MSP in rent row to stand down amid calls for reform of Scottish Parliament expenses gravy train

The Herald newspaper is reporting today that John Home Robertson MSP, who was caught claiming £7000 from the taxpayer to live in a £73,000 flat bought by his 17-year old son, with no mortgage, days before he became an MSP in 1999, will not seek reelection at next year's Holyrood elections. Too bad then, but there should be a full investigation into this matter .. hope someone has lodged complaints !

However, fear not readers .. as it seems Home Robertson is going off to the House of Lords .. where no doubt, the hard habit of milking one's expenses account will be a tough one to break .. and with the possibility of lucrative directorships of companies doing business with the Government of the day, as several lords have already taken up ... I'm sure we won't have heard the last of Home Robertson's activities by way of the gravy train.

Someone emailed me asking why I had covered the article here : Scottish Labour Politician rents his own son's flat for £7000 a year, charging it up to taxpayers ... and if I had anything against JHR. I don't. I don't even know him personally, but I know of him of course, as I know of a lot of the other msps ... and I do know he's one of those at Holyrood who have stood by from time to time and not done everything he should have for constituents .. so that lets me in to make a comment, or more, on it.

Today's Scotsman newspaper is also reporting calls for the MSPs' mortgage allowance to be reviewed .. although there certainly needs to be a much greater review than just the mortgage allowance ... with more immediate action than the laughable proposition from the Parliament's Speaker, who, the Scotsman are reporting wants any action on this to be delayed until the next parliament is formed.

"But he [George Reid] stressed nothing would be done before the election and any changes would have to be discussed by the new parliament elected next May."

That is a joke, right ?

Would anyone in their right mind, even a sober man, come out with such a ridiculous explanation in the wake of the recent media attention on our milking msps & the calls for action on this matter ?

How's his own expenses doing I wonder ? or those of his party colleagues ? and is this delay also to give time to the many msps who haven't declared everything they should ? ... amid fears that someone knows something and is about to publish .... but such information would be better saved for nearer the elections, wouldn't it ? much more impact around that time ... might knock the voters around a bit .. and serve some people right for not helping those who need it.

Anyway, Reid's delay, via the infamous Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, should give everyone time to milk as much as they can .. better get the mortgages paid up as much as possible then and get the properties sold off for big profits before any action after March 2007 does come on this one, if at all.

Looking through the Scotsman board on Monday's report on this issue .. which you can read here Calls to scrap allowance as MSP claims £979 a month for mortgage .. there were several good postings on just who was claiming what as an MSP ... which I have known for awhile anyway .. but how about we have the full list published in the papers ?

Every political party in Scotland has people who are milking the expenses .. but they made the rules so they could do that, and.. it's not just Labour, sadly

As the sole msp giving comment on this matter attacking the allowances scheme shows - Tommy Sheridan (who probably thinks he's landed on the moon on this one) that means there's too much to hide for everyone else to speak .. what is it ? Party orders from the whips not to condemn the allowance scheme ? or is it just that there's no one brave enough or clean enough left at Holyrood to tell the truth & tackle the issue ? .. I suspect it's the latter.. sadly.

Another whitewash from the whitewash of whitewashes to be expected .. but the dirt still flows, and more revelations on the cards, and thanks for the tip on the Wishaw matter, whoever gave it... seems to be checking out ...

Read on for the Herald & Scotsman articles, links to follow

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/73935.html

John Home Robertson to stand down from Holyrood
CATHERINE MACLEOD November 08 2006

John Home Robertson, MSP for East Lothian, will not seek reselection for next year's Scottish parliamentary elections.

Mr Home Robertson, who has represented the Scottish parliamentary constituency since 1999, will tell the East Lothian Constituency Labour Party tomorrow night that he intends to stand down.

The MSP's decision to announce his intentions at this time triggered speculation within Labour's ranks. While he was not expected to fight the election, he was not expected to make his intentions clear until next spring.

One Scottish colleague claimed last night that he was standing down because of recent adverse publicity over his expenses – it is understood he claimed £7000 from the taxpayer to live in a flat bought by his 17-year old son days before he became an MSP – but last night Labour sources denied he was standing down for any other reason but to give the party plenty of time to select another candidate.

As speculation at Westminster suggests Mr Home Robertson will be bound for the House of Lords next year, a senior Labour figure insisted he was standing down now to avoid any suggestion of a Labour Party fix. The party is expecting the vacancy to attract interest from more than a handful of aspiring candidates. Iain Gray, a former Scottish Executive minister and now special adviser to Douglas Alexander, is almost certain to put his hat in the ring.

Mr Home Robertson, a favoured colleague of the late Donald Dewar, represented Westminster constituencies of Berwick and East Lothian, and later East Lothian since 1983, before electing to stand for the first Holyrood elections in 1999.

In the early years of the Scottish Parliament he was the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, and in 2001 he took on convenership of the Holyrood Progress Group, which had responsibility for overseeing the completion of the new Parliament Building Project. He opposed calls to cap expenditure on the project.

And the version from today's Scotsman newspaper :

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1651002006

MSPs' mortgage allowance to be reviewed
HAMISH MACDONELL SCOTTISH POLITICAL EDITOR (hmacdonell@scotsman.com)

HOLYROOD managers are to review the controversial housing system which allows MSPs to claim back mortgage payments from the taxpayer, it emerged last night.

George Reid, the Scottish Parliament's Presiding Officer, announced that officials would investigate the system and suggest possible reforms.

But he stressed nothing would be done before the election and any changes would have to be discussed by the new parliament elected next May.

MSPs can claim the Edinburgh Housing Allowance to cover interest-only mortgages on properties in the capital if they live too far away to commute to Edinburgh. They can also claim back the cost of utility bills and council tax on these properties.

The system has come in for intense criticism, particularly because some MSPs have bought properties using the scheme then sold them later for substantial profits which they have been able to keep for themselves.

The scheme came under the spotlight again earlier this week when it emerged that Tavish Scott, the transport minister and MSP for Shetland, has been claiming £979 a month from the taxpayer to cover the costs of a mortgage and other bills on a big house in the city's Morningside area.

Tommy Sheridan, the Solidarity MSP, has been a vociferous critic of the scheme and has called for it to be scrapped as soon as possible.

Jack McConnell has also expressed his reservations about the scheme and has called on the Scottish Parliament's Corporate Body (SPCB) to review it.

Yesterday the corporate body met and decided the scheme should be reviewed - but not until after the election.

Mr Reid said: "The current system of allowances was brought in by unanimous vote of parliament in June 2001. The Corporate Body has no authority to alter that system. It can be changed only after further debate and vote of parliament.

"We acknowledge that there are issues to be addressed, but they are complex and have to be addressed in total."

And he added: "It is the SPCB's intention to have all the arguments delineated by March 2007 for determination by our successors after the elections in May."

The review of the Edinburgh Accommodation Allowance will be part of a broader investigation into the allowances system for MSPs.

Officials will be asked to find out whether there is any realistic alternative, either for the parliament to purchase a block of flats for MSPs or to put them all up in hotels, or whether there is any way of preventing the MSPs from making a profit, while keeping the system broadly the same as it is now.

Other parts of the system have come in for criticism, particularly as all MSPs get access to the same resources, whether or not they are constituency MSPs with constituency workloads, or regional list MSPs with a much broader remit.

Other changes which could come about as a result of the review are:

• Changes to the pay and conditions of MSPs' staff. At the moment researchers and secretaries are paid out of each individual MSP's allowance, but this could be changed to make them direct employees of the parliament.

• Changes to the office system, setting down different requirements for constituency and regional list MSPs.

Mr Sheridan said last night the review was "long overdue" but "welcome none the less". He said: "The Edinburgh accommodation scheme is not only discredited, it's unacceptable. No individual MSP should be allowed to personally profit from an accommodation scheme in the future and any changes must take effect immediately

"In addition, MSPs' salaries should be reduced to reflect the average wage of skilled workers in Scotland and all parliamentary staff should become proper paid employees with trade union rights and conditions instead of being employed directly by individual MSPs," he added.

Taxpayer picks up the property tab

TAVISH SCOTT

TAVISH Scott, right, is the latest MSP to become embroiled in controversy over the Edinburgh accommodation allowance after it emerged earlier this week that he was charging the taxpayer nearly £1,000 a month to cover his costs for a £380,000 house in Edinburgh.

Mr Scott, the transport minister and MSP for Shetland, is claiming £979 a month to pay a mortgage and other bills on a home in the Morningside area.

Mr Scott has already made £36,000 on an Edinburgh flat he bought with the public purse and traded up to the bigger property with the help of the allowance.

The allowance is supposed to provide MSPs with accommodation for the days they stay in Edinburgh. Most have invested in small city-centre flats, but Mr Scott is the only one to have used the scheme to buy a big, family house.

Mr Scott has not broken any rules, but his use of the allowance to purchase such a big property fuelled demands for change.

JOHN HOME ROBERTSON

THE Labour MSP John Home Robertson was criticised after it was revealed last month he was claiming £7,000 a year of taxpayers' money to live in his son's Edinburgh flat.

He charges Holyrood £600 a month to rent a property bought in the name of his son Patrick days before the first elections to the Scottish Parliament in 1999.

Mr Home Robertson, the MSP for East Lothian, was able to make the claim as his home in the Borders is classed as beyond daily commuting distance.

Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland branded a liar after FSA denies claims of intervention to block complaints body.

Would it surprise you if I said that Douglas Mill, Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland, is a liar ?

Would it also surprise you that many clients of Scottish solicitors, who have fallen foul of a crooked lawyer & have had to endure the torturous, corrupt, prejudiced & lengthy complaints & claims procedures of the Law Society of Scotland, also believe Douglas Mill to be, a liar ?

Well, last week, Douglas Mill, Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland, claimed, in an interview for an article in the Herald newspaper, that the Financial Services Authority would block the workings of the proposed independent legal complaints body which is proposed in the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, if it were to attempt scrutiny of the Law Society of Scotland's professional indemnity insurance scheme for Scottish solicitors, otherwise known as the Master Insurance Policy, which all solicitors are mandated to pay into by the rules of the Law Society of Scotland.

You can read my coverage of last week's Court Challenge threat by Mill, here : Law Society of Scotland threatens Court challenge against Scottish Executive over LPLA legal reform Bill

This week, the FSA has completely denied any such claim, giving rise to allegations that Douglas Mill, lied on this point, which he and the rest of the legal profession are using as but part of their determined campaign of dirty tricks against the pro consumer reforms planned in the LPLA Bill.

Losing control over complaints against solicitors, has to be one of the greatest failures of the legal profession - but they only have themselves to blame.

For decades, the Law Society of Scotland has been the self-regulator of the legal profession - where lawyer regulates complaints against fellow lawyers .. otherwise known, as a recipe for corruption, dishonesty, & a license to commit dirty tricks against anyone making complaints against colleagues in order to throw out complaints or mitigate any punishment against unmasked crooked colleagues.

The LPLA Bill will end most of this - as complaints against the legal profession, are to be handled by the proposed Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which will also have a degree of oversight over the Master Insurance Policy of the Scottish legal profession - which handles damages claims from clients against negligent lawyers.

The Master Insurance Policy is administered by the infamous Marsh Inc (albeit Marsh UK) ... Marsh Inc, the parent company, you will recall, was caught up in a gigantic corruption scandal in the United States, after new York District Attorney Eliot Spitzer brought charges against the company - resulting in large fines, several resignations of it's Board members .. and at the end of it, an admission of guilt .. simply because the evidence was overwhelming.

Nothing was done about Marsh in the UK .. at least so far, but there is an EU investigation going on into it's activities .. as well as other insurers, which I will be keeping tabs on and letting you all know about soonish.

To quote today's Herald newspaper article :

Last week, Douglas Mill, the Law Society of Scotland's Chief Executive, said the FSA - together with insurer Royal & SunAlliance - would tell the proposed Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to "take a hike" if the proposed new body decided to seek to examine claims and the handling of claims against the master policy.

This is to be part of the commission's role under the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, which last week completed stage two at Holyrood.

Independent scrutiny of the policy, which covers compensation claims against Scottish solicitors arising from negligence, fraud or dishonesty, is strongly favoured by consumer groups. Critics such as the Scottish Consumer Council have complained that the policy lacks transparency.

A spokesman for the FSA said the Canary Wharf-based watchdog is unlikely to interfere. He said: "I think if anyone were to tell (the Scottish Parliament) to take a hike, it would be more likely to be the Treasury, since it was the Treasury which was responsible for the Financial Services and Markets Act of 2000 which laid down the powers of the FSA.

So, what is going on here ?

Well, some would say, a campaign of disinformation - well organised by the Law Society of Scotland, in order to scare the Scottish Parliament into voting down the LPLA Bill when it comes round for a vote ... some would also say .. it's part of the dirty tricks campaign of the legal profession to cause fear in the wake of their threatened Court challenge against the LPLA Bill which Douglas Mill so bravely made last week.

I would say - it's a desperate move on the part of the legal profession - to prevent any oversight of the workings of what must be the most corrupt, most crooked, most devious & dirty financial insurance scheme in existence to cover 'professional negligence' claims, in our time - and believe me, as one who has been up against the Master Insurance Policy - what I have said is no overstatement.

Imagine giving someone a licence to lie, to steal, to intervene in people's personal lives, to undermine their work, to undermine their business or livelihood, to intimidate their family (if needed), to find out every single scrap of information on that person & their entire family, including medical records, all financial records, what they do, their habits, their history, their lifestyle, any criminal record, even what they throw in their garbage.

You think I am talking about the Security Services, right ? No, I'm not. I'm talking about the legal profession and the Master Insurance Policy and what I say, I say from experience, remember, not from reading a book.

I was a claimant to the Master Insurance Policy - over the activities of crooked Scottish Borders solicitor Andrew Penman of Stormonth Darling Solicitors, Kelso

My claim got nowhere - I was intimidated by just about every means possible, my family was put under a microscope, by these legal 'thugs' at Drumsheugh Gardens - along with their colleagues at Marsh UK (then called Sedgwicks) and of course, the Royal & Sun Alliance PLC, (the insurers to the legal profession) .. and this merry gang even sanctioned having the local Police investigate & intimidate me over false information given to them by a professional colleague of Penman, the Executir of my late father's will ... crooked Borders Accountant Norman Howitt of Welch & Co, Accountants, Hawick & Galashiels ... and at the end of it, the amount I was offered was only to cover the legal expenses of making the claim in the first place - and this is how the Master Insurance Policy works - all the while, paying both my solicitors, and the crooked solicitor, bonuses for reducing anyones claim against a lawyer, to nothing.

The way I have just described how the Master Insurance Policy allows the legal profession to defend itself against a client who makes a financial claim for negligence against a crooked lawyer - is one of the core reasons that Douglas Mill and his crooked band of colleagues over at Drumsheigh Gardens, Edinburgh - the Law Society of Scotland HQ, are desperate to keep out of the prying eyes of an independent regulator. .. so, telling lies to the media, getting fabourable media articles written by lawyers disguised as journalists, telling lies to Parliamentary Committees, threatening politicians and even leaking details of their activities to try & swing a forthcoming legislative vote, comes as small beer to the legal profession in it's absolute determination to kill off any chance of independent regulation.

Do I think Douglas Mill is a liar ? well, yes I do.

You have all seen in earlier articles, what Douglas Mill did to me, personally .. and in what became his own, highly personalised & vindictive campaign against me (and many other claimants I know) .. he famously fiddled my claim for civil legal aid so I wouldn't get to progress my case - a dirty trick indeed, but one which comes quite easy to a man who, despite his claims to the contrary, becomes involved in client claims against solicitors - to make sure they get nowhere - just as he did in the MacKenzie's claim .. just as he did in mine, and just as he has done in so many others .. with help from some of his infamous colleagues .. such as Philip Yelland, Director of Client Relations .. and the now retirned Leslie Cumming, Chief Accountant of the Law Society of Scotland - who also became involved in fiddling many a complaint against a crooked lawyer to let them off the hook ...

There is no doubt, the Master Insurance Policy needs independent scrutiny of its workings and behaviour, when it comes to dealing with claims made by clients of crooked or negligent solicitors.

There is also, just as importantly, the issue of how the Master insurance Policy has operated in the past .. against those members of the public who have tried & failed to bring negligence claims against Scotland's legal profession, because of the actions & dirty tricks of those who administer, operate & fund the Master Insurance Policym ensuring claims against lawyers in Scotland, get nowhere.

Those dirty sins of the past, need to be fully investigated, publicised, and accounted for, and the victims of the way the Master Insurance Policy has been implemented in the past must be duly & deservingly compensated.

Read on for the article, from The Herald, at : http://www.theherald.co.uk/business/73713.html (Herald link now out of date)

FSA denies it will block independent complaints body
IAN FRASER November 06 2006

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has denied that it will intervene to block the planned independent complaints-handling body for Scottish solicitors from scrutinising claims under the Law Society of Scotland's controversial master insurance policy.

Last week, Douglas Mill, the society's chief executive, said the regulator - together with insurer Royal & SunAlliance - would tell the proposed Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to "take a hike" if the proposed new body decided to seek to examine claims and the handling of claims against the master policy.

This is to be part of the commission's role under the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, which last week completed stage two at Holyrood.

Independent scrutiny of the policy, which covers compensation claims against Scottish solicitors arising from negligence, fraud or dishonesty, is strongly favoured by consumer groups. Critics such as the Scottish Consumer Council have complained that the policy lacks transparency.

A spokesman for the FSA said the Canary Wharf-based watchdog is unlikely to interfere. He said: "I think if anyone were to tell (the Scottish Parliament) to take a hike, it would be more likely to be the Treasury, since it was the Treasury which was responsible for the Financial Services and Markets Act of 2000 which laid down the powers of the FSA.

"They are more likely than the FSA to have view on something that potentially contravenes the Authority's powers under the Financial Services and Markets Act.

"Policyholders would have a view if their ability to recover from (the master policy) were to be curtailed. If you have a commercial contract with an insurer and if another body - let's say the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission - were to try to intervene or meddle in that contract, then I guess that your first course of action would be to go to that body (the SLCC)."

In an interview with The Herald last week, Mill said: "They (the SLCC) want to look at claims against the master policy and how these are handled. But they cannot do that. If they do try to do this, I believe the insurers
and the Financial Services Authority will tell the Scottish Parliament to take a hike."

The master policy is a compulsory arrangement for professional indemnity insurance that all Scottish solicitors working in private practice must contribute to annually.

The society arranges the policy through the insurance brokers Marsh. Claims are handled by the current insurers Royal & SunAlliance. The insurance provides cover of up to £1.5m for any one claim.

Two Scottish Executive Ministers revealed to be charging mortgage interest payments to the public.

Following last week's revelations in the Sunday Herald newspaper of John Home Robertson MSP who was caught out charging some £7000 a year to the taxpayer to rent a flat his 17 year old son bought for £72,000 in 1999 (with no mortgage), two Liberal Democrat Scottish Executive Ministers have now been caught out charging mortgate interest payments up to the taxpayer via their Scottish Parliament 'Edinburgh Accomodation Allowance'.

Transport Minister Tavish Scott MSP is charging the public nearly £1000 a month in mortgage interest payments to help him buy a £380,000 house in Edinburgh.

How about Transport Minister Tavish Scott gets a smaller place ? does he need a £380,000 house in Edinburgh to do his work as an MSP ? Shouldn't he be a bit more 'greener' for being Transport Minister ? .. or is he just another LibDem milker ... like Environmental Minister Ross Finnie MSP , who has also been caught out doing the same .. where the Sunday Herald also reports Finnie's wife signed over her rights to an Edinburgh property so her husband could claim £2500 a year in mortgage interest payments, from the taxpayer - via his Parlianemt expenses ...

A quote from the Sunday Herald article on Tavish Scott :

Land registry documents show that most MSPs have used the allowance to buy small flats in central Edinburgh costing between £80,000 and £100,000. But Scott has taken advantage of the generous system by purchasing a house last year in Morningside worth £380,000, on a mortgage of £265,000.

Parliamentary records show he is now billing the public £979 a month in interest payments on his mortgage – the highest charge of any MSP. Scott is also entitled to claim the £1920 council tax on his new band-G house.

An identical property for sale in the same street, inviting offers over £350,000, has three bedrooms, a “lovely private garden”, and a conservatory and patio.

The purchase of the house is only part of the LibDem minister’s use of the accommodation allowance.

The MSP bought his first property through the scheme in 2002, a £112,000 flat at Lower London Road sold to him by his sister. Figures show he claimed around £500 a month in mortgage payments for the property. He sold the flat last year for £148,000, pocketing £36,000 in profit. This allowed him to buy the much bigger property in Morningside.

Must be good for some then ? .. while the rest of the country is swimming in a sea of mortgate debt, with lots of families having to almost live from salary cheque to salary cheque ... our politicians can rape the taxpayer for anything they want .. including buying lavish housing and getting us to pay their mortgages .. even selling on their properties & making huge profits to boot !

Well, my personal opinion of the LibDems .. or 'FibDems' has always been pretty low .. after all, remember, I lived in the Scottish Borders for a long time (regrettably) .. and the Region was represented by the likes of MPs Archy Kirkwood & the other guy .. keep forgetting his name, he's so unimportant .. Moore .. I think .. and well, the MSPs for the Borders are equally as bad ... for all the bluster of Christine Grahame .... she couldn't lift a finger to help the likes of me or anyone else who had been ruined by the legal mafia ... but maybe that came from not being able to see through the usual 'haze'. Look at the likes of the others in the region .. David Steel .. etc ... I'm sure those people only stayed at Westminster as they got the fools in the Borders to vote for them continually ... if they had been anywhere else, their idiotic and incompetent antics would surely not merit a single vote.

Tommy Sheridan MSP seems to be one of the few MSPs coming out to say much on this .. but I think he should be doing more than writing to the Presiding Officer on it ... after all, I've had my own experience with George Reid .. and that 'predecessor'of his, David Steel, on matters related to MSPs dealings on issues of crooked lawyers & involvement with the legal profession ... and I can safely say .. Reid and the rest of them won't do much because in some way or another .. they are all at it. If you want to do something, Tommy .. dish the dirt on the lot of them ... because there's a lot of dirt, as we both know and it's high time it was out. Let the public see who their representatives at Holyrood really are and what they are up to.

I think I will let the two articles from the Sunday Herald speak for themselves - and once again, my congratulations to Paul Hutcheon and the Sunday Herald News team, exposing these scandals over at that thing we were sold for $1billion, as the Scottish Parliament - but has turned out to be as crooked & corrupt as .. well, I can't think of a comparison right now... but, of course, more revelations to come !

Link at : http://www.sundayherald.com/58943

Revealed: more MSPs benefit from Holyrood property gravy train

By Scottish Political Editor Paul Hutcheon

A Scottish Executive minister is charging the public nearly £1000 a month in mortgage interest payments to help him buy a £380,000 house in Edinburgh.

Tavish Scott, the transport minister, has doubled the amount he bills the taxpayer for the property perk despite making a £36,000 profit last year on another flat bought with help from the public purse.

He has previously claimed rent on a flat which at the time was owned by his sister.

The revelations are further blows for the widely discredited Edinburgh Accommodation Allowance.

The parliamentary scheme allows MSPs to either claim mortgage interest payments on a property in the capital, or to rent, or to stay in a hotel.

Last week, the Sunday Herald disclosed that Labour MSP John Home Robertson was using the system to bill the public £7000 a year to stay in his son’s flat.

The allowance is also deeply unpopular because it has allowed several MSPs to make substantial profits on properties bought with the help of taxpayers’ money.

One of the biggest winners from the scheme appears to be Scott, the Liberal Democrat MSP for Shetland, who is responsible for Scotland’s transport network.

Land registry documents show that most MSPs have used the allowance to buy small flats in central Edinburgh costing between £80,000 and £100,000. But Scott has taken advantage of the generous system by purchasing a house last year in Morningside worth £380,000, on a mortgage of £265,000.

Parliamentary records show he is now billing the public £979 a month in interest payments on his mortgage – the highest charge of any MSP. Scott is also entitled to claim the £1920 council tax on his new band-G house.

An identical property for sale in the same street, inviting offers over £350,000, has three bedrooms, a “lovely private garden”, and a conservatory and patio.

The purchase of the house is only part of the LibDem minister’s use of the accommodation allowance.

The MSP bought his first property through the scheme in 2002, a £112,000 flat at Lower London Road sold to him by his sister. Figures show he claimed around £500 a month in mortgage payments for the property. He sold the flat last year for £148,000, pocketing £36,000 in profit. This allowed him to buy the much bigger property in Morningside.

This purchase coincided with Scott’s changed personal circumstances. By 2005, he was separated from his wife and dating BBC journalist Kirsten Campbell. The electoral roll shows a “Kirsten Campbell” is registered at the new property.

The minister is now charging the public almost double the amount he charged for his previous flat, up from £500 to £979 a month.

Scott has also left himself open to criticism regarding his rental arrangements prior to buying his first taxpayer-funded flat in 2002. That property was bought by Scott’s sister in 2000 – just months after her brother was elected to Holyrood – and sold to him two years later. However, council records show a Tavish H Scott was on the electoral roll for this flat in 2001. The LibDem MSP was claiming rent for staying in his sister’s property.

Scott, a business studies graduate, earns around £50,000 for representing Shetland, while ministers are entitled to a further £39,000. He has claimed more than £50,000 in Edinburgh Accommodation Allowance payments since 1999.

The minister’s dealings follow the Sunday Herald’s revelations last week that Labour MSP John Home Robertson was charging the public £600 a month to stay in his son’s flat. Records show the MSP’s son, then aged 17, bought a £72,000 flat just weeks before his father was elected to Holyrood. No mortgage was required to purchase the property.

The Labour politician apologised to his colleagues for “any grief” caused by last weekend’s article, adding: “There is no question of any financial advantage to anybody.”

Tavish Scott last night said of his property dealings: “I have followed the rules that are set down for all MSPs. I am not going to comment on anything to do with this.”

Asked whether he billed the public for renting his sibling’s flat before buying her property, he said: “I did rent from my sister.”

The allowance’s negative publicity recently prompted first minister Jack McConnell to call for a review of the scheme. A source close to the first minister said yesterday: “His position hasn’t changed. He thinks there is, at best, public confusion and, at worst, public concern about the scheme.”

Solidarity MSP Tommy Sheridan, a long-term campaigner against the allowance, said of the latest revelations: “The whole scheme stinks to high heaven. Every politician is dragged down by it. Any scheme which allows politicians to profit personally is a bad idea. It’s not illegal, but it is immoral.

“Just last week I wrote to the presiding officer, George Reid, to demand the parliament’s corporate body carry out the commitment they gave when I tried to get an amendment to the Registration of Members’ Interests Bill. That’s when Jack McConnell said he agreed with me – so where is the change?”

and now for Ross Finnie ...., again from the Sunday Herald . at : http://www.sundayherald.com/58939

LibDem takes over mortgage to claim allowance
By Paul Hutcheon Scottish Political Editor

THE wife of a Scottish Executive minister signed over her rights to an Edinburgh property so her husband could claim £2500 a year in mortgage interest payments.

Environment minister Ross Finnie and his wife Phyllis originally bought a £60,000 flat in the capital five years ago.

But months later, the minister’s spouse waived her rights over the property after learning that a joint mortgage was not compatible with receiving special help from the taxpayer.

The arrangement stems from the controversial Edinburgh Accommodation Allowance, which permits MSPs to claim public cash for renting or towards paying the mortgage on a property in Edinburgh.

Records show Ross and Phyllis Finnie purchased the £60,000 flat in Springfield Street in 2001.

Land registry documents show that in 2002 the LibDem minister’s wife signed over the mortgage to her husband under the banner of “good and onerous causes”. He has since claimed £200 a month through the Edinburgh Accommodation Allowance.

A parliament spokesman confirmed MSPs can recoup the interest payments on a property only if the mortgage is in their name.

“For mortgage interest claims under the Edinburgh Accommodation Allowance, the mortgage can only be in the name of the member – it can’t be in joint names with the spouse,” he said.

The environment minister has not broken any rules by acquiring sole rights to his Edinburgh mortgage, but it does show the lengths to which MSPs go to claim the perk.

Finnie yesterday said he and his wife changed the ownership of the property in order to claim the allowance.

“I bought the property in a joint name, but the allowance does not permit you to claim it if someone else owns the property. I had always intended to claim the allowance. The parliament said it was not permissible in terms of the allowance,” he said.

Law Society of Scotland threatens Court challenge against Scottish Executive over LPLA legal reform Bill

A legal challenge seems to be on the cards against the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, from Scotland's client hating legal establishment, the Law Society of Scotland.

Desperate to keep regulation of complaints against crooked lawyers to themselves, the Law Society of Scotland has conducted an intense media campaign against the planned pro-consumer reforms of Scotland's legal profession, using lawyers posing as journalists to write anti-LPLA articles, bringing out retired wealthy Judges to defend their crooked cause, and shamelessly lying in front of Parliamentary Committees as to how complaints & claims against lawyers have been managed over the years by the legal profession.

However, the tactics of the legal profession in their campaign against the LPLA Bill are about to change, according to an interview in the Herald newspaper, with Douglas Mill, Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland, who now threatens a Court challenge against the Executive & the Parliament over LPLA Bill.

Mill, the Law Society's client hating Chief, believes the LPLA Bill is incompatible with ECHR ... because of course, it takes away the right of the Law Society to control complaints against their members, but the many victims of crooked lawyers in Scotland must be asking themselves (as am I), how on earth it can be against ECHR to have an independent complaints system for lawyers.

Dougas Mill tells the Herald "The inability of civil servants to engage with the society, and their lack of trust in the society, has been stunning," said Mill. He accuses them of "not understanding" how professional indemnity insurance and specifically the society's "master policy" works. "Talking to them on these subjects is like having a dialogue with the deaf," says Mill.

The Herald article quotes Mill further "The civil servants seem incapable of distinguishing between the master policy (which is negotiated annually on behalf of all solicitors with insurers by the insurance brokers Marsh) and the wholly separate guarantee fund," he adds. "They want to look at claims (against the master policy) and how these are handled. But they cannot do that. If they do try to do this, I believe the insurers and the Financial Services Authority will tell the Scottish Parliament to take a hike."

Funny thing is, that is just how it is when a claimant tries to speak to the Law Society of Scotland or the Master Policy Insurers over claims against the Professsional Indemnity Insurance of solicitors .. it really is just like having a dialogue with the deaf ... because of course Douglas Mill, is deaf to any charges that his vast membership of lawyers could be anything other than honest.

Dealing with the Master Insurance Policy has been a nightmare for claimaints - with cases stretching over decades .. and many claims have never reached any measure of success .... I know this myself, when I faced a vast array of dirty despicable tricks from Douglas Mill himself, and the Director of Client Relations, Phillip Yelland, when I tried to make a claim for damages against well known crooked Borders solicitor Ansrew Penman of Stormonth Darling Solicitors, Kelso.

The dirty tricls from Douglas Mill extend to other cases though - he was famously caught out at the Justice 2 Committee hearings with memos he had sent to Alistair Sim, the Director of the Master Insurance Policy, where Mill was intent on collating information against Mr Stewart MacKenzie and was obviously orchestrating an attempt to delay their claims, on cases which have now run 20 years or so .. a far cry from the testimony of Mil himself before the Justice 2 Committee that he had never become involved in negligence claims against lawyers .. even stooping to swear on his dead granny's life ! .. which I covered here :The Corrupt Link Revealed - How the Law Society of Scotland manages client complaints & settlements.
& here : Law Society of Scotland claims success in gagging the press over Herald newspaper revelations of secret case memos
& here : Scotsman responds to Peter Cherbi and the Herald with a living eulogy of Douglas Mill

The best comparison the Law Society could come up with, against an independent complaints sytem for lawyers, was to warn us that Scotland would be heading for dicatorship, Mugabe style, if lawyers were not able to regulte complaints against their colleagues. Mill continues his rant about Zimbabwe in his Herald interview ... "There is no modern democracy where the executive controls the legal profession," he warns. "That sort of thing is more likely to happen in a place such as Zimbabwe than in a modern democracy."

Mill's fixation with this rather ill advised line, was also supported by of the 'guests' to a recent conference at the Law Society was the ex-head of Zimbabwe's Law Society .. testified as to his own experiences under Robert Mugabe, and that Scotland was heading into the same dictatorship if they forced solicitors to face an independent complaints system !

I think most people seem to regard Douglas Mill's 'Zimbabwe defence" line now as being slightly over the top .. even some of Mill's stooges now balk at that arguement .. one of them who writes in the Scotsman privately calling him a "nutter" (how true) ... but as I have said before, cynically using the suffering of a people under a dictator to try to justify keeping a well known corrupt complaints sytem in place so that lawyers can cover up for lawyers .. is, to say the least, an astounding departure from common sense, but, quite indicative of the desperate tactics employed by Mill & his bunch to thwart any chance of reform to their cosy business model which has seen tens of thousands of clients ripped off over the years by Scotland's uncontrollable legal profession.

I emailed the Scottish Executive on whether they knew of a pending legal challenge to the LPLA Bill .. just for the record of course .. they said nothing had come in yet .. and the Justice 2 Committee are refusing any comment on the matter whatsoever, but, I have 'volunteered' my services as a witness to the Executive, should it be named as a defender in any action brought against the LPLA Bill by the legal profession .. and I encourage anyone else who has had problems with lawyers or submitted evidence to the J2 Committee LPLA Bill inquiry to also volunteer as witnesses to defend the planned legislation which we have fought for so long.

I wonder how Douglas Mill & his merry band of crooked lawyers & retired judges would fair against Peter Cherbi & the many other victims of the Scottish legal profession being paraded before the Court of Session to defend the LPLA Bill ?

How would the Law Society of Scotland be able to argue it is against their Human Rights not to be allowed to fiddle complaints against their fellow crooked lawyers .. when such a parade of victims of badly handled complaints could be brought to the Court by the Executive to testify as to just how crooked & corrupt the system of complaints handling at the Law Society of Scotland is, and not forgetting of course, how corrupt & prejudiced the claims handling process of the Master Insurance Policy is towards those who try to make claims against negligent and crooked lawyers.

I, for one, would like to see this all played out in a Court - and covered in the media - it would show just what we have been up against for so long - a dirty, corrupt, insideous system of self regulation operated by the Law Society of Scotland, which has been used to ruin the lives of clients & save the practising certificates of lawyers who would in many other walks of life, be condemned as criminals for their depraved, deceitful fraudulent & scandalous actions towards their clients.

Douglas Mill - It is time clients of Scottish lawyers have their rights improved - the right not to be ripped off by their lawyer, the right not to have their funds embezzled, the right not to have their lvies ruined, the right not to have their homes taken away because of the crooked dealings of your solicitor membership - and, having an independent organisation to regulate the legal profession will go some way to keeping a closer eye on your colleagues who have been getting away with murder for years under your own fiddling administration of complaints.

Read on for the article, from the Herald, at : http://www.theherald.co.uk/business/73203.html

Holyrood in solicitors’ sights
IAN FRASER October 30 2006

Douglas Mill, secretary and chief executive of the Law Society of Scotland, has the politicians of Holyrood and the civil servants of Victoria Quay firmly in his sights.

However, his tactics are about to change. It appears that the rather gentlemanly opening skirmishes are over and warfare is about to break out.

The issue that has precipitated hostilities is the "independent" complaints body MSPs are currently piecing together.

Mill and many solicitors believe it will undermine the Scottish legal profession and make it more difficult for Scottish clients to access a solicitor at relatively low cost. The Scottish Executive begs to differ, of course.

Mill concedes that entrusting the handling of "service" complaints against Scottish lawyers to an independent, government-funded body does makes sense, even though he thinks the society's record is more than acceptable in this regard.

At present, the society handles both service and conduct complaints about solicitors, a system of self-regulation which has attracted fierce criticism.

"That (conceding that service complaints should be independently handled) is a big concession for us, but we are utterly pragmatic about it," says Mill, speaking in the library of the society's Victorian headquarters in Drumsheugh Gardens.

"Unlike the advocates, most solicitors are entirely happy with the idea that their professional body should no longer be responsible for handling service complaints. If we no longer have responsibility for service complaints, our members might even start to love us again," he jokes.

Mill's concern is that the legislation, the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, will give rise to a Frankenstein's monster of a complaints-handling body.

Not only does he believe that the proposed Scottish Legal Complaints Commission will be slow, rule-based, bureaucratic and expensive – his biggest fear is that it will not be properly independent, as appointments to it and pay levels for commissioners will be set by Scottish ministers.

It is partly for this reason that the eminent Queen's Counsel, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, recently said the body as proposed will be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mill says: "The proposed body will cost about four or five times more than the current system – and it is inevitable firms will pass those costs onto clients."

Mill does have one nuclear option up his sleeve. He told The Herald that the society will probably take Scottish ministers to court after the bill is enacted, if it is enacted in its present form.

Mill is particularly worked up by what he claims is the lack of understanding of the machinations of the law displayed by bureaucrats and politicians.

"The inability of civil servants to engage with the society, and their lack of trust in the society, has been stunning," said Mill. He accuses them of "not understanding" how professional indemnity insurance and specifically the society's "master policy" works. "Talking to them on these subjects is like having a dialogue with the deaf," says Mill.

"The civil servants seem incapable of distinguishing between the master policy (which is negotiated annually on behalf of all solicitors with insurers by the insurance brokers Marsh) and the wholly separate guarantee fund," he adds. "They want to look at claims (against the master policy) and how these are handled. But they cannot do that. If they do try to do this, I believe the insurers and the Financial Services Authority will tell the Scottish Parliament to take a hike."

He also believes the parliamentary time and the Justice 2 Committee time that has been allocated to piecing the bill together is inadequate, particularly in view of the number of amendments tabled. "It's an absurdly short timescale," said Mill. "They have four 90- minute sessions to deal with around 550 amendments."

Mill further opines that the lack of a revising chamber at Holyrood, with powers to rein in the Executive, has made it possible for what he sees as a shoddy and ill-thought out piece of legislation that will undermine the independence of the legal profession to near the statute books.

The society also believes the Executive is being unrealistic in its proposed time frame for getting the new complaints-handling body up and running. "I don't believe the new body will be ready to start handling service complaints before January 2009 at the earliest," he says.

Another controversial subject which has divided the profession is that of alternative business structures (ABSs), proposed in the landmark Clementi report south of the border. One reform involves giving non-lawyers the ability to hold equity stakes in law firms, though only at present in England and Wales.

Mill cannot understand how such things would work in practice.

"I can see the business argument for ABSs. The problem is no-one has come up with any workable proposals as to how such things might be regulated. There is also the issue of why non-solicitor owners of law firms – for example fund managers, estate agents and tax planners – should be exposed to unlimited liability for the conduct of their solicitor colleagues. ABSs are totally inconsistent with the current collegiate approach to fidelity.

"There is not much of an appetite for ABSs in Scotland, apart from around six firms," he claims. "However if Westminster does introduce ABSs we acknowledge that we will be unable to hermetically seal Hadrian's Wall." Mill also alleges that "the potential for fraud would be infinite" if non-lawyers are to be allowed to own firms of solicitors.

Mill returns, finally, to his fears that reforms to complaints handling will jeopardise the very independence of the legal profession. "There is no modern democracy where the executive controls the legal profession," he warns. "That sort of thing is more likely to happen in a place such as Zimbabwe than in a modern democracy.

"We do welcome change, but we want the new body to be workable, independent and accountable. That is a long way from what we appear to be getting."

Some lawyers back Mill's uncompromising stance. Douglas Connell, joint senior partner of leading private client firm Turcan Connell said: "While I am in favour of an independent complaints handling body, I think the notion that any law firm that has a service complaint made against them should be made to pay a levy of hundreds of pounds before a case is even heard, is iniquitous, indefensible and hugely open to abuse."

However Kirk Murdoch, senior partner of McGrigors said: "The mood of the country is no longer in favour of independent regulation. The decision has already been taken on this, so in my view Douglas Mill is pushing water uphill."