Our MSPs are making allowances!

EWAN LAMB takes a lighthearted look at the latest expenses payments to our political representatives

As any competent Returning Officer might not say: "All of the claims are in: all of the receipts have been counted."

It means Not Just Sheep & Rugby can reveal that so far as the Scottish Borders constituencies are concerned the SNP suffered a fearful hammering at the hands of the Tories during 2017/18 on the allowance claims front.

The final tally was Rachael Hamilton MSP (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh & Berwickshire) 307 claims worth £31,186; Christine Grahame MSP (SNP, Midlothian South, Tweeddale & Lauderdale) 148 claims worth £19,281. Tory majority £11,905.

However, SNP supporters will point to the fact that the veteran Ms Grahame has narrowed the gap after being trounced by an even bigger margin in 2016/17. The figures for that financial year make dismal reading for the Nationalists, but we repeat them nevertheless:

John Lamont MSP (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh & Berwickshire) 436 claims worth £34,209; Christine Grahame MSP (SNP, Midlothian South, Tweeddale & Lauderdale) 176 claims worth £19,241. Tory majority £14,968.

There appear to have been no spoiled invoices in either financial year.

So the figures show that while Ms Grahame picked up an extra £40 worth of claims between the two financial years, the value of the Tory claim count fell by an alarming £3,023. Political analysts are unsure whether the change of MSP for Ettrick, Roxburgh & Berwickshire had a marked impact on this year's outcome.

A breakdown of the statistics on the Scottish Parliament website shows the bulk of Mrs Hamilton's returns came from the cost of Edinburgh accommodation (£12,604), office costs (£10,377), travel (£2,611) and surgery advertising (£1,605).

The list of office cost items included claims for black bags 89 pence, wipes £1.07, toilet brush and holder £1.31, a purple coat stand £53.93, a kettle £31 and office carpets £1,398.

Mrs Hamilton also submitted an allowance claim for an overnight stay in London - £182 for bed & breakfast at the Park Plaza Hotel, Westminster on November 27th 2017.

Ms Grahame, who lives in Edinburgh, did not claim for accommodation in the city or for any overnight stays. The various headings show travel £1,066 (including 23 journeys on the Borders Railway), office costs £14,984, surgery advertising £1,725 and telecommunications £1,372. Her expenses for business meetings amounted to £40 for catering at a single event at the Tontine Hotel, Peebles.

Holyrood newcomer from the Borders Michelle Ballantyne (Conservative, South of Scotland) handed in 106 claims worth £10,573 although the total and value were undoubtedly affected by her "late arrival" in Parliament.

Mrs Ballantyne only became a list MSP in May 2017, replacing Mrs Hamilton after her constituency victory allowed her to take over from Mr Lamont (now a Westminster MP for virtually the same area). Following his "elevation" to the House of Commons in June 2017 Mr Lamont submitted 466 separate expense claims totalling £58,148 in the 10 months to the end of the financial year in March 2018.

But Mrs Ballantyne also continued to serve as Tory group leader on Scottish Borders Council until she resigned on December 5th 2017. Her council allowances meant she collected £12,033 from SBC between April and December of last year.

Her MSP expenses included Edinburgh accommodation £6,013, office costs £1,075, travel £2,052, surgery advertising £1,263 and a wall clock £8.83.

A couple of out of area claims raised a smile in the office. Jackson Carlaw claimed for 157 separate taxi journeys while Miles Briggs recovered £2.40 for jugs of water consumed at a "business meeting".

The salary for each MSP is currently set at £62,149 while their allowance for staffing costs is capped at £87,300.The salary for a Commons MP is £77,379.

"South of Scotland can only afford one council" - claim

DOUGLAS SHEPHERD writes

The proposal for a merger between Scottish Borders Council and NHS Borders has been greeted with virtually 100% opposition from local residents who would be affected by the formation of a single public authority for the area.

Not Just Sheep & Rugby wondered if there would be a more favourable reaction to an alternative idea for a single local authority covering the Borders and Dumfries and Galloway, leaving the respective health services to work out their own future arrangements.

Below we publish in full a submission to the Scottish Government which sets out the case for a South of Scotland local government commission aimed at saving money while at the same time giving the neglected area a much stronger voice. We make no comment as to its merits or disadvantages.

A SINGLE LOCAL AUTHORITY FOR THE SOUTH OF SCOTLAND

It has been reported that a group of individuals (presumably councillors and officials) at Scottish Borders Council (SBC) is floating an idea for a single public authority for the Borders by amalgamating the council and Borders Health Board (BHB).

The published papers which may form the basis for a submission to the Scottish Government as part of the Local Governance consultation are 100% positive about a merger without any mention of pitfalls or drawbacks, and there is no detail about how savings might be achieved.

A combination of health and local government services would be fraught with difficulties. For example, it would surely be dangerous if councillors with particular political views found themselves in charge of hospitals, primary care and other services currently delivered by an apolitical health board.

The last thing the Borders requires is a politically run authority with control over £120 million of health expenditure as well as the £254 million municipal revenue budget it already administers in line with party political policies and priorities.

The weaknesses in the local economy such as low wages and low economic activity as outlined in the SBC document proves conclusively that the Scottish Borders is too small to justify having its own local authority with 34 councillors and 125 members of staff on salaries in excess of £50,000 a year and paid for by local taxpayers. The inflated levels of remuneration paid to senior officers, ranging from £74,000 to £134,000, are completely out of step with the state of the regional economy.

The area needs a much more radical solution than a simple coming together of the two largest Borders employers into one huge new organisation with potentially conflicting interests. Such a merger sounds like an exercise in self-preservation.

Surely it is time the Scottish Government and others recognised that a one-size-fits-all system of local government might not be suitable for every area of the country. Perhaps a bold change is needed by scrapping the moribund system of governance in southern Scotland and replacing it with a more dynamic model.

The establishment of a South of Scotland Enterprise Agency (SOSEA) covering the Scottish Borders and Dumfries & Galloway offers a unique chance to build on the efforts and achievements of the South of Scotland Alliance. That fairly loose relationship forged by representatives from the two local government areas has already produced a South of Scotland Rural Regional Programme incorporating the Borders Railway/Central Borders Business Park, Mountain Biking – “Refreshing a world class product”, a Strategic Master plan for the M74 Corridor, and ambitious plans for the Stranraer Waterfront. But for too long the south has been neglected while the Highlands has received a disproportionate share of attention and investment.

There is an opportunity to build on the alliance by creating a single council/commission for the south of Scotland. It would give the entire region a much louder voice in the clamour for revenue and capital resources from the Scottish Government. And the partnership with the new SOSEA would provide a strong platform to develop the ailing economy and attract major inward investment.

The reformed local government unit would still be dwarfed by Highland Council in terms of land mass – some 11,000 square kilometres compared to Highland’s 30,600 square kilometres. So an amalgamated local authority for the south could not be ruled out on logistical grounds.

It would serve a population of 262,000 people (SBC 114,000 and Dumfries & Galloway 148,000). It would have a combined annual revenue budget of £564 million (Borders £254 million: Dumfries & Galloway £310 million) and an annual capital budget of £109 million (Borders £36 million [limited by a vast underspend in 2017/18]: Dumfries & Galloway £73 million).

In recent years reduced funding from the Scottish Government whose own budget has been downsized by the UK Government has resulted in local authorities claiming they have had no alternative but to cut front line services. Many of these public services will never be restored even if the levels of financial support were to recover.

But the jobs at the top of the local government pyramid along with the number of elected members representing council wards has escaped scrutiny and the cold winds of austerity. As mentioned earlier SBC has 125 individuals on the payroll who are paid £50,000 or more. The total in Dumfries and Galloway is 219. The nine most senior officers in D&G between them account for £901,000. An amalgamated council would surely require far less of these high earners providing one area for economies. After all many millions of pounds have been spent in both areas on exit packages for dozens of well-paid officials, and the two councils continue to function without them.

Now it is time to turn to the number of councillors and the costs involved in keeping them in post. So far as SBC is concerned there are 34 elected members representing 11 wards whose salaries and expenses totalled £748,000 in 2017/18. A group of so-called 15 senior councillors with added responsibilities (e.g. portfolio holder) received £286,319 while the council leader was paid £33,857.

In Dumfries & Galloway the council currently has 43 councillors representing 12 wards at a total cost in 2017/18 of £890,000. Fourteen senior councillors were paid between them £282,000 with the council leader receiving a salary of £25,388, a notably smaller amount than that paid to the leader of SBC even though D&G has a larger territory and significantly more residents.

It can be argued that both local authorities are over-governed with a total of 77 elected members between them. Highland Council functions with 74 councillors. In the current financial climate it is impossible to justify having three or even four councillors representing a single ward. So here is one radical proposal, again aimed at saving money.

There should be a total of 30 full time councillors or commissioners - each paid £30,000 – to run the new authority…12 for the current SBC area and 18 for Dumfries & Galloway based on the respective populations. They would not be allowed to hold other jobs thereby encouraging more young people and the man and woman in the street to get involved in local democracy. The annual cost of these administrators would be £900,000 – around £700,000 less than the current combined army of councillors. Even when expenses and responsibility payments are added the bill will be less than the current one. No doubt the usual suspects will say such a slimmed down system would be unworkable.

 It can be left to the experts in local government affairs to identify and calculate other areas where cost savings could be achieved by amalgamating the two councils.

"We will be transported to hospital in a council lorry."

by DOUG COLLIE

The planned merger between Scottish Borders Council and NHS Borders which would allow a single public authority to run local government and health services has been roundly condemned by local residents within hours of the idea being voted through by councillors.

Our trawl of social media sites across the region failed to find one contributor in favour of the idea which has been criticised as a power grab by the cash-strapped local authority.

If public feelings are anything to go by the proposal will receive little support in communities whose citizens are the clients of health care and the dwindling range of services on offer from SBC. Yet it is claimed the concept would aim to increase community involvement.

But there also seems to be a feeling that widespread opposition against the amalgamation will simply be ignored and swept aside. A number of the social media posters have panned councillors for failing to consult them before sanctioning the plan at a meeting of SBC yesterday (Tuesday).

One comment on the Border Telegraph newspaper's Facebook page read: "We will be transported to hospital in a council lorry".

Here we reproduce just some of the views expressed so far on the Telegraph and Southern Reporter Facebook sites:

Lindsey McPhillips - This makes no sense ! Two authorities, both struggling with funding, both hopelessly incompetent, neither fit for purpose want to merge ? Surely this can only double the problems? Andy Fox - One authority will be stripped bare and it won’t be the council.

Ian Simpson - Power grab but bizarre , it was always speculated that NHS Borders would merge , but with Lothian. But where is the logic in joining up with a Local Authority ...has the Scottish Government been asleep at the wheel? Janie Clark - The public are always encouraged to provide input, as long as they understand it's ultimately futile and will be completely disregarded.

Marc Dawson - There’s a recipe for disaster. SBC couldn’t organise the proverbial in a brewery and Borders NHS is floundering like a drunk in a gale. I just can’t decide if it’s funny or tragic. Glen Donnelly - NHS will go downhill even more. It’s bad enough to get appointments at doctors and council not much better either.

Robert Potts - That's NHS Borders in big trouble if that lot take over, more bums on seats,new offices,less boots on the ground,end of public service. Drew Glendinning - Well you can bet your last pound that certain families will get preferential treatment that’s for sure.

Tony Brown - Not a good idea. Sorry. It won’t work. Gibby Findlater - That’s health board knackered now then Cathy Green - Imagine training as a doctor or nurse or any hospital health professional to end up working for the local council!

Marion Black - Dreadful idea. Will end up with more so called managers and pen pushers and not what is really needed ie more staff on the wards for patient care. James Murphy - SBC can’t even control and maintain a basic grass cutting schedule yet we are going to let them run the health service? There should be a page dedicated against this proposal. I’m not sure the limit of likes a page is allowed but I’d expect it would be very close to exceeding it that’s for sure!! Complete disaster waiting to happen!!!!! Billy Reid - It’s a disaster waiting to happen. SBC can’t even look after their own affairs.

Stevie Campbell - This is lunacy. If this goes through it will be one of the biggest mistakes for generations to come. SBC should have no financial ties to an NHS body. Allan Leishman -There will be a lot of employees panicking big time. After all if they merge they won't need 2 HR depts, 2 finance dept's, 2 IT dept's etc. Although knowing how NHS Borders is run they'll probably hire more managers when/if they merge. Or get rid of the good managers and keep the useless ones. God help us all.

David Maxwell - This is nothing but a joke and disaster waiting to happen. Carol Gibson - Bad move. Michael Brownlee - Tory nonsense again. What will be next? Jeanette Porterfield - God help us. Neil Scott - That’s what happens when idiots vote Tory. Ryan Mathew Whellans - Disgrace there should be a public consultation.

Lynda Parks - Bloody ridiculous! It's all right for them in their ivory towers drawing up these plans, but they have no idea how it will affect the public. What may look good on paper, doesn't always follow through in practice. What about consulting us?!!

Brian Gibbins - There is some big long corridores at BGH to hang there tapestry in now if they merge  Janis Slorance - That's your Tories for you, insanity rules .Alex Chalmers - Another decision made behind closed doors. Margaret Niven - Will this give them an excuse to pry into medical history to find out more about people before they make more absurd decisions..

Ged Hogg - This should be a decision made by the public. Having seen the mess that SBC are currently in the mind boggles as to how this act of lunacy is going to end up. SBC have shown that they are not fit for purpose, the state of our region's infrastructure bears testament to that fact. I honestly fear for the future of NHS Borders and the associated services and finances if they climb in to bed with SBC.

Irene Hutchison - Blooming hell.This a disaster waiting to happen.Why can't they listen to electorate who voted these people in.It's all right for them they will probably have private health care. Brian Crawford - Shocking. Borders council can’t sort themselves out now want to try NHS. It’s a bloody joke me thinks. 

Steven Oliver -What else do you expect from a Tory council?  Alasdair Mackay - How long will it take our amazing council to shut down all the local health centres? While claiming that centralising all services at Melrose will benefit everyone! Brian Edgar - The idiots trying to take over the asylum.  Martin Fairbairn - Next is the sell off of the NHS to the Americans. Tories sell everything. They know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Another rubbish report for Scottish Borders Council

EWAN LAMB   reports on waste disposal figures heading in the wrong direction

In a year when Scottish landfill tonnages for household rubbish continued on a downward trend the council responsible for waste treatment and disposal in the Scottish Borders landfilled more garbage in 2017 than it did six years earlier.

Meanwhile the quantities of refuse recycled in the Borders during last year at 21,324 tonnes was way below the tonnage achieved in 2011 - 24,897 tonnes. And the local landfill percentage of 57.2% was the third highest in all of Scotland, topped only by Glasgow City and Western Isles. The national average was 45% showing that a robust and efficient waste treatment strategy is urgently needed at SBC if its dismal record is to be improved upon.

Annual statistics from SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency) also show the Carbon input tonnage for the Borders bucked the national trend last year.The national Co2 equivalent showed a decrease of 115,938 tonnes (1.9%) from 2016. But the 2017 figure for the Borders at 134,667 tonnes was 2.1% up on 2016.

We examined landfill tonnages for SBC's neighbours, comparing SEPA's 2011 figures with those of last year. Borders was the only council to record an upswing in the amount landfilled household refuse between 2011 and 2017.

The statistics for East Lothian were 27,644 tonnes in 2011 and 23,499 in 2017.while the equivalent numbers for Midlothian were 23,163 and 18,857, and for Dumfries & Galloway 34,886 and 31,725. Only SBC showed an increase from 28,688 to 30,593.

When it came to recycling, East Lothian increased its tonnage from 23,432 in 2011 to 26,885 in 2017. Midlothian's data showed a rise from 20,687 to 22,049 while Dumfries and Galloway recycled 17,441 tonnes in 2011 and 21,245 tonnes last year. By contrast SBC's 2011 tonnage of 24,897 had fallen to 21,324 in the same period.

The Co2 equivalent for the Borders of 134,667 tonnes in 2017 was the highest figure recorded since 2011.

As this publication has pointed out on many occasions the Borders' depressing performance on waste disposal - recycling now stands at 39.8%, far below Scottish averages and Scottish Government targets - can be blamed on the failure of councillors and senior council staff to deliver a conventional treatment facility which would have been capable of diverting 80% of the region's refuse from landfill.

Now, instead of leading the field in Scottish waste treatment, SBC is way down the field after its disastrous liaison with the now insolvent New Earth Solutions Group and its funding "partner" which revelled in the name Premier Group Isle of Man New Earth Recycling & Renewables [Infrastructure] Fund, also bankrupt and owing investors hundreds of millions of pounds.

The council was just one of the "victims" of the Isle of Man-based unregulated fund. It failed to come up with the £23 million needed to construct a waste treatment plant at Galashiels.

Many of the individual investors whose money disappeared into a black hole blame the Manx Financial Services Authority (FSA) for allegedly ignoring their warnings and complaints.

And an event to be held on the island this weekend by the FSA has been met with criticism and derision by Premier Group shareholders.

The Authority is staging a Family Finance Day on Saturday September 29th which will include a presentation by 'Scam Man' on how to be scam aware.

A spokesman for some of the Premier Group's 'victims' commented: "This duplicitous event conveniently ignores the fact that the FSA were well “aware” of the existence of the New Earth Solutions Recycling & Renewables Fund and other Premier Group Isle of Man “scams” (in which family investors lost everything). But despite this “awareness” did absolutely nothing to prevent or stop the “scams”. The FSA is a bogus organisation ostensibly tasked with preventing “scams” but in fact attracting even more “scamsters” to boost the island’s disreputable financial services economy."

Perhaps SBC should send a delegation to the Isle of Man this weekend for advice on how to avoid scammers who use local authorities for their own ends!

All for one and one fits all

by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

A "bizarre" proposal to merge Scottish Borders Council and Borders Health Board to form a single public services authority for an area twice the size of Luxembourg will be submitted to councillors next week.

The amalgamation of the region's two largest employers is recommended in a report written by Michael Cook, the former deputy leader of the council, one-time vice president of local government body COSLA and now corporate policy officer in SBC chief executive's office.

The concept of a mammoth organisation responsible for all municipal and health services stems from a Scottish Government local governance review. But it remains to be seen whether a one size fits all body will take a trick with the Borders public.

Mr Cook's report explains that the initiative has "the aim of driving a step change in outcomes for the citizens and communities of the Scottish Borders. The proposal advances a vision for a single service delivery vehicle, encompassing the Council and NHS Borders in the first instance. The proposal also examines intermediate practical steps which may be taken to progress this model, and considers how citizens and communities can have ‘more say about how public services in their area are run."

According to the report the idea would be to eliminate boundaries and obstacles between public service providers in delivering improved outcomes and well being for citizens.

"Exploiting the collective power and concentrated focus of a single organisation would enable the Scottish Borders to pursue a ‘step change’ in performance, optimising outcomes across a set of priorities specific to the region, but reflective of and complementary to national outcomes. The proposal also argues that increased integration and the destination of a single public authority must be matched by an enhanced model of community engagement if the review’s stated aim of ‘making sure local communities have more say about how public services in their area are run’ is to be realised.

"There is risk that, in failing to put forward a vision for the future, that other public bodies advance proposals which may not serve the best interests of the Scottish Borders and its people. For example, this could be in the form of a supra-regional approach to the delivery of local government services in which functions such as planning, economic development, transportation, training and employability are drawn together for strategic determination. 

"Such a model need not necessarily be injurious to the interests of the Scottish Borders, but there is concern that the more remote decision-making is from the Scottish Borders, then the more likely it is prioritise issues of more limited relevance here, or to ignore what is most salient. The Borders Railway, BGH, European funding and, more recently, the South of Scotland Enterprise Agency (SoSEA) would be unlikely to have found such determined champion’s outwith the Scottish Borders (and Dumfries and Galloway in respect of the SoSEA). Similarly, it may be unrealistic to expect that extension of the Borders Railway from Tweedbank to Carlisle via Hawick may receive greater push from a South-East of Scotland Authority with a broader range of priorities than it would from an authority with a focus on the Scottish Borders."

The report argues that problems such as obesity, child abuse and social exclusion are currently beyond the capacity of any one organisation to understand and respond to. Too often agencies focus on acute problems and do so unilaterally, rather than coordinating efforts to address those factors which give rise to the problems in the first place. 

"The Council and its partners are working together but coordination and co-production are hindered by the artificial boundaries which exist between multiple organisations. Thus, we need to go much further than has provided possible to date.

"Our current governance architecture is complex. For example, a recently established Older People’s Strategy Programme Board will need to report to the Council’s Corporate Management Team, the Board Executive Team of NHS Borders and the Integrated Joint Board. This is both inefficient and convoluted. A single public authority will eliminate ambiguity and should reduce the diversion of effort typically expended in the competition for resources between different organisations. Closer integration would enable more efficiencies and value for money through more sharing of offices, buildings, transport, support services and integrated staffing deployment. By its nature, it should also lead to a more joined up service for clients and the wider community".

If the merger goes ahead the new authority would have control of around £400 million of annual revenue spending and a work force of 9,000.

A former long-serving member of SBC commented: "This is a truly bizarre idea. For example, would the user of the health services want those services to be under the control of politically motivated board members? A sure fire way of saving millions would be to merge SBC with Dumfries & Galloway Council, then we would have one council covering the same territory as the incoming South of Scotland Enterprise Agency".

For the record a combined Borders and Dumfries & Galloway authority would cover just over 11,000 square kilometres and provide services for 260,000. The territory would be much smaller than thaty served by Highland Council...30,600 square kilometres with 234,000 residents.

Record profit for Borders PFI managers in 2017

EXCLUSIVE by DOUG COLLIE

The company which  manages a schools Private Finance Initiative [PFI] for Scottish Borders Council recorded its highest annual operating profit last year, topping the £1 million mark for the first time in the project's nine year history, according to newly published accounts. And the level of profit escalated by an impressive 37% between 2016 and 2017.

It means Scottish Borders Education Partnership Ltd (SBEP)., based in Maidenhead, Berkshire, and controlled and owned by an offshore investment business with headquarters in Luxembourg has so far earned more than £7 million in profits since 2009 when the PFI secondary schools at Eyemouth, Earlston and Duns became fully functional.

It has been calculated that if the management company maintains its average annual profit of £788,000 so far until the 30-year contract with the council terminates it will have pocketed some £23.6 million of Borders taxpayers' cash.

The controversial PFI scheme, used to build and deliver the three schools also costs SBC £8.5 million in capital charges and interest payments. And according to the latest set of accounts for SBEP the outstanding amount due by the local authority stands at £75.5 million (down from £76.4 million in 2016). The interest rate paid by the finance debtor is 5.47%.

SBEP provides operational and maintenance services including related financial arrangements for the three secondaries in accordance with a project agreement the company entered into with SBC. The firm will continue running the educational facilities for the period to November 2038 under a contractual arrangement that provides a regular income stream subject to deductions for service shortfalls or the unavailability of the facilities.

So far the arrangement has been extremely lucrative for SBEP and its parent company BBGI Investments SCA, part of BBGI SICAV SA domiciled in Luxembourg and listed on the London Stock Exchange. This is the record of the operating profits achieved by SBEP in each year since 2009:

2009 - £619,000; 2010 - £657,000; 2011 - £692,000; 2012 - £715,000; 2013 - £843,000; 2014 - £911,000; 2015 - £835,000; 2016 £769,000; 2017 £1,054,000. Total: £7,095,000.

Little wonder the annual report declares: "The project continues to perform generally in line with the modelled expectation, and the management of the scheme both logistically and financially remains under control. We remain confident that we will maintain our current level of operating performance and keep penalty payments to a minimum".

In 2016 the council docked financial penalties of £115,000 from the payments made to SBEP. There is no indication in the 2017 accounts as to the level of penalties, if any.

The company's turnover last year is recorded as £3.867 million (£3.551 million in 2016) while expenditure was £2.792 million (£2.747 million). SBEP Ltd has no employees and its two directors receive no remuneration for their work, the report shows.

A separate cash reserve is maintained for future major maintenance costs. The balance in this fund increased from £4.909 million in 2016 to £6.58 million in 2017.

SBEP has total borrowings relating to senior secured funding of £68.33 million of which £15 million is held by Prudential Annuities Ltd and £53.33 million by Prudential Retirement Income Ltd. At the end of 2017 the total outstanding on the loans facility was £71.936 million (2016 £72.345 million).

Chuffing heck! Railway critic now firmly on board

by DOUG COLLIE

Seasoned observers of politics in the Scottish Borders will - until relatively recently - have marked down Conservative John Lamont as a strident opponent and severe critic of the reinstatement of a railway linking Edinburgh and Tweedbank.

During his lengthy stint as a Member of the Scottish Parliament [MSP] for Roxburgh & Berwickshire his attacks on the SNP Scottish Government's Borders Railway project were numerous and vociferous. At one point he even warned the £295 million scheme to reconnect the area with the national rail network was in danger of mimicking the Edinburgh trams debacle.

But after moving from Holyrood to Westminster in 2017 as Member of Parliament (MP) for Berwickshire Roxburgh & Selkirk [including Galashiels and Tweedbank] Mr Lamont seems to have become a fervent supporter of the campaign to extend the line on to Hawick and eventually to Carlisle.

Last week Mr Lamont was, according to local cynics, "at it again", rising in the Commons at Prime Minister's Question Time to enlist the support of PM Theresa May for the continuation of the old Waverley route even though he once claimed even the 30-mile Edinburgh-Galashiels line was not financially viable.

The 'converted' MP's question to Mrs May came in the same week it was announced the line had carried four million people in the three years since its royal opening, approximately double the forecasts on passenger numbers which were included in the scheme's business plan.

It appears this may be the second time John Lamont has flipped sides in the debate on the merits of trains running through the Borders.

According to an online commentator writing in July 2010: "All local politicians have been supportive of the reopening of the Waverley line, that is until yesterday when the Conservative MSP, John Lamont publicly performed a spectacular u-turn. However just over a month ago when John Lamont MSP wanted to be elected to the Westminster Parliament for Galashiels he was in favour of the Railway and now he has flipped his position. Surely he must recognise the impact a railway would have on the economic growth for the Borders?"

There is little doubt that from 2010 until 2017 he maintained his position as a consistent sceptic/critic of the proposed reinstatement of the line as far as the central Borders. At the end of the day the SNP's flagship project was completed on time and within budget.

For the record here are some of Mr Lamont's contributions to the railway debate.

BBC NEWS 2010 - Tory MSP for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, John Lamont, has raised concerns that the £295m plan might see other transport schemes neglected. Mr Lamont warned there was a danger the significant investment could see funds "diverted away" from other public transport improvements.

"Many people remain unconvinced that the new railway to Galashiels will make much difference to most communities in the Borders," he said. "The current Scottish government claims that the Borders railway project will help the whole of the Borders but I know that many feel that the current proposals will only assist the communities in the central Borders around Galashiels."

SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT QUESTION June  2011 – Mr Lamont: "I am sure that the minister will be aware that several bus routes in the Borders are under threat, and he will know that there are growing concerns about the viability of the railway to Galashiels. Does he accept that unless there is an integrated transport network serving all parts of the Borders, fewer passengers will be able to access train services on the Galashiels railway, therefore further undermining its viability?"

NEWS STORY IN THE HERALD NEWSPAPER October 2012 - "John Lamont, Tory MSP for Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire and the party's chief whip, told the Herald Scotland: “People are asking serious questions of the Borders Railway, and of the Scottish Government's handling of it, and quite rightly so. I think it has the potential to be another repeat of the trams debacle unless someone gets a grip soon.”

CAMPAIGN FOR BORDERS RAIL POST October 2012 - "Campaigners have got used to misinformation from John Lamont MSP, who describes the new railway as the “Galashiels Railway Project” – ignoring the benefits it will bring to a wide swathe of the Central Borders through bus-rail interchange and park-and-ride – but his latest effort plumbs the depths. A spurious new story in the Hawick News on 19th October ‘revealed’ that the cost of the railway has doubled from the original budget.

"Well, we knew that already, and it’s no different to the way that the cost of all three previous rail re-opening projects in Scotland increased from original budget to completion, ditto the M74 Northern Extension. And we know how much of a success these new railways have been. Bizarrely, Lamont viewed this old news as “yet another blow to the Galashiels Railway Project that would see it delayed once again. With nearly £54 million spent there is still very little to show for it as not a single piece of track has been laid yet.” He obviously hasn’t been at Millerhill since June 2011".

THE GUARDIAN November 2012 - John Lamont, a Tory MSP, has been a continuing critic of the project. He said there was "huge frustration" in other parts of the Borders about its heavy cost and the length of the route. "The more they have looked at it, they say it's not a railway to the Borders, it's a railway to Galashiels. The vast majority of residents won't get any greater access to rail than they do at the moment," he said. That £295m budget had drained spending from other public transport improvements in the region, and could have been better spent on roads and bus links. 

Money rolls in for Borders Book Festival

by OUR LITERARY STAFF

The Borders Book Festival's fourteenth offering in 2017 turned out to be a veritable best seller, according to the Trust's newly published annual report and accounts for last year.

Close to 31,000 visitors flocked to the four day celebration of literature, authors and celebrities, setting the tills ringing with £126,000 received in ticket sales and total revenue rising to £336,900, far above the 2016 total of £284,265. The organisers reckon the 2017 festival injected £2.3 million into the Scottish Borders economy, another record figure.

There were over 100 separate performances by more than 120 participants with the likes of John Cleese, Michael Parkinson, Judy Murray and Joanna Trollope wowing the audiences.

The directors say in their report: "Ticket prices were kept affordably low. But we also gave away free tickets to low income families and foster families via social services and a local housing agency. Fifteen hundred children and their teachers attended the Schools Gala Day on the first day of the festival".

The importance of the role played by two of the directors who are also trustees and consultants to the event - Alistair Moffat and Paula Ogilvie - is highlighted.

"The programme, put together with great devotion and expertise by our creative directors is the key to putting on a successful festival", says the report.

An accompanying set of annual accounts shows Mr Moffat and Mrs Ogilvie each received £25,000 for work associated with the festival, 13 per cent more than the £22,000 paid to them in 2016.

"The festival's remuneration sub-committee determines the amount to be paid to principal consultants Alistair Moffat and Paula Ogilvie who are also trustees. During the year under review the board approved payments of £25,000 each as part compensation for their contribution of skill and experience in the field of literary festivals.

"These approved amounts were in respect of fees to self-employed individuals, not wages or salaries. Neither Mr Moffat or Mrs Ogilvie receive any remuneration for the directorship of the company. In some years, for cost saving reasons, the consultancy fees actually paid to them need to be reduced below the board-approved levels".

In addition, the accounts show, travel and subsistence payments of £302 and £456 were made to Mr Moffat and Mrs Ogilvie respectively. And Mrs Ogilvie was paid £1,000 towards home office expenses.Mrs Ogilvie's husband David received £5,000 in consultancy fees for services provided to the festival.

"Since its inceptiuon the festival has been supported enthusiastically by Scottish Borders Council, both financially and through the encouragement and assistance of councillors and officers", the report says. "We would not have developed the festival to its current standing without this partnership.

"Sponsor income rose from £55,000 to £85,000 and grant income from £55,000 to £69,000. But the contributions from our public sector partners remained critical to our ability to put on the festival the way we did".

The directors explain that as a grant receiving charity putting on high cost book festivals for the public benefit they aim broadly to cover operating costs rather than making profits. They also aim to limit their dependence on public sector grants.

Squeezing the life out of democracy?

by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

Scottish Borders Council's dim and distant pledge of "openness and transparency" had already been tarnished long before Hawick councillor Watson McAteer submitted a written question last week about the state of play at the town's High School.

The answer he received from the ruling Conservative/Independent alliance in charge of service delivery at SBC simply beggars belief and should be challenged. More about Mr McAteer's 'audacity' later.

To the man on the Denholm omnibus it seems successive administrations at Newtown St Boswells have developed a system which makes scrutiny and public accountability increasingly difficult to achieve.

For example: elected members cannot spring unexpected questions on the ruling group and its paid officials at full council meetings; instead queries must be submitted in writing days in advance so that a "suitable" answer can be given.

One of our readers tells us this hermetically sealed version of accountability differs completely from the 'good old days' of county council local government when rebel members like Haig Douglas and Rory Hamilton regularly ambushed county convener the late Duke of Roxburghe at question time. In those days Any Other Business was far more meaningful.

Nowadays some of our local councillors even refuse to answer direct questions from their constituents for fear of divulging some titbit of confidential information which shouldn't be confidential in the first place. Queries are shunted on to officers or must be sent in the form of Freedom of Information requests which take 20 working days to process.

There has been a Scrutiny Committee at SBC for several years, but its ability to really scrutinise questionable decisions has been virtually neutered. Items which it should have tackled have simply never reached its paltry agenda. A former chairman has said privately his hands were tied behind his back.

So back to Mr McAteer who avid followers of Borders local government will know was sacked from the administration recently along with fellow Hawick member Stuart Marshall. Surely they were not dismissed for dissent or insubordination?

His perfectly reasonable question to his former colleagues read as follows: "In the months prior to this year's school holidays, Hawick High School suffered disruption from a small group of persistent unruly children. Their actions impacted pupils and teachers and resulted in wide-scale public concern. Can the Executive Member [for education] assure her colleagues, the parents and most importantly the children who have returned for the new school term that these problems are now resolved and that they will be able to study in a safe, secure and fully staffed learning environment?"

There have been reports of further disruptive incidents at the school since the summer break including incidents attended by the police.

The written response, apparently provided by council leader Shona Haslam has the strident sentiments of a ruling clique in a one-party state.

"None of us should be under any misapprehension about the nature and intent of this question", boomed the uncompromising opening gambit. In other words, how dare you Councillor McAteer!

But there was worse to follow: "It is an unashamed attempt by the Member to stoke fears in the school and community for his own narrow political purposes. That is utterly reprehensible, and it is not a situation that we in this Chamber should countenance again.

"If the Member is truly concerned for the interests of those he claims to represent, let him approach me with the issues directly, and I and the Service Director will work with him and others to develop a collective approach to issues which arise. If, on the other hand, the Member persists in fear-mongering for petty political gain, then he shames himself and this Chamber, and does gross disservice to the ward he is supposed to represent".

If the issue raised by Mr McAteer should not - in Councillor Haslam's eyes - have been aired publicly then that is an outrageous state of affairs whether or not the motive was for 'petty political gain'. And to brand the contents of a legitimate question 'utterly reprehensible' is patently ridiculous and dangerous for democracy.

A council insider declared: "This is a stark illustration of the culture at the top of SBC which simply will not tolerate criticism or opposition. It's been like that for ages. And anything which might damage reputations must not be aired in public. It is high time this entire ethos was challenged and quashed".