Budget Process 2005-06

Part of the debate – in the Scottish Parliament at 11:17 am on 23 December 2004.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Elaine Murray Elaine Murray Labour 11:17, 23 December 2004

The debate has been much more entertaining than I expected it to be. Des McNulty welcomed the fact that Rab McNeil is not in the gallery and I must admit that I am quite pleased about that, too, much as I was entertained by his columns. If he had been here I would doubtless have been subjected to the usual canine comparisons in tomorrow's edition of The Scotsman. Rab McNeil is not the only journalist who has upset me; Tom Gordon upset me very much last week when the Finance Committee's report was published, because he did not include me in his club of bad ex-ministers—I am quite offended about that.

Jim Mather started his speech by telling us that all the good ideas in the report came from the SNP, which was quite refreshing, because normally our good friends the Liberal Democrats claim that the good ideas are all theirs. However, he went on to make his single transferable speech about the constitution.

Brian Monteith, Murdo Fraser and Phil Gallie made an important political point about the proportion of public spending. There is a genuine political argument about public versus private spending and I would welcome that debate. However, I was disappointed that Brian Monteith went on to say:

"I am not proposing anything today".

That seemed a bit pointless.

Wendy Alexander made a number of impressive Christmas analogies. It struck me that the Finance Committee's budget adviser is particularly appropriately named in relation to reports that are published at this time of year, but I hope that he does not feel bleak when he has to attend committee meetings.

Mark Ballard seemed disappointed that economic growth features so much in the committee's report. However, the committee was scrutinising the Executive's budget and as economic growth is the Executive's top priority the report was bound to focus on that.

Phil Gallie, who is no longer in the chamber, made the point that the report is not forward looking, but the report's purpose is not to be forward looking but to scrutinise the Executive's proposals.

I am disappointed that Ted Brocklebank is not in the chamber, because he could have fed into the debate from his experience. I hope that he is not unwell—