

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)
50

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.

51

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.
52

brownlie,

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

Which massive unionist party never supported the invasions?
53

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.
54

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.
55

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.
56

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.
57

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).
58

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.
59

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.
60

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?
61

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.
62

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).
63

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.
64

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?
65

Cheradenine,

Edinburgh 10/09/2008 12:10:13
#65 Say that then, don't just mouth off.
66

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.
67

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?
68

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?
69

Cheradenine,

Edinburgh 10/09/2008 12:23:24
#71 Well said Duncan
70

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).
71

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?
72

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.
73

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.
74

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!
75

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
76

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.


77

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.
78

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.
79

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.
80

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.
81

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.
82

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.
83

Duncan in Edinb