Is Scottish Tory expecting Scottish Government to use Scottish taxpayer funds to compensate or to advise his Tory voter who lost money due to UK Tory incompetence?

At Holyrood yesterday:

Alexander Burnett (Aberdeenshire West) (Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party): To ask the Scottish Government what support it will offer people in Scotland who lost money due to the collapse of London Capital & Finance to seek compensation.

Kate Forbes: This is a stressful time for all who are affected by the collapse of London Capital and Finance (LC&F). The regulation of financial services, including the services your constituent has highlighted, is a reserved matter to the UK Government. Consequently, Scottish Ministers are unable to intervene in the practices employed by financial services companies or in individual complaints.

I know, not all of the investors will necessarily be Tories, but I feel sure the majority are, that ‘his constituent’ is and that few will be anywhere near the poverty line even after this. It’s not a priority for the SG in these times of austerity and punishment of the poor, the disabled and migrants.

Who is Burnett?

Anyhow, why is Holyrood being bothered with this? See this from 3 weeks ago:


4 thoughts on “Is Scottish Tory expecting Scottish Government to use Scottish taxpayer funds to compensate or to advise his Tory voter who lost money due to UK Tory incompetence?

  1. Bugger (the Panda) May 31, 2019 / 8:05 am

    Looking for a Magic Money Tree


  2. Alasdair Macdonald May 31, 2019 / 9:24 am

    I think this unselfconsciousness on the part of the MSP indicates his sense of entitlement.

    In the period following the Second World War, I think there were sincere ‘One Nation’ Tories who in the comradeship of war had recognised that many people who had pretty wretched lives compared to their own had fought bravely on behalf of a nation to which they felt as strong attachment as any formed on ‘the playing fields of Eton’.

    However, as the war receded and the ‘greed-is-good’ individualism which was part of the Thatcherite creed created a greater separation amongst the ‘classes’ of ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ emerged. They occupied the same physical space but lived in different worlds. Private schools, gated communities, gentrification, conspicuous wealth and consumption, the breaking of the ‘social contract’ by the starving of public services of funds, etc.meant that they no longer came awaredly into contact with people who had less money. The lives of these people did not matter. However, if their world came under threat, then they expected AS AN ENTITLEMENT that the state would bale them out, which is what Bodger Broon and ‘Lord’ Darling did after the 2008 financial crash.

    This MSP is probably helping a school chum’ who has lost a fair amout and might be down to his last £10million.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. bigjon999 May 31, 2019 / 9:59 am

    Burnett is one of the richest guys in Deeside (not a poor spot), owns large areas around Banchory and makes a load of money from building large housing estates for commuters working in Aberdeen and living in Banchory.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Ludo Thierry May 31, 2019 / 12:25 pm

    Can only imagine that the tory toff bloke got disorientated for a moment (when checking his bank balance or something) and suddenly thought he was in his spiritual home of the H of L rather than the Scottish Parlt. – Link and snippets to the grauniad’s latest update of H of L’s shenanigans below:

    A Labour peer claimed almost £50,000 in attendance and travel expenses covering every single day the House of Lords was sitting last year, despite never
    speaking or asking any written questions.

    The former trade union general secretary David Brookman was among dozens of other lords and baronesses who never took part in a single debate, while almost a third of the 800 peers barely participated in parliamentary business over a 12-month period despite costing almost £3.2m in allowances.

    • Eighty-eight peers – about one in nine – never spoke, held a government post or participated in a committee at all.

    • Forty-six peers did not register a single vote, including on Brexit, sit on a committee or hold a post. One peer claimed £25,000 without voting, while another claimed £41,000 but only voted once.

    • More than 270 peers claimed more than £40,000 in allowances, with two claiming more than £70,000.

    The former Lords speaker Frances D’Souza, a long-term advocate of reform, said the findings corroborated “what everyone suspects is going on…. there are people who are attending the House of Lords who are not contributing, and therefore they are simply redundant”.

    Peers are entitled to a daily allowance of £305. Parliamentary staff note peers’ attendance when they arrive, but no record is kept of how soon after that they depart.

    The median allowance claim by peers was £30,180, though some peers claimed substantially more than that through more frequent attendance or through travel expenses.

    Peers are permitted to claim for business-class flights to and from parliament.

    The largest claim for attendance and travel expenses was from the former Labour minister Jack Cunningham, who chairs one of the chamber’s most
    important committees scrutinising secondary legislation. He claimed £75,122 for 154 days’ attendance, £23,108 of which was for air travel.

    Receipts obtained through freedom of information requests suggest Lord Cunningham took dozens of flights to and from London. It is not clear whether or not Cunningham travelled business class.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s