This division has sparked derision

DO you know the difference between a constituency MSP and others variously described as list, regional or regional list MSPs? If you live in Midlothian, West Lothian or Edinburgh, you live in the Lothians regional constituency. If you've a complaint against your local council's housing policy as it affects your family, to whom or to what agency do you go for information, advice and maybe some representation on your behalf?

Let's suppose you go to one of your MSPs. How do you decide on which one, because you can choose any of the eight MSPs elected as regional list members , or the MSP who represents the constituency in which you live? Before the first elections, the committee that got the show on the road waxed lyrical about the superior service constituents could expect as a result of the new voter power represented by their having the right to select an MSP.

In theory, constituents could choose on the basis of what they knew of an MSP's track record in fighting the good fight, or of any special expertise acquired before his or her election, his or her membership of a political party, or even his or her big blue eyes. In practice, most people choose the MSP they've heard of, either from friends, or from his/her exposure in the press or TV. One thing I'm pretty certain does not influence them in their choice is the route by which their chosen one was elected.

But the committee appointed to overhaul the parliamentary allowances concluded that constituency MSPs have a much bigger caseload and are therefore deserving of a bigger allowance for staff wages and office equipment. The committee didn't produce any figures or facts to back their recommendations, only some anecdotal evidence of casework done in the offices of a couple of constituency MSPs, both elected in 1999, with the scars and the backlog of cases to show for it, and the work undertaken by a rookie regional list MSP, who's still building his contacts and profile in his area.

So the independent committee has recommended that regional MSPs need fewer staff and less office equipment, thus dividing us into sheep and goats. Honourably, one member of the committee dissented from the report's recommendations. James Douglas-Hamilton, former MP for Edinburgh West and former regional list MSP for Lothian, is the only committee member with the experience of having been elected.

But his refusal to endorse the report hasn't prevented the proposal that staff working for the sheep MSPs should be paid in line with equivalent jobs in the civil service or parliament itself, and those doing the same work, to the same standard, for the goats, should be paid buttons.

I can't imagine anything more likely to de-motivate and divide a workforce.

But this craziness has been visited upon us because of the need to reform how accommodation allowances are paid to MSPs who live at too great a distance to go home after a hard day's wheeling and dealing at Holyrood. Public opinion is unanimous – MSPs shouldn't use this allowance for part-payment of a mortgage that can give them the means to make a tidy profit from the sale of the house or flat part-bought with public money.

That's a sound enough principle, but the way the independent committee recommended it should be applied smacks of overkill. The committee's report said nobody should buy, and that only rental costs or hotel bills would be met by the parliament.

A much simpler way would be for MSPs, living at an agreed distance from Edinburgh, to be paid a flat allowance of three nights' accommodation that they could spend as they chose, and if they chose to use this allowance to part-buy, they could pay to the parliament an agreed percentage of any profit made on the sale of their property.

This last idea could probably become reality very quickly, but we need to build up a picture of how different MSPs work, and evaluate their workload by establishing what is work of equal importance and value, and that will take a bit longer. In the meantime, just choose whichever MSP appeals most, or appalls least.

China crisis
I think Tavish Scott is right to say that education secretary Fiona Hyslop should call-off her fact-finding visit to China. Perhaps such a gesture on our part, as a small country that is probably only vaguely recognised, if at all, by the leadership in Beijing, will have no immediate effect as regards the present brutality towards Tibetans. But no self-resting country that acknowledges human rights will be visiting China and turning a blind eye to the present situation.

If Scotland was sitting as an independent member of the UN, would the Scottish Government still think it OK to visit China?

Plucky trite Heather
My first reaction to Heather Mills' divorce settlement was one of disgust. My second was to think I could put up with a grumpy old man for a couple of years for that sort of money.

My third thought was to hope £24 million would be enough to cocoon her and her daughter from the social isolation invited by her uncontrolled bad behaviour.

It took guts to take on an icon, but that doesn't make her a nice person.