Rab McNeil
Cost of democracy 18 January 2010  WHENEVER I have to go to Parliament – I say “have to”, though of course it‘s always a pleasure and not an onerous duty or anything remotely like that – I park my car under Dynamic Earth (well, there isn’t really anywhere else), skip merrily down the permanent evolution exhibition’s big concrete steps, toddle through a tunnel and emerge somewhere near the front entrance of the national nuthouse. This is where the narrative gets gripping. As I amble along the frontage, untangling the chain of my press pass from my reading glasses and house-keys, I can’t help notice that there’s nearly always someone working at the artificial ponds. If you’ve never been to Holyrood, let me explain that there are two or three ponds out the front. Actually, “ponds” is too grand a word. This isn’t like Blackford pond, you know, with nature and suchlike in it. These are just water-filled indentations in the surrounding concrete. They’re not unpleasant, having said that. You can watch tourists get haemorrhoids from sitting on the concrete rims. But, such pleasures aside, you search in vain for ducks, fishes or even waving fronds. Presumably, they do get weeds or sludge or mould because the Men in Overalls are never done cleaning them out. Often, too, these ponds have fencing erected around them, as some other mishap is sorted, and it’s arguable, I suppose, that the ponds are more trouble than they’re worth. But they add to the gaiety of our happy little home for incurables and, while they afford little in the way of communing with nature as such, it’s always pleasant to contemplate water, even in a glorified puddle. We move our focus away now from ponds to the bigger picture. And by bigger picture, I’m referring not unnaturally to the annual maintenance budget for Parliament. Yup, newspaper headlines proclaimed “anger”, “fury” and so forth at the massive rise in last year’s bill. To be fair, I do not know if this includes the ponds. For all I ken, or care, there may be a separate ponds budget, but the point remains that something should be done. Are we not angry and also furious, after all? Consider the figures. The repair bill last year amounted to £2.6m, a rise of £1m on the year before. To be even fairer, I don’t know if this includes the new security turnstiles and whatnot. I’ve tholed enough debates and committee meetings about public finance to know that nothing is straightforward and that there are budgets within budgets, and also budgets outwith budgets. But if this repair bill doesn’t include the ponds and the turnstiles – oh, and the usual anti-pigeon measures – then surely, that just makes things worse? The activities listed in the newspaper report before me include the maintenance and repair of heating, ventilation, air conditioning and lighting, and the tackling of leaks. So, who or what has been leaking to cause such a massive hike in the bill? The building itself is only loved by architects, people pretending to know about modern art, and so forth. Its inner, untreated concrete walls are an affront to the eyelobe, giving parts of the place the feeling that one is in a car park rather than a parliament. But what can you do? Well, keep patching it up, I suppose. I am not one of these citizens who gets their pantaloons in a twist about the costs of the Parliament. Indeed, I have rejoiced at every increase, as I like to see the usual suspects getting angry, furious and so forth. Among these appears to be the Labour MSP George Foulkes, who issued an extraordinary statement saying: “The building was supposed to be of the highest possible standard. This reinforces the criticisms about the design and the amount of money spent on it.” Barely pausing for breath, he added: “The public was outraged by the cost of the building and this is rubbing salt into the wounds.” The reason his statement is extraordinary is that, if you read it carefully – as every citizen must – you will see that, unless I have misread it, he appears not to be blaming Alex Salmond for this latest calamity. I cannot recall such an occurrence before, and it may be that his words have been cleverly edited to make George sound sensible. For here the boy George appears to be on the ball, at least if you care about costs and that sort of thing. Readers will recall that the Parliament building cost £414m to build, after a slight oversight led to it coming in at ten times the original estimate. How we laughed. Now the maintenance bill is five times its original budget, so at least there is a kind of consistency here. It’s all most reassuring, really. And so, when that sad time comes when I have to leave Holyrood for the day, I amble past the ponds towards the car park at Dynamic Earth, and remind myself that all is for the best in this priciest of all possible parliaments. Related articles: Politics and principles 3 September 2010 Hello voters 25 June 2010 Off the menu 11 June 2010 Life but not as we know it 28 May 2010 Magnetic result 17 May 2010 See all articles in this category Submit a comment |
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Holyrood Daily
Salmond lays out legislative programmePlans to transform Scottish Water into an industry leader in renewable e... End of Life Assistance Bill evidence begins Legislation in the Netherlands and Switzerland has given doctors a ... Public records bodies asked to consider merger The General Register Office for Scotland, National Archives of Scotland ... Clegg: Poor won’t be made to shoulder the burden of cuts The coalition government is “determined... Scotland’s man in the Cabinet In his first major interview since becoming Secretary of State for ... |
Holyrood Twitter
HolyroodDaily:
Salmond lays out legislative programme ahead of spring elections: http://tiny.cc/flvek
HolyroodDaily:
Scott says Australian example of a tired out leader being replaced by his younger female deputy may have a lesson for Scotland after all
HolyroodDaily:
Scotland needs a government determined to build and strengthen it - FM loves trappings of government but not responsibilities, says Scott
HolyroodDaily:
These last few months have been dominated by the Scottish Government running away from its responsibilities, says Scott
