So expenses are going for external audit.

  jack 18:38 20 May 09
Locked

Will that mean another huge bill for the taxpayer as the likes of one of the corporate Auditing firms set up shop?
Who ran the Fee's office?
What sort of folk are they?
They did question some claims I understand so how did other abuses get through?

Yer another knee jerk reraction it seems
Gordon the Knee Jerker

  Marko797 07:48 21 May 09

I think it's more like Jack the Knee Jerker, isn't it?

GB needed to do something quickly in an attempt to salvage the situation, and that's just what he's done, yet you appear to be critical of this.

I'm not sure that anyone yet knows the full details of this planned independent auditing, but to my mind, it's got to be a good idea, and certainly an improvement on the previous way of doing things.

As for the cost, which you refer to, and the negative assumption that you make regarding 'another huge bill for the taxpayer', I personally would rather put up with the cost of the independent auditors, as opposed to continuing to let the thieving politicians keep dipping their hands in the till, which was happening under the current regime.

  Stuartli 17:58 21 May 09

I would suggest that not all politicians, in fairness, "dip their hands in the till"...:-)

But it's the apparent hypocrisy that sticks in the throat as this example reveals:

click here

  Totally-braindead 19:28 21 May 09

I am not keen on an external auditor making money from this but at the end of the day do we really have a choice?

As I see it Marko797 makes a valid point. We clearly cannot trust the MPs to police themselves and the only way to dig ourselves out of the hole is to get someone independant to look at it. It will cost but surely its better than letting the politicians keep charging for expenses that they really are not entitled to.

I must admit when I see what some of these people make, not just in salary but also in expenses it makes me cringe, especially when I think how many people struggle by with a poor wage and maybe a large family as well and how many MPs there are claiming expenses and earning wha to me is a ridiculous amount of money. Its as good as winning the lottery.

Not wanting to change the subject but I am Scottish and one of the main reasons I did not want a Scottish Parliament was that I thought we would end up paying for 2 sets of MPs.

Was I wrong to think this? And if I wasn't wrong does that just mean we have 2 lots of people overchargeing us. Perhaps there is the same numbers of MPs as before but even if there is the same number I willing to bet that they need to claim for a house in Edinburgh and another in London and I am certain that this will have cost us the taxpayers much more.

  laurie53 19:43 21 May 09

"does that just mean we have 2 lots of people overchargeing us."

Why don't you just check for yourself?

MSPs have to publish all their claims, and the receipts of what those calims are for, on line for the whole world to check.

Not perfect but letting the press and public be the independent auditors is a lot less expensive than outside consultants

  jack 19:54 21 May 09

But I do not consider my comments negative.
Appointing an external body will cost - a lot.
Why did the Fees Office let ludicrous claims pass?
Who are these people?
Perhaps Civil Servants with no clout.
There are codes of practice of what can cannot be claimed for at all levels of public service - some of them stringent in the extreme.
All it needs for sure is a senior person with the authority to give those that try in on a slap.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Surface Pro (2017) vs Surface Pro 4

Where HTML5 is headed next

MacBook Pro v Surface Pro 5