A ROW has broken out between Glasgow council leader Susan Aitken and Scottish Labour MSP Anas Sarwar over the blunder that means a council by-election has to be re-run.
The North East winner, Labour’s Mary McNab, failed to resign from her council job and was then disqualified as a councillor.
Susan Aitken, the council leader, said that Labour should compensate the council for the costs involved – but Anas Sarwar said it's not Labour's fault.
It will cost around £80,000 to re-run the election and there will be extra costs for a KC to go to court this week to establish the law, and also time of senior officials in the few days.
A council source suggested the total cost involved could be as much as £200,000.
“One thing’s clear from all this though. The very people who believe they have a divine right to run this city – the Labour Party – couldn’t run a bath.”
Sarwar, campaigning in Kelvindale for another by-election in the city, hit back and said it wasn’t Labour’s fault.
He said: “The SNP might want to make this a political fight. They might want to talk about what happened in terms of their having to be another by-election.
“I think what Susan Aitken and the SNP should maybe focus on instead is actually running a competent administration.
“Maybe not wasting the council's money. Maybe fighting for a fair deal for Glasgow. There's a Budget this week. I hope she's arguing for a good deal for Glasgow. I suspect she's probably not. Maybe that should be a more appropriate focus for the council leader.”
McNab won the by-election last month and because she was also a council employee had to resign from her job the following day.
When she failed to do so she was disqualified from being a councillor as council staff cannot be councillors as well.
Sarwar denied the fault lay with the Labour Party or the candidate and suggested McNab was given the wrong advice by her employer.
He said: “Well, I think you need to speak to Mary McNab and speak about the conversations that she was having with her employer and the process that she was told to follow with her employer.
“And I think there's probably some discrepancies on the advice she was given by her employer and the process that they had followed, which meant inadvertently, that there was a situation we now find ourselves in.
“So, I don't think this one's on the Labour Party, to be honest. I think there is a wider administrative issue here, which sadly means we're going to have an election. But I hope can be resolved, so a similar situation doesn't happen again, for any political party to be honest.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel