Readers' Letters: £11,000 iPad bill Matheson lucky not to be sacked - or worse

MSP Michael Matheson on 16 November last year after telling the Scottish Parliament his sons used iPad data to watch football and he had held back on sharing that because he wanted to protect them from the public gaze (Picture: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)

In any other job you would be immediately fired after your employer had asked you to explain why you’d run up an £11,000 expense bill on holiday and didn’t know why.

Not only that you’d already been asked by the IT department to change your SIM card several times. Any boss worth their salt would have a quick discussion with you and ask for the laptop and iPad back while you were escorted out of the building .

Not only that, you’d be presented with the £11,000 bill to be paid sharpish or you’d be taken to court to get it back.

This latest fiasco just sums up our leaders here in Scotland… no humility, no honesty and no respect for the voting public. The sooner they move aside the better for us all

Jeff Lewis, Edinburgh

Flawed process

Is it possible that weekly bouts of outrage can cause memory-loss? Only recently, Scottish opposition leaders welcomed with some relish the Scottish Government losing the Alex Salmond court case because of “an appearance of bias” in the process which examined allegations about his conduct.

This is exactly the same flaw which the First Minister, John Swinney, highlighted in the process which decided on the sanctioning of Michael Matheson. The comments made by Annie Wells MSP before she joined the committee certainly give an impression of pre-determined bias. She should have followed the example of her colleague, Stephen Kerr, and not been party to the decision.

Both Tory leader Douglas Ross and Labour leader Anas Sarwar chose to ignore the very serious concern raised by Swinney at Thursday’s First Minister’s Questions. They both made claims that in the “real world” Matheson would be sacked. In fact, only the most unscrupulous or unwise employer would attempt to impose such a severe sanction as withholding salary, never mind dismissal, on the back of a potentially flawed process. Any staff representative or trade union officer would be all over the process and an employment tribunal would almost certainly rule against the employer.

As well as concerns about memory loss one has to wonder what experience of the “real world” Sarwar and Ross actually bring to our parliament. In particular, a Labour leader surely needs to show some familiarity with basic workers’ rights?

Robert Farquharson, Edinburgh

Friendship first

The Michael Matheson scandal just keeps rolling on and on. Despite admitting serious wrongdoing he has persistently clung onto his job as an MSP and remains there with no mechanism in place to remove him. The Holyrood Standards Committee have belatedly recommended the imposition of sanctions upon Mr Matheson, even though he has received support from Humza Yousaf and now John Swinney, who both appear to have put friendship and the party before leadership of the country.

It's all very well for Mr Swinney to suggest that the recommendation to suspend Michael Matheson from parliament for 27 days and dock his pay for 54 days was unfair, excessive and politically motivated but he should remember that surveys suggest the majority of Scots would consider the Standards Committee's recommended punishment to be too lenient, and believe Mr Matheson should have resigned as an MSP.

As well as Mr Matheson, the integrity, trust and credibility of our politicians at Holyrood have been on trial and the final verdict doesn't look very encouraging for some of them.

Bob MacDougall, Kippen, Stirlingshire

True colours

A couple of weeks ago John Swinney made lots of warm-sounding commitments to working positively with other parties in the Scottish Parliament to enable the minority government he now leads to operate.

Yet now, as a parliamentary committee comes to a conclusion he does not like, he displays utter contempt for the checks and balances of the Scottish Parliament as he refuses to back their recommendations.

The arrogance of John Swinney as, not for the first time, he seeks to undermine the work of a Holyrood committee, has revealed his true colours. He will always prioritise the SNP party and its leadership team, even when it entails running roughshod over the interests of the people of Scotland and their Parliament.

Fortunately the UK General Election gives us all a chance to deliver a message to John Swinney and his colleagues as they are once more caught out treating us all with such disdain.

Keith Howell, West Linton, Scottish Borders

Unfit to rule

I have never agreed with the SNP message, but at least all those years ago it was fresh and simple and innovative and I could see the attraction for the young and those who do not think too much and prefer Braveheart dreams to economic reality.

But if the message was attractive to some, the messengers have been the exact opposite. With a few notable exceptions, they are the most unappealing and insincere group of would-be politicians I have ever seen in operation. At times the behaviour of some has been atrocious and they are clearly unfit for office of any kind. More importantly, they have in general been ultra-incompetent, even with their army of special advisers to control their every word and move.

The initial attraction was most certainly the song, not the singers. The fourth of July will, I am certain, confirm that I am not the only Scot who feels this way, not by a long shot.

Alexander McKay, Edinburgh

Big opportunity

It beggars belief, the initial response by John Swinney to the announcement of the General Election is to assume the Nationalist default position, accusing Westminster for calling an election during the holidays! It cannot have escaped the attention of many political thinkers that 4 July is Independence Day in another country. The date would seem calculated by Downing Street to lessen the Labour vote in Scotland, so giving the Nationalists a boost at the polls.

Perhaps the SNP would like to consider making a better fist of this opportunity.

Eric Eunson, Newton Grange, Midlothian

Unsure thing

Nina Welsch claims to be an agnostic because she is equivocal about her faith (Perspective, 23 May). However, an agnostic is not someone who is unsure what to believe; it is someone who is sure that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. It's a common mistake to use the term to relate to uncertainty when in fact it relates to certainty. I'm not sure how to describe someone who is uncertain about everything. A “ditherer”?

Steuart Campbell, Edinburgh

All together

The reason announcements are made in Edinburgh three days after they have been announced in London is that in days gone by it took three days for a man on horseback to make that journey and deliver important news. To my astonishment, despite this being the 21st century, it seems that the time it takes for news to reach Shetland is around ten years! Brian Nugent (Letters, 24 May) seems to be unaware that the people of Scotland decided to remain part of the United Kingdom in 2014. The issue is settled.

He writes about someone (he doesn't say who) making a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI), like Rhodesia in 1963, and cites the "sovereign right of the people of Scotland" to do so. Scottish sovereignty is merged with that of the rest of the United Kingdom. As the Articles of Union state, “Scotland and England, shall, from the first day of May next” [1707] and for ever after, be united into one Kingdom”. One kingdom does not have two separate sovereignties.

Declaring UDI would have no effect, as no one would recognise it. It would be a doomed act of rebellion and would be perceived as such worldwide.

When Catalan nationalists did such a thing, companies and people simply left Catalonia. Savers moved their money elsewhere and the same would happen here. Scotland’s economy would collapse. Those responsible would do the same as the Catalans and flee overseas to avoid prosecution.

Luckily, Mr Nugent speaks only for himself, as his independence ship has sailed and in the General Election and the next Scottish election, the parties of division, having sown the wind, will reap the whirlwind.

Andrew HN Gray, Edinburgh

Backward step

Brian Nugent confidently states that, given a certain set of general election results, Scotland should make a UDI, which would initiate independence negotiations with Westminster. Really? Mr Nugent acknowledges that there is no legitimate parliamentary or judicial route to independence, so why would the UK government adopt a wholly different stance and recognise a UDI? No way.

According to opinion polls, it's likely Labour will win a substantial number of seats in Scotland in July, plus a parliamentary majority, and so there'll additionally be a political reason for a Labour government to retain the integrity of the UK. Yet, what is of more significance to Scotland if a UDI is made yet rejected is that the United Nations and the European Union will not recognise Scotland as a sovereign nation, meaning EU funding to replace the generous Barnett Formula wouldn't happen, and Scotland couldn't raise funds on the international money markets. Wee bit more head-scratching required, Mr Nugent?

Martin Redfern, Melrose, Roxburghshire

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.