Part-time Sheriffs beat full-time colleagues & senior judges in expenses claims as Scots judiciary finally publish judicial expenses online

Scotland’s Lord President, Lord Hamilton now publishes his & judicial colleagues expenses online. EXPENSES CLAIMS of Scotland’s Court of Session judges, Sheriffs & Part-Time or Temporary Sheriffs have now been published on the Judiciary of Scotland’s website, after Freedom of Information requests earlier this year first revealed on Diary of Injustice, the true, if at times, staggering expenses claims of members of Scotland’s judiciary where Scotland’s 34 Court of Session judges were revealed to have claimed £78,988 in expenses on top of their already huge salaries ranging from a mere £172,753.00 for ‘outer house judges’ to the Lord President’s staggering £214,165.00, making a a collective annual salary of just over £6.1 million for the 34 Senators of the College of Justice as they are known, to keep the painfully slow wheels of Scots justice rolling & the Court of Session in business.

Quarterly figures now published by the judiciary itself reveal the extent of judges expenses claims. Figures now published by the Judiciary of Scotland website reveal the highs & lows in expenses claims of Scotland’s Court of Session judges, with Lord Kinclaven making the highest claim for travel & subsistence in the last available financial quarter at £3,656.40, closely followed by Lord Uist who claimed £3,011.72, Lord Woolman who claimed £2,217.78, Lord Pentland who claimed £1941.38 and Lady Clark of Calton who claimed £1,613.25, although all these judges are assigned ‘circuit duties’, meaning they sit in various courts throughout Scotland. The Lord President, Lord Hamilton himself claimed £259.90 while Lord Gill, the Lord Justice Clerk claimed £118.60. Several Court of Session judges claimed nothing at all in travel & subsistence, leaving the total expenses claimed by the 34 Court of Session judges at £15,945.99 from 1st April to 30 September 2010, full details available here : Senators of the Court of Session (pdf)

Full time Sheriffs expenses claims finally revealed. Among the Sheriffs, examples of expenses claims range from £4,503.50 for Sheriff R Anderson QC (who sits at ‘remote’ courts), £4,633.02 for Sheriff DO Sutherland, £3,719.01 for Sheriff AD Miller (floating Sheriff & formerly a part time Sheriff), £4,433.30 for Sheriff A Berry (floating Sheriff), and £3,411.51 for Sheriff Principal Sir ST Young Bt QC, to Sheriff MGR Edington, who claimed nothing, Sheriff Edington being one of the few, fine honest lawyers during his time in legal practice I’ve known, also not forgetting Sheriff Principal R A Dunlop QC, who claimed £752.60. The now Sheriff Dunlop was my Senior Advocate for my negligence case against crooked Borders lawyer Andrew Penman of Stormonth Darling Solicitors, Kelso. However, Alistair Dunlop QC as he was then was made a Sheriff the next week and conveniently taken away from my legal team, such is the fairness in the Scottish justice system no other Advocate could be found to take the case.

Many other Sheriffs claimed little or nothing at all, the full details of their expenses claims, which total £7,760.99 for the period 1st April to 30 September 2010 can be found here : Sheriffs Principal and Sheriffs (pdf)

Part-Time Sheriff who was involved in years-long tennis-playing crooked lawyer case, claimed £2,350.55 in expenses this year. A very much higher set of expenses claims are made by the Part-Time Sheriffs, who beat full time Sheriffs & the Court of Session judges by a long way with examples of claims ranging from £6,738.80 for Sheriff G Fleetwood, £5,048.25 for Sheriff DW Hall, £7,624.97 for Sheriff PGL Hammond, £4,252.35 for Sheriff EG Savage, £4,124.30 for Sheriff D McCaffrey, £4,854.98 for Sheriff V Johnston to £2,350.55 for Sheriff PA Reid who ‘prosecuted’ the tennis playing crooked lawyer Michael G Robson on behalf of the Law Society and decided to leave out my testimony for fear of giving me a fair hearing. You can read more about the Michael Robson case, here : Revelations in Court of Session appeal show Law Society & Fiscal deliberately failed to take witness affidavit and excluded crucial evidence

Some Part-Time Sheriffs claimed nothing, although not many. The full details of Part-Time Sheriffs expenses claims, which totalled a whopping £126,399.69 for the same period 1st April to 30 September 2010 can be found here : Part-time judicial office holders (pdf)

Judiciary for Scotland website published judicial expenses after FOI requests revealed cost of Scottish judiciary. The decision by the Judicial Office to publish expenses claims of Scotland’s judicial office holders comes after my earlier investigations into the expenses claims of Scotland’s judiciary, reported in August : The costs of Scotland's 'Victorian' Justice System : Court of Session judges paid £6.1 million as litigants struggle to obtain hearing dates & here : Justice Delayed ? Not when it comes to expenses claims as high earning Scots judges rake in at least £78K in ‘travel’ claims

The Scottish Government, responding to an initial Freedom of Information request in August of this year from Diary of Injustice on expenses claims by the judiciary stated : ”The total Travel & Subsistence claims from Scotland’s 34 Senators of the College of Justice for the financial year 2009-10 was £78,988 of which, £16,299 was for Inner House judges, and the remaining £62,689 was for Outer House. The Scottish Government said the only other expenses they would record in the accounts are the Wig & Gown allowance, a one-off payment when a new judge is appointed. It transpired no such payments were made during 2009-10”

However, The Scottish Government admitted in FOI responses there were no details held of the individual expenses claims for judges on a central database as the accounts system only recorded the totals charged against headings such as Travel and Subsistence. The new policy of publication of all judicial office holder’s expenses claims in Scotland brings transparency in expenses into line with England & Wales, details of which can be viewed on the English Judiciary’s website, here : Judicial Expenses for England & Wales

Scottish Government FOI release of Judicial Office holder’s expenses claims earlier this year. The figures released by the Scottish Government in September in response to a Freedom of Information request revealed while a Sheriff receives an annual salary of around £128,296 per annum, Scotland’s Sheriffs collectively claimed a further £176,431.37 in expenses in the last financial year 2009/2010, while part time sheriffs who are paid a daily fee of around £575 for each day of service claimed an additional much larger figure of £281,085.07 in expenses. The figures also reveal earlier & current expenses claims of £106,367.09 & £77,259.31 respectively for Scotland’s Court of Session judges (Senators) on salaries ranging from £172,753.00 to the Lord President’s staggering £214,165.00.

Will the increased transparency by way of publishing the judiciary’s expenses claims bring savings to the public purse ? We will just have to wait & see .. and monitor.

However, if anyone from the Judiciary of Scotland website is reading this, I would recommend publishing the expenses claims in normal web available html format as well as in pdf, to ensure taxpayers, constituents & court users can more easily check on how much the judiciary are costing us. Who knows, perhaps one day we may even see performance tables showing, for instance, how long cases take before Sheriffs, along with the decisions handed down etc

More information relating to how the judiciary conducts itself, along with recommendations for more transparency can be found at the following links :

The Report of the Scottish Civil Courts Review by the Lord Justice Clerk, the Rt Hon Lord Gill launched in September 2009 gives recommendations in relation to the provision of civil justice, including the structure, jurisdiction, and procedures of the courts.

The Independent Review of Sheriff and Jury Procedure by Sheriff Principal Bowen, published in June 2010 reviews sheriff and jury practice and procedure in Scotland with the aim of ensuring that the system is fair, efficient, modern and effective.

A Statement of Principles of Judicial Ethics for the Scottish Judiciary published April 2010 offers guidance and a framework of principles for members of the Scottish judiciary. More information and the full Statement can be found here.

University of Glasgow threatens legal action over publication of former Law Society Chief Douglas Mill’s taxpayer funded ‘lunches for judges’

Ex Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill, now Director of Legal Practice, University of Glasgow. DOUGLAS MILL, the controversial former Law Society of Scotland Chief Executive who once ‘swore on his granny’s grave' he had not intervened in damages claims made by ruined clients against crooked lawyers, to the Law Society’s Master Policy and who effectively resigned in disgrace after a bitter, much publicised confrontation with John Swinney MSP during a Justice 2 Committee meeting in 2006, has, in his position as Director of Legal Practice at the University of Glasgow, wined & dined a significant number of Sheriffs, judges, lawyers, tutors & even the media, all at the taxpayer’s expense.

Mr Mill’s expenses claims figures obtained through Freedom of Information legislation show the well known former Law Society Chief Executive who now has his own business “Douglas Mill Consulting” and has occupied a number of consulting posts in other roles, raked up thousands of pounds of expenses claims to taxpayers for at least sixteen lunches with judges, lawyers & ‘fellow’ tutors.

Readers, especially those who may already have been affected by the worst public service sector cuts in the entire history of the country, can view the details of Mr Mill expenses claims, published today by Scottish Law Reporter, here : Ex-Law Society Chief, now Glasgow University Legal Practice Director Douglas Mill soaks broke public coffers for ‘lunch with judges’ expense claims

Granny pays for the Law Society : Douglas Mill bills taxpayers for his annual Law Society membership fee. Staggeringly, Mr Mill also makes the public pick up the cost of his ‘annual retainer fee’ for the Law Society of Scotland, this despite the fact the entire country is facing the worst public service cuts in its entire history, with even the University of Glasgow recently announcing it is facing a £35m budget shortfall unless it takes action to cut costs.

While Mr Mill’s luxurious expenses claims figures make stark reading in recession hit Scotland, Glasgow University refused to disclose details of Mr Mill’s salary (thought to be £80,000 or more), and even threatened “Diary of Injustice” with legal action if any of the disclosures of Mr Mill’s expenses claims released by the University were published.

Glasgow University refuses to release details of ex Law Society Chief’s taxpayer funded ‘teaching’ salary. Glasgow University said : “The information on Douglas Mill’s annual salary has been withheld as: (a) the individual salary information is considered as personal data as defined in the Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA”); and (b) the release of such salary information would be in breach of the data protection principles as set-out in the Data Protection Act 1998. Therefore the exemption from release of such information applies as specified under section 38(1) (b) and 38(2) (a) (i) of FOISA.”

Glasgow University took the view that disclosure of such personal data would breach Data Protection Principles of the DPA where it claimed “The release of the salary information on an individual basis will undermine the expectation of the individual that his/her personal data would not be released.” – this despite Mr Mill’s salary being paid for by UK taxpayers. Glasgow University founded upon their refusal to disclose Mr Mill’s publicly funded salary by referring to an English FOI case involving the University of Cambridge (30 July 2007).

Cash strapped Glasgow University then went onto claim the details of Mr Mill’s salary & expenses “shall not be transferred to a country or territory outside the European Economic Area unless that country or territory ensures an adequate level of protection for the rights and freedoms of data subjects. The release of personal data may result in a real risk of his/her personal data being displayed on the internet and thus viewable outside the European Economic Area.”

The University ended its terse response to the FOI request threatening legal action under copyright legislation if publication took place : “Breach of copyright law is an actionable offence and the University expressly reserves its rights and remedies available to it pursuant to the CDPA and common law.”

Sir Fred Goodwin, brought the RBS & UK Treasury to near collapse, was defended by Douglas Mill. It is also worth noting while Douglas Mill’s expenses on dinners put First Minister’s Alex Salmond’s food allowance claims to shame, the cuts which are affecting every facet of public life in the UK, from health to employment, from life to death, are principally caused by the massive multi billion pound taxpayer bailouts of banks such as the Royal Bank of Scotland, whose former Chief Executive Sir Fred Goodwin was personally defended by Mr Mill several times despite Goodwin leading the RBS and the entire country to near financial collapse.

You can read more of my report on Douglas Mill’s defence of Sir Fred Goodwin, here : Royal Bank failure blamed on lack of regulation by ex Law Society Boss who campaigned against stronger regulation of solicitors

For those who may wish to refresh their memories over Douglas Mill’s confrontation with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, John Swinney, read this : Law Society boss Mill lied to Swinney, Parliament as secret memos reveal policy of intervention & obstruction on claims, complaints.

Holyrood 2006 : John Swinney MSP exposed corruption at the very heart of the Law Society with a secret memo from Douglas Mill (click image below to watch video)

Douglas Mill’s own memo depicted interference in claims against crooked lawyers. While Douglas Mill famously said “I will go on oath and on record, and I will swear on my granny's grave, that never once have I, any member of my staff or any office-bearer dabbled in a claim”, a claim Mr Mill came to regret after Mr Swinney presented the Justice 2 Committee with a copy of one of Mr Mill’s own memos showing Mill & the Law Society clearly did dabble in claims, it turns out that not only could granny not swear by the Law Society, everyone’s taxes and their grannies are now helping to pay for Mr Mill’s lunches with judges … tough times indeed, and little wonder that Glasgow University who themselves are having to make cuts, don't want the details of Mr Mill’s expenses claims leaking out to the public.

Glasgow University’s refusal to disclose Douglas Mill’s publicly funded salary, and the terms of their legal threat against publication of their disclosure of Mr Mill’s expenses claims has been passed to Kevin Dunion, Scotland’s Information Commissioner for further investigation.

Justice Delayed ? Not when it comes to expenses claims as high earning Scots judges rake in at least £78K in ‘travel’ claims

Scotland’s top judges at the Court of Session claimed £78K expenses on top of huge salaries. EXPENSES CLAIMS of Scotland’s already high earning 34 judges at the country’s highest court, the Court of Session in Edinburgh topped a whopping ‘recorded’ sum of £78,988 in the last financial year, according to details released by the Scottish Government in response to a Freedom of Information request, continuing my reporting on the costs of Scotland’s justice system, which I initially covered here : The costs of Scotland's 'Victorian' Justice System : Court of Session judges paid £6.1 million as litigants struggle to obtain hearing dates

However, it transpires the amount claimed by judges may be higher as the Scottish Government, who were & still are responsible for paying judges salaries, ranging from a mere £172,753.00 for ‘outer house judges’ to the Lord President’s staggering £214,165.00 now admit there were no details held of the individual expenses claims for judges on a central database as the accounts system only recorded the totals charged against headings such as Travel and Subsistence.

The total Travel & Subsistence claims from Scotland’s 34 Senators of the College of Justice for the financial year 2009-10 was £78,988 of which, £16,299 was for Inner House judges, and the remaining £62,689 was for Outer House. The Scottish Government said the only other expenses they would record in the accounts are the Wig & Gown allowance, a one-off payment when a new judge is appointed. It transpired no such payments were made during 2009-10.

To the figures into perspective against the salaries of Scotland’s Court of Session judges :

Inner House

First Division

Lord Hamilton, the Lord President (Civil) and the Lord Justice General receives £214,165.00 p.a. Lord Kingarth, Lord Eassie, Lord Reed & Lord Hardie each receive £196,707.00 p.a.

Second Division

Lord Gill, Lord Justice Clerk receives £206,857.00 p.a. Lord Osborne , Lady Paton, Lord Carloway, Lord Clarke & Lord Mackay of Drumadoon each receive £196,707.00 p.a.

Outer House (all 23 judges receive £172,753.00 p.a.)

Lord Bonomy, Lord Menzies, Lord Drummond Young, Lord Emslie, Lady Smith, Lord Brodie, Lord Bracadale, Lady Dorrian, Lord Hodge, Lord Glennie, Lord Kinclaven, Lord Turnbull, Lady Clark of Calton, Lord Brailsford, Lord Uist, Lord Malcolm, Lord Matthews, Lord Woolman, Lord Pentland, Lord Bannatyne, Lady Stacey, Lord Tyre, & Lord Doherty

Scotland’s Lord President Lord Hamilton heads the new Scottish Court Service Corporate Body, a duty of which will be to keep an eye on expenses. The disclosure from the Scottish Government went onto state that although Scottish Government remains responsible for paying judges salaries, from 1 April 2010 responsibility for paying all other judicial expenses transferred to the Judicial Office as part of the new Scottish Court Service corporate body, established following implementation of the Judiciary & Courts (Scotland) Act 2008.

The Lord President, Lord Hamilton is of course, the head of the new Scottish Court Service corporate body, which I reported on earlier this year, here : Scottish Courts Service becomes an ‘arm's length’ independent quango led by Lord President & corporate board

While the Scottish Government apparently did not hold details of judges individual expenses claims, the situation in England & Wales is markedly different, with all judicial expenses being registered, where ‘the expenses claims of High Court Judges and above are recorded in such a way that they can be attributed to individual judges and published at regular intervals’.

Details of the English judicial expenses system and figures can be found here : Judicial Expenses for England & Wales, and as expenses are now to be ‘held centrally’ by the new Judicial Office, it is to be hoped a similar air of transparency regarding judicial expenses claims will prevail in Scotland, with all expenses details being published online, in keeping with the rest of the UK.

Westminster Expenses : They work for you, are paid for by you, have possibly stolen from you, but they feel they are not accountable to you

Westminster publishes MPs expenses online with most details blanked out. The House of Commons has finally published MPs expenses online, however many of the details have been blanked out, because while we as taxpayers are paying MPs salaries and their expenses, we are it seems not entitled to see what we are paying for, or by the looks of it, any returns the country actually gains by allowing politicians to claim for all & sundry from us, the taxpayer.

An MP’s British Telecom reminder blacked out – would you pay a bill if it landed through your letterbox in this state ?. While members of the House of Commons seemingly can get anything & everything paid for by the taxpayer, from mortgage interest, to second homes allowances, to telephone bills to the removal of moss from their umpteenth house, or duck houses and repairs to swimming pool boilers .. the ones paying it – us, are not entitled to see exactly where the money is going and what the justification is for their huge expenses to the country, particularly in these crushing financial times.

For a couple of samples of today’s publication of expenses from Westminster, via Freedom of Information (in other words, the blacked out version, as opposed to the Telegraph ‘warts and all’ version) we see among the Scottish contingent, Alex Salmond claiming for mortgage expenses and a rather costly envelope folder, as well as curtains & bedding .. with Scottish Conservative MP David Mundell keeping the First Minister company on mortgage expenses, which I'm sure probably most of the country would like to join in with, having mortgages, bedding, curtains, food, and letter folder contraptions paid for out of thin air out of other people's taxes & hard work.

A sample of First Minister Alex Salmond’s Westminster Expenses as an MP :

A sample of South of Scotland MP David Mundell’s Westminster expenses :

Virtually all the documents have blacked out parts, leading one to conclude democracy, transparency and accountability have most definitely been blacked out in the entire country. I wonder where politicians learned that little trick from ? It surely couldn’t be the legal profession, could it ? … and lets not forget Kenny MacAskill, Scotland’s Justice Secretary is busy trying to keep the Law Society of Scotland exempt from Freedom of Information laws, just in case we begin to find out many of the dirty secrets of Scotland’s less than honest legal profession : MacAskill’s ‘no intention to include Law Society in FOI review’ allows lawyers to keep scandals & criminal records hidden from public scrutiny

If it had not been for the Telegraph newspaper, we would have been none the wiser on crooked politicians expenses claims. Exposing this organised ‘thieving’ from the country of course, fell to the Telegraph newspaper, rather than Freedom of Information legislation, because as we now see in today’s release of expenses information from Westminster, it would not be possible to see who had been flipping homes, and who was claiming what for which property. It is therefore clear that FOI legislation will have to change because it is being used to deceive rather than empower, just as we have seen the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission use FOI to cover up scandalous workings within its increasingly bizarre operations of allegedly regulating the Scottish legal profession.

I reported some rather secretive goings on at the SLCC where similar blacked out documents were issued to hide controversial information here : FOI disclosures censored to law journalists as MacAskill’s legal complaints commission prefers secrecy to public accountability

MSP David McLetchie was among those politicians caught out at Holyrood claiming thousands for expenses. MSPs might like to think they are whiter than their Westminster counterparts, but as we know here in Scotland, that is most certainly not the case. While MSPs expenses are now published online, again, it took pressure from newspaper investigations such as those in the Sunday Herald to force the changes at Holyrood which Westminster will now have to go through.

You can read more about MSPs expenses milking in an earlier article, here : First Minister Alex Salmond admits he's not 'whiter than white' over Westminster expenses scandal as questions arise over £800 food allowance claims

If you want to find out more about your own MP’s expenses at Westminster (and there is a lot to find out !), click the following link which leads to the BBC News website :

MPs' expenses: Find your MP

and the main story from BBC News :

MPs' expenses made public online

The expenses claims of every MP for the past four years have been published, but with some key details blacked out.

Commons authorities have published the details after a long-running Freedom of Information battle.

The addresses that claims relate to - and correspondence - have been removed on privacy and security grounds.

This means it is not possible to see if MPs "flipped" second homes - a key part of the Daily Telegraph's revelations from its leaked version of the data.

MPs have said some details, like addresses and travel patterns, have to be withheld for security reasons .

But other details have been removed in the official version such as Prime Minister Gordon Brown's claims for his Sky television subscription - despite the fact it was published last year, also under the Freedom of Information Act.

The uncensored details obtained by the Daily Telegraph have led to weeks of revelations and a slew of resignations from MPs.

On Wednesday Treasury minister Kitty Ussher stepped down amid reports that she changed the designation of her constituency home to avoid capital gains tax.

Ms Ussher said she acted within the rules but wanted to protect the government from further embarrassment amid public anger about expenses.

The BBC's political editor Nick Robinson said that if the full uncensored claims had not been leaked to the Telegraph, then MPs like Miss Ussher would still be in their jobs.

Among Daily Telegraph revelations that do not appear in the blacked out versions of MPs' receipts are:

• Andrew MacKay - From the official receipts it would not have been possible to know the Tory MP claimed for a second home without having a main constituency home.
  
• Margaret Moran - The Labour MP who claimed £22,000 for dry rot on her second home. The receipts do not show her second home was in Southampton -100 miles from her Luton constituency.
  
• Sir Peter Viggers - Tory MP who tried to claim £1,645 for a "duck island", the official receipts show no evidence of the unsuccessful claim.
  
• Hazel Blears - The former Labour minister claimed second home expenses for three different properties in a single year but the redacted receipts do not show this as addresses are blacked out.

Heather Brooke, one of the campaigners who brought the Freedom of Information case, told the BBC the official publication was a "substandard version".

She pointed out the High Court had ordered that second home addresses be published - MPs rejected this in a later Commons vote, arguing it would jeopardise their security.

"It's the only way to police effectively whether there is a second home and whether the mortgage exists whether it's been paid off or not and they are still claiming. It's really the only way we can hold them to account on that second home allowance."

'Seismic changes'

She said the security argument had been "totally discredited" adding: "I can see that avoiding embarrassment has been the key motivating factor of what's been deleted."

And Maurice Frankel, of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, also said the official version was a "very poor substitute": "The mood of the House of Commons was that they did not want any of this information to be published and, failing that, as little as possible."

But cabinet minister Hilary Benn told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The argument for keeping bank details, phone numbers and addresses confidential I think is a fair one."

But he said the system needed to change: "That's why we've seen seismic changes, that's why Parliament has already taken steps to alter the rules why Christopher Kelly's committee will look at what the new system will be."

He added the problems were the result of self regulation - now expenses would be audited independently.

For the Conservatives, shadow Commons leader Alan Duncan said: "I think the black ink is justified where it is things like ex-directory phone numbers ... and personal details and bank accounts."

He said changes had been made to ensure MPs could not "play around with the second home address in order to extract as much money as possible out of the system".

Exclusions

But he said "at the very least" addresses should be properly audited.

"Whether the exact address should be put up which would allow people to walk up your front drive I think is a grey area - but the verification of the house and the consistency of the house that is registered is important."

More than a dozen MPs have said they plan to stand down since the furore over expenses began and many have had to repay money - more than £300,000 has been repaid.

Claims made by all 646 MPs under three different allowances since 2004 have been published alphabetically on the Parliament website with thousands of receipts made available in a series of PDF files.

The Telegraph's reports focused largely on the additional costs allowance, designed to cover costs associated with second homes.

WITHIN THE RULES

£24,000-a-year Additional Costs Allowance, which covers the running of MPs' second homes

£22,193-a-year Incidental Expenses Provision, which pays for running an office

£10,400-a-year Communications Allowance, which funds websites, newsletters, stationery and postage

The paper highlighted the practice of "flipping" - by which some MPs switched the designation of their homes and claimed allowances for several properties over the four year period and other claims that were within the rules - but questionable.

Last year, the Commons agreed to blank out certain information considered sensitive including addresses and all communications with the Fees Office. MPs have been able to suggest further exclusions.

Other information published on Thursday includes the incidental expenses provision for office costs and the communications allowance - Parliament had been ordered to publish them by the High Court.

Labour has referred MPs accused of making questionable claims to an internal disciplinary panel, which has barred five MPs from standing at the next election.

The Tories have asked all its MPs to submit their claims to an internal panel for scrutiny, with a handful of MPs either being forced to stand down or choosing to retire.

The furore has led to interim changes to the second homes allowance while the Committee of Standards in Public Life is holding an inquiry into expenses and will recommend changes to allowances rules.

Gordon Brown has said oversight of MPs expenses must be handed over to an external regulator as part of a root and branch reform of Parliament.

The Daily Telegraph's assistant editor Andrew Pierce told the BBC they would publish the entire list of claims submitted by the cabinet on Friday and every MP's expenses on Saturday - to allow people to draw their own conclusions about what had been "censored".

"I suspect it could be that more MPs will be considering their position and maybe their party leaders will be considering whether they are really fit to be an MP," he said.

First Minister Alex Salmond admits he's not 'whiter than white' over Westminster expenses scandal as questions arise over £800 food allowance claims

Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond blamed expensive food allowance claims on William Wallace events. Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond who is also an MP at Westminster, been sucked into the expenses scandal at the House of Commons in London, with revelations Mr Salmond had claimed £800 for food expenses for two months, while the Parliament was actually in summer recess.

Mr Salmond, speaking on BBC radio last week, did not give specifics to callers on his expenses claims, choosing to blame attending William Wallace commemoration events as one of the reasons for the large food claims. Mr Salmond continued, saying he was "quite happy to go before an independent audit" but admitted no one including himself could claim they were "whiter than white" in the expenses scandal.

First Minister Alex Salmond on £800 food claims admits "I'm not whiter than white" in expenses scandal.

The SNP's Nigel Don embarked on a series of property deals to get Holyrood to pay his mortgage. While the First Minister claimed on BBC Radio that no one within the SNP had been 'house flipping' to claim thousands of pounds from the taxpayer on second homes, recent revelations over Nigel Don's property deals to secure £688 a month from the taxpayer to pay his mortgage, despite receiving a salary of £55,381. It is worth noting that Mr Don is also Parliamentary assistant to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, and is also a member of Holyrood’s Petitions Committee, where recently Mr Don’s remarks on an access to justice petition ‘constituted disinformation’ as some pointed out at the time.

I wrote about Mr Don’s mortgage arrangements and work on the Petitions Committee in an earlier article here : Influencing Justice reforms in Scotland worth ‘price of a mortgage allowance’ as MacAskill's ministerial aide gets £688 a month to fund capital flat

Christine Grahame, the SNP’s MSP for South Scotland claimed a staggering £26,465 for ‘stationery’. Another example of huge expenses claims at Holyrood surfaced recently with revelations the SNP’s Christine Grahame claimed a staggering £26,465 for postage and stationery, while other politicians from the Tories and Liberal Democrats representing the same area claimed ‘significantly less’ sums. You can read more about MSPs stationery claims here : Scottish Parliament : Christine Grahame’s £26k stationery expenses claim on 'consultations'

Currently, up to 28 MSPs at the Scottish Parliament, 12 of that number being SNP MSPs and 6 of those being Cabinet Ministers in the Scottish Government, including the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, John Swinney, are claiming mortgage interest payments of up to £1000 a month from the Scottish taxpayer to pay for their second homes in Edinburgh. This state of affairs could hardly be described as being ‘whiter than white’ – Scottish MSPs collectively claiming millions of pounds from the taxpayer in expenses while themselves claiming they are a model for transparency & accountability compared to their colleagues caught up in the Westminster expenses scandal.

You can read more about the Scottish Parliament’s own expenses milking scandal here : An extra £2m for MSPs at Holyrood while Westminster’s reputation withers in expenses scandal

Many MSPs have ensured they have not been outdone by their Westminster counterparts in expenses claims, in examples I have previously covered here : Scottish MSPs get in on the act of expenses milking too

Ex Tory leader & lawyer David McLetchie was brought down over huge taxi expenses claims. The Scottish Conservatives, who have raised the issue of the First Minister’s food expenses, have themselves suffered expenses scandals, which led to the resignation of David McLetchie as the Scottish Conservative Party leader, after revelations he claimed more than £11,500 for taxi journeys ‘into the unknown’, some of the destinations being revealed later as his law office at Tods Murray, and a few trips to Morningside …. You can read more of the McLetchie scandal here : McLetchie taxi details revealed

It is also worth noting that while the Liberal Democrats in England have been told to pay back any Capital Gains Tax on profits made by selling properties funded by taxpayers, the Scottish end of the party, seems to have a different policy for its members, as has been covered in the media here : LibDems leader Tavish Scott refuses to reveal capital gains tax payments on property profits

Lets also not forget that Scottish politicians were also recently caught for even claiming wreaths from the taxpayer, reported last month here : Scottish Parliament MSPs 'as crooked Westminster' claimed expenses for funeral wreaths

What is so disgusting to me, is that while there are people including children literally begging for cancer or other medical treatments to their local NHS Trusts throughout the country, only to be told there is either no money to pay for it, or that they are in the wrong postcode, politicians from all political parties, including the SNP are able to basically claim for what they want. A thoroughly disgusting situation which no honest decent person can defend.

How could a politician, already being paid over £70,000 plus, justify they deserve £800 for food, or £14,000 to clean moss off the front of their house, while, say, a 14 year old child cannot get a life saving course of medication simply because they live in the wrong area or their own health board has run out of money. That HAS to be an affront to humanity, politicians putting money and self gain before the lives of constituents while having such a huge salary for allegedly representing our interests.

Indeed the caller in the radio show who questioned Mr Salmond on his food expenss may well be right when he said “All you politicians are in it to line your own pockets”.That much is true – they certainly do, but it must now stop, and we the electorate must hold all politicians to account for their actions of lining their own pockets, no matter which party they are from.

The Sunday Herald reports :

Fresh challenge to Salmond over London meals claims

By Tom Gordon, Scottish Political Editor

ALEX SALMOND is facing fresh accusations over his expenses as an MP, after the Conservatives proved he was out of London for several weeks during the whole period for which he submitted maximum claims for meals from the House of Commons.

The first minister claimed the monthly £400 maximum for both August and September 2005, despite Westminster being in summer recess.

Salmond has repeatedly refused to publish his diaries for the months, dismissing suggestions the claims were unjustified as "laughable".

Last week, he told a BBC Radio Scotland phone-in: "I was in London in recess in 2005. MPs often go to London. They were all legitimate Parliamentary claims."

But the Scottish Tories last night produced a list culled from SNP press releases and newspapers showing Salmond was in Scotland on at least 22 of the 61 days in question. His eight August engagements included Robin Cook's funeral, a cricket match in Edinburgh, a gala in Rhynie, an art exhibition in Banff, and a constituent's 100th birthday in Portsoy.

The following month he was in Scotland for at least a fortnight, campaigning in the Livingston and Cathcart by-elections, and attending the SNP conference in Aviemore.

Salmond's spokesman said the first minister had never stated he was in London all the time, and suggested some of the claims might refer to days when parliament was sitting.

Besides claiming £400 for food in August and September, Salmond also claimed the maximum for six other months in 2005-06, a total of £3200. He also claimed £1751 for food in 2007-08, when he was first minister, despite voting on only six days in the Commons.

Annabel Goldie, the Scots Tory leader, last night wrote to Salmond urging him to publish his diaries. She said: "I am asking him to be open and transparent with the taxpayers about his Westminster expenses. He claimed the maximum food allowance of £800 for August and September 2005, but there are doubts over how much time he actually spent in London during that period that would justify such a large claim.

"I hope for the sake of the Scottish Parliament he takes this opportunity to clear up any lingering doubt."

Salmond has been the MP for Banff and Buchan since 1987 and is also the MSP for Gordon.

The continuing row over his Commons expenses comes as a fresh review of the MSP expenses system begins at Holyrood.

Sir Neil McIntosh is to examine whether "key elements of the scheme could be expected to continue to command public confidence".

Although praised as more transparent than Westminster, the Holyrood scheme still allows MSPs to keep all profit from the sale of second homes funded by the taxpayer.

Last month, the Sunday Herald revealed 28 MSPs currently claiming mortgage interest would make around £2 million profit if they sold up.

A Holyrood source said the McIntosh review, which will report by December, was aimed squarely at closing the second homes loophole. Tavish Scott, the Scottish LibDems leader, who would make a £120,000 profit on his second home, is under fresh attack over "despicable" expense claims by his MSPs.

Peter Nield, a LibDem councillor in Angus, resigned from the party in disgust at Scott's failure to discipline four LibDems who claimed for Remembrance Day poppy wreaths.

Although all agreed to repay the money after the claims were publicised, Nield said that was "irrelevant".

Now sitting as an independent, he said of Scott: "When a party leader is so out of touch with society he does nothing to reprimand those responsible, it is a step too far for me. It is despicable MSPs on good salaries and generous expenses claim back Remembrance Day poppies as expenses."

A LibDem spokesman described Nield's decision as "disappointing".

In a statement, Salmond said he was "entirely confident" about his expenses. "I was in London in both August and September, securing an unfurnished rented flat and other engagements, and during that period also paid bills from the Commons refreshment department incurred during the parliamentary session."

***

Council expenses cost taxpayer £3m Argyll and Bute Scotland's most expensive authority By Tom Gordon, Scottish Political Editor

SCOTLAND'S councillors claimed more than £3 million in expenses last year on top of £22.4m in salaries, according to new official figures. In recent days, all 32 local authorities were forced by law to publish councillors' salaries and expenses for 2008-09, showing spending on travel, accommodation, meals, phones and IT.

Analysis by the Sunday Herald shows that the average expenses claimed per councillor ranged from £325 in the country's smallest authority, Clackmannanshire, to £6004 per head in the largest, Argyll and Bute. The Scottish average was £2486.

Under a complicated remuneration formula, all 1222 councillors earned a basic salary of at least £15,000, with more for those in bigger councils and those with special responsibilities, such as committee chairs, and provosts.

The most expensive council in terms of salaries was the City of Edinburgh, with its 58 members taking home an average £21,079 in pay.

The least expensive was Moray, with its 26 members earning an average salary of £17,314. The average across the country was £18,351.

Overall, the most expensive council, including salaries and expenses, was Argyll and Bute, run by a coalition of Independents and the SNP. Its 36 councillors cost an average of £24,088. With 25 inhabited islands covering the largest geographical area of any council, their expense claims included £152,974 on mileage and £10,703 on ferry fares.

The least expensive was Labour-run Inverclyde, whose 20 members each cost £18,128 overall. Across Scotland, the average councillor cost £20,837.

Despite outnumbering them 10 to one, the councillors expense claims came to less than a third of those made by MSPs.

The highest expenses claim was made by the SNP's Donald Manford, chairman of the transportation committee in the Western Isles, whose £20,081 claim was larger than his £17,819 salary - it included £11,740 in travel and £5300 in subsistence claims.

In contrast, several dozen councillors around the country claimed no expenses at all.

Argyll and Bute said its unique geography contributed to high costs. A spokeswoman said: "We have very strict controls on what can be claimed as expenses, and in what circumstances claims can be authorised.

"Receipts are required not only for subsistence or accommodation claims, but also for fuel ...

"Councillor remuneration is fixed by the government by statutory order, not by councils themselves. Mileage rate is also fixed by government."

Robert McGill, the deputy leader of Labour-run Clackmannanshire council, said: "We are looking to offer value for money to our constituents. It's important that local people trust their council and the expenses are all itemised and accounted for."

The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the umbrella body which represents all of the country's 32 councils, said: "Scotland's democratically elected councillors offer extremely good value for money.

"Councils put a real value on the public pound and therefore operate extremely well controlled systems around expenses for councillors.

"All expenditure rightly needs to be proven and would include things like the cost of mobile phone calls, IT and the sort of other businesslike necessities being a democratically elected member committed to representing communities entails."

Westminster Expenses : Ex Scottish Borders Libdem MP Lord Kirkwood claimed furnishings & more on taxpayer - should be stripped of title

Archy Kirkwood as a member of Parliament offered little help to victims of crooked Scottish Borders lawyers. Former Scottish Borders MP, now 'Lord' Archy Kirkwood features in today's Telegraph newspaper revelations on the Westminster expenses scandals, and deservingly so, as the paper reports he "claimed £5,000 in expenses to refurbish his London flat before retiring as an MP and selling it to his daughter for less than half its value."

Archy Kirkwood offered little help against crooked lawyer Andrew Penamn & crooked accountant Norman Howitt. I always wondered what Archy Kirkwood did for the Scottish Borders, because all I was ever able to secure from him was a letter writing contest to the former Scottish Office then Scottish Executive on the corruption of crooked Borders lawyer Andrew Penman of Stormonth Darling solicitors, Kelso - right in the heart of Archy Kirkwood's constituency. It seemed to me, backed up by information provided by others in the region, Mr Kirkwood was a touch soft on the likes of crooked lawyers, and particularly didn't want to do much regarding corrupt Borders accountants such as Norman Howitt, who you can read more about here : A picture is worth a thousand words - Images of fraud reveal corruption & deceit by lawyers & accountants in the Scottish Borders

Borders accountant Norman Howitt of JRW Group, Hawick took pensioner’s pension & bank book, even made false statements to Police to cover his tracks, but Kirkwood did nothing. Now, you’d think ‘Lord’ Kirkwood would have done something about a crooked accountant confiscating a pensioner’s pension book and wanting to take control of a pensioner’s entire savings for himself .. but, strangely, no. It seems there was too much to gain from supporting the same crooked accountancy and legal firms as one of the region’s leading solicitors informed me …

However, it wasn't just me who felt the lack of support from Mr Kirkwood during his time as an MP, after several people in the Borders began to contact me over similar problems in getting Mr Kirkwood to do anything for them at all other than the standard fair of writing letters, while refusing to raise issues or early day motions at the Westminster Parliament, during the time where that's all we had as a legislature.

Taking a look around the Scottish Borders as I did before I left it years ago (and apparently it has changed little to-date) backs up the idea the region needs younger, harder working idealistic politicians who have the region's people and Scotland's interests at heart, rather than preferring the Westminster cabal to give them long term jobs and the facility to milk the taxpayer for expenses while their constituency lies in ruins.

I note Lord Kirkwood still remains in the LibDems armoury, his name cropping up on the GovNet website here, alongside other such luminaries as Lord Foulkes of Cummock, also an MSP : Govnet Advisory Board, which lists his following details as :

Lord Archy Kirkwood of Kirkhope

Archy Kirkwood was MP for Roxburgh and Berwickshire for 22 years, standing down at the May 2005 General Election. First elected in June 1983, he became the Liberal Party’s spokesman on Health, Social Services and Social Security. In 1992, he became the Chief Whip of the Liberal Democrat parliamentary party. In 1997 Archy became Chair of the Social Security Select Committee (now Work & Pension Committee).

He served on the House of Commons Audit Committee and on the House of Commons Commission and was knighted in 2003 for services to Parliament. Archy was made a life peer in 2005. He is currently head of external relations at the office of the Liberal Democrat Leader.

However, despite all of his positions, 'Lord' Kirkwood is now revealed as just another British politician who has milked the taxpayer, for, as the Telegraph reports, everything down to £3,000 for carpets and flooring for his kitchen and bathroom from John Lewis and £94 for a lavatory paper holder and tiles from Fired Earth.

Not satisfied with that, as the Telegraph continues to report, he returned to John Lewis to buy a £207 bathroom cupboard and mirror, curtains for £90 and lighting worth £72. Whatever relationship carpets, flooring, and other furnishings has to politics, evades me. Pay the money back. In fact, give up your title - as sure as all titles should be stripped from any politician caught milking the system.

Congratulations to the Telegraph for their excellent reporting, and I hope someone makes 'Lord' Kirkwood pay all the money back he has claimed from the taxpayer, along with all the other Westminster, and Scottish politicians who have done the same. Politicians are paid plenty for their job, and should bear in mind its all about representing the community, not ripping us off.

Pay the money back 'Lord' Kirkwood. In fact, since everyone was recently shouting to take Sir Fred Goodwin's title away, give up your title too, 'Lord' Kirkwood, as sure as all titles & privileges should be stripped from any politician caught milking the system.

The Telegraph reports :

MPs' expenses: Lord Kirkwood did up flat on expenses, then sold it cheaply to daughter

Lord Kirkwood, a Liberal Democrat peer, claimed £5,000 in expenses to refurbish his London flat before retiring as an MP and selling it to his daughter for less than half its value.

By Jon Swaine
Published: 10:30AM BST 03 Jun 2009

The peer, a work and pensions spokesman, used public funds to buy carpets, curtains and bathroom furniture for his Westminster flat from stores including John Lewis and Fired Earth.

He made the purchases after announcing in April 2004 that he would retire as MP for Roxburgh and Berwickshire at the general election in May 2005. During his final year in the Commons, he claimed a total of £18,806 in allowances for the flat, which he bought for £182,500 in 2001.

These included about £670 a month to pay the interest on its mortgage. He then sold it in May 2007 to his daughter Holly, 31, a journalist for Country Life magazine, for £100,000. On Tuesday he said the flat had been valued at £225,000.

Three weeks before the sale, a flat in the same building sold for £358,000.

When he made the claims, Lord Kirkwood, then Sir Archy Kirkwood, sat on the House of Commons commission which was overseeing the first publication of basic details of MPs' expenses. As the details were published in October 2004, he said that he welcomed the fact that "taxpayers can really see how their money is being spent".

However, he dismissed suggestions that voters would be shocked by the amount of money involved. "I'm not saying it's an insignificant sum, but it's pretty small beer," he said.

Between November and December 2004, Lord Kirkwood claimed more than £3,000 for carpets and flooring for his kitchen and bathroom from John Lewis. He also claimed £94 for a lavatory paper holder and tiles from Fired Earth.

In April 2004, the month he announced his intention to step down as an MP, he claimed £200 for repairs to the flat's electrics. In June 2004, he claimed £50 for fans. In July he claimed £660 for unspecified work by a contractor.

Over the following months, he returned to John Lewis to buy a £207 bathroom cupboard and mirror, curtains for £90 and lighting worth £72.

In February 2005, he claimed £145 for a clothes rail and storage devices, £78 for kitchen stools and £56 for roller blinds. He also claimed £115 for computer equipment through his office expenses two months before he retired.

Lord Kirkwood, 63, had designated as his main home a house in Selkirk where he still lives with his wife Rosemary.

He claimed more than £63,000 in House of Lords allowances last year, including £20,019 on overnight subsistence: the Lords' equivalent of second home allowances.

He claimed £11,419 in "day subsistence" allowances, £11,419 in office running costs and £9,741 in travel costs.

Lord Kirkwood, who was knighted for services to Parliament in 2003, was one of five Lib Dem MPs put forward for peerages by Charles Kennedy, the then party leader, after the 2005 election. He announced his retirement after it was decided that his seat should merge with that of Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, which was held by Michael Moore, a fellow Lib Dem.

Lord Kirkwood said yesterday: "When I sold the flat to my daughter a professional valuation was secured on the property. It was valued at £225,000. This was declared for capital gains.

"The fuse box and wiring system was unsafe and needed to be replaced. There were some costs of relaying flooring in parts of the property."

'Self regulation' system which destroyed Westminster reputation must now end for all professions, industry & public services

Westminster Parliament used self regulation for decades to protect members unacceptable conduct on expenses. SELF REGULATION, the infamous liars charter which many professions and public services use to protect themselves against complaints from the general public, and even the law itself, is to end at Westminster, according to the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and the leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown speaks about the end of self regulation at Westminster after politicians from all parties were caught looting taxpayers money for personal expenses.

Conservative leader David Cameron also speaks about the end of self regulation at Westminster.

Yes, self regulation must now be ended in the UK political system, as it had utterly destroyed the public's faith & trust in the Westminster Parliament.

However, self regulation as we all know is a popular facility which many professions & industries and public services within the UK also use to protect themselves against public complaints of bad conduct, poor service, lack of honesty, theft & embezzlement of client & public funds, and in the case of Doctors, even negligent medical decisions which lead to the deaths of patients.

A roll call of self regulation and how it has affected all our lives :

Self regulation of bankers ensured lack of independent scrutiny of Sir Fred Goodwin's actions at Royal Bank of Scotland. Self regulation of the Banking & Finance sector has cost the UK dearly, and virtually brought public finances to the brink of bankruptcy, as bankers such as Sir Fred Goodwin's over zealous takeovers while in charge of the Royal Bank of Scotland have plunged the UK Banking sector into collapse and worldwide disrepute.

Doctors are self regulated by the General Medial Council, where complaints get less than a fair hearing according to many patients. If you have ever tried to complain against a Doctor, or medical facility such as a hospital, you will find that self regulation plays an extensive part in ensuring patients complaints are kept within the medical profession, and never really achieve a fair hearing. For instance, many medical decisions which could be called negligent, resulting in the deaths of patients, for example, either through lack of treatment or administering of the wrong medicine, are also covered up by self regulation.

Just look how self regulation of the UK medical profession has protected those who allowed the use of contaminated blood products which infected many haemophiliacs with Hepatitis C and even HIV infections, killing many and leaving thousands suffering from incurable diseases. I have reported on those matters here : Scottish blood infections inquiry will be 'another whitewash' as documents expected to be withheld to cover up public liability

Former Scottish Conservative leader David McLetchie lied over taxi expenses & journeys. Scottish Parliament has its own share of expenses scandals and self regulation has seen that no MSPs get prosecuted. Our dearly beloved Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, which some have been holding up as a model of expenses reform against the recent scandals at Westminster, has also had its fair share of expenses fiddling, with MSPs milking their expenses accounts to pay off mortgages, non existent travel, and even taxi fares.

No prosecutions or de-selections of MSPs have ever taken place at Holyrood despite all the expenses fiddling there, because of course, self regulation has allowed the Parliament to keep decisions on punishment and standards to itself. You can read some of my earlier articles on expenses scandals in Scottish politics, here: Scottish Parliament expenses scandals

Scottish Legal Complaints Commission was an attempt at independent regulation but was 'taken over’ by legal profession before it even existed. Despite attempts to create an independent regulator of the legal profession in Scotland by the previous Scottish Executive, the current Scottish Government stood by and allowed the legal profession to take over the 'independent' Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, ensuring once again, that 'virtual self regulation', as some at the Law Society of Scotland now call the SLCC remains the order of the day for complaints against solicitors in Scotland, and that even today, complaints by the public against crooked lawyers do not get a fair hearing, because too many lawyers and Law Society members were parachuted into the 'independent' SLCC via deals between the Law Society and the Scottish Government

Scottish accountants have used self regulation to hide corruption complaints against members. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS) is one of a number of organisations which self regulate its members, however the style of self regulation at ICAS has led to the cover up of some of the worst conduct of accountants in the UK, where fraud, embezzlement of client funds, even criminal activity by members, and many other types of complaints have been swept under the carpet of self regulation by the body which prides itself in having extensive political connections throughout the UK, including even members of the Privy Council which ICAS have used to prevent changes to independent regulation of accountants from taking place.

An example of how accountants self regulation affected my own family (in complaints which are common to many ICAS investigate) :

Norman Howitt, Borders Accountant with JRW Group was protected by self regulation of accountants. Norman Howitt, a Borders Accountant ruined my family's life, and got away with it because of self regulation at ICAS which even covered up the fact he gave false statements to Lothian & Borders Police to cover up his embezzlement of money into his accounting firm's accounts, from the sale of my late father's assets.

You can read more about what Norman Howitt and several lawyers in the Scottish Borders did to my family in the name of greed and taking money for themselves, here : A picture is worth a thousand words - Images of fraud reveal corruption & deceit by lawyers & accountants in the Scottish Borders

Scotsman newspaper led a campaign in the 90’s to end self regulation of Scots lawyers. The Scotsman newspaper reported on many occasions, the corruption of self regulation at the Law Society of Scotland which protected complaints against crooked Borders lawyer Andrew Penman of Stormonth Darling Solicitors, Kelso. No effort was spared by the Law Society of Scotland’s most senior officials to corrupt the investigation and derail any prosecution against Penman who also deceived the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Inland Revenue.

Philip Yelland, Law Society’s self regulation chief ordered solicitors to ignore clients instructions in cases against crooked lawyers. You can read more about the way self regulation of the legal profession was used by the Law Society of Scotland to protect crooked lawyers in my own case, here : The Scotsman reports : Andrew Penman, self regulation and the Law Society of Scotland and you can read about some of the lengths individuals at the Law Society of Scotland were prepared to go to defeat complaints against the legal profession as a whole, here : Law Society intervention in claims 'commonplace' as ex Chief admits Master Policy protects solicitors against clients

What we as the public have had to endure for far too long in Scotland, England & Wales, is a Crooked Curtain of self regulation that has been held firmly in place by the professions, many UK industries, public services, politics and Government (local & national), simply to protect those same professions, industries, public services and politicians from public accountability and transparency, which can only be achieved through fully independent regulation.

As we can see from the above examples, it is time to end self regulation for anyone & all public services, industry and professions in the UK, now.

Swinney expenses circulated by aggrieved lawyers over parliamentary confrontation with resigning Law Society Chief

The 'hero' of several campaigners for legal reform, John Swinney, who challenged the Law Society of Scotland's Chief Executive Douglas Mill in front of the Justice 2 Committee of the Scottish Parliament over corruption in the way complaints and claims against lawyers have been dealt with by the Law Society itself, has seemingly 'gone into silence' on the issue, after, it has been alleged, the legal establishment have given him a warning over his conduct, with the waiving of certain documents to preferred sections of the media ...

John Swinney v Douglas Mill at the Justice Committee - serious corruption revealed in Chief Executive's own attempts to thwart claims, which led to Mill's resignation.

You can read a lot more about the events leading up to Douglas Mill's resignation, which began with the confrontation between Mill & Swinney at the Parliament here : Breaking News : Law Society Chief Executive Douglas Mill who lied to Parliament, pursued 'personal vendetta' against critics - to resign

Now that you have watched the above video, and read my earlier report on Mr Mill's resignation, you should not be surprised to learn that earlier last week, documents were apparently being circulated by some aggrieved members of the Law Society, showing Mr Swinney's mortgage claims on his Parliamentary expenses account. The documents currently doing the rounds show among other things, Mr Swinney receiving regular payments for mortgage interest at around £900, with, curiously enough, even a 19pence stamp making the claims book.

John Swinney mortgage allowance claims

even a stamp ...

The documents, apparently released by members of the legal profession, who clearly support Douglas Mill and the Law Society's policy of beating down complaints against solicitors with a stick or anything higher, don't particularly show anything we don't already know, but I am slightly amazed myself at the size of the claims and seemingly attention to detail, while Mr Swinney's constituent, and others mentioned by him not only in that confrontation with Douglas Mill, but also within the Parliamentary debate on the LPLA Bill, have not yet seen their cases achieve a measure of settlement.

I was in two minds whether to cover the story at all, but in the interests of fairness, and the expectation of Mr Swinney's constituents and those he has helped over the issue of problems with regulation in the legal profession, the story does deserve coverage, also hopefully to limit the damage that certain forces may be trying to do to Mr Swinney's reputation, as was seen in the early part of 2007 when several Labour & Lib Dem MSPS were caught in mortgage allowance expenses, apparently after leaks of documents from a few lawyers who were ticked off after the passage of the LPLA Bill in the Scottish Parliament in mid December 2006 ...

John Swinney speaks in the Scottish Parliament on corruption within the Law Society of Scotland and interference with innocent people's access to justice.

As you know, I am a supporter of Mr Swinney, particularly over his courage to take on Douglas Mill in front of the Justice 2 Committee in 2006, and really get to the heart of the issues which have been burning up the public over their poor treatment by the Law Society of Scotland when it came to making complaints and financial claims against either negligent or crooked lawyers. I simply don't think that anyone else, with the exception of Phil Gallie, would have had the courage to ask those questions and take issue with Mr Mill, as John Swinney clearly did.

Surely Mr Swinney has been in government long enough now to ensure these cases attain a measure of settlement and closure, for the good of his constituents, the others he mentioned, and the interests of justice and the Scottish justice system as a whole.

It's not too much to ask or expect I think, for people to be given closure and peace of mind over wrongs which were perpetrated against them by the legal profession itself, and if the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Mr Swinney, cant put this issue on the table now and get it fixed for all concerned, we are living in a very sorry state of affairs in Scotland.

How about it John ? Lets give the innocent some justice and allow everyone to get on with their lives again ? It's time, and surely after you raised the subject, it's time to live up to the duty of seeing it through, which you have the power to do, and give some help to innocent Scots who are caught in this never ending injustice ...