Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Endinburgh Council
 
 
Monday, 2nd November 2009 Change Date Latest Issue

Taxpayers face a £94,000 bill to cover cost of MSPs' laptops

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 18 February 2008
MSPs are being handed out new laptops at a cost to taxpayers of up to £94,000.
The computers – which replace ones issued five years ago – are intended to allow politicians to do parliamentary work when they are away from Holyrood.

But today two senior Lothians MSPs urged their colleagues not to take one unless they really needed it. MSPs are already entitled to computers in their Holyrood offices and their constituency offices, as well as hand-held Blackberry devices. Independent Lothians MSP Margo MacDonald said: "I imagine some MSPs will get good use out of their laptops. But I would say to my colleagues, examine whether or not you really need any new piece of equipment.

"I think some of them tend to collect shiny things.

"My office is relatively sparse in terms of electronic equipment, but I don't feel we are depriving ourselves of anything."

The new laptops are being issued on request, but the old machines issued to MSPs in 2002-03 are being "retired" and support for them is being withdrawn.

The parliament says the new ones are better aligned with the software used at Holyrood and will also offer wireless networking and broadband.

So far 89 of the 129 MSPs have asked for one, costing the parliament £68,000.

But a total of £94,000 has been budgeted for the "laptop refresh" programme so all 129 MSPs can have one if they want it.

The cost works out at around £750 per machine.

Edinburgh South Liberal Democrat Mike Pringle said: "My message would be, if you don't need one don't ask for one and it won't cost any money.

"If you are travelling long distances a laptop means you can get on with your work during the journey.

"But I would say you should only ask for one if you have a really good reason for having one."

And he said he would not be requesting one of the computers.

"I certainly won't be asking for one. I have a computer in my office at the parliament and a computer in my constituency office. I don't need to have a laptop.

"MSPs should exercise caution and seriously consider whether they do need a laptop rather than having one for the sake of having one."

A Scottish Parliament spokeswoman said the £94,000 cost also covered additional software, including Microsoft Office, remote monitoring and control software and connectivity software.

She said: "Laptops form an important part of enabling MSPs to effectively undertake their duties as parliamentarians.

"The parliament aims to maximise value for money by refreshing laptops approximately every new session – every four years. This compares favourably to the accepted industry standard refresh cycle of every two to three years."


Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 18 February 2008 11:02 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: The Scottish Parliament
 
1

Crank Parent,

Livingston 18/02/2008 11:42:38
I have no problem with MSPs having new laptops after 5 years, but why are they using Microsoft Office and not Open Office which is free and standards compliant? In fact, why are the laptops not running Linux?
2

subrosa,

18/02/2008 11:45:25
I don't see why this is a story. If laptops are 5 years old then perhaps they don't have the facility for wireless (although mine does). Laptops are a way of life for a lot of people, why not our elected representatives?

3

Raoul Duke,

18/02/2008 12:16:15
You can get a more than adequate laptop for half that price. I hardly think MSPs are required to use software that needs a high specification to run, so surely 400 quid max would suffice???
4

mrmoneypenny,

18/02/2008 12:19:38
#3 Get a grip you whinging tit.
5

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/02/2008 12:20:54
#1 Absolutely agreed. According to the government's own standards watchdog, public servants should avoid proprietary file formats for documents. Since MS Office is designed deliberately to exclude the ISO standard ODF format in favour of Microsoft lock-in, MS Office should not be being installed on these or any other government computers.
6

Bob 2,

18/02/2008 12:28:34
£750 for a laptop, pull the other one.

no1 & 5 are spot on.

They have a cheek to talk about everyone else Spending Public Money Wisely!
7

Farmernot,

18/02/2008 12:33:07
News ????...............hardly
8

watcher4,

edinburgh 18/02/2008 12:36:49
Time we dissolved this Scottish Parliament it`s just a hole in the ground that the taxpayers pour money into. Let the parasites work like the rest of us.
9

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/02/2008 12:37:29
#8 You mean spend all their time commenting on the Evening News website? :-)
10

ddmc,

18/02/2008 12:39:34
I used to work in the IT dept for the big parly, the majority of MP's couldn't work out the on/off switch, i expect the majority of MSP's are the same. But perhaps the free internet access which comes from using these devices may have something to do with the takeup, although they are not allowed to do party work with the laptops, the policy is never enforced.
11

NorT,

Edinburgh 18/02/2008 12:40:34
After 5 years use the laptops certainly need to be refreshed and brought up to date with the latest software and security. At £750 each this is not expensive.
12

Mr Crisps,

Musselburgh 18/02/2008 12:41:30
Microsoft haters, get a grip.

#3, #6, costs will include proper support for the kit, extended hardware cover, licencing for the programs on the laptops, etc... doing it on the cheap would be a false economy.
13

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/02/2008 12:44:10
#12 Sorry, you'll have to do better than that.

I was talking about implementing an international standard which protects our public data from proprietary lock-in. Nothing to do with MS hating.

If you disagree, you'll need to explain why you think it is better for our data to be beholden to a single, massive multinational company rather than open and accessible from any computer.
14

Harrypots,

Edin 18/02/2008 12:51:08
#11 Not expensive? It is when the scottish government aren't even using their own IT Hardware contract!! Laptops on the contract are sub £400 and as for the additional software cost's clamed by the spokeswomen are a joke! MS Ofiice costs are miniscule due to an agreement with microsoft and the remote management(vPro) & connectivity(Wi-Fi) software mentioned? Already built-in as standard !!!
15

Edward,

18/02/2008 13:06:36
Politics aside, I think thats quite a good picture of Margo MacDonald
16

Incandescent,

18/02/2008 13:08:14
#13 Duncan

"proprietary lock-in"? "Beholden"? Oh dear, it seems you rushed your snap-research today, Duncan. There are many non-MS programmes that are able to open MS documents and spreadsheets. While elements of editing functionality may be lost to varying degrees, the data itself is accessible.
17

Edward,

18/02/2008 13:08:37
I think £ 750 for a laptop is a bit steep to say the least!
18

JulesF,

18/02/2008 13:15:09
Hark at all the experts in IT procurement and government purchasing power !

Computeach must have been doing a roaring trade again !!

Cut out and keep ITIL qualifications found on the back of a cornflakes packet again no doubt.

£750 per user per laptop for a five year support agreement including all software etc sounds like a damn good deal to me, especially if the support agreement is onsite wherever the laptop goes wrong.

But hell what do I know, my qualifications aren't biodegradable!
19

me150,

18/02/2008 13:18:13
£750 is far too expensive. It's not like they are doing anything that is expensive on the CPU or RAM. A much lower spec machine can easily do any work that they need to do, and a lot more.

Lower the spec and slash the cost by 50% easily.

If they are buying around 100 laptops, how much bulk discount have they negotiated and how many companies were allowed to tender.

They do need laptops but £750????
20

Harrypots,

Edinburgh 18/02/2008 13:20:37
#18 The support agreements etc for the first 3 years are included in the price and it's less than £20 quid for a further year! £750 just doesn't stack up compared to the contracted pricing availiable to them!!
21

Farky,

Edinburgh 18/02/2008 13:27:56
#1,5,7, Rubbish!
#9, 11, 13, spot on!
#14, 15, 16, nonsense!

:o)
22

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/02/2008 13:28:36
#16 Trust me, I know about this stuff. Reusable documents are what I do for a living.

While it is on the surface true to say that many applications can open MS documents, the specifications are closed - even the so-called "open" OOXML specification that MS is marketing to ISO for fast-track standardisation contains statements such as "paragraph justification as Word 95", which essentially makes them impossible to be complied with by any vendor other than MS.

If people invest today in ODF for their documents, their data will remain accessible, and fully functional, across a broad range of word processors forever.

If they adopt MS Word, then whenever MS change their standard, as they do with every new release of their £300 office suite, they have to pay that tax to continue to be able to open their documents.

Businesses are free to make such stupid decisions if they wish. But public bodies already have guidance from central government which states that they should avoid proprietary lock-in whenever feasible. It is feasible. They should do it.
23

Incandescent,

18/02/2008 13:30:33
#21 Farky

Back under your bridge, troll.
24

Jenny MacArthur,

18/02/2008 13:30:51
I agree with the other comments complaining about Microsoft bias by the procurement people. It's the old saying that 'no one ever got fired for buying IBM' except now it's Microsoft. Their products are poorly designed, insecure, unstable, and massively overpriced. But sadly the authorities employ 'techs' who have never done a proper professional technical training, but have only learned to be 'Microsoft approved'. This disgraceful bias and waste of public funds is a scandal.
25

Hickory,

US 18/02/2008 13:31:13
Would that laptop be a wee lass with a knowing smile? At least they now admit to paying for her.
26

Mr H 2u,

Embra 18/02/2008 13:44:17
I wonder how many go missing when their 'researcher' children go back to uni?
27

Allan (Glasgow),

18/02/2008 14:18:50
And what is spent at Westminster, land of milk and honey?
28

Watcher58,

Edinburgh 18/02/2008 14:33:05
What will happen to these old laptops? Will we have to pay for them to be taken away and disposed of as per WEEE regulations? Why not donate them to some of the reuse charities and at least someone apart from MSPs will benefit from this. Try www.passitoncomputers.co.uk for starters or ReusingIT (formerly Computers For Africa). If this can't be avoided - and I suppose it really can't - let some social good come from it.
29

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/02/2008 14:43:33
#28 There are central guidelines about this too; I suspect since they ignore one set of guidelines they will happily ignore another.
30

Alberto.,

18/02/2008 14:49:22
What will / or is / or might happen to the apparently 'out of date' for Parliamentary purposes machines which presumably, are property legally belonging to the Taxpayer!

Quite naturally, I assume the Politicians that have been charged with the responsibility of looking after them -for us, will have done so whilst in their possession, and will return them to their rightful owners for disposal, and not be allowed (perhaps due to oversight - or whatever!)to sell them off for personal gain!

Yes! I know that is probably an old and well established favourite anticipated extra 'Perk Politically!’ but it seems almost tantamount to theft by all who participate in such an arrangement - including those who give any authority to such a mis-guided event!

No doubt, from experience, especially currently, of some unusual Political activity we have seen, no such thoughts of disposing of them in such a flippant manner will arise, as they will still, no doubt, be machines with reasonable second hand value to some people, or even of some practical use in their daily toil by the Holyrood staff (the back roomers!) - or am I wrong?

Hopefully the value of their ‘Sales’ or whatever - to whoever, will show up through the official books accordingly!
31

Cheradenine,

Edinburgh 18/02/2008 14:54:19

Guys ffs, as much as I love open source, xkcd and all that crap you aren't going to catch MSPs running Linux.

The parliament IT department has to administer a secure national network, it's reasonably complex and they don't need some irritating penguin getting in their way. Who they going to call when it breaks down, Torvalds? Or maybe they could just google the error (as long as they are using Firefox of course).

It wouldn’t be cheaper either, the laptops will be coming with MS pre installed (and probably for free on the bundle). Tearing all of that stuff out and installing a new OS is all man hours and most IT technicians cannot even use UNIX.

If all the MSPs were IT geniuses it might be a good idea but I doubt that, most of them won't even have ever heard the word Linux before. Instead of £94 000 on laptops it would be £94 000 on laptops no-one knows how to use.





32

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/02/2008 14:59:13
#31 What are you on about? Both OpenOffice.org and StarOffice run under Windows. I have used them exclusively under Windows for the past several years. It takes about 5 minutes to install OO.o in Windows.

It sounds like you really don't know what you're talking about.
33

Doh,

18/02/2008 15:13:59


If an MSP wants a personal laptop, as a opposed to computer for their officem why dont they buy one themselves.

I dont see why this should be chargeable expense.
Sounds like a gravy train.
34

BBH,

Edinburgh 18/02/2008 15:14:36
"cost also covered additional software, including Microsoft Office, remote monitoring and control software and connectivity software."
But, disappointingly, no mention of encryption software - how soon before constituents' personal data is exposed then ...?
35

Cheradenine,

Edinburgh 18/02/2008 15:21:13
#2 It's not open office I'm on about particularly (it is a bit see below), someone earlier suggested they should be running Linux which would be a daft idea.

Open office is ok, I have it at home, I still wouldn't make it standard for MSPs though. It's not that there is anything wrong with it per se, it is just that no-one at the Parliament would necesarily know how to deal with it if everything went belly up which can happen if your administrating a national network.

Instead you would be relying on the bunch of open source geeks that wrote it (Good job by the way). I suppose you could sack the old guys and employ the geeks as a new IT team but they probably wouldn't be too keen on working for the machine, expensive too (please don't take this comment too seriously).

If you don't know what I'm talking about when I come out with a load of mildly geeky babble and you know what open source is, just imagine what the MSPs would be like.
36

Mr Crisps,

Musselburgh 18/02/2008 15:25:45
#13 You want all government data to be "open and accessible from any computer"?

My word. (Or should that be My Word)

;-)
37

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/02/2008 15:37:45
#35 Your argument appears to be predicated entirely on the supposition that every IT administrator is trained in MS software and can only fix MS software problems. I'm afraid that that is arrant nonsense.

If you throw around idle, baseless insults about "geeks" and "irritating penguins" then it appears that you are just talking FUD and you should expect to get taken to task for it. If you have a rational argument then you ought to be able to make it without such pejorative language.

Now explain to me why StarOffice, which is OpenOffice.org with a commercial support contract, running on Windows would be a such bad idea for the Scottish Parliament. Here are its plus points:

International standards for document storage.

Robust, mature software in use on millions of desktops worldwide.

Commercially supported.

Cheap.
38

Chris.J,

Edinburgh 18/02/2008 15:59:48
Do all the open source experts whining about the cost of using Microsoft actually know anything about public sector IT procurement? The OGC central agreement with Microsoft means that the license for Windows, Office and "CALs" (that means the licenses to use Windows Server, Exchange, SQL etc)... all gets wrapped into a single price of around £90 per user. And that even includes 3 years of upgrades and support.

There are far far far far bigger targets for having a go at public sector IT spending. Try looking at Scottish Enterprise last August writing off £14m for a 2 year old CRM system they didn't want anymore for instance.
39

Cheradenine,

Edinburgh 18/02/2008 16:04:21
#37 Duncan I wear my geekiness as a badge of honour and expect other geeks to do so too (I don't take myself too seriously when ranting on the EEN message boards though).

In answer to your question it would probably be just fine, but you could argue most IT technicians have more experience in solving problems with MS programs and most politicians have more experience using MS programs which mostly come free and pre-installed when you buy 80 plus laptops. That said though new programs get introduced in offices everywhere all the time so people would probably be just fine after a bit.

Now is it worth the effort...

If it was coming free as open source you could argue that changing it all would be worth the effort as some sort of stand against the MS monopoly, parliaments tend to just take the competition law rule of thumb on stuff like that though. Under a commercial license I just wouldn't bother, maybe if it was all pre-installed, it's not that the thing is no good, it's just not that much better that it is worth everyone's while.

Why do you love StarOffice so much? (honestly)
40

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/02/2008 16:10:36
#40 Mine and I suspect others' issue is that however cheap MS make it via their centrally negotiated licensing, our government is holding our data in a format that only one company can fully support. A company which has been subject to the highest ever fine in the EU for anti-competitive behaviour, which has a track record for embracing and extending standards for its own profit for 20 years, and which spends millions on false advertising to retain its monopolistic position in that market.

The government has guidelines which state that publicly purchased software should use international standards for data storage whenever possible. MS refuses to implement ODF in MS Office simply in order to retain its stranglehold on the office suite market. And a fully functional alternative exists which does meet the governmental guidelines.

It's not about spending today, it's about vendor lock-in tomorrow. Why are you defending MS?
41

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/02/2008 16:14:48
#41 Sorry, you don't seem to have an argument at all there! The point is that MS Office enforces vendor lock-in. Any WP which uses an open standard like ODF does not. StarOffice is one example, OpenOffice.org is another, and I believe Abiword is a third. It's a no-brainer, and the government's own purchasing guidelines support the ODF route. So why are government purchasing decisions being made contrary to the rational and logical guidelines of government?
42

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/02/2008 16:22:41
#41 Incidentally, the government would be quite able to negotiate a purchase from one of their approved suppliers where the ODF-compliant office suite was pre-installed. These things are not hard. They are happening all the time, all over the world.
43

Chris.J,

Edinburgh 18/02/2008 16:27:36
#42. I think we have to seperate out the arguements on cost and the arguements on open standards.

On the cost point: Overall, this is a good deal - and anyone that knows anything about public sector IT procurement will tell you the same. Its also a very small deal in comparison with the typical IT spend in Scotland (in fact the Parliament is fairly small in comparison with other public sector organisations). These types of sales are highly regulated and deeply discounted, and frankly anyone screaming "waste" or "fix" is showing their total ignorance.

On the open standards debate - there are two sides to that. Open standards are now dominant on the server side - where they very much have their place. For instance, Linux is the primary platform for many application vendors and public sector Scotland has a very healthy and successful approach to migrating to Linux in the datacentre.
On the desktop however, people are consolidating away from other systems onto Microsoft. We do need to consider things like usability and cost of support (which eclipse the capital costs of kit). Its just become a fact of life that the average user knows how to use Microsoft desktop apps and so needs little training. Microsoft skills for helpdesks are also far more readily available (and cheaper). And the OGC agreement for public sector "Enterprise Agreements" makes the cost of MS software laughably cheap. Central Scotland Police did adopt open software a few years back... and then dropped it in favour of MS because of the cost of support. Its not a case of defending Microsoft - its just economic pragmatism.
44

ddmc,

18/02/2008 16:47:56
the french polis, have just migrated 11000+ desktops for 100,000 staff to linux & open source tools, a wee bit bigger than the scots parly.

#31 secure network, hmm the network is open to many & no content controls are in force for MSP's as they dont want to get caught researching 'black sites'. Try a bit of warchalking round the parly. I think your confusing the GSI with what is run in parly. They may use a VPN to secure traffic but thats at the perimeter not end to end. Also dell, hp etc are happy to supply the boxes with or without linux pre0installed. You can purchase applicaiton support for all these linux apps as well, no need for all the MCSE's to support your infrastructure. You can employ people who dont rely on technet for the answers. But enough of the ms baiting :)

If they used GCAT/SCAT to purchase (which they should) then the £700 per box (with support) seems a bit high but without knowing the spec its difficult to say if its a good deal or not.
45

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/02/2008 16:50:01
#45 With respect, Chris, you haven't addressed the open standards argument at all. Both of your arguments are economic.

It may be of interest to note that the interface to OpenOffice.org and Staroffice more closely resembles, in both look and functionality, MS Office 2003 and previous, than does the latest and great MS Office package. So in fact people will have a shallower learning curve migrating from Office 2000 or 2003 to OpenOffice.org than they would from Office 2000 or 2003 to Office 2007.
46

Chris.J,

Edinburgh 18/02/2008 16:52:42
#46 GCat and SCat got replaced by Catalist in 2006. The 700-odd quid per laptop cost that people are quoting is inclusive of apps and support and its just an internal budgetary cost, so its not really that high.
47

ddmc,

18/02/2008 16:54:29
#48 cheers, its been some time since i worked in the public sector, i didnt know it had been replaced.
48

Chris.J,

Edinburgh 18/02/2008 17:02:37
#47 .. yeah I realised that after I'd hit send. I'm not a fan, but heck, what can I say - its all about momentum, which is undeniably with Microsft on the public sector desktop at the moment. Saying that ... people are still doing XP migrations and no-one is getting into Vista/Office 2007 yet.

What I would genuinely say is that the desktop is not where IT departments look for innovation anymore... its all pretty routine - almost a facilities job these days. The big ideas and the big spends happen in the datacentre and line-of-business applications. And those are both places where public sector Scotland is really wasting our money - and hardly scrutinised by the papers. Some of the things I've come across in the last 5 years are eye-watering....
49

Cheradenine,

Edinburgh 18/02/2008 17:11:16
I think the Government are on contact with MS which is why they'll definitely be taking it this time, the decision was made a while ago. I know it's not really part of the discussion anyway.

YOUR point is about vendor lock in, mine is primarily that MS will be easier to use for people at the parliament and vendor lock in just isn't all that big a deal. I don't particularly like MS and I suppose a parliament going ODF or something would set a refreshing precedent but you’re not going to bring down world capitalism by buying 80 laptops with L33Topenword, you would need a change in attitudes. Pay your fee to whoever you like but trust me you will be paying a fee at some point to someone if you want the system to advance as tech moves forward.

Also re. old docuements if you stop buying Microsoft programs now you have already paid for the old ones licences so you can use them any time to open any document you like, even if new versions of windows stop running them I’m sure Linux will. Also other programs like the ones you've mentioned will open them reasonably well anyway (I haven't used them all but if they don't they have pretty much no practical use currently).

Ahh screw it I'm going back to penguin power, I've had enough of Intell and their crap,

“IRENE Get those birds back on that treadmill!”
50

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/02/2008 17:15:06
#50 I've no doubt you're right about where most money is being wasted. Desktop has become a commodity purchase. But nontheless there are guidelines in place which prefer open standards and they are being routinely ignored. This is a problem.

I hope that the particularly bad business decision by MS to introduce new looks and feels to their desktop OS and their office suite at the same time will lead people to evaluate other options. Because OO.o is a very valid tool for 80% of the PC-using workforce. And we would benefit from open standards adoption by the back door.
51

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/02/2008 17:23:34
#51 I guess I just need to persuade you that vendor lock in IS that big a deal. With reference to the "bringing down world capitalism" remarks - I'm a capitalist! Open standards are a hugely capitalist concept because they enable competition which drives innovation. MS stifles competition via their monopoly and restrict innovation to areas of their choosing - which usually coincides with increasing needs for memory and processing power thus driving the business model of their friends in the hardware business, who return the favour by supporting their software. It's a cartel, it's anti-competitive and anti-capitalist and it's been running the IT industry for years.

The government has recognised this, has guidelines for purchasing which minimise the effect of this, and they are being ignored. Why?
52

DouglasT,

18/02/2008 17:23:52
its fair enough - as long as they don't lose them full of data on their constituents.
53

Alberto.,

18/02/2008 18:04:00
New Laptops so the Polticians can work while travelling, and at home - as if!

What on earth do their expensive staff do that we pay for, that necessitates the 'boss' getting involved in such complex technology, and, so tis' said, unless the fully 'Au Fait' with computer language and how to operate it efficiently (a dangerous operation in Politics nowadays and, no doubt, a scarcity of fully fledged operators!)

As we are often reminded of our Politicos very busy lifestyle and workloads, it is difficult to see how they have found time to become even familiar with -nevermind conquer, computer operation to a respectful standard!
54

,

18/02/2008 18:08:01
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
55

ddmc,

18/02/2008 18:12:49
i still have wordperfect 5.1 running on an old 486, m$word is bloatware like most of the m$ office apps, they even coded an easter egg of the old arcade hit scramble in excel, now i know why i need 100+mips just to run office. h/w is cheap so we can utilise all these sloppy programmers & vb wizards. To think we sent men to the moon (if you believe NASA :)) with 256k of RAM, now my mobile phone has more computing power than the 1st space shuttle did, ah nostalgia !
56

nabodican,

Portree 18/02/2008 20:04:10
Most of the MSP's I know would not even know how to switch a computer on so why do they need laptops at all.
They seem much more at home swanning about in official cars.
57

lavvyhead,

Edinburgh 18/02/2008 20:05:16
EEN come on £94K divided by 129 = £728 not £750 more journalistic licence
58

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/02/2008 21:23:54
#63 MSPs don't have official cars. You must be thinking of government ministers. Or perhaps just not thinking at all.
59

Bird of Prey, Substansiate what you say,

lap dancing to R n B on my laptop 18/02/2008 21:36:02
says a numpty!
60

Duncan in Edinburgh,

18/02/2008 21:42:37
#66 I think the word you're looking for is substantiate.
61

COLINTON.MAINS,

Oakville Ontario 19/02/2008 03:01:54
THEN THAT WOULD MAKE THEM PUBLIC PROPERTY YOU CANT KEEP IT HAND IT BACK WHEN YOU QUIT
62

COLINTON.MAINS,

Oakville Ontario 19/02/2008 03:04:34
THEN THAT WOULD MAKE THEM PUBLIC PROPERTY YOU CANT KEEP IT HAND IT BACK WHEN YOU QUIT
63

Jingsitsme,

EDINBURGH 19/02/2008 10:17:33
£728.odds is a lot for a computer given the discounts they get! Perhaps this includes hotel expenses and meals out in Australia to buy the things!!

Can our MSP's be relied on to keep the information safe? I wonder.........
64

Allan(handofgod137),

19/02/2008 14:08:35
Once again they're wasting our money.
65

Joebitter,

Glasgow 18/03/2008 23:46:05
Why do they need to have laptops bought for them? Surely on 50k approx they can afford to buy their own. They get their mortgage paid, relatives paid as employees off our taxes, a host of expenses and an excellent pension. What do we get in return?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.