House of Lords

[piratelassie]

Vote yes in the forthcoming referendum to get rid of the House of Lords. Not the only reason but another good reason, don't you think?

[piratelassie]

750 odd Lords in the House of Lords, each entitled to £300 per day, yes per day, attendance money. You work out the maths.

[orkneycadian]

If you insist..... :roll:

750 Lords at £300 per day = £225,000 per day, divided by 63,000,000 UK residents = 0.36p per UK resident per day.

MSP pay.

£58,678 per MSP per year, with the exception of;

First minister - £143,680
Cabinet secretary - £102,775
Minister - £86,300
Presiding officer - £102,775
Deputy presiding officer - £86,300
Lord advocate £116,287 (funny that the Scottish Parliament has a lord(s) too don't you think?)
Solicitor General for Scotland £100,337

Now, I do not know if there are more than 1 of any of these positions, but for simplicity, will assume there is only 1 of each.

Add that lot together = £738,454

There are 129 MSP's, subtract the 7 mentioned above = 122

122 times £58,678 = £7,158,716

Add the £738,454 for the "top brass" = £7,897,170

Divide that lot by the number of sitting days (3 a week from January to late June, and from early September to mid December = 120) and the Scottish population (5.3 million) and the cost per day to the Scottish population for each day of attendance of an MSP at Holyrood is 1.25p per day

So, the luxury of having an additional tier of un-necessary governance in Holyrood, costs 3.5 times more per head of population than having what you consider as the "un-necessary Lords", solely in attendance costs.

There you go. Maths done for you. Any other mathematical problems you need help with? For example, a comparison between the UK's estimate of Scotland's start up costs, with the SNP's estimate? Perhaps a breakdown of what the £440 million Holyrood white elephant cost each of us?

[tonkatojo]

If you insist..... :roll:

750 Lords at £300 per day = £225,000 per day, divided by 63,000,000 UK residents = 0.36p per UK resident per day.

MSP pay.

£58,678 per MSP per year, with the exception of;

First minister - £143,680
Cabinet secretary - £102,775
Minister - £86,300
Presiding officer - £102,775
Deputy presiding officer - £86,300
Lord advocate £116,287 (funny that the Scottish Parliament has a lord(s) too don't you think?)
Solicitor General for Scotland £100,337

Now, I do not know if there are more than 1 of any of these positions, but for simplicity, will assume there is only 1 of each.

Add that lot together = £738,454

There are 129 MSP's, subtract the 7 mentioned above = 122

122 times £58,678 = £7,158,716

Add the £738,454 for the "top brass" = £7,897,170

Divide that lot by the number of sitting days (3 a week from January to late June, and from early September to mid December = 120) and the Scottish population (5.3 million) and the cost per day to the Scottish population for each day of attendance of an MSP at Holyrood is 1.25p per day

So, the luxury of having an additional tier of un-necessary governance in Holyrood, costs 3.5 times more per head of population than having what you consider as the "un-necessary Lords", solely in attendance costs.

There you go. Maths done for you. Any other mathematical problems you need help with? For example, a comparison between the UK's estimate of Scotland's start up costs, with the SNP's estimate? Perhaps a breakdown of what the £440 million Holyrood white elephant cost each of us?


Now come on was it really necessary to shoot her down in flames so categorically. :roll:

[jacko]

come on now, have a heart , they need some place to go and sleep in peace and quiet. [disgust].

[Big Gaz]

For Sale - Single dose cans of smug-repellant..........bulk order discount for caithness.org forum members.....

[golach]

If you insist..... :roll:

750 Lords at £300 per day = £225,000 per day, divided by 63,000,000 UK residents = 0.36p per UK resident per day.

MSP pay.

£58,678 per MSP per year, with the exception of;

First minister - £143,680
Cabinet secretary - £102,775
Minister - £86,300
Presiding officer - £102,775
Deputy presiding officer - £86,300
Lord advocate £116,287 (funny that the Scottish Parliament has a lord(s) too don't you think?)
Solicitor General for Scotland £100,337

Now, I do not know if there are more than 1 of any of these positions, but for simplicity, will assume there is only 1 of each.

Add that lot together = £738,454

There are 129 MSP's, subtract the 7 mentioned above = 122

122 times £58,678 = £7,158,716

Add the £738,454 for the "top brass" = £7,897,170

Divide that lot by the number of sitting days (3 a week from January to late June, and from early September to mid December = 120) and the Scottish population (5.3 million) and the cost per day to the Scottish population for each day of attendance of an MSP at Holyrood is 1.25p per day

So, the luxury of having an additional tier of un-necessary governance in Holyrood, costs 3.5 times more per head of population than having what you consider as the "un-necessary Lords", solely in attendance costs.

There you go. Maths done for you. Any other mathematical problems you need help with? For example, a comparison between the UK's estimate of Scotland's start up costs, with the SNP's estimate? Perhaps a breakdown of what the £440 million Holyrood white elephant cost each of us?

What about our First Ministers incedental expenses, his Rupert Bear trews £600+ and his £500K trip to the Usa to attend the golf? + much more.

[Big Gaz]

What about our First Ministers incedental expenses, his Rupert Bear trews £600+ and his £500K trip to the Usa to attend the golf? + much more.

What about all the jollies Cameron and his cronies have taken? the cream-offs with all the expenses claims, the "2nd home" claims, the EU offce claims etc etc, and the list just goes on and on. I'm beginning to feel we live in a 3rd world corrupt country with all the shenanigans undertaken by the UK govt and their foul-ups. Sooner they get booted into touch, the better this disjointed and unevenly united country will be for it

[orkneycadian]

The OP only mentioned attendance money, so the Scottish Parliament costing was, as close as I could estimate from data on the Scottish Government website, restricted to cost of daily attendance as well. If things like expenses are to come into it as well, then that will apply to both sides. MSP's claim expenses just like the Lords do.

What is apparent is that the economy of scale of being in the UK is more efficient than being a small, independent nation.

[richardj]

I would be willing to pay more to keep the House of Lords - at least with the Lords we have some form of oversight over what Parliament does, in fact it would be better if the Lords had more power, and ideally were all elected.

[Rheghead]

How democratic is the House of Lords? How are they appointed?

[sids]

What about all the jollies Cameron and his cronies have taken? the cream-offs with all the expenses claims, the "2nd home" claims, the EU offce claims etc etc, and the list just goes on and on. I'm beginning to feel we live in a 3rd world corrupt country with all the shenanigans undertaken by the UK govt and their foul-ups. Sooner they get booted into touch, the better this disjointed and unevenly united country will be for it

I always like to see the "What about them?" debating gambit played!

[piratelassie]

None of the Lords are elected, thats my gripe

[sids]

None of the Lords are elected, thats my gripe

Yebbut they'd be commons, if they were elected

[Kenn]

I rather like their lordships, they are eccentric bordering on the mad, anti- establishment, a good mix of retired MPs ,bishops , leaders of industry who act as a brake on the knee jerk reactions of whatever party is in power.
We need a 2nd house to keep parliament at least partially honest.

[Phill]

None of the Lords are elected, thats my gripe
You do realise that if Salmond has his way, an Independent Scotland would be ran from Brussels with UNELECTED commissioners.

[Phill]

I rather like their lordships, they are eccentric bordering on the mad, anti- establishment, a good mix of retired MPs ,bishops , leaders of industry who act as a brake on the knee jerk reactions of whatever party is in power.
We need a 2nd house to keep parliament at least partially honest.
I quite agree. Whilst they are mostly troughing scum, like the rest of the political whores, they have kept check on the bent scum in the commons.

[orkneycadian]

And with about a quarter of them being independant of any political party, we have a better chance of them voting sense, rather than what the party whips tell them to vote for.

[piratelassie]

After independence there will be a general election to decide who governs Scotland, and incidently if the Lords are keeping a check on the Commons then they are doing a pathetic job of it.



You do realise that if Salmond has his way, an Independent Scotland would be ran from Brussels with UNELECTED commissioners.

[tonkatojo]

After independence there will be a general election to decide who governs Scotland, and incidently if the Lords are keeping a check on the Commons then they are doing a pathetic job of it.

Provided Brussels allows Scotland into their EEC, Scotland and whichever government is applicable will still have to obey Brussels or face their penalties.

[PantsMAN]

Always refreshing to hear that the serfs still prefer having the Lords lord it over them.

The thing is, so many of them feel that much more secure knowing that people of 'high' birth, political appointees, and the very occasional elevated commoner are in place to maintain the status-quo and care for the proletariat.

Of course up here, north of Hadrian's wall, it's the people that are sovereign and quite a few of us would gladly dump the un-elected second chamber as a matter of principle.

There, I can't imagine any kind of negative response to that wee rant. :D

[Oddquine]

piratelassie was wrong to cite only the House of Lords, though.....because we don't just pay a share of the House of Lords, do we? We pay a share of every penny spent by Westminster on the House of Commons and the 24 Departments of State and the Cabinet Office etc. And orkneycadian was being a bit of a chancer cutting it down to a daily rate per MSP/Lord. :Razz

Never been a fan of this "If we stay in the Union we'd be better off by £1400 per head"..or "if we get Independence, we'd be better off by £1000 a head".....or even dafter, the likes of orkneycadian's 1.25p versus 0.36p a day...because of course we wouldn't....that is a really stupid way to put it...but what it does mean is that there would be 5.3 million x £1400 or £1000 or, in orkneycadians offered figures a total of £7,897,170 which could be spent on other more useful things.

Thing is that, if we stayed in the Union, we wouldn't be better off by £1400 per head..or £1400 x 5,300,000....because we'd never see it. Those figures are predicated on us sending the money down south and down south spending it for us! Which part of Scotland’s fiscal position already relies on spending all of the revenues from a geographic share of the North Sea. So there would be no fiscal benefit from independence: the revenues can’t be spent twice would make those able to read think otherwise. We wouldn't sodding well be spending the money twice, because we wouldn't be sending it all down the road so they can spend it for us in the first place....in fact, we are spending a lot of the money twice now as in the layers of Government..and having to pay the UK Foreign Embassies, to which we contribute, to promote Scottish goods when those in the UK trade delegations get promotions free....and will be paying twice again when we have to pay HMRC extra for collecting the Scottish taxes we are going to be forced to collect.:roll: And which part of Scotland being independent would make anyone with a lick of commonsense assume that meant following slavishly the spending priorities of a Government which thinks money is for printing?

If you think, as I do that the unnecessary level of Government is the one which resides in Westminster, then here's a small example of money wastage. We know that, in the year up to to March 2013, the Scottish Parliament cost £68.6 million to run, including MSP salaries of £11.1 million parliamentary staff salaries of £21.6 million , admin and property running costs of £15.8 million, MP staffing and accommodation for offices and salaries of £12.2 million, and running costs of the Commissioners and Ombudsman of £7.9 million. As far as I'm aware, Scotland, from the Block Grant, also pays for The Scottish Office, which costs around £7 million.

In Westminster in much the same time frame, the cost of Admin for HOC and HOL, was £288,175,000; Basic MPs' plus ministers' salary total was £44,634,453; Salaries payable to House Of Lords leaders, £267,972, operating costs of the Cabinet Office was £403,868,000. That alone comes to £736,945,425 of which Scotland's share is £61,903,415. That does not include expenses for offices and staffing them, or the expenses claimed by 800 Lords, although if we were to do a rough guesstimate, erring on the side of caution, and ignoring the London Weighting figures....say 75% of the MPs claim the full outside London Allowance, that would cost £77,975,625 for offices and staffing and say the 800 Lords claimed no expenses bar the £300 a day, that would cost £240,000. Giving a grand total of £815,161,050 of which Scotland's share would be £68,437,528. That doesn't include the cost of running the various Departments overseen by the Cabinet Office. So we're paying at least £68 million twice.

So it appears that, if we were not part of the Union, we would have at least £75 million to use elsewhere (as we'd not need the Scottish Office)....or £14 per person, which doesn't make much of a dent in a week's shopping....and why it is really daft to reduce figures to the level of what would be in each individuals pocket......because it isn't going to be funneled directly into anybody's pocket. And just think.....if we had never been a part of the Union, would we have a share in a £1.3trillion National Debt we had no hand in racking up? How successful a Union is it really, when we entered it with no National Debt.....and will be leaving it owing billions we didn't get to spend?

[orkneycadian]

piratelassie was wrong to cite only the House of Lords, though.....because we don't just pay a share of the House of Lords, do we? We pay a share of every penny spent by Westminster on the House of Commons and the 24 Departments of State and the Cabinet Office etc. And orkneycadian was being a bit of a chancer cutting it down to a daily rate per MSP/Lord. :Razz

Never been a fan of this "If we stay in the Union we'd be better off by £1400 per head"..or "if we get Independence, we'd be better off by £1000 a head".....or even dafter, the likes of orkneycadian's 1.25p versus 0.36p a day...because of course we wouldn't....that is a really stupid way to put it...but what it does mean is that there would be 5.3 million x £1400 or £1000 or, in orkneycadians offered figures a total of £7,897,170 which could be spent on other more useful things.

Unlike the John Swinney response, which involved chaning the subject a ridiculous number of times, my comparison with what piratelassie had presented was aimed to be as equivalent as possible. She highlighted the daily allowance for a member of the House of Lords, so I simply did the same with the MSP's.

As I mentioned, of course there are other costs and expenses, but very interestingly, for the Lords, these are very little. Unlike MSP's, Lords are not salaried, and their allowance is to cover all their expenses as well (in theory) as their time. A look at the Lords expenses claims shows that about the only thing they claim is travel. A look at the MSP expenses is something of an eye-opener. Take Alex Salmond MSP for example. Here are some of the things in his expense claim;

Newspaper subscriptions
TV costs
Rent (for what I ask?)
Trade waste

to name but a few.

Then there are the (not so) hidden costs. The building of the house of lords has been about for donkeys years, so the capital cost can probably be considered well paid off. It will have running costs, but so does Holyrood. I suspect however that we are still paying off Holyrood and will be for a long time. At £440 million for a meeting room, it would have covered the ~£8 million per year cost of MSP's wages for a whopping 55 years. But the rumour on the street is that it is almost past its sell by date already, unless serious money is spent on it again.

Alternatively, £440 million would buy a lot of schools / hospitals / teachers / policemen of whatever you would prefer to see.

John Swinney dismissed the UK governments estimate of £1.5 billion for Scotland start up costs, even though he wouldn't put his own figure on it. But yet, £1.5 billion is only 3 and a bit times the cost of the Holyrood meeting room. 3 buildings like Holyrood and thats all you get for the £1.5 billion estimate. Makes it look very conservative (no pun intended)....

Back to the Lords. Considering that they are effectively volunteering their time (yes, I know, plenty folk would be delighted with £300 a day wages! - But it is London, and I bet you will hardly even find a lawyer down there that charges less than that an hour), then they appear better value than MSP's. And at least they are happy to meet in a building a few hundred years old, rather than have something new built for them at vast expense.

As mentioned above, there are plenty examples where over zealous Commoners have rushed through some ill thought out bill, co-ordinated by the party whips, only to have the Lords kick it back to them with a note attached saying "Try harder". I feel the Lords do more to keep the MP's in line than the whips do, and do so in our collective interests rather than those of the party.

[Oddquine]

Unlike the John Swinney response, which involved chaning the subject a ridiculous number of times, my comparison with what piratelassie had presented was aimed to be as equivalent as possible. She highlighted the daily allowance for a member of the House of Lords, so I simply did the same with the MSP's.

As I mentioned, of course there are other costs and expenses, but very interestingly, for the Lords, these are very little. Unlike MSP's, Lords are not salaried, and their allowance is to cover all their expenses as well (in theory) as their time. A look at the Lords expenses claims shows that about the only thing they claim is travel. A look at the MSP expenses is something of an eye-opener. Take Alex Salmond MSP for example. Here are some of the things in his expense claim;

Newspaper subscriptions
TV costs
Rent (for what I ask?)
Trade waste

to name but a few.

Then there are the (not so) hidden costs. The building of the house of lords has been about for donkeys years, so the capital cost can probably be considered well paid off. It will have running costs, but so does Holyrood. I suspect however that we are still paying off Holyrood and will be for a long time. At £440 million for a meeting room, it would have covered the ~£8 million per year cost of MSP's wages for a whopping 55 years. But the rumour on the street is that it is almost past its sell by date already, unless serious money is spent on it again.

Alternatively, £440 million would buy a lot of schools / hospitals / teachers / policemen of whatever you would prefer to see.

John Swinney dismissed the UK governments estimate of £1.5 billion for Scotland start up costs, even though he wouldn't put his own figure on it. But yet, £1.5 billion is only 3 and a bit times the cost of the Holyrood meeting room. 3 buildings like Holyrood and thats all you get for the £1.5 billion estimate. Makes it look very conservative (no pun intended)....

Back to the Lords. Considering that they are effectively volunteering their time (yes, I know, plenty folk would be delighted with £300 a day wages! - But it is London, and I bet you will hardly even find a lawyer down there that charges less than that an hour), then they appear better value than MSP's. And at least they are happy to meet in a building a few hundred years old, rather than have something new built for them at vast expense.

As mentioned above, there are plenty examples where over zealous Commoners have rushed through some ill thought out bill, co-ordinated by the party whips, only to have the Lords kick it back to them with a note attached saying "Try harder". I feel the Lords do more to keep the MP's in line than the whips do, and do so in our collective interests rather than those of the party.

Another Union dividend..the Scottish Office wanted it..and they made us pay for it out of the Block Grant..we likely still are paying for it! We'd have been happy enough with the building prepared for the 1979 debacle. Have to say it was another example of the inability of Westminster Governments to write any legal contract or law without cart and horse size loopholes woven in!

I suppose you are aware that Westminster is going to be upgraded etc at a minimum cost of £1 billion, because it is crumbling, and that is without adding in the cost of moving 1450 legislators and staff to other places to work (and we will pay our share of that too.). £440 million kinda pales into insignificance when you think how much sorting out Westminster is going to hammer us by the time it is finished....don't you think?

I agree re whips. They should only ever be used to get manifesto commitments through and the other brainfarts produced during the term of a government should have to take their chances.

Want a list of the stuff Westminster MPs and lords claim for on expenses, do you? Volunteering their time is what used to happen in local Government....not what happens once you start to get paid.then it becomes a job like any other....and wages are paid for by the taxpayer.

[orkneycadian]

I suppose you are aware that Westminster is going to be upgraded etc at a minimum cost of £1 billion, because it is crumbling, and that is without adding in the cost of moving 1450 legislators and staff to other places to work (and we will pay our share of that too.). £440 million kinda pales into insignificance when you think how much sorting out Westminster is going to hammer us by the time it is finished....don't you think?

Not really. £1 billion is just over twice £440 million. Westminster serves 63 million people. More than 10 times the number that Holyrood serves. Makes Holyrood look very expensive per person. And whilst Westminster is an old building, part of the countries heritage, Holyrood is a symbol of vanity, and a stunning example of how money can be wasted on something un-necessary

[PantsMAN]

Not really. £1 billion is just over twice £440 million. Westminster serves 63 million people. More than 10 times the number that Holyrood serves. Makes Holyrood look very expensive per person. And whilst Westminster is an old building, part of the countries heritage, Holyrood is a symbol of vanity, and a stunning example of how money can be wasted on something un-necessary

Aye but what about Portcullis House, which is home to 213 MPs and staff, When commissioned in 1992 the cost of Portcullis House was to be £165m. After building cost inflation and delays, the price increased to £235m. Costs included £150,000 for decorative fig trees, bronze cladding at £30m, £2m for electric blinds and, for each MP, a reclining chair at £440.[/URL] A parliamentary inquiry into the over-spend was carried out, although completed in 2000, the report was never published. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portcullis_House#cite_note-2)By April 2012 the fig trees, which were rented, had cost almost £400,000.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portcullis_House#cite_note-4"].

[Phill]

How much did we spend on Dolphin Square?
As well as covering the costs of expenses.......

[orkneycadian]

If the so called Scottish Government was forward thinking, they could simply video conference all the MSP's together from their homes / constituency offices. They could then flatten Holyrood and save what we hear will be the massive costs of putting it right. Travel expenses would disappear as well, and the original £440 million could be recovered from the exponents of it in the first place. Probably the labour party and the SNP.

[Oddquine]

If the so called Scottish Government was forward thinking, they could simply video conference all the MSP's together from their homes / constituency offices. They could then flatten Holyrood and save what we hear will be the massive costs of putting it right. Travel expenses would disappear as well, and the original £440 million could be recovered from the exponents of it in the first place. Probably the labour party and the SNP.

If the Westminster Government/Scottish Office had been forward thinking, they'd have just used the building which was already prepared at a cost of £1 million for 1979. Such a shame that Labour hates the SNP so much that it would stick us with Holyrood rather than "give a sop to the nationalists" who thought Holyrood would be a waste of money, when there was already a perfectly good building. But then that's unionists with their hands in our bottomless pockets for you.

O/T.....a friend of mine was speaking to a serviceman in our area the other day..and he was saying that he was going to vote NO because he would be being posted back south and they needed the security of Scotland's resources around them (or words to that effect)