Saturday, 28 July 2007

Elected representative?

Here's a question to ponder: why is that fat (and getting fatter) little Nationalist MSP for Gordon, and also MP for Banff & Buchan? Because he has made it very clear he won't be heading down to Westminster very often, being as he's prancing about as First Minister in Bute House now. So, while his constituents in Gordon have their elected representative, it would appear the residents of Banff & Buchan don't. And why he is still claiming his full MP's salary for the Banff & Buchan seat? That's actually quite a good wheeze, getting paid for a job you are quite openly not doing. Maybe he's cleverer than I thought...

No, he isn't. He is swindling tax payers and his constituents. Would the good people of Banff & Buchan have elected him at the last general election if they'd known he would be so quick to abandon his duty to represent them at Westminster once he got his Holyrood seat? Hmmm, maybe the good people of Banff & Buchan are stupid and would indeed have elected him anyway. I certainly wouldn't appoint anyone to a job if I knew they were going to abandon their post two years' into the contract, but continue to expect a wage.

Stand down and let there be a by-election so that your Westminster constituency can be represented, Mr Salmond. You're depriving them of something everyone else has and it's not fair.

2 comments:

William said...

I believe the Westminster salary is the only one he intends to take. Which, admittedly, is higher than the Holyrood one. And he still gets the First Minister salary as well.

A fair point about the representation, granted. Although a lot of people did both jobs after the first elections in '99.

Lis of the North said...

I think the "double mandate" issue was not adequately addressed with devolution. It shouldn't be allowed and that's that. I suppose our MPs don't really represent their constituents anyway they just toe the party line, but it's the principle of the thing!